Yeah, you'd think that, and I'd agree with it. But foreign courts have ruled that it is the web site's responsibility:/ See landmark Yahoo Nazi auction case for details.
Perhaps Google is not the best measure of relevancy for your kind of site. Half of the porn empire is always devising new ways to make money, and adult sites are historically search-engine abusers with their link-circles and endless word-farm pages. Not to say that your site or anyone else's in particular is guilty, but it probably influences Google's treatment of adult pages.
I run a few web sites on games, fan fiction, and television shows, and I have never had any problems with the way Google has treated my pages. And they always have stable (and high-ranked) positions in the directory. So I think perhaps you are victim of your content more than a victim of Google's treachery.
Not to say that I don't believe in choice, or that multiple search engines are a bad thing. It's great that there are alternatives and other ideas/approaches to web searches. But at least for me, and I bet for most people, Google is still the best.
There isn't the purpose of the international Googles. It is/not/ trying to assume that you want Australian content. It is trying to comply with whatever laws exist in your country.
For example, some European countries get very uppity if a search returns sites with pro-Nazi content. Those Google pages have to filter out the things that would be illegal for Google to serve in those countries. Likewise, I'm told that internet pornography is banned in Australia. Now I don't know that for a fact, or whatever other laws there are about content censorship in Australia, but you can see where I'm going with this.
The international Googles are not so much to steer you to nationalized content, but rather to allow Google to comply with international laws.
then your window manager really sucks. at least in an ideal system, there are two levels of focus - application focus and input focus. every application has its own input focus. you can switch between applications all you want. if a background window changes the input focus, the change is only for that application and you will only notice it if you choose to make that application active.
Large primes are not the only difficult problem used in current encryption. RSA public-key might be based on it, but there are all sorts of other interesting things like elliptical curves. The world will not go to shit when someone finds a method to factor multiples of large primes (factoring large primes is easy;). Of course, those people who rely entirely on RSA might have a heart attack...
Fan fiction is NOT 'aka' slash. Slash is generally used for sexually explicit, or depending on who you ask, homosexually explicit fiction. Most fan fiction is not sexual in nature, and can range from rejected television scripts to full-length novels involving background characters from another show.
Some of the most compelling and engrossing stories I've ever read are "fan fiction". For example, I couldn't care less about the repressed sexual tensions between the leads of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. But the universe that was created for that movie, the amalgam of old and new Hong Kong martial arts styles, can be an incredibly rich setting for anything from slapstick comedy to heartbreaking tragedy. Minor characters or events from the movie can take lives of their own in the hands of a competent fan/author, fleshing out parts of the world that were otherwise only hinted at.
So please do not equate fan fiction with sex stories or crap writing. If you haven't found the kind of story that I'm talking about yet, then you are probably looking in the wrong places.
Yeah, I realized that after I posted. The whole thing is probably a misunderstanding on their part. I doubt that something this large would have gone unnoticed (and unexploited!) by all the web hackers of the world. As someone else pointed out in a reply, this would be a free DDoS amplifier built into every copy of IIS.
The parent +5 post is flat out wrong. This is not about persistant connections, which is a high-level HTTP feature that keeps a connection open so that the browser can send more requests. This is about a low-level TCP hack that IE uses to get a small speed boost on IIS servers, while breaking TCP standards compliance.
If I read the article correctly, instead of creating a new TCP connection and then sending a request, IE sends the request immediately without bothering to finish the TCP handshake. Microsoft IIS web servers deal with it automatically, and it is faster because it saves a round-trip wait for the ACK and the following requset.
The down side is that non-IIS servers have no clue what this incoming packet is. It must be invalid because it is not a SYN. So it gets thrown away, and the server might or might not reset the connection. If a non-IIS server resets the connection, IE goes with a standard TCP handshake and has wasted only the round trip time for the request packet and the RST. But if the server swallows the invalid packet and does not send a RST, then Internet Explorer will just sit around for a few seconds until it times out and falls back to a standard TCP conection.
