I can't speak to how easy MOM is to use, but (about a year ago), I gave nagios and Zennos a try, without much luck. Configuration was difficult enough that I didn't know where to look for what to try and reconfigure. I was looking for an open-source OpenView replacement. I may revisit them (and look at the other two), if they're working better now...
How about the people who busily insist that can't possibly be anything other than a wholly human-caused phenomenon, and that we can definitely stop it. What if we can't? Plans, anyone?
Seriously, I want my interstellar settler permit and associated vehicle already...oh, wait...we can't even go to the moon anymore.
While it is not illegal to have a monopoly position in a market, the antitrust laws make it unlawful to maintain or attempt to create a monopoly through tactics that either unreasonably exclude firms from the market or significantly impair their ability to compete. A single firm may commit a violation through its unilateral actions, or a violation may result if a group of firms work together to monopolize a market.
Thus even assuming 100% efficiency for this tech, and only 30% efficiency for existing reactors, fission gives you more than 13 times more energy than the radioactive decay, and this is assuming that you have enough time to wait for all nuclei to decay. In practice, because most of the alpha-emitters have half lives measured in thousands of years, the total amount of energy that could be generated by this tech per year would be thousands of times smaller than that from fission, so you're better of just building a second reactor.
So, fission would give you thousands of times more energy than radioactive decay, but can't keep doing it with the same material for thousands of years (basically the anti-point to your point about how long it takes to get the energy from decay).
Time aside, comparison becomes a matter of how much space each type of power plant takes up for a given amount of continuous power generation.
Let's say that you need 1000 times as much decaying uranium to generate the same amount of power as you get with fission. You need more space for the uranium, but no space for a cooling tower, pumps, turbines, backup generators, meltdown containment, etc, etc. How much of the space used by a conventional nuclear power plant is occupied by the actual fuel? Who cares to hazard a guess that we're approaching parity, in terms of reactor size for the two approaches?
Beyond that, retrofitting existing reactors with auxiliary power generation stations that use what is now considered "spent" fuel would eventually supply as much power as the current reactors do, and they'd keep doing it for thousands of years with the same fuel (you'd have to do maintenance, of course).
In the short term, building new fission reactors makes good sense. They're fairly safe, and the fuel they use now becomes food for the technology we're talking about after it's not useful in existing reactors.
What *I* want to know about is how effective this material is as a radiation shield. Something that can both protect you from radiation and generate electricity seems awfully handy.
Trademarks exist in order to prevent one company from marketing something that appears to be a product of another company.
There are two potential trademarks at issue. One is "Ford", and the other is "Mustang".
The creators of the calendar are not selling Ford calendars, nor are they using a trademark in a way that would be likely to make a purchaser of the calendar believe that Ford Motor Company created the calendar.
The creators of the calendar are also not selling Mustang calendars, nor are they using the trademark in a way that would be likely to make a purchaser of the calendar believe that the owner of the Mustang trademark (the Ford Motor Company) created the calendar.
The calendar is clearly associated with "BMC" (aka, the "Black Mustang Club"), and the Club's title did not apparently raise the ire of Ford's trademark lawyers (as it shouldn't have). If they were taking pictures of cars on Ford dealership lots, then maybe Ford would have a point on copyright, since they nominally own the vehicles on those lots, but not on trademark, at least not as the calendar is currently composed.
Yes, the OP failed to mention trademark, but that doesn't make Ford's move any less bone-headed. Ignoring the fact that they are alienating a group of people who are (or were, at least) fans of one of the company's cars, they are opening themselves up to countersuit, and a whole bunch of bad PR...all over a fan calendar. The lack of immediate reaction from their PR department (legal did WHAT??? Our bad...go ahead and print the calendar...Chevy sucks!) is staggering.
Paint.NET isn't your traditional GPLed software (it's MIT-licensed, actually), but it's free, and the source is free (barring some recent changes to keep people from making backspaceware out of it). The author seems to be making a decent bit of money from it.
You do realize that it's EXACTLY the kind of thinking that Ron Paul has that has lead to our current problems, don't you? We've been giving people the the "freedom" to be morons and then dismantling the government agencies that would have allowed them not to be because we keep electing people who don't believe in government to run it.
I would have to disagree with that. We have not had a problem of too-small government for decades, if not a century.
Try this as a test. Write down on sheets of lined paper (one agency per sheet) each federal agency (link). Then, research all of the regulations, rules, laws, orders, and mandates that each of these agencies uses to exert control over the behavior or actions of US citizens.
