Ask.com, WikiPedia and ESPN were beating it out, and you had to scroll down the second page about halfway to find it. I'm glad to see it is showing up on the front page.
Honestly, I can't blame them for not wanting to help you find google, but any browser these days has to be able to add a google search engine in less than 2 clicks or it's very annoying for most people.
My development environment for an old ERP system expects a lot of things to be in CAPS. Some *can* be lower case, but a lot can't. I turn on caps lock when using this system and rarely have an issue. The only annoying part is typing in human readable text in my code, which I want to use mixed-case. At that point, I either use inverted shifting (shifting when I want lower case) or turn off caps temporarily.
When it comes to the Voynich Manuscript, you get to call "bullshit" without anyone questioning you. Because, you are always right. The decoding always fails. All you need is a knowledge of the history of this manuscript to know that this amateur is extremely unlikely to have decoded it.
You won't have to regularly go through your sites, if you use private mode to browse the ones you are embarrassed by.
Anyway, I understand that this increases exposure to data that is already there. The real issue, IMO, is that the data is there in the first place. Anyone looking at your bookmarks, or history, could potentially find it. Granted, not as likely, but it's still there.
Increasing exposure to data that the user has already allowed to be stored, IMO, is not a bad thing per se. Of course, options should be available to disable this exposure (and are, to some degree). But personally, I find the completion extremely useful. If I don't want something to show up there, even on my personal, home computer, I use privacy mode...even though rarely does anyone use my home computer, I prefer to keep that info private.
It's too bad that people are so worried what might autocomplete on their URL bar that they refuse to take advantage of new features, but of course I agree that they should be able to turn off these features.
If anyone remembers the "outpost of hell" level of Doom2, this code caused sector 666 (doors to outer area) to drop after all the Manucubi (fat guys with flamethrowers) were killed, freeing all the Arachnotrons (baby spider demons), and raised sector 667 (stair to end of level) after all Arachnotrons were killed.
I used to design levels for Doom2 and I came across this interesting behavior when trying to force doors to open after enemy deaths. I finally realized that only on level 7, and only sectors 666/667 were affected in exactly this way. Sure enough, when I was able to view the Doom2 source, there was the "ugly hack."
There are more people on the planet then IPv4 addresses. So no matter what kind of reorganization and cleanup you will do, we will run out of IPv4 new addresses really soon. The trouble of course is that this simply means IPv4 addresses will get more expensive and people will fudge around with even more NAT, not that ISPs will switch to IPv6. After all why replace a valuable resource with a free one, there is nothing to gain for the ISPs with IPv6 at the moment.
Well, 1.6 million people can easily use one IPv4 address for their basic internet needs. So, I'm not so sure the number of people on the planet is directly related to the number of needed IPv4 addresses...
IPv6 is not a big deal. What is a big deal is there is no way it will ever take over given the current transition plans. Yes, it's useable. But it doesn't solve the problems it's supposed to solve, because we can't get people to start using it under the current conditions. And those conditions are unlikely to change as long as we can still find ways to make IPv4 work.
Until there is a way to transition, the new addresses are not really helping alleviate the shortage. I don't really think the issue is "ipv6 sucks, why would you use it?" but "sure would be nice if we could switch to ipv6, but we can't, because some bad decisions were made."
Yes, DHCPv6 is not a requirement of IPv6. Does it offer additional functionality? Yes. I have used IPv6 for several years, and am aware of its abilities. Technically, DHCPv6 is not a dealbreaker, but it might be for some ISPs.
Unfortunately, the problem is a simple mathematical one. IPv4 hosts can't talk to the IPv6 Internet because they can't address them. That's not a surprising drawback, it's the reason IPv6 was developed.
You are wrong about this. There are several solutions being worked on to do exactly this. Of course it's not pretty, for obvious reasons (ipv6 hosts pretending to only be as numerous as ipv4 hosts, etc.) Check out IVI and Dual Stack Lite. Something like this had better exist, or we will probably never get ipv6 going.
