My point is that in a world without web applications, a macOS application often wouldn't get released at all because not all developers have a Mac. A web application developer can get by without owning a Mac on which to test because Chrome for Mac and Firefox for Mac behave just like their counterparts on Windows and X11/Linux, and Blink is similar enough to Apple WebKit that testing in Chrome passes for testing in Safari. A native application developer cannot.
You do realize that this is an argument for a better, more-specific compressor for html/css/javascript, right?
MoreSpecificCompressor(minify(source_code)) will still be significantly smaller than MoreSpecificCompressor(source_code).
(2) accepting that it's a good trade-off to still have human-readable web pages even if it does add a 1% (or whatever) overhead.
In order to convince bean counters of this, we'd first need to see the exact size ratio between gzip o minify and gzip alone (what you call the "whatever") in order to calculate the extent to which this ratio affects page load time and bandwidth cost.
How will new characters break Slashdot's layout when Slashdot doesn't accept Unicode.
As I understand it, Slashdot doesn't accept Unicode precisely because of the threat of newly introduced code points that affect directionality. I was referring to the hypothetical situation in which Slashdot were to switch on Unicode with a blacklist for currently existing code points that affect directionality, as an explanation of why Slashdot doesn't accept Unicode.
Also if Slashdot accepted Unicode, why would someone use new characters that haven't been added yet?
In the hypothetical situation, the following events would occur in order:
1. Slashdot updates a blacklist to block all currently existing code points that affect directionality and enables Unicode. 2. Unicode Consortium releases a new version of Unicode including new code points that affect directionality. 3. GUI frameworks and web browsers are updated to support these new code points, but Slashdot is not because its administrators are occupied with other, more pressing aspects of site operation. 4. Someone uses one of the new code points that affect directionality but are not on the blacklist, causing the layout of Slashdot's comment section to break.
If you need to run MS compatible stuff MS Win7 and various MS server systems are available.
New copies of Windows 7 are no longer available from Microsoft, and Windows 7 will soon (within 3 years) lose security updates. Who has run this test on Windows Server 2016?
No, keep them as different files, but use a CDN. That way, your browser doesn't have to reload jQuery each time it goes to a new page or a new site.
And the CDN can track viewers' behavior through the Referer and If-Modified-Since headers that browsers send to the CDN when checking whether jQuery has been updated.
While I understand they want to protect copyright, the real problem is the inability to audit what is executed. [...] As far as I'm concerned, websites will always be second class citizens compared to real desktop software
Among the most popular desktop applications, how many give the user the "ability to audit what is executed"?
They're also ephemeral
So is a desktop application that displays "Your client is out of date. [ Install Updates ]" when the server is using a newer protocol version than the client. So is a desktop application that breaks on a new operating system version because it inadvertently relies on implementation-defined, unspecified, or undefined behavior that has changed in the new OS.
You can provide a much better experience to end users by providing an App on their device of choice.
My "device of choice" is a PC running Xubuntu, an X11/Linux distribution. How many app publishers would be willing to serve that environment as a first-class citizen as opposed to sticking to Windows, macOS, Android/Linux, and iOS?
These characters won't change. But new characters will be added, and if these new characters are directionality controls, they might break Slashdot's layout.
I've seen some places where they could have the files sizes of their images cut in half without impacting quality.
Until you view the picture on a high-DPI monitor, at which point the images become a blurfest compared to the adjacent text. To work around this, some sites send photos at double resolution in case the user is on a Retina display or in case the user chooses Zoom. The srcset attribute is supposed to fix this but still doesn't work correctly in IE or Edge.
Consoles were DRM free for years and years. [...] There were no technical measures in place to harden the machine against its owner as there are with today's consoles.
I'm not sure which consoles you're talking about, but the NES, Super NES, and Nintendo 64 have a CIC (Checking Integrated Circuit) designed to block use of homemade cartridges. The GameCube, Wii, and Wii U have a custom drivechip designed to block use of homemade discs.
Police in some parts of the United States do in fact "have bigger problems going on" with respect to their pursuit of free-range children on trumped-up charges of neglect.
Then let me rephrase the DRM issue in a more germane way that excludes your example of a customer who lacks any sort of screen: "I have purchased a copy of your motion picture and want to be able to watch it on any screen I already have, not just those few screens on your whitelist."
As a civil matter, in many jurisdictions a rightsholder could only sue for actual damages, and in the kinds of situation you're talking about there either wouldn't be anyone with standing to sue or the actual damages would be zero anyway.
In Slashdot's home country, the copyright owner has standing to sue for statutory damages.
For example, as a driver I have an above average level of training and experience, I drive a well-maintained vehicle with above average performance, and I have an excellent record of safe driving over many years. Should my judgement therefore supersede statutory limits about speeds, passing stop signs or red lights, etc?
