What's wrong with having the man-in-the-middle (proxy server) simply rendering the page in the browser of choice and sending the image (ala VNC) back to the requesting client.
Everything. Think about it. It's hairy and horrible and deeply, deeply wrong.
But more seriously, it would break any Ajax, Flash, or Java on the site you're browsing to.
(Wait. Maybe this isn't such a bad idea fter all.)
You first. More specifically, start with a dictionary
produce P Pronunciation Key (pr-ds, -dys, pr-) v. produced, producing, produces v. tr... 3. To bring forth; exhibit:reached into a pocket and produced a packet of matches; failed to produce an eyewitness to the crime.
Unless you're suggesting that the guy in the example has clothes which spontaneously generate matches?
Yes. For rather obvious security reasons, XMLHttpRequest is limited to making requests to the host the script originated from. Also it would be way slower than a normal web browser. Plus completely inaccessible, which is illegal in many places.
In order: 1. It would probably take about fifteen minutes, maybe less, to write a handler that does a server-side HTTP request to another site. The browser encapsulates a GET request in Ajax, the server actually executes the request, munges the content, and returns it to the browser. It's not the same as direct client to server content, but it's close.
2. Yes, it'd be way slower. Unless for some reason you couldn't get to the third server at all, in which case it becomes the only option. (Not like this is a likely usage scenario.)
3. No reason to think it couldn't be designed for accessibility, although it'd sure be difficult. The principal issue would be that the sites you're browsing to might not be designed for accessibility. And incidentally, I've seen plenty of sites where the owners haven't seemed too concerned with accessibility requirements.
As for discrete math, if that isn't a weedout course for CS I don't know what would be.
True story - I took Discrete Math with a couple of friends of mine who were working on their Masters in Comp Sci (I was an undergrad). Of the dozen or so of us in the class, perhaps eleven were studying computer science.
At one point on a test, we were given some sort of proof that seemed really basic at the outset - I seem to recall it having to do with finite state automata. In any case, after filling a page full of half-legible scrawl, I realized that I'd painted myself into a corner, and had no idea where to go next. After leaving, I asked my friends how they did, and they'd gotten stuck at exactly the same place.
The next time we met, the professor demonstrated the answer on the board right up to the spot we all got stuck, then stopped, and turned, and smiled, and shrugged as if to say that was it. My friend asked, "And then what?" Her response: "And then I don't know. So I'm not sure how I'm going to grade that one yet."
A massive 61%... have sent e-mails with huge attachments that have blocked clients' systems.
A massive number of mail administrators don't know how to configure their mailservers thus allowing this to happen.
True confessions time: many years ago, I ran the mail server for a small non-profit ISP. One day, it started choking suddenly at regular intervals, for a few minutes at a time, before suddenly going back to normal.
As it turns out, two of the users of the mail system were working for local business: one was the manager of the other. The manager had decided that it was important for is employee to see some design blueprints he'd been working with, and attached them to an e-mail to her.
The attachment was over a gig. The figurative grinding sound was the pop server attempting to give the employee her mail over dial-up.
(Failure can be an excellent teacher: I never failed to set the maximum acceptable attachment size after that, and converted all our mail servers to use maildir format for storage instead of mbox.)
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS. (a) SHORT TITLE- This Act may be cited as the `Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001'. (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS- The table of contents for this Act is as follows: Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents. Sec. 2. Construction; severability. TITLE I--ENHANCING DOMESTIC SECURITY AGAINST TERRORISM...
But fixed costs (also called 'sunk costs') aren't a part of your gross profit margin calculation, so they don't factor in. They only factor into NET profits.
Doh. Yes, you're correct in that they're not factored into the gross profit margin calculation. I just meant that they can "make a difference," so to speak, in your net profits.
True, but if your fixed costs are high enough, your gross profit margin won't be able to cover it, so they still factor in.
(I mean, let's not kid around, there's no way in hell Apple is gonna fail to make its fixed costs back on this one. They'll probably do it in the first week.)
If you look at any Apple thread (at least prior to the x86-switching keynote) where it comes up, you'll see 500 apple zealots saying Mac hardware is the same price, faster, and far more reliable than x86 systems, and anyone who replies denying it getting modded down as troll.
I've seen that argument made with their desktop systems - kinda suspicious that it was bullshit, but at least it made the point that the systems were comperable.
However, I've never seen anyone seriously argue that Powerbooks are price-competitive with, say, Inspirons, Latitudes, or ThinkPads. Because I'm sorry, they just aint. (I work all day on a Dell Latitude, and all evening on a Powerbook, and I can guarantee you that I still consider the PB preferable.)
