This was hashed out a bit in another thread below; although no real conclusion was reached. After reading a few other search results, I've seen some other people having trouble with their browser cache after the switch to https. I went back to Google searches and it worked at normal speed. Unfortunately, I don't actually recall when I last flushed my cache so I can't correlate it. In retrospect, that should have been my first course of action instead of reflexively blaming https.
I hope *some* people on Slashdot have a more open mind about things like this, and aren't just eager to make themselves feel good by being condescending. Sorry... that's not directed at you... just venting.
*Directly* eating cycles? I'd concede that point. *Indirectly* eating them due to the extra bit of latency triggering a race condition or something in a poorly coded script? Very possible.
OK, here's what I think *really* might have happened. Ready? Drum roll.... it was... TADA! Google's roll-out of https to everybody. Why do I think this? Because I just tried it and it seems quite snappy. I noticed the problem on the first few days of https being rolled out to me.
Was there a Chrome update? I don't know. Damned thing updates itself all the time. Did Google need to allocate a few more cycles to the task than they had initially thought? I don't know. I don't work for Google. Was the whole thing psychological, based on my perceptions when seeing "https" in the URL bar? Possibly. That's the only mental error to which I might admit here. There's no way to test all of this, unless somebodyd who works for Google would like to chime in.
And yet, nevertheless, I perceived the difference. As Yogi Berra said, "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they aren't".
I've heard there are some issues with SSL on XP. It's not an issue when dealing with a bank where it's mostly text; but for images and maps it just didn't scale for me.
Switching search engines because of HTTPS is a completely 90s thing to do. In 2013 it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Really?. A lot of those hits are quite recent. I'm not stricly blaming https necessarily either. It might have something to do with the fact that I'm slinging everything through a HOSTS file, NotScript, and Flash blocker. Once again, I don't care about the bloody NSA or even some wanker who might want to say, "look at all that dudes gay searches" because I can't do anything about somebody who is really, Really, REALLY determined to frame me or embarrass me. Those are political issues, not technical issues. The Internet is a postcard. I care about performance and not having my machine bogged down with scripts, Flash, exploits, ads, etc. If not blocking those things makes the web unusable, and blocking them makes the web too slow, then I'm drawn towards a sad conclusion: The web is dead to me. Anyway, I digress. It's not stupid. The https may not be the actual problem; it might be the combination of https, Chroms, plug-ins, and Google's search pages. I don't care that much. Just because I'm a geek doesn't mean I find *all* technical problems interesting. If switching off https fixes it for reasons that have nothing to do with https itself, then fine. Now that that's settled, we can all get on with our lives.
Is there a cartel on Saturn? Because, you know, that's the only thing that really makes them special. This is something the goldbugs have right. Diamonds? You can make them out of carbon, via chemistry. Gold? You need nuclear processes that are currently uneconomical. Barring some spectacular breakthrough in nuclear technology, the supply of gold remains limited.
Your programmers are too lazy to give me options that make things run efficiently, and I'm unwilling to shell out a few hundred dollars to accommodate your lazy programmers. We seem to have reached an impasse.
You have to be trolling. You don't trust Google with your searches, but you do trust them with your entire computer. Excellent.
Nope. I don't trust *anybody* so as long as it's all out there, I might as well not be wasting cycles. As for my machine being underpowered, bollox! I think there might be some dust impeding airflow, and it's a laptop and a pain to clean out. It's probably on its last legs anyway. Whether or not https is a major contributor, I don't know; but it can't hurt to get rid of it it I don't care because I'm actually *not* wearing a tinfoil hat as some people implied. I mean, if I were wearing tinfoil wouldn't I be running https through multiple proxies or something and not caring about how fast the browsing is? I mean, sheesh... you never know how a post is going to go over on Slashdot. I guess most of the pushback is from the fact that I'm a long-time Microsoft user (on the desktop, not servers), make no apologies for it, and never will.
I started using it a couple weeks ago because https is a useless waste of cycles. The one party you'd like to hide your searches from is NSAGoogle, and https doesn't do that. Bing gives your searches to NSA too, but at least they don't force you to use https and heat up your CPU for no good reason. Also, Google isn't simple and clean like it used to be, so Bing's pointless eye candy is no longer such a big disadvantage.
That said, I'm thinking of switching back to Google because Bing's maps suck. Also, when using Chrome you get Bing searches from typing in the URL bar instead of the URL.
I'm thinking I might try Firefox again too. Plainly, my once stable browser and search preferences are in a state of flux. This is almost entirely due to browsers and/or search engines chewing my CPU for no good reason.