I was thinking more along the lines of traffic statutes in some U.S. states that allow cyclists waiting at a red traffic signal to treat the red traffic signal as a stop sign after having waited two minutes. States put this sort of law into place because it's cheaper than upgrading all demand-actuated approaches to reliably recognize bicycles while reliably rejecting false detections in the adjacent lane.
What's the "at least one legal channel" for, say, the rights to make fan-made mashups of popular recorded music as a comment on the similarity of their compositions?
Maybe there isn't one, at least not without doing some work. But surely you're not suggesting this sort of activity is more than a tiny fraction of copying that gets done?
It's perhaps "a tiny fraction of copying that gets done" in an absolute sense. But fan mash-ups are a substantial fraction of videos that I fail to view on YouTube because they have been taken down on a notice of claimed infringement.
fuck you YouTube for not allowing blocking of shitty uploaders.
If YouTube were to add such a feature, how would it provide for "shitty uploaders" to be identified? Would the definition depend on a particular user, or would it be service-wide?
The one thing YouTube does better than, say, your own private MediaGoblin instance is the related videos column at the right side of the video. What's the alternative to YouTube for finding related videos?
I was fortunate as a child to have months where television was unavailable or incredibly limited, and where the video game systems weren't connected or the computer wasn't in the house. The result? A lot of outdoor adventures
Good luck with that nowadays with police being more aggressive at picking up unaccompanied minors walking to and from said "outdoor adventures".
and a lot of reading.
Good luck with that nowadays with police being more aggressive at picking up unaccompanied minors walking to and from the public library.
Slashdot Mirror
My point is that in a world without web applications, a macOS application often wouldn't get released at all because not all developers have a Mac. A web application developer can get by without owning a Mac on which to test because Chrome for Mac and Firefox for Mac behave just like their counterparts on Windows and X11/Linux, and Blink is similar enough to Apple WebKit that testing in Chrome passes for testing in Safari. A native application developer cannot.
That must be some shitty assembly to need 100 lines to do something that can be done in 2 or 3 statements.
if ( (args[i][k]>0) && (args[i][j]<0) )
How much of that is the if statement, and how much is evaluation of its condition expression?
Do that in three assembly statements.
I hand-compiled your if statement to 14 instructions in 6502 assembly language. It's not 3, but it's not 100 either.
At some point in the tracking blocking cat-and-mouse game, it becomes less complex to just put up a paywall.
If your concern is about server CPU power consumption, could you post a link to a Cloudflare cache of your site?
Why would you need an account for a search engine?
To save your search customizations, such as which domains to exclude from results and whether to default to verbatim mode.
You do realize that this is an argument for a better, more-specific compressor for html/css/javascript, right?
MoreSpecificCompressor(minify(source_code)) will still be significantly smaller than MoreSpecificCompressor(source_code).
(2) accepting that it's a good trade-off to still have human-readable web pages even if it does add a 1% (or whatever) overhead.
In order to convince bean counters of this, we'd first need to see the exact size ratio between gzip o minify and gzip alone (what you call the "whatever") in order to calculate the extent to which this ratio affects page load time and bandwidth cost.
How will new characters break Slashdot's layout when Slashdot doesn't accept Unicode.
As I understand it, Slashdot doesn't accept Unicode precisely because of the threat of newly introduced code points that affect directionality. I was referring to the hypothetical situation in which Slashdot were to switch on Unicode with a blacklist for currently existing code points that affect directionality, as an explanation of why Slashdot doesn't accept Unicode.
Also if Slashdot accepted Unicode, why would someone use new characters that haven't been added yet?
In the hypothetical situation, the following events would occur in order:
1. Slashdot updates a blacklist to block all currently existing code points that affect directionality and enables Unicode.
2. Unicode Consortium releases a new version of Unicode including new code points that affect directionality.
3. GUI frameworks and web browsers are updated to support these new code points, but Slashdot is not because its administrators are occupied with other, more pressing aspects of site operation.
4. Someone uses one of the new code points that affect directionality but are not on the blacklist, causing the layout of Slashdot's comment section to break.
Good luck running an automated tool to build and test Mac executables on a computer made by anyone but Apple.
Legally.
If you need to run MS compatible stuff MS Win7 and various MS server systems are available.
New copies of Windows 7 are no longer available from Microsoft, and Windows 7 will soon (within 3 years) lose security updates. Who has run this test on Windows Server 2016?
Any claims about code size? That's what gzip (and other) in-line compression is for.
Not when gzip(minify(source_code)) is measured as significantly smaller than gzip(source_code).
No, keep them as different files, but use a CDN. That way, your browser doesn't have to reload jQuery each time it goes to a new page or a new site.
