But Javascript runs on the instance of the web site that lives in my browser. So it runs on the web site, in my browser, on my computer. No contradiction here. A serverside resource only becomes a web site when it is accessed and interpreted by web clients.
"JavaScript does not run "on the Web site" -- it runs locally on users' computers"
You claim it runs on the web site and on your computer. The statement claims it does not run on the web site but on your computer. You claim these are not contradictory. These statements are logically false on the surface without even getting into your silly definitions of "web site".
Ummm, I think that's exactly what they mean. Yes, Javascript runs in the web browser, but the web browser runs on the user's computer, like the article says. When they talk about "user's computer" versus "on the Web site" they mean client side versus server side: i.e. Javascript generally runs client-side while PHP runs server-side.
No, it's really not. You have really just made the same point at another layer - proof by induction? Put it this way - the vast majority of users would have no idea about *any* of the statements made on this thread about "web sites", servers, clients, browsers, local computers, JavaScript, PHP/CGI/whatever.
If you followed this thread, you know exactly what we are all talking about and so this is not your perception. If you didn't, you have NO PERCEPTION of any of it (and probably don't care in the first place as long as it works).
What the heck are you talking about? To *paraphrase*: he basically said the common perception was that JavaScript runs on a server, not the users's computer, and I said most people have no clue what it means to run a scripting language on a server vs. a local computer, and if they DO know what all this means they by definition know what all this means. Know what I mean? Apparently not...
*Maybe* I could see trying to convince the government to use free JavaScript libraries, but it's pretty pointless to expect this from most companies. If they aren't going to make the (HTML/XML/whatever) content of their website free, why would they care if the JavaScript included is?
And I do highly disagree with any required "transparency" requirements (ethical or legal) on *entering* a website in general. A user chooses to load the website off of a company's servers, just as a user walks into a retail store. For all you know (and you should probably assume) they record video of you walking in and can create an anonymous profile your gender, approx age, race, etc. How about consumer education rather than ridiculous amounts of extra legislation? (note this is different from sites on which you create accounts and enter personal information, for which there are already legal requirements, and if they are not currently sufficient to protect users should be re-evaluated)
And to cover the obvious counterargument - if they didn't choose to navigate to a site intentionally (eg. it was loaded from another site without their knowledge) that's really the problem of the *linking* site, not the destination (as can happen often with misleading advertisements/sponsored links).
Contrary to popular perception, JavaScript does not run "on the Web site" -- it runs locally on users' computers when they visit a site.
This statement makes no sense. If you actually know what JavaScript is, you probably know it runs in the web browser. If you don't know what JavaScript is, you don't have any perceptions about it whatsoever.
They should ban minors from hacking their site for personal gain and entertainment as well. That would probably cut down on the majority of the script kiddie attacks, and of course would be 100% effective.
Or even better, arbitrarily RAISE the age at which people are legally allowed to hack their site - that could eliminate ALL security issues, and they'd have no need for bug bounties at all... this security stuff is so damn easy!
I think 1-5% of xbox live users is a stunningly low estimate to be honest. During peak hours it's probably more like a minimum of 15%.
No, it's 5% like I said, and I got that from actual reported numbers. 5% extreme case, 1-2% average *active* games.
The highest reported simultaneous online usage was ~2M (when COD:MW2 was released, aka "biggest AAA release week in Xbox history"). There are 40M+ Xbox Live subscribers. That's 5%, and that included people doing other things (like watching streaming movies) that don't need offloaded CPU power for a game. Usual peak is closer to 2%, with many of those users not requiring offloaded CPU.
These statistics are readily available through a new, easy to use service called "Google";) And as I said, MS already has tons of experience with capacity planning, as they have been running the world's largest online gaming network (for realtime action games, etc, not casual crap) for a long time now.
And all this article is about is is extra CPU resources that can be used in the "cloud" for games. It will be through an API (Windows Azure), not a dedicated server.
If Microsoft allows 3rd party developers to run their own game servers (pretty sure they don't allow this for activation servers, which was much of the problem in your examples) then it's not really a Microsoft problem, it's the 3rd party developer problem and would exist regardless of what platform you ran the game on. And same with the decision to shut down the online component of games like EA did with NHL, etc. Blame EA, not MS in that case...
