If Coke and Pepsi advertising are so ineffective, then why do both of them sell so much better than RC and Shasta?
Because they are a duopoly -- they both benefit from positive-feedback nature of the distribution system, and tolerate each other's existence because it shields them from antitrust laws. Since now they mirror each other's actions, they behave as virtually one company. "Hostility" between them is maintained without a goal of "victory" but just to keep an illusion of competition.
In this environment ads that benefit both companies are still accomplish their goal, they simply share both the effort and benefits.
The company that sells 10*N books still has an avantage over the company that sells N books.
In the case of books I have meant publishers themselves. They can organize their internet-assisted mail-order much easier than Amazon -- if cost of distribution is driven into the ground, why waste money on middleman like Amazon?
Companies spend money on advertising, not just to spend money, but to gain more customers and thereby gain the advantage of scale.
When company can't distingush itself in the eyes of consumers, no advertising will help. Look at Pepsi vs. Coke -- even though their ad campaigns probably somehow increase the consumption of their caronated beverages, pepsi and coke ads don't "pull" consumer to either side, in the best for Pepsi and Coke case ad can make him more thirsty, but he will still buy either of beverages with approximately the same probability regardless of whose ad he had just seen.
Don't waste the bandwidth -- I know all about those interfaces already, it's kinda hard to miss things that are repeated over and over by every "genius" that "discovers" requests-based OO interfaces. The problem is, you don't uderstand that they are simply not useful in situation, you are describing, with them and without them the task is equally simple (or complex) for the programmer or user if the rest of the system is properly designed. The complex interface that they add therefore is a waste of resources and possible source of reliability and security problems -- and in my experience most of time it shown itself to be exactly that. There are cases when such iterface can be useful, however they demand much more than what existing architectures provide.
That's a horrible way to do it. That's not what I want at all.
This is your problem. You never used Unix, so you can't imagine that things like this can be more efficient than masochism used in Windows. That's your loss.
Like the way I'd be able to control netscape would be different form the way I'd be able to control xemacs.
[x]emacs is in lisp -- this is why it has more complex interface. However you have guessed wrong again -- while interface is different, running gnuclient with a command line isn't any different from running netscape -remote, except that gnuclient can wait until editing is finished (what makes sense considering the purpose of [x]emacs).
Ofcourse, I was talking about inprocess embedding which is something you can't do with netscape at all.
In-process embedding of completely different application is a blasphemy to efficient, secure and reliable software design. Only such a horribly designed system as Windows could require or benefit from such a thing in user-interface programs. Only idiocy of unprotected memory and cooperative multitasking in early versions of Windows could cause that monstrosity to be born.
I wish, Netscape used plugger-like interfce as the only way to load plugins instead of shared libraries model, made for compatibility reasons -- it weakened the security model and decreased the efficiency of resources manageent. But no, they have made shared libraries primary, and plugger was written later to correct their mistake.
With fewer startups nipping at their heels, the leaders like Amazon will reduce spending on promotion, and they'll start to show profits.
Why and how? All amazon tv advertisement will do is bringing more customers into ordering through the Internet. Customers eventually will discover search engines, and everyone who can undersell Amazon, will do that with no money spent on advertisement thanks to hordes of users that Amazon brought and improving search engines that will be able to look for products without any human assistace at the server. Old aging search engines will change into over-commercialized "directories" and "portals", but new ones will appear fast enough to keep enough unbiased information available.
Then the number of people outside US that are using that mechanism will increase enough to make reliance on "dumb consumer" even less profitable, and system will reach some balance, with no place for "leaders" like Amazon.
OTOH, ebay-like auctions will survive -- search engines can't be fast enough and their users aren't easy to find, so auction sites will remain attractive, however even in that area single leader won't be able to survive.
What should I do access the DOM inside netscape as I would have if I were a javascript inside netscape?
Method 1: Write everything you want to do in javascript, put it into a file, feed the file into a new frame of netscape, using -remote, don't forget to close new frame from javascript wnen done.
