Actually 3G modems do cost somewhere along those lines (obviously there's markup, but I would expec them to be paying around $50-$80+/modem. The reason most phones are cheap is because they're subsidized by the contract. If you paid attention, the data package is contractless so there is no subsidy.
He was modded down as overrated. +1 funny -1 overrated is not a wash because funny gives no karma. My guess is some mod who thought it was funny was trying to make sure he didn't get hurt by it. You can lose karma on a +5 post if you keep getting downmodded and upmodded back as funny.
This is hardly surprising. If you create a major, marketable invention, you're going to patent it pretty much everywhere. Since the US doesn't have a majority of the worlds population, thus it's not surprising that we have a large number of patents held by foreigners/foreign companies. I'm sure that there are patents held by US citizens/companies in tons of other countries as well. I'd be curious to see what these percentages are like in other countries, that might yield a more interesting system.
Since there were several people asking about possible replacements for hosting a DNS zone for free, I thought I'd give a shoutout to zoneedit.com. They do managed DNS, but your first 5 zones are free. I know the website looks like a relic from the 90s, but I've been using them for years and years (hosting 2 domains) and have never had a single issue.
Oblig Disclosure: No relation to the company other than being a satisfied user.
If they fear it's an explosive, they'll shoot at it to either detonate it or disrupt the trigger mechanism, thus rendering it 'safe'. After that, they can safely examine it to determine it's not a bomb, and can therefore return it. They don't do this before shooting it because it could be booby trapped to explode when manipulated, an easy way to target the police/customs, but once it's been disabled, they can make a final determination.
Shooting is a good way to do this because a high powered rifle allows them to disrupt the device from a safe distance.
You're not sure if there a finite number of interpretations of a finite set? Of course there are. Anyway, in the case of a DVD, you have a finite range of numbers (from 0 to approximately 2^40,372,692,583 or so), and every number is either a valid DVD video (meaning it can be decoded properly) or not (most numbers).
Wikipedia says that the number of legal positions in chess is estimated to be between 10^43 and 10^53 and the number of possible games is approximately 10^123. In contrast, it is beleived that there are only about 10^80 atoms in the universe, so it's pretty much impossible to enumerate all the games of chess.
1.) The notice is published to a third party: The ISP or content provider
2.) The third party knows the defamed: the defamed is a user/account holder with whom the third party has an existing business relationship
3.) The notice can harm the third parties reputation: the notice is falsely informing the third party that someone with whom they have a business relationship is engaging in illegal activity while using a service provided by that third party, most likely in violation of the contract (through the inclusion of an acceptable use policy or terms of service) between the third party and that user.
To me, it sounds like this meets the standard your bring.
The comments in this story make me long for the good 'ole days when Phoenix (Firefox's original name) was a lean, mean frame-around-a-rendering-engine machine. The whole design philosophy of Phoenix was that the browser would consist of a bare-bones UI, the various rendering engines, and the extensions framework. The rest of the features would be provided by features that were chosen by the user.
Sadly, the browser core suffered from feature creep. Tab management, spell checking, RSS feed management, session management/restoration, etc. all migrated from perfectly good extensions into the browser itself. While these features are great, the fact that they used to exist as extensions shows there is no need to keep them in the browser core.
I really wish the developers had simply maintained and distributed a set of "core extensions" for these features, so they were enabled by default on new installs but the user could disable them as necessary. It's way too late for Firefox, but maybe Chrome has the option of following this model...
That's not necessarily true. Lets say Rich and Poor both have equal equity in a business, they've been putting in significant cash (lets say it's been $20K each) but it's not there yet. There's another $20K until the product is ready to ship, at which point it will bring in $200K in revenue. (This means each partner would have put in $30K for a $100K result, giving $70K profit each). Rich has a lot of cash on hand, Poor doesn't (he only has the $10K to finish left). Rich offers to buy out Poor at $20K. Now, since Poor doesn't have $20K, he's forced to sell to Rich. Poor just spent two years working on the project, only to get just his original money back, a significant opportunity cost. Rich put a total of $60K ($20K initial, $20K buyout, $20K to finish the project) for a $200K payout, giving him a $140K profit, much more than he'd have gotten. The $20K wasn't fair since Poor didn't have the resources to continue on his own.
