Considering they eventually caved and started implementing AMD's x86_64 architecture (though they're not willing to call it that), I don't think it's the case. Clearly they realized that the market for 64-bit chips with 32-bit x86 compatibility was all in EM64T/AMD64, so Itanium could focus on 64-bit only stuff.
I never have understood this. I mean, content providers are already paying for the bandwidth to upload the content, and consumers are already paying for the bandwidth to download it.
Charging people for both the bandwidth and the content reminds me of this joke menu:
It seems there is no tragedy that can't be made worse by sensationalist media trying to make the story fit their preconceived notions of what will get them ratings.
(Not that reporters have a monopoly on this sort of thing. Self-serving politicians looking to make a name for themselves are entirely capable of it as well.)
Yeah, I saw a 10-minute preview of it at a convention before it aired, and had no interest in watching it when it launched. Later on, I got talked into watching the first DVD, and said, "Hey, this is actually pretty good!"
It certainly helps to be able to watch it in order. The story arc is faint, since it's essentially the first half of a first season, but the character arcs are a big part of what makes it work.
That was my assumption, too. I was actually surprised they didn't show him pulling his sword out as he walked away.
(Other speculation I've heard is that he ran off to join a monastery, based on the suspicion that Book may have been an operative or something similar who also had a crisis of faith.)
You might want to start reading the original proposal to WHATWG (by someone who currently works for Opera, incidentally) and the ensuing discussion. You might find it enlightening.
On the subject of current methods of tracking via redirects, he says:
The problem at the moment is that the redirect mechanism obscures the
eventual target URI. It would be good to have the target URI separate
from the tracking URIs, so that the UA can show each of them separately in
the UI, indicating the user who is getting told what.
Doing this would also allow the UA to easily turn off the pinging thing
for users who are worried about point 4 above.
The OP isn't connecting allergies to bacteria, but to under-stimulation of the immune system.
Allergies are an immune system response. Essentially, your immune system decides that pollen, or cat dander, or peanuts, or whatever item is a threat to the body and treats it as if it were an invading organism. Since it's already overreacting to something that is actually harmless, it sometimes goes overboard, and you get anaphylactic reactions like hives or swelling that blocks the trachea and kills someone because they ingested a tiny amount of peanut protein. Think of it as an overly-paranoid security guard who'll use a grenade on a soccer mom in addition to threatening a robber with a gun.
How allergies work is fairly well-understood. What causes them is less so. One theory is that if the immune system doesn't have enough real threats to deal with, it will start targeting otherwise harmless particles. That's the connection the OP was making.
Whether there's any causal connection between under-stimulation of the immune system and an over-reactive immune system remains to be determined. But at the very least, immune system response is involved in both allergies and resistance to infection.
Not to mention the question of what kind of bacteria are present. A keyboard full of comparatively harmless bacteria is much safer than a smaller amount of something that will make you seriously ill.
Firefox devs didn't make it up on their own. This comes from work by the WHATWG, a group that's working on continuing HTML instead of XHTML. They've got reps from Mozilla, KHTML/WebKit, and Opera, and they're doing public specs so that anyone can implement the standards they develop. Look no further than <canvas> for an example. Apple developed it for Dashboard, built it into Safari, and suggested it to WHATWG. WHATWG hashed it out, and now Firefox supports <canvas>, and Opera will support it as soon as version 9 is released.
Really, the summary should have read "WHATWG's Ping Attribute: Useful or Spyware?" -- but Firefox is the first browser maker to experiment with this particular feature (and yes, it's still at the experimental stage), and we all know that "Firefox...Spyware" is more attention-grabbing than "WHATWG," which would simply inspire a bunch of "WTF is WHATWG?" posts.
Why are developers saddling users for features which website owners are too lazy to implement themselves?
I take it you missed the following sentence:
Though advertisers and sites with marketroids do care, and have gone to the effort -- often sneakily.
Big marketroid-influenced sites are already doing this, and they're doing it in ways that hide what's going on and can't easily be disabled. As suspicious as this sounds, it's at least above-board and easy to disable.
Of course, the cynic in me says that marketroid-influenced sites are just going to stick with their current sneaky methods as fallbacks for the people who disable it, leaving us all right back where we started.
The big advantage of web apps is that they don't require installation.
Sure, you can come up with a zero-install app with roaming profiles running on a distributed, remotely-accessible platform using something other than HTTP and a web browser -- but you'd need to set up the infrastructure and get the platform installed on as many PCs as possible. That's the next-gen "right" solution, and I recall Microsoft talking about this type of thing with.Net and Hailstorm a few years back (funny how people didn't like it much). Web apps are the "right now" solution which can get this type of app running and in use today.
It's the reverse. The referrer will tell the target web site where you came from. The ping will tell the first website where you went (assuming you left by using one of their links.)
