No sane browser will be at all fazed by whitespace. It seems unlikely that it consumes a noticeable amount of processor speed-- it's probably swallowed by image rendering or gzip decompression (or table layout!) on common browsers.
The whitespace adds 3% to the size of the HTML after gzip compression. With whitespace, it's 9.8 K. Wihout meaningless ws, it's 9.5 K. It's also a godawful mess.
You've got to remember that gzip is very good at compressing repeated data, e.g. long runs of whitespace.
IOW, you'd need pseudo-spam on a scale similar to that of real spam. Perhaps even *more* pseudo-spam than real spam. Without that kind of magnitude, it wouldn't affect spammers enough.
It's a neat idea, but if you count pseudo-spam as spam, it would actually *increase* spam.
What happens is non-NATed users connect to you, and NATed users connect to them. Direct connections between NATed machines are impossible (unless they're on the same network).
I don't know about Videoconferencing, or netgaming, but I'm behind NAT and I've never had a problem with participating in bittorrent. It works fine in both directions.
Bittorrent is in the class of "works with NAT, but works best without it".
If there's one seed behind NAT and no one else is downloading from it, you won't be able to download that torrent. If someone is downloading from the seed, they therefore don't have NAT, and therefore you CAN download from them.
If you want your machine to be public, get a public IP address, if you want it hidden, use an RFC 1918 addy.
What if you don't want to run a public service, but do want a few others to connect to you?
Videoconferencing, bittorrent and netgaming all work best with direct connections. Yet none of these match the traditional idea of a "server" as a dedicated machine that is always public and available.
Putting a policy enforcement point (aka a firewall) between your network and the rest of the Internet keeps bad things from coming in and ensures that your users are using the network properly.
Indeed. But firewalling without NAT is equally effective, and allows you to selectively unblock machines and/or ports.
The problem is that NAT breaks the interconnectedness of the Net. If two machines are NATed (and on different networks), they can't talk directly to each other.
There are many situations where direct connections are desirable or necessary.
Regardless what you think of flash, there are lots and lots of sites that depend on it, and they will have to be changed. That's costly and boring.
2) PDF... not a big deal to have this run in another window.
Depends what you use it for. At my work, there are situations where we display a UI on the left, and generate PDF on the right, in response to the user's settings. That would break badly if it were in another window.
If the patent stands, we'll have to rewrite every web site that uses plug-ins. The irony of seeing Microsoft shafted over patents is delicious, but it's not worth the pain of rewriting the web.
That's a specific example of a general problem: cookies don't track people, they track user accounts on specific browsers. So some demo users may use 1. a different account 2. a different browser 3. a different computer
PDFLib lite This is the open-source version. It requires you to use and OSI-approved license on your app. PHP uses a version of PDFLib. We use the commercial version of PDFlib to produce reports like this sample report.
These libraries should give you total control over your output. I'm not sure if you want that degree of power, considering you have to do a lot of work yourself. Note also the total lack of support for importing vector images in both (this is available in commercial versions of PDFlib by importing sections of external PDF documents).
I was reading about another DHTML toolkit recently (damned if I can remember the name!), but what they did was mostly client-side. They used a hidden frame to communicate with the server when data needed to be updated, but otherwise, the widgets responded with no net lag.
Slashdot Mirror
Not cookies. HTTP agent headers.
I'm sure it's not the only case. Even my personal web site has a Slashdot theme.
No sane browser will be at all fazed by whitespace.
It seems unlikely that it consumes a noticeable amount of processor speed-- it's probably swallowed by image rendering or gzip decompression (or table layout!) on common browsers.
The whitespace adds 3% to the size of the HTML after gzip compression. With whitespace, it's 9.8 K. Wihout meaningless ws, it's 9.5 K. It's also a godawful mess.
You've got to remember that gzip is very good at compressing repeated data, e.g. long runs of whitespace.
IOW, you'd need pseudo-spam on a scale similar to that of real spam. Perhaps even *more* pseudo-spam than real spam. Without that kind of magnitude, it wouldn't affect spammers enough.
It's a neat idea, but if you count pseudo-spam as spam, it would actually *increase* spam.
