Wierd cuz when I hanged up it was still in emergency mode. Maybe its just the software for the motorolla's. Also I forgot to mention I am with Bell Canada [almost forgot there is still competition in Canada....]
In Canada we use CDMA [on a tri-band xmitter no less]. You can dial 911 if the phone is user-locked [e.g. enter code] or just locked [hit two keys to unlock]. You have to pay 0.25$ a month for a 911 "connection fee". Without a service plan I'm sure the phone will call 911 but I have never tried.
Another little tidbit. If anyone has ever dialed 911 on a phone its somewhat interesting. My motorolla v120 will sit in "emergency mode" and do a funny beep. You can't dial any other number until you reset the phone [e.g. power down].
Put your mp3s on a CD then you will waste no bandwidth.
Also for any employers reading here... wasting a few mins a day playing with some music [e.g. setting it up] is insignificant compared to the efficiency of a comfortable employee.
E.g. if the employee is having a decent time they will work harder and probably make fewer mistakes. If you force them to wear a uniform and upsell popcorn [e.g. my job] then they won't do a super great job.
And if I see 19 of 20 seconds from/. again I'm going to fuckin cry. Seriously slashdot crew, get a fucking clue. Not all posts require a full 20 seconds. Maybe because Taco boy uses a dialing wand and can only type 20 words a day... but for the rest of us... hey this seems like more than 20 seconds.
I have no intention to troll. None whatsoever. And please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that quote you have above. No. I have never tried to write an http-daemon. What does that have to do with anything?
Yes you did say it [or at least someone with your account]. I copied the msg verbatim.
I tried to download the zipfile you posted and as you said, it works fine in IE but not with Mozilla. I have no idea why this happens but I'm sure the mozilla team does. You have filed a bug-report so that they can fix it, right?
Why does this happen from your webserver and not from other servers that I've downloaded zipfiles from? Is it really a Mozilla error? This is an honest question, because it really seems to work elsewhere.
Yes I filed a bug and its being worked on. Yes its really a Mozilla error and yes, you probably haven't seen it elsewhere because most HTTP servers don't support the full "TE: gzip" specification [mine does].
Here's the outline of the bug
1. Mozilla says "accept-encoding: gzip,..." which means it accepts messages encoded with GZIP or at least thats how Mozilla and IE interpret it.
2. The server replies with both "content-encoding: gzip" and "transfer-encoding: gzip" which means the data being sent back is a GZIP encoded message
3. Mozilla mistakes the fact that you are saving a ZIP file with the fact it shouldn't gunzip it. So basically Mozilla asks for GZIP encoding but thinks because its a ZIP it shouldn't decompress it.
IE gets the system right where it will ask for GZIP encoding and decompress it too.
About the bastardizaton of html. It's no secret that Microsoft has added new tags and stuff that only works in IE. Pick up any book about web-design. In most of them it sais right there [Only works in IE]
Thats a moot point. As long as IE supports the standard HTML it doesn't matter if it adds-on to the standard. The point is HTML 3.2 documents should load in IE like they do in Mozilla. If the user chooses to use IE extensions thats hardly IE's fault!
I believe you. In mozilla you have to write proper http/html for it to work, not Microsofts bastardization of it. Yes, the redmond based company has embraced and extended this protocol too. I would very much like to know how Mozilla handles the invalid replies that you spoke of. Yes, IE is much more forgiving than Mozilla. This is not a good thing. That encourages webmasters to write bad code. If you should complain about something it should be about the persons who write bad html that don't comply to the w3c standard.
See now you are just trolling. You say "mozilla is ___so____ much better, etc..." have you actually tried to write an HTTP daemen?
You got it backwards about the errors. IE won't accept quite a few HTTP errors [aka bugs] that Mozilla will [or opera will]. The HTTP implementation in IE is actually quite a bit better than you make it out to be. For example, IE will request and make proper use of GZIP encoding and HTTP keep-alives. Mozilla will request both but not always make proper use of them [it always uses new sockets for HTTP requests regardless]
Don't believe me? Download
http://tom.iahu.ca/iahu.zip
With mozilla 1.0 or 1.1a [just verified]. It will not be a valid zip file because Mozilla will request the server to send a GZIP data stream and not decompress it. Now try it in IE. IE will request GZIP encoding *and* decompress it.
So unless you actually sit down and write a server stop telling me the way things "are". That just makes you look stupid and you lend less credibility to the whole OSS scene which is a bad thing.
Well I am comparing my "IE in windows" to "mozilla in linux". IE supports the HTTP standard better, it doesn't die as often [assuming you have a clean install of windows... something not so easy] and generally just is easier to use.
I find even Mozilla 1.0 will die on a page or two [mostly at yahoo] and just hang without anything. In windows with IE I never really had any problems.
