My web server has been in production for 5 years now, no hardware failures at all. A Dell Poweredge machine. So yeah, having an OS on it that has at least a 5 year support period is pretty important.
Google's Android operating system is certainly getting it's fair share of rosy coloured predications lately. Overtaking Windows Mobile isn't hard to imagine, especially if Microsoft can't make Windows Mobile 7 radically better than what they have at the moment, but overtaking Apple in just 3 years is going to be a pretty big challenge.
The iPhone is the bomb as far as consumer space smartphones go. It's sexy, slick, delivers a fantastic user experience and has a huge and thriving developer base. A testament to this is the fact that even my wife, the most vehement of Apple haters likes “the jesus phone” and wants one.
The iPhone's market share arrived at where it is today in no small part by Apple exploiting the huge momentum of the iPod - millions of happy iPod users make for a pretty easy upsell target. Not to mention that Apple know a trick or two when it comes to marketing products to consumers.
More here:
http://www.rypenow.com/community/the-rype-blog/android-overtaking-the-iphone-within-3-years-call-me-sceptical.html
Just in case this hasn't been posted yet, check out the video on the product website:
http://www.yikebike.com/
The expressions on the faces of the observers are extremely funny:-)
Hot damn I'm good. This just in:
"Earlier yesterday, Telstra told the stock exchange that it would boost the speed of its Next G mobile broadband network to the point where it is faster than than the Government's proposed fibre-to-node network. It will also boost the speed on its Foxtel cables."
So why did Telstra not want to win this? It seems the perfect out. Submit a half baked proposal and omit an obvious required detail. It looks like they tried but actually they wanted to fail. Interesting.
This might be a long term play at not having to service the whole of the country, which is unprofitable and expensive (Australia is a big desert, with dense population centers on the coast). Maybe Telstra predict better profit margins in delivering high speed data through the air, and are betting that in 10 years, data will be fast enough through the air to compete with any wired solutions. I think they want to be free from government regulations.
This may seem like a silly question, but why did Microsoft use an AJAX setup for this instead of using Silverlight? I thought the whole point of Silverlight was for RIAs? Have they lost faith in Silverlight already?
Agreed. I had the same reaction. Python and ruby fanatics are like religious zealots and can't see the forest for the trees.
I love PHP and I'm not ashamed of it. It's fast, flexible, rich and diverse. Sure, a bad coder will make a mess, but then a bad tradesman will make a mess with a hacksaw too. It's not the hacksaw's fault.
You can use PHP for pretty much anything. That being said, I wouldn't use it to code a website for a bank, but for 99% of websites, PHP does that job well and that's why it's so damn popular.
If the entire view is designed in a proper language like Python, doesn't that mean that interface architects and graphic designers (who like creating interfaces) will also need to know Python?
I thought one of the most important aspects of the MVC approach was that programmers could focus on the data and logic, and interface people could focus on the view.
I say no to this approach.
"Don't use it to hide the contents so you can throw up a "but you have cookies disabled and we can't track you."
Fair enough.
"Don't try and block off your page because your advertisers want to use javascript to enable a billion popups."
Agreed.
"Don't use scripting to sanitize your POST submissions; You should handle that on the backend, it's more secure anyway."
No, disagree. Validation should be both client side and server side. It wastes the users time making them wait for a post operation when a simple alert would have done the trick.
"Don't use it to load content; That's what CSS and XML are for and it renders faster anyway."
Neither CSS or XML can be used to load content. They're both descriptive, not active. Javascript on the other hand, via AJAX, does load things. And AJAX IMHO is good, if used in the right places. It can make interfaces more efficient.
"Don't make your entire site dependent on having javascript enabled. If you're worth your salt as a developer you can find a way to make that page render without enabling javascript. Sure, it may not have all the chrome and pretty-shiny on it, but remember that there's a lot of devices and a lot of browsers that use the web, as well as people who are color blind, blind altogether, or who use low-end systems, or cell phones, or PDAs, etc."
There is no golden rule for this. It's all about context. If I'm building a web application (as opposed to a brochure web site), then I think requiring javascript is absolutely fair game. If you don't like javascript, don't use web apps and stick with traditional desktop apps. I'm guessing from your attitude that you probably do anyway.
"Don't try and use javascript to obfusciate or disable standard web features (like view source). It's not going to stop anyone who wants to make a copy and it'll piss off everyone else."