The summary is that IE is breaking the TCP protocol for a small speed boost when connecting to IIS servers. It results in a small speed penalty when connecting to most non-IIS servers. When connecting to non-IIS servers that do not reset the connetion, it results in a very noticable delay.
It could also be a potential security risk, because if this is true, then it makes it very easy to IP-spoof a HTTP request against IIS (since the request is a self-contained packet instead of a long connection sequence).
That's a load of crap! It's not hard at all to modify data to create any hash value that you want, especially when you're including "deleted space" in the CRC calculations...
CRC-32, sure. CRC is meant to check for small random transmission errors, not to function as a secure hash algorithm. But if you've figured out a way to force data to match a given SHA-1, you better get a press agent and a secretary because every crypto nut in the world is gonna call bullshit. And no, "trying lots of combinations" doesn't count.
Well I figured that the antenna is passively receiving, and somewhere in my actual radio something is generating a frequency to match the station I'm tuned to. There must be some way to dampen the radiation from my radio internals without enclosing the antenna too.
Yeah, Opera's pretty neat. I've used it, I thought it was cool, but it's not my bag. I couldn't get used to the whole multi-window, single-parent thing. And I've grown accustomed to Mozilla hotkeys and mouse modifiers. Not to mention that Opera brings back painful memories of old-school Windows MDI programming:)
It was pretty fast, and it was a lot smarter about some stuff than either IE or Moz/Phoenix. But I'll stick to the lizard.
Having programed an app that uses MSHTML to view simultanious HTML pages I think I might know.
Well, for starters, I feel sorry for you.
But I'm not talking about DLL loading overheads. I know how COM works. I'm talking about the data structures, the JavaScript engine, and everything else that has to be reinitialized with each instance of the MSHTML component. Yeah it's all behind the scenes, and a lot of it is pretty quick since it's kernel level (which is something that pisses me off to no end). But there is simply more data and CPU overhead per instance.
Admittedly, the Mozilla UI is so goddamn slow that it almost negates the overhead bonus in that area. But with Chimera on OSX, and to a lesser extent Phoenix on Win32, the Gecko core has less overhead per-tab than the MSHTML component.
While the 101 list goes a bit overboard, you're wrong to dismiss a lot of the items.
1. Tabbed browsing is inherantly slower with IE because it creates a new browser instance for each tab.
5. The side bar is NOT just a history window. You can put virtually anything in it, including slashdot headlines or a google box.
7-8. MSIE does NOT adjust font sizes if the CSS specifies it in pixels. Mozilla does.
17. At least with 5.5, the "cookie manager" is nothing more than a listview of all your temporary internet files. Mozilla has a real interface with more capabilities.
22. The average user will not set this, and will inevitably install Bonzi Buddy or some other crap because they click OK too fast. Mozilla comes secure by default.
46. You can run Mozilla from a network share without ever launching an installer. I'd like to see you do try with MSIE 6.
77. Yeah, assuming that you have the appropriate locale of Windows. And that you'd never want to run a version that was different from your operating system's locale settings.
97. True. But you must admit that Mozilla's security process is more open than IEs, and that there won't be major vulnerabilities that go unpatched for months. With IE you have no such guarantee.
101. You just can't argue with that one. The lizard is cool.
Actually, I think it was all the people who believed in the '3.) ???? 4.) Profit!!' business model and invested in it that caused the economic slowdown.
Obviously. Everyone knows that the three-stage version of that plan is more efficient.
No, that is not a problem. It is a benefit for fast prototyping and throwing together a quick solution.
For serious projects, it is up to the programmer to make the seperation between logic and formatting. An easy method is to have every page in two parts, a.inc and a.php. Force yourself to write the.php with only simple loops, include statements, and echo commands; all other code goes in the.inc file. Works great.
There is at least 10 solutions in Perl that are more readable than this.
... and that is why so few major projects are ever written in Perl. You will never find two programmers who write Perl in the exact same style. PHP may have a much more limited syntax but it enforces readability to a certain extent.
