Total marketshare isn't the most interesting metric, the rate of change is. Right now FF 3.5 is gaining users faster than IE8. The question (which the graph doesn't readily answer) is whether the net FF adoption rate is faster than the net IE adoption rate. I.e, is the total number of FF users going up faster than the total number of IE users? Is FF3.5 going up fast just because FF3 users are upgrading more quickly than IE7 users?
Honestly WTF are you talking about? AJAX moves rendering/layout of dynamic content to the client. Ergo, it is going to reduce the processing necessary on the server to do any given job.
I could copy and paste each paragraph of your post followed by some comment to the effect I have no idea how the paragraph is relevant, but I will spare the readers and just pick a couple general points of confusion.
You seem to confuse static (plain html, something that does not enter into the conversation _at_ _all_) with server generated (precisely the sort of thing PHP is used for). E.g.,
in fact, for static content, it can be highly efficient. . . . the majority were serving static content that was pregenerated and refreshed every so often
Again, no one is talking about static content, including GP who was talking about forms, and server generated pages.
You also seem to be confused about the general load on the server (factoring in thing like total MB served or something) as opposed to precisely the CPU load (again this is what we are talking about: no one cares about the fact that more complex web sites need CSS and JS files served up). E.g.,
The AJAX code itself must be sent, at the very least, as well as the various UI elements and CSS that are necessary with AJAX -- all of which is still being served like a static page.
I'm thinking that these scripts are just thin front ends to a massive db. Thus, a lot of the computer's time is going to be spent on I/O, and a lot of the processing is going to be taking place in the db itself, which is probably written in C.
Where does this legend about the "European model of unlocked phones" come from?
Don't know about unlocked, but wrt prepaid, When I was living in Rome, everyone had a prepaid cell. I literally do not know of one person who had a contract, nor did I ever hear of such a beast. Not saying they don't exist, just that never ran across one. And I don't know how Rome stacks up against the rest of Europe.
Something similar that I would support, would be making it a condition a copyright's remaining valid that the product still be available for sale. If we did this then it would be a non-issue. The creator would have the source, so if the acquiring company permanently pulled the product, the copyright would lose force, and the creator could legally opensource the original code.
This is the obvious solution to the problem of out of print books that you still can't legally copy, even though you can't buy them, and it seems that it could solve the problem you mention just as well.
Okay, when I said "look" I meant more than notice. Yes, it is perfectly natural for a parent to be aware of his children's attractiveness and sexual development. It is not healthy for him to fantasize about them. There is I think a major psychological step that lies between merely noticing and external action, that I was calling "looking".
As to the question of nature v. social convention and training, I'm willing to admit it may well be something trained into us (not to think of those under our care sexually), but I would say that it is very basic, and well-placed convention. As to whether sex with teenagers in general is the same sort of norm, I think it is not. In fact, my point was that statutory rape (based solely on age) isn't the kicker, it's the guardian-child relationship.
I agree that statutory rape is a bit of a crock (19 yr old boy and 17 year old girl scenarios), but look, these are his (foster) daughters. Men are not supposed to look at their daughters, nieces, or other much younger girls in his family or under his care as sexual objects. Doing so is not merely succumbing to a normal drive, it is a pretty fundamental perversion of basic relationships.
But isn't there more to it than that? Isn't it rational for the boss to be mad at me? I mean, I did fail to do something that any competent IT person would have known to do. (See my post below.)
Sorry for the double post, but I think we also need to draw attention to the notion of negligence. In an act of negligence a person has no malicious intent, he just fails to do something he ought to have done, but he still bears fault for the bad outcome. If a company doesn't want the device being used for some purpose, and it is completely predictable that people will try certain trivial things to use it for that purpose, then the company would be negligent not to take basic steps to stop them.
If I don't want people using my wifi, I need to encrypt it. If I don't encrypt it, then yes I do bear some significant responsibility for my connection being slow. If I live in the city and don't lock my door when I go on vacation I have to blame myself when I come back to a burglarized home. Of course this doesn't mean the thief was right to steal from me. But it does mean we can't just ignore reality and our own part in bringing misfortune on ourselves.
I'm not saying the thief doesn't bear fault. But giving someone an unnecessary opportunity does give a person some of the blame. For example, if I setup a mail server, and don't take even the simplest precautions to secure it (so it is a wide open smtp relay), who is my boss going to blame when his mail keeps bouncing because we have been blacklisted as a spam bot? The guy(s) who actually exploited us? Or me for leaving the front door open to them in a way that would certainly lead to us sending spam?
no but it might be your fault when your car gets stolen if you left it running while you were shopping. Especially if you also put a big red sign on top that said "UNATTENDED RUNNING CAR".