It still smells like bullshit. They're going to provision $1000+ worth of hardware for every console?
Seriously? Since this is slashdot I would have figured more people understood how capacity planning works... this is the 3rd post I have responded to with the same misunderstanding...
They are going to add capacity so that every *active* Xbox that needs the resources will have it. In the case of Xbox Live, that will likely be somewhere between 1-5% of Xbox Live users at any one time. Is there some infinitesimal chance they could underestimate? Sure. But they have years of data and capacity planning experience on the current network so it's not likely...
Plus they're somehow going to deliver all of that capability over a DSL or cable connection? When developers and hardware makers are bitching and whining that the local bus inside the PC/console is "only" 2GB/s I find it difficult to believe that a trickle of 5-10Mbps of additional data to the system is going to help do anything very well.
CPU capacity has almost nothing to do with I/O bandwidth in this case! There are plenty of areas of computing where the data transfer is completely trivial compared to the CPU calculations required. Just to provide the obvious extreme example - look at game AI applications like chess computers, or Watson playing Jeopardy. The input and output is literally on the order of a few bytes to kilobytes, while a massive amount of CPU and storage is used to generate the answer itself. It's not too hard to extrapolate that to "much better AI on Xbox console games".
Even so, they might sometimes have something like 20% of their XBox customers playing at the same time (a guess based on subscriber numbers vs. peak usage of EVE Online).
Actually, it's more like 5% at most (the peak recorded was 2M at once when COD: MW2 launched, and there are about 40M Live users). And those were not *all* MW2 players - many were watching video, playing other games, etc - you could easily imagine only 500k of those (which is then 1-2%) would be using the "cloud resources" any one moment in time.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Xbox Live sub got a bit more expensive, but it's already a cash cow for Microsoft (not to mention all of the money they make from revenue sharing on media streaming and DLC/Arcade purchases). They have the largest - and so far extremely successful and reliable - online gaming network in the world by FAR, and have already gone through a dozen giant launches like MW2, Halo3, etc with no major issues. So my guess is we will see neither a horribly expensive subscription model nor a Sim City-like debacle.
The question is, if Microsoft is building three times the CPU in their datacenters every time they build a PC, why not just throw that power into the box itself? Then you can have the same processing power always there, and no latency.
The answeris they aren't building out that much power in their datacenters. Which means when there's a big launch, people are going to have trouble playing it.
Yeah, this was either seriously misinterpreted or the MS PM is clueless. As with any services like this, they calculate the average and maximum expected simultaneous usage and build out their backend to allow for that. Given that the peak simultaneous Xbox Live users seen was around 2M (of 40M total) if they provisioned for 5% usage they'd probably be *very* safe worst case (of those 2M probably less than half are actually actively in a game at any given time anyway...)
The summary is completely unintelligible because it does an absolutely ridiculous job of quoting TFA. TFA, on the other hand, is actually a fairly interesting read... IMO go read the article and skip any slashdot summary or comments and you will be wiser for it.
Who? Do you mean that guy in New York? I suppose you are either from another country and think he was in some US national election, or one of those New Yorkers who thinks the world revolves around them...
Now it does not mean unlimited.."BUT"..it is supposed to mean no limit regardless,even if he wanted have servers.
Not sure what that sentence is even supposed to mean as it's internally contradictory. But as far as not allowing servers, IT'S SPECIFICALLY STATED IN THEIR AGREEMENT: You also may not exceed the bandwidth usage limitations that Verizon may establish from time to time for the Service, or use the Service to host any type of server. Violation of this section may result in bandwidth restrictions on your Service or suspension or termination of your Service.
Clearly there was a reason your posters are already downmodded by default...
Actually, it's even worse - 25% of students were aware of the bias, and 39% were biased against obese people, so it's really only 30%.