If at their download page(http://www.gizmo5.com/download.php) it lists Linux perfectly prominently, the link is just broken (pointing at a page which seems to have vanished). As the summary pointed out, the files are still there. Since gizmo5.com redirects to a page on google.com, I think a much better summary would be "Google accidentally breaks link while moving website of recently acquired company"
North Carolina used to use a system like that, a long time ago. (I remember my parents taking me with them when they voted, I got to help my mom submit her ballot, it must have been back in '96). However, the main draw of e-voting is accessibility: the ability to have high contrast and/or large size fonts, computer reading the ballot out loud, etc. This isn't possible with the equipment you describe.
You're correct, I meant Seattle when talking about the sales tax. Amazon's main offices are in Seattle (Currently scattered around the city, they're consolidating to a new campus in South Lake Union), and I would bet that most of their employees' purchases are from the Seattle/King County area with the higher tax rate.
Just to nitpick, Amazon's headquartered in Washington, and it's where most of the employees are (not counting the minimum-wage people who man the distribution centers). Washington has no income tax (but does have a 10% sales tax).
Eh, revenue is income prior to expenses. There's obviously an expense to delisting from Google, so counting it as revenue seems fair. The entirety of the deal is almost certainly a net loss, but I was only looking at the 1 million in a coffee break claim anyway, so what does it matter?
1 million in a coffee break? At first I thought this was an exaggeration, but then I ran the numbers. Amazon had 5,449 million USD in revenue last quarter, so that's about $60mil/day, or 1 million every 24 minutes (obviously this assumes a flat time distribution which is clearly not true, but lets keep going). A 24 minute coffee break is a bit excessive, but not completely out of the question. Once you take the non-averaged distribution into account, you can probably make a million in a 5-8 minute coffee break.
I want to make sure I understand what you're saying - the application behind the web server would have various priorities of content, so maybe the base HTML would be "CRITICAL", the images would be "HIGH" and the ads (really the javascript that displays them) would be "LOW". The browser would then say "send me >= HIGH" and the ads wouldn't get pushed, the browser would parse the page and pull it, unless an extension blocks it. My issue with that is that anyone who wants ad revenue is probably going to configure it to send the ads at a very high priority in order to attempt to maximize their revenue, thus still costing bandwidth without the adblocker being able to prevent it
However, I guess the saving grace is that the ad stuff is probably on a 3rd party server and can't be pushed by SPDY.
How application-aware is the protocol going to be? (See this sub-thread for more discussion of the issue). If the protocol stack is going to be significantly application aware, maybe you can define various categories for pushing (ex: inline images, embedded frames, flash objects, etc, etc.) and the client's HELLO message can define which of the categories it wants the server to speculatively push.
And if you read the article, it discusses this already! I think you're underestimating the amount of work required by the client to implement SCTP properly. Also, as a minor point, they're not just running gzip on the headers, they're caching them in some manner so they don't have to be sent with every request.
Theoretically, it could do it by analyzing patterns of requests. If everyone who requests resource A then asks for resource B in the same connection, it can assume a relationship without ever parsing the data it's sending. In any event, it's a feature in the protocol that's up to the person implementing the server to decide how to use.
He was referring to push. The concern is that a SPDY server might preemptively push data the client doesn't want (like an ad). Sure, the client can refuse to render it (as you stated before), but it's already gone over the pipe, which costs or penalizes the consumer on a metered or capped connection (like a cell phone or in Australia).
I'll skip your questions about the headers, since other people have already replied. As for using the same connection, if you read the paper, you'll see it's very different than HTTP/1.1. HTTP/1.1 allows pipelining requests on a single connection, but there's only one serialized stream - any delay (such as having to hit disk instead of cache or whatnot) holds up the entire stream. You save the cost of reopening a TCP connection, but you can't do anything in parallel. Thus, modern browsers usually use about 6 different TCP connections, which throws off all of the optimizations TCP does. SPDY multiplexes multiple streams into one connection so things can be served in parallel. Thus if you're hitting the disk retrieving one object, you can still send the next one out of the cache.
Slashdot Mirror
As many as you can get video cards for. Ex.: 6 monitor setup running AwesomeWM
Linux's supported this for ages...
That would be pretty much required for any kind of mass production... Read up on lithography.