I do question the level of this research. Just as one example of sloppines: They describe checktor as "a company that’s meant to assist copyright holders," yet in the link they provide, it is very clear that checktor (a non-profit that scans torrents for viruses) has nothing to do with assisting copyright holders. In fact the page is telling copyright holders to bug off.
Either I missed the force of your post or you mixed up gratis and libre. I assume you are meaning to say that people don't care whether it's open source if it doesn't work as well as the free-but-closed-source alternative.
I suspect this is just the next level of ISPs' disallowing spamming. They probably aren't planning to actively enforce it, but if it were to come to their attention that one of their accounts is being used to post 100's of more or less subtle marketing messages a day to forums, they reserve the right to cut the account off. That said I actually have no idea, just a guess.
You mean the article that only a single pie graph comparing browsers? And no discussion at all of where he got his list of vulnerabilities from?
I don't think it is that they are selective, just that they refused to accept numbers on faith alone.
Psst... you still need the proxy to initiate every transfer.
I guess in as much as you need a DNS server for every transfer, unless you are using raw IPs.
A real web server opens a socket and listens for incoming connections
That is what Opera Unite does.
you can get to it directly by typing the protocol (http or https) IP address and (where it's listening on a non-standard port) the port number.
Haven't tested it myself, but I would be surprised if you couldn't do that with unite. Unless of course you are behind a firewall that wasn't configured to forward Unite traffic. But then again, there aren't many servers that work well behind unconfigured firewalls.
I'm not taking up the questions of whether global warming is a fact, or whether it is primarily caused by CO2, or whether human activity is directly responsible.
I was making an ad hominem, and questioning whether certain scientists are credible. It was not directly about whether their conclusions happen to be accurate, but about whether we can trust them on face-value.
This was, I believe, also the OP's point: Can we trust this report or is it spun to fit an agenda.
The fact is that global warming has unfortunately become a highly politicized issue (not NPOV). There is a tremendous amount of government money to be had in the field, and the people writing the checks expect certain results.
Some of the stolen emails are quite frank in speaking about systematically discrediting and silencing scientists who doubt some or all of the accepted account. That isn't the method of cold objective science (where people are silenced by being refuted, and discredit themselves when they write bad papers), that is the method of politics or ideology. Once a topic becomes politicized I think it is perfectly reasonable to question the authority of the authorities, and give a fair hearing to dissenters. In fact, I think it would be irresponsible not to.
The trick is just a word used in a private mail to indicate a nice method. It is not meant to indicate faking.
Except that 'trick' came with a purpose:
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
I would have much preferred a stable Linux build of the Google Chrome browser.
What sort of stability issues have you had with it? I've been using it for months as my only browser on Debian and have never had it crash or become sluggish. Flash OTOH . . .
I think this take on it is too short-sighted. MS's business model is based on native applications. They want people mainly using outlook to read their mail. They want people editing documents in Word. Google's business strategy is to get people spending as much time in a browser as possible. They want to replace all those native apps with Web apps that run on any machine with a browser and network connection.
These are two very different models. MS makes loads of money on Office. And it makes considerable money on Windows (which you need to run lots of your non-MS native software). If people start replacing Office with GDocs, MS loses a lot of money. If people stop relying on Windows-only apps to the point that they will seriously consider a well done, manufacturer customized , free OS, MS losses even more.
Chrome OS is one more little step towards Google's goal. If you are using GDocs and Gmail on Chrome, odds are not slim you are going to just stop using Office and Outlook altogether, even on your main desktop. After all, your stuff if already in Google docs.
But the big picture is 10 years down the road. If MS lets this sort of computer experience catch on, if it gives Google a chance to develop compelling replacements for standard apps, ones that run just as well on a free OS on cheap ARM hardware, in 10 years they may need a very different buisness model than the one that has treated them so well for the last 20.
Slashdot Mirror
The question (which the graph doesn't readily answer) is whether the net FF adoption rate is faster than the net IE adoption rate.
Well, that chart didn't but this one does.
And yes, IE (all versions) is in a rapid decline, while FF is slowly climbing.
