You still had to hope that the user had a video plug-in installed for that mimetype, and that the plug-in happened to support the codec you used.
I don't think the video tag matters a great deal, but the popularity of flash objects used for playing mp4 files shows that there was room to improve on the year 2000.
Setting browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers to a small number (when FF detects 1 Gig or more of ram, it defaults to 8) should give you something in between (i.e., the pages will need to be pulled from the cache and rendered, but the number rendered pages in memory will be much smaller and the data will not have to be pulled from the network). More detail here:
Setting browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers to something other than -1 should make memory use somewhat less aggressive (I haven't dug into it very deeply, but I don't think FF adjusts the number of pages any when the number of open tabs gets huge, and as I understand it, the setting is per tab, so you might actually have several hundred rendered pages in memory when you have 120 tabs open).
The problem is that there are plenty of people who are teetering on the brink of losing their traditional faith, and there are these other folks who say that heaven is coming to earth.
If they lost it all to Madoff, it means they were entirely invested with a single manager, a manager who would fail a basic investigation (Basically, someone with more than a million dollars better make sure that the person managing their money holds it at a independent institution, something Madoff did not do).
Madoff was a pilot who claimed he could fly any plane, a doctor who never got a diagnosis wrong. He failed a basic sniff test.
I'm not suggesting the boards should have been trading on their own, just that they should have, at a minimum, been dividing the money between 2 or 3 managers, and doing basic due diligence when they chose those managers.
It still isn't clear to me exactly how much money was actually involved. Sure, he was telling people that he was managing $65 billion, but how much of that consisted of made up returns, and how much consisted of actual investments?
The historical period is irrelevant if earnings increase enough.
I'm not saying earnings increased to justify the current valuation of the stock market, just that using 'well, in the sixty years before, X, so now, X' isn't particularly wise.
It extends well beyond scripts into other content areas. It can be used to limit the domains that are allowed to serve images, css, and so on (this is all for a given page).
I think you have a pretty dim view of the ecosystem (or maybe you are viewing some really marginal sites, who knows). For the most part, a given page that you visit is not going to contain malicious code that sniffs for when you have a https cookie for your banking site and then mysteriously steals all your money. I say this confidently, as I am quite certain that the bad guys are much happier with the simpler task of installing mal-ware keyloggers.
The only browser exploit I have personally encountered came from the server getting compromised (well, the account for a domain, probably not the whole server); obfuscated javascript had been appended to the bottom of a javascript file that the page loaded (the attack was a pdf, but I had that particular exploit locked down (or it didn't work in the version of Reader I use...), so no issues). Entertainingly, it was a blog post about web security (I let them know and they fixed it).
Maybe. Although a 6 foot male with a BMI of 30 would need to have 35 pounds of additional muscle that a 6 foot male with a BMI of 25 did not have, with the lighter guy weighing about 183 pounds.
Think about 35 pounds from the grocery store and whether you think a lot of fit people are walking around with that much extra meat strapped to their body.
(I say this as someone who thinks they are reasonably healthy with a BMI of 28, but that could also obviously lose 15 pounds)
That's a pretty tortured analogy. For one thing, there isn't an OEM replacement parts market for video game loot.
Half (or better...) of a gold farming industry could disappear overnight if Blizzard decided to crack down. Even if GM and Chrysler had completely dissolved, people would still want their existing cars serviced.
One reason might be that building an industry that is entirely reliant on the whims of a foreign company could leave them holding the bag for thousands of idiots who thought they had a job.
See, I disagree that it would have exercised much of anything, I'm quite sure it would have repeated the demonstration that we are not entirely free to fly (i.e., if he had not 'talked', the most likely outcome is that they would have asked him to leave the airport; maybe they would have brought in real law enforcement, but if things went that far, they wouldn't be buying him a ticket when they released him).
Slashdot Mirror
It is likely that landfills will eventually be mined for the valuable resources that they contain.
You still had to hope that the user had a video plug-in installed for that mimetype, and that the plug-in happened to support the codec you used.
I don't think the video tag matters a great deal, but the popularity of flash objects used for playing mp4 files shows that there was room to improve on the year 2000.
Acid4 is even worse. And Acid5, I mean, make your browser work guys.
