A career that was ruined because something became publicly available is a career that should be ruined
What if the "something" that became publicly available had absolutely no direct bearing on the career of the person (ie sex scandal)? Could this not be a reason for why the U.S has so many seemingly perfect, dull, boring politicians that are good at playing the game, but bring no dynamicism to the political arena?
I'm the type that understands that sometimes backroom deals are best left in the backroom, and that people should stop interfering and meddling in personal affairs. Context is everything, and your black vs white argument might be right in some situations, but very wrong in others.
I agree that wikileaks needs to exist, and it gives freedom to those of us with less power and connections. Still, the power it has can be wielded wrongly, turning people like you into those that you're railing against. Your argument makes it sound like you would like power more than you would fairness.
Any real php-driven website uses opcode pre-compiling that speeds the execution of a program to such a degree that the stats given on the site you link to are simply way off. Version 5.3 has sped things up even more than their listed 5.2.9, and on a quick check of one of the PHP program examples, there is a blatant misuse of passing by reference, making it look like PHP4 code. Finally, almost none of the examples are based on real-world web development program needs.
One program on that link that might make sense is the regex, where for 4x the code in C++, you get a program 1/3 as fast (again, compared to unoptimized and old version PHP code). C++ code example PHP code example
This is a perfect example of PHP making C++ look like a fools language -- for web development.
Facebook has improved the php memcache extension specifically to get the most out of caching requests (and given the improvements back to the community), and since caching is their main method of reducing server load, I'd assume they're pretty good at it.
I agree with your comments, and would add that almost any professional PHP website with any complexity at all, uses one of the many optimizers (pre-compilers) available, which themselves are written in C. PHP can be used for easy development AND quick response times, if it's set up properly.
Further, in terms of overall servers, thousands of Facebook's servers are sitting there with gobs of memory running memcached for caching responses. PHP executes a C library for access to it, and to toss out my own ratio, I'd say that far less than 1/10 requests to Facebook's servers require anything more than a cache lookup.
PHP is quick to develop with, efficient when coded by professional developers (as one would expect Facebook's to be), and only as a result of its success, is responsible for some sort of environmental impact. Need a component to run faster? Write a C-extension for it, but PHP is fine as the primary language.
C++ is not ideal for website development, other than in the most extreme of cases, and though it's open-source, there aren't exactly many (any?) successful web projects using it, so I don't understand why/. articles like this one even suggest it.
Unfortunately, this isn't a solution for the question at hand (not that I've got one to offer).
The challenge of web development brings a database and its changes together with that of code. A database's structure will change with the evolution of a code base, and subversion doesn't help deal with that. It also makes it awkward, for me at least, to deal with dev and live environments. Maybe it's an inherent problem that comes with using relational databases, but I've yet to see any solid open-source, cross-framework tool to help with versioning of both database and code in a user-friendly way.
If one existed that could also manage both a live and dev environment, each with different data in a possibly differently structured database, it would be a very valuable application.
You can't say he's making 5% profit. He's making some unknown amount of income (based upon to-date and future sales), in exchange for the time spent, his knowledge, and his writing ability.
He's making 5% of the sale price of the book, he's making 5% profit.
Then you must be in one of those areas of the business world where there are no expenses, and it costs you no time or materials to make a product/service. Hmmm, sounds like you must be a patent troll.
Since you disregarded the parent, I'll explain a little clearer for you that time is money, and in this case that money is expense, which comes off that 5%. His 5% is equal to his gross revenue, from which expenses are deducted to arrive at profit. Or more likely, loss.
While I'd question the value in responding to trolls like this one, I do feel the need to congratulate you on the use of the phrase "ideologotardic nonsense". I don't think Webster's could have said it better!
It may be true that a droid wrote it for him, or maybe not. I've been using 7 for half a year, through a few versions and it's better than Vista in several subtle ways, but the biggest way that it's better is that it's not called "Vista". Given that he cares about sales and marketing, that's a very big positive.