Total marketshare isn't the most interesting metric, the rate of change is. Right now FF 3.5 is gaining users faster than IE8. The question (which the graph doesn't readily answer) is whether the net FF adoption rate is faster than the net IE adoption rate. I.e, is the total number of FF users going up faster than the total number of IE users? Is FF3.5 going up fast just because FF3 users are upgrading more quickly than IE7 users?
I could copy and paste each paragraph of your post followed by some comment to the effect I have no idea how the paragraph is relevant, but I will spare the readers and just pick a couple general points of confusion.
You seem to confuse static (plain html, something that does not enter into the conversation _at_ _all_) with server generated (precisely the sort of thing PHP is used for). E.g.,
in fact, for static content, it can be highly efficient. . . . the majority were serving static content that was pregenerated and refreshed every so often
Again, no one is talking about static content, including GP who was talking about forms, and server generated pages.
You also seem to be confused about the general load on the server (factoring in thing like total MB served or something) as opposed to precisely the CPU load (again this is what we are talking about: no one cares about the fact that more complex web sites need CSS and JS files served up). E.g.,
The AJAX code itself must be sent, at the very least, as well as the various UI elements and CSS that are necessary with AJAX -- all of which is still being served like a static page.
I'm thinking that these scripts are just thin front ends to a massive db. Thus, a lot of the computer's time is going to be spent on I/O, and a lot of the processing is going to be taking place in the db itself, which is probably written in C.
Where does this legend about the "European model of unlocked phones" come from?
Don't know about unlocked, but wrt prepaid, When I was living in Rome, everyone had a prepaid cell. I literally do not know of one person who had a contract, nor did I ever hear of such a beast.
Not saying they don't exist, just that never ran across one. And I don't know how Rome stacks up against the rest of Europe.
Something similar that I would support, would be making it a condition a copyright's remaining valid that the product still be available for sale. If we did this then it would be a non-issue. The creator would have the source, so if the acquiring company permanently pulled the product, the copyright would lose force, and the creator could legally opensource the original code.
This is the obvious solution to the problem of out of print books that you still can't legally copy, even though you can't buy them, and it seems that it could solve the problem you mention just as well.
My
a parent to be aware of his children's attractiveness and sexual development
is your
the occasional thought of "oh, dear god, my daughter has, ummmm, blossomed, hasn't she?"
And my
fantasize about them
is your
Lingering over them and obsessing over them
Okay, when I said "look" I meant more than notice. Yes, it is perfectly natural for a parent to be aware of his children's attractiveness and sexual development. It is not healthy for him to fantasize about them. There is I think a major psychological step that lies between merely noticing and external action, that I was calling "looking".
As to the question of nature v. social convention and training, I'm willing to admit it may well be something trained into us (not to think of those under our care sexually), but I would say that it is very basic, and well-placed convention.
As to whether sex with teenagers in general is the same sort of norm, I think it is not. In fact, my point was that statutory rape (based solely on age) isn't the kicker, it's the guardian-child relationship.
I agree that statutory rape is a bit of a crock (19 yr old boy and 17 year old girl scenarios), but look, these are his (foster) daughters. Men are not supposed to look at their daughters, nieces, or other much younger girls in his family or under his care as sexual objects. Doing so is not merely succumbing to a normal drive, it is a pretty fundamental perversion of basic relationships.
But isn't there more to it than that? Isn't it rational for the boss to be mad at me? I mean, I did fail to do something that any competent IT person would have known to do. (See my post below.)
Sorry for the double post, but I think we also need to draw attention to the notion of negligence. In an act of negligence a person has no malicious intent, he just fails to do something he ought to have done, but he still bears fault for the bad outcome. If a company doesn't want the device being used for some purpose, and it is completely predictable that people will try certain trivial things to use it for that purpose, then the company would be negligent not to take basic steps to stop them.
If I don't want people using my wifi, I need to encrypt it. If I don't encrypt it, then yes I do bear some significant responsibility for my connection being slow.
If I live in the city and don't lock my door when I go on vacation I have to blame myself when I come back to a burglarized home. Of course this doesn't mean the thief was right to steal from me. But it does mean we can't just ignore reality and our own part in bringing misfortune on ourselves.
I'm not saying the thief doesn't bear fault. But giving someone an unnecessary opportunity does give a person some of the blame.
For example, if I setup a mail server, and don't take even the simplest precautions to secure it (so it is a wide open smtp relay), who is my boss going to blame when his mail keeps bouncing because we have been blacklisted as a spam bot? The guy(s) who actually exploited us? Or me for leaving the front door open to them in a way that would certainly lead to us sending spam?
no but it might be your fault when your car gets stolen if you left it running while you were shopping. Especially if you also put a big red sign on top that said "UNATTENDED RUNNING CAR".