If you already have public IP addresses for all of your devices, sure. However, I don't get public v4 IPs from my ISP for each of my systems (even before counting the virtualized servers). Since I have an IPv6 tunnel set up with a globally routable/48 prefix, however, I can directly address each system from anywhere in the world without having to use a VPN or other translation.
You basically are using ipv6 as a VPN. Yes, I know that's an overly broad classification of IPv6, but what's your point? You set up tunnels, configure ipv6 interfaces and addresses, and memorize ipv6 addresses, all so you can access a few remote hosts? I can do this with a VPN, and it's a hell of a lot easier to configure. It also has the added benefit of security--only those with access to my VPN can actually talk directly to these hosts.
Globally routeable addresses are cool, of course...but it does nothing to solve the problems with IPv6 transition.
The point is not so much new hosts as existing hosts. Since the ISPs haven't done what you say, not only are there a huge number of XP hosts out there without ipv6, it's still growing.
If they did what you say, and ISPs offered ipv6, then XP would still not be ideal. Since XP does not support DHCPv6, this could cause problems for ISPs trying to assign ipv6 addresses.
The bottom line is that ipv4 is working, and ipv6 is working, but they don't work together. My ISP is Hurricane, so I have as much ipv6 connectivity as anyone. It sure would be nice if ipv4 hosts could talk to the ipv6 internet, though. Otherwise we just have to wait until enough ipv6 hosts are not just capable but correctly configured that it makes sense to get an ipv6 address if you don't already have one. But since the ipv4 network will have a superset of the ipv6 network's hosts for a long time, just the opposite occurs. You still need an ipv4 address, so your ipv6 address seems pointless. One day, when you can't get an ipv4 address, you will be stuck talking to only the ipv6 net. And then, and only then, will website owners finally feel the need to offer ipv6 services--because if they don't, some clients can't reach them...
Yes, the transition would have been smoother had there been a clearer standard for IPv4-to-IPv6 address mapping, but IPv6 does work fine, thank you, and the upgrade is happening largely through aging out of older systems.
XP doesn't really support ipv6 nicely. It does work but it's certainly not easy. Windows Me, 98, and 95 are still a big part of internet hosts. When you say, "the upgrade is happening," do you mean that in 10 years, none of these hosts will exist? Considering that XP is still included on many new computers (dell and lenovo still offer XP on all business class computers, for example), and pretty much all netbooks, I'm not so sure about that.
Wrong, you missed the one about vinyl windows. Fact is, they both have the one about Macs, which is the main complaint of this/. posting! So it's pretty retarded to bag on Microsoft for returning a result that Google also returns, regardless of whether it's 2nd or 8th. They are both on the front page.
The FSM episode is stupid and does not make any rational argument. I was not suggesting otherwise.
I did not blindly link that blog, I linked it to inform on what the content of the episode was and how apologetic christians might have interpreted it.
I am an atheist and was disgusted with that SP episode. I just find it IRONIC that someone would invoke SP to protect us from religion in the same post that they bring up the FSM, which anology SP creators also spat on.
Ok, but its creators do. They are humans. From what I can tell, they are libertarian leaning moderates.
I like the show, and have watched many episodes. It's pretty easy to see they are biased against "hollywood liberals" and the like. They also hold grudges (see Chef's final episode where they equate his allegiance to scientology to membership in NAMBLA). None of this changes your point, of course. I just found in amusing that you invoke South Park and the FSM in the same post, since SP creators have mocked the FSM argument before.
They also did an episode mocking the idea that religion is the source of zealotry (in the future, Atheist factions battle against each other with the cry "Science Damn You!"
They've also argued the case that evolution is the "how" and not the "why" of creation. People who disagree with this idea are mocked by the episode.
SP does mock many kinds of zealots, including religious ones. But they clearly do not fall on the side of atheism when it comes to their biases. I doubt they would support this law, of course. They are against all censorship, presumably.
If only 50% want change, then the incumbent already has 1/2 the votes! Unless 100% of the rest vote for the same person, the incumbent wins! It's voting for nebulous things like "change" that causes the status quo to stick around. A run-off system would help this tremendously.
