On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 16:02, James Laver wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 03:53:51PM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
>> What did the "S" in "SOAP" stand for again? I keep forgetting. Nothing
>> comes to mind, really.
>
> It doesn't any more. Microsoft had an epiphany that SOAP was not a
> simple obj
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 03:53:51PM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
> What did the "S" in "SOAP" stand for again? I keep forgetting. Nothing
> comes to mind, really.
It doesn't any more. Microsoft had an epiphany that SOAP was not a
simple object access protocol and gave up the expansion.
--James
On 27 Apr 2010, at 14:32, James Laver wrote:
[...]
It's telling that at a large FTSE 250 we were hand constructing the xml
(with string concatenation, no less) to get around the shitty libraries
problem.
Funnily enough, that's what *I* had to resort to when dealing with SOAP at a
FTSE250 comp
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 15:47, Peter Corlett wrote:
> On 27 Apr 2010, at 14:32, James Laver wrote:
> [...]
>> It's telling that at a large FTSE 250 we were hand constructing the xml
>> (with string concatenation, no less) to get around the shitty libraries
>> problem.
>
> Funnily enough, that's wh
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 01:32:24PM +0100, Peter Corlett wrote:
> In the same vein:
>
> Subject: SOAP
It's telling that at a large FTSE 250 we were hand constructing the xml
(with string concatenation, no less) to get around the shitty libraries
problem.
--James
On Apr 27, 2010, at 5:32 AM, Peter Corlett wrote:
On 27 Apr 2010, at 13:28, Dave Brown wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 01:11:24PM +0100, Matthew King wrote:
[nothing but the subject line]
Indeed. 'nuff said.
*seconded*
In the same vein:
Subject: SOAP
No REST for the wicked.
Josh
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 14:32, Peter Corlett wrote:
> In the same vein:
>
> Subject: SOAP
Quite.
--
Philip Newton
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 01:11:24PM +0100, Matthew King wrote:
> [nothing but the subject line]
Indeed. 'nuff said.
--Dave
On 27 Apr 2010, at 13:28, Dave Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 01:11:24PM +0100, Matthew King wrote:
>> [nothing but the subject line]
> Indeed. 'nuff said.
*seconded*
In the same vein:
Subject: SOAP
Yes, I know IE7 is a soft target, but today is the first day I've ever
used it. (Relatedly, I'm hating HR software which only works in IE, but
that's so hateful I'd need to book a day's holiday to rant about it all.
And of course booking that day off would involve having to use ...).
On running it
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:55:48PM +0200, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> I don't think credit card companies live in the same universe we do.
> Take Verified By Visa. Its basically a XSS exploit. Worse, it wants me
> to make up a secure password to associated with my credit card. The
> passwor
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:55:48PM +0200, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> I don't think credit card companies live in the same universe we do. Take
> Verified By Visa. Its basically a XSS exploit. Worse, it wants me to make
Indeed. Originally, for branding reasons, encouraged to be implemented as
On Apr 11, 2010, at 3:55 AM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Joshua Juran wrote:
I want them to test their site with Firefox, observe that it asks
to save the password with the plaintext credit card number as the
user name, and realize that this is a bad idea.
For extra credit, they might realize t
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:55:48PM +0200, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> I don't think credit card companies live in the same universe we do.
> Take Verified By Visa. Its basically a XSS exploit. Worse, it wants me
> to make up a secure password to associated with my credit card. The
> passwor
Joshua Juran wrote:
I want them to test their site with Firefox, observe that it asks to
save the password with the plaintext credit card number as the user
name, and realize that this is a bad idea.
For extra credit, they might realize that asking for the same password a
second time is (at b
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 15:58:18 -0400, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 3:28 PM, wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 08:18:00PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> >> (And no, I don't want you sorting by track name. That doesn't work for
> >> classical music)
> >
> > Perhaps you see your
On Apr 10, 2010, at 3:29 PM, Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2010-04-10, at 11:57, Joshua Juran wrote:
I just updated a service with my new credit card number. I logged
into their billing system with the credentials that Firefox
remembered from last time.
