Now this is only a (mediocrely educated) guess, but I assume the XP kernel is just an evolutionary upgrade to 2k's kernel and may be just as fast if not faster. Surely XP had several things that slowed it down, but the kernel may not be one of them.
IANAmerican, but I can't imagine such a debate to be interesting or fruitful in any way. The best leaders may not be the best scientists and vice-versa, but that's what the successful leaders have advisors for. I'm positively sure that you'll be able to find an expert who is better at any given scientific topic (that's one expert per topic, not one expert for all of them) than any given successful political leader and tell you what: It doesn't matter. Political leaders don't need to know anything as long as they're able to interpret what a background-checked, neutral, verified commitee of experts tell them on any kind of research. Knowing about the subject matter's a great thing, but do you really think the casual knowledge one can grasp on most topics will be larger than the one of a few PhDs who deal with said subject matter five days per week from ten to whenever they get home?
Of course, mental stability, lack of religious zealotry and proper understanding of the english language ought to be a must, too, but the US of A have proven not to care about any of those points. I really admire them for giving a mentally challenged fanatic the chance to shine, but letting him lead them to war, twice, starting to ruin their economy and so on makes it seem like he's not the only mentally challenged person out there.
Poor? After building a how-many-million bridge to nowhere? No, dear sir, the profit-sharing agreement with the guys who made the big bucks will ensure him not being poor for a long time.
(Please note that no characters mentioned in this post have any ties whatsoever to real persons. Any similarities are coincidal. This is no conspiracy theory, I am merely suggesting that a fictional person might have received a bit of fictional green for fictionally building a fictional bridge to nowhere.)
Actually you did miss the sub-branch of what is now referred to as the Semantic Web. Semantic (X)HTML tags like <strong> or emphasis provide better readability targeted directly to human interpreters while this new Semantic Web targets humans through aggregators of knowledge (and thus needs to be machine-read and -interpretable.
You got it all wrong. Web 2.0 is "You make all the content, they get all the revenue". Web 3.0 is going to be The Semantic Web. Web 4.0 will, like Winamp 4.0, be skipped in favour of Web 5.0 where users provide the content, search engines look at the ads while grabbing the content and returning it, processed and summarized, to said users. This will also perfectly integrate with GWEI and similar projects for other search engines!
Question: Where dose the Mafia come in this and why would they want to have, destroy or hold hsotage bits of random people's online memories? I may not be one of them (maybe I am but can't say so 'cause they'd kill me if I did), but I'd suspect their interests being more along smuggling and distributing things, ending unfriendly people's lives and so on.
And the incentive to do that would be...? Bandwidth and beefy servers ain't cheap and this might turn out to become a large project filled with users who use it to get away from ads. Most rich people care about becoming richer for as long as they live minus the time it takes em to found a nice little foundation to help the poor (or don't do that, die and let their heirs loot the corpse^W^W^W (sorry, tried WoW that weekend) inherit their fortune), not some internet encyclopedia.
Yep. Next month's entry will be the WikiWikipedia. It's like Wikipedia but with information about sites like Wikipedia. So Joe Blow and the rest of the bus stop gang can tell you directly how credible which web encyclopedia's today.
They are, of course, getting a nice profit for someone else's work. On the other hand Wikipedia's contributers willingly put their contributions under the GNU free doc license, Wikipedia is based on that kind of freedom and Veropedia has a bit of a different concept (reliable, verified information vs. bleeding-edge user-contributed data). By the way: IIRC, several trashy sites have been using Wikipedia content on their own domain with ads without any contributions for quite some time now. Seems way worse to me.
Unfortunately you have to, at some point, trust a source. This source can of course range from something with the same credibility as a few people on a bus stop (Wikipedia, even worse: Blogs, even worse:/.) over something with quite a bit of credibility (Britannica & co.) to something with lots of credibility (First person account under oath, lie detector and perhaps some "truth-enabling" drugs (Usually, this level of credibility's reserved for federal agencies;))).
Where Veropedia positions itself on that scale is yet to be determined, but I'm guessing it ought to be closer to Britannica than Wikipedia.
You sound pretty convinced about all this and it seems to add up, too, but two things I don't quite get.
bandwidth and storage - and indeed everything but ram - is measured base 2 instead of base 10.