You need 60-70% who want change before you can vote someone out easily. 50% approval is pretty damn good, and darn near impossible to beat.
In a system where a plurality wins, all you have to do is have more votes than the next guy. If everyone votes their conscience, you have 900 "good" guys that get.1% of the vote, and 1 "famous" guy who gets 10%, and he wins in a landslide. Without requiring a majority or having a run-off system, you can't stop one party without resorting to the "next most famous" party.
You need a candidate who can get more votes than the incumbent. The incumbent doesn't lose because over 1/2 the people vote against him.
Generally speaking, consumers have two choices: an Apple, or one of many x86 based-computers that fall under the general classification "IBM-PC compatible" which has essentially defined the Microsoft OS-running computers since the beginning.
Apple calls their computers "Macs".
The generally accepted term for the others is "PC".
Since the vast majority of Windows licenses are purchased for/because of these PCs, it's clear which side Microsoft wants to be on. More Macs purchased equals fewer Microsoft licenses. That's the pragmatic reasoning for the approach.
I suppose Microsoft could call it a "computer running Microsoft Windows." But the bottom line is, "PC" is the easily identifiable phrase that means this same thing to *most* people (due not in small part to the Mac vs. PC commercials). And that "PC" brand/idea has been tarnished by the Apple commercials. Microsoft is trying to fight back.
As far as what you can install on a piece of hardware, you can install Linux on an apple or pc, you can install windows on an apple or pc, and you can install OSX on an apple or PC. The difficulty varies for each of these, but it seems pretty obvious which the average person would choose for which OS (to me, at least).
And none of this changes the fact that most PCs run Windows, most Macs run OSX and most Linux laptop users are paying Microsoft's license fee anyway! And more "PC"s sold equals more money for Microsoft. So why would they shy away from this choice of names?
Hidden costs are a real thing, though perhaps the name choice isn't so great. "TCO," though, makes sense.
The "hidden cost" of upgrading to Vista is huge for my company. Right now we estimate $150,000 just to upgrade our ERP system to a version that works on Vista instead of XP (we are a fairly small company). So, not only does the "hidden" cost matter, it applies to all systems.
For Microsoft to suggest that they are exempt from other costs while Apple is not, is disingenuous, of course.
I assume you must mean that you have switched to Linux or Mac, then.
I am an IT admin and someone brought me a blue screen just yesterday, on a Lenovo T61 running Windows XP SP3. Before that, the last one was two weeks ago on a Dell desktop (it blue screened about 5 times over the course of a month). I believe that one has been fixed by replacing the Nvidia graphics card.
Hardware faults, poorly written drivers, and cheap memory can all contribute to these blue screens. I don't blame microsoft, really, but blue screens are still around. If you haven't seen one you are just lucky, not typical.
My home computer (custom built Windows XP machine) has never had a blue screen in 3 years. I took great care in selecting components, but I still wouldn't be surprised to see one--it's just a fact of life with windows.
Slashdot Mirror
Google is on the front page (for now), but for about a year it wasn't on the front page of:
http://www.ieaddons.com/en/searchproviders
Ask.com, WikiPedia and ESPN were beating it out, and you had to scroll down the second page about halfway to find it. I'm glad to see it is showing up on the front page.
Honestly, I can't blame them for not wanting to help you find google, but any browser these days has to be able to add a google search engine in less than 2 clicks or it's very annoying for most people.
-Dan
My development environment for an old ERP system expects a lot of things to be in CAPS. Some *can* be lower case, but a lot can't. I turn on caps lock when using this system and rarely have an issue. The only annoying part is typing in human readable text in my code, which I want to use mixed-case. At that point, I either use inverted shifting (shifting when I want lower case) or turn off caps temporarily.
-Dan
When it comes to the Voynich Manuscript, you get to call "bullshit" without anyone questioning you. Because, you are always right. The decoding always fails. All you need is a knowledge of the history of this manuscript to know that this amateur is extremely unlikely to have decoded it.