Then in the form in which I enter the ne
On 2010-04-10, at 11:57, Joshua Juran wrote:
I just updated a service with my new credit card number. I logged
into their billing system with the credentials that Firefox
remembered from last time.
Then in the form in which I enter the new credit card number, I'm
asked again for the passw
I just updated a service with my new credit card number. I logged
into their billing system with the credentials that Firefox
remembered from last time.
Then in the form in which I enter the new credit card number, I'm
asked again for the password. Curiously, it's blank. But that's
oka
Somewhere on Shadow Earth, at Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 01:13:34PM +0100, David
Cantrell wrote:
> Last night, I was wondering why nothing new was showing up for a
> particular podcast that I like to listen to.
>
> Hidden in a corner was a tiny light grey icon, which on clicking it told
> me that it ha
Aristotle Pagaltzis writes:
> * David Cantrell [2010-04-09 14:15]:
>
>> Naturally, there is no way that I can see of turning off this
>> wonderful feature.
>
> I fail to understand why people bake this sort of feature (some
> way to penalize "inactive" feeds) into aggregation software.
Because R
On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 09:40:10PM +0100, Roger Burton West wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 09:35:35PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> >On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 05:19:27PM +, j...@jameslaver.com wrote:
> >> "we know better than you how you should use our software, and we'll
> >> disable any pos
On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 09:35:35PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 05:19:27PM +, j...@jameslaver.com wrote:
>> "we know better than you how you should use our software, and we'll
>> disable any possibility of using it in any other way and not even tell
>> you about some
On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 05:19:27PM +, j...@jameslaver.com wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 06:17:35PM +0100, Roger Burton West wrote:
> > While Apple is certainly not the only company with an ethos of "we know
> > better than you how you should use our software, and we'll disable any
> > possib
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 3:28 PM, wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 08:18:00PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>> (And no, I don't want you sorting by track name. That doesn't work for
>> classical music)
>
> Perhaps you see your mistake was in trying to listen to classical music.
> Steve only listens
On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 08:18:00PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> (And no, I don't want you sorting by track name. That doesn't work for
> classical music)
Perhaps you see your mistake was in trying to listen to classical music.
Steve only listens to U2 and jazz.
--James
On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 05:19:27PM +, j...@jameslaver.com wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 06:17:35PM +0100, Roger Burton West wrote:
> >
> > While Apple is certainly not the only company with an ethos of "we know
> > better than you how you should use our software, and we'll disable any
> > p
On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 06:17:35PM +0100, Roger Burton West wrote:
>
> While Apple is certainly not the only company with an ethos of "we know
> better than you how you should use our software, and we'll disable any
> possibility of using it in any other way" it does seem to be the one
> that make
On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 01:13:34PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
>Naturally, there is no way that I can see of turning off this wonderful
>feature.
While Apple is certainly not the only company with an ethos of "we know
better than you how you should use our software, and we'll disable any
possibi
On Apr 9, 2010, at 05:13, David Cantrell wrote:
Hidden in a corner was a tiny light grey icon, which on clicking it told
me that it had stopped retrieving updates because I hadn't listened to
anything for ages.
OF COURSE I HADN'T LISTENED! THERE WEREN'T ANY UPDATES FOR THREE
MONTHS!
I think
* David Cantrell [2010-04-09 14:15]:
> Naturally, there is no way that I can see of turning off this
> wonderful feature.
I fail to understand why people bake this sort of feature (some
way to penalize "inactive" feeds) into aggregation software.
Isn't *the whole point* of feeds that I can conti
Last night, I was wondering why nothing new was showing up for a
particular podcast that I like to listen to.
Hidden in a corner was a tiny light grey icon, which on clicking it told
me that it had stopped retrieving updates because I hadn't listened to
anything for ages.
OF COURSE I HADN'T LISTE
Dear iTunes,
if you can't find the file of a podcast for some reason, don't ask me to
locate it. just re-download the fuc*ing thing!
Ever so hateful.
svn: UUID mismatch: existing directory 'NBX/DD-Web' was checked out from a
different repository
Yes. Exactly. In my current checked out reversion it's an external.
In the revision I want to update to, it's moved into this repository.
It's your damn metadata, isn't it? How come you can't cope?
35 matches
Mail list logo
