Agreed, but put it into a collective/cumulative fine that accumulates against the NAFTA tarrifs. Not saying this is even this best way to go about the solution, but why not put pressure against the underlying powers that be?
We just don't have any good idea as to how to tell when it's going to happen.
What if we did, or if we could "trigger" the earthquake to happen (even if it would still be an ~8+)? I wonder what the "total cost" would be to prepare everyone, evacuate, etc. as compared to it "randomly happening"?
I mean according to your post, it IS going to happen and the longer it waits to do so, the larger it will be. Could it even be possible to "beat the earthquake to the punch" by say setting off explosives (even nuclear if necessary) in strategic areas so as to force it to happen?
So again, even if we could do it, would it be worth it? Could we get all of the nearby residents to buy into the concept? The end result will be catastrophic either way, but even if you completely ignore the "cost of life" factor (I for one don't want to have to come up with a dollar figure), would the cost to coordinate the effort be justified?
Anyway, sorry for the (potentially) off-topic post but the thought popped into my head and just wanted to see what others thought about both whether it would be possible and also if it would be worth it.
I haven't found a better or faster browser for a mobile device yet
Tried microB (the default browser) on the N900?
FWIW, I'm also really liking Opeara Mobile 10 (on the n900) as well. I particularly like it in portrait mode as it scales very well horizontally and you are able to see a considerable amount vertically.
I don't think either one is "perfect" as I use both depending on what I'm trying to do. I'm finding Opera a little faster to render at the expense of a little stability (and no flash, which I'm ok with). MicroB is rock solid and renders everything just like on a desktop browser (including flash), and I can use it to access all of my online banking.
Conclusion, we aren't there yet, but getting closer. I doubt there will ever be (or should be) "one true" browser as competition is good and everyone is going to have personal needs/preferences. Also, froyo looks interesting...but I think the carriers are going to make it or break it (at least for the non-custom rom crowd).
Either I'm missing something or your creating a strawman.
First you say "A lot of http access logs are web-accessible." My guess would be that mainly smaller/lower trafficked sites (not that the information couldn't be valuable), are the ones making their logs available whereas the more popular sites would do their due diligence and secure them. However you then write "So if I can associate you with your browser signature on ANY site..." Like I said, I may be missing something, but can you, Cmdr-Absurd, get access to the logs to ANY site and compile that information across ALL the sites on the web? If you can, please let the/. community know how because I'd say you've stumbled across a very large security/privacy hole.
Re:your first sentence is technically flawed
on
Ubuntu on a Dime
·
· Score: 1
You make a valid but snarky point. However, most of those tasks you mention are either a "solved problem" or scale with hardware fairly lineraly. If you've built the infrastructure to handle 500Gb of storage space the capacity planning for handling 1Tb is not that much of additional effort. Yes it costs more money than simply "add a new hard drive" but if you are growing at such a rapid rate and/or are providing for such a large number of users then you must also consider all of the collective time/effort required by the users to manage their storage quotas and that cost as well.
All in all, I don't think there are too many cases where it makes more sense to artificially keep the storage space low when that decision causes any significant amount of extra time/overhead for the users consuming the service. Granted I don't have any facts or figures to back my argument up, but if you have some that prove otherwise I'd love to see them.
Exactly. I've been a supporting user for several years as well. I have not once had any issues with their service. I did have a question once, so I sent an email and was answered within minutes.
Anyway, I hope that DynDNS will continue to honor the "donate once for lifetime service" at least for those existing users covered under that plan. But even if they don't, so long as they keep the same level of service, then I would not mind paying (within reason).
The same general pool of artists is popular on Last.fm as is popular on radio.
So are you suggesting that because popular music is...popular that it is inherently "bad music" and that once anything becomes "popular" that it was due to the "uninformed masses"? Yes, there is horrible music being created and promoted that gets to the top, but do you have an inherent dislike for something just because it reaches a certain level of notoriety?
Re:Gee, it's almost like they have a monopoly or s
on
Less Than Free
·
· Score: 1
Arguably, bundling turn-by-turn navigation software in Android is similar bundling IE in Windows (enter the MS anti-trust suits) but it's a tough argument to make when the whole lot is open-source.
Could you please show me where the code (and subsequent api call documentation) to recreate turn-by-turn navigation on a non-android platform are publicly available/accessible? I'd love to port this to maemo, but you'll find that Android the OS is open-source, but many of the apps that make it valuable are still closed and controlled by Google. I don't necessarily have a problem with this, but I think many people (wrongly) assume that just because Android is open-source they can tinker with not only the core OS, but all of the applications as well. The Android Market is NOT like a traditional linux repository where you "install" your apps from.
