Interactive code can't be run on the server and still be responsive enough for a good user experience.
Web pages aren't just static content anymore. And other than stuffy people who don't want to let go of the paper document, or paper document + hyperlink models, nobody really thinks they *should* be static content either.
I'm wondering what chart you're looking at. The Chart you lined peaks at $10.87 in 1999. It was over $28 in 2005.
Take Two was really undervalued because on one round of poor selling titles, and various lawsuits. EA realized this. It would be irresponsible for them to bid more than they thought the company was worth. This offer is the same as the previous one. $26/share == $2billion.
The analysts (who may be full of crap, of course) all seem to be saying that they expect it to take $29 - $31/share to get a deal done. Will EA pony up another $500mil? If you ask me, people who like video games should hope not.
I go out of my way to configure my servers to be low-power. Mostly because they cost more in electricity to run over their lifespan than the hardware cost up front by a factor of five. I can log into the managed power bar in my rack and know immediately which servers are serving SSL content, and which aren't. It's an 11 watt difference (35w, 46w) because the CPU goes from its slowest mode to a few steps up.
You could make it completely impossible for them to see what you're doing by using another provider.
You are clearly a content consumer, and not a content provider anyway, so you could probably care less about the reasons you may wish to save processing power by not encrypting. And I'm not talking about P2P.... The most prolific BitTorrent participant has nothing on a serious content distributor.
It's not free. It's easy, sure, but it has performance costs. Low end or virtualized servers will serve less users if you are spending CPU cycles encrypting content (all servers, really, but high-end high-power systems are less likely to be pegged). CPUs switch out of power saving mode and consume more electricity if you are doing heavy amounts of encryption. Encryption is frequently a bottleneck in high speed data transfers on fast networks. So it's not free. It's far from free. Hence you are entirely wrong.
Cell phones can transmit for hours with a tiny battery. These things can have over 20lbs of battery in them. You could transmit at fairly high power for days. The hard bit would be the system of receivers.
You missed the "incandescent" part. Current displays are lit by CCFLs. They're 10x to 15x more efficient than incandescent bulbs. Making the energy used by these displays be measured as a multiple of the energy used by current displays. Not a fraction.
They looked more like 4x5 to me (look at the people's hands relative to the screen). Second, this is a process they developed. They could probably build wider machines and get bigger displays. Lastly, this has nothing to do with lighting. This is to make cheap, flexible alternatives to LCD displays. You're not going to use these to get "green lighting" for your home. You're going to use these to plaster obnoxious animated ads on lamp poles. They seem to use too much power to be put in portable devices, and we don't know yet whether their lifespan will be useful for TVs or monitors. I would think the "green crowd" would be upset with how much waste disposable displays will cause...
With the recent (last decade) crackdown on childhood bullies, there is a serious shortage. Luckily the internet is picking up some of the slack.
Bullies were one of the last bastions of modern childhood which actually taught kids how the real world works. Now, you get out of highschool and you're completely unprepared for the fact that there are tons of cut-throat assholes out there willing to take your lunch money. God help them when their parents pass.
They'll come install a second ONT on your house. You'll get 20% faster speed. You'll pay about 5% less. You won't have PPPoE and the associated latency anymore. You'll get 24/7 access to live, helpful customer service reps. Plus you'll have the option of static IPs for a fee should you decide you need them.
Take the FiOS. It's better in every way. Cheaper, faster, more reliable.
The conspiracy theories that they're trying to pull the copper to make it so you can't go with the competition have been soundly debunked. Why on earth would you want to stay with crappy old DSL when you could have rock-stable FiOS?
For some perspective, my internet uptime with FiOS is going on three years. Your DSL can't do that.
Just because their products now are focused on rasterization... Ray tracing is a form of rasterization... In other words, it translates a description of a scene into an array of pixels.
Hence the typical office PC with either custom themes, widgets, toolbars, systray apps, screensavers, and virtual pets, or an adminstrative lockdown on installing such things and changing those settings...
You must live in a different world than me, because I don't know anybody who doesn't customize their OS. Even the newest, least savvy users.
The ideal here actually is that if a reasonable number of mainstream browsers scored 100 on the test, web developers could use all of the features the test exercises and have a reasonable expectation that their page will display correctly for end users.
The test is about making life better for web developers, and about making the web more interoperable, instead of having sites which jump through browser predicated hoops, or restrict users to "IE7.0 or newer on 32-bit Windows" or the like. Thus having your favorite browser, and your least favorite browser score well is in the best interests of all web users.
So, the development of high tech devices which keep us alive longer due to the financial incentive of for-profit care is destroying healthcare in the US? And you buy into the implication (from using the medical-industrial term) that there is some sort of implicit give and take between the providers and the manufacturers specifically designed to consolidate power and wealth? I have a hard time understanding why people are surprised when others consider Ron Paul to be a bit loony.