And besides, Vista on proper hardware has always been better than XP for security, stability, and several usability features (especially the file explorer) -- it's just that the perception of it, due much to bad press and late availability of drivers made it appear terrible and far worse than it actually is.
You're completely right that Windows 7 is just Vista SP2 (though with very good touchscreen capabilities), but in the land of marketing and corporate sales, the name means a lot. XP is relative garbage unless you're running 5 year old hardware, so I mean really, what is false about Dell saying that Windows 7 will bring a big positive spin to PCs?
...
I've read a lot of posts here, but not one including the immediate parent has actually explained why Windows 7 wouldn't make (a non-biased) you love PCs. That's an open invitation, because I'd love to hear the answer.
Your choice A should really be written as, "Give those moneys to any company or rich corp," as this is what would happen with publishing. IANAL, but wouldn't publishing establish prior art, which would mean anyone can profit, not just rich companies that might profit by patenting ideas that are neither published nor previously patented because it was too much trouble?
In this case, if the submitter didn't want to go through the hassle and risk of dealing with lawyers when it comes to patenting, he would at least be ensuring that no "rich corp" seizes on the idea with their team of patent trolls (lawyers) and proceeds to profit from the monopoly that goes along with it.
"bridge must withstand x pounds and last y years" is a pretty straightforward requirement for a bridge. "Don't go bang and burn down a house" is similarly so for a gadget. Software, however has a multitude of requirements -- and of different kinds, be it speed, usability, security, interoperability, and on and on. And that's not even to mention that software is usually expected to do a number of actual tasks for the user. In the end, an OS has likely millions of requirements and in the case of this article, one of them is, "don't delete the administrator's data when a crash happens while logged into the guest account." Yep, this is a horrible, awful bug of the worst degree, but hey, it's not like the fanbois won't buy macs because of it. Not quite the same as a life and death issue, especially since you can back up data, but not your car once its gone over the edge.
But, back to the bridge for a second: most poorly designed roads and bridges are torn down before they fall on their own, and well after they're built. The individual engineers generally get off scot free for doing bad work that only comes to light years after it was built.
A simple and straightforward rebuttal:
a) "validate the activation online, years before it can even be practically implemented" -- exactly why it is an obvious application. He patented something because the technology was coming around -- the novel aspect was the technology, not the straightforward application of it to replace older mail/phone in technology.
b) have a look around at other posts here: locking to the hardware platform was nothing new.
You, and others are trying to argue that theorists who put an old idea with new technology together, are creating something novel and non-obvious. I'll disagree wholeheartedly, and say there was nothing that wasn't obvious about this patent. Regardless of the most thought-out timeline you can put forward, the technology behind the patent came with time and technology, not a novel idea.
It is a big deal (300Million+), and is not fair to everyone (you, me, and all software buyers) who needs to deal with a greedy person that knows how to work the system.
I mean, really! How do you possibly consider replacing "registration via phone/mail" with "registration online" an "invention"? With a username referring to the 80's, you should know that there is nothing new with this patent.
A new technology invented by the sum of many people's efforts comes to town (the Internet), and thus the next 'obvious' step was to apply this technology to an older method for registering software. To me, this defines the worst of the patent trolls -- they take something that exists and use other's innovations to put 1+1 together and voila! a patent.
Given that this same kind of patent trolling is/will be affecting many slashdotters, shouldn't we suck it up and congratulate MS on this one? If it manages to serve as a precedence to future similar judgments, they might even deserve a "thanks".
For some reason, the parent has been modded "flamebait", so I've got an urge to defend and second the motion for Javascript as a great language to learn on.
First, JS is what powers the web, and is both a simple language to understand the basics of, and a complicated one to continue learning from. Along with HTML it can be easy to prototype ideas and have instant results, which can be very helpful for inspiring young programmers.
Secondly, it's object-oriented in a very different and arguably more powerful manner than many traditional c-type languages. I'm constantly amazed at how little traditional programmers "get" the power and concepts of Javascript's object-oriented programming, and is a good reason it should stand on its own as a good language to learn on. Flash's ActionScript is very similar, so the transition in that direction would be easy, while the move to more traditional languages could also be made once basic concepts are understood.