But the people who want him to fight the case can't afford his fees
I think you underestimate the power of large groups. If someone can rally enough people around a (worthy) cause...enough to donate $5 here, $20 there and the occasional $100-$1000 then large sums are not as unreachable as you would think.
That however depends on someone actually taking the lead and being able to get people to rally around said cause...
I guess it all depends on features and scope, but the "mobile web" is only as complicated as you want to make it. If you have good markup, then things translate very well to mobile phones.
In general, there are two types of mobile browsers. Ones that try to emulate the "real web" (ie. iPhone/Safari, Opera Mini, etc) and ones that just strip out all of the css and just display the text (ie. Blackberry browser).
I've found that if you take a look at your site without css enabled (in Firefox, View -> Page Style -> No Style), if the site looks good and is functional, then you'll be "ok" on mobile phones. If your site looks horrible, then you should probably not consider yourself a web developer...
If Intel is helping with tuning linux to mobile hardware, how will that affect other mobile linux OS's? Is Intel going to try to have their own distro or just working on improving the hardware/software interaction of its mobile chipsets?
Take a look at the N900. It has more or less exactly the specs you outlined and it runs Maemo which is a mobile optimized linux distro. Its a little pricey (~$600 or so) but IMHO well worth the cost. I'll be ordering mine shortly.
Granted we do need to think about all of the possibilities, but this thread is coming from the discussion "what if the enemy has a mirror". When was the last time you saw a person/vehicle/whatever having a mirror? I somehow doubt they'll start making structures any more "laser proof" than they make them "bomb proof".
Well I guess any piece of software has a "potential for abuse"...so you'll just have to make the decision of whether that potential is enough to justify the benefits it provides (just like any software/"feature"). I guess this may (and most likely should) end up like javascript. Your site shouldn't depend on it to function but it progressively enhances the browsing experience. The end user will have to decide whether they want to allow it or not. I would think that you could make an extension similar to no-script for fonts.
Good fonts are extremely valuable, far more so than any single image
What about an image of a good font? (I kid, I kid).
Here is one of my favorite site for fonts. Supposedly they are all freely available, so maybe this will be a good starting place. Also, maybe some of the large internet companies (think google) would offer up a cache of commonly used fonts, similar to how they host popular javascript libraries. Not only would that mitigate some of the "trust" issues, but I would think google would do their due diligence on the licensing front before they offered to host them.
You sure are being (irrationally) resilient in your reasoning for not wanting this.
Font licensing will have all of the same challenges as image licensing and by using your logic we should stop allowing images to be used on the web in fear that one may somehow be used illegally. I'm not saying that we should ignore this aspect/problem/challenge but to dismiss the entire concept simply because it could be abused is a little heavy handed.
Concerning security, you can't program for exploits that you aren't aware of. However, as many people have pointed out that this does have potential for abuse and as such I would think that it would be an area that will get much scrutiny and as exploits arise they will be dealt with accordingly. Again, to say that the entire concept should be scrapped due to "potential for abuse" is absurd.
There are tons of feature in the firefox core that I don't use/want. However there are enough people that felt they were worthwhile and added value to the browsing experience. Even though I may not use this feature I am open-minded enough to see how it can in fact make the browsing experience better and that it is most definitely a good feature to support. The simple fact that you do not agree with that opinion does not mean that it should just simply go away.
If all that you want a browser to do is display the text of a document (which it sounds like you do), then might I suggest you look into lynx as it will be blazingly fast, stable and you won't be annoyed by the rest of then web's definition of "progress"
Licensing? Resolvable. No different than "copyrighted" images and the licensing for them. Honest developers will use properly licensed material (fonts, images, etc), dishonest or uninformed developers won't care. Bandwidth? At 50-100k they are not that much compared to swf files or large images previously used (also, you can cache them) Security? Security patches will come as they arise. How is this different than any other "potential for abuse"? Compatibility? Does degrade nicely, you can specify the web fonts but fall back to "traditional" fonts Gains? Designers will have flexibility! They won't have to rely on images to produce "nice fonts" and the pages can be more semantic (text > images). This is just a few of the potential gains.
Do you really want to hold back progress because YOU think something is stupid and YOU would prefer no styling at all just standard html? Also, you do not have to "DOWNLOAD every font mentioned on a page", just the ones you want to specify, so get your facts straight before you jump to irrational conclusions. Get your morning coffee, relax and realize that this is progress even if you don't see the benefit in the implementation/execution.
I would think that you have it just backwards. I would think that skinny ones would have less to compress. Also, wouldn't the ones be skinny and the zeros be fat?
Slashdot Mirror
No you didn't
Agreed, but put it into a collective/cumulative fine that accumulates against the NAFTA tarrifs. Not saying this is even this best way to go about the solution, but why not put pressure against the underlying powers that be?
As a post-communist Eastern European, integrating in the American fabric was an instant feat, but the German fabric needed some serious readjusting.