I think all of that is completely off base. I think the fact that we don't have Home Ec. in highschool anymore so young mothers take their babies to the emergency room for a cold, or take their teenagers to the emergency room for a sprained ankle, has more to do with the high cost of healthcare. Go to your average ER and look at all those people in the waiting room. None of those people have something so urgently wrong with them that they need to be seen in that high-cost setting, and many of them will have treatment that consists simply of a high-cost conversation with a doctor; a conversation that likely would have been avoided with some basic education. That and the ridiculous amount of time consuming things we have health-care professionals do simply to cover their ass if something goes wrong are huge contributors to high health care costs. I also don't think it's in the least bit immoral for somebody not to be able to afford a whiz-bang new high-tech high-cost treatment that didn't exist a year earlier. If the creator of the treatment/device couldn't profit off it, then nobody would have the treatment. Plus, the costs almost always come down over time, so after the profit is made you're left with everybody better off.
It wasn't too long ago (15-20 years) that there were low cost private treatment centers thriving in suburban small urban environments. But now that you won't get turned away when you show up at the ER with a flu, or a sprain, why would uninsured people pay a fee to a clinic instead of going to the emergency room? Hell, it wasn't too long ago that we taught our teenagers how to deal with those basic things at home without generating hundreds or thousands of dollars of health care costs before we'd let them have a diploma. That approach wouldn't work under Ron Paul though... He'd rather we grew government by forcing us to pay to make the same educational decisions in every community instead of consolidating the costs up the chain...
That's a bullshit option, and it should be obvious that it's a bullshit option.
Using that system, you are locked in to that specific item for the maximum you are willing to spend, even if there are other identical or equivalent items up for sale with a max bid significantly lower than on the item you are locked in to. So the only way not to over-pay for the item is to snipe.
First: Medical-industrial complex? Sounds like somebody needs to lay off the crack.
Second: Do you have a job? Who do you work for? It's amazing to me that there are so many people on the internet complain about the Ron Pau "haters" all the while spewing irrational hate for the government and business.
I've already commented on this particular argument in otherparts of this thread.
And that's before you take into account the fact that, in the US at least, it will be 10 years before the infrastructure is sufficient for widespred download of HD content. Or even DVD quality content. 3, maybe 4% of people are doing it now, and ISPs are already bitching and throttling...
Slashdot Mirror
Interactive code can't be run on the server and still be responsive enough for a good user experience.
Web pages aren't just static content anymore. And other than stuffy people who don't want to let go of the paper document, or paper document + hyperlink models, nobody really thinks they *should* be static content either.
Why not just disallow redirection and loading of off-domain/off-host data from scripts?
Disabling scripts entirely disables dangerous behavior, sure... But is also disables lots of desirable functionality that most people want.
I'm wondering what chart you're looking at. The Chart you lined peaks at $10.87 in 1999. It was over $28 in 2005.
Take Two was really undervalued because on one round of poor selling titles, and various lawsuits. EA realized this. It would be irresponsible for them to bid more than they thought the company was worth. This offer is the same as the previous one. $26/share == $2billion.
The analysts (who may be full of crap, of course) all seem to be saying that they expect it to take $29 - $31/share to get a deal done. Will EA pony up another $500mil? If you ask me, people who like video games should hope not.
I go out of my way to configure my servers to be low-power. Mostly because they cost more in electricity to run over their lifespan than the hardware cost up front by a factor of five. I can log into the managed power bar in my rack and know immediately which servers are serving SSL content, and which aren't. It's an 11 watt difference (35w, 46w) because the CPU goes from its slowest mode to a few steps up.
You could make it completely impossible for them to see what you're doing by using another provider.
You are clearly a content consumer, and not a content provider anyway, so you could probably care less about the reasons you may wish to save processing power by not encrypting. And I'm not talking about P2P.... The most prolific BitTorrent participant has nothing on a serious content distributor.
It's not free. It's easy, sure, but it has performance costs. Low end or virtualized servers will serve less users if you are spending CPU cycles encrypting content (all servers, really, but high-end high-power systems are less likely to be pegged). CPUs switch out of power saving mode and consume more electricity if you are doing heavy amounts of encryption. Encryption is frequently a bottleneck in high speed data transfers on fast networks. So it's not free. It's far from free. Hence you are entirely wrong.
Some of us don't care to waste cycles encrypting data that doesn't need to be encrypted.
Cell phones can transmit for hours with a tiny battery. These things can have over 20lbs of battery in them. You could transmit at fairly high power for days. The hard bit would be the system of receivers.
You missed the "incandescent" part. Current displays are lit by CCFLs. They're 10x to 15x more efficient than incandescent bulbs. Making the energy used by these displays be measured as a multiple of the energy used by current displays. Not a fraction.
They looked more like 4x5 to me (look at the people's hands relative to the screen). Second, this is a process they developed. They could probably build wider machines and get bigger displays. Lastly, this has nothing to do with lighting. This is to make cheap, flexible alternatives to LCD displays. You're not going to use these to get "green lighting" for your home. You're going to use these to plaster obnoxious animated ads on lamp poles. They seem to use too much power to be put in portable devices, and we don't know yet whether their lifespan will be useful for TVs or monitors. I would think the "green crowd" would be upset with how much waste disposable displays will cause...