-Dan
From 30 feet (say, across the street), it probably looks real enough. Nothing like an AK, of course :)
You won't have to regularly go through your sites, if you use private mode to browse the ones you are embarrassed by.
Anyway, I understand that this increases exposure to data that is already there. The real issue, IMO, is that the data is there in the first place. Anyone looking at your bookmarks, or history, could potentially find it. Granted, not as likely, but it's still there.
Increasing exposure to data that the user has already allowed to be stored, IMO, is not a bad thing per se. Of course, options should be available to disable this exposure (and are, to some degree). But personally, I find the completion extremely useful. If I don't want something to show up there, even on my personal, home computer, I use privacy mode...even though rarely does anyone use my home computer, I prefer to keep that info private.
It's too bad that people are so worried what might autocomplete on their URL bar that they refuse to take advantage of new features, but of course I agree that they should be able to turn off these features.
-Dan
Doom 2 Sector Hack:
From p_enemy.c:
==============
if (gamemap == 7)
{
if (mo->type == MT_FATSO)
{
junk.tag = 666;
EV_DoFloor(&junk,lowerFloorToLowest);
return;
}
if (mo->type == MT_BABY)
{
junk.tag = 667;
EV_DoFloor(&junk,raiseToTexture);
return;
}
}
==============
If anyone remembers the "outpost of hell" level of Doom2, this code caused sector 666 (doors to outer area) to drop after all the Manucubi (fat guys with flamethrowers) were killed, freeing all the Arachnotrons (baby spider demons), and raised sector 667 (stair to end of level) after all Arachnotrons were killed.
I used to design levels for Doom2 and I came across this interesting behavior when trying to force doors to open after enemy deaths. I finally realized that only on level 7, and only sectors 666/667 were affected in exactly this way. Sure enough, when I was able to view the Doom2 source, there was the "ugly hack."
-Dan
In case that was unclear, I mean, they can *share* a single address.
-Dan
I honestly don't even think IPv6 is needed.
There are more people on the planet then IPv4 addresses. So no matter what kind of reorganization and cleanup you will do, we will run out of IPv4 new addresses really soon. The trouble of course is that this simply means IPv4 addresses will get more expensive and people will fudge around with even more NAT, not that ISPs will switch to IPv6. After all why replace a valuable resource with a free one, there is nothing to gain for the ISPs with IPv6 at the moment.
Well, 1.6 million people can easily use one IPv4 address for their basic internet needs. So, I'm not so sure the number of people on the planet is directly related to the number of needed IPv4 addresses...
-Dan
If you memorize them, and visit them under Private Mode, no longer a problem...
Also, prior to private mode, just delete the day's history or the specific sites...
If you don't want a record of this stuff, you can easily destroy it. And then it won't come up in auto-complete, either.
-Dan
AAA Amateur Porn Blog, you mean.
IPv6 is not a big deal. What is a big deal is there is no way it will ever take over given the current transition plans. Yes, it's useable. But it doesn't solve the problems it's supposed to solve, because we can't get people to start using it under the current conditions. And those conditions are unlikely to change as long as we can still find ways to make IPv4 work.
Until there is a way to transition, the new addresses are not really helping alleviate the shortage. I don't really think the issue is "ipv6 sucks, why would you use it?" but "sure would be nice if we could switch to ipv6, but we can't, because some bad decisions were made."
-Dan
I have an HE account, they are my ISP...
Yes, DHCPv6 is not a requirement of IPv6. Does it offer additional functionality? Yes. I have used IPv6 for several years, and am aware of its abilities. Technically, DHCPv6 is not a dealbreaker, but it might be for some ISPs.
Unfortunately, the problem is a simple mathematical one. IPv4 hosts can't talk to the IPv6 Internet because they can't address them. That's not a surprising drawback, it's the reason IPv6 was developed.
You are wrong about this. There are several solutions being worked on to do exactly this. Of course it's not pretty, for obvious reasons (ipv6 hosts pretending to only be as numerous as ipv4 hosts, etc.) Check out IVI and Dual Stack Lite. Something like this had better exist, or we will probably never get ipv6 going.