The market caps of GOOG and FB signal a lot of things. Only time will tell if they are signalling an irrational market, Federal Reserve policy, or a long term validation of targeted advertising.
Ahhh yes, but it was *you* who picked up a copy of the Beverly Hills Chamber of Commerce publication. They didn't sniff your zip code from your IP address and put the ad next to your g-mail. The ad sends a message of "We are helping to fund this glossy thing that they stack up in boutiques. We drink white wine and eat little sandwiches with the editors. If you work with us, maybe we can do lunch some time". The g-mail placement sends a message of "we contracted out with yet another online advertising firm like everybody else is doing".
Nevermind privacy. We just don't want our appliances breaking any sooner than they already do. That's why this is a big honking "DO NOT WANT". I do not want to reboot the fridge. I don't want the UI on my thermostat changing because all the cool kids think it should, and it only works when connected.
Well, since we're all confessing... I pulled the glowing part off a lightning bug once. My parents saw it and told me never to do that, that it was cruel. Deep down I probably knew that before I did it; but kids have to be told. I really feel sad thinking about it now. Even if these creatures live for just a season, it's inhumane for us to accelerate that season.
OTOH, real scientists probably killed lots of lightning bugs to develop an understanding of the chemistry. I can excuse that because they actually had a chance. I was just a stupid kid who wanted to see how long the glow would last without the bug.
It's not a cut-and-dry issue. FWIW, I think the roach cyborgs are creepy... but I was always happy to see the exterminator around this one apartment building I lived that had a problem with them. Horrible creatures they are, fully worthy of chemical warfare. There was this one condo I looked at where I saw baby roaches during the walk-through. During the day. Instant "no" on buying that place. If you see roaches during the day, the infestation must be truly massive. It's also impossible to kill them in an apartment building in any practical way--just a few dirty tenants are enough to keep the population viable. They'd all have to live like Felix Unger from the Odd Couple for a couple years, and that's not happening... but, I digress.
The best analogy here is to warfare. We can kill people in war, but we can't torture them, gas them, or starve them. We can gas the roaches... but turning them into cyborgs? I'm just not so sure. It's not rational. "Whoever said humans were rational?".
So. Let me get this straight. A Pfc has access to diplomatic cables and other documents with TS classifications; but a Chinese scientist can't attend a conference where the results are likely to be published in papers with no classification at all.
OK, I haven't read TFA (this is Slashdot) but the summary certainly makes it sound like total incompetence. I wish I could say I was surprised.
I bet I can explain this though. It probably has something to do with what happened at Los Alamos, where a Chinese scientist walked off with some sensitive information. The way to fix that problem was to make sure the sensitive information there was properly classified and restricted to people with the proper clearance. Instead it sounds like they decided to classify... a lot of science. Once again, incompetent.
Cities were built in these areas because rivers and oceans are vital routes of transportation, the fishing is good, the minerals are there to be mined, or the soil is fertile. Of course that doesn't matter now. We have highways and we can just send a few people out to the fertile soil areas to tend the robot workers. It'll take some doing, but we can move everybody to minimal hazard areas and use our cheap energy to do things that need to be done in the hazard areas... just in time for the energy to become really expensive or unattainable. Don't worry though, it'll be all good. Somebody will be mocking the people who pay $100/gal for gasoline. He'll say, "fucking move".
I like how every time a new comment is posted it scrolls, so I can't actually ready anything.
No. The best part is how I couldn't see them with NotScript. Then when I enabled two domains for scripting, it revealed a couple dozen more domains that wanted to script, and I still couldn't see any comments.
What kind of sicko does $crime. I respond, "I don't know. What kind of sicko hears about $crime and their first thought is 'call the graphics department and get them to work up a logo for that, ASAP".
Oh come on, you can do better than that. How about this: NSA spy thriller manuscript found partially written in dead author's home. Contained too much truth. Experts say it may have gone beyond Snowden's revelations, and pulled in numerous undisclosed sources. Cause of death remains unknown.
When I worked in support, the management began taking a drift towards the overly authoritarian side. I don't think they wanted to face up to it though. One particularly absurd thing they did was place a suggestion box next to the desk where all the managers sat. What was wrong with that? It was transparent. Yep. Anybody who put a suggestion in there would be seen putting it in, and the fold size or color of the paper would be matched up with the face, subconsciously or otherwise.
This panel is about as useful as that suggestion box. It's transparency, authoritarian style.
Slashdot Mirror
What the hell is going on?!
This was hashed out a bit in another thread below; although no real conclusion was reached. After reading a few other search results, I've seen some other people having trouble with their browser cache after the switch to https. I went back to Google searches and it worked at normal speed. Unfortunately, I don't actually recall when I last flushed my cache so I can't correlate it. In retrospect, that should have been my first course of action instead of reflexively blaming https.