Yup, agreed.
That sounds about the same level of "value" as we get here in Australia.
I'm paying $75 a month for an alleged 8Mb/s. I just ran a speed test on a local mirror and received:
Your line speed is 6.43 Mbps (6428 kbps).
Your download speed is 803 KB/s (0.78 MB/s).
Simply can't imagine 1GB/s.... crazy.
Just wait until we have car viruses. We could have cars that don't start, cars that seek out head-on collisions, and cars that start playing Rick Astley when you're out on a date.
Awesome, how many people will hash a song on their hard drive only to find they need to login to their bank/facebook/twitter account at work or at a friends house... "What was my password again? Oh crap".
If people find it too inconvenient to remember a sequence of 12 letters, perhaps they should take their online security a little more seriously.
More and more it feels like every iPhone belongs to Steve - people are just leasing it from him.
There's just *no way* a phone should contact another server without the user knowing it or expressly permitting it, and there's absolutely no way in hell it should disable an application which the user deliberately installed, period. The end.
Look it's very simple. We'd like to be able to do two things:
A) Encrypt data in transit between the web server and the browser.
B) Authenticate the owner of the web site.
These two things SHOULD NOT be inextricably linked. We should be able to do one without the other.
If we had two icons on Firefox, one that indicates encryption in use, another that indicates trust, then that's all we need and everyone is happy.
I agree with the author that it's completely ridiculous that we view an encrypted but not authenticated web site as more of a security problem than straight HTTP - that is nonsensical.
Let encryption be free for anyone to use on a web site, with or without certificate!
I think "Vapor" would have been a better name. This is even lighter than SQLite which incidently does have views, triggers and prepared statements. I really fail to see the point or the market, unless they are aiming at the embedded sector... but the article says "powering websites".. FAIL!
Now that was a fun read and I agree with the author: if we find any evidence of advanced life on other planets it may be very bad news indeed.
The key here IMHO is the term "observable universe". Nick is not suggesting that there will not be life in parts of the universe we will never reach, and in fact Nick admits that probability is in favor of this being the case. Rather, Nick is talking more practically about what we humans can expect to find within our own little pocket of the universe that we could conceivably observe and perhaps one day travel to.
The idea is very simple: The more advanced life gets, the less likely it is to be held back by random chance.
Consider:
A) The creation of self replicating single celled organisms from *nothing*, that is, the creation of basic life from the primordial soup, looks to be extremely improbable, so much so that it may be entirely reasonable to assume we will never see another instance of life in our "observable universe".
B) On Earth, Nick says it took 1.8 billion years for life to evolve from single cell to multi cell organisms. This suggests that this step also has a great deal of chance about it, and again, we may not see life more advanced than this in our "observable universe".
C) If however we begin to see multi celled organisms, or worse, vertebrates, then the chances of evolution being held back by random chance becomes far less likely, especially in the context of billions of years. It's like a ball that, once it gets rolling, can't be stopped.
D) Our study of evolution here on Earth suggests that life is aggressive fundamentally and will spread to every nook and cranny (land, oceans, sky, hot, cold, deserts, etc) given the chance. If we agree with this, it is not unreasonable to assume that a civilization will spread to other planets as soon as as it has the technology and the means to do so. It is the intrinsic nature of life to explore and spread.
E) As time goes by, it would appear that civilizations develop better and better ways of completely destroying themselves. So far we have nukes, chemical and biological weapons, but we are already starting to see a new wave of possibilities from the worlds of nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, and physics. What kind of evils will be have 100 years from now, 1000 years from now, a million years from now? The mind boggles.
F) If we concede that life destroying technologies are likely to be developed, and we concede that there will always be rogue individuals or nations willing to use them in the name of justice, freedom or God, then the conclusion is that it's just a matter of time. Nick is suggesting that, if life does happen with reasonable frequency, and if life does tend to evolve into advanced civilizations, that is, the Great Filter is not in out past, then there's a very strong possibility that inevitably, our own species will end in the same way they all do.
I think it's interesting anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
My web server has been in production for 5 years now, no hardware failures at all. A Dell Poweredge machine. So yeah, having an OS on it that has at least a 5 year support period is pretty important.