They don't do tail recursion - they do replacement. Running a second batch file will never return control to the first, even if there are more commands left. You have to explicitly say "call xyz.bat" if you want it to return, in which case it uses a stack which runs out *very* quickly.
I am reminded of ye olde proverb: "Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded."
As an author, when I sell a copy of a book, I give away the physical book but I retain the copyright. You can give away the book, sell it, trade it, but you may NOT duplicate it except for personal use, parody, or critical review. Otherwise, what is the incentive for me to write books, if the first person who buys one can give away free copies to everyone else who wants one?
Same for software. When you buy a disc with my program on it, that disc is now yours to sell / trade / whatever. But I retain copyright on the software. If you make copies of the software and give them away, you have taken away my right to control the reproduction and distribution of my own creation. This is the same as Xeroxing an entire novel at the library, or taking a digital camcorder and tripod into a movie theater.
You have taken away the author's right to say who can have a copy of his work, and under what terms.
No such right exists. Your logic: I hereby demand that you give me $50. If you DON'T give me $50, then you are stealing from me, because you have taken away my right to decide who must give me $50, and under what terms.
WTF? Are you dense? My logic:
"I have written this calendar software. I hereby demand that anyone who wishes to use this software pay me $50 for the right to use it. If you do not may me $50, you may not use my software."
I have no fucking clue where you are coming from with your angle on this.
You are stealing. You have taken away the author's right to say who can have a copy of his work, and under what terms.
Is this the same as physical theft? No. Does that mean it should be allowed? Certainly not. If someone does the work to create something, he should be able to say what is done with it. Copyright is a good thing.
(To a point. 50+ year copyrights are a joke. Especially when the creator is long dead, and the money goes to his "estate".)
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, you'd think that, and I'd agree with it. But foreign courts have ruled that it is the web site's responsibility :/ See landmark Yahoo Nazi auction case for details.
Perhaps Google is not the best measure of relevancy for your kind of site. Half of the porn empire is always devising new ways to make money, and adult sites are historically search-engine abusers with their link-circles and endless word-farm pages. Not to say that your site or anyone else's in particular is guilty, but it probably influences Google's treatment of adult pages.
I run a few web sites on games, fan fiction, and television shows, and I have never had any problems with the way Google has treated my pages. And they always have stable (and high-ranked) positions in the directory. So I think perhaps you are victim of your content more than a victim of Google's treachery.
Not to say that I don't believe in choice, or that multiple search engines are a bad thing. It's great that there are alternatives and other ideas/approaches to web searches. But at least for me, and I bet for most people, Google is still the best.
There isn't the purpose of the international Googles. It is /not/ trying to assume that you want Australian content. It is trying to comply with whatever laws exist in your country.
For example, some European countries get very uppity if a search returns sites with pro-Nazi content. Those Google pages have to filter out the things that would be illegal for Google to serve in those countries. Likewise, I'm told that internet pornography is banned in Australia. Now I don't know that for a fact, or whatever other laws there are about content censorship in Australia, but you can see where I'm going with this.
The international Googles are not so much to steer you to nationalized content, but rather to allow Google to comply with international laws.
then your window manager really sucks. at least in an ideal system, there are two levels of focus - application focus and input focus. every application has its own input focus. you can switch between applications all you want. if a background window changes the input focus, the change is only for that application and you will only notice it if you choose to make that application active.
Large primes are not the only difficult problem used in current encryption. RSA public-key might be based on it, but there are all sorts of other interesting things like elliptical curves. The world will not go to shit when someone finds a method to factor multiples of large primes (factoring large primes is easy ;). Of course, those people who rely entirely on RSA might have a heart attack...
Fan fiction is NOT 'aka' slash. Slash is generally used for sexually explicit, or depending on who you ask, homosexually explicit fiction. Most fan fiction is not sexual in nature, and can range from rejected television scripts to full-length novels involving background characters from another show.