Method 2 (what I always do): Use Netscape as your primary user interface, keep all your application logic in the HTTP server (possibly running on the same box, just for this application), use Netscape-specific "multipart-replace" server push of HTML to perform application-initiated actions without user input (ex: http://phobos.illtel.denver.co.us/hh?update=server push -- try to access that from multiple copies of Netscape, and don't press "Stop" -- it will update table in all clients when devices physically change their status).
Your, elitist attitudes based on irrational thought sicken me. If windows and coldfusion work, there is no problem whatsoever. If they were willing to pay the money for such a product and it works, what does that have to do with their credibility? I challenge you to draw correlation from the claim that running windows and coldfusion have to an effect on their activities.
"Internet professional" that voluntarily uses Windows and Coldfusion is very unlikely familiar with anything but large companies, their products, their MIS departments and their interests. At best they will lobby for overworked Frontpage monkeys, at worst -- for "internet companies" interests.
You think, netscape -remote will duplicate anything? It will create short-lived process that shares all code pages with original netscape, and just enough data to pass the request through X. Then original netscape process starts executing the request, and second process dies with almost no resources consumed.
I had a dubious pleasure to implement a class that talks to IE on Windows and to Netscrap 4 on *nix platforms. The IE bit is about 40 lines to implement the class whereas the Netscape one is well over 600! And all it does is opens a browser and sends it a URL and tells it which frame to use. The Windows implementation is inherently more robust because of the simpler, more standard way of doing things.
Ever heard of
system("netscape -remote <whatever>");
? Yes, it will be faster than starting the first copy of netscape, and no, I won't tell you why. I will however tell you, why it uses more complex procedure of _finding_ Netscape -- it's possible that Netscape exists in multiple copies, and possibly is run by multiple users.
Creating a new language with different syntax every time you need a configuration file, or something as pithy verges on being ridiculous. And what better way of documenting a file spec, than listing (or referencing) its DTD ? XML is not let lex/yacc, and for many situations, I think (at least) it is a superior solution (in terms of allowing the programmer to do real work, not write another config parser).
DTD contains information that is already known to the programmer if he is implementing something using that model, so it's redundant for all purposes except validity checking (what is a pointless exercise in itself because no one guarantees that the data is correct after that). If XML solved a real problem -- how to describe semantics of the data as well as the structure -- it would be very valuable, but since it doesn't, in the end it's still the same programmer writing code that implements semantics. Same job minus a tiny, microscopic piece of it that non-XML programmer will spend on trivial operation of describing a structure -- however after describing a structure non-XML programmer immediately can add semantics-dependent code to his parser (and the result will be distributable and portable, as it will contain both syntax and base semantics) while XML programmer will write separate semantics-dependent code and attach it to a standard XML parser (what most likely will be too coupled with application logic and therefore won't be distributable). Same effort, more encouragements to pollute the code.
Run it in a Window? WTF? Controls DO HAVE THEIR OWN WINDOW. But the window is embedded in another window as a control (or widget for unix guys).
TummyX, you don't know what I am talking about because you never seen a window manager, or plugger, or probably any other unix application. I don't think, you are intelligent enough to understand what I will explain in the following sentences, so please stop reading. For everyone else who still thinks that TummyX said something about Unix programs that is not false, explanation:
In X windows can be anywhere, even inside other windows, but a lot of applications also can be run in existing windows, being managed by other applications instead of window managers. Windows IDs are global for X servers, and have nothing to do with process contexts -- if some program wants to do everything in some window, that window is inside a window that belongs to another program, and X security does not prevent the access to the display, it just happens. This is how ghostview and gv work. If a process insists on creating its own window, other application can "capture" the window after it's created and put it inside another window that was created just to keep it there. This is how and a shitload of "panel-type" applications work. For this trivial goal there is absolutely no need to invade the context of one application with another, if the goal is just to "embed" one window in another. It was done so often and so easily, no other solution ever was necessary -- and for the slowest readers I repeat again: placing one window into another and running another program in it is NOT AN APPLICATION OF ANY OBJECT MODEL, EVEN THOUGH IT'S POSSIBLE TO MAKE A SYSTEM THAT WILL DEMAND AN "OBJECT MODEL" FOR IT. There are other, completely different cases where object models and OO interfaces are applicable, but they are much more complex, and in most of cases far beyond TummyX's level of intellect.