...
I learned programming from Basic on an old C-64 -- by all means a terrible language compared to the standards of C, with many limitations and which can create some bad dependencies -- but it certainly inspired me enough to continue and learn other languages (turing/pascal/C and on) as my programming whims required more functional toolsets.
In a way, I see Javascript as the accessible language of today as Basic was back then, only far more powerful. With that as a starting point, any bright, driven programmer should be able to progress down the line to more raw languages as their interest takes them.
Have you spent 8 years in a bubble dedicating your life to learning a profession, deal constantly with life and death in person, and also have to interact constantly with demanding and arrogant patients for years on end? Top doctors are likely much like top programmers: few understand exactly what they do or how they do it, and they get ticked off when people disrespect their experience and ability.
To whine and name-call a guy who's just helped heal you, or contribute massively to open-source code that many use, especially without even responding to his calm and detailed arguments, is pretty shallow.
I'm equally confused, and am wondering whether the author meant to say "open standards" instead of "open source". Whether open standards could dominate the cloud seems like a much more sensible discussion to have.
Despite having mod points and disagreeing completely with the raft of anti-new-slashdot posts here, there's nothing I can't stand more than modders giving out -1 Disagree disguised as -1 Overrated. So here goes with a slight rebuttal:
Using Chrome or Firefox on a 1.6Ghz laptop, I've got no problems with CPU, loading times or anything. I love the new look. A year ago it was different -- long load times, or browser crashes if the discussion had more than 300 comments was normal, but not any more./. has moved with the times, and for the most part I like the changes -- and believe that the ones that make no sense will likely disappear. Go figure, this is a discussion supposedly about Americans not willing to learn the details of new technologies. Well,/. is innovating constantly, trying different ideas out, and despite some mistakes along the way, remains, in my mind, the best discussion board on the Net.
Most posts disparaging of the new look are by ACs using iPhone, Opera or Safari. Opera, so proud of Acid compliance, has many a bug when it comes to javascript. Safari has always been a JS nightmare, holding back web developers that need to cater to mac addicts. As for the iPhone.../. devs oughtta develop an iPhone version, but for gawd's sake, don't neuter my full bodied, proper monitor experience for the sake of those things.
Finally, the success of/. comes much from the mod system, which you ACs aren't contibuting to. If you won't get an account, log in, and change your preferences to a less JS-intensive version, then it's your own fault. Despite your crying, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
I've been following the back-and-forth on Chris Messina's blog post, and notice that he's responded to the response with some backtracking, and also good points as well: http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2009/06/17/responding-to-unite-misconceptions (search for "factoryjoe"). If you don't mind, I'd rather let others who know more judge his comments fully, but he does bring up how some of the documentation on the Unite website pages is quite misleading, one example being on the proxy issue.
As for TFA we're here for, I truly believe that misleading comparisons and misleading benchmarks serve to confuse rather than inform. There is nothing about owning your own data and all the positives of Unite in TFA -- at all.
TFA's comparison is like comparing performance of MS Access to Oracle. Imagine you didn't know exactly what Access was when reading those comparisons (such as any newcomer to Unite vs Apache+PHP). This hypothetical comparison of two completely different softwares that store data would imply that Access is an equivalent to Oracle. In the end, the reader wouldn't be thinking that "nothing beats [Access]'s ease of use for most people", but would be left confused as to what Access is.
My point with all this is to show that TFA is terribly misleading, and when you already have to deal with articles like Mr. Messina's, which don't grasp the full potential of Unite, why support another article which merely confuses matters further?
If you look back to the original parent I responded to, he is a perfect example of someone who is confused and believes that Apache and Unite do the same thing.
Yes, yes, you've been trolling through this whole discussion telling everyone to use chrome.
I use chrome. I love the ui and process management, but the love ends there.
