It's been my experience from various locales that the US really is that far behind the curve. I've friends around the world and when we discuss speeds/cost they seem amazed if they've never heard our rates before. Rather pathetic at times. Ah well, life goes on.
Just remember, if this is what we have to complain about, are we doing so poorly? There are people around the world with no house at this very moment, due to lack of sufficient infrastructure, and our complaint is "my intertubes is too slows!"...
Well so 200 devices still sounds like a small network to me. But this is the first reply I've read since posting earlier, let's see what else is on the thread.
As a dev, what's the problem with a 24 port gigabit switch as the "core" on a medium sized office? Aside from the fact that 10Gb is becoming popular (has become popular?) in the datacenter? Most desktops are only at the 1Gb level (and most users at below 100Mb), and most inbound internet pipes are much smaller. I don't understand the downfall here.
You are aware that parsing an email address is not the same as saying pino@example.com is equivalent to pino+whatever@example.com... the + is something done by the server, nothing to do with the standard.
Granted, most email validators don't follow the RFC. I still go with "the only way to validate an email address is to send an email to the address and monitor for a valid response" (meaning user interaction, bounceback, etc).
Just because I like to bite, and someone below said something similar, would I be the total goddamn idiot you were referring to for making a halfassed comment about scientists studying something that we all take for granted? (At least, everyone I (personally) know takes it for granted that listening to a phone call from one side is worse than most other forms of background noise)
Or were you referring to total goddamn idiots in general on slashdot?
Honestly it was intended as a funny comment, not as a serious comment. I really don't quite follow the importance of this particular bit of research other than to say that it's interesting how the ability to focus on two sides of a conversation makes it easier to ignore the conversation.
I make it a habit to leave the room where others are concentrating if I'll be on the phone, as I don't want to interrupt them. By the same token, if my coworkers are working on something, and someone comes up to talk at my desk, I'll usually suggest we go out of the area. (Yeah, I do work in a room of cubes, but it's not that bad, all things considered... I happen to know that the renovations are going on in the area next door to give us our individual offices. I'm coping.)
So my point being: My comment wasn't serious. I figured people on this site had the intelligence to figure that out. It wasn't particularly funny. It wasn't particularly trollish either. Overrated I'll agree with.
As for getting to Mars, I'ld say let it be private industry what does that. As for cancer, can we start eating right and quit with all the numerous quantities of chemicals that we ingest? Something tells me eating healthy food grown in healthy ways cooked fresh without the application of preservatives (continue inserting ill side effects of factory produced food with shelf lives longer than one week) would present us with less cases of cancer in society as a whole**. I don't know, I'm content to deal with a few issues in life to have the level of comfort that we decadent Westerners call an average life.
**We can't discount all the other places in our lives that cause us to be bombarded with industrial chemicals, like that "new car" smell, that's really the exhalation of chemicals from the manufacturing process. Boy don't plastics smell good? They're loaded with carcinogens (see baby bottle plastics concerns for a single example out of many).
. .
Now, I realize my comment was really not funny, and halfhearted, but what was it you were asking me again? I imagine we would get along right nicely in polite society, if you didn't take one snarky comment and turn it into a hatefest.
Do you have any real examples? Aside from services Apple offers (not purchases) what can't you do with Apple products that Apple prevents you? Once you buy it, do what you want. Take it apart, hack the software, put a different OS on it, since when has Apple stopped you? They even have legal recourse to go after jailbreakers of iPhone or people who make the tools, but they don't bother.
Jason Chen would likely argue some of your points.
Theoretically they would examine either the billing zip code (a fraud prevention measure to be sure) for each CC in conjunction with the name. Granted, a person with a name like John Smith is much more likely to be stopped based on this information, but the relative numbers of early adopters combined with geographic dispersal combined with manager override provides for an easy out to them being stopped. It's a business rule.
So unless you had several CCs in various zip codes, or a very common name, they would probably be able to spot that you were trying to purchase more than two... Just a guess.
I wasn't trying for small minded but focused direction.
I agree that there are other query objects, such as plugins, but the grouping of plugins tends to be a little more aggregated than the query of plugins and the query of fonts grouped.
After sleeping on it, I'm still ambivalent one way or the other to disabling font querying, and would likely never turn it off in my browser, but the option for others may have a need to exist.
Just like I would personally be against disabling querying of plugins, because ya know, sometimes it's good that a page can tell me if I need a particular plugin.
