Starts Netscape 4.x: Netscape is not your default browser! Would you like to make it your default browser? [yes]
Starts IE 4.x:...
Starts Netscape 4.x: Netscape is not your default browser! Would you like to make it your default browser?
Well, the bank also had a limit on the maximum withdrawl (I think it was $100), possibly to mitigate this problem. Anyway, I think that's the sort of mistake one makes only *once*, and thereafter becomes slightly paranoid about repeating it.:)
The ATMs at my old bank had a snazzy feature -- a.00 key. A lot more convenient to press one key, than three. I wonder sometimes why more ATMs don't have that feature.
It would be kind of interesting to focus on that aspect of the martian invasion rather than all the neat explosions and fancy spfx.
I think that's a downfall of many science fiction films/series which focus on effects and action to the detriment of character development and story. Your post reminds me of a terrific Niven novel called, 'Lucifer's Hammer', which features an end of the world scenario caused by comet impact. Always thought that would make a great film, but I'm sure Hollywood would slaughter it.:(
Sure; FPS, Photoshop Filters, Compile Times, IPS, FLOPS. These and other tests like them have their place, and may be easily tested and verified.
However, when SysMark says something like "Internet Content Creation", what does that mean exactly? Rendering a HTML page? Generating an SVG in Flash? Coding a farking webpage? Serving a PHP dynamic page? All of these could meet the above definition, and that's what's wrong with it. Pratically all of SysMarks benchmarks are described by mealy-mouth ambigous terms. Hence my use of "Bungholio marks", which is just as accurate a term as "Internet Content Creation".
I make a basically content-free but technical post, and it gets rated up. When I post something with a point (but no impressive numbers), it just gets ignored. Ahh, the vagaries of / moderation.
Since the speed of light is approximately 670,616,629 mph, a mere 3,500,000 mph seems quite stately in comparison. (although still a nice percentage of c)
Thanks for the link, AC. While an interesting survey, it merely proves that 8% of respondants had purchased items from what they believed to be spam, not necessairly from UCE. On the same page, the survey of respondant's definitions of spam showed a wide range, from "any unwanted email", to "Chain letters, virus hoaxes, etc.", to "email sent by companies with a previous business relationship (to paraphrase)".
I think a case could be made that spam is "any email you don't want", but that is a very subjective definition. On the other hand, there is a clear separation of "unsolicited commercial email" and "solicited commercial email", which is an important distinction both ethically and commercially. It would have been a lot more meaningful if the study could have said, "8% of respondants made purchases from Unsolicited Commercial Email in the past".
And also, for the study, how did they define "spam"?
A liberal definition of spam could include legitimate commercial email, such as when TigerDirect mails me their opt-in monthly discount flyer. I have no problem buying from a legitimate commercial sales pitch, but there is absolutely zero chance that I'm going to buy from a spammer who uses deceptive subject lines, a fake "from" address, and fake headers to defeat my email filters.
Using a more traditional definition of spam (i.e. UCE only) would definately result in a lower percentage of sales than UCE + solicited commercial email. Therefore, without knowing the criteria used in the study, their 8% number is meaningless.
I like Gateway as much as any other PC maker, in my experience they use decent components, a decent case, and standard components so they're easy to upgrade. They may not be as sharp looking as Dells, but outward beauty is not my primary consideration for my PC. (Actually, I build my own anyway)
Browser ID sniffing is evil, not only does it lock out browsers the author does not know about, it will also require more work due to the necessity to update the code when (one hopes) when browser versions change/new browsers are released/etc.
I did maintenance work on an ecommerce site a few years ago, and of course it contained brain-damaged browser detection; not only did it sniff for a particular browser, they did stuff like this:
if(IE_VERSION == 4) { IE = true } elseif(NS_VERSION == 4 ) { NS = true } else { error('You need a version 4 browser!') }
KHTML and Opera partially implement the IE object model. Mozilla refuses to implement it (and I agree with them). The old Netscape 4 object model is dead and buried, no current browser supports it. The W3C object model is supported by all current browsers and is what web developers should be using.
Slashdot Mirror
You must have missed the 4.x browser wars then.
...
Starts Netscape 4.x: Netscape is not your default browser! Would you like to make it your default browser? [yes]
Starts IE 4.x:
Starts Netscape 4.x: Netscape is not your default browser! Would you like to make it your default browser?
Well, the bank also had a limit on the maximum withdrawl (I think it was $100), possibly to mitigate this problem. Anyway, I think that's the sort of mistake one makes only *once*, and thereafter becomes slightly paranoid about repeating it. :)
The ATMs at my old bank had a snazzy feature -- a .00 key. A lot more convenient to press one key, than three. I wonder sometimes why more ATMs don't have that feature.
