I told you in every single one of my posts that I do not have a problem with advertising supported content. I think it's an entirely appropriate way of supporting a web site. I _don't_ think adding 10 seconds to your rendering time is an appropriate way of supporting your website. and like I said in my previous post - supporting your website is _your_ problem, not your readers' problem. If you offer the content for free, don't be surprised when people take it for free.
> Do you steal your music, too? Well no. My music is my music, how can I steal that? But assuming you meant do I steal [i]other people's[/i] music, then no - I do not, I purchase it. But in that case, the content providers are [i]not[/i] giving it away for free. As for [i]my[/i] music, I give that away for free, and if I happened to decide to use advertising to support bandwidth costs I'd do so under the understanding that some people would bypass it. Sure, it would make the advertising less effective, but that would be [i]my[/i] problem for using a method so easily bypassed.
you're an idiot, that's all there is to it. I don't care if they show me ads, I'm quite happy for a website to display ads to support them. If they're services I'm interested in, I'll even click on them. But if the showing of the ads makes the page less useful to me I'm either going to go somewhere else, or find a way to prevent the ads from making it less useful to me. Anyone who runs a web site should be aware of that.
I could be browsing in Lynx - I wouldn't see any ads then, would that make me a freeloader?
Web content is _supposed_ to be free to look at, that's the _point_. It's up to the content providers to figure out how to sustain providing the content. It's their burden to ensure that the ads work, not mine.
> before I realized the main problems: Consistency (1 program = 1 unique config format, 1 unique set of shortcuts, 1 semi-unique input format, 1 unique output format) and blocking bugs I didn't have the time or energy to fix myself.
Yup, that's a pretty fair description of the Windows experience.
1 - yes, one per host. So in theory it should be OK by the time I refresh.
2 - In theory, but it can't be done in parralel with the actual request to the host being looked up, so if the main page is waiting for some component on a separate host before it can continue rendering then the extra DNS query will in fact count towards the total time. I'd say that 4 hosts are probably better than 2, because of the ability to do things in parralel, but 1 (with pipelining) would be better that either of those. Unfortunately he didn't do any tests of 4 hosts with pipelining.
3. Yes, but if you're already choking your outgoing then 8 connections instead of 2 won't help that situation. (Don't know if that's what happens in my case though). The last sentence makes sense, though you could just put your images in a different path on the same server and restrict your cookies to the paths they actually apply do (Which is something he advocates anyway to reduce the size of requests)
Also I guess there's a difference between spreading your own content over a few hosts on your own network (which should all have similar response times to each other), and what I see with sites like slashdot, where the other servers are on entirely different networks. The latter shouldn't really make much difference, but it does mean that the response times of those external servers are completely unrelated to and out of the control of the site I'm trying to get to.
I come here because I sometimes find interesting stories. I don't come here out of any sense of obligation to "The Slashdot Community". And that's been how it has been since 1998. If they want to show ads, that's fine, I don't have a problem with ads in themselves - the slashdot ones aren't _too_ intrusive most of the time. But no one can expect people to like a feature that degrades the performance of a web site. It doesn't take too long of looking at a blank window with the status bar saying "contacting ad.doubleclick.net" before you start to think that it'd be so much nicer if your web browser never tried to contact ad.doubleclick.net in the first place.
So my point is that the ads aren't inobtrusive, they are extremely detrimental to the perceived performance of the site. If they were hosted locally on slashdot servers, or some effort was made to place them such that rendering didn't block while they were loaded, then they'd be fine.
1.5Mbps ADSL. 5 Seconds to refresh the page on slashdot. That's just to getting the page to actually blank and refresh, there's still then the time it takes to load all the comments. Sometimes it's near instant, but most of the time it's around about that. Most of the time is spent "Waiting for slashdot.org", or "connecting to images.slashdot.org". It used to be a hell of a lot worse, but I installed adblock to eliminate all the extra unecesary connections (google analytics, and the various ad servers). I didn't care about the ads or the tracking, it just bugged me that those things made my browsing experience slower. I find it funny that this guy is suggesting spreading across multiple hosts, it's my completely unscientific and entirely anecdotal experience that the more host names the browser has to resolve to load the page, the longer it takes before you get to see anything.