I'm genuinely curious as to why. Care to elaborate?
What if we did, or if we could "trigger" the earthquake to happen (even if it would still be an ~8+)? I wonder what the "total cost" would be to prepare everyone, evacuate, etc. as compared to it "randomly happening"?
I mean according to your post, it IS going to happen and the longer it waits to do so, the larger it will be. Could it even be possible to "beat the earthquake to the punch" by say setting off explosives (even nuclear if necessary) in strategic areas so as to force it to happen?
So again, even if we could do it, would it be worth it? Could we get all of the nearby residents to buy into the concept? The end result will be catastrophic either way, but even if you completely ignore the "cost of life" factor (I for one don't want to have to come up with a dollar figure), would the cost to coordinate the effort be justified?
Anyway, sorry for the (potentially) off-topic post but the thought popped into my head and just wanted to see what others thought about both whether it would be possible and also if it would be worth it.
Tried microB (the default browser) on the N900?
FWIW, I'm also really liking Opeara Mobile 10 (on the n900) as well. I particularly like it in portrait mode as it scales very well horizontally and you are able to see a considerable amount vertically.
I don't think either one is "perfect" as I use both depending on what I'm trying to do. I'm finding Opera a little faster to render at the expense of a little stability (and no flash, which I'm ok with). MicroB is rock solid and renders everything just like on a desktop browser (including flash), and I can use it to access all of my online banking.
Conclusion, we aren't there yet, but getting closer. I doubt there will ever be (or should be) "one true" browser as competition is good and everyone is going to have personal needs/preferences. Also, froyo looks interesting...but I think the carriers are going to make it or break it (at least for the non-custom rom crowd).
Either I'm missing something or your creating a strawman.
/. community know how because I'd say you've stumbled across a very large security/privacy hole.
First you say "A lot of http access logs are web-accessible." My guess would be that mainly smaller/lower trafficked sites (not that the information couldn't be valuable), are the ones making their logs available whereas the more popular sites would do their due diligence and secure them. However you then write "So if I can associate you with your browser signature on ANY site..." Like I said, I may be missing something, but can you, Cmdr-Absurd, get access to the logs to ANY site and compile that information across ALL the sites on the web? If you can, please let the
You make a valid but snarky point. However, most of those tasks you mention are either a "solved problem" or scale with hardware fairly lineraly. If you've built the infrastructure to handle 500Gb of storage space the capacity planning for handling 1Tb is not that much of additional effort. Yes it costs more money than simply "add a new hard drive" but if you are growing at such a rapid rate and/or are providing for such a large number of users then you must also consider all of the collective time/effort required by the users to manage their storage quotas and that cost as well.
All in all, I don't think there are too many cases where it makes more sense to artificially keep the storage space low when that decision causes any significant amount of extra time/overhead for the users consuming the service. Granted I don't have any facts or figures to back my argument up, but if you have some that prove otherwise I'd love to see them.
Here is a wired article that somewhat backs up my point (if not indirectly).
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-07/mf_freer
Exactly. I've been a supporting user for several years as well. I have not once had any issues with their service. I did have a question once, so I sent an email and was answered within minutes.
Anyway, I hope that DynDNS will continue to honor the "donate once for lifetime service" at least for those existing users covered under that plan. But even if they don't, so long as they keep the same level of service, then I would not mind paying (within reason).
citation needed?
People tend to gravitate towards problems that they think they can solve--and ignore the problems they don't understand or don't want to deal with.
I think that should have read
Engineers tend to gravitate towards problems that they think they can solve--and ignore the problems they don't understand or don't want to deal with.
The same general pool of artists is popular on Last.fm as is popular on radio.
So are you suggesting that because popular music is...popular that it is inherently "bad music" and that once anything becomes "popular" that it was due to the "uninformed masses"? Yes, there is horrible music being created and promoted that gets to the top, but do you have an inherent dislike for something just because it reaches a certain level of notoriety?
Arguably, bundling turn-by-turn navigation software in Android is similar bundling IE in Windows (enter the MS anti-trust suits) but it's a tough argument to make when the whole lot is open-source.
Could you please show me where the code (and subsequent api call documentation) to recreate turn-by-turn navigation on a non-android platform are publicly available/accessible? I'd love to port this to maemo, but you'll find that Android the OS is open-source, but many of the apps that make it valuable are still closed and controlled by Google. I don't necessarily have a problem with this, but I think many people (wrongly) assume that just because Android is open-source they can tinker with not only the core OS, but all of the applications as well. The Android Market is NOT like a traditional linux repository where you "install" your apps from.
But the people who want him to fight the case can't afford his fees
I think you underestimate the power of large groups. If someone can rally enough people around a (worthy) cause...enough to donate $5 here, $20 there and the occasional $100-$1000 then large sums are not as unreachable as you would think.