It's the buggiest browser out there, textarea form fields lose their text regularly when using cursor back or up. So many well-known websites I visit mysteriously lose their css, it's truly not funny. Flash crashes-- on all tabs at once -- constantly, and it's slowwwww. I actually wish it used more memory so that it didn't take several seconds to re-display and load tabs from swap. All the other browsers beat it for speed of changing between tabs, in my experience.
Chrome is nice, but it has a long way to go to match firefox, or even IE, for stability.
--
if a beta's not good enough for a vendor to recommend downloading, then it's not good enough for me either.
Or maybe since he appears so sick and tired of sudoing everything under the sun, he should consider moving to Vista and its no-longer-so-intrusive UAC.
Ah, and as I said in another post:
TFA that is being discussed on/. is one of the most incompetent pieces of drivel I've seen posted. Benchmarks that make no sense are not benchmarks. Code that looks as if it was written by a 6th grader should be embarrassing. The author worrying about his hdd blowing up for using PHP blows my mind. Not understanding the difference between server based web-serving and client machine web-serving, nor between dynamic and static websites makes me regard Timothy's posts with great skepticism.
TFA is one of the worst I've ever seen posted on/. and ironically makes Opera and its fanboys look bad for supporting it. The other article I linked to still presents many very valid points whereas TFA presents confusion and misleading "conclusions" in place of any form of insight.
Regarding proxies and Unite, let's just quote the Opera Unite offical website, "Opera Unite uses a proxy between the server and its clients"
And you know what? I've got nothing really against Unite itself, but TFA is a real piece of work.
To quote the Liberal's press release on their position:
"Net Neutrality refers to the principle that internet traffic management should not selectively target certain websites, users or legitimate internet applications."
I'll put $50 on the table to wager that Bell's 30KBps limit on bittorrent downloading will miraculously escape any "Net Neutrality" legislation the Liberals table when they get into power.
Any takers?
--
What's really at risk? The definition of net neutrality itself.
Slashdot Mirror
A career that was ruined because something became publicly available is a career that should be ruined
What if the "something" that became publicly available had absolutely no direct bearing on the career of the person (ie sex scandal)? Could this not be a reason for why the U.S has so many seemingly perfect, dull, boring politicians that are good at playing the game, but bring no dynamicism to the political arena?
I'm the type that understands that sometimes backroom deals are best left in the backroom, and that people should stop interfering and meddling in personal affairs. Context is everything, and your black vs white argument might be right in some situations, but very wrong in others.
I agree that wikileaks needs to exist, and it gives freedom to those of us with less power and connections. Still, the power it has can be wielded wrongly, turning people like you into those that you're railing against. Your argument makes it sound like you would like power more than you would fairness.
Any real php-driven website uses opcode pre-compiling that speeds the execution of a program to such a degree that the stats given on the site you link to are simply way off. Version 5.3 has sped things up even more than their listed 5.2.9, and on a quick check of one of the PHP program examples, there is a blatant misuse of passing by reference, making it look like PHP4 code. Finally, almost none of the examples are based on real-world web development program needs.
One program on that link that might make sense is the regex, where for 4x the code in C++, you get a program 1/3 as fast (again, compared to unoptimized and old version PHP code).
C++ code example
PHP code example
This is a perfect example of PHP making C++ look like a fools language -- for web development.
The answer is: How good are your developers?
Facebook has improved the php memcache extension specifically to get the most out of caching requests (and given the improvements back to the community), and since caching is their main method of reducing server load, I'd assume they're pretty good at it.
I agree with your comments, and would add that almost any professional PHP website with any complexity at all, uses one of the many optimizers (pre-compilers) available, which themselves are written in C. PHP can be used for easy development AND quick response times, if it's set up properly.
/. articles like this one even suggest it.
Further, in terms of overall servers, thousands of Facebook's servers are sitting there with gobs of memory running memcached for caching responses. PHP executes a C library for access to it, and to toss out my own ratio, I'd say that far less than 1/10 requests to Facebook's servers require anything more than a cache lookup.
PHP is quick to develop with, efficient when coded by professional developers (as one would expect Facebook's to be), and only as a result of its success, is responsible for some sort of environmental impact. Need a component to run faster? Write a C-extension for it, but PHP is fine as the primary language.
