lol, I think I meant Adwords, I cant remember, I don't work there any more day to day.
But it is free so long as your site passes Google approval. Once you've got it for one site you can put ads on any site you like (again if they meet the criteria i.e. not porn, warez etc.)
Actually, yes I know. It is a monolith built from parts. That is no real reason not to split them between acqusition and display and the other functions. Co-processes would help the situation but I don't think it's going to happen.
Shame really.
Someone from the plan9 community is in the process of porting some of the components (Gecko and the JS engine) but the morass is a tough pond to wade through.
> So are you suggesting that firefox should be implemented as several thousand small applications joined together with pipes??:)
Not thousands but why not, in principle ?
Downloading files from the internet and caching them is a very different job from rendering HTML. Having them in different processes would not be difficult or undesirable. Yet we have this monolith of a web browser, that by admission, is so complex the director of engineering says : of course it leaks memory.
Unix has lost its way. Thank goodness some people didn't forget what they started. The CREATORS of Unix stopped using it in the late 80s.
When your "director of engineering" uses it as an excuse for the memory leak, like the OP was whining about, you should start to question their competence. Not of coding ability but of design choices.
Linux kernel - 4,827,671 lines of code, over 300 syscalls, hundreds if not thousands if ioctls (it is hard to tell, the ioctl_list man page stopped being updated at 432 back in Linux 1.3.27!)
Plan9 kernel - 148,787 lines of code, 37 syscalls, no ioctls, no networking,
Is the Linux kernel an order of magnitude *better* than the plan9 kernel ?
> For example, music videos were originally just musicians playing music while being recorded on video.
This is wrong. Early music videos/films include "Strawberry Fields Forever" by The Beatles which wsa the fab four being arty in a field. The canonical "first" music video was "Bohemian Rhapsody" by Queen which heralded the mega-bucks music videos of Duran Duran, and the launch of MTV. The Eighties bands competed with each other to be more and more extravagant.
Live performance videos are really just a cheapskate way to make a video. The artists and not the record company pay for their own promotion, including having any videos comissioned. Decent directors for music videos command a high fee and film making in general is expensive if it is on a commercial basis. (and add 15% if you need liability insurance for your shoot).
You don't get much $ for having your video played on MTV, I think I got $150 for the two I had played on MTV Europe (albeit at 1am Sunday =)
I was one of the people responsible for the UK's PCWorld having to remove their advert for a Centrino laptop that promised "the internet wherever you are"
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Reason: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.
*sigh* I've had to take out the $ signs
If my employer said they could only afford half of my $70 million fee for Mission Impossible I guess I wouldn't be so concerned. But I suppose when they repeated it by only paying me half of my $75 million fee for MI:II I would be annoyed.
Here's the rest :
War of the Worlds (2005) (20% profit participation) The Last Samurai (2003) 25,000,000 + % of profits Minority Report (2002) 25,000,000+ Vanilla Sky (2001) 20,000,000 + 30% of Profits Mission: Impossible II (2000) 75,000,000 (gross participation) Eyes Wide Shut (1999) 20,000,000 Jerry Maguire (1996) 20,000,000 against 15% Mission: Impossible (1996) 70,000,000 (gross participation) Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles (1994) 15,000,000 Far and Away (1992) 13,000,000 Rain Man (1988) 3,000,000+% of gross Top Gun (1986) 2,000,000 Risky Business (1983) 75,000
That's over $250 million dollars in just over 20 years.
Any more open DVD players and the poor lad will be on Welfare
Slashdot Mirror
The extension of a URI has nothing to do with the file that gets downloaded.
The MIME type is returned as part of the HTTP headers and even then they are quite entitled to lie.
heheh I meant the machines.
lol, I think I meant Adwords, I cant remember, I don't work there any more day to day.
But it is free so long as your site passes Google approval. Once you've got it for one site you can put ads on any site you like (again if they meet the criteria i.e. not porn, warez etc.)
ever noticed that DOWNLOAD link on the right ?
d 196.gvp?docid=4166049933953240830
Here's the link to the AVI of the moon landing link in the summary
http://video.google.com/videogvp/TheEagleHasLande
With 60,000 unique visitors a month, my highest Google Adsense income was $7000, with a median of around $2000 per month.
That's quite a few people clicking.
That's true, but I meant a network of Automatic Teller Machines.
Actually, yes I know. It is a monolith built from parts.
That is no real reason not to split them between acqusition and display and the other functions.
Co-processes would help the situation but I don't think it's going to happen.
Shame really.
Someone from the plan9 community is in the process of porting some of the components (Gecko and the JS engine) but the morass is a tough pond to wade through.
Perhaps a mechanical vote counter is the answer.
Let's hear it for Babbage !
Diebold can't make a robust ATM network
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mkb23/phantom/
And they are trusted to help decide on the govt. of the biggest war machine ever.
Try not to think of that one too much when you goto bed tonight.
> So are you suggesting that firefox should be implemented as several thousand small applications joined together with pipes?? :)
Not thousands but why not, in principle ?