Not a waste of time if you want to add webbrowser capabilities to your application without writing your own. Not if you want to add a video clip into your powerpoint application.
JUST RUN IT IN THE WINDOW.
In X you can just make a window and run some program in it, talking with that program through pipes, or not talking with it at all. This is how gv and ghostview run ghostscript, this is how plugger runs shitloads of players, and this is how gnome panel (or fvwm panel, or a lot of other panels) runs applications. There is no equivalent in your Windows world because in Windows window system (irony!) is poorly developed, and users need to make shared libraries to do the work that is already done in X by window system and window manager.
I have friends that have been hired by MSFT and they've described the component based architecture and the reasoning behind COM, COM+ and DCOM, and it was rather interesting. I was also surprised at how long it was taking *nix developers to create significant component based applications especially since most of COM (at least originally) was copied from or inspired by CORBA.
In Unix it wasn't necessary -- passing bunches of text (possibly compressed) or tar archives between programs accomplishes the same task better unless the goal is to make a user interface-based program, and even for user interface it can be easier to run a program in a window than to use some overcomplicated "object architecture" (ex: Ghostscript-based viewers). This is the same reason why people who use lex and yacc didn't need XML to perform things that are now touted as "innovations" (XML for them is just one of formats that can be parsed with no noticeable effort), and the same reason why people who can write portable C code don't see point in Java.
Most of mentioned things were born only to avoid opening pieces of source for interfaces to third-party developers, and enforce the dependency on the company that made them. In Unix software, and especially open source Unix software objects/components architecture is necessary only for tasks that can be accomplished easier with it -- maybe it is so with heavy-GUI programs.
I hate religious fundamentalists at least twice more than the rest of you, but I doubt that islamic fundies can be described by a Russian abbreviation for "State Agency of [Penitentiary] Camps" (GULAG), converted to plural.
Don't we already have more than enough insulting distortions of Russian history planted in American brain, to avoid at least this cheapening reference to one of the scariest thing in recent Russian history?
Just like you wouldn't hire a plubmer that's not bonded,insured and licensed, WE'RE not going to hire programmers that aren't. Go fig.
No one can be held responsible or guarantees anything about anyone with MCSE, or the job that he will or can perform -- if MCSE screws up, employer is just as mich screwed as if anyone else did it.
I have already explained that -- without expiration or modification date in the header (both are missing) caching on the client won't work unless it's configured to assume that pages never change (infamous "check once per session" option).
In what way do static.asp pages screw up caching for you? Since they can be cached on both the server and your browser, why are you having such a slowdown?
HTTP/1.1 200 OK Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 19:20:43 GMT Content-Type: text/html Set-Cookie: ASPSESSIONIDQGQGQXLK=INJPMONDHKDPDOMBBJGJAAKM; path=/ Cache-control: private
And how do you think, that bullshit is supposed to be cached?
From RFC 2616 (HTTP/1.1):
14.9.1 What is Cacheable
By default, a response is cacheable if the requirements of the request method, request header fields, and the response status indicate that it is cacheable. Section 13.4 summarizes these defaults for cacheability. The following Cache-Control response directives allow an origin server to override the default cacheability of a response: publicIndicates that the response MAY be cached by any cache, even if it would normally be non-cacheable or cacheable only within a non- shared cache. (See also Authorization, section 14.8, for additional details.) private Indicates that all or part of the response message is intended for a single user and MUST NOT be cached by a shared cache. This allows an origin server to state that the specified parts of the response are intended for only one user and are not a valid response for requests by other users. A private (non-shared) cache MAY cache the response.