C++ is not ideal for website development, other than in the most extreme of cases, and though it's open-source, there aren't exactly many (any?) successful web projects using it, so I don't understand why
Unfortunately, this isn't a solution for the question at hand (not that I've got one to offer).
The challenge of web development brings a database and its changes together with that of code. A database's structure will change with the evolution of a code base, and subversion doesn't help deal with that. It also makes it awkward, for me at least, to deal with dev and live environments. Maybe it's an inherent problem that comes with using relational databases, but I've yet to see any solid open-source, cross-framework tool to help with versioning of both database and code in a user-friendly way.
If one existed that could also manage both a live and dev environment, each with different data in a possibly differently structured database, it would be a very valuable application.
He's making 5% of the sale price of the book, he's making 5% profit.
Then you must be in one of those areas of the business world where there are no expenses, and it costs you no time or materials to make a product/service. Hmmm, sounds like you must be a patent troll.
Since you disregarded the parent, I'll explain a little clearer for you that time is money, and in this case that money is expense, which comes off that 5%. His 5% is equal to his gross revenue, from which expenses are deducted to arrive at profit. Or more likely, loss.
While I'd question the value in responding to trolls like this one, I do feel the need to congratulate you on the use of the phrase "ideologotardic nonsense". I don't think Webster's could have said it better!
It may be true that a droid wrote it for him, or maybe not. I've been using 7 for half a year, through a few versions and it's better than Vista in several subtle ways, but the biggest way that it's better is that it's not called "Vista". Given that he cares about sales and marketing, that's a very big positive.
...
And besides, Vista on proper hardware has always been better than XP for security, stability, and several usability features (especially the file explorer) -- it's just that the perception of it, due much to bad press and late availability of drivers made it appear terrible and far worse than it actually is.
You're completely right that Windows 7 is just Vista SP2 (though with very good touchscreen capabilities), but in the land of marketing and corporate sales, the name means a lot. XP is relative garbage unless you're running 5 year old hardware, so I mean really, what is false about Dell saying that Windows 7 will bring a big positive spin to PCs?
I've read a lot of posts here, but not one including the immediate parent has actually explained why Windows 7 wouldn't make (a non-biased) you love PCs. That's an open invitation, because I'd love to hear the answer.
Your choice A should really be written as, "Give those moneys to any company or rich corp," as this is what would happen with publishing. IANAL, but wouldn't publishing establish prior art, which would mean anyone can profit, not just rich companies that might profit by patenting ideas that are neither published nor previously patented because it was too much trouble?
In this case, if the submitter didn't want to go through the hassle and risk of dealing with lawyers when it comes to patenting, he would at least be ensuring that no "rich corp" seizes on the idea with their team of patent trolls (lawyers) and proceeds to profit from the monopoly that goes along with it.
So the formation of the Higgs comes back from the future to stop its own creation...
If only the destruction of these physicist's careers could have come back from the future and saved themselves from it.
Well, you're definitely not a programmer are you?
"bridge must withstand x pounds and last y years" is a pretty straightforward requirement for a bridge. "Don't go bang and burn down a house" is similarly so for a gadget. Software, however has a multitude of requirements -- and of different kinds, be it speed, usability, security, interoperability, and on and on. And that's not even to mention that software is usually expected to do a number of actual tasks for the user. In the end, an OS has likely millions of requirements and in the case of this article, one of them is, "don't delete the administrator's data when a crash happens while logged into the guest account." Yep, this is a horrible, awful bug of the worst degree, but hey, it's not like the fanbois won't buy macs because of it. Not quite the same as a life and death issue, especially since you can back up data, but not your car once its gone over the edge.
But, back to the bridge for a second: most poorly designed roads and bridges are torn down before they fall on their own, and well after they're built. The individual engineers generally get off scot free for doing bad work that only comes to light years after it was built.