Downloading files from the internet and caching them is a very different job from rendering HTML. Having them in different processes would not be difficult or undesirable. Yet we have this monolith of a web browser, that by admission, is so complex the director of engineering says : of course it leaks memory.
Unix has lost its way. Thank goodness some people didn't forget what they started. The CREATORS of Unix stopped using it in the late 80s.
If I was sorting my bookmarks into alphabetical order I use bubble sort.
The chance of my screweing up the implementation is greatly reduced.
Code complexity is a very real metric used in important systems.
http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/1994/12/xt9
When your "director of engineering" uses it as an excuse for the memory leak, like the OP was whining about, you should start to question their competence. Not of coding ability but of design choices.
Using what metric ?
Does is crash 10x less often ?
Do my applications run 10x faster ?
It is certainly at least 10x easier to root Linux.
You introduced biology.
Code complexity is a design fault, it is as simple as that.
Let's take some examples :
NFSv3 - 22 message types
NFSv4 - 42 message types,
is v4 twice as good as v3 ?
9p 13 message types
is NFS 4 times as good as 9p ?
Linux kernel - 4,827,671 lines of code, over 300 syscalls, hundreds if not thousands if ioctls (it is hard to tell, the ioctl_list man page stopped being updated at 432 back in Linux 1.3.27!)
Plan9 kernel - 148,787 lines of code, 37 syscalls, no ioctls, no networking,
Is the Linux kernel an order of magnitude *better* than the plan9 kernel ?
Which is more successful, simple nematodes or complex humans ?
Which would a human have more chance of designing from scratch and making it work, The 1000 celled nematode or the 10 trillion celled human ?
Some people have forgotten what the Unix philosophy is and why, or never knew what it was.
I suspect you are one of the latter.
Certainly bloatware like Firefox has forgotten.
complexity is a design fault
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20060217/tc_cmp/180203 308
I can only take Mike Schroepfer, Mozilla's director of engineering's word for it.
Though this made me laugh :
"All versions of Firefox no doubt leak memory -- it is a common problem with software this complicated."
try turning your cache off, it's a feature not a memory leak
viewed pages are stored in memory for quick viewing later
What, this part ?
g ay/page04.html
"The patent was filed on 9 February 2001, five years after the original Flash application, FutureWave Splash, was introduced in May 1996."
http://www.macromedia.com/macromedia/events/john_
The player was a java app, then a Netscape plugin and was around before the Application was released.
=)
You didn't read/understand the patent or the story linked to. (WOW how unusual)
This is about using a client/server model to do the editing/preparation of the media, not displaying it in a web browser.
What will this money do, once it is set loose ?
Hello - SARCASM !!
hmm Iron Maiden or Iron Madden, I wonder which is more scary !
True, I have a VHS of plenty of Fischinger's work whcih I used to use during my live VJ days.
Indeed, you can also include Disney's Fantasia, back when they innovated.
There is also some of The Monkees work when they got more creative control, particularly Head.
Perhaps Jackson meant video as in tape rather than the film based material pre 1980s.
Or maybe back in NZ no-one made any music videos that weren't just the band on stage =)
> For example, music videos were originally just musicians playing music while being recorded on video.
This is wrong.
Early music videos/films include "Strawberry Fields Forever" by The Beatles which wsa the fab four being arty in a field.
The canonical "first" music video was "Bohemian Rhapsody" by Queen which heralded the mega-bucks music videos of Duran Duran, and the launch of MTV. The Eighties bands competed with each other to be more and more extravagant.
Live performance videos are really just a cheapskate way to make a video. The artists and not the record company pay for their own promotion, including having any videos comissioned. Decent directors for music videos command a high fee and film making in general is expensive if it is on a commercial basis. (and add 15% if you need liability insurance for your shoot).
You don't get much $ for having your video played on MTV, I think I got $150 for the two I had played on MTV Europe (albeit at 1am Sunday =)
I was one of the people responsible for the UK's PCWorld having to remove their advert for a Centrino laptop that promised "the internet wherever you are"
http://www.proweb.co.uk/~matt/asa_pcworld_haha.ti
It is in our hands as knowledgable people to notice such rip-offs and report them :
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.
*sigh* I've had to take out the $ signs
If my employer said they could only afford half of my $70 million fee for Mission Impossible I guess I wouldn't be so concerned. But I suppose when they repeated it by only paying me half of my $75 million fee for MI:II I would be annoyed.
Here's the rest :
War of the Worlds (2005) (20% profit participation)
The Last Samurai (2003) 25,000,000 + % of profits
Minority Report (2002) 25,000,000+
Vanilla Sky (2001) 20,000,000 + 30% of Profits
Mission: Impossible II (2000) 75,000,000 (gross participation)
Eyes Wide Shut (1999) 20,000,000
Jerry Maguire (1996) 20,000,000 against 15%
Mission: Impossible (1996) 70,000,000 (gross participation)
Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles (1994) 15,000,000
Far and Away (1992) 13,000,000
Rain Man (1988) 3,000,000+% of gross
Top Gun (1986) 2,000,000
Risky Business (1983) 75,000
That's over $250 million dollars in just over 20 years.
Any more open DVD players and the poor lad will be on Welfare