Other reasons this study is stupid:
* half as many students instead have an anti-thin bias * about 40% of med students never even graduate and become doctors anyway * it was done at a single "Southeastern university" * one of the assumptions they were worried about was that they "are more likely to assume that obese individuals won’t follow treatment plans." Given the number one thing an obese person can do to improve their health is exercise, eat less, and subsequently lose weight (all achievable goals for the majority of obese people, who honestly already knew those things anyway) they probably have a reason to worry about that, and it's therefore medically significant to their treatment recommendations!
Well, "unlimited" could be open to debate on misleading advertising (though from the article it sounds like the point at which Verizon said "no way" was mention of a file/streaming server).
But "great for games" in no way implies servers. There are many MANY games (probably the majority of online games these days) that do not run as a server. And I'd have to say 300Mbps FIOS would undoubtedly be pretty great for online games.
Besides, it's really about just plain common sense here - they clearly don't give a shit if you are running some FPS online game in hosted mode. They care when someone streams 50+TB a month for their company's testing over a residential connection. It's morons that abuse services like this that cause them to change the policies for the rest of the normal users, usually for the worse.
Well, rather than guess why not just look it up!:)
Restrictions on Use. The Service is a consumer grade service and is not designed for or intended to be used for any commercial purpose. You may not resell, re-provision or rent the Service, (either for a fee or without charge) or allow third parties to use the Service via wired, wireless or other means. For example, you may not provide Internet access to third parties through a wired or wireless connection or use the Service to facilitate public Internet access (such as through a Wi-Fi hotspot), use it for high volume purposes, or engage in similar activities that constitute such use (commercial or non-commercial). If you subscribe to a Broadband Service, you may connect multiple computers/devices within a single home to your modem and/or router to access the Service, but only through a single Verizon-issued IP address. You also may not exceed the bandwidth usage limitations that Verizon may establish from time to time for the Service, or use the Service to host any type of server. Violation of this section may result in bandwidth restrictions on your Service or suspension or termination of your Service.
Yeah, but that's a pretty unrealistic analogy as it's going to be unlikely that shooting everyone else in the foot will have no repercussions to said "shooter". At worst case that user will be held directly responsible, and at best case everyone will forever avoid/shun him (limping around just outside of foot-shooting range...) Doesn't sound like a great interface to anyone's point of view (except maybe the podiatrists).
So during the Battle of Hoth when they were seen in atmospheric flight... they were purely ornamental?
Since they (along with most other spacefaring ships) were shown taking off and landing vertically, yeah, pretty much. Actually, the silly canonical explanation is they were for heat dissipation and "stabilization", just like the TIE fighter's "radiators" (which are clearly useless as airfoils).
Though given this thread is arguing engineering principles in one of the most unscientific major sci-fi series in recent history, I think we can all safely claim various levels of pathetic nerddom. Sigh.
Modded flamebait for pointing out Ron Paul supporters get insulted and attacked by him and still support him? I guess "stupid" was a bit harsh. More like the political equivalent of battered spouse syndrome...
The most bizarre part about this IMO is the site is still claims to be a "grassroots Ron Paul supporter site" even after Paul basically threatened them and claimed the site was a scam trying to sell goods and advertising based on his name. Stupid is as stupid does, I guess.
My middle school science teacher had a great time dropping tiny chunks of elemental sodium in water in class as part of a chemistry lesson. Unfortunately that led to a couple of curious students later dropping a much-too-large piece of it in the toilet in the boy's room...
In the end the students were given detentions for taking the sodium without asking, and I don't think anything happened to the teacher (who was a great teacher in general). In today's absurd educational environment the teacher probably would have been fired and the straight A students (one of whom is now an aeronautical engineer and the other a doctor) expelled and their future academic careers ruined...
Because the chain of bad decisions start with the cop getting himself in that situation to begin with. When he was told "there is an armed man holding a hostage inside" maybe his first instinct shouldn't have been barging through the door with his gun drawn, but calling for backup and trying to diffuse the situation. I'm pretty sure the victim and her family would have preferred everything in their house be stolen and their ATM account drained over being shot in the head by a cop.
Slashdot Mirror
But Javascript runs on the instance of the web site that lives in my browser. So it runs on the web site, in my browser, on my computer. No contradiction here. A serverside resource only becomes a web site when it is accessed and interpreted by web clients.