That however depends on someone actually taking the lead and being able to get people to rally around said cause...
I guess it all depends on features and scope, but the "mobile web" is only as complicated as you want to make it. If you have good markup, then things translate very well to mobile phones.
In general, there are two types of mobile browsers. Ones that try to emulate the "real web" (ie. iPhone/Safari, Opera Mini, etc) and ones that just strip out all of the css and just display the text (ie. Blackberry browser).
I've found that if you take a look at your site without css enabled (in Firefox, View -> Page Style -> No Style), if the site looks good and is functional, then you'll be "ok" on mobile phones. If your site looks horrible, then you should probably not consider yourself a web developer...
If Intel is helping with tuning linux to mobile hardware, how will that affect other mobile linux OS's? Is Intel going to try to have their own distro or just working on improving the hardware/software interaction of its mobile chipsets?
You can tell I grew up in a country with universal healthcare.
No, but I can tell that you threw in a useless addendum to an otherwise insightful post.
Take a look at the N900. It has more or less exactly the specs you outlined and it runs Maemo which is a mobile optimized linux distro. Its a little pricey (~$600 or so) but IMHO well worth the cost. I'll be ordering mine shortly.
Granted we do need to think about all of the possibilities, but this thread is coming from the discussion "what if the enemy has a mirror". When was the last time you saw a person/vehicle/whatever having a mirror? I somehow doubt they'll start making structures any more "laser proof" than they make them "bomb proof".
Well I guess any piece of software has a "potential for abuse"...so you'll just have to make the decision of whether that potential is enough to justify the benefits it provides (just like any software/"feature"). I guess this may (and most likely should) end up like javascript. Your site shouldn't depend on it to function but it progressively enhances the browsing experience. The end user will have to decide whether they want to allow it or not. I would think that you could make an extension similar to no-script for fonts.
Good fonts are extremely valuable, far more so than any single image
What about an image of a good font? (I kid, I kid).
Here is one of my favorite site for fonts. Supposedly they are all freely available, so maybe this will be a good starting place. Also, maybe some of the large internet companies (think google) would offer up a cache of commonly used fonts, similar to how they host popular javascript libraries. Not only would that mitigate some of the "trust" issues, but I would think google would do their due diligence on the licensing front before they offered to host them.
You sure are being (irrationally) resilient in your reasoning for not wanting this.
Font licensing will have all of the same challenges as image licensing and by using your logic we should stop allowing images to be used on the web in fear that one may somehow be used illegally. I'm not saying that we should ignore this aspect/problem/challenge but to dismiss the entire concept simply because it could be abused is a little heavy handed.
Concerning security, you can't program for exploits that you aren't aware of. However, as many people have pointed out that this does have potential for abuse and as such I would think that it would be an area that will get much scrutiny and as exploits arise they will be dealt with accordingly. Again, to say that the entire concept should be scrapped due to "potential for abuse" is absurd.
There are tons of feature in the firefox core that I don't use/want. However there are enough people that felt they were worthwhile and added value to the browsing experience. Even though I may not use this feature I am open-minded enough to see how it can in fact make the browsing experience better and that it is most definitely a good feature to support. The simple fact that you do not agree with that opinion does not mean that it should just simply go away.
If all that you want a browser to do is display the text of a document (which it sounds like you do), then might I suggest you look into lynx as it will be blazingly fast, stable and you won't be annoyed by the rest of then web's definition of "progress"
Wow, somebody is grumpy...and ill informed.
Licensing? Resolvable. No different than "copyrighted" images and the licensing for them. Honest developers will use properly licensed material (fonts, images, etc), dishonest or uninformed developers won't care.
Bandwidth? At 50-100k they are not that much compared to swf files or large images previously used (also, you can cache them)
Security? Security patches will come as they arise. How is this different than any other "potential for abuse"?
Compatibility? Does degrade nicely, you can specify the web fonts but fall back to "traditional" fonts
Gains? Designers will have flexibility! They won't have to rely on images to produce "nice fonts" and the pages can be more semantic (text > images). This is just a few of the potential gains.
Do you really want to hold back progress because YOU think something is stupid and YOU would prefer no styling at all just standard html? Also, you do not have to "DOWNLOAD every font mentioned on a page", just the ones you want to specify, so get your facts straight before you jump to irrational conclusions. Get your morning coffee, relax and realize that this is progress even if you don't see the benefit in the implementation/execution.
There is a big difference between "On Hold" and "Scrapped".
Not when you want a catchy headline...
Why so angry? ... Why so serious?
I think you answered your own question: "because we can".
I would think that you have it just backwards. I would think that skinny ones would have less to compress. Also, wouldn't the ones be skinny and the zeros be fat?