The one thing our legislators are supremely good at is passing new laws, whether they're needed or not, because...well, because they have to look like they're doing something other than grabbing some pork for their supporters in the bill-du-jour.
Wanting a smaller degree of federal government involvement in the lives of US citizens doesn't seem to me to be a sign of someone not believing in government, it's a sign of someone who doesn't believe in bureaucracy, which is an altogether different thing.
You can start from one of two viewpoints (and most will eventually end somewhere in between them):
Most people are idiots who make bad decisions
Most people are smart enough to make better decisions than their governments
I don't believe that either of those are true, but I think it makes sense to lean towards the latter, if there's a question on an issue. Not doing so means that you stack law upon law until most every possible activity that a human could perform is regulated in legal fashion. I don't know about you, but I really, really don't want to live in a world (or even just country) like that.
Okay...If the point of the second article is as a rallying cry against nokia and apple giving ogg the noose treatment, then how is my saying that I don't think ogg is getting the noose treatment inconsistent with me saying "bad summary"?
If I disagree with the summary, then I would have to say that I don't think Ogg is getting cut out of the spec (which I do say), right?
I feel like Vizzini in the famous scene from The Princess Bride...help me out here.
Neither...I don't think they gave Ogg the noose treatment. I think that since Ogg is one of a very few formats that is compatible with the modified spec, the spec's authors have effectively rubbed it in Nokia's nose that they're still recommending Ogg.
How is this a bad summary? The summary says that ogg/theora is no longer in the HTML 5 spec. The story is largely about just that. No, it doesn't include all the details about the HTML 5 spec.. but that's why we call it a "summary".
Actually, whilt the article's title is fine, the summary seemed (to me) to be about the spec's authors caving to pressure, not so much about ogg itself. I found that extremely misleading, after reading the change they made.
When the change effectively means the same thing to Apple and Nokia, then I think calling the change "caving to pressure" from them makes for a poor summary.
Why would you have to provide different multi-[mega|giga]byte files? You pick the format you can work most easily or cost-effectively with in creating content and tell the users that's what you offer.
Yes, if you intend to provide video in every format that's commonly used then that (obviously) takes up a lot of resources.
If we're talking about open formats, then there's a lot of convergence possible, and one media player could easily play multiple types of media. You might have to point customers to a codec once to play the format you offer, and then they're all set.
What are you seeing as the big reason you'd have to supply media in multiple formats?
You're right that Ogg wasn't specified as a requirement, but it was the only format specified by name...that was the comparison I was making.
The change still makes a strong recommendation. There are precious few formats meeting the criteria spelled out in the changed language (which, I think was the author's intent in changing it that way). The new language illustrates the reason that no other formats were mentioned in the previous language. It makes things better by pushing all codecs towards openness for implementation.
Personally, I think the issue would probably be better addressed by talking about access to archived video (a parallel to the archived document discussion that surrounds OOXML and ODF), and raising public awareness about truly open standards, but this may be a good lead-in to that larger discussion.
Having that discussion helps make things better than they are now.
What are you smoking? It isn't meaningless and I'd like to know your reasoning for saying it is.
Okay. My reasoning is pretty simple. After taking the number of window managers available and comparing that to the number in widespread use, I note that the second number is a fairly small fraction of the first. The same is true of video codecs. If you don't have an issue where you have to download dozens of codecs to play video at your favorite sites (and you don't...ogg, quicktime, and windows media player will probably take care of 99% of the sites out there), then the description of "Codec Hell" is tough to make stick.
Of course, that's just my opinion...you may have a different one, and I respect that...although I haven't heard *your* reasoning.
Does that mean that HTML5 should specify PNG exclusively for image content? This isn't so much about a specific standard as it is about *open* standards. Nokia and Apple are hand-wringing and whining because the standard specified a specific format other than quicktime (and whatever format Nokia has up it's sleeve). Provided Apple and Nokia are putting forward new codecs licensed under the same terms as Ogg (or at least in-line with the spec's recommendation), what's wrong with letting them then compete on their technical merits?
I'm not saying I want windows media, quicktime, and realplayer to be considered, but if there was an incentive to honestly open those formats to implementation by anyone, for free, with no catch, I'd be fine with allowing them.