Google's Android operating system is certainly getting it's fair share of rosy coloured predications lately. Overtaking Windows Mobile isn't hard to imagine, especially if Microsoft can't make Windows Mobile 7 radically better than what they have at the moment, but overtaking Apple in just 3 years is going to be a pretty big challenge. The iPhone is the bomb as far as consumer space smartphones go. It's sexy, slick, delivers a fantastic user experience and has a huge and thriving developer base. A testament to this is the fact that even my wife, the most vehement of Apple haters likes “the jesus phone” and wants one. The iPhone's market share arrived at where it is today in no small part by Apple exploiting the huge momentum of the iPod - millions of happy iPod users make for a pretty easy upsell target. Not to mention that Apple know a trick or two when it comes to marketing products to consumers. More here: http://www.rypenow.com/community/the-rype-blog/android-overtaking-the-iphone-within-3-years-call-me-sceptical.html
Just in case this hasn't been posted yet, check out the video on the product website: http://www.yikebike.com/ The expressions on the faces of the observers are extremely funny :-)
The Queen's English was good enough for Jesus Christ and it's good enough for me.
I've been told that Bad Behavior is the shiznit. http://www.bad-behavior.ioerror.us/
Hot damn I'm good. This just in: "Earlier yesterday, Telstra told the stock exchange that it would boost the speed of its Next G mobile broadband network to the point where it is faster than than the Government's proposed fibre-to-node network. It will also boost the speed on its Foxtel cables."
So why did Telstra not want to win this? It seems the perfect out. Submit a half baked proposal and omit an obvious required detail. It looks like they tried but actually they wanted to fail. Interesting. This might be a long term play at not having to service the whole of the country, which is unprofitable and expensive (Australia is a big desert, with dense population centers on the coast). Maybe Telstra predict better profit margins in delivering high speed data through the air, and are betting that in 10 years, data will be fast enough through the air to compete with any wired solutions. I think they want to be free from government regulations.
This may seem like a silly question, but why did Microsoft use an AJAX setup for this instead of using Silverlight? I thought the whole point of Silverlight was for RIAs? Have they lost faith in Silverlight already?
Agreed. I had the same reaction. Python and ruby fanatics are like religious zealots and can't see the forest for the trees. I love PHP and I'm not ashamed of it. It's fast, flexible, rich and diverse. Sure, a bad coder will make a mess, but then a bad tradesman will make a mess with a hacksaw too. It's not the hacksaw's fault. You can use PHP for pretty much anything. That being said, I wouldn't use it to code a website for a bank, but for 99% of websites, PHP does that job well and that's why it's so damn popular.
If the entire view is designed in a proper language like Python, doesn't that mean that interface architects and graphic designers (who like creating interfaces) will also need to know Python? I thought one of the most important aspects of the MVC approach was that programmers could focus on the data and logic, and interface people could focus on the view. I say no to this approach.
"Don't use it to hide the contents so you can throw up a "but you have cookies disabled and we can't track you." Fair enough. "Don't try and block off your page because your advertisers want to use javascript to enable a billion popups." Agreed. "Don't use scripting to sanitize your POST submissions; You should handle that on the backend, it's more secure anyway." No, disagree. Validation should be both client side and server side. It wastes the users time making them wait for a post operation when a simple alert would have done the trick. "Don't use it to load content; That's what CSS and XML are for and it renders faster anyway." Neither CSS or XML can be used to load content. They're both descriptive, not active. Javascript on the other hand, via AJAX, does load things. And AJAX IMHO is good, if used in the right places. It can make interfaces more efficient. "Don't make your entire site dependent on having javascript enabled. If you're worth your salt as a developer you can find a way to make that page render without enabling javascript. Sure, it may not have all the chrome and pretty-shiny on it, but remember that there's a lot of devices and a lot of browsers that use the web, as well as people who are color blind, blind altogether, or who use low-end systems, or cell phones, or PDAs, etc." There is no golden rule for this. It's all about context. If I'm building a web application (as opposed to a brochure web site), then I think requiring javascript is absolutely fair game. If you don't like javascript, don't use web apps and stick with traditional desktop apps. I'm guessing from your attitude that you probably do anyway. "Don't try and use javascript to obfusciate or disable standard web features (like view source). It's not going to stop anyone who wants to make a copy and it'll piss off everyone else." Yup, agreed.