If you already have public IP addresses for all of your devices, sure. However, I don't get public v4 IPs from my ISP for each of my systems (even before counting the virtualized servers). Since I have an IPv6 tunnel set up with a globally routable /48 prefix, however, I can directly address each system from anywhere in the world without having to use a VPN or other translation.
You basically are using ipv6 as a VPN. Yes, I know that's an overly broad classification of IPv6, but what's your point? You set up tunnels, configure ipv6 interfaces and addresses, and memorize ipv6 addresses, all so you can access a few remote hosts? I can do this with a VPN, and it's a hell of a lot easier to configure. It also has the added benefit of security--only those with access to my VPN can actually talk directly to these hosts.
Globally routeable addresses are cool, of course...but it does nothing to solve the problems with IPv6 transition.
-Dan
"I can do everything in your list just fine -- if you pick a web site that actually supports v6. "
That's rather my point: until common, popular web sites support IPv6, there is no reason for the average person to have it.
Correction:
until common, popular web sites support IPv6 and only ipv6 there is no reason for the average person to have it.
-Dan
The point is not so much new hosts as existing hosts. Since the ISPs haven't done what you say, not only are there a huge number of XP hosts out there without ipv6, it's still growing.
If they did what you say, and ISPs offered ipv6, then XP would still not be ideal. Since XP does not support DHCPv6, this could cause problems for ISPs trying to assign ipv6 addresses.
The bottom line is that ipv4 is working, and ipv6 is working, but they don't work together. My ISP is Hurricane, so I have as much ipv6 connectivity as anyone. It sure would be nice if ipv4 hosts could talk to the ipv6 internet, though. Otherwise we just have to wait until enough ipv6 hosts are not just capable but correctly configured that it makes sense to get an ipv6 address if you don't already have one. But since the ipv4 network will have a superset of the ipv6 network's hosts for a long time, just the opposite occurs. You still need an ipv4 address, so your ipv6 address seems pointless. One day, when you can't get an ipv4 address, you will be stuck talking to only the ipv6 net. And then, and only then, will website owners finally feel the need to offer ipv6 services--because if they don't, some clients can't reach them...
-Dan
Yes, the transition would have been smoother had there been a clearer standard for IPv4-to-IPv6 address mapping, but IPv6 does work fine, thank you, and the upgrade is happening largely through aging out of older systems.
XP doesn't really support ipv6 nicely. It does work but it's certainly not easy. Windows Me, 98, and 95 are still a big part of internet hosts. When you say, "the upgrade is happening," do you mean that in 10 years, none of these hosts will exist? Considering that XP is still included on many new computers (dell and lenovo still offer XP on all business class computers, for example), and pretty much all netbooks, I'm not so sure about that.
IPv6 works fine, sure. So does token ring.
-Dan
Wrong, you missed the one about vinyl windows. Fact is, they both have the one about Macs, which is the main complaint of this /. posting! So it's pretty retarded to bag on Microsoft for returning a result that Google also returns, regardless of whether it's 2nd or 8th. They are both on the front page.
-Dan
You can mock something any way you like. Trust me, the episode mocks the FSM analogy. It may not be effective to you or me, but christians loved it.
For the record, I am an atheist. I did not consider their argument particularly compelling.
-Dan
The FSM episode is stupid and does not make any rational argument. I was not suggesting otherwise.
I did not blindly link that blog, I linked it to inform on what the content of the episode was and how apologetic christians might have interpreted it.
I am an atheist and was disgusted with that SP episode. I just find it IRONIC that someone would invoke SP to protect us from religion in the same post that they bring up the FSM, which anology SP creators also spat on.
-Dan
Southpark has no biases at all.
Ok, but its creators do. They are humans. From what I can tell, they are libertarian leaning moderates.
I like the show, and have watched many episodes. It's pretty easy to see they are biased against "hollywood liberals" and the like. They also hold grudges (see Chef's final episode where they equate his allegiance to scientology to membership in NAMBLA). None of this changes your point, of course. I just found in amusing that you invoke South Park and the FSM in the same post, since SP creators have mocked the FSM argument before.