If there's one thing more tired that whining about how boring and pointless blogs are, it's bloggers whining about how pointless everyone else's blogs are.
Hey, if you're so tired of this shit, pull the plug on your server.
Most of the time, if you see a comment about Slashdot and its management somewhere in one of the stories, it's negative. So far, the comments on this story are overwhelmingly positive, if somewhat backhanded. (eg, "Great job! Welcome to the 21st century.")
It's nice to see that we're still capable of recognizing a good thing, even if we're irritated with everything else.
Now, about an automated dupe-checker...
(PS - the reply/submit comment has a substantially different look and feel to it. I like it a lot.)
Ever hear of a company called SONY? Did you know they made computers but were also a record label?
I have. Your point? Sony hardware isn't necessary to listen to artists on the Sony label. Apple software is necessary, in theory, to listen to songs purchased via iTMS, but for only as long as it takes to burn it to a CD. So... how is this supposed to lock us out again?
(BTW - name five other record labels besides Sony that manufacture their own hardware.)
So basically, he's locking everyone out and setting Apple up to be the biggest middle man in the history of middle men, with no actual manufacturing costs needed for content distribution. Cha-ching!
Right. When you take into account the miniscule cost of his operation... why, it's like he's positively robbing us blind, right?
It costs Apple real dollars to provide the hosting service that delivers that digital file to you, and to write the sophisticated software that delivers it... "Most of the money goes to the music companies," admitted Jobs. "We would like to break even/make a little bit of money but it's not a money maker," he said, candidly. So now we have it on record: the music store is a loss leader. Jobs said Apple would pay its dues to the RIAA, then seek to make money where it could, from its line of hardware accessories. - The Register
Rapacious bastard. Making a profit off the iPod - the nerve!
Conveniently enough, he *does* manufacture the iPod you need to listen to stuff which incurs the same kind of costs the record companies have, making a profit here as well.
Yes! One has to wonder what will happen to his "you must buy an iPod to listen to the music we sell!" tactic when people figure out that they can listen to the songs right on their computers, or even burn them to CDs.
For the sake of Apple, and all the poor children in Cupertino, we can only help that the secret never gets out.
(global-set-key "\C-z" 'call-last-kbd-macro) So, when I type Ctrl-Z, it doesn't drop me into the shell (very annoying), but instead executes the last macro. Creating a macro is so easy and executing a gazillion iterations of a macro is now that much easier.
Except that for plenty of us, Ctrl-Z is already mapped in our heads to "Undo." So while we're stabbing at Ctrl-Z to undo what we just did, Emacs will helpfully be doing it again.
(Sorry - I'm sure it works well for you, but for someone just learning Emacs, it might not be the best idea.;) )
it lacks the ability to do ANY calibrated color workflow.
Except for the plugin and the built in support in the development version that is...
Give it a rest.
For years I've been hearing people say that Photoshop is overkill, that noone really needs all the features it provides, et cetera. If you're a professional, you need to be able to use a color model for print. Period. The GIMP got its start in 1995 with, according to the official GIMP home page, this Usenet thread. See those "two questions" posed by the poster? ("What kind of features should [the GIMP] have? (tools, selections, filters, etc.) What file formats should it support?") Not once in the entire remainder of the conversation does anyone use the word "print."
It's ten years later, and the GIMP now only has "rudimentary" support for CMYK via a plugin (I can't speak for what's lurking in a development branch somewhere), and limited color management. So in other words, yes, the GIMP is a fun program which does all kinds of neat stuff and is worth looking at... if you never have to worry about printing your work in a professional capacity. In other words, if you're NOT A PROFESSIONAL GRAPHIC DESIGNER.
You know, years ago, I pointed out in another Slashdot thread that serious graphic artists will generally not consider GIMP as long as it fails to support CMYK - or, for that matter, Pantone and Lab color. Mostly, I got grumpy, "well, how do you know?" responses from people who obviously don't know or work with graphic artists. Nevertheless, I reiterate: if you get paid to do graphic design, you're probably going to have to make something that gets printed eventually. RGB sucks for this, which is why other color modes are critical.
Go hang around a boardwalk arcade sometime. You'll see plenty of kids playing DDR. Plenty of them are guys, and from a statistical perspective I have trouble believing that they're all gay.
Oh, by the way... all of Sun's x86 servers are certified to run Linux. They wouldn't bother if they thought that Linux sucks.