A simple and straightforward rebuttal:
a) "validate the activation online, years before it can even be practically implemented" -- exactly why it is an obvious application. He patented something because the technology was coming around -- the novel aspect was the technology, not the straightforward application of it to replace older mail/phone in technology.
b) have a look around at other posts here: locking to the hardware platform was nothing new.
You, and others are trying to argue that theorists who put an old idea with new technology together, are creating something novel and non-obvious. I'll disagree wholeheartedly, and say there was nothing that wasn't obvious about this patent. Regardless of the most thought-out timeline you can put forward, the technology behind the patent came with time and technology, not a novel idea.
It is a big deal (300Million+), and is not fair to everyone (you, me, and all software buyers) who needs to deal with a greedy person that knows how to work the system.
I mean, really! How do you possibly consider replacing "registration via phone/mail" with "registration online" an "invention"? With a username referring to the 80's, you should know that there is nothing new with this patent.
So what?
A new technology invented by the sum of many people's efforts comes to town (the Internet), and thus the next 'obvious' step was to apply this technology to an older method for registering software. To me, this defines the worst of the patent trolls -- they take something that exists and use other's innovations to put 1+1 together and voila! a patent.
Given that this same kind of patent trolling is/will be affecting many slashdotters, shouldn't we suck it up and congratulate MS on this one? If it manages to serve as a precedence to future similar judgments, they might even deserve a "thanks".
I dunno... slashdot's been infected with it for years, and seems to be doing fine.
For some reason, the parent has been modded "flamebait", so I've got an urge to defend and second the motion for Javascript as a great language to learn on.
...
First, JS is what powers the web, and is both a simple language to understand the basics of, and a complicated one to continue learning from. Along with HTML it can be easy to prototype ideas and have instant results, which can be very helpful for inspiring young programmers.
Secondly, it's object-oriented in a very different and arguably more powerful manner than many traditional c-type languages. I'm constantly amazed at how little traditional programmers "get" the power and concepts of Javascript's object-oriented programming, and is a good reason it should stand on its own as a good language to learn on. Flash's ActionScript is very similar, so the transition in that direction would be easy, while the move to more traditional languages could also be made once basic concepts are understood.
I learned programming from Basic on an old C-64 -- by all means a terrible language compared to the standards of C, with many limitations and which can create some bad dependencies -- but it certainly inspired me enough to continue and learn other languages (turing/pascal/C and on) as my programming whims required more functional toolsets.
In a way, I see Javascript as the accessible language of today as Basic was back then, only far more powerful. With that as a starting point, any bright, driven programmer should be able to progress down the line to more raw languages as their interest takes them.
Have you spent 8 years in a bubble dedicating your life to learning a profession, deal constantly with life and death in person, and also have to interact constantly with demanding and arrogant patients for years on end? Top doctors are likely much like top programmers: few understand exactly what they do or how they do it, and they get ticked off when people disrespect their experience and ability.
To whine and name-call a guy who's just helped heal you, or contribute massively to open-source code that many use, especially without even responding to his calm and detailed arguments, is pretty shallow.
I'm equally confused, and am wondering whether the author meant to say "open standards" instead of "open source". Whether open standards could dominate the cloud seems like a much more sensible discussion to have.
Despite having mod points and disagreeing completely with the raft of anti-new-slashdot posts here, there's nothing I can't stand more than modders giving out -1 Disagree disguised as -1 Overrated. So here goes with a slight rebuttal:
/. has moved with the times, and for the most part I like the changes -- and believe that the ones that make no sense will likely disappear. Go figure, this is a discussion supposedly about Americans not willing to learn the details of new technologies. Well, /. is innovating constantly, trying different ideas out, and despite some mistakes along the way, remains, in my mind, the best discussion board on the Net.
/. devs oughtta develop an iPhone version, but for gawd's sake, don't neuter my full bodied, proper monitor experience for the sake of those things.
/. comes much from the mod system, which you ACs aren't contibuting to. If you won't get an account, log in, and change your preferences to a less JS-intensive version, then it's your own fault. Despite your crying, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Using Chrome or Firefox on a 1.6Ghz laptop, I've got no problems with CPU, loading times or anything. I love the new look. A year ago it was different -- long load times, or browser crashes if the discussion had more than 300 comments was normal, but not any more.