-Dan
All hail the flying spaghetti monster.
Funny you should mention the FSM. South park did an episode partially devoted to debunking the effectiveness of the FSM as a counter argument to god:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/the_proper_rebuttal_to_the_fly.html
They also did an episode mocking the idea that religion is the source of zealotry (in the future, Atheist factions battle against each other with the cry "Science Damn You!"
They've also argued the case that evolution is the "how" and not the "why" of creation. People who disagree with this idea are mocked by the episode.
SP does mock many kinds of zealots, including religious ones. But they clearly do not fall on the side of atheism when it comes to their biases. I doubt they would support this law, of course. They are against all censorship, presumably.
-Dan
If only 50% want change, then the incumbent already has 1/2 the votes! Unless 100% of the rest vote for the same person, the incumbent wins! It's voting for nebulous things like "change" that causes the status quo to stick around. A run-off system would help this tremendously.
You need 60-70% who want change before you can vote someone out easily. 50% approval is pretty damn good, and darn near impossible to beat.
In a system where a plurality wins, all you have to do is have more votes than the next guy. If everyone votes their conscience, you have 900 "good" guys that get .1% of the vote, and 1 "famous" guy who gets 10%, and he wins in a landslide. Without requiring a majority or having a run-off system, you can't stop one party without resorting to the "next most famous" party.
You need a candidate who can get more votes than the incumbent. The incumbent doesn't lose because over 1/2 the people vote against him.
-Dan
Define "several." If it's anything more than 2-3, you don't know your history.
-Dan
Generally speaking, consumers have two choices: an Apple, or one of many x86 based-computers that fall under the general classification "IBM-PC compatible" which has essentially defined the Microsoft OS-running computers since the beginning.
Apple calls their computers "Macs".
The generally accepted term for the others is "PC".
Since the vast majority of Windows licenses are purchased for/because of these PCs, it's clear which side Microsoft wants to be on. More Macs purchased equals fewer Microsoft licenses. That's the pragmatic reasoning for the approach.
I suppose Microsoft could call it a "computer running Microsoft Windows." But the bottom line is, "PC" is the easily identifiable phrase that means this same thing to *most* people (due not in small part to the Mac vs. PC commercials). And that "PC" brand/idea has been tarnished by the Apple commercials. Microsoft is trying to fight back.
As far as what you can install on a piece of hardware, you can install Linux on an apple or pc, you can install windows on an apple or pc, and you can install OSX on an apple or PC. The difficulty varies for each of these, but it seems pretty obvious which the average person would choose for which OS (to me, at least).
And none of this changes the fact that most PCs run Windows, most Macs run OSX and most Linux laptop users are paying Microsoft's license fee anyway! And more "PC"s sold equals more money for Microsoft. So why would they shy away from this choice of names?
-Dan
Hidden costs are a real thing, though perhaps the name choice isn't so great. "TCO," though, makes sense.
The "hidden cost" of upgrading to Vista is huge for my company. Right now we estimate $150,000 just to upgrade our ERP system to a version that works on Vista instead of XP (we are a fairly small company). So, not only does the "hidden" cost matter, it applies to all systems.
For Microsoft to suggest that they are exempt from other costs while Apple is not, is disingenuous, of course.
-Dan
I assume you must mean that you have switched to Linux or Mac, then.
I am an IT admin and someone brought me a blue screen just yesterday, on a Lenovo T61 running Windows XP SP3. Before that, the last one was two weeks ago on a Dell desktop (it blue screened about 5 times over the course of a month). I believe that one has been fixed by replacing the Nvidia graphics card.
Hardware faults, poorly written drivers, and cheap memory can all contribute to these blue screens. I don't blame microsoft, really, but blue screens are still around. If you haven't seen one you are just lucky, not typical.
My home computer (custom built Windows XP machine) has never had a blue screen in 3 years. I took great care in selecting components, but I still wouldn't be surprised to see one--it's just a fact of life with windows.
-Dan