It's not beating around the bush that's causing the document format controversy, it's exactly the same issue that's present here. There's no place where it says "hey, if you create a document, it has to be in a format that has these attributes". *Because* of this controversy, organizations, companies, and governments are actually looking at the issue of access and seeing that open standards matter.
To me, this type of change serves to drag the issue that remains unobvious to most people straight into the light of day. If Nokia and Apple take issue with the changed language, then they have to discuss the differences in licensing between their preferred formats and Ogg before they can do anything else. That ain't a bad thing.
Well, if the codec is unencumbered, then there will be wide availability. After that, it becomes a matter of popularity. Saying "Codec Hell" is like saying "Window Manager Hell", it's fun, but meaningless in the end. Sure, there are a lot of different WMs, but there are a handful that people use, and just as with video format, people usually pick a favorite and stick with it.
Instead of specifying a specific format, just specify the salient details...how about "...MUST use a non-patent-encumbered format that is released under an OSI-approved license...". Well, not that, per-se, but you get my drift.
Here's where I have a problem with the DOJ's logic. If 9 grand per song is appropriate, and *everyone* on the network with a copy of that song is a distributor (simultaneously), then either the damage amount should be divided by the estimated number of people distributing the song, or the industry is saying that people are doubly-liable.
In the street-corner scenario, there aren't 3,000 people each providing you with a sliver of a free CD, and you're not providing other people with a sliver of a free CD once you assemble a full disc. If the police come and arrest someone on a P2P network for distribution, distribution doesn't stop.
That fact makes it extremely hard for me to accept the argument that the 9,000 dollar amount is appropriate. The infringement (if it applies) is distributed, and infringement is not prevented, mitigated, or even temporarily stopped by the imposition of that fine.
The street-corner vendor is a different scenario. Once he's stopped, the flow of material stops immediately, and only a handful of people would get fined like that. They're not going to go find everyone who ever bought from him and charge them 9,000 for each song on each CD he provided.
When you talk about distributing a song, there are a lot of windy paths you can take. Is making a mix tape/CD for a friend distribution? Making a mix tape/CD and never giving it to a friend, although you plan to? How about storing a backup copy of a CD or song (zipped) in your Gmail account? What if you forward it to another account that belongs to you? Suppose you accidentally (or purposely) CC a friend when you do that? What if you invite a friend over to listen to a new CD? How about a hundred friends? A thousand friends (some people outside of slashdot may have that many)? What if you play your music loud enough that it can be heard through a wall and someone records it and puts it online without your knowledge? You could make the argument that you didn't know that sound propagates through solid material, but if ignorance doesn't count, then you could still be liable.
You're distributing any time you play music that someone else can hear and/or record, let alone using P2P apps, so that part of the argument doesn't persuade me much. The issue here is that copying is easier than it has been, and the copy's fidelity is high. A fact that the RIAA believes negatively impacts the sales of their members' artists' music.
If the reasonable expectation of a price for a single download of a song is in the $0.99 - $3.00 range, then the RIAA is saying that between 9,000 and 3,000 people were likely to have downloaded the material in its entirety from the accused. I dunno about you, but that seems to fall into the "unfair" category for me, if we're talking about recovering money for this.
We're not arguing right now about whether she had the right to do something...the issue is one of whether the cure is appropriate.
Yes, it matters a great deal in terms of how to parse the document, and anyone working on a standard should recognize that immediately. (And why DOCTYPE is evil.)
Insofar as having a "version" attribute in an HTML entity requires different parsing logic than using a doctype declaration, I agree. I don't know why you would consider doctype "evil", though.
Since doctype is a pointer to a dtd, it could be fragile. On the other hand, having a version number and leaving the issue of validating the content up to the UA means that validation will be inconsistent.
As has been mentioned before, the point of HTML 5 is/was to define a standard, and when you get as vague as saying (in HTML) "this should be version 5...you know what that looks like, right?", you end up perpetuating the current mess that exists in currently-existing browsers rendering HTML (quirks mode, anyone?). You don't make it worse, but you don't improve things any, either.
I think that I was most put off by the summary mentioning "making it easier to train web developers". HTML is all about markup (i.e. formatting), so that's like talking about changing SVG to "make it easier on illustrators"...you can provide tools to allow them to do complex things more easily, but the complex thing is still a complex thing.