Did you actually mean it the other way round or are most all credible sources I read on that topic wrong? (Don't mean to be pedantic here, just want to make sure)
The definition of a supercomputer being capable of one trillion FLOPS sounds an awful lot like a series of tubes and an effective copy prevention mechanisms to me, like something an absolutely clueless old (sorry, chliché) politician would use. While it very probably does have it's roots somewhere and will have a reason to exist, it's meaning may have evolved. Back in the day, hackers were called hackers, now crackers are called hackers and hackers are security researchers and developers. I don't really know if I am to embrace such transitions or go the extremely English way of seeing the English language as a static thing - it seems to really depend on the circumstances.
In conclusion: To me "hacker" is a creator of things or researcher of security, a cracker's a crunchy/savoury biscuit or bad guy in IT, a supercomputer's an at least a thousand times faster than a midrange to highend personal computer (depending on the era, this may be a desktop (now), notebook/laptop (I suspect rather sooner than later) or whatever may come) of it's timeframe device or autonomous collection of devices.
Now you intrigue me. "No, it's not true. Asynchronous communications in web apps predates XmlHttpRequest and people made do without it because most browsers didn't support it." Can you point me to some examples? Does Iframe hackery count as asynchronous comms?
Parent stated that all of Microsoft's web apps were abysmal failures. OWA is a Microsoft web app. OWA is used by many governments, fortune whatever, large, medium and small companies around the world. It's no failure.
By the way: MS build XmlHttpRequest into IE for OWA (probably not exclusively, but to my knowledge it was the main reason they did it), so Google Maps, Youtube, the Firehose, Discussion2 and more or less everything else that calls itself "web app" is partially based on Microsoft's ingenuity. Sounds weird, is kinda true.
It doesn't frustrate me because Windows clearly is marketed as a closed system. It's also clearly marketed as being billed per user in any server-style environment. Oracle makes you pay per CPU core, McDonalds makes you pay per hamburger, Microsoft makes you pay per user. I appreciate free software, but I also understand that people and businesses need to make money by selling whatever product they create.
Ditto. Plus in a few years (that's <5), they could just release the Wii2 which was basically a copy of the Wii with beefier hardware. It'd play Wii and Wii2 games, might use the same controllers the Wii does and thus atttract some of the graphics fanatics. Microsoft and Sony, on the other hand, can't really release an intermediate-gen console. (Still need to compensate losses made by selling 360 and PS3 under break-even, missing innovation from their side...)
Beyond the second Windows remote login, it costs money to use remote desktop.
That's because more than two sessions make the server count as a terminal server. It's that simple. If you'd pay per user in whatever your favourite linux distribution is, you'd pay more for more terminal server slots, too.
I'm pretty sure if Microsoft was to include an SSH server, they'd simply take OpenSSH, strip out all the X forwarding (plus probably a few other parts they don't deem necessary), add a registry interface, add some AD user auth magic, done. There's no use in re-building something that's really, really free, wouldn't make them any money and is invisible to all but sysadmins anyways.
I don't want to kick off a flame war here, but upon reading some comments, the situation looks like a repetition of the good old browser wars.
On one hand, there's Microsoft. With IE7, I hope we can all agree upon, they have fixed lots of very bad bugs it had. It's still a rather big ugly mess, but progress seems to be going in the right direction. With a bit of goodwill, one might even imagine them to produce a secure and usable browser with v8 or so.
On the other hand, there's the ex-underdog Mozilla. Right after their Firefox started to take off, they managed to get quite a deal running with Google, who aren't evil. They also began "improving" CSS (moz-opacity and co., anyone?) and I think even html (not quite sure about this) in their Browser. Just like MSFT did in the browser wars. Now it seems they're attempting their shot at the web application game. They're trying to spread the use of XUL and apparently Prism will containt various "improvements" to agreed-upon standards.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but to me it seems the ambitious Mozilla project has evolved from a great OSS project to something that's not too different from companies/. constantly (MSFT) or sometimes (GOOG) frowns upon for bad competitive behaviour. What's your guess? Does this have the potential to become part 2 of the browser wars? Will the Firefox fanbase realize what Mozilla has become and switch to something else? KHTML? Something new, based on WebKit? Something completely new? Opera? Opera made GPL? Won't anybody care about Mozilla's creeping corporateness and be led right into the Google's den or will those ties break and Mozilla become less googly again? Discuss.
Fork what? Firefox? As you already said, it's one horrible piece of bloat. Gecko? Why fork if there's better solutions like KHTML/WebKit or (maybe with enough effort it could be GPLd) Opera's Presto and Kestrel around? Plus let's not forget that Gecko appears to be one huge pile of dirt, stacked so high a butterfly might make it collapse by merely flapping it's wings.