I hope *some* people on Slashdot have a more open mind about things like this, and aren't just eager to make themselves feel good by being condescending. Sorry... that's not directed at you... just venting.
The feeling is mutual.
*Directly* eating cycles? I'd concede that point. *Indirectly* eating them due to the extra bit of latency triggering a race condition or something in a poorly coded script? Very possible.
OK, here's what I think *really* might have happened. Ready? Drum roll.... it was... TADA! Google's roll-out of https to everybody. Why do I think this? Because I just tried it and it seems quite snappy. I noticed the problem on the first few days of https being rolled out to me.
Was there a Chrome update? I don't know. Damned thing updates itself all the time. Did Google need to allocate a few more cycles to the task than they had initially thought? I don't know. I don't work for Google. Was the whole thing psychological, based on my perceptions when seeing "https" in the URL bar? Possibly. That's the only mental error to which I might admit here. There's no way to test all of this, unless somebodyd who works for Google would like to chime in.
And yet, nevertheless, I perceived the difference. As Yogi Berra said, "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they aren't".
I've heard there are some issues with SSL on XP. It's not an issue when dealing with a bank where it's mostly text; but for images and maps it just didn't scale for me.
Switching search engines because of HTTPS is a completely 90s thing to do. In 2013 it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Really?. A lot of those hits are quite recent. I'm not stricly blaming https necessarily either. It might have something to do with the fact that I'm slinging everything through a HOSTS file, NotScript, and Flash blocker. Once again, I don't care about the bloody NSA or even some wanker who might want to say, "look at all that dudes gay searches" because I can't do anything about somebody who is really, Really, REALLY determined to frame me or embarrass me. Those are political issues, not technical issues. The Internet is a postcard. I care about performance and not having my machine bogged down with scripts, Flash, exploits, ads, etc. If not blocking those things makes the web unusable, and blocking them makes the web too slow, then I'm drawn towards a sad conclusion: The web is dead to me. Anyway, I digress. It's not stupid. The https may not be the actual problem; it might be the combination of https, Chroms, plug-ins, and Google's search pages. I don't care that much. Just because I'm a geek doesn't mean I find *all* technical problems interesting. If switching off https fixes it for reasons that have nothing to do with https itself, then fine. Now that that's settled, we can all get on with our lives.
Is there a cartel on Saturn? Because, you know, that's the only thing that really makes them special. This is something the goldbugs have right. Diamonds? You can make them out of carbon, via chemistry. Gold? You need nuclear processes that are currently uneconomical. Barring some spectacular breakthrough in nuclear technology, the supply of gold remains limited.
Your programmers are too lazy to give me options that make things run efficiently, and I'm unwilling to shell out a few hundred dollars to accommodate your lazy programmers. We seem to have reached an impasse.
You have to be trolling. You don't trust Google with your searches, but you do trust them with your entire computer. Excellent.
Nope. I don't trust *anybody* so as long as it's all out there, I might as well not be wasting cycles. As for my machine being underpowered, bollox! I think there might be some dust impeding airflow, and it's a laptop and a pain to clean out. It's probably on its last legs anyway. Whether or not https is a major contributor, I don't know; but it can't hurt to get rid of it it I don't care because I'm actually *not* wearing a tinfoil hat as some people implied. I mean, if I were wearing tinfoil wouldn't I be running https through multiple proxies or something and not caring about how fast the browsing is? I mean, sheesh... you never know how a post is going to go over on Slashdot. I guess most of the pushback is from the fact that I'm a long-time Microsoft user (on the desktop, not servers), make no apologies for it, and never will.
I started using it a couple weeks ago because https is a useless waste of cycles. The one party you'd like to hide your searches from is NSAGoogle, and https doesn't do that. Bing gives your searches to NSA too, but at least they don't force you to use https and heat up your CPU for no good reason. Also, Google isn't simple and clean like it used to be, so Bing's pointless eye candy is no longer such a big disadvantage.
That said, I'm thinking of switching back to Google because Bing's maps suck. Also, when using Chrome you get Bing searches from typing in the URL bar instead of the URL.
I'm thinking I might try Firefox again too. Plainly, my once stable browser and search preferences are in a state of flux. This is almost entirely due to browsers and/or search engines chewing my CPU for no good reason.
You want me to come in on runway 30? OK, what's the vector, Victor? Two-niner-zero? Surely you're joking...
The market caps of GOOG and FB signal a lot of things. Only time will tell if they are signalling an irrational market, Federal Reserve policy, or a long term validation of targeted advertising.