I am so glad I beat my Everquest addiction.
Me too!
<twitch>
It would be kind of interesting to focus on that aspect of the martian invasion rather than all the neat explosions and fancy spfx.
I think that's a downfall of many science fiction films/series which focus on effects and action to the detriment of character development and story. Your post reminds me of a terrific Niven novel called, 'Lucifer's Hammer', which features an end of the world scenario caused by comet impact. Always thought that would make a great film, but I'm sure Hollywood would slaughter it. :(
Yep, it was a pretty bad joke. Normally I wouldn't try for a Funny when I'm tired but just couldn't pass up the Xorg/Zorg association.. :)
Sure; FPS, Photoshop Filters, Compile Times, IPS, FLOPS. These and other tests like them have their place, and may be easily tested and verified.
However, when SysMark says something like "Internet Content Creation", what does that mean exactly? Rendering a HTML page? Generating an SVG in Flash? Coding a farking webpage? Serving a PHP dynamic page? All of these could meet the above definition, and that's what's wrong with it. Pratically all of SysMarks benchmarks are described by mealy-mouth ambigous terms. Hence my use of "Bungholio marks", which is just as accurate a term as "Internet Content Creation".
I make a basically content-free but technical post, and it gets rated up. When I post something with a point (but no impressive numbers), it just gets ignored. Ahh, the vagaries of / moderation.
Since the speed of light is approximately 670,616,629 mph, a mere 3,500,000 mph seems quite stately in comparison. (although still a nice percentage of c)
I have trouble understanding what is represented by the SysMark benchmarks. What exactly is "Internet Content Creation"? Anybody? Bueller?
So what if ProcessorX gets 19999 Bungholio marks, show me real world benchmarks!!
Nifty.. although I'm too lazy to implement such a filter myself. Much easier to use a "Click to play Flash" browser extension. :)
<cartman>Shweeeet</cartman>
Anybody else think Xorg sounds a lot like Zorg?
500 MB would have been a pretty big drive for '94, wouldn't it?
Thanks for the link, AC. While an interesting survey, it merely proves that 8% of respondants had purchased items from what they believed to be spam, not necessairly from UCE. On the same page, the survey of respondant's definitions of spam showed a wide range, from "any unwanted email", to "Chain letters, virus hoaxes, etc.", to "email sent by companies with a previous business relationship (to paraphrase)".
I think a case could be made that spam is "any email you don't want", but that is a very subjective definition. On the other hand, there is a clear separation of "unsolicited commercial email" and "solicited commercial email", which is an important distinction both ethically and commercially. It would have been a lot more meaningful if the study could have said, "8% of respondants made purchases from Unsolicited Commercial Email in the past".
That sounds like WebLockPro, which is the typical snake oil. 2600 had an article (and a Perl decoder) about it in their 20/4 issue.
And also, for the study, how did they define "spam"?
A liberal definition of spam could include legitimate commercial email, such as when TigerDirect mails me their opt-in monthly discount flyer. I have no problem buying from a legitimate commercial sales pitch, but there is absolutely zero chance that I'm going to buy from a spammer who uses deceptive subject lines, a fake "from" address, and fake headers to defeat my email filters.
Using a more traditional definition of spam (i.e. UCE only) would definately result in a lower percentage of sales than UCE + solicited commercial email. Therefore, without knowing the criteria used in the study, their 8% number is meaningless.
Mmmm, chlorine..
I like Gateway as much as any other PC maker, in my experience they use decent components, a decent case, and standard components so they're easy to upgrade. They may not be as sharp looking as Dells, but outward beauty is not my primary consideration for my PC. (Actually, I build my own anyway)
Browser ID sniffing is evil, not only does it lock out browsers the author does not know about, it will also require more work due to the necessity to update the code when (one hopes) when browser versions change/new browsers are released/etc.
I did maintenance work on an ecommerce site a few years ago, and of course it contained brain-damaged browser detection; not only did it sniff for a particular browser, they did stuff like this:
Sigh..KHTML and Opera partially implement the IE object model. Mozilla refuses to implement it (and I agree with them). The old Netscape 4 object model is dead and buried, no current browser supports it. The W3C object model is supported by all current browsers and is what web developers should be using.
I think we're still allowed to crack copy protection, but the DMCA makes it illegal to disclose the methods or tools used.
/not a lawyer
What happens when "L" is retired? Will BCPL finally be dead then? :)
Yeah, but it's totally cheating the way Redmond uses that Spell Trigger with Absolute Immunity, Spell Turning, and Spell Trap!
Haha, so far my post has generated 1 Insightful, and 1 Offtopic. Thanks for validating my point, mods.