Setting browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers to a small number (when FF detects 1 Gig or more of ram, it defaults to 8) should give you something in between (i.e., the pages will need to be pulled from the cache and rendered, but the number rendered pages in memory will be much smaller and the data will not have to be pulled from the network). More detail here:
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers
Setting browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers to something other than -1 should make memory use somewhat less aggressive (I haven't dug into it very deeply, but I don't think FF adjusts the number of pages any when the number of open tabs gets huge, and as I understand it, the setting is per tab, so you might actually have several hundred rendered pages in memory when you have 120 tabs open).
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers
The problem is that there are plenty of people who are teetering on the brink of losing their traditional faith, and there are these other folks who say that heaven is coming to earth.
Makes for enthusiasts, I think.
If they lost it all to Madoff, it means they were entirely invested with a single manager, a manager who would fail a basic investigation (Basically, someone with more than a million dollars better make sure that the person managing their money holds it at a independent institution, something Madoff did not do).
Madoff was a pilot who claimed he could fly any plane, a doctor who never got a diagnosis wrong. He failed a basic sniff test.
I'm not suggesting the boards should have been trading on their own, just that they should have, at a minimum, been dividing the money between 2 or 3 managers, and doing basic due diligence when they chose those managers.
It should have been his job, but he was a fraudster, so now someone does have to figure out what he did or didn't do after the fact.
Imagine it is a growing industry.
Don't spam your website. Jeez.
Anyway, if a charity lost their entire endowment over this, the board of that charity was not doing a good job managing the charity's funds.
By 'dim', I meant that you have an overly negative view, I wasn't speculating as to your level of knowledge.
It still isn't clear to me exactly how much money was actually involved. Sure, he was telling people that he was managing $65 billion, but how much of that consisted of made up returns, and how much consisted of actual investments?
The historical period is irrelevant if earnings increase enough.
I'm not saying earnings increased to justify the current valuation of the stock market, just that using 'well, in the sixty years before, X, so now, X' isn't particularly wise.
It extends well beyond scripts into other content areas. It can be used to limit the domains that are allowed to serve images, css, and so on (this is all for a given page).
The size of it?
Slashdot is currently pushing js from c.fsdn.com.
I think you have a pretty dim view of the ecosystem (or maybe you are viewing some really marginal sites, who knows). For the most part, a given page that you visit is not going to contain malicious code that sniffs for when you have a https cookie for your banking site and then mysteriously steals all your money. I say this confidently, as I am quite certain that the bad guys are much happier with the simpler task of installing mal-ware keyloggers.
The only browser exploit I have personally encountered came from the server getting compromised (well, the account for a domain, probably not the whole server); obfuscated javascript had been appended to the bottom of a javascript file that the page loaded (the attack was a pdf, but I had that particular exploit locked down (or it didn't work in the version of Reader I use...), so no issues). Entertainingly, it was a blog post about web security (I let them know and they fixed it).
It will default to off. Defaulting to on would mean that offsite images would no longer load (nor would any content that is pulled from a CDN).
Maybe they are at home, living on their own...
Maybe. Although a 6 foot male with a BMI of 30 would need to have 35 pounds of additional muscle that a 6 foot male with a BMI of 25 did not have, with the lighter guy weighing about 183 pounds.
Think about 35 pounds from the grocery store and whether you think a lot of fit people are walking around with that much extra meat strapped to their body.
(I say this as someone who thinks they are reasonably healthy with a BMI of 28, but that could also obviously lose 15 pounds)
That's a pretty tortured analogy. For one thing, there isn't an OEM replacement parts market for video game loot.
Half (or better...) of a gold farming industry could disappear overnight if Blizzard decided to crack down. Even if GM and Chrysler had completely dissolved, people would still want their existing cars serviced.
One reason might be that building an industry that is entirely reliant on the whims of a foreign company could leave them holding the bag for thousands of idiots who thought they had a job.
See, I disagree that it would have exercised much of anything, I'm quite sure it would have repeated the demonstration that we are not entirely free to fly (i.e., if he had not 'talked', the most likely outcome is that they would have asked him to leave the airport; maybe they would have brought in real law enforcement, but if things went that far, they wouldn't be buying him a ticket when they released him).
They might let him go without letting him through security. This is that elusive 'third option'.
Bringing up the 1st is a little silly, he didn't come anywhere near being prosecuted for carrying a comic book script.
I don't really see where his 1st or 5th amendment rights would come up.
I suppose he could try to say they took his stuff away, but he probably consented to that.
The legal situation is that if you want to fly on a commercial plane, you consent to the search.