Any web developer who is going to be successful will be able to readily grasp the concepts behind HTML, XHTML, and XML. If they don't grok that, then they'll probably always use tools rather than learn about the code inside the pages (the FrontPage Syndrome), and in that case, they won't care what the underlying code looks like. That most definitely *won't* make HTML more efficient.
when in doubt, check for a mirrored version...typically, if you add ".nyud.net" to the hostname (or "fully qualified domain name", for the truly picky) of a slashdotted, dugg, or farked link, you'll get a cached version, if it's popular and had decent bandwidth at the beginning.
Okay, but how did you get the gun to kill the cop with no money (you *are* wandering around with no house and car and nobody will hire you, after all)?
(ducks and hides)
Slashdot Mirror
You keep ona usin that word...I donna think it means wha' you think it means...
I can't speak to how easy MOM is to use, but (about a year ago), I gave nagios and Zennos a try, without much luck. Configuration was difficult enough that I didn't know where to look for what to try and reconfigure. I was looking for an open-source OpenView replacement. I may revisit them (and look at the other two), if they're working better now...
How about the people who busily insist that can't possibly be anything other than a wholly human-caused phenomenon, and that we can definitely stop it. What if we can't? Plans, anyone?
Seriously, I want my interstellar settler permit and associated vehicle already...oh, wait...we can't even go to the moon anymore.
Doesn't that mean that a monopoly that abuses their/its power is an illegal monopoly?
So, fission would give you thousands of times more energy than radioactive decay, but can't keep doing it with the same material for thousands of years (basically the anti-point to your point about how long it takes to get the energy from decay).
Time aside, comparison becomes a matter of how much space each type of power plant takes up for a given amount of continuous power generation.
Let's say that you need 1000 times as much decaying uranium to generate the same amount of power as you get with fission. You need more space for the uranium, but no space for a cooling tower, pumps, turbines, backup generators, meltdown containment, etc, etc. How much of the space used by a conventional nuclear power plant is occupied by the actual fuel? Who cares to hazard a guess that we're approaching parity, in terms of reactor size for the two approaches?
Beyond that, retrofitting existing reactors with auxiliary power generation stations that use what is now considered "spent" fuel would eventually supply as much power as the current reactors do, and they'd keep doing it for thousands of years with the same fuel (you'd have to do maintenance, of course).
In the short term, building new fission reactors makes good sense. They're fairly safe, and the fuel they use now becomes food for the technology we're talking about after it's not useful in existing reactors.
What *I* want to know about is how effective this material is as a radiation shield. Something that can both protect you from radiation and generate electricity seems awfully handy.
Trademark isn't relevant either.
Trademarks exist in order to prevent one company from marketing something that appears to be a product of another company.
There are two potential trademarks at issue. One is "Ford", and the other is "Mustang".
The creators of the calendar are not selling Ford calendars, nor are they using a trademark in a way that would be likely to make a purchaser of the calendar believe that Ford Motor Company created the calendar.
The creators of the calendar are also not selling Mustang calendars, nor are they using the trademark in a way that would be likely to make a purchaser of the calendar believe that the owner of the Mustang trademark (the Ford Motor Company) created the calendar.
The calendar is clearly associated with "BMC" (aka, the "Black Mustang Club"), and the Club's title did not apparently raise the ire of Ford's trademark lawyers (as it shouldn't have). If they were taking pictures of cars on Ford dealership lots, then maybe Ford would have a point on copyright, since they nominally own the vehicles on those lots, but not on trademark, at least not as the calendar is currently composed.
Yes, the OP failed to mention trademark, but that doesn't make Ford's move any less bone-headed. Ignoring the fact that they are alienating a group of people who are (or were, at least) fans of one of the company's cars, they are opening themselves up to countersuit, and a whole bunch of bad PR...all over a fan calendar. The lack of immediate reaction from their PR department (legal did WHAT??? Our bad...go ahead and print the calendar...Chevy sucks!) is staggering.
...or, you could do something like this.
Paint.NET isn't your traditional GPLed software (it's MIT-licensed, actually), but it's free, and the source is free (barring some recent changes to keep people from making backspaceware out of it). The author seems to be making a decent bit of money from it.
I would have to disagree with that. We have not had a problem of too-small government for decades, if not a century.
Try this as a test. Write down on sheets of lined paper (one agency per sheet) each federal agency (link). Then, research all of the regulations, rules, laws, orders, and mandates that each of these agencies uses to exert control over the behavior or actions of US citizens.
The one thing our legislators are supremely good at is passing new laws, whether they're needed or not, because...well, because they have to look like they're doing something other than grabbing some pork for their supporters in the bill-du-jour.