Note: This usage of the word private only controls where the response may be cached, and cannot ensure the privacy of the message content. no-cacheIf the no-cache directive does not specify a field-name, then a cache MUST NOT use the response to satisfy a subsequent request without successful revalidation with the origin server. This allows an origin server to prevent caching even by caches that have been configured to return stale responses to client requests. If the no-cache directive does specify one or more field-names, then a cache MAY use the response to satisfy a subsequent request, subject to any other restrictions on caching. However, the specified field-name(s) MUST NOT be sent in the response to a subsequent request without successful revalidation with the origin server. This allows an origin server to prevent the re-use of certain header fields in a response, while still allowing caching of the rest of the response. Note: Most HTTP/1.0 caches will not recognize or obey this directive.
Proxies can't cache it because the content is "private" (what is bullshit -- the document is public), and clients can't cache it because it has neither expiration nor modification time in the header.
Looks like this "ZicoKnows" doesn't know shit after all.
, or you slept through your Civics classes. A corporation is a "legal person", but they do not have all the "rights" a real person has.In the law, a corporation can sign contracts, own property, and perform a few other acts that only a "person" can perform, but a corporation cannot receive Social Security when it turns 65, it cannot vote, it cannot run for office (nor can it donate money directly to canditate ("hard money") in excess of $1000), etc.
AFAIK, companies originally weren't allowed to participate in political process at all -- now they legally can, and in fact _only_ they are capable of doing it, thus turning more or less democratic process into something completely different. I assume, if such blasphemy to the ideas of freedom and human rights as UCITA and DMCA get passed, it won't be hard to pass a law that will turn companies into complete "persons" with the only exception that they can't be imprisoned or executed. If that will happen, the conversion of US into an oppressive dictatorship of big business will be complete.
Military wants to know advancements corporations and industries are making for their potential in military uses. In doing so some of this intelligence gets passed along to a countries own corporations and industries.
And what is the justification for that? Why government won't keep information from companies just like it keeps it from its citizens? If country's defense was the reason, the primary concern would be to avoid a possibility of disclosure to keep sources of information being useful in the future. In the hands of company information will be more likely to be traced back to actual act of espionage because company's actions attract enough attention to make foreign governments suspicious. Therefore in the end government risks its sources of useful for defense information to allow company to make more money -- am I the only person here who thinks that it's very wrong order of priorities?
wow, that's new. Let's say how much the US sucks... all together.
In its relatively short history by now US outsucked most of countries that existed for many centuries more -- and most of other countries were severely criticized by their citizens all the time in the process. OTOH, most of US citizens just *LOVE* their country, so definitely criticism/suckage ratio is still low.
Still nothing confirms that Russian/Soviet industry actually depended on stolen technology. In my experience espionage did more harm than good to it because even in the area of computers design (that in Russia was always considered to be one of the least developed) the adoption in 80's of "SM" series (DEC) and "ES" (IBM) caused the cancellation of BESM/Elbrus line (or near-cancellation -- it looks like research/design team survived in some form, but "political" decision was to adopt DEC minicomputers and IBM mainframes for mass production).
Even in that case most of things were results of hardware reverse-engineering, very common practice at that time because licensing was impossible even if both Russians and DEC/IBM wanted to.
In other areas things are even less in favor of this theory -- while examples of reverse engineering and ignoring patents/copyrights/... are abundant, most of problems in Russian industry were caused by poor organization not inferiority in research or design. Russia accomplished what few other countries did in this century (I hope, I shouldn't explain one more time that year 2000 is still 20'th century?) -- supporting a self-sufficient economy that depends neither on cheap foreign labor, nor on rich and dumb foreign consumers without causing a social disaster.
Incidentally, this is what makes me laugh at those "Keep Trade with China Open" commercials. I'm not sure if anyone else in the USA has seen them, but they're really funny. They imply that keeping trade with China open will "make China play by the rules" and "expose China to our democratic values." It's a riot.
See above about embargo -- Chinese government steals technology for products that can't be legally imported anyway, and competes with american companies in other areas. US steals what can be bought everywhere, but "national pride" doesn't allow to keep american companies beaten by those inferior Europeans and Asians.