But thanks for the thoughts. Really my point was the first line.
WAIT WHAT? What the hell does attaching old peripherals to new machines have to do with anything?
Assuming you meant it the other way around, new peripherals to old machines, here's you a rant:
------ RANT: ------- Pick the tool for the job at hand. If your machine is that old, don't buy a 3TB drive. That's all I'm saying. If your current machine is board-capped at 2GB RAM, and you have a 3-core processor, then you probably have no real need for a 3TB HDD.
However, if you can provide me real proof that a non-NAS* 3-core processor running XP with 2GB RAM has a DISTINCT NEED for a 3TB drive, lemme know.
*NAS being something that the average home buyer, purchasing a 3TB drive (for maybe $300), is going to have spent more on the NAS enclosure than the drive itself, or will have purchased a substantially newer NAS to accept the 3TB drive. Additionally, the conversation was limited to talk of XP and other old hardware, I should imagine units running as a NAS would be running an OS more capable than XP of utilizing larger drives. Look, if you're going to say that the average home user is running a NAS on an old workstation, then I'm going to call you a liar. Average home users don't do that. They purchase something like a La Cie or a LinkStation or perhaps a Drobo. They don't refit old hardware. Techs do that. Techs also know how to figure out a way to get a 3TB drive to work in a 2 year old XP machine. So GTFO.
Same here. But you're using good hardware, as opposed to commodity hardware, I would imagine on the desktop. IE: when you bought the Core2Duo it probably cost more than $400.
As for the laptop, my HP actually surprisingly found the SD/MMC on its own. I was impressed.
What the fuck? I've been telling lies about BP wants to keep the well rather than close it? For a month they said "no, let's try one more thing". Then, after it was clear they could not keep it (see where they tried to keep it), then, and only then, they decided the best thing was to close it.
That's what my comment says. Which part was a lie? Which part was about 20% chance of making things worse? At least reply to the comment you disagree with, keep the things in perspective.
As for the 20% failure, I think a nuclear bomb buried under concrete and detonated in a safe controlled manner using modern technology stands a much better than 4/5 chance of being successful. Those previous petrocalamaty sealers were done 20+ years ago, so boohoo that technology has gotten better. But I still don't say blow a fucking bomb down there. I prefer to cap the shit with the same mud they say can prevent the oil rising to the surface in the first place. Unless they're lying about that part too. Mud is the way to go here. Mud, concrete and a heavy frigging dome.
Speaking of ??? -> Profit, do you remember after hurricanes Katrina and Rita when the petro companies were reporting their highest profits ever in a single quarter? For the same quarter that encompassed those two hurricanes? When gas prices in the US jumped to over $3/gal most places, and in the affected area it was more like $4/gal?
I'm sure the oil companies were only looking out for the common good those days. I'm sure their bottom lines being inflated had _nothing_ to do with charging 50%+ more for the same gas that was already processed...
While it's true that this is flamebait, unfortunately so is the behavior of BP and other petro companies.
We cannot just say "oh that's distasteful" and turn our heads. Sometimes burying our heads in the sand does not buy us safety or security. Sometimes it leads to the collapse of whole banking institutions or small Mediterranean nations.
So while you may not agree with his view, or while you may consider it flamebait, consider that the truth is not always pleasant.
How will you help make the world a better place today?
That's actually a pretty good idea. While I know FX let's you choose which fonts are the "defaults" for the various families of fonts, it doesn't allow you to restrict exporting to that selection. Curious what the effect is to disabling that particular checkbox. Reckon FX needs a second checkbox on there for "Don't advertise any other fonts"?
And it's not like it wouldn't be possible to write extensions that could fubar the scan even more. Just force the system to return unreliable/inconsistent results to that particular API.
I can't think of many websites that need that information from the browser anyways, but it's in the spec for a reason. The question is, do users care?
Just for the record, it's entirely possible for the gas at a station to be BP even if the station is not branded BP. They do sell across corporate boundaries at times...
Slashdot Mirror
It's been my experience from various locales that the US really is that far behind the curve. I've friends around the world and when we discuss speeds/cost they seem amazed if they've never heard our rates before. Rather pathetic at times. Ah well, life goes on.
Just remember, if this is what we have to complain about, are we doing so poorly? There are people around the world with no house at this very moment, due to lack of sufficient infrastructure, and our complaint is "my intertubes is too slows!"...