I do question the level of this research. Just as one example of sloppines: They describe checktor as "a company that’s meant to assist copyright holders," yet in the link they provide, it is very clear that checktor (a non-profit that scans torrents for viruses) has nothing to do with assisting copyright holders. In fact the page is telling copyright holders to bug off.
For anyone else who happens to be interested, it is scroogle.org not scroogle.com
Either I missed the force of your post or you mixed up gratis and libre.
I assume you are meaning to say that people don't care whether it's open source if it doesn't work as well as the free-but-closed-source alternative.
DSL and xubuntu aren't really in the same class as far as resource usage.
I suspect this is just the next level of ISPs' disallowing spamming. They probably aren't planning to actively enforce it, but if it were to come to their attention that one of their accounts is being used to post 100's of more or less subtle marketing messages a day to forums, they reserve the right to cut the account off.
That said I actually have no idea, just a guess.
You mean the article that only a single pie graph comparing browsers? And no discussion at all of where he got his list of vulnerabilities from?
I don't think it is that they are selective, just that they refused to accept numbers on faith alone.
Psst ... you still need the proxy to initiate every transfer.
I guess in as much as you need a DNS server for every transfer, unless you are using raw IPs.
A real web server opens a socket and listens for incoming connections
That is what Opera Unite does.
you can get to it directly by typing the protocol (http or https) IP address and (where it's listening on a non-standard port) the port number.
Haven't tested it myself, but I would be surprised if you couldn't do that with unite. Unless of course you are behind a firewall that wasn't configured to forward Unite traffic. But then again, there aren't many servers that work well behind unconfigured firewalls.
Note that the proxy is really only a fallback mechanism to ensure that data can be delivered in case NAT traversal fails.
I'm not taking up the questions of whether global warming is a fact, or whether it is primarily caused by CO2, or whether human activity is directly responsible.
I was making an ad hominem, and questioning whether certain scientists are credible. It was not directly about whether their conclusions happen to be accurate, but about whether we can trust them on face-value.
This was, I believe, also the OP's point: Can we trust this report or is it spun to fit an agenda.
The fact is that global warming has unfortunately become a highly politicized issue (not NPOV). There is a tremendous amount of government money to be had in the field, and the people writing the checks expect certain results.
Some of the stolen emails are quite frank in speaking about systematically discrediting and silencing scientists who doubt some or all of the accepted account. That isn't the method of cold objective science (where people are silenced by being refuted, and discredit themselves when they write bad papers), that is the method of politics or ideology.
Once a topic becomes politicized I think it is perfectly reasonable to question the authority of the authorities, and give a fair hearing to dissenters. In fact, I think it would be irresponsible not to.
The trick is just a word used in a private mail to indicate a nice method. It is not meant to indicate faking.
Except that 'trick' came with a purpose:
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Excuse me if I'm dubious of your assertion. The author of the email didn't even have an explanation for this phrasing.
Jones told TGIF he had no idea what me meant by using the words “hide the decline”.
I'm not saying you're wrong, just that your assurance seems naive.
I would have much preferred a stable Linux build of the Google Chrome browser.
What sort of stability issues have you had with it? I've been using it for months as my only browser on Debian and have never had it crash or become sluggish.
Flash OTOH . . .
I think this take on it is too short-sighted. MS's business model is based on native applications. They want people mainly using outlook to read their mail. They want people editing documents in Word.
Google's business strategy is to get people spending as much time in a browser as possible. They want to replace all those native apps with Web apps that run on any machine with a browser and network connection.
These are two very different models. MS makes loads of money on Office. And it makes considerable money on Windows (which you need to run lots of your non-MS native software). If people start replacing Office with GDocs, MS loses a lot of money. If people stop relying on Windows-only apps to the point that they will seriously consider a well done, manufacturer customized , free OS, MS losses even more.
Chrome OS is one more little step towards Google's goal. If you are using GDocs and Gmail on Chrome, odds are not slim you are going to just stop using Office and Outlook altogether, even on your main desktop. After all, your stuff if already in Google docs.
But the big picture is 10 years down the road. If MS lets this sort of computer experience catch on, if it gives Google a chance to develop compelling replacements for standard apps, ones that run just as well on a free OS on cheap ARM hardware, in 10 years they may need a very different buisness model than the one that has treated them so well for the last 20.