If the first website has a deal with the target, then sure, the target can tell them you clicked on their link -- but if not (say, it's a news article with a link to one of the organizations mentioned), the first page has no way of knowing whether you clicked on one of their links or just dropped the page and went to do something else.
I think you're misinterpreting the term "dictionary attack." It doesn't mean that the spammer runs through the Oxford English Dictionary and tries each word. It means that the spammer is making a systematic effort to locate valid addresses. An attack against example.com might go like this:
Here's an example from this morning on the mail server I admin. These target addresses (at our actual domain, not at example.com) were used in a single message. There were a bunch of other messages trying other invalid names, many of them with just one or two recipients. None of them have ever been valid as far as I know:
When the ping attribute is present, user agents should clearly indicate to the user that following the hyperlink will also cause secondary requests to be sent in the background, possibly including listing the actual target URIs.
The spec also indicates that users should be able to disable it:
Based on the user's preferences, UAs may either ignore the ping attribute altogether, or selectively ignore URIs in the list (e.g. ignoring any third-party URIs).
This is a first-pass implementation in a developer build, so they haven't implemented the UI to disable it (though you can get to it via about:config) and there's no mention of the notification yet, but I'd expect both to be in any released version of Firefox that includes this.
On the DDOS issue, I have to admit I'm surprised that the spec doesn't limit the number of URLs that can be pinged.
It's gone through the WHATWG, a group that's building new standards based on HTML instead of XHTML. They've got Opera, Mozilla, and KHTML/WebKit on board, and they do publis specs, so anyone else can build a compatible implementation without trying to reverse-engineer anything.
You probably haven't heard of them before because this is the first WHATWG extension that's generated this level of controversy. (The most well-known one is probably <canvas>, which is already in Safari and Firefox and will also be in Opera 9.)
Slashdot Mirror
Considering they eventually caved and started implementing AMD's x86_64 architecture (though they're not willing to call it that), I don't think it's the case. Clearly they realized that the market for 64-bit chips with 32-bit x86 compatibility was all in EM64T/AMD64, so Itanium could focus on 64-bit only stuff.
I think the point wasn't that they should have sued the publisher, but that Wikipedia was the wrong target for legal action.
I never have understood this. I mean, content providers are already paying for the bandwidth to upload the content, and consumers are already paying for the bandwidth to download it.
Charging people for both the bandwidth and the content reminds me of this joke menu:
Soup: $0.99
With Bowl: $5.99
It seems there is no tragedy that can't be made worse by sensationalist media trying to make the story fit their preconceived notions of what will get them ratings.
(Not that reporters have a monopoly on this sort of thing. Self-serving politicians looking to make a name for themselves are entirely capable of it as well.)
Yeah, I saw a 10-minute preview of it at a convention before it aired, and had no interest in watching it when it launched. Later on, I got talked into watching the first DVD, and said, "Hey, this is actually pretty good!"
It certainly helps to be able to watch it in order. The story arc is faint, since it's essentially the first half of a first season, but the character arcs are a big part of what makes it work.
That was my assumption, too. I was actually surprised they didn't show him pulling his sword out as he walked away.
(Other speculation I've heard is that he ran off to join a monastery, based on the suspicion that Book may have been an operative or something similar who also had a crisis of faith.)
The way it got into Firefox?
You might want to start reading the original proposal to WHATWG (by someone who currently works for Opera, incidentally) and the ensuing discussion. You might find it enlightening.
On the subject of current methods of tracking via redirects, he says:
Where else are you going to see such things as "Submitter is a melodramatic idiot (Score:5, Informative)"?
The OP isn't connecting allergies to bacteria, but to under-stimulation of the immune system.
Allergies are an immune system response. Essentially, your immune system decides that pollen, or cat dander, or peanuts, or whatever item is a threat to the body and treats it as if it were an invading organism. Since it's already overreacting to something that is actually harmless, it sometimes goes overboard, and you get anaphylactic reactions like hives or swelling that blocks the trachea and kills someone because they ingested a tiny amount of peanut protein. Think of it as an overly-paranoid security guard who'll use a grenade on a soccer mom in addition to threatening a robber with a gun.
How allergies work is fairly well-understood. What causes them is less so. One theory is that if the immune system doesn't have enough real threats to deal with, it will start targeting otherwise harmless particles. That's the connection the OP was making.
the mechanism is an immune system over-reaction
There's your connection.
Whether there's any causal connection between under-stimulation of the immune system and an over-reactive immune system remains to be determined. But at the very least, immune system response is involved in both allergies and resistance to infection.
Not to mention the question of what kind of bacteria are present. A keyboard full of comparatively harmless bacteria is much safer than a smaller amount of something that will make you seriously ill.
