Overall, this "article" is pretty weak, doesn't really touch on several of the competitors or get heavily into the technical/non-technical strengths or disadvantages of quite a few of the cards. And the fact that it doesn't talk about before 1996...
This sounds like some gamer's "memory of video cards" instead of a comprehensive "history of video cards"...
Re:First netscape communications, now MacroMedia
on
Longhorn's Flash Killer?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
So, let me get this straight.
MS is going to be embedding technology into their browser and OS that ensure that every computer running their operating system have a built-in, "native" version of the software (and likely use it by default), whereas users and corporations will have to go out of their way to install the competing product (it's difficult to convince OEMs to do ANY extra work that they don't have to do when building these bigger, cheaper, faster McComputers).
Microsoft used this tactic to kill Netscape.
They're using it to attempt to crush Java and related middleware platforms (.NET), competing web technologies (IIS/ASP), Media (WMP), and, it sounds like, embedded vector animation ("Flash-killer").
Yes, I'd say the DoJ settlement is doing a bang-up job ensuring that Microsoft doesn't abuse their monopoly power and perform monopolistic anti-competitive practices...
It appears that the "port 80" comment was removed after the initial post of the article. I'm not sure if it was due to the initial slashdotting or not, it may have just been a good (and quick!) choice on the publisher's part.
This is probably telling you there's no MX record for the domain, so mail servers are actually getting "no domain found" when trying to look up domains - Verisign is probably only building A records, which is all you really care about if you're trying to redirect web browsers.
Why haven't we moved to a technology that doesn't make spam so incredibly easy to happen, like AMTP?
Half of the world's email being spam (and just increasing) sounds like a good enough reason to ditch an ultra-easily-exploited protocol like SMTP... Why stick with a technology that simply wasn't even close to being designed for what it's being used for?
Yes, "pump and dump", Mr. Anonymous Coward. They're using their influence as executives to produce a ridiculous lawsuit, public statements, etc. They're manipulating a gullible public not quite smart enough to realize that SCO just haven't a clue (intentionally providing a sense of "mystery" while playing the PR game to appear as if they have "Something up their sleeve"). They're making moves that have a very small long-term chance of paying off, but the potential rewards are huge (3 BILLION dollars? That's quite a few times the company's net worth). Investors hate to miss out on a "big thing", and SCO are taking advantage of the gamling psychology rampant on Wall Street.
The stock market is all about perception - without dividends or other payoffs to make it's analagous to trading baseball cards or other collectibles.
It's questionable as to whether executives setting an "auto-sell" point "ahead of time" and then artificially inflating the price of their stock to hit this price point would be considered illegal under SEC regs. Many people, myself included, would consider this a form of "pump-and-dump" and hopefully illegal, however.
Yes, white collar crime and executive abuse don't quite compare to serial rapists, etc. However, what some of these guys are doing should be punished with a life sentence, instead in many cases it's perfectly legal.
An example: I don't know if it's still true today, but a few years back Nike had 18,000 employees in overseas factories making less than $3 per week - well below the poverty line even in THOSE countries. Senior Nike management was aware that children between 12-14 were employed working more than 50 hours a week (illegal in those countries, as well).
If Nike had spent an additional 1% of its advertising budget on its employees, it could have pushed 18,000 of its employees over the poverty line.
Someone else brought up a good point: Engineers tend to seek out the worst possible situations (especially the best engineers). However, if you've predicted disaster on every mission and on the 100th time you predicted a problem something goes wrong, did you really "predict" the problem? After hearing that the sky is falling constantly for several years, managers naturally may begin to doubt some reports. The way the article was written (which wasn't a research paper - it was clearly crafted to make Mr. Rocha a potential, but unheard, hero) it doesn't sound like this was the case, but it's a good point when talking about this situation
Keep in mind, too, that falling foam was "normal" and Boeing's investigation determined that there was no serious damage to the shuttle. These guys probably weren't *all* the managerial demons that they're being made out to be.
There's probably little doubt that NASA's processes suck, these guys should have listened to Rocha (especially - what is it they say about hindsight again?), but this thing was more complicated than "a bunch of stupid-A$$ managers"...
If all 30,000 users are downloading the same, or a small set of several-meg file(s), why would you want each user to download them across a slow, latent WAN link to the Internet? What a waste of bandwidth and money!
Depending on the type of traffic we're talking about (let's say HTTP), there are literally HUNDREDS of appliances that will cache these files locally once the first user finishes downloading the file. Subsequent downloads never hit the Internet.
Sure, there could be some technical limitations, but 99% of the time this shouldn't be a problem for a well-designed network.
The earliest that new Macs could come out is September/October, so you have a while to wait yet.
Also, it's VERY unlikely that the first set of 970s will find their way into the Powerbook or iMac. Out of the gate you'll likely see them only in the Xserve and Powermac line.
Of course, there MIGHT be a drop in a few months when Apple decides to start chunking inventory, but they're not really known for doing this.