There's no need to create pseudo-spam. Real spam will teach people the lesson more effectively, and there's no shortage of that.
Actually, I've only ever heard of ISPs blocking *outbound* port 25, i.e. blocking their users from accessing port 25 on remote machines.
At elections, there are people who validate the ballots from all interested parties. Something like that is bound to be noticed.
Go to a corner store. Look in the fridge. They're selling water. Desert not required.
I'd still say "most sequels". More than half of sequels are worse than the original.
Thank god for the exceptions.
What happens is non-NATed users connect to you, and NATed users connect to them. Direct connections between NATed machines are impossible (unless they're on the same network).
I don't know about Videoconferencing, or netgaming, but I'm behind NAT and I've never had a problem with participating in bittorrent. It works fine in both directions.
Bittorrent is in the class of "works with NAT, but works best without it".
If there's one seed behind NAT and no one else is downloading from it, you won't be able to download that torrent. If someone is downloading from the seed, they therefore don't have NAT, and therefore you CAN download from them.
If you want your machine to be public, get a public IP address, if you want it hidden, use an RFC 1918 addy.
What if you don't want to run a public service, but do want a few others to connect to you?
Videoconferencing, bittorrent and netgaming all work best with direct connections. Yet none of these match the traditional idea of a "server" as a dedicated machine that is always public and available.
Putting a policy enforcement point (aka a firewall) between your network and the rest of the Internet keeps bad things from coming in and ensures that your users are using the network properly.
Indeed. But firewalling without NAT is equally effective, and allows you to selectively unblock machines and/or ports.
The problem is that NAT breaks the interconnectedness of the Net. If two machines are NATed (and on different networks), they can't talk directly to each other.
There are many situations where direct connections are desirable or necessary.
Tell me again where the downside to this is.
The downside is it's a waste of time and money whose purpose is to make things worse than they currently are.
Flash only works reliably in MS browsers. In others, it's iffy at best.
In my experience, Flash works very reliably in Mozilla and Firebird.
If a site depends on Flash for navigation, they've lost my patronage.
And if you don't use a web site, it should be made to suffer?
1) Flash... this would not be a big loss
Regardless what you think of flash, there are lots and lots of sites that depend on it, and they will have to be changed. That's costly and boring.
2) PDF... not a big deal to have this run in another window.
Depends what you use it for. At my work, there are situations where we display a UI on the left, and generate PDF on the right, in response to the user's settings. That would break badly if it were in another window.
If the patent stands, we'll have to rewrite every web site that uses plug-ins. The irony of seeing Microsoft shafted over patents is delicious, but it's not worth the pain of rewriting the web.
Publication is not required for copyright. Freedom of access is not required for copyright (c.f. Scientology).
However, publication one form of duplication, so the only way to make sense of your question is:
"Should I be able to sell DRMed copies of Madonna CDs without paying her"?
Somehow I doubt this is what you meant.
That's a specific example of a general problem: cookies don't track people, they track user accounts on specific browsers. So some demo users may use
1. a different account
2. a different browser
3. a different computer
Apparently, it only supports reading:
"What does it offer?
An easy way to open pdf files, extract images and extract the raw text. It can also generate a view of a page."
PDFLib lite
This is the open-source version. It requires you to use and OSI-approved license on your app. PHP uses a version of PDFLib. We use the commercial version of PDFlib to produce reports like this sample report.
Panda
Panda is GPLed. I haven't tried it.
These libraries should give you total control over your output. I'm not sure if you want that degree of power, considering you have to do a lot of work yourself. Note also the total lack of support for importing vector images in both (this is available in commercial versions of PDFlib by importing sections of external PDF documents).
RTFA.
Spamhaus was not trying to stop spam by legal means. They were trying to stop spam by technical means, AND THEY WERE SUED for it.
This IS a win for civil liberties because it reinforces the right of spamhaus to publish any kind of blacklist they like.
Thanks-- that was it.
I was reading about another DHTML toolkit recently (damned if I can remember the name!), but what they did was mostly client-side. They used a hidden frame to communicate with the server when data needed to be updated, but otherwise, the widgets responded with no net lag.
It's not offical, but it's been there for ages:
http://www.voidstar.com/gnews2rss.php