"JavaScript does not run "on the Web site" -- it runs locally on users' computers"
You claim it runs on the web site and on your computer. The statement claims it does not run on the web site but on your computer. You claim these are not contradictory. These statements are logically false on the surface without even getting into your silly definitions of "web site".
Ummm, I think that's exactly what they mean. Yes, Javascript runs in the web browser, but the web browser runs on the user's computer, like the article says. When they talk about "user's computer" versus "on the Web site" they mean client side versus server side: i.e. Javascript generally runs client-side while PHP runs server-side.
No, it's really not. You have really just made the same point at another layer - proof by induction? Put it this way - the vast majority of users would have no idea about *any* of the statements made on this thread about "web sites", servers, clients, browsers, local computers, JavaScript, PHP/CGI/whatever.
If you followed this thread, you know exactly what we are all talking about and so this is not your perception. If you didn't, you have NO PERCEPTION of any of it (and probably don't care in the first place as long as it works).
What the heck are you talking about? To *paraphrase*: he basically said the common perception was that JavaScript runs on a server, not the users's computer, and I said most people have no clue what it means to run a scripting language on a server vs. a local computer, and if they DO know what all this means they by definition know what all this means. Know what I mean? Apparently not...
*Maybe* I could see trying to convince the government to use free JavaScript libraries, but it's pretty pointless to expect this from most companies. If they aren't going to make the (HTML/XML/whatever) content of their website free, why would they care if the JavaScript included is?
And I do highly disagree with any required "transparency" requirements (ethical or legal) on *entering* a website in general. A user chooses to load the website off of a company's servers, just as a user walks into a retail store. For all you know (and you should probably assume) they record video of you walking in and can create an anonymous profile your gender, approx age, race, etc. How about consumer education rather than ridiculous amounts of extra legislation? (note this is different from sites on which you create accounts and enter personal information, for which there are already legal requirements, and if they are not currently sufficient to protect users should be re-evaluated)
And to cover the obvious counterargument - if they didn't choose to navigate to a site intentionally (eg. it was loaded from another site without their knowledge) that's really the problem of the *linking* site, not the destination (as can happen often with misleading advertisements/sponsored links).
Contrary to popular perception, JavaScript does not run "on the Web site" -- it runs locally on users' computers when they visit a site.
This statement makes no sense. If you actually know what JavaScript is, you probably know it runs in the web browser. If you don't know what JavaScript is, you don't have any perceptions about it whatsoever.
EAMON.
They should ban minors from hacking their site for personal gain and entertainment as well. That would probably cut down on the majority of the script kiddie attacks, and of course would be 100% effective.
Or even better, arbitrarily RAISE the age at which people are legally allowed to hack their site - that could eliminate ALL security issues, and they'd have no need for bug bounties at all... this security stuff is so damn easy!
Wooly mammoth vacuum cleaners, wooly mammoth shower heads, the possibilities for the modern stone age family are endless...
I think 1-5% of xbox live users is a stunningly low estimate to be honest. During peak hours it's probably more like a minimum of 15%.
No, it's 5% like I said, and I got that from actual reported numbers. 5% extreme case, 1-2% average *active* games.
The highest reported simultaneous online usage was ~2M (when COD:MW2 was released, aka "biggest AAA release week in Xbox history"). There are 40M+ Xbox Live subscribers. That's 5%, and that included people doing other things (like watching streaming movies) that don't need offloaded CPU power for a game. Usual peak is closer to 2%, with many of those users not requiring offloaded CPU.
These statistics are readily available through a new, easy to use service called "Google" ;) And as I said, MS already has tons of experience with capacity planning, as they have been running the world's largest online gaming network (for realtime action games, etc, not casual crap) for a long time now.
And all this article is about is is extra CPU resources that can be used in the "cloud" for games. It will be through an API (Windows Azure), not a dedicated server.
If Microsoft allows 3rd party developers to run their own game servers (pretty sure they don't allow this for activation servers, which was much of the problem in your examples) then it's not really a Microsoft problem, it's the 3rd party developer problem and would exist regardless of what platform you ran the game on. And same with the decision to shut down the online component of games like EA did with NHL, etc. Blame EA, not MS in that case...