And trust me when I say IE supports HTTP cleaner. I'm in the midsts of writing a web server and in due course I have tested it against wget, opera, mozilla, voyager, konquerer and IE. IE handles pretty much all of the HTTP specs [that my limited server uses just fine]. IE will also properly handle invalid replies [e.g. with no Content-length].
Opera is somewhat closer but doesn't use keep-alives [despite the fact it sends the request!]. Opera doesn't use consistent capitalization of HTTP traffic which at first was a pain [my server jsut lower cases all the traffic for simplicity].
Voyager [from QNX] just sucks.
Mozilla works somewhat decently but I find it won't handle all cases of GZIP messages [I actually submitted a bug w.r.t this].
Anderson's point was not that less is better is that its irrelevent in the long run to compare open and closed source.
I mostly agree with him however I like open source software for more reasons than just the fact its "more secure". Often OSS software isn't in fact more secure or reliable. Look at mozilla. Its a great project but its not as nice as IE by a long shot. Anyone using 1.1a in Linux will know that [e.g. me! while at the same time 0.9.9 works fine... ???]
I already gave a brief definition but for the sake of people who don't read the whole posts...
A monopoly is a situation when alternatives are driven out of the market by pressure from another source. Like if MSFT turned around and say made deals with OEM's to include MS and forced them [via making life a bitch] not to turn away. That's a monopoly.
But if Redhat just shipped KDE and not Gnome, that's not a monopoly. Redhat is not forcing Gnome out of the market.
I guess you just don't know how to setup a computer
Time required to load DOS + Windows 3.1 on a 486 - 5 minutes
Win3.1 on my 486 [I had a 66Mhz 486SLC] booted in all of 20 seconds or so. The core of DOS took about a minute at most to boot. In total about 80 seconds from boot to windows [if it was in the autoexec.bat]
Time requiree to load WinXP on a P3 - 3 minutes
Now I have an Athlon XP [1.53Ghz, ATA100 disk, 512 MB of ram] and it takes roughly 2 minutes to boot. So this figure isn't too far off.
Why the heck not? Or if you really want to have both actually try, um, i dunno, some originality!
Why is emulating another product considered diversity?
Personally I would rather see more people collaborate on single products for linux then have every kid and their brother coding their own tools.
I mean, you ever wonder why Windows is so popular amongst the average user? Aside from the fact that MSFT is a bully...
Its because they stick with what works. They don't have 18 different GUI shells, or 34 web browsers. They stick to core products and develop them properly.
And really having only one tool is not a monopoly. Like "terrorism" the word "monopoly" has no value here.
For instance, I wrote the "TomSteady" Winamp DSP-plugin. Do I now have the monopoly on all AGC style plugins because I'm really the only one out there with one?
Hell no.
Monopolies only exist when alternatives are stopped from being produced. MS doesn't have a monopoly on the Windoes shell because you can quite simply replace "explorer.exe" with whatever you want. You don't need to use IE either....
I am glad that KDE and Gnome are competing. It means that we who use Linux, unlike the Windows-using world, have a choice. And what's more, I feel that their competition helps to make them better.
I see it differently. I see it as dividing up the already limited potential developers base into camps that basically try to emulate each other.
Notice, gedit => kedit and many others...
At least in windows there is a traditional user interface which is VERY USEFUL for newbie computer users.
Besides in windows there is competition on many things. Just not the shell. [I host my site with apache, I use cygwin, I am typing this message in Opera, etc...]
Another tidbit of reality. 99% of computer users are *not* nerds [note: a geek is a circus person who bites the heads off chickens] so saying "linux is so popular" and "written for geeks" is kinda counter-intuiative.
Here's a little reality lesson for you. Nobody, and I really mean that, writes bug-free complex programs the first shot. Check out mozilla if you need a non-MSFT example.
Not really. A more demanding game may have more pipeline stalls or cache misses. Which means while an Athlon could beat a P4 with Q3 a new game may be better suited to the P4 core than the Athlon core.
Slashdot Mirror
Wierd cuz when I hanged up it was still in emergency mode. Maybe its just the software for the motorolla's. Also I forgot to mention I am with Bell Canada [almost forgot there is still competition in Canada....]
Tom
In Canada we use CDMA [on a tri-band xmitter no less]. You can dial 911 if the phone is user-locked [e.g. enter code] or just locked [hit two keys to unlock]. You have to pay 0.25$ a month for a 911 "connection fee". Without a service plan I'm sure the phone will call 911 but I have never tried.
Another little tidbit. If anyone has ever dialed 911 on a phone its somewhat interesting. My motorolla v120 will sit in "emergency mode" and do a funny beep. You can't dial any other number until you reset the phone [e.g. power down].
Tom
Put your mp3s on a CD then you will waste no bandwidth.