Well so 200 devices still sounds like a small network to me. But this is the first reply I've read since posting earlier, let's see what else is on the thread.
As a dev, what's the problem with a 24 port gigabit switch as the "core" on a medium sized office? Aside from the fact that 10Gb is becoming popular (has become popular?) in the datacenter? Most desktops are only at the 1Gb level (and most users at below 100Mb), and most inbound internet pipes are much smaller. I don't understand the downfall here.
Can you elaborate?
Oh, quite well aware of that. The standard is actually very forgiving, yeah? something about "garbage in, valid data out"?
You are aware that parsing an email address is not the same as saying pino@example.com is equivalent to pino+whatever@example.com ... the + is something done by the server, nothing to do with the standard.
Granted, most email validators don't follow the RFC. I still go with "the only way to validate an email address is to send an email to the address and monitor for a valid response" (meaning user interaction, bounceback, etc).
Just because I like to bite, and someone below said something similar, would I be the total goddamn idiot you were referring to for making a halfassed comment about scientists studying something that we all take for granted? (At least, everyone I (personally) know takes it for granted that listening to a phone call from one side is worse than most other forms of background noise)
Or were you referring to total goddamn idiots in general on slashdot?
Just curious.
Honestly it was intended as a funny comment, not as a serious comment. I really don't quite follow the importance of this particular bit of research other than to say that it's interesting how the ability to focus on two sides of a conversation makes it easier to ignore the conversation.
I make it a habit to leave the room where others are concentrating if I'll be on the phone, as I don't want to interrupt them. By the same token, if my coworkers are working on something, and someone comes up to talk at my desk, I'll usually suggest we go out of the area. (Yeah, I do work in a room of cubes, but it's not that bad, all things considered... I happen to know that the renovations are going on in the area next door to give us our individual offices. I'm coping.)
So my point being: My comment wasn't serious. I figured people on this site had the intelligence to figure that out. It wasn't particularly funny. It wasn't particularly trollish either. Overrated I'll agree with.
As for getting to Mars, I'ld say let it be private industry what does that. As for cancer, can we start eating right and quit with all the numerous quantities of chemicals that we ingest? Something tells me eating healthy food grown in healthy ways cooked fresh without the application of preservatives (continue inserting ill side effects of factory produced food with shelf lives longer than one week) would present us with less cases of cancer in society as a whole**. I don't know, I'm content to deal with a few issues in life to have the level of comfort that we decadent Westerners call an average life.
**We can't discount all the other places in our lives that cause us to be bombarded with industrial chemicals, like that "new car" smell, that's really the exhalation of chemicals from the manufacturing process. Boy don't plastics smell good? They're loaded with carcinogens (see baby bottle plastics concerns for a single example out of many).
.
.
Now, I realize my comment was really not funny, and halfhearted, but what was it you were asking me again? I imagine we would get along right nicely in polite society, if you didn't take one snarky comment and turn it into a hatefest.
to come up with answers we already knew?
emphasis added to yours.
Do you have any real examples? Aside from services Apple offers (not purchases) what can't you do with Apple products that Apple prevents you? Once you buy it, do what you want. Take it apart, hack the software, put a different OS on it, since when has Apple stopped you? They even have legal recourse to go after jailbreakers of iPhone or people who make the tools, but they don't bother.
Jason Chen would likely argue some of your points.
</lame-joke>
.
.
.
yeah yeah, I know, you meant "legally purchase".
Theoretically they would examine either the billing zip code (a fraud prevention measure to be sure) for each CC in conjunction with the name. Granted, a person with a name like John Smith is much more likely to be stopped based on this information, but the relative numbers of early adopters combined with geographic dispersal combined with manager override provides for an easy out to them being stopped. It's a business rule.
So unless you had several CCs in various zip codes, or a very common name, they would probably be able to spot that you were trying to purchase more than two... Just a guess.
Shall we ask Monsanto?
For my mom and dad, UAC is a good thing. For slashdotters, UAC is overkill. C'est la vie.
And hardware vendors and driver support! Don't forget that was one of the primary outcries when NT6 first broke on the desktop.
Oh noes, my printer doesn't work. Surely it's Microsofts fault for being innovative and caring about my security!!!
and scriptable far more easily, for repeating later when we're not around...
I wasn't trying for small minded but focused direction.