Slashdot Mirror
If Coke and Pepsi advertising are so ineffective, then why do both of them sell so much better than RC and Shasta?
Because they are a duopoly -- they both benefit from positive-feedback nature of the distribution system, and tolerate each other's existence because it shields them from antitrust laws. Since now they mirror each other's actions, they behave as virtually one company. "Hostility" between them is maintained without a goal of "victory" but just to keep an illusion of competition.
In this environment ads that benefit both companies are still accomplish their goal, they simply share both the effort and benefits.
The company that sells 10*N books still has an avantage over the company that sells N books.
In the case of books I have meant publishers themselves. They can organize their internet-assisted mail-order much easier than Amazon -- if cost of distribution is driven into the ground, why waste money on middleman like Amazon?
Companies spend money on advertising, not just to spend money, but to gain more customers and thereby gain the advantage of scale.
When company can't distingush itself in the eyes of consumers, no advertising will help. Look at Pepsi vs. Coke -- even though their ad campaigns probably somehow increase the consumption of their caronated beverages, pepsi and coke ads don't "pull" consumer to either side, in the best for Pepsi and Coke case ad can make him more thirsty, but he will still buy either of beverages with approximately the same probability regardless of whose ad he had just seen.
Don't waste the bandwidth -- I know all about those interfaces already, it's kinda hard to miss things that are repeated over and over by every "genius" that "discovers" requests-based OO interfaces. The problem is, you don't uderstand that they are simply not useful in situation, you are describing, with them and without them the task is equally simple (or complex) for the programmer or user if the rest of the system is properly designed. The complex interface that they add therefore is a waste of resources and possible source of reliability and security problems -- and in my experience most of time it shown itself to be exactly that. There are cases when such iterface can be useful, however they demand much more than what existing architectures provide.
That's a horrible way to do it. That's not what I want at all.
This is your problem. You never used Unix, so you can't imagine that things like this can be more efficient than masochism used in Windows. That's your loss.
Like the way I'd be able to control netscape would be different form the way I'd be able to control xemacs.
[x]emacs is in lisp -- this is why it has more complex interface. However you have guessed wrong again -- while interface is different, running gnuclient with a command line isn't any different from running netscape -remote, except that gnuclient can wait until editing is finished (what makes sense considering the purpose of [x]emacs).
Ofcourse, I was talking about inprocess embedding which is something you can't do with netscape at all.
In-process embedding of completely different application is a blasphemy to efficient, secure and reliable software design. Only such a horribly designed system as Windows could require or benefit from such a thing in user-interface programs. Only idiocy of unprotected memory and cooperative multitasking in early versions of Windows could cause that monstrosity to be born.
I wish, Netscape used plugger-like interfce as the only way to load plugins instead of shared libraries model, made for compatibility reasons -- it weakened the security model and decreased the efficiency of resources manageent. But no, they have made shared libraries primary, and plugger was written later to correct their mistake.
With fewer startups nipping at their heels, the leaders like Amazon will reduce spending on promotion, and they'll start to show profits.
Why and how? All amazon tv advertisement will do is bringing more customers into ordering through the Internet. Customers eventually will discover search engines, and everyone who can undersell Amazon, will do that with no money spent on advertisement thanks to hordes of users that Amazon brought and improving search engines that will be able to look for products without any human assistace at the server. Old aging search engines will change into over-commercialized "directories" and "portals", but new ones will appear fast enough to keep enough unbiased information available.
Then the number of people outside US that are using that mechanism will increase enough to make reliance on "dumb consumer" even less profitable, and system will reach some balance, with no place for "leaders" like Amazon.
OTOH, ebay-like auctions will survive -- search engines can't be fast enough and their users aren't easy to find, so auction sites will remain attractive, however even in that area single leader won't be able to survive.
What should I do access the DOM inside netscape as I would have if I were a javascript inside netscape?
Method 1: Write everything you want to do in javascript, put it into a file, feed the file into a new frame of netscape, using -remote, don't forget to close new frame from javascript wnen done.