Some of the most compelling and engrossing stories I've ever read are "fan fiction". For example, I couldn't care less about the repressed sexual tensions between the leads of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. But the universe that was created for that movie, the amalgam of old and new Hong Kong martial arts styles, can be an incredibly rich setting for anything from slapstick comedy to heartbreaking tragedy. Minor characters or events from the movie can take lives of their own in the hands of a competent fan/author, fleshing out parts of the world that were otherwise only hinted at.
So please do not equate fan fiction with sex stories or crap writing. If you haven't found the kind of story that I'm talking about yet, then you are probably looking in the wrong places.
Yeah, I realized that after I posted. The whole thing is probably a misunderstanding on their part. I doubt that something this large would have gone unnoticed (and unexploited!) by all the web hackers of the world. As someone else pointed out in a reply, this would be a free DDoS amplifier built into every copy of IIS.
The parent +5 post is flat out wrong. This is not about persistant connections, which is a high-level HTTP feature that keeps a connection open so that the browser can send more requests. This is about a low-level TCP hack that IE uses to get a small speed boost on IIS servers, while breaking TCP standards compliance.
If I read the article correctly, instead of creating a new TCP connection and then sending a request, IE sends the request immediately without bothering to finish the TCP handshake. Microsoft IIS web servers deal with it automatically, and it is faster because it saves a round-trip wait for the ACK and the following requset.
The down side is that non-IIS servers have no clue what this incoming packet is. It must be invalid because it is not a SYN. So it gets thrown away, and the server might or might not reset the connection. If a non-IIS server resets the connection, IE goes with a standard TCP handshake and has wasted only the round trip time for the request packet and the RST. But if the server swallows the invalid packet and does not send a RST, then Internet Explorer will just sit around for a few seconds until it times out and falls back to a standard TCP conection.
The summary is that IE is breaking the TCP protocol for a small speed boost when connecting to IIS servers. It results in a small speed penalty when connecting to most non-IIS servers. When connecting to non-IIS servers that do not reset the connetion, it results in a very noticable delay.
It could also be a potential security risk, because if this is true, then it makes it very easy to IP-spoof a HTTP request against IIS (since the request is a self-contained packet instead of a long connection sequence).
That's a load of crap! It's not hard at all to modify data to create any hash value that you want, especially when you're including "deleted space" in the CRC calculations...
CRC-32, sure. CRC is meant to check for small random transmission errors, not to function as a secure hash algorithm. But if you've figured out a way to force data to match a given SHA-1, you better get a press agent and a secretary because every crypto nut in the world is gonna call bullshit. And no, "trying lots of combinations" doesn't count.
The file winamp.exe is exactly the same.
As it should be. ID3 tags are handled by the in_mp3.dll plugin.
No. That is for trademarks, not copyrights or patents. This is why xerox is a verb but Unisys was able to sue creators of GIF files.
Well I figured that the antenna is passively receiving, and somewhere in my actual radio something is generating a frequency to match the station I'm tuned to. There must be some way to dampen the radiation from my radio internals without enclosing the antenna too.
What I listen to in my car is nobody else's business. Anyone know how I can go about installing shielding around my radio?
Yeah, Opera's pretty neat. I've used it, I thought it was cool, but it's not my bag. I couldn't get used to the whole multi-window, single-parent thing. And I've grown accustomed to Mozilla hotkeys and mouse modifiers. Not to mention that Opera brings back painful memories of old-school Windows MDI programming :)
It was pretty fast, and it was a lot smarter about some stuff than either IE or Moz/Phoenix. But I'll stick to the lizard.
Having programed an app that uses MSHTML to view simultanious HTML pages I think I might know.
Well, for starters, I feel sorry for you.
But I'm not talking about DLL loading overheads. I know how COM works. I'm talking about the data structures, the JavaScript engine, and everything else that has to be reinitialized with each instance of the MSHTML component. Yeah it's all behind the scenes, and a lot of it is pretty quick since it's kernel level (which is something that pisses me off to no end). But there is simply more data and CPU overhead per instance.