That sounds about the same level of "value" as we get here in Australia. I'm paying $75 a month for an alleged 8Mb/s. I just ran a speed test on a local mirror and received: Your line speed is 6.43 Mbps (6428 kbps). Your download speed is 803 KB/s (0.78 MB/s). Simply can't imagine 1GB/s.... crazy.
Or worse, we end up with the iCar. Every car will have the same numberplate "STEVE", and will only drive to places on Apple's white list.
Crap yeah, and when your headlights start glowing red you know your car is pretty bad ass.
But you can't trust machines and the killer cars will need to be made illegal! God, didn't terminator teach you anything??
Just wait until we have car viruses. We could have cars that don't start, cars that seek out head-on collisions, and cars that start playing Rick Astley when you're out on a date.
Awesome, how many people will hash a song on their hard drive only to find they need to login to their bank/facebook/twitter account at work or at a friends house... "What was my password again? Oh crap". If people find it too inconvenient to remember a sequence of 12 letters, perhaps they should take their online security a little more seriously.
More and more it feels like every iPhone belongs to Steve - people are just leasing it from him. There's just *no way* a phone should contact another server without the user knowing it or expressly permitting it, and there's absolutely no way in hell it should disable an application which the user deliberately installed, period. The end.
Look it's very simple. We'd like to be able to do two things: A) Encrypt data in transit between the web server and the browser. B) Authenticate the owner of the web site. These two things SHOULD NOT be inextricably linked. We should be able to do one without the other. If we had two icons on Firefox, one that indicates encryption in use, another that indicates trust, then that's all we need and everyone is happy. I agree with the author that it's completely ridiculous that we view an encrypted but not authenticated web site as more of a security problem than straight HTTP - that is nonsensical. Let encryption be free for anyone to use on a web site, with or without certificate!
When you say you want to have an embedded server, do you mean that you're planning on running a public web server from your phone?
I think "Vapor" would have been a better name. This is even lighter than SQLite which incidently does have views, triggers and prepared statements. I really fail to see the point or the market, unless they are aiming at the embedded sector... but the article says "powering websites".. FAIL!
Now that was a fun read and I agree with the author: if we find any evidence of advanced life on other planets it may be very bad news indeed. The key here IMHO is the term "observable universe". Nick is not suggesting that there will not be life in parts of the universe we will never reach, and in fact Nick admits that probability is in favor of this being the case. Rather, Nick is talking more practically about what we humans can expect to find within our own little pocket of the universe that we could conceivably observe and perhaps one day travel to. The idea is very simple: The more advanced life gets, the less likely it is to be held back by random chance. Consider: A) The creation of self replicating single celled organisms from *nothing*, that is, the creation of basic life from the primordial soup, looks to be extremely improbable, so much so that it may be entirely reasonable to assume we will never see another instance of life in our "observable universe". B) On Earth, Nick says it took 1.8 billion years for life to evolve from single cell to multi cell organisms. This suggests that this step also has a great deal of chance about it, and again, we may not see life more advanced than this in our "observable universe". C) If however we begin to see multi celled organisms, or worse, vertebrates, then the chances of evolution being held back by random chance becomes far less likely, especially in the context of billions of years. It's like a ball that, once it gets rolling, can't be stopped. D) Our study of evolution here on Earth suggests that life is aggressive fundamentally and will spread to every nook and cranny (land, oceans, sky, hot, cold, deserts, etc) given the chance. If we agree with this, it is not unreasonable to assume that a civilization will spread to other planets as soon as as it has the technology and the means to do so. It is the intrinsic nature of life to explore and spread. E) As time goes by, it would appear that civilizations develop better and better ways of completely destroying themselves. So far we have nukes, chemical and biological weapons, but we are already starting to see a new wave of possibilities from the worlds of nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, and physics. What kind of evils will be have 100 years from now, 1000 years from now, a million years from now? The mind boggles. F) If we concede that life destroying technologies are likely to be developed, and we concede that there will always be rogue individuals or nations willing to use them in the name of justice, freedom or God, then the conclusion is that it's just a matter of time. Nick is suggesting that, if life does happen with reasonable frequency, and if life does tend to evolve into advanced civilizations, that is, the Great Filter is not in out past, then there's a very strong possibility that inevitably, our own species will end in the same way they all do. I think it's interesting anyway.