It still smells like bullshit. They're going to provision $1000+ worth of hardware for every console?
Seriously? Since this is slashdot I would have figured more people understood how capacity planning works... this is the 3rd post I have responded to with the same misunderstanding...
They are going to add capacity so that every *active* Xbox that needs the resources will have it. In the case of Xbox Live, that will likely be somewhere between 1-5% of Xbox Live users at any one time. Is there some infinitesimal chance they could underestimate? Sure. But they have years of data and capacity planning experience on the current network so it's not likely...
Plus they're somehow going to deliver all of that capability over a DSL or cable connection? When developers and hardware makers are bitching and whining that the local bus inside the PC/console is "only" 2GB/s I find it difficult to believe that a trickle of 5-10Mbps of additional data to the system is going to help do anything very well.
CPU capacity has almost nothing to do with I/O bandwidth in this case! There are plenty of areas of computing where the data transfer is completely trivial compared to the CPU calculations required. Just to provide the obvious extreme example - look at game AI applications like chess computers, or Watson playing Jeopardy. The input and output is literally on the order of a few bytes to kilobytes, while a massive amount of CPU and storage is used to generate the answer itself. It's not too hard to extrapolate that to "much better AI on Xbox console games".
Even so, they might sometimes have something like 20% of their XBox customers playing at the same time (a guess based on subscriber numbers vs. peak usage of EVE Online).
Actually, it's more like 5% at most (the peak recorded was 2M at once when COD: MW2 launched, and there are about 40M Live users). And those were not *all* MW2 players - many were watching video, playing other games, etc - you could easily imagine only 500k of those (which is then 1-2%) would be using the "cloud resources" any one moment in time.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Xbox Live sub got a bit more expensive, but it's already a cash cow for Microsoft (not to mention all of the money they make from revenue sharing on media streaming and DLC/Arcade purchases). They have the largest - and so far extremely successful and reliable - online gaming network in the world by FAR, and have already gone through a dozen giant launches like MW2, Halo3, etc with no major issues. So my guess is we will see neither a horribly expensive subscription model nor a Sim City-like debacle.
The question is, if Microsoft is building three times the CPU in their datacenters every time they build a PC, why not just throw that power into the box itself? Then you can have the same processing power always there, and no latency.
The answeris they aren't building out that much power in their datacenters. Which means when there's a big launch, people are going to have trouble playing it.
Yeah, this was either seriously misinterpreted or the MS PM is clueless. As with any services like this, they calculate the average and maximum expected simultaneous usage and build out their backend to allow for that. Given that the peak simultaneous Xbox Live users seen was around 2M (of 40M total) if they provisioned for 5% usage they'd probably be *very* safe worst case (of those 2M probably less than half are actually actively in a game at any given time anyway...)
The summary is completely unintelligible because it does an absolutely ridiculous job of quoting TFA. TFA, on the other hand, is actually a fairly interesting read... IMO go read the article and skip any slashdot summary or comments and you will be wiser for it.
You probably voted for Bloomberg.
Who? Do you mean that guy in New York? I suppose you are either from another country and think he was in some US national election, or one of those New Yorkers who thinks the world revolves around them...
Now it does not mean unlimited .."BUT"..it is supposed to mean no limit regardless,even if he wanted have servers.
Not sure what that sentence is even supposed to mean as it's internally contradictory. But as far as not allowing servers, IT'S SPECIFICALLY STATED IN THEIR AGREEMENT: You also may not exceed the bandwidth usage limitations that Verizon may establish from time to time for the Service, or use the Service to host any type of server. Violation of this section may result in bandwidth restrictions on your Service or suspension or termination of your Service.
Clearly there was a reason your posters are already downmodded by default...
Actually, it's even worse - 25% of students were aware of the bias, and 39% were biased against obese people, so it's really only 30%.
Other reasons this study is stupid:
* half as many students instead have an anti-thin bias
* about 40% of med students never even graduate and become doctors anyway
* it was done at a single "Southeastern university"
* one of the assumptions they were worried about was that they "are more likely to assume that obese individuals won’t follow treatment plans." Given the number one thing an obese person can do to improve their health is exercise, eat less, and subsequently lose weight (all achievable goals for the majority of obese people, who honestly already knew those things anyway) they probably have a reason to worry about that, and it's therefore medically significant to their treatment recommendations!