Actually 3G modems do cost somewhere along those lines (obviously there's markup, but I would expec them to be paying around $50-$80+/modem. The reason most phones are cheap is because they're subsidized by the contract. If you paid attention, the data package is contractless so there is no subsidy.
He was modded down as overrated. +1 funny -1 overrated is not a wash because funny gives no karma. My guess is some mod who thought it was funny was trying to make sure he didn't get hurt by it. You can lose karma on a +5 post if you keep getting downmodded and upmodded back as funny.
This is hardly surprising. If you create a major, marketable invention, you're going to patent it pretty much everywhere. Since the US doesn't have a majority of the worlds population, thus it's not surprising that we have a large number of patents held by foreigners/foreign companies. I'm sure that there are patents held by US citizens/companies in tons of other countries as well. I'd be curious to see what these percentages are like in other countries, that might yield a more interesting system.
Since there were several people asking about possible replacements for hosting a DNS zone for free, I thought I'd give a shoutout to zoneedit.com. They do managed DNS, but your first 5 zones are free. I know the website looks like a relic from the 90s, but I've been using them for years and years (hosting 2 domains) and have never had a single issue.
Oblig Disclosure: No relation to the company other than being a satisfied user.
Damn, why'd my mod points all have to expire yesterday?
If they fear it's an explosive, they'll shoot at it to either detonate it or disrupt the trigger mechanism, thus rendering it 'safe'. After that, they can safely examine it to determine it's not a bomb, and can therefore return it. They don't do this before shooting it because it could be booby trapped to explode when manipulated, an easy way to target the police/customs, but once it's been disabled, they can make a final determination.
Shooting is a good way to do this because a high powered rifle allows them to disrupt the device from a safe distance.
You're not sure if there a finite number of interpretations of a finite set? Of course there are. Anyway, in the case of a DVD, you have a finite range of numbers (from 0 to approximately 2^40,372,692,583 or so), and every number is either a valid DVD video (meaning it can be decoded properly) or not (most numbers).
Wikipedia says that the number of legal positions in chess is estimated to be between 10^43 and 10^53 and the number of possible games is approximately 10^123. In contrast, it is beleived that there are only about 10^80 atoms in the universe, so it's pretty much impossible to enumerate all the games of chess.
1.) The notice is published to a third party: The ISP or content provider
2.) The third party knows the defamed: the defamed is a user/account holder with whom the third party has an existing business relationship
3.) The notice can harm the third parties reputation: the notice is falsely informing the third party that someone with whom they have a business relationship is engaging in illegal activity while using a service provided by that third party, most likely in violation of the contract (through the inclusion of an acceptable use policy or terms of service) between the third party and that user.
To me, it sounds like this meets the standard your bring.
The comments in this story make me long for the good 'ole days when Phoenix (Firefox's original name) was a lean, mean frame-around-a-rendering-engine machine. The whole design philosophy of Phoenix was that the browser would consist of a bare-bones UI, the various rendering engines, and the extensions framework. The rest of the features would be provided by features that were chosen by the user.
Sadly, the browser core suffered from feature creep. Tab management, spell checking, RSS feed management, session management/restoration, etc. all migrated from perfectly good extensions into the browser itself. While these features are great, the fact that they used to exist as extensions shows there is no need to keep them in the browser core.
I really wish the developers had simply maintained and distributed a set of "core extensions" for these features, so they were enabled by default on new installs but the user could disable them as necessary. It's way too late for Firefox, but maybe Chrome has the option of following this model...
That's not necessarily true. Lets say Rich and Poor both have equal equity in a business, they've been putting in significant cash (lets say it's been $20K each) but it's not there yet. There's another $20K until the product is ready to ship, at which point it will bring in $200K in revenue. (This means each partner would have put in $30K for a $100K result, giving $70K profit each). Rich has a lot of cash on hand, Poor doesn't (he only has the $10K to finish left). Rich offers to buy out Poor at $20K. Now, since Poor doesn't have $20K, he's forced to sell to Rich. Poor just spent two years working on the project, only to get just his original money back, a significant opportunity cost. Rich put a total of $60K ($20K initial, $20K buyout, $20K to finish the project) for a $200K payout, giving him a $140K profit, much more than he'd have gotten. The $20K wasn't fair since Poor didn't have the resources to continue on his own.
