Is drag & drop really easier than just selecting a file from a dialog box? Almost every modern file uploading service has it, but I've never really found it useful. I've always thought of it as a feature that people enable "just because they can."
As a developer, it's pretty rare for me to have the folder containing the file I'd like to upload already open in an Explorer/Finder/whatever window. (I'm more likely to have it open in a terminal.) So it will take exactly the same amount of work for me to navigate to the folder in a dialog box as in an Explorer window.
Even if I happen to have the folder open in Explorer, it's a hassle to move, resize, or otherwise organize my non-tiled windows so that both the file I'd like to drag and the space where I need to drop it are visible at the same time. Larger or multiple screens won't help, as I'll just clutter them up with more windows. I could drag to the taskbar to bring the browser to the foreground, but again that's the kind of hassle that I won't need to incur if I just used the dialog box.
For ordinary people with small-screened laptops and tablets, I assume it will be even harder to keep two apps open in a way so as to enable drag & drop, especially since a lot of people just maximize every window. (Can't blame them when they're stuck with 1366x768 screens and/or platforms that encourage fullscreen apps.)
Strong disagree on both of these points. I view most webpages (including that one) at around 66% zoom these days, because the text is so goddamn big. And anyone advocating for less contrast needs a shovel to the head.
If you have to do it yourself anyway, why not make your own projection? I'd do a Dymaxion-style projection onto a truncated icosahedron (Goldberg polyhedron G(1,1), a.k.a. the soccer ball shape), with the poles centered in two of the pentagons, and as many edges as possible over bodies of water. Then I'd print each tile image and plaster it to its own mounting board, trimming the backs of the board edges to 69 degrees on all the hexagons and 73.5 degrees on all the pentagons. At that point, I'd permanently join the tiles with appropriate amounts of contiguous land mass, using brackets, and attach magnets to the remaining edges in such a way that you could assemble them like a puzzle.
I'd rather have a gigantic globe (that can also be dismantled for moving or storage) than have a wall map.
Well, if you want something rectangular, preserving area, with vertical meridians then you automatically end up with a cylindrical area projection. If you want an aspect ratio of 3/2 (approximately) you end up with the Gall-Peters projection. Although if you're prepared to cut out part of the map then you have a lot more freedom in your choice.
Edit: Just discovered that if you prefer a conformal map instead of one with equal area then you end up with the Mercator projection.
"As a retroazimuthal projection, azimuths (directions) are correct from any point to the designated center point." (-- Wikipedia, which knows everything and is never wrong.)
It looks like one retroazimuthal variant (the Craig retroazimuthal) is sometimes called the "Mecca projection", so you know which way to kneel at sundown if you're into that sort of thing.
How would you approach it? Setting up a renderer with global coverage isn't really a trivial task. It is straightforward, and there are reasonable guides, like https://switch2osm.org/ , but the planet database is just a big database to work with.
(I think I would take advantage of Mapbox's free plan, which allows for 1 custom stylesheet and enough usage to get the image together. I guess there are lots of people who would be happy to render a stylesheet (especially if a modest fee is involved), but I'm not sure how someone on the street figures that out and gets in contact with them)
Yes, I setup a postgres instance a few weeks ago, so that I could render the local area with nik4.py. Lucky for me I already had mapnik and node installed and working, so getting CartoCSS and nik4.py running wasn't a big deal.
I was wondering if you had a specific setup in mind when you said 'just generate', as I did not find the process to be particularly trivial, even for a smaller region (and I do have experience messing around with arcane syntax and command lines).
<head>
<title>I won't troll Internet Explorer anymore..</title>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<meta name="description" content="..because it's about time that I stopped.">
I use tup in my web projects to monitor my folders for things to "compile". This includes CoffeScript, MoonScript, SASS/SCSS, Less and more. Very fast and painless.
For those who want to verify their change after updating the configuration (since I looked for such information): either use "nmap --script ssl-enum-ciphers -p 443 <host>" or ssllabs (eg: https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=wisecashhq.co...) and you will see the enabled protocols.
If you use SNI (many domains on one IP), make sure to put this (ssl_protocols TLSv1 TLSv1.1 TLSv1.2;) into the default server { ... } config (or the first one: the one which opens when you go to https://your_server_ip).
The problem is that if you specify ssl_protocols somewhere else rather than default/first server, it won't work. So, yes, serve error, but specify ssl_protocols in there.
With name-based virtual hosts (those that rely on the server selecting the appropriate resource based on the Host header), typical clients depend on the IP address returned by DNS for that host. If they visit that IP, ask for the host, and the server isn't configured to deliver that host's resources, it's good practice to give the client an error. Since the web server has to listen on that IP without knowing which host will be requested before the connection is made, it's convenient to have a fallback and handle errors there. I deny all access to the default host, which generates a 403 Forbidden error (with a custom message), but there are definitely other ways to deal with this situation.
The important thing is that a host's protected resources are served only when SSL/TLS is properly negotiated. Serving one host's content as the default when another host was requested violates this.
In practice, nearly all of these requests come from bots, crawlers and penetration testers. So another advantage is that the log entries can be used to block further requests at the firewall, freeing resources and even possibly protecting the server from undisclosed vulnerabilities (test this approach carefully to make sure it's appropriate for your site and doesn't subject you to a DoS).
Disabling SSLv3 will indeed affect a significant amount of clients in the real world.
I've seen a few commenters here on HN that point out that pretty much everything since Windows XP (ignoring IE6) supports at least 1.0 of the TLS protocols. While that may be correct in theory, in practice it's not.
At a 1MM+ visitors/week site we still see a few percent of our users that regularly connect using SSLv3 across different versions of Windows, including more modern ones such as Windows Vista, 7 and 8(!)
Though I'm not sure why this is the case, antivirus software suites such as McAfee[1] have in the past been known to disable TLS 1.0 system wide in Windows.
"[...] Also, handshake errors due to network glitches could similarly be misinterpreted as interaction with a legacy server and result in a protocol downgrade."
"For clients, a quick look at https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/clients.html shows that even older clients (Android 2.3, Java 6, the oldest supported version of IE, etc) support TLS 1.0, so there should be no issues disabling SSLv3 on servers too."
I think it's probably safe to say that anyone who's using IE6 is either not one who cannot change the defaults (by policy or by skill) or their machine is already malware infested.
It's not quite production ready but it shows you it's technically possible