Most posts disparaging of the new look are by ACs using iPhone, Opera or Safari. Opera, so proud of Acid compliance, has many a bug when it comes to javascript. Safari has always been a JS nightmare, holding back web developers that need to cater to mac addicts. As for the iPhone...
Finally, the success of
I've been following the back-and-forth on Chris Messina's blog post, and notice that he's responded to the response with some backtracking, and also good points as well: http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2009/06/17/responding-to-unite-misconceptions (search for "factoryjoe"). If you don't mind, I'd rather let others who know more judge his comments fully, but he does bring up how some of the documentation on the Unite website pages is quite misleading, one example being on the proxy issue.
As for TFA we're here for, I truly believe that misleading comparisons and misleading benchmarks serve to confuse rather than inform. There is nothing about owning your own data and all the positives of Unite in TFA -- at all.
TFA's comparison is like comparing performance of MS Access to Oracle. Imagine you didn't know exactly what Access was when reading those comparisons (such as any newcomer to Unite vs Apache+PHP). This hypothetical comparison of two completely different softwares that store data would imply that Access is an equivalent to Oracle. In the end, the reader wouldn't be thinking that "nothing beats [Access]'s ease of use for most people", but would be left confused as to what Access is.
My point with all this is to show that TFA is terribly misleading, and when you already have to deal with articles like Mr. Messina's, which don't grasp the full potential of Unite, why support another article which merely confuses matters further?
If you look back to the original parent I responded to, he is a perfect example of someone who is confused and believes that Apache and Unite do the same thing.
I don't think you realized that comments were merely a smart-ass response to a smart-ass parent.
Since you want to go the serious route, should I point out to you that UAC isn't required for browsers, or "most stuff" on Windows either?
Yes, yes, you've been trolling through this whole discussion telling everyone to use chrome.
I use chrome. I love the ui and process management, but the love ends there.
It's the buggiest browser out there, textarea form fields lose their text regularly when using cursor back or up. So many well-known websites I visit mysteriously lose their css, it's truly not funny. Flash crashes-- on all tabs at once -- constantly, and it's slowwwww. I actually wish it used more memory so that it didn't take several seconds to re-display and load tabs from swap. All the other browsers beat it for speed of changing between tabs, in my experience.
Chrome is nice, but it has a long way to go to match firefox, or even IE, for stability.
--
if a beta's not good enough for a vendor to recommend downloading, then it's not good enough for me either.
Or maybe since he appears so sick and tired of sudoing everything under the sun, he should consider moving to Vista and its no-longer-so-intrusive UAC.
Ah, and as I said in another post: /. is one of the most incompetent pieces of drivel I've seen posted. Benchmarks that make no sense are not benchmarks. Code that looks as if it was written by a 6th grader should be embarrassing. The author worrying about his hdd blowing up for using PHP blows my mind. Not understanding the difference between server based web-serving and client machine web-serving, nor between dynamic and static websites makes me regard Timothy's posts with great skepticism.
/. and ironically makes Opera and its fanboys look bad for supporting it. The other article I linked to still presents many very valid points whereas TFA presents confusion and misleading "conclusions" in place of any form of insight.
TFA that is being discussed on
TFA is one of the worst I've ever seen posted on
Regarding proxies and Unite, let's just quote the Opera Unite offical website, "Opera Unite uses a proxy between the server and its clients"
And you know what? I've got nothing really against Unite itself, but TFA is a real piece of work.
rant over.
To quote the Liberal's press release on their position:
"Net Neutrality refers to the principle that internet traffic management should not selectively target certain websites, users or legitimate internet applications."
I'll put $50 on the table to wager that Bell's 30KBps limit on bittorrent downloading will miraculously escape any "Net Neutrality" legislation the Liberals table when they get into power.
Any takers?
--
What's really at risk? The definition of net neutrality itself.