The chrome doesn't really eat up your resources. Think of it as a painting. The web page you see is the picasso. The chrome's the frame. Your cpu cycles are the money you spend for painting + frame. What's gonna be more expensive?;)
You do know Quick preferences, right? Press F12, press J -> JavaScript is en/disabled.
Additionally, Right click -> Edit Site Prefs let's you adjust JavaScript (and everything else) on a per-Site basis.
Slashdot Mirror
Now this is only a (mediocrely educated) guess, but I assume the XP kernel is just an evolutionary upgrade to 2k's kernel and may be just as fast if not faster. Surely XP had several things that slowed it down, but the kernel may not be one of them.
IANAmerican, but I can't imagine such a debate to be interesting or fruitful in any way. The best leaders may not be the best scientists and vice-versa, but that's what the successful leaders have advisors for. I'm positively sure that you'll be able to find an expert who is better at any given scientific topic (that's one expert per topic, not one expert for all of them) than any given successful political leader and tell you what: It doesn't matter. Political leaders don't need to know anything as long as they're able to interpret what a background-checked, neutral, verified commitee of experts tell them on any kind of research. Knowing about the subject matter's a great thing, but do you really think the casual knowledge one can grasp on most topics will be larger than the one of a few PhDs who deal with said subject matter five days per week from ten to whenever they get home?
Of course, mental stability, lack of religious zealotry and proper understanding of the english language ought to be a must, too, but the US of A have proven not to care about any of those points. I really admire them for giving a mentally challenged fanatic the chance to shine, but letting him lead them to war, twice, starting to ruin their economy and so on makes it seem like he's not the only mentally challenged person out there.
(Please note that no characters mentioned in this post have any ties whatsoever to real persons. Any similarities are coincidal. This is no conspiracy theory, I am merely suggesting that a fictional person might have received a bit of fictional green for fictionally building a fictional bridge to nowhere.)
Actually you did miss the sub-branch of what is now referred to as the Semantic Web. Semantic (X)HTML tags like <strong> or emphasis provide better readability targeted directly to human interpreters while this new Semantic Web targets humans through aggregators of knowledge (and thus needs to be machine-read and -interpretable.
Question: Where dose the Mafia come in this and why would they want to have, destroy or hold hsotage bits of random people's online memories? I may not be one of them (maybe I am but can't say so 'cause they'd kill me if I did), but I'd suspect their interests being more along smuggling and distributing things, ending unfriendly people's lives and so on.
He could sue that Rowling person who stole his books and made bazillions of £.
And the incentive to do that would be...? Bandwidth and beefy servers ain't cheap and this might turn out to become a large project filled with users who use it to get away from ads. Most rich people care about becoming richer for as long as they live minus the time it takes em to found a nice little foundation to help the poor (or don't do that, die and let their heirs loot the corpse^W^W^W (sorry, tried WoW that weekend) inherit their fortune), not some internet encyclopedia.
Yep. Next month's entry will be the WikiWikipedia. It's like Wikipedia but with information about sites like Wikipedia. So Joe Blow and the rest of the bus stop gang can tell you directly how credible which web encyclopedia's today.
Just because they're trying to hide their evildoings by letting some bad info out on the webs doesn't mean they don't whitewash the rest.
(Freely adapted from the (relatively unknown) "Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not after me" meme)
They are, of course, getting a nice profit for someone else's work. On the other hand Wikipedia's contributers willingly put their contributions under the GNU free doc license, Wikipedia is based on that kind of freedom and Veropedia has a bit of a different concept (reliable, verified information vs. bleeding-edge user-contributed data). By the way: IIRC, several trashy sites have been using Wikipedia content on their own domain with ads without any contributions for quite some time now. Seems way worse to me.
Unfortunately you have to, at some point, trust a source. This source can of course range from something with the same credibility as a few people on a bus stop (Wikipedia, even worse: Blogs, even worse: /.) over something with quite a bit of credibility (Britannica & co.) to something with lots of credibility (First person account under oath, lie detector and perhaps some "truth-enabling" drugs (Usually, this level of credibility's reserved for federal agencies ;))).
Where Veropedia positions itself on that scale is yet to be determined, but I'm guessing it ought to be closer to Britannica than Wikipedia.
The definition of a supercomputer being capable of one trillion FLOPS sounds an awful lot like a series of tubes and an effective copy prevention mechanisms to me, like something an absolutely clueless old (sorry, chliché) politician would use. While it very probably does have it's roots somewhere and will have a reason to exist, it's meaning may have evolved. Back in the day, hackers were called hackers, now crackers are called hackers and hackers are security researchers and developers. I don't really know if I am to embrace such transitions or go the extremely English way of seeing the English language as a static thing - it seems to really depend on the circumstances.