If you need/want it now, buy now! There's never a good time to buy computers, the next best thing is always right around the corner, so you'll be waiting forever.
"Of course Bluetooth is only now just catching on, so imagine how long it'll be before this becomes practical."
Bluetooth "caught on" in Europe quite a while back. It's just us backwards Americans that are just now figuring out Bluetooth and GSM (and I don't think we'll EVER move metric..)
Yep, it will. But here's a case:
It takes 7 seconds to transfer a 50KB HTML doc on an uncompressed 56Kbit link. If it takes 400ms to compress the file down to, say, 5K, and 200ms to decompress it, you're still saving 5.3 seconds or so of not staring at the browser "load" bar. Of course, like someone else mentioned, all 56K modems support data compression of some kind...
Some services (and I'm guessing this one) will actually re-compress graphics with a lower (but usually still reasonable) quality setting, or other methods to shrink graphics. In most cases I think this is a good idea, but since usually this is a "lossy" procedure, it doesn't always work out perfectly (visible quality loss, color mismatch with surrounding text/graphics, banding, etc). And this is something your modem won't do!
Now if only more carriers would use ISDN to try to bridge the price gap between analog dial-up and "broadband*".
* - I use quotes around broadband because I had a friend in Atlanta that used Earthlink DSL, but got REALLY horrible transfer rates. When she complained repeatedly, she was pointed to a policy that stated that Earthlink would only guarantee that the lines were capable of handling 144Kbps. She wasn't getting even that, but somehow this AND my 2Mbps-capped cable modem are both considered 10x faster.
Many webservers have the option of sending compressed HTML responses, and client apps (Mozilla, Opera, etc) indicate whether or not they are capable of handling a compressed HTML page.
Text is one of the BEST formats to compress - it's usually extremely compressable (90%+). Considering many HTML pages are now HUGE, particularly pages with a lot of DHTML, embedded javascript or vbscript, it makes good sense to compress them in most cases.
Has anyone else noticed that the front page of mycomicspage.com promises to send me a "FREE" Calvin and Hobbes book with membership, then when you click on the book image link, it takes you to a page that requests 5 extra dollars for the Calvin and Hobbes book?
Am I missing something?
Slashdot Mirror
Overall, this "article" is pretty weak, doesn't really touch on several of the competitors or get heavily into the technical/non-technical strengths or disadvantages of quite a few of the cards. And the fact that it doesn't talk about before 1996...
This sounds like some gamer's "memory of video cards" instead of a comprehensive "history of video cards"...
So, let me get this straight.
MS is going to be embedding technology into their browser and OS that ensure that every computer running their operating system have a built-in, "native" version of the software (and likely use it by default), whereas users and corporations will have to go out of their way to install the competing product (it's difficult to convince OEMs to do ANY extra work that they don't have to do when building these bigger, cheaper, faster McComputers).
Microsoft used this tactic to kill Netscape.
They're using it to attempt to crush Java and related middleware platforms (.NET), competing web technologies (IIS/ASP), Media (WMP), and, it sounds like, embedded vector animation ("Flash-killer").
Yes, I'd say the DoJ settlement is doing a bang-up job ensuring that Microsoft doesn't abuse their monopoly power and perform monopolistic anti-competitive practices...
If you feed the trolls, you're going to get bitten...
It appears that the "port 80" comment was removed after the initial post of the article. I'm not sure if it was due to the initial slashdotting or not, it may have just been a good (and quick!) choice on the publisher's part.
This is probably telling you there's no MX record for the domain, so mail servers are actually getting "no domain found" when trying to look up domains - Verisign is probably only building A records, which is all you really care about if you're trying to redirect web browsers.
Why haven't we moved to a technology that doesn't make spam so incredibly easy to happen, like AMTP?
Half of the world's email being spam (and just increasing) sounds like a good enough reason to ditch an ultra-easily-exploited protocol like SMTP... Why stick with a technology that simply wasn't even close to being designed for what it's being used for?
Yes, "pump and dump", Mr. Anonymous Coward. They're using their influence as executives to produce a ridiculous lawsuit, public statements, etc. They're manipulating a gullible public not quite smart enough to realize that SCO just haven't a clue (intentionally providing a sense of "mystery" while playing the PR game to appear as if they have "Something up their sleeve"). They're making moves that have a very small long-term chance of paying off, but the potential rewards are huge (3 BILLION dollars? That's quite a few times the company's net worth). Investors hate to miss out on a "big thing", and SCO are taking advantage of the gamling psychology rampant on Wall Street.
The stock market is all about perception - without dividends or other payoffs to make it's analagous to trading baseball cards or other collectibles.
It's questionable as to whether executives setting an "auto-sell" point "ahead of time" and then artificially inflating the price of their stock to hit this price point would be considered illegal under SEC regs. Many people, myself included, would consider this a form of "pump-and-dump" and hopefully illegal, however.