What's so quiet about a public blog post by a developer on weblogs.mozillazine.org that goes into detail about how it works and why?
What about JavaScript? It's an ECMA standard, not W3C.
Refresh my memory, was BLINK Netscape or Microsoft?
Netscape.
But Microsoft did them one better (worse?) with MARQUEE.
Curiously, I don't see anyone trying to figure out how to defeat the redirect link tracking that happens today in every browser.
Obviously you haven't been looking hard enough. Check out the Redirect Remover extension.
Firefox devs didn't make it up on their own. This comes from work by the WHATWG, a group that's working on continuing HTML instead of XHTML. They've got reps from Mozilla, KHTML/WebKit, and Opera, and they're doing public specs so that anyone can implement the standards they develop. Look no further than <canvas> for an example. Apple developed it for Dashboard, built it into Safari, and suggested it to WHATWG. WHATWG hashed it out, and now Firefox supports <canvas>, and Opera will support it as soon as version 9 is released.
Really, the summary should have read "WHATWG's Ping Attribute: Useful or Spyware?" -- but Firefox is the first browser maker to experiment with this particular feature (and yes, it's still at the experimental stage), and we all know that "Firefox...Spyware" is more attention-grabbing than "WHATWG," which would simply inspire a bunch of "WTF is WHATWG?" posts.
I take it you missed the following sentence:
Big marketroid-influenced sites are already doing this, and they're doing it in ways that hide what's going on and can't easily be disabled. As suspicious as this sounds, it's at least above-board and easy to disable.
Of course, the cynic in me says that marketroid-influenced sites are just going to stick with their current sneaky methods as fallbacks for the people who disable it, leaving us all right back where we started.
The big advantage of web apps is that they don't require installation.
.Net and Hailstorm a few years back (funny how people didn't like it much). Web apps are the "right now" solution which can get this type of app running and in use today.
Sure, you can come up with a zero-install app with roaming profiles running on a distributed, remotely-accessible platform using something other than HTTP and a web browser -- but you'd need to set up the infrastructure and get the platform installed on as many PCs as possible. That's the next-gen "right" solution, and I recall Microsoft talking about this type of thing with
It's the reverse. The referrer will tell the target web site where you came from. The ping will tell the first website where you went (assuming you left by using one of their links.)
If the first website has a deal with the target, then sure, the target can tell them you clicked on their link -- but if not (say, it's a news article with a link to one of the organizations mentioned), the first page has no way of knowing whether you clicked on one of their links or just dropped the page and went to do something else.
The big problem with the article is that all his complaints are about advertising. Simple searching doesn't figure into it.
I think you're misinterpreting the term "dictionary attack." It doesn't mean that the spammer runs through the Oxford English Dictionary and tries each word. It means that the spammer is making a systematic effort to locate valid addresses. An attack against example.com might go like this:
...
aaaa@example.com
aaab@example.com
aaac@example.com
zzzz@example.com
Or it might go like this:
aardvark@example.com
apple@example.com
bacon@example.com
Or maybe
alice@example.com
bob@example.com
carl@example.com
Or perhaps
webmaster@example.com
legal@example.com
marketing@example.com
sales@example.com
Or
asmith@example.com
bsmith@example.com
csmith@example.com
Or maybe even
bob@example.com
bob1@example.com
bob2@example.com
Here's an example from this morning on the mail server I admin. These target addresses (at our actual domain, not at example.com) were used in a single message. There were a bunch of other messages trying other invalid names, many of them with just one or two recipients. None of them have ever been valid as far as I know:
castillo@example.com
ota@example.com
owens@example.com
page@example.com
palmer@example.com
parks@example.com
patton@example.com
payne@example.com
pearson@example.com
pena@example.com
This is actually in the specification:
The spec also indicates that users should be able to disable it:
This is a first-pass implementation in a developer build, so they haven't implemented the UI to disable it (though you can get to it via about:config) and there's no mention of the notification yet, but I'd expect both to be in any released version of Firefox that includes this.
On the DDOS issue, I have to admit I'm surprised that the spec doesn't limit the number of URLs that can be pinged.
I actually recall a feature request in bugzilla to do just that.
If this were IE doing this, we'd be up in arms. But instead, it's Firefox and people are bending over backwards to justify and condone this.
Have you even *read* the comments? People *are* up in arms!
It's gone through the WHATWG, a group that's building new standards based on HTML instead of XHTML. They've got Opera, Mozilla, and KHTML/WebKit on board, and they do publis specs, so anyone else can build a compatible implementation without trying to reverse-engineer anything.
You probably haven't heard of them before because this is the first WHATWG extension that's generated this level of controversy. (The most well-known one is probably <canvas>, which is already in Safari and Firefox and will also be in Opera 9.)