In conclusion: To me "hacker" is a creator of things or researcher of security, a cracker's a crunchy/savoury biscuit or bad guy in IT, a supercomputer's an at least a thousand times faster than a midrange to highend personal computer (depending on the era, this may be a desktop (now), notebook/laptop (I suspect rather sooner than later) or whatever may come) of it's timeframe device or autonomous collection of devices.
Usually creating a shortcut and entering "cmd" as it's target address will do the trick, too if every other way's locked down.
Now you intrigue me. "No, it's not true. Asynchronous communications in web apps predates XmlHttpRequest and people made do without it because most browsers didn't support it." Can you point me to some examples? Does Iframe hackery count as asynchronous comms?
Parent stated that all of Microsoft's web apps were abysmal failures. OWA is a Microsoft web app. OWA is used by many governments, fortune whatever, large, medium and small companies around the world. It's no failure. By the way: MS build XmlHttpRequest into IE for OWA (probably not exclusively, but to my knowledge it was the main reason they did it), so Google Maps, Youtube, the Firehose, Discussion2 and more or less everything else that calls itself "web app" is partially based on Microsoft's ingenuity. Sounds weird, is kinda true.
It doesn't frustrate me because Windows clearly is marketed as a closed system. It's also clearly marketed as being billed per user in any server-style environment. Oracle makes you pay per CPU core, McDonalds makes you pay per hamburger, Microsoft makes you pay per user. I appreciate free software, but I also understand that people and businesses need to make money by selling whatever product they create.
Ditto. Plus in a few years (that's <5), they could just release the Wii2 which was basically a copy of the Wii with beefier hardware. It'd play Wii and Wii2 games, might use the same controllers the Wii does and thus atttract some of the graphics fanatics. Microsoft and Sony, on the other hand, can't really release an intermediate-gen console. (Still need to compensate losses made by selling 360 and PS3 under break-even, missing innovation from their side...)
I'm pretty sure if Microsoft was to include an SSH server, they'd simply take OpenSSH, strip out all the X forwarding (plus probably a few other parts they don't deem necessary), add a registry interface, add some AD user auth magic, done. There's no use in re-building something that's really, really free, wouldn't make them any money and is invisible to all but sysadmins anyways.
I don't want to kick off a flame war here, but upon reading some comments, the situation looks like a repetition of the good old browser wars.
/. constantly (MSFT) or sometimes (GOOG) frowns upon for bad competitive behaviour. What's your guess? Does this have the potential to become part 2 of the browser wars? Will the Firefox fanbase realize what Mozilla has become and switch to something else? KHTML? Something new, based on WebKit? Something completely new? Opera? Opera made GPL? Won't anybody care about Mozilla's creeping corporateness and be led right into the Google's den or will those ties break and Mozilla become less googly again? Discuss.
On one hand, there's Microsoft. With IE7, I hope we can all agree upon, they have fixed lots of very bad bugs it had. It's still a rather big ugly mess, but progress seems to be going in the right direction. With a bit of goodwill, one might even imagine them to produce a secure and usable browser with v8 or so. On the other hand, there's the ex-underdog Mozilla. Right after their Firefox started to take off, they managed to get quite a deal running with Google, who aren't evil. They also began "improving" CSS (moz-opacity and co., anyone?) and I think even html (not quite sure about this) in their Browser. Just like MSFT did in the browser wars. Now it seems they're attempting their shot at the web application game. They're trying to spread the use of XUL and apparently Prism will containt various "improvements" to agreed-upon standards.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but to me it seems the ambitious Mozilla project has evolved from a great OSS project to something that's not too different from companies
Fork what? Firefox? As you already said, it's one horrible piece of bloat. Gecko? Why fork if there's better solutions like KHTML/WebKit or (maybe with enough effort it could be GPLd) Opera's Presto and Kestrel around? Plus let's not forget that Gecko appears to be one huge pile of dirt, stacked so high a butterfly might make it collapse by merely flapping it's wings.
The chrome doesn't really eat up your resources. Think of it as a painting. The web page you see is the picasso. The chrome's the frame. Your cpu cycles are the money you spend for painting + frame. What's gonna be more expensive? ;)
You do know Quick preferences, right? Press F12, press J -> JavaScript is en/disabled.
Additionally, Right click -> Edit Site Prefs let's you adjust JavaScript (and everything else) on a per-Site basis.
Nobody's using OWA then, right? Nice. Nobody's the Gov't of a many countries.