Yes, white collar crime and executive abuse don't quite compare to serial rapists, etc. However, what some of these guys are doing should be punished with a life sentence, instead in many cases it's perfectly legal.
An example: I don't know if it's still true today, but a few years back Nike had 18,000 employees in overseas factories making less than $3 per week - well below the poverty line even in THOSE countries. Senior Nike management was aware that children between 12-14 were employed working more than 50 hours a week (illegal in those countries, as well).
If Nike had spent an additional 1% of its advertising budget on its employees, it could have pushed 18,000 of its employees over the poverty line.
And that's not a vile sin?
Someone else brought up a good point: Engineers tend to seek out the worst possible situations (especially the best engineers). However, if you've predicted disaster on every mission and on the 100th time you predicted a problem something goes wrong, did you really "predict" the problem? After hearing that the sky is falling constantly for several years, managers naturally may begin to doubt some reports. The way the article was written (which wasn't a research paper - it was clearly crafted to make Mr. Rocha a potential, but unheard, hero) it doesn't sound like this was the case, but it's a good point when talking about this situation
Keep in mind, too, that falling foam was "normal" and Boeing's investigation determined that there was no serious damage to the shuttle. These guys probably weren't *all* the managerial demons that they're being made out to be.
There's probably little doubt that NASA's processes suck, these guys should have listened to Rocha (especially - what is it they say about hindsight again?), but this thing was more complicated than "a bunch of stupid-A$$ managers"...
I'd be surprised if .001% of the population of the United States lives in Canada...
Erm, that would be celluloid.
"...and was making preparations for a 96 hour continuous flight using it's 62,000 solar cells"
Yet another Slashdotter can't figure out the difference between "it's" and "its"...
Argh! Must...read...source article...closer...
If all 30,000 users are downloading the same, or a small set of several-meg file(s), why would you want each user to download them across a slow, latent WAN link to the Internet? What a waste of bandwidth and money! Depending on the type of traffic we're talking about (let's say HTTP), there are literally HUNDREDS of appliances that will cache these files locally once the first user finishes downloading the file. Subsequent downloads never hit the Internet. Sure, there could be some technical limitations, but 99% of the time this shouldn't be a problem for a well-designed network.
Click where?
I don't know, when I use the correct URL I get in just fine... What slashdotting were you talking about?
The earliest that new Macs could come out is September/October, so you have a while to wait yet. Also, it's VERY unlikely that the first set of 970s will find their way into the Powerbook or iMac. Out of the gate you'll likely see them only in the Xserve and Powermac line. Of course, there MIGHT be a drop in a few months when Apple decides to start chunking inventory, but they're not really known for doing this. If you need/want it now, buy now! There's never a good time to buy computers, the next best thing is always right around the corner, so you'll be waiting forever.
"Of course Bluetooth is only now just catching on, so imagine how long it'll be before this becomes practical."
Bluetooth "caught on" in Europe quite a while back. It's just us backwards Americans that are just now figuring out Bluetooth and GSM (and I don't think we'll EVER move metric..)
The 2.4 kernel is being revoked by IANA? They're taking this whole "complete control" thing a little too far..
Yep, it will. But here's a case: It takes 7 seconds to transfer a 50KB HTML doc on an uncompressed 56Kbit link. If it takes 400ms to compress the file down to, say, 5K, and 200ms to decompress it, you're still saving 5.3 seconds or so of not staring at the browser "load" bar. Of course, like someone else mentioned, all 56K modems support data compression of some kind...
Some services (and I'm guessing this one) will actually re-compress graphics with a lower (but usually still reasonable) quality setting, or other methods to shrink graphics. In most cases I think this is a good idea, but since usually this is a "lossy" procedure, it doesn't always work out perfectly (visible quality loss, color mismatch with surrounding text/graphics, banding, etc). And this is something your modem won't do!
Now if only more carriers would use ISDN to try to bridge the price gap between analog dial-up and "broadband*".
* - I use quotes around broadband because I had a friend in Atlanta that used Earthlink DSL, but got REALLY horrible transfer rates. When she complained repeatedly, she was pointed to a policy that stated that Earthlink would only guarantee that the lines were capable of handling 144Kbps. She wasn't getting even that, but somehow this AND my 2Mbps-capped cable modem are both considered 10x faster.
Many webservers have the option of sending compressed HTML responses, and client apps (Mozilla, Opera, etc) indicate whether or not they are capable of handling a compressed HTML page.
Text is one of the BEST formats to compress - it's usually extremely compressable (90%+). Considering many HTML pages are now HUGE, particularly pages with a lot of DHTML, embedded javascript or vbscript, it makes good sense to compress them in most cases.
Has anyone else noticed that the front page of mycomicspage.com promises to send me a "FREE" Calvin and Hobbes book with membership, then when you click on the book image link, it takes you to a page that requests 5 extra dollars for the Calvin and Hobbes book? Am I missing something?