Admittedly, the Mozilla UI is so goddamn slow that it almost negates the overhead bonus in that area. But with Chimera on OSX, and to a lesser extent Phoenix on Win32, the Gecko core has less overhead per-tab than the MSHTML component.
While the 101 list goes a bit overboard, you're wrong to dismiss a lot of the items.
1. Tabbed browsing is inherantly slower with IE because it creates a new browser instance for each tab.
5. The side bar is NOT just a history window. You can put virtually anything in it, including slashdot headlines or a google box.
7-8. MSIE does NOT adjust font sizes if the CSS specifies it in pixels. Mozilla does.
17. At least with 5.5, the "cookie manager" is nothing more than a listview of all your temporary internet files. Mozilla has a real interface with more capabilities.
22. The average user will not set this, and will inevitably install Bonzi Buddy or some other crap because they click OK too fast. Mozilla comes secure by default.
46. You can run Mozilla from a network share without ever launching an installer. I'd like to see you do try with MSIE 6.
77. Yeah, assuming that you have the appropriate locale of Windows. And that you'd never want to run a version that was different from your operating system's locale settings.
97. True. But you must admit that Mozilla's security process is more open than IEs, and that there won't be major vulnerabilities that go unpatched for months. With IE you have no such guarantee.
101. You just can't argue with that one. The lizard is cool.
"(head up to Northern NJ to see what I mean)"
What exit?
Haha! A pity that so few people outside of Jersey will get that one.
Obviously. Everyone knows that the three-stage version of that plan is more efficient.
No, that is not a problem. It is a benefit for fast prototyping and throwing together a quick solution.
.inc and a .php. Force yourself to write the .php with only simple loops, include statements, and echo commands; all other code goes in the .inc file. Works great.
For serious projects, it is up to the programmer to make the seperation between logic and formatting. An easy method is to have every page in two parts, a
... and that is why so few major projects are ever written in Perl. You will never find two programmers who write Perl in the exact same style. PHP may have a much more limited syntax but it enforces readability to a certain extent.
They don't do tail recursion - they do replacement. Running a second batch file will never return control to the first, even if there are more commands left. You have to explicitly say "call xyz.bat" if you want it to return, in which case it uses a stack which runs out *very* quickly.
Cat5, Cat5e, Cat6, CatSex...
Jees, that's starting to look like my incomming Gnutella queries.
I am reminded of ye olde proverb: "Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded."
As an author, when I sell a copy of a book, I give away the physical book but I retain the copyright. You can give away the book, sell it, trade it, but you may NOT duplicate it except for personal use, parody, or critical review. Otherwise, what is the incentive for me to write books, if the first person who buys one can give away free copies to everyone else who wants one?
Same for software. When you buy a disc with my program on it, that disc is now yours to sell / trade / whatever. But I retain copyright on the software. If you make copies of the software and give them away, you have taken away my right to control the reproduction and distribution of my own creation. This is the same as Xeroxing an entire novel at the library, or taking a digital camcorder and tripod into a movie theater.
You have taken away the author's right to say who can have a copy of his work, and under what terms.
No such right exists. Your logic: I hereby demand that you give me $50. If you DON'T give me $50, then you are stealing from me, because you have taken away my right to decide who must give me $50, and under what terms.
WTF? Are you dense? My logic:
"I have written this calendar software. I hereby demand that anyone who wishes to use this software pay me $50 for the right to use it. If you do not may me $50, you may not use my software."
I have no fucking clue where you are coming from with your angle on this.
You are stealing. You have taken away the author's right to say who can have a copy of his work, and under what terms.
Is this the same as physical theft? No. Does that mean it should be allowed? Certainly not. If someone does the work to create something, he should be able to say what is done with it. Copyright is a good thing.
(To a point. 50+ year copyrights are a joke. Especially when the creator is long dead, and the money goes to his "estate".)