Au contraire. The reason they advertise Linux compatibility with their servers is precisely the same reason they advertise Windows compatibility: it's what their customers want to run. If they could, I'm sure they'd wave a magic wand and make their clients all hot and bothered to run Solaris.
Most likely the reason you don't hear them outright trashing Linux these days is that someone who works marketing for their hardware finally got through to the upper management: "Your customers are running Linux. They like Linux. Trash talk Linux, and they get defensive about their choices. Then they don't like you no more."
Sun and Apple's development efforts seem to be luring them into the same general direction (towards high-end workstations), but coming from different value adds: Solaris has a firm footing in the high-end server market, one which Apple is just beginning to crack with its computing clusters. Meanwhile, Apple has the sexiest cachet of any technology company in the world, and has what most agree to be the best designed operating system for the end-user anywhere. Why aren't these companies merging?
Just think of it. Sun, and Apple, together at last.
Plenty of them. Implementing a lockout out of X number of bad attempts can open you up to some hairy denial of service attacks. Want to lock out a user for a few hours? Just fail to login as that person 5 times.
Not to say that the alternatives don't have their weaknesses, but this one certainly does as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Everything. Think about it. It's hairy and horrible and deeply, deeply wrong.
But more seriously, it would break any Ajax, Flash, or Java on the site you're browsing to.
(Wait. Maybe this isn't such a bad idea fter all.)
Unless you're suggesting that the guy in the example has clothes which spontaneously generate matches?
In order:
1. It would probably take about fifteen minutes, maybe less, to write a handler that does a server-side HTTP request to another site. The browser encapsulates a GET request in Ajax, the server actually executes the request, munges the content, and returns it to the browser. It's not the same as direct client to server content, but it's close.
2. Yes, it'd be way slower. Unless for some reason you couldn't get to the third server at all, in which case it becomes the only option. (Not like this is a likely usage scenario.)
3. No reason to think it couldn't be designed for accessibility, although it'd sure be difficult. The principal issue would be that the sites you're browsing to might not be designed for accessibility. And incidentally, I've seen plenty of sites where the owners haven't seemed too concerned with accessibility requirements.
True story - I took Discrete Math with a couple of friends of mine who were working on their Masters in Comp Sci (I was an undergrad). Of the dozen or so of us in the class, perhaps eleven were studying computer science.
At one point on a test, we were given some sort of proof that seemed really basic at the outset - I seem to recall it having to do with finite state automata. In any case, after filling a page full of half-legible scrawl, I realized that I'd painted myself into a corner, and had no idea where to go next. After leaving, I asked my friends how they did, and they'd gotten stuck at exactly the same place.
The next time we met, the professor demonstrated the answer on the board right up to the spot we all got stuck, then stopped, and turned, and smiled, and shrugged as if to say that was it. My friend asked, "And then what?" Her response: "And then I don't know. So I'm not sure how I'm going to grade that one yet."
If the one you forget is English, you'll know you've hit burn out.
True confessions time: many years ago, I ran the mail server for a small non-profit ISP. One day, it started choking suddenly at regular intervals, for a few minutes at a time, before suddenly going back to normal.
As it turns out, two of the users of the mail system were working for local business: one was the manager of the other. The manager had decided that it was important for is employee to see some design blueprints he'd been working with, and attached them to an e-mail to her.
The attachment was over a gig. The figurative grinding sound was the pop server attempting to give the employee her mail over dial-up.
(Failure can be an excellent teacher: I never failed to set the maximum acceptable attachment size after that, and converted all our mail servers to use maildir format for storage instead of mbox.)
Et cetera, ad nauseum.
Doh. Yes, you're correct in that they're not factored into the gross profit margin calculation. I just meant that they can "make a difference," so to speak, in your net profits.
True, but if your fixed costs are high enough, your gross profit margin won't be able to cover it, so they still factor in.
(I mean, let's not kid around, there's no way in hell Apple is gonna fail to make its fixed costs back on this one. They'll probably do it in the first week.)
I've seen that argument made with their desktop systems - kinda suspicious that it was bullshit, but at least it made the point that the systems were comperable.
However, I've never seen anyone seriously argue that Powerbooks are price-competitive with, say, Inspirons, Latitudes, or ThinkPads. Because I'm sorry, they just aint. (I work all day on a Dell Latitude, and all evening on a Powerbook, and I can guarantee you that I still consider the PB preferable.)
If there's one thing more tired that whining about how boring and pointless blogs are, it's bloggers whining about how pointless everyone else's blogs are.
Hey, if you're so tired of this shit, pull the plug on your server.
(Wait, no. Leave the comic book covers up. That's some funny shit.)