Wanting a smaller degree of federal government involvement in the lives of US citizens doesn't seem to me to be a sign of someone not believing in government, it's a sign of someone who doesn't believe in bureaucracy, which is an altogether different thing.
You can start from one of two viewpoints (and most will eventually end somewhere in between them):
I don't believe that either of those are true, but I think it makes sense to lean towards the latter, if there's a question on an issue. Not doing so means that you stack law upon law until most every possible activity that a human could perform is regulated in legal fashion. I don't know about you, but I really, really don't want to live in a world (or even just country) like that.
Okay...If the point of the second article is as a rallying cry against nokia and apple giving ogg the noose treatment, then how is my saying that I don't think ogg is getting the noose treatment inconsistent with me saying "bad summary"?
If I disagree with the summary, then I would have to say that I don't think Ogg is getting cut out of the spec (which I do say), right?
I feel like Vizzini in the famous scene from The Princess Bride...help me out here.
Neither...I don't think they gave Ogg the noose treatment. I think that since Ogg is one of a very few formats that is compatible with the modified spec, the spec's authors have effectively rubbed it in Nokia's nose that they're still recommending Ogg.
I agree with you, but you missed the point :)
Actually, whilt the article's title is fine, the summary seemed (to me) to be about the spec's authors caving to pressure, not so much about ogg itself. I found that extremely misleading, after reading the change they made.
When the change effectively means the same thing to Apple and Nokia, then I think calling the change "caving to pressure" from them makes for a poor summary.
Why would you have to provide different multi-[mega|giga]byte files? You pick the format you can work most easily or cost-effectively with in creating content and tell the users that's what you offer.
Yes, if you intend to provide video in every format that's commonly used then that (obviously) takes up a lot of resources.
If we're talking about open formats, then there's a lot of convergence possible, and one media player could easily play multiple types of media. You might have to point customers to a codec once to play the format you offer, and then they're all set.
What are you seeing as the big reason you'd have to supply media in multiple formats?
You're right that Ogg wasn't specified as a requirement, but it was the only format specified by name...that was the comparison I was making.
The change still makes a strong recommendation. There are precious few formats meeting the criteria spelled out in the changed language (which, I think was the author's intent in changing it that way). The new language illustrates the reason that no other formats were mentioned in the previous language. It makes things better by pushing all codecs towards openness for implementation.
Personally, I think the issue would probably be better addressed by talking about access to archived video (a parallel to the archived document discussion that surrounds OOXML and ODF), and raising public awareness about truly open standards, but this may be a good lead-in to that larger discussion.
Having that discussion helps make things better than they are now.
Okay. My reasoning is pretty simple. After taking the number of window managers available and comparing that to the number in widespread use, I note that the second number is a fairly small fraction of the first. The same is true of video codecs. If you don't have an issue where you have to download dozens of codecs to play video at your favorite sites (and you don't...ogg, quicktime, and windows media player will probably take care of 99% of the sites out there), then the description of "Codec Hell" is tough to make stick.
Of course, that's just my opinion...you may have a different one, and I respect that...although I haven't heard *your* reasoning.
Does that mean that HTML5 should specify PNG exclusively for image content? This isn't so much about a specific standard as it is about *open* standards. Nokia and Apple are hand-wringing and whining because the standard specified a specific format other than quicktime (and whatever format Nokia has up it's sleeve). Provided Apple and Nokia are putting forward new codecs licensed under the same terms as Ogg (or at least in-line with the spec's recommendation), what's wrong with letting them then compete on their technical merits?
I'm not saying I want windows media, quicktime, and realplayer to be considered, but if there was an incentive to honestly open those formats to implementation by anyone, for free, with no catch, I'd be fine with allowing them.
It's not beating around the bush that's causing the document format controversy, it's exactly the same issue that's present here. There's no place where it says "hey, if you create a document, it has to be in a format that has these attributes". *Because* of this controversy, organizations, companies, and governments are actually looking at the issue of access and seeing that open standards matter.
To me, this type of change serves to drag the issue that remains unobvious to most people straight into the light of day. If Nokia and Apple take issue with the changed language, then they have to discuss the differences in licensing between their preferred formats and Ogg before they can do anything else. That ain't a bad thing.