I agree that there are other query objects, such as plugins, but the grouping of plugins tends to be a little more aggregated than the query of plugins and the query of fonts grouped.
After sleeping on it, I'm still ambivalent one way or the other to disabling font querying, and would likely never turn it off in my browser, but the option for others may have a need to exist.
Just like I would personally be against disabling querying of plugins, because ya know, sometimes it's good that a page can tell me if I need a particular plugin.
But thanks for the thoughts. Really my point was the first line.
WAIT WHAT? What the hell does attaching old peripherals to new machines have to do with anything?
Assuming you meant it the other way around, new peripherals to old machines, here's you a rant:
------ RANT: -------
Pick the tool for the job at hand. If your machine is that old, don't buy a 3TB drive. That's all I'm saying. If your current machine is board-capped at 2GB RAM, and you have a 3-core processor, then you probably have no real need for a 3TB HDD.
However, if you can provide me real proof that a non-NAS* 3-core processor running XP with 2GB RAM has a DISTINCT NEED for a 3TB drive, lemme know.
*NAS being something that the average home buyer, purchasing a 3TB drive (for maybe $300), is going to have spent more on the NAS enclosure than the drive itself, or will have purchased a substantially newer NAS to accept the 3TB drive. Additionally, the conversation was limited to talk of XP and other old hardware, I should imagine units running as a NAS would be running an OS more capable than XP of utilizing larger drives. Look, if you're going to say that the average home user is running a NAS on an old workstation, then I'm going to call you a liar. Average home users don't do that. They purchase something like a La Cie or a LinkStation or perhaps a Drobo. They don't refit old hardware. Techs do that. Techs also know how to figure out a way to get a 3TB drive to work in a 2 year old XP machine. So GTFO.
Same here. But you're using good hardware, as opposed to commodity hardware, I would imagine on the desktop. IE: when you bought the Core2Duo it probably cost more than $400.
As for the laptop, my HP actually surprisingly found the SD/MMC on its own. I was impressed.
What the fuck? I've been telling lies about BP wants to keep the well rather than close it? For a month they said "no, let's try one more thing". Then, after it was clear they could not keep it (see where they tried to keep it), then, and only then, they decided the best thing was to close it.
That's what my comment says. Which part was a lie? Which part was about 20% chance of making things worse? At least reply to the comment you disagree with, keep the things in perspective.
As for the 20% failure, I think a nuclear bomb buried under concrete and detonated in a safe controlled manner using modern technology stands a much better than 4/5 chance of being successful. Those previous petrocalamaty sealers were done 20+ years ago, so boohoo that technology has gotten better. But I still don't say blow a fucking bomb down there. I prefer to cap the shit with the same mud they say can prevent the oil rising to the surface in the first place. Unless they're lying about that part too. Mud is the way to go here. Mud, concrete and a heavy frigging dome.
oh for a modpoint...
Speaking of ??? -> Profit, do you remember after hurricanes Katrina and Rita when the petro companies were reporting their highest profits ever in a single quarter? For the same quarter that encompassed those two hurricanes? When gas prices in the US jumped to over $3/gal most places, and in the affected area it was more like $4/gal?
I'm sure the oil companies were only looking out for the common good those days. I'm sure their bottom lines being inflated had _nothing_ to do with charging 50%+ more for the same gas that was already processed...
While it's true that this is flamebait, unfortunately so is the behavior of BP and other petro companies.
We cannot just say "oh that's distasteful" and turn our heads. Sometimes burying our heads in the sand does not buy us safety or security. Sometimes it leads to the collapse of whole banking institutions or small Mediterranean nations.
So while you may not agree with his view, or while you may consider it flamebait, consider that the truth is not always pleasant.
How will you help make the world a better place today?
That's actually a pretty good idea. While I know FX let's you choose which fonts are the "defaults" for the various families of fonts, it doesn't allow you to restrict exporting to that selection. Curious what the effect is to disabling that particular checkbox. Reckon FX needs a second checkbox on there for "Don't advertise any other fonts"?
And it's not like it wouldn't be possible to write extensions that could fubar the scan even more. Just force the system to return unreliable/inconsistent results to that particular API.
I can't think of many websites that need that information from the browser anyways, but it's in the spec for a reason. The question is, do users care?
Just for the record, it's entirely possible for the gas at a station to be BP even if the station is not branded BP. They do sell across corporate boundaries at times...
Because they have a stronger bond with the O than the H does.