Method 2 (what I always do): Use Netscape as your primary user interface, keep all your application logic in the HTTP server (possibly running on the same box, just for this application), use Netscape-specific "multipart-replace" server push of HTML to perform application-initiated actions without user input (ex: http://phobos.illtel.denver.co.us/hh?update=server push -- try to access that from multiple copies of Netscape, and don't press "Stop" -- it will update table in all clients when devices physically change their status).
Christian Coalition should hire more slashdot trolls -- when they are trolling, they are not lobbying Congress.
Your, elitist attitudes based on irrational thought sicken me. If windows and coldfusion work, there is no problem whatsoever. If they were willing to pay the money for such a product and it works, what does that have to do with their credibility? I challenge you to draw correlation from the claim that running windows and coldfusion have to an effect on their activities.
"Internet professional" that voluntarily uses Windows and Coldfusion is very unlikely familiar with anything but large companies, their products, their MIS departments and their interests. At best they will lobby for overworked Frontpage monkeys, at worst -- for "internet companies" interests.
Only works one way.
You need more one-liners to solve your nonexistent problems? (hint: netscape can manage frames using javascript in other frames)
Their web server runs Windows and Coldfusion (yes, it does matter in this case -- it's called "credibility").
You think, netscape -remote will duplicate anything? It will create short-lived process that shares all code pages with original netscape, and just enough data to pass the request through X. Then original netscape process starts executing the request, and second process dies with almost no resources consumed.
I had a dubious pleasure to implement a class that talks to IE on Windows and to Netscrap 4 on *nix platforms. The IE bit is about 40 lines to implement the class whereas the Netscape one is well over 600! And all it does is opens a browser and sends it a URL and tells it which frame to use. The Windows implementation is inherently more robust because of the simpler, more standard way of doing things.
Ever heard of
system("netscape -remote <whatever>");
? Yes, it will be faster than starting the first copy of netscape, and no, I won't tell you why. I will however tell you, why it uses more complex procedure of _finding_ Netscape -- it's possible that Netscape exists in multiple copies, and possibly is run by multiple users.
Creating a new language with different syntax every time you need a configuration file, or something as pithy verges on being ridiculous. And what better way of documenting a file spec, than listing (or referencing) its DTD ? XML is not let lex/yacc, and for many situations, I think (at least) it is a superior solution (in terms of allowing the programmer to do real work, not write another config parser).
DTD contains information that is already known to the programmer if he is implementing something using that model, so it's redundant for all purposes except validity checking (what is a pointless exercise in itself because no one guarantees that the data is correct after that). If XML solved a real problem -- how to describe semantics of the data as well as the structure -- it would be very valuable, but since it doesn't, in the end it's still the same programmer writing code that implements semantics. Same job minus a tiny, microscopic piece of it that non-XML programmer will spend on trivial operation of describing a structure -- however after describing a structure non-XML programmer immediately can add semantics-dependent code to his parser (and the result will be distributable and portable, as it will contain both syntax and base semantics) while XML programmer will write separate semantics-dependent code and attach it to a standard XML parser (what most likely will be too coupled with application logic and therefore won't be distributable). Same effort, more encouragements to pollute the code.
Run it in a Window? WTF? Controls DO HAVE THEIR OWN WINDOW. But the window is embedded in another window as a control (or widget for unix guys).
TummyX, you don't know what I am talking about because you never seen a window manager, or plugger, or probably any other unix application. I don't think, you are intelligent enough to understand what I will explain in the following sentences, so please stop reading. For everyone else who still thinks that TummyX said something about Unix programs that is not false, explanation:
In X windows can be anywhere, even inside other windows, but a lot of applications also can be run in existing windows, being managed by other applications instead of window managers. Windows IDs are global for X servers, and have nothing to do with process contexts -- if some program wants to do everything in some window, that window is inside a window that belongs to another program, and X security does not prevent the access to the display, it just happens. This is how ghostview and gv work. If a process insists on creating its own window, other application can "capture" the window after it's created and put it inside another window that was created just to keep it there. This is how and a shitload of "panel-type" applications work. For this trivial goal there is absolutely no need to invade the context of one application with another, if the goal is just to "embed" one window in another. It was done so often and so easily, no other solution ever was necessary -- and for the slowest readers I repeat again: placing one window into another and running another program in it is NOT AN APPLICATION OF ANY OBJECT MODEL, EVEN THOUGH IT'S POSSIBLE TO MAKE A SYSTEM THAT WILL DEMAND AN "OBJECT MODEL" FOR IT. There are other, completely different cases where object models and OO interfaces are applicable, but they are much more complex, and in most of cases far beyond TummyX's level of intellect.