With the recent (last decade) crackdown on childhood bullies, there is a serious shortage. Luckily the internet is picking up some of the slack.
Bullies were one of the last bastions of modern childhood which actually taught kids how the real world works. Now, you get out of highschool and you're completely unprepared for the fact that there are tons of cut-throat assholes out there willing to take your lunch money. God help them when their parents pass.
Yes. I'm serious.
Call Verizon and switch to FiOS for business.
Here's what will happen:
They'll come install a second ONT on your house. You'll get 20% faster speed. You'll pay about 5% less. You won't have PPPoE and the associated latency anymore. You'll get 24/7 access to live, helpful customer service reps. Plus you'll have the option of static IPs for a fee should you decide you need them.
You should take off your fanboy hat and blinders long enough to realize how wrong you are.
8Mbit? Come on... Verizon is offering 20/20 symmetric service for less than Comcast's pathetic "PowerBoost".
But wait! Then you go on to say you can't get the full 8Mbit? Why are you still on the bandwagon?
Take the FiOS. It's better in every way. Cheaper, faster, more reliable.
The conspiracy theories that they're trying to pull the copper to make it so you can't go with the competition have been soundly debunked. Why on earth would you want to stay with crappy old DSL when you could have rock-stable FiOS?
For some perspective, my internet uptime with FiOS is going on three years. Your DSL can't do that.
Wow, how dare they? You mean they can force you to accept a faster, less expensive, more reliable service? What an outrage.
It's a great story... But it seems to me that you were authorized. The guard gave you permission, after all.
Hence the typical office PC with either custom themes, widgets, toolbars, systray apps, screensavers, and virtual pets, or an adminstrative lockdown on installing such things and changing those settings...
You must live in a different world than me, because I don't know anybody who doesn't customize their OS. Even the newest, least savvy users.
The ideal here actually is that if a reasonable number of mainstream browsers scored 100 on the test, web developers could use all of the features the test exercises and have a reasonable expectation that their page will display correctly for end users.
The test is about making life better for web developers, and about making the web more interoperable, instead of having sites which jump through browser predicated hoops, or restrict users to "IE7.0 or newer on 32-bit Windows" or the like. Thus having your favorite browser, and your least favorite browser score well is in the best interests of all web users.
Better get 'em quick, because once they're old they won't be seeded..
See the problem?
You're not the first one to suggest that, either.
So, the development of high tech devices which keep us alive longer due to the financial incentive of for-profit care is destroying healthcare in the US? And you buy into the implication (from using the medical-industrial term) that there is some sort of implicit give and take between the providers and the manufacturers specifically designed to consolidate power and wealth? I have a hard time understanding why people are surprised when others consider Ron Paul to be a bit loony.
I think all of that is completely off base. I think the fact that we don't have Home Ec. in highschool anymore so young mothers take their babies to the emergency room for a cold, or take their teenagers to the emergency room for a sprained ankle, has more to do with the high cost of healthcare. Go to your average ER and look at all those people in the waiting room. None of those people have something so urgently wrong with them that they need to be seen in that high-cost setting, and many of them will have treatment that consists simply of a high-cost conversation with a doctor; a conversation that likely would have been avoided with some basic education. That and the ridiculous amount of time consuming things we have health-care professionals do simply to cover their ass if something goes wrong are huge contributors to high health care costs. I also don't think it's in the least bit immoral for somebody not to be able to afford a whiz-bang new high-tech high-cost treatment that didn't exist a year earlier. If the creator of the treatment/device couldn't profit off it, then nobody would have the treatment. Plus, the costs almost always come down over time, so after the profit is made you're left with everybody better off.
It wasn't too long ago (15-20 years) that there were low cost private treatment centers thriving in suburban small urban environments. But now that you won't get turned away when you show up at the ER with a flu, or a sprain, why would uninsured people pay a fee to a clinic instead of going to the emergency room? Hell, it wasn't too long ago that we taught our teenagers how to deal with those basic things at home without generating hundreds or thousands of dollars of health care costs before we'd let them have a diploma. That approach wouldn't work under Ron Paul though... He'd rather we grew government by forcing us to pay to make the same educational decisions in every community instead of consolidating the costs up the chain...
So where does the "industrial" kick in?
That's a bullshit option, and it should be obvious that it's a bullshit option.
Using that system, you are locked in to that specific item for the maximum you are willing to spend, even if there are other identical or equivalent items up for sale with a max bid significantly lower than on the item you are locked in to. So the only way not to over-pay for the item is to snipe.
Two questions:
First: Medical-industrial complex? Sounds like somebody needs to lay off the crack.
Second: Do you have a job? Who do you work for? It's amazing to me that there are so many people on the internet complain about the Ron Pau "haters" all the while spewing irrational hate for the government and business.
I've already commented on this particular argument in other parts of this thread.
And that's before you take into account the fact that, in the US at least, it will be 10 years before the infrastructure is sufficient for widespred download of HD content. Or even DVD quality content. 3, maybe 4% of people are doing it now, and ISPs are already bitching and throttling...