If at their download page(http://www.gizmo5.com/download.php) it lists Linux perfectly prominently, the link is just broken (pointing at a page which seems to have vanished). As the summary pointed out, the files are still there. Since gizmo5.com redirects to a page on google.com, I think a much better summary would be "Google accidentally breaks link while moving website of recently acquired company"
North Carolina used to use a system like that, a long time ago. (I remember my parents taking me with them when they voted, I got to help my mom submit her ballot, it must have been back in '96). However, the main draw of e-voting is accessibility: the ability to have high contrast and/or large size fonts, computer reading the ballot out loud, etc. This isn't possible with the equipment you describe.
They can certainly regulate taxes on sales from a business in one state to a consumer in another (interstate commerce).
You're correct, I meant Seattle when talking about the sales tax. Amazon's main offices are in Seattle (Currently scattered around the city, they're consolidating to a new campus in South Lake Union), and I would bet that most of their employees' purchases are from the Seattle/King County area with the higher tax rate.
Just to nitpick, Amazon's headquartered in Washington, and it's where most of the employees are (not counting the minimum-wage people who man the distribution centers). Washington has no income tax (but does have a 10% sales tax).
Eh, revenue is income prior to expenses. There's obviously an expense to delisting from Google, so counting it as revenue seems fair. The entirety of the deal is almost certainly a net loss, but I was only looking at the 1 million in a coffee break claim anyway, so what does it matter?
1 million in a coffee break? At first I thought this was an exaggeration, but then I ran the numbers. Amazon had 5,449 million USD in revenue last quarter, so that's about $60mil/day, or 1 million every 24 minutes (obviously this assumes a flat time distribution which is clearly not true, but lets keep going). A 24 minute coffee break is a bit excessive, but not completely out of the question. Once you take the non-averaged distribution into account, you can probably make a million in a 5-8 minute coffee break.
I want to make sure I understand what you're saying - the application behind the web server would have various priorities of content, so maybe the base HTML would be "CRITICAL", the images would be "HIGH" and the ads (really the javascript that displays them) would be "LOW". The browser would then say "send me >= HIGH" and the ads wouldn't get pushed, the browser would parse the page and pull it, unless an extension blocks it. My issue with that is that anyone who wants ad revenue is probably going to configure it to send the ads at a very high priority in order to attempt to maximize their revenue, thus still costing bandwidth without the adblocker being able to prevent it
However, I guess the saving grace is that the ad stuff is probably on a 3rd party server and can't be pushed by SPDY.
How application-aware is the protocol going to be? (See this sub-thread for more discussion of the issue). If the protocol stack is going to be significantly application aware, maybe you can define various categories for pushing (ex: inline images, embedded frames, flash objects, etc, etc.) and the client's HELLO message can define which of the categories it wants the server to speculatively push.
And if you read the article, it discusses this already! I think you're underestimating the amount of work required by the client to implement SCTP properly. Also, as a minor point, they're not just running gzip on the headers, they're caching them in some manner so they don't have to be sent with every request.
Theoretically, it could do it by analyzing patterns of requests. If everyone who requests resource A then asks for resource B in the same connection, it can assume a relationship without ever parsing the data it's sending. In any event, it's a feature in the protocol that's up to the person implementing the server to decide how to use.
He was referring to push. The concern is that a SPDY server might preemptively push data the client doesn't want (like an ad). Sure, the client can refuse to render it (as you stated before), but it's already gone over the pipe, which costs or penalizes the consumer on a metered or capped connection (like a cell phone or in Australia).
I'll skip your questions about the headers, since other people have already replied. As for using the same connection, if you read the paper, you'll see it's very different than HTTP/1.1. HTTP/1.1 allows pipelining requests on a single connection, but there's only one serialized stream - any delay (such as having to hit disk instead of cache or whatnot) holds up the entire stream. You save the cost of reopening a TCP connection, but you can't do anything in parallel. Thus, modern browsers usually use about 6 different TCP connections, which throws off all of the optimizations TCP does. SPDY multiplexes multiple streams into one connection so things can be served in parallel. Thus if you're hitting the disk retrieving one object, you can still send the next one out of the cache.