Not a waste of time if you want to add webbrowser capabilities to your application without writing your own. Not if you want to add a video clip into your powerpoint application.
JUST RUN IT IN THE WINDOW.
In X you can just make a window and run some program in it, talking with that program through pipes, or not talking with it at all. This is how gv and ghostview run ghostscript, this is how plugger runs shitloads of players, and this is how gnome panel (or fvwm panel, or a lot of other panels) runs applications. There is no equivalent in your Windows world because in Windows window system (irony!) is poorly developed, and users need to make shared libraries to do the work that is already done in X by window system and window manager.
I have friends that have been hired by MSFT and they've described the component based architecture and the reasoning behind COM, COM+ and DCOM, and it was rather interesting. I was also surprised at how long it was taking *nix developers to create significant component based applications especially since most of COM (at least originally) was copied from or inspired by CORBA.
In Unix it wasn't necessary -- passing bunches of text (possibly compressed) or tar archives between programs accomplishes the same task better unless the goal is to make a user interface-based program, and even for user interface it can be easier to run a program in a window than to use some overcomplicated "object architecture" (ex: Ghostscript-based viewers). This is the same reason why people who use lex and yacc didn't need XML to perform things that are now touted as "innovations" (XML for them is just one of formats that can be parsed with no noticeable effort), and the same reason why people who can write portable C code don't see point in Java.
Most of mentioned things were born only to avoid opening pieces of source for interfaces to third-party developers, and enforce the dependency on the company that made them. In Unix software, and especially open source Unix software objects/components architecture is necessary only for tasks that can be accomplished easier with it -- maybe it is so with heavy-GUI programs.
Fundie Islamic gulags
I hate religious fundamentalists at least twice more than the rest of you, but I doubt that islamic fundies can be described by a Russian abbreviation for "State Agency of [Penitentiary] Camps" (GULAG), converted to plural.
Don't we already have more than enough insulting distortions of Russian history planted in American brain, to avoid at least this cheapening reference to one of the scariest thing in recent Russian history?
Just like you wouldn't hire a plubmer that's not bonded,insured and licensed, WE'RE not going to hire programmers that aren't. Go fig.
No one can be held responsible or guarantees anything about anyone with MCSE, or the job that he will or can perform -- if MCSE screws up, employer is just as mich screwed as if anyone else did it.
I have already explained that -- without expiration or modification date in the header (both are missing) caching on the client won't work unless it's configured to assume that pages never change (infamous "check once per session" option).
In what way do static .asp pages screw up caching for you? Since they can be cached on both the server and your browser, why are you having such a slowdown?
HTTP/1.1 200 OKServer: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 19:20:43 GMT
Content-Type: text/html
Set-Cookie: ASPSESSIONIDQGQGQXLK=INJPMONDHKDPDOMBBJGJAAKM; path=/
Cache-control: private
And how do you think, that bullshit is supposed to be cached?
From RFC 2616 (HTTP/1.1):
14.9.1 What is CacheableBy default, a response is cacheable if the requirements of the request method, request header fields, and the response status indicate that it is cacheable. Section 13.4 summarizes these defaults for cacheability. The following Cache-Control response directives allow an origin server to override the default cacheability of a response: publicIndicates that the response MAY be cached by any cache, even if it would normally be non-cacheable or cacheable only within a non- shared cache. (See also Authorization, section 14.8, for additional details.) private Indicates that all or part of the response message is intended for a single user and MUST NOT be cached by a shared cache. This allows an origin server to state that the specified parts of the response are intended for only one user and are not a valid response for requests by other users. A private (non-shared) cache MAY cache the response.