Also for any employers reading here... wasting a few mins a day playing with some music [e.g. setting it up] is insignificant compared to the efficiency of a comfortable employee.
E.g. if the employee is having a decent time they will work harder and probably make fewer mistakes. If you force them to wear a uniform and upsell popcorn [e.g. my job] then they won't do a super great job.
Tom
Not only that but most theaters will get the manager to call 911. They are not that callous [I know I work for AMC... :-(]
tom
So only christians can be patriotic now?
Geez, that's smart.
Personally I think money, religion and country borders should be abolished just for this sort of reason... stupid made up divisions...
Tom
Wrong. Get a clue. Each cpu gets 10 mins per GAME and 2 seconds per move.
The idea is that the faster cpu will beable to try out more moves before actually comitting to a move. More studying presumably means better chess.
Tom
That's why both machines are using both AI's.
/. again I'm going to fuckin cry. Seriously slashdot crew, get a fucking clue. Not all posts require a full 20 seconds. Maybe because Taco boy uses a dialing wand and can only type 20 words a day... but for the rest of us... hey this seems like more than 20 seconds.
And if I see 19 of 20 seconds from
Tom
The CNN story suggests that forcing people to recite it is unconstitutional. The actual pledge is not uncosnitutional itself.
Tom
I have no intention to troll. None whatsoever. And please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that quote you have above.
..." which means it accepts messages encoded with GZIP or at least thats how Mozilla and IE interpret it.
No. I have never tried to write an http-daemon. What does that have to do with anything?
Yes you did say it [or at least someone with your account]. I copied the msg verbatim.
I tried to download the zipfile you posted and as you said, it works fine in IE but not with Mozilla. I have no idea why this happens but I'm sure the mozilla team does. You have filed a bug-report so that they can fix it, right?
Why does this happen from your webserver and not from other servers that I've downloaded zipfiles from? Is it really a Mozilla error? This is an honest question, because it really seems to work elsewhere.
Yes I filed a bug and its being worked on. Yes its really a Mozilla error and yes, you probably haven't seen it elsewhere because most HTTP servers don't support the full "TE: gzip" specification [mine does].
Here's the outline of the bug
1. Mozilla says "accept-encoding: gzip,
2. The server replies with both "content-encoding: gzip" and "transfer-encoding: gzip" which means the data being sent back is a GZIP encoded message
3. Mozilla mistakes the fact that you are saving a ZIP file with the fact it shouldn't gunzip it. So basically Mozilla asks for GZIP encoding but thinks because its a ZIP it shouldn't decompress it.
IE gets the system right where it will ask for GZIP encoding and decompress it too.
About the bastardizaton of html. It's no secret that Microsoft has added new tags and stuff that only works in IE. Pick up any book about web-design. In most of them it sais right there [Only works in IE]
Thats a moot point. As long as IE supports the standard HTML it doesn't matter if it adds-on to the standard. The point is HTML 3.2 documents should load in IE like they do in Mozilla. If the user chooses to use IE extensions thats hardly IE's fault!
Tom
I believe you. In mozilla you have to write proper http/html for it to work, not Microsofts bastardization of it. Yes, the redmond based company has embraced and extended this protocol too. I would very much like to know how Mozilla handles the invalid replies that you spoke of.
Yes, IE is much more forgiving than Mozilla. This is not a good thing. That encourages webmasters to write bad code. If you should complain about something it should be about the persons who write bad html that don't comply to the w3c standard.
See now you are just trolling. You say "mozilla is ___so____ much better, etc..." have you actually tried to write an HTTP daemen?
You got it backwards about the errors. IE won't accept quite a few HTTP errors [aka bugs] that Mozilla will [or opera will]. The HTTP implementation in IE is actually quite a bit better than you make it out to be. For example, IE will request and make proper use of GZIP encoding and HTTP keep-alives. Mozilla will request both but not always make proper use of them [it always uses new sockets for HTTP requests regardless]
Don't believe me? Download
http://tom.iahu.ca/iahu.zip
With mozilla 1.0 or 1.1a [just verified]. It will not be a valid zip file because Mozilla will request the server to send a GZIP data stream and not decompress it. Now try it in IE. IE will request GZIP encoding *and* decompress it.
So unless you actually sit down and write a server stop telling me the way things "are". That just makes you look stupid and you lend less credibility to the whole OSS scene which is a bad thing.
Tom
Well I am comparing my "IE in windows" to "mozilla in linux". IE supports the HTTP standard better, it doesn't die as often [assuming you have a clean install of windows... something not so easy] and generally just is easier to use.
I find even Mozilla 1.0 will die on a page or two [mostly at yahoo] and just hang without anything. In windows with IE I never really had any problems.
And trust me when I say IE supports HTTP cleaner. I'm in the midsts of writing a web server and in due course I have tested it against wget, opera, mozilla, voyager, konquerer and IE. IE handles pretty much all of the HTTP specs [that my limited server uses just fine]. IE will also properly handle invalid replies [e.g. with no Content-length].
