If you look through these logs, pay particular attention to the referer field. This tells you on which site you were browsing when the data set out on its voyage toward facebook.

1. Find a file named ‘hosts’ on your computer. On Mac/Linux systems, it’s under /etc/. On Windows, it used to be under System32 somewhere, but who knows now. Stash a backup copy somewhere.
2. Add the following on a new line:     127.0.0.1 www.facebook.com
3. Configure a web server running on your local machine.

What’s the deal? Shortly after FireSheep was announced on Oct 24, 2010, you should have had an emergency security all-hands meeting. You should have had an edict passed down from the “Paranoids” group to get secure or else. Maybe these things happened–I have no way of knowing.

But it is clear that it’s been 6 weeks and security hasn’t changed. It’s simply not possible to read Yahoo mail over https–try it and you get redirected straight back to an insecure channel. As such, anyone accessing Yahoo mail on a public network, say a coffee shop or a workplace, is vulnerable to having their private information read, forwarded, compromised, or deleted.

Wait, did I say 6 weeks?–SSL had apparently been rolled out for mail more than 2 years ago, but pulled back due to problems. Talk about failure to execute.

I feel like I missed an announcement. What’s the deal, Y? Show me that you care about your users. No excuses.

Sincerely,

-m

More collected Geek Thoughts at http://geekthoughts.info.

XML, or to be really specific, XML Namespaces, comes with its own set of challenges. Making an interface that’s usable is no small task, particularly when your target audience includes the 99.9% of people that don’t completely understand namespaces. Take for example a simple step, like p:delete.

In brief, that step takes an XSLTMatchPattern, following the same rules as @match in XSLT, which ends up selecting various nodes from the document, then returns a document without any of those nodes. An XSLTMatchPattern has a few limitations, but it is a very general-purpose selection mechanism. In particular, it could reference an arbitrary number of XML Namespace prefix mappings. Behind a short string like a:b lies a much longer namespace URI mapping to each prefix.

What would an intuitive user interface look like to allow entry of these kinds of expressions? How can a user keep track of unbound prefixes and attach them properly? A data-driven approach could help, say offering a menu of existing element, attribute, or namespace names taken from a pool of existing content. But by itself this falls short in 1) richer selectors, like xhtml:p[@class = "invalid"] and 2) doesn’t help in the general case, when the nodes you’re manipulating might have come from the pipeline, not your original content. (Imagine one step in the pipeline translates your XML to XHTML followed by a delete step that cleans out some unwanted nodes).

So yeah, this seems like a Really Hard Problem, but one that’s worth taking a crack at. If this sounds like the kind of thing you’d enjoy working on, my team is hiring–drop me a note.

-m

A cute little graphic on the screen said I could use my scroll wheel. I’m on a laptop, so I tried the two-finger drag–the equivalent gesture sans mouse… and flipped some dozens of pages in half a second. Now, hopelessly lost I searched for a ‘back’ button to no avail.  Perversely, there is a prominent ‘back’ button, but disabled. Mocking me.

This feels rushed. I wonder what could be pushing Amazon to release something so unfinished? -m

In 2005 I called continued development of XLink a “reanimated spectre”. But even earlier, in 2002 I wrote one of the rare fiction pieces on xml.com, A Hyperlink Offering, which using the format of a Carrollian dialog between Tortoise and Achilles, explained a few of the problems with the XLink specification. It ended with this:

What if the W3C pushed for Working Groups to use a future XLink, just not XLink 1.0?

Indeed, this version has minor improvements. In particular, “simple” links are simpler now–you can drop an xlink:href attribute where you please and it’s now legit. The spec used to REQUIRE additional xlink:type=”simple” attributes all over the place. But it’s still awkward to use for multi-ended links, and now even farther away from the mainstream hyperlinking aspects of HTML5, which for all of its faults, embodies the grossly predominant description of linking on the web.

So in many ways, my longstanding disappointment with XLink is that it only ever became a tiny sliver of what it could have been. Dashed visions of Xanadu dance through my head. -m

I had some question of whether this would work on a Mac or not, but the FAQ assures one that “Mac users are able to use WhiteSmoke’s online interface (also known as the Online Editor), which contains all grammar, enrichment and spelling features” and (in curiously clumsy language) “Should you be running Safari MacOS x10.3 and encounter any problems, please use FireFox.”

Sounds good.

The spell checker is decent, probably about as good as the one in WordPress.

The thesaurus is pretty good. Clicking on almost any word will prompt a drop-down list of synonyms. This sometimes makes selecting text troublesome. The list itself is often too small, and entries toward the bottom are obscured.

The grammar checker is OK, but I couldn’t point to anything it does that Word couldn’t have handled (though it has been a long time since I have run Word).

