When you set a cookie on a WAP device, the gateway manages the cookies, not the device. In the case of the UP.Phone simulator, if it is working in HTTP Direct mode, it will manage the cookies itself, which is good enough for testing.
Easiest way is to use the cookie to identify a server-side session... then the WAP device looks like any other web client, and you deal with the same issues as you have in web browsers. I couldn't get to the document you linked to... Give me a call, we can discuss...:)
I wish people would stop using the one-click system as an example of how horrible the patent system is. The one-click system is *obviously* a hideous misuse of a patent. Whoever was responsible for issuing it should be fired. By citing one-click, you are stereotyping against all patents. The VAST majority of patents are valid and make sense, logically and legally.
Why should people not use this as an example? It is absolutely astounding to me, the enormity of ineptitude and lack of knowledge required to allow this particular patent to have been granted.
Not only should that person be fired, but everyone that had any power whatsoever to stop it from being issued. Further, Amazon should become the primary target of tech jokes for the foreseeable future.
What was this Simple Implementation before it was open source? Was this something they sold to the commercial apps before? Has anyone gone to look at the code to see what this actually is?
No, not Simple Implementation, Sample Implementation. Somewhat akin to companies naming platforms or API's they release as "reference implementations", even though in most cases, these are the predominant implementations, in the most widespread use.
The FAQ states that there are only a couple of things missing, one being dynamic assembly code generation. This is due to the code being owned by companies other than SGI, and they need permission (which they say they're trying to get).
But that only leaves software rendering unoptimized to a degree, which will become less of an issue as new computers come with hardware acceleration by default. Someone else might have more insight on the importance of speedy software rendering, but if you don't have a acceleration in hardware, it's likely not a computer that is used for graphics intensive applications. If it is, then might as well get hardware acceleration, no?
I agree it's a step towards full open source, but I wonder if it's not just a baby step.
No, I think it's a great leap forward, even though it may be as much out of desperation as anything (see posts by others on this reasoning).
Slashdot Mirror
Mod this up, he hit the fucking nail on the head.
Get your pimply-faced heads out of your asses and learn objectivity... you're embarrassing yourselves.
Hey Dude,
:)
When you set a cookie on a WAP device, the gateway manages the cookies, not the device. In the case of the UP.Phone simulator, if it is working in HTTP Direct mode, it will manage the cookies itself, which is good enough for testing.
Easiest way is to use the cookie to identify a server-side session... then the WAP device looks like any other web client, and you deal with the same issues as you have in web browsers.
I couldn't get to the document you linked to...
Give me a call, we can discuss...
Here is some possibly interesting (though somewhat old) info on a port to Linux of Microsoft's Media Player...
I wish people would stop using the one-click system as an example of how horrible the patent system is. The one-click system is *obviously* a hideous misuse of a patent. Whoever was responsible for issuing it should be fired. By citing one-click, you are stereotyping against all patents. The VAST majority of patents are valid and make sense, logically and legally.
Why should people not use this as an example? It is absolutely astounding to me, the enormity of ineptitude and lack of knowledge required to allow this particular patent to have been granted.
Not only should that person be fired, but everyone that had any power whatsoever to stop it from being issued. Further, Amazon should become the primary target of tech jokes for the foreseeable future.
Perhaps it was a clerical error?
What was this Simple Implementation before it was open source? Was this something they sold to the commercial apps before? Has anyone gone to look at the code to see what this actually is?
No, not Simple Implementation, Sample Implementation. Somewhat akin to companies naming platforms or API's they release as "reference implementations", even though in most cases, these are the predominant implementations, in the most widespread use.
The FAQ states that there are only a couple of things missing, one being dynamic assembly code generation. This is due to the code being owned by companies other than SGI, and they need permission (which they say they're trying to get).
But that only leaves software rendering unoptimized to a degree, which will become less of an issue as new computers come with hardware acceleration by default. Someone else might have more insight on the importance of speedy software rendering, but if you don't have a acceleration in hardware, it's likely not a computer that is used for graphics intensive applications. If it is, then might as well get hardware acceleration, no?
I agree it's a step towards full open source, but I wonder if it's not just a baby step.
No, I think it's a great leap forward, even though it may be as much out of desperation as anything (see posts by others on this reasoning).