And the CDN can track viewers' behavior through the Referer and If-Modified-Since headers that browsers send to the CDN when checking whether jQuery has been updated.
While I understand they want to protect copyright, the real problem is the inability to audit what is executed.
[...]
As far as I'm concerned, websites will always be second class citizens compared to real desktop software
Among the most popular desktop applications, how many give the user the "ability to audit what is executed"?
They're also ephemeral
So is a desktop application that displays "Your client is out of date. [ Install Updates ]" when the server is using a newer protocol version than the client. So is a desktop application that breaks on a new operating system version because it inadvertently relies on implementation-defined, unspecified, or undefined behavior that has changed in the new OS.
You can provide a much better experience to end users by providing an App on their device of choice.
My "device of choice" is a PC running Xubuntu, an X11/Linux distribution. How many app publishers would be willing to serve that environment as a first-class citizen as opposed to sticking to Windows, macOS, Android/Linux, and iOS?
or you could just develop clientside software that does the same thing
Good luck installing a client-side .dmg on anything but a Mac. Or good luck installing a client-side .msi on anything but a Windows PC.
Minification then gzip saves more size than gzip alone, as minification allows more of the code to fit into gzip's 32 KiB back-reference window.
In a more recent case, I've had Linux get completely unresponsive during an Android build
Does this happen even if you nice the build?
These characters won't change. But new characters will be added, and if these new characters are directionality controls, they might break Slashdot's layout.
I've seen some places where they could have the files sizes of their images cut in half without impacting quality.
Until you view the picture on a high-DPI monitor, at which point the images become a blurfest compared to the adjacent text. To work around this, some sites send photos at double resolution in case the user is on a Retina display or in case the user chooses Zoom. The srcset attribute is supposed to fix this but still doesn't work correctly in IE or Edge.
sudo apt install wine
Under Debian and its derivatives, this command gets you a reimplemented runtime environment that can run many Windows applications.
Consoles were DRM free for years and years. [...] There were no technical measures in place to harden the machine against its owner as there are with today's consoles.
I'm not sure which consoles you're talking about, but the NES, Super NES, and Nintendo 64 have a CIC (Checking Integrated Circuit) designed to block use of homemade cartridges. The GameCube, Wii, and Wii U have a custom drivechip designed to block use of homemade discs.
Police in some parts of the United States do in fact "have bigger problems going on" with respect to their pursuit of free-range children on trumped-up charges of neglect.
In fact, it took a federal law in January 2016 to keep local authorities from harassing parents of children who walk to school.
Then let me rephrase the DRM issue in a more germane way that excludes your example of a customer who lacks any sort of screen: "I have purchased a copy of your motion picture and want to be able to watch it on any screen I already have, not just those few screens on your whitelist."
As a civil matter, in many jurisdictions a rightsholder could only sue for actual damages, and in the kinds of situation you're talking about there either wouldn't be anyone with standing to sue or the actual damages would be zero anyway.
In Slashdot's home country, the copyright owner has standing to sue for statutory damages.
For example, as a driver I have an above average level of training and experience, I drive a well-maintained vehicle with above average performance, and I have an excellent record of safe driving over many years. Should my judgement therefore supersede statutory limits about speeds, passing stop signs or red lights, etc?
I was thinking more along the lines of traffic statutes in some U.S. states that allow cyclists waiting at a red traffic signal to treat the red traffic signal as a stop sign after having waited two minutes. States put this sort of law into place because it's cheaper than upgrading all demand-actuated approaches to reliably recognize bicycles while reliably rejecting false detections in the adjacent lane.
What's the "at least one legal channel" for, say, the rights to make fan-made mashups of popular recorded music as a comment on the similarity of their compositions?
Maybe there isn't one, at least not without doing some work. But surely you're not suggesting this sort of activity is more than a tiny fraction of copying that gets done?
It's perhaps "a tiny fraction of copying that gets done" in an absolute sense. But fan mash-ups are a substantial fraction of videos that I fail to view on YouTube because they have been taken down on a notice of claimed infringement.
fuck you YouTube for not allowing blocking of shitty uploaders.
If YouTube were to add such a feature, how would it provide for "shitty uploaders" to be identified? Would the definition depend on a particular user, or would it be service-wide?
The one thing YouTube does better than, say, your own private MediaGoblin instance is the related videos column at the right side of the video. What's the alternative to YouTube for finding related videos?
I was fortunate as a child to have months where television was unavailable or incredibly limited, and where the video game systems weren't connected or the computer wasn't in the house. The result? A lot of outdoor adventures
Good luck with that nowadays with police being more aggressive at picking up unaccompanied minors walking to and from said "outdoor adventures".
and a lot of reading.
Good luck with that nowadays with police being more aggressive at picking up unaccompanied minors walking to and from the public library.