Ahhh yes, but it was *you* who picked up a copy of the Beverly Hills Chamber of Commerce publication. They didn't sniff your zip code from your IP address and put the ad next to your g-mail. The ad sends a message of "We are helping to fund this glossy thing that they stack up in boutiques. We drink white wine and eat little sandwiches with the editors. If you work with us, maybe we can do lunch some time". The g-mail placement sends a message of "we contracted out with yet another online advertising firm like everybody else is doing".
I think his conclusion is correct.
Nevermind privacy. We just don't want our appliances breaking any sooner than they already do. That's why this is a big honking "DO NOT WANT". I do not want to reboot the fridge. I don't want the UI on my thermostat changing because all the cool kids think it should, and it only works when connected.
Oh god, did I just turn into a Marxist or something? Fuck.
No. You turned into Henry Ford.
Read my lips. There are 30 rounds in this magazine. Problem solved.
Threads like this make me quite content.
Well, since we're all confessing... I pulled the glowing part off a lightning bug once. My parents saw it and told me never to do that, that it was cruel. Deep down I probably knew that before I did it; but kids have to be told. I really feel sad thinking about it now. Even if these creatures live for just a season, it's inhumane for us to accelerate that season.
OTOH, real scientists probably killed lots of lightning bugs to develop an understanding of the chemistry. I can excuse that because they actually had a chance. I was just a stupid kid who wanted to see how long the glow would last without the bug.
It's not a cut-and-dry issue. FWIW, I think the roach cyborgs are creepy... but I was always happy to see the exterminator around this one apartment building I lived that had a problem with them. Horrible creatures they are, fully worthy of chemical warfare. There was this one condo I looked at where I saw baby roaches during the walk-through. During the day. Instant "no" on buying that place. If you see roaches during the day, the infestation must be truly massive. It's also impossible to kill them in an apartment building in any practical way--just a few dirty tenants are enough to keep the population viable. They'd all have to live like Felix Unger from the Odd Couple for a couple years, and that's not happening... but, I digress.
The best analogy here is to warfare. We can kill people in war, but we can't torture them, gas them, or starve them. We can gas the roaches... but turning them into cyborgs? I'm just not so sure. It's not rational. "Whoever said humans were rational?".
It's been a while since this quote was apropos:
The tighter you grip, the more systems slip through your fingers.
So. Let me get this straight. A Pfc has access to diplomatic cables and other documents with TS classifications; but a Chinese scientist can't attend a conference where the results are likely to be published in papers with no classification at all.
OK, I haven't read TFA (this is Slashdot) but the summary certainly makes it sound like total incompetence. I wish I could say I was surprised.
I bet I can explain this though. It probably has something to do with what happened at Los Alamos, where a Chinese scientist walked off with some sensitive information. The way to fix that problem was to make sure the sensitive information there was properly classified and restricted to people with the proper clearance. Instead it sounds like they decided to classify... a lot of science. Once again, incompetent.
Cities were built in these areas because rivers and oceans are vital routes of transportation, the fishing is good, the minerals are there to be mined, or the soil is fertile. Of course that doesn't matter now. We have highways and we can just send a few people out to the fertile soil areas to tend the robot workers. It'll take some doing, but we can move everybody to minimal hazard areas and use our cheap energy to do things that need to be done in the hazard areas... just in time for the energy to become really expensive or unattainable. Don't worry though, it'll be all good. Somebody will be mocking the people who pay $100/gal for gasoline. He'll say, "fucking move".
I like how every time a new comment is posted it scrolls, so I can't actually ready anything.
No. The best part is how I couldn't see them with NotScript. Then when I enabled two domains for scripting, it revealed a couple dozen more domains that wanted to script, and I still couldn't see any comments.
Said before and will (sadly) say again:
What kind of sicko does $crime. I respond, "I don't know. What kind of sicko hears about $crime and their first thought is 'call the graphics department and get them to work up a logo for that, ASAP".
Oh come on, you can do better than that. How about this: NSA spy thriller manuscript found partially written in dead author's home. Contained too much truth. Experts say it may have gone beyond Snowden's revelations, and pulled in numerous undisclosed sources. Cause of death remains unknown.
When I worked in support, the management began taking a drift towards the overly authoritarian side. I don't think they wanted to face up to it though. One particularly absurd thing they did was place a suggestion box next to the desk where all the managers sat. What was wrong with that? It was transparent. Yep. Anybody who put a suggestion in there would be seen putting it in, and the fold size or color of the paper would be matched up with the face, subconsciously or otherwise.
This panel is about as useful as that suggestion box. It's transparency, authoritarian style.