Opera is somewhat closer but doesn't use keep-alives [despite the fact it sends the request!]. Opera doesn't use consistent capitalization of HTTP traffic which at first was a pain [my server jsut lower cases all the traffic for simplicity].
Voyager [from QNX] just sucks.
Mozilla works somewhat decently but I find it won't handle all cases of GZIP messages [I actually submitted a bug w.r.t this].
Tom
Anderson's point was not that less is better is that its irrelevent in the long run to compare open and closed source.
I mostly agree with him however I like open source software for more reasons than just the fact its "more secure". Often OSS software isn't in fact more secure or reliable. Look at mozilla. Its a great project but its not as nice as IE by a long shot. Anyone using 1.1a in Linux will know that [e.g. me! while at the same time 0.9.9 works fine... ???]
tom
See the funny thing is your post wasn't even the first. AFAIK you came in second at 8:46 and the first post was really 8:45.
Better luck never. I mean common, you don't have to post "FP". Or better yet get a FP with an actual real post!
Tom
What is so amazing about this though? I mean you think the people working at these outsourced companies get to put their name anywhere on it anyways?
For example, say you work for Nortel and designed the 1M modem. You can't call it the TomModem or whatever just because you worked on it.
Tom
Typical MS tactics. Throw enough money around, you're bound to come up with something decent.
Forgive me for being naive but isn't that what most businesses call "R&D" ???
Tom
wow, thats an original joke. Did you think of it yourself?
Mod the parent and this [my post] way down!
Tom
Thats for damn skippy, coppertop.
So I ask again, what is the matrix?
Tom
I totally agree with your post!
/. is possible... :-)
Common sense in
Tom
How, then, would you define "monopoly?"
I already gave a brief definition but for the sake of people who don't read the whole posts...
A monopoly is a situation when alternatives are driven out of the market by pressure from another source. Like if MSFT turned around and say made deals with OEM's to include MS and forced them [via making life a bitch] not to turn away. That's a monopoly.
But if Redhat just shipped KDE and not Gnome, that's not a monopoly. Redhat is not forcing Gnome out of the market.
Tom
I guess you just don't know how to setup a computer
Time required to load DOS + Windows 3.1 on a 486 - 5 minutes
Win3.1 on my 486 [I had a 66Mhz 486SLC] booted in all of 20 seconds or so. The core of DOS took about a minute at most to boot. In total about 80 seconds from boot to windows [if it was in the autoexec.bat]
Time requiree to load WinXP on a P3 - 3 minutes
Now I have an Athlon XP [1.53Ghz, ATA100 disk, 512 MB of ram] and it takes roughly 2 minutes to boot. So this figure isn't too far off.
Tom
Why the heck not? Or if you really want to have both actually try, um, i dunno, some originality!
Why is emulating another product considered diversity?
Personally I would rather see more people collaborate on single products for linux then have every kid and their brother coding their own tools.
I mean, you ever wonder why Windows is so popular amongst the average user? Aside from the fact that MSFT is a bully...
Its because they stick with what works. They don't have 18 different GUI shells, or 34 web browsers. They stick to core products and develop them properly.
And really having only one tool is not a monopoly. Like "terrorism" the word "monopoly" has no value here.
For instance, I wrote the "TomSteady" Winamp DSP-plugin. Do I now have the monopoly on all AGC style plugins because I'm really the only one out there with one?
Hell no.
Monopolies only exist when alternatives are stopped from being produced. MS doesn't have a monopoly on the Windoes shell because you can quite simply replace "explorer.exe" with whatever you want. You don't need to use IE either....
Tom
I am glad that KDE and Gnome are competing. It means that we who use Linux, unlike the Windows-using world, have a choice. And what's more, I feel that their competition helps to make them better.
I see it differently. I see it as dividing up the already limited potential developers base into camps that basically try to emulate each other.
Notice, gedit => kedit and many others...
At least in windows there is a traditional user interface which is VERY USEFUL for newbie computer users.
Besides in windows there is competition on many things. Just not the shell. [I host my site with apache, I use cygwin, I am typing this message in Opera, etc...]
Tom
Another tidbit of reality. 99% of computer users are *not* nerds [note: a geek is a circus person who bites the heads off chickens] so saying "linux is so popular" and "written for geeks" is kinda counter-intuiative.
Tom
Here's a little reality lesson for you. Nobody, and I really mean that, writes bug-free complex programs the first shot. Check out mozilla if you need a non-MSFT example.
Tom
Not really. A more demanding game may have more pipeline stalls or cache misses. Which means while an Athlon could beat a P4 with Q3 a new game may be better suited to the P4 core than the Athlon core.
Tom