The user interface is terrible. Any errors are shown in slightly bolder text either red or green with nothing distinguishing in the background. I’m not too good with colors, so it’s hard for me to say. The text is very difficult to scan. It has an AutoCorrect mode, which can fix some mistakes without interaction, but just as often breaks your text. For example, it changed the previous paragraph from “Sounds good.” to “remark: Incomplete Sentence good.” The changed text is bold, but only until the next scan, when it becomes indistinguishable from actual text.

At the XML level, it produces horrible output, with stacks upon stacks of nested spans, with duplicate IDs. Some of this may be from the necessary back-and-forth between the web interface and whatever your actual editor is. View source on this posting to see what I mean.

It gets worse. The online interface is limited to 10,000 characters-at-a-time–not words–characters. To compare, this short posting contains slightly more than 3,000 characters. I did some experimentation and found the actual limit is somewhat less than the stated 10K; somewhere north of 7K characters, it will show a spinner forever and never finish checking. Clicking the browser “back” button from the forever-spinner screen takes you back to a blank page–all your text is gone. For someone working on, say, a 60,000 word (360,000+ character) project, it would have to be diced up into maybe 50 small pieces, each individually checked, each introducing the prospect of adding rather than fixing problems. Making even a single pass through all the text would require a senseless amount of tedious cut-and-paste work. It’s essentially unusable.

To make sure I know what I’m talking about, I composed this posting in WhiteSmoke, which very well may be the last time I use it. -m

Say I have an XML instance like this:
<root>
<format>xml</format>
</root>

Possible values for the format element are “xml”, “text”, “binary”, or a default setting, indicated by a complete absence of the <format> element. I’d like this to attach to a select1 with four choices:

<xf:select1 ref=”format”>…

* xml
* text
* binary
* default

Where the first three set the value of the <format> element, and the fourth omits the element altogether. In XForms 1.0, the difficulty comes from binding to a nonexistent element, which causes it to become non-relevant. Are there features from 1.1, 1.2, or extensions that make this case easier? Anyone have an example?

-m

1. Your computer can probably run it. Unlike Vista, which proved a giant slop-feeding resource hog compared to XP, Windows 7′s system requirements haven’t changed much at all since Vista,

So if Vista was a “giant slop-feeding resource hog”, and the Windows 7 requirements haven’t changed much relative to that…how is this a plus again?

2. It costs less than Vista did. Microsoft really seems to have learned its lesson with Vista pricing, which was way too high at first. Although Windows 7 is hardly cheap…

Similar to #1. The argument amounts to ‘it’s not as ridiculous as Vista’. Yay.

3. You’re not stuck with whatever version you choose first. There are a lot of versions of Windows 7 , all with different combinations of features. If you buy Home Premium and decide at some future point that you really need Ultimate—who doesn’t need BitLocker at some point?—you don’t have to drop $319.99 on top of the $199.99 you already spent the first time.

Remember the version chart? If for some reason you choose “Professional” over “Ultimate”, saving a cool $20 at retail price, you can always go back and upgrade for a modest $129.99. Remember, this is from the list of reasons to choose Windows.

5. You don’t have to give up Windows XP. Yes, exiting any long-term relationship can be difficult, but sometimes it has to be done.

A reason to upgrade is that you don’t have to give up the thing you are probably upgrading from?

7. Comedic value. Even if Windows 7 can’t be hailed for anything else, it inspired an enlightening and truly hilarious column from PCMag.com Editor-in-Chief Lance Ulanoff…

Comedic value? Seriously? The comedic value in Windows 7 reviews seems to be entirely unintentional… -m

(Posted from 30k feet. Hooray for Virgin America)

The night before a long flight, I upload my personal files into a freshly charged Kindle 2. To preserve the battery, I switch off wireless and in the bag it goes. The next day, on the plane, I open the Kindle…and it’s showing an entirely depleted battery, exclamation point and all. Can you spot the design flaw?

-m

the added unrealistic demand that documents must be served with an XML mime-type

I can understand this viewpoint. XHTML 1.1 is a massively misunderstood spec, particularly around the modularization angle. But because of IE, it’s pretty rare to see the XHTML media-type in use on the open web. Later, panel 23 or thereabouts:

If you want, you can even serve your documents as application/xhtml+xml, instantly transforming them from HTML 5 to XHTML 5.

Why the shift in tone? What makes serving the XML media type more realistic in the HTML 5 case? IE? Nope, still doesn’t work. I’ve observed this same shift in perspective from multiple people involved in the HTML5 work, and it baffles me. In XHTML 1.1 it’s a ridiculous demand showing how out of touch the authors were with reality. In HTML5 the exact same requirement is a brilliant solution, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

As it stands now, the (X)HTML5 situation demotes XHTML to the backwaters of the web. Which is pretty far from “Long Live XHTML…”, as the comic concludes. Remember when X stood for Extensible?

-m

Fake Shia LaBeouf blog (“no no no no!”)

Smashing box office records (200 mil in 5 days, “The per theater average, by the way, was astonishing: $26,453.”)

-m