Well, if the codec is unencumbered, then there will be wide availability. After that, it becomes a matter of popularity. Saying "Codec Hell" is like saying "Window Manager Hell", it's fun, but meaningless in the end. Sure, there are a lot of different WMs, but there are a handful that people use, and just as with video format, people usually pick a favorite and stick with it.
I see that what I just suggested is exactly the change they made. I'm fine with that...off to tag the front-page article with "badsummary"
Instead of specifying a specific format, just specify the salient details...how about "...MUST use a non-patent-encumbered format that is released under an OSI-approved license...". Well, not that, per-se, but you get my drift.
Here's where I have a problem with the DOJ's logic. If 9 grand per song is appropriate, and *everyone* on the network with a copy of that song is a distributor (simultaneously), then either the damage amount should be divided by the estimated number of people distributing the song, or the industry is saying that people are doubly-liable.
In the street-corner scenario, there aren't 3,000 people each providing you with a sliver of a free CD, and you're not providing other people with a sliver of a free CD once you assemble a full disc. If the police come and arrest someone on a P2P network for distribution, distribution doesn't stop.
That fact makes it extremely hard for me to accept the argument that the 9,000 dollar amount is appropriate. The infringement (if it applies) is distributed, and infringement is not prevented, mitigated, or even temporarily stopped by the imposition of that fine.
The street-corner vendor is a different scenario. Once he's stopped, the flow of material stops immediately, and only a handful of people would get fined like that. They're not going to go find everyone who ever bought from him and charge them 9,000 for each song on each CD he provided.
When you talk about distributing a song, there are a lot of windy paths you can take. Is making a mix tape/CD for a friend distribution? Making a mix tape/CD and never giving it to a friend, although you plan to? How about storing a backup copy of a CD or song (zipped) in your Gmail account? What if you forward it to another account that belongs to you? Suppose you accidentally (or purposely) CC a friend when you do that? What if you invite a friend over to listen to a new CD? How about a hundred friends? A thousand friends (some people outside of slashdot may have that many)? What if you play your music loud enough that it can be heard through a wall and someone records it and puts it online without your knowledge? You could make the argument that you didn't know that sound propagates through solid material, but if ignorance doesn't count, then you could still be liable.
You're distributing any time you play music that someone else can hear and/or record, let alone using P2P apps, so that part of the argument doesn't persuade me much. The issue here is that copying is easier than it has been, and the copy's fidelity is high. A fact that the RIAA believes negatively impacts the sales of their members' artists' music.
If the reasonable expectation of a price for a single download of a song is in the $0.99 - $3.00 range, then the RIAA is saying that between 9,000 and 3,000 people were likely to have downloaded the material in its entirety from the accused. I dunno about you, but that seems to fall into the "unfair" category for me, if we're talking about recovering money for this.
We're not arguing right now about whether she had the right to do something...the issue is one of whether the cure is appropriate.
Insofar as having a "version" attribute in an HTML entity requires different parsing logic than using a doctype declaration, I agree. I don't know why you would consider doctype "evil", though.
Since doctype is a pointer to a dtd, it could be fragile. On the other hand, having a version number and leaving the issue of validating the content up to the UA means that validation will be inconsistent.
As has been mentioned before, the point of HTML 5 is/was to define a standard, and when you get as vague as saying (in HTML) "this should be version 5...you know what that looks like, right?", you end up perpetuating the current mess that exists in currently-existing browsers rendering HTML (quirks mode, anyone?). You don't make it worse, but you don't improve things any, either.
I think that I was most put off by the summary mentioning "making it easier to train web developers". HTML is all about markup (i.e. formatting), so that's like talking about changing SVG to "make it easier on illustrators"...you can provide tools to allow them to do complex things more easily, but the complex thing is still a complex thing.
Any web developer who is going to be successful will be able to readily grasp the concepts behind HTML, XHTML, and XML. If they don't grok that, then they'll probably always use tools rather than learn about the code inside the pages (the FrontPage Syndrome), and in that case, they won't care what the underlying code looks like. That most definitely *won't* make HTML more efficient.
when in doubt, check for a mirrored version...typically, if you add ".nyud.net" to the hostname (or "fully qualified domain name", for the truly picky) of a slashdotted, dugg, or farked link, you'll get a cached version, if it's popular and had decent bandwidth at the beginning.
...or, the <humor> tag was missing and certain people are *way* too serious sometimes.
Okay, but how did you get the gun to kill the cop with no money (you *are* wandering around with no house and car and nobody will hire you, after all)?
(ducks and hides)