Most of the time, if you see a comment about Slashdot and its management somewhere in one of the stories, it's negative. So far, the comments on this story are overwhelmingly positive, if somewhat backhanded. (eg, "Great job! Welcome to the 21st century.")
It's nice to see that we're still capable of recognizing a good thing, even if we're irritated with everything else.
Now, about an automated dupe-checker...
(PS - the reply/submit comment has a substantially different look and feel to it. I like it a lot.)
I have. Your point? Sony hardware isn't necessary to listen to artists on the Sony label. Apple software is necessary, in theory, to listen to songs purchased via iTMS, but for only as long as it takes to burn it to a CD. So... how is this supposed to lock us out again?
(BTW - name five other record labels besides Sony that manufacture their own hardware.)
Right. When you take into account the miniscule cost of his operation... why, it's like he's positively robbing us blind, right?
Rapacious bastard. Making a profit off the iPod - the nerve!
Yes! One has to wonder what will happen to his "you must buy an iPod to listen to the music we sell!" tactic when people figure out that they can listen to the songs right on their computers, or even burn them to CDs.
For the sake of Apple, and all the poor children in Cupertino, we can only help that the secret never gets out.
Right, which is why you have crazed hooligans like Ansel Adams, who were all about blasting emotions onto negatives, and had no interest in structure.
(That is to say: I find your hypothesis wanting.
And, sadly, there doesn't appear to be a one of them capable of doing it as well as Outlook yet.
Except that for plenty of us, Ctrl-Z is already mapped in our heads to "Undo." So while we're stabbing at Ctrl-Z to undo what we just did, Emacs will helpfully be doing it again.
(Sorry - I'm sure it works well for you, but for someone just learning Emacs, it might not be the best idea.
No, I meant these guys.
Give it a rest.
For years I've been hearing people say that Photoshop is overkill, that noone really needs all the features it provides, et cetera. If you're a professional, you need to be able to use a color model for print. Period. The GIMP got its start in 1995 with, according to the official GIMP home page, this Usenet thread. See those "two questions" posed by the poster? ("What kind of features should [the GIMP] have? (tools, selections, filters, etc.) What file formats should it support?") Not once in the entire remainder of the conversation does anyone use the word "print."
It's ten years later, and the GIMP now only has "rudimentary" support for CMYK via a plugin (I can't speak for what's lurking in a development branch somewhere), and limited color management. So in other words, yes, the GIMP is a fun program which does all kinds of neat stuff and is worth looking at... if you never have to worry about printing your work in a professional capacity. In other words, if you're NOT A PROFESSIONAL GRAPHIC DESIGNER.
Got it?
Considering that most of them look to be elemetary school aged, I'd say no.
You know, years ago, I pointed out in another Slashdot thread that serious graphic artists will generally not consider GIMP as long as it fails to support CMYK - or, for that matter, Pantone and Lab color. Mostly, I got grumpy, "well, how do you know?" responses from people who obviously don't know or work with graphic artists. Nevertheless, I reiterate: if you get paid to do graphic design, you're probably going to have to make something that gets printed eventually. RGB sucks for this, which is why other color modes are critical.
That's because you're an idiot.
Go hang around a boardwalk arcade sometime. You'll see plenty of kids playing DDR. Plenty of them are guys, and from a statistical perspective I have trouble believing that they're all gay.
Au contraire. The reason they advertise Linux compatibility with their servers is precisely the same reason they advertise Windows compatibility: it's what their customers want to run. If they could, I'm sure they'd wave a magic wand and make their clients all hot and bothered to run Solaris.
Most likely the reason you don't hear them outright trashing Linux these days is that someone who works marketing for their hardware finally got through to the upper management: "Your customers are running Linux. They like Linux. Trash talk Linux, and they get defensive about their choices. Then they don't like you no more."
Think about this one for a minute.
Sun and Apple's development efforts seem to be luring them into the same general direction (towards high-end workstations), but coming from different value adds: Solaris has a firm footing in the high-end server market, one which Apple is just beginning to crack with its computing clusters. Meanwhile, Apple has the sexiest cachet of any technology company in the world, and has what most agree to be the best designed operating system for the end-user anywhere. Why aren't these companies merging?
Just think of it. Sun, and Apple, together at last.
We could call the resultant company, "Snapple."
Plenty of them. Implementing a lockout out of X number of bad attempts can open you up to some hairy denial of service attacks. Want to lock out a user for a few hours? Just fail to login as that person 5 times.
Not to say that the alternatives don't have their weaknesses, but this one certainly does as well.