Note: This usage of the word private only controls where the response may be cached, and cannot ensure the privacy of the message content. no-cacheIf the no-cache directive does not specify a field-name, then a cache MUST NOT use the response to satisfy a subsequent request without successful revalidation with the origin server. This allows an origin server to prevent caching even by caches that have been configured to return stale responses to client requests. If the no-cache directive does specify one or more field-names, then a cache MAY use the response to satisfy a subsequent request, subject to any other restrictions on caching. However, the specified field-name(s) MUST NOT be sent in the response to a subsequent request without successful revalidation with the origin server. This allows an origin server to prevent the re-use of certain header fields in a response, while still allowing caching of the rest of the response. Note: Most HTTP/1.0 caches will not recognize or obey this directive.
Proxies can't cache it because the content is "private" (what is bullshit -- the document is public), and clients can't cache it because it has neither expiration nor modification time in the header.
Looks like this "ZicoKnows" doesn't know shit after all.
Either you aren't a US citizen
I am not.
, or you slept through your Civics classes. A corporation is a "legal person", but they do not have all the "rights" a real person has.In the law, a corporation can sign contracts, own property, and perform a few other acts that only a "person" can perform, but a corporation cannot receive Social Security when it turns 65, it cannot vote, it cannot run for office (nor can it donate money directly to canditate ("hard money") in excess of $1000), etc.
AFAIK, companies originally weren't allowed to participate in political process at all -- now they legally can, and in fact _only_ they are capable of doing it, thus turning more or less democratic process into something completely different. I assume, if such blasphemy to the ideas of freedom and human rights as UCITA and DMCA get passed, it won't be hard to pass a law that will turn companies into complete "persons" with the only exception that they can't be imprisoned or executed. If that will happen, the conversion of US into an oppressive dictatorship of big business will be complete.
Military wants to know advancements corporations and industries are making for their potential in military uses. In doing so some of this intelligence gets passed along to a countries own corporations and industries.
And what is the justification for that? Why government won't keep information from companies just like it keeps it from its citizens? If country's defense was the reason, the primary concern would be to avoid a possibility of disclosure to keep sources of information being useful in the future. In the hands of company information will be more likely to be traced back to actual act of espionage because company's actions attract enough attention to make foreign governments suspicious. Therefore in the end government risks its sources of useful for defense information to allow company to make more money -- am I the only person here who thinks that it's very wrong order of priorities?
wow, that's new. Let's say how much the US sucks... all together.
In its relatively short history by now US outsucked most of countries that existed for many centuries more -- and most of other countries were severely criticized by their citizens all the time in the process. OTOH, most of US citizens just *LOVE* their country, so definitely criticism/suckage ratio is still low.
Even in that case most of things were results of hardware reverse-engineering, very common practice at that time because licensing was impossible even if both Russians and DEC/IBM wanted to.
In other areas things are even less in favor of this theory -- while examples of reverse engineering and ignoring patents/copyrights/... are abundant, most of problems in Russian industry were caused by poor organization not inferiority in research or design. Russia accomplished what few other countries did in this century (I hope, I shouldn't explain one more time that year 2000 is still 20'th century?) -- supporting a self-sufficient economy that depends neither on cheap foreign labor, nor on rich and dumb foreign consumers without causing a social disaster.
Incidentally, this is what makes me laugh at those "Keep Trade with China Open" commercials. I'm not sure if anyone else in the USA has seen them, but they're really funny. They imply that keeping trade with China open will "make China play by the rules" and "expose China to our democratic values." It's a riot.
See above about embargo -- Chinese government steals technology for products that can't be legally imported anyway, and competes with american companies in other areas. US steals what can be bought everywhere, but "national pride" doesn't allow to keep american companies beaten by those inferior Europeans and Asians.