Well, "unlimited" could be open to debate on misleading advertising (though from the article it sounds like the point at which Verizon said "no way" was mention of a file/streaming server).
But "great for games" in no way implies servers. There are many MANY games (probably the majority of online games these days) that do not run as a server. And I'd have to say 300Mbps FIOS would undoubtedly be pretty great for online games.
Besides, it's really about just plain common sense here - they clearly don't give a shit if you are running some FPS online game in hosted mode. They care when someone streams 50+TB a month for their company's testing over a residential connection. It's morons that abuse services like this that cause them to change the policies for the rest of the normal users, usually for the worse.
Well, rather than guess why not just look it up! :)
Restrictions on Use. The Service is a consumer grade service and is not designed for or intended to be used for any commercial purpose. You may not resell, re-provision or rent the Service, (either for a fee or without charge) or allow third parties to use the Service via wired, wireless or other means. For example, you may not provide Internet access to third parties through a wired or wireless connection or use the Service to facilitate public Internet access (such as through a Wi-Fi hotspot), use it for high volume purposes, or engage in similar activities that constitute such use (commercial or non-commercial). If you subscribe to a Broadband Service, you may connect multiple computers/devices within a single home to your modem and/or router to access the Service, but only through a single Verizon-issued IP address. You also may not exceed the bandwidth usage limitations that Verizon may establish from time to time for the Service, or use the Service to host any type of server. Violation of this section may result in bandwidth restrictions on your Service or suspension or termination of your Service.
Come on, this is America! Here the responsibility/consequence falls to whoever has the worst lawyer.
Yeah, but that's a pretty unrealistic analogy as it's going to be unlikely that shooting everyone else in the foot will have no repercussions to said "shooter". At worst case that user will be held directly responsible, and at best case everyone will forever avoid/shun him (limping around just outside of foot-shooting range...) Doesn't sound like a great interface to anyone's point of view (except maybe the podiatrists).
So during the Battle of Hoth when they were seen in atmospheric flight... they were purely ornamental?
Since they (along with most other spacefaring ships) were shown taking off and landing vertically, yeah, pretty much. Actually, the silly canonical explanation is they were for heat dissipation and "stabilization", just like the TIE fighter's "radiators" (which are clearly useless as airfoils).
Though given this thread is arguing engineering principles in one of the most unscientific major sci-fi series in recent history, I think we can all safely claim various levels of pathetic nerddom. Sigh.
Modded flamebait for pointing out Ron Paul supporters get insulted and attacked by him and still support him? I guess "stupid" was a bit harsh. More like the political equivalent of battered spouse syndrome...
I can swear that our principal looked straight at me after filling the high school with smoke but he couldn't prove a thing.
Well, there's another thing that has more or less gone the by the wayside in today's paranoia... proof (let alone intent!)
The most bizarre part about this IMO is the site is still claims to be a "grassroots Ron Paul supporter site" even after Paul basically threatened them and claimed the site was a scam trying to sell goods and advertising based on his name. Stupid is as stupid does, I guess.
My middle school science teacher had a great time dropping tiny chunks of elemental sodium in water in class as part of a chemistry lesson. Unfortunately that led to a couple of curious students later dropping a much-too-large piece of it in the toilet in the boy's room...
In the end the students were given detentions for taking the sodium without asking, and I don't think anything happened to the teacher (who was a great teacher in general). In today's absurd educational environment the teacher probably would have been fired and the straight A students (one of whom is now an aeronautical engineer and the other a doctor) expelled and their future academic careers ruined...
Because the chain of bad decisions start with the cop getting himself in that situation to begin with. When he was told "there is an armed man holding a hostage inside" maybe his first instinct shouldn't have been barging through the door with his gun drawn, but calling for backup and trying to diffuse the situation. I'm pretty sure the victim and her family would have preferred everything in their house be stolen and their ATM account drained over being shot in the head by a cop.