I'm in Australia so there's a minimum 200 ms latency on roundtrips - five roundtrips and you've added 1 second to the rendering time. Approaches that add extra DNS lookups really aren't going to help. (Though the DNS lookups themselves aren't necesarily going to take 200ms - they could be much faster if they're in my ISPs DNS cache, or the could be longer if it's got to query them)
> I do not want my browser to remember that I had ten pages open and then reopen them when it starts. I'd be running Opera if I wanted that.
Then use the simple switch they provide to make it not do that. You didn't look very hard - the very first dropdown on the first panel of the options dialogue has the option you're looking for.
I think that if you look hard enough at any digital image, you can find "obvious signs" of manipulation. In fact, you could probably find "obvious signs" of digital manipulation in a purely analogue film print;)
One missed !, a set of brackets wrong, maybe a rogue comma. If it's in the right place it could easily corrupt the filesystem or the registry or something else equally as important. If they've only found it now, then it's most likely something that's only triggered under very rare circumstances. Afterall, it's not just Microsoft who hadn't encountered it before - it's all the thousands of people with copies of the release candidates too.
Even with the best testing and the best processes, these things can still happen. And the point here is that it _was_ caught.
Start doing some personal projects in a different language to the one you're exeperienced in. If you use an object oriented language, then learn Smalltalk, you'll definitely learn some stuff that you'll be able to apply to your main language.
you mean the warrior style top knot? The only people I've ever seen with hair like that are certainly not the sorts you'd call feminine. At least not to their face. If you equate long hair with femininity, then you have larger problems in your life.
Unisys (no camel case) didn't exist in 83. Unisys was created via the merger (or rather, hostile takeover) of Sperry and Burroughs in 1986. Sperry originally had the patent - and Unisys discovered it and its potential implications later, which is why they appeared to wait so long. I'd imagine someone knew about the patent when they merged, but it was probably considered unimportant at the time, with both Sperry and Burroughs being mainframe companies. Since CompuServe didn't come up with GIF until the following year there probably wasn't any use of the algorithm outside of the now absorbed Sperry at that time.
I'm a right handed person that uses the mouse on the left. (now that my right hand has taken all the mouse abuse it can cope with) Which is admittedly not very common, but I think ctrl+w was chosen simply for the fact that "w" stands for "window", rather than placement. It's just coincidence that it happens to be convenient for right mouse users.
In any case, I'm not entirely sure which is best of the two close button locations - when I'm using FF1.5 it bugs me that I have to switch to a tab to close it, when I'm using FF2 it bugs me that I have to play "chase the tab" when closing a lot of them. Adding both would be irritating because it wastes space...
I think FF3 needs to implement "close the one I mean";)
Slashdot Mirror
"Right thinking people" is a phrase that always deeply disturbs me.
gah, it's inevitable that if you post without previewing you'll make some idiotic mistake like using UBB tags instead of HTML...
I told you in every single one of my posts that I do not have a problem with advertising supported content.
I think it's an entirely appropriate way of supporting a web site.
I _don't_ think adding 10 seconds to your rendering time is an appropriate way of supporting your website.
and like I said in my previous post - supporting your website is _your_ problem, not your readers' problem. If you offer the content for free, don't be surprised when people take it for free.
> Do you steal your music, too?
Well no. My music is my music, how can I steal that?
But assuming you meant do I steal [i]other people's[/i] music, then no - I do not, I purchase it. But in that case, the content providers are [i]not[/i] giving it away for free.
As for [i]my[/i] music, I give that away for free, and if I happened to decide to use advertising to support bandwidth costs I'd do so under the understanding that some people would bypass it. Sure, it would make the advertising less effective, but that would be [i]my[/i] problem for using a method so easily bypassed.
what about it doesn't work with Firefox?
I used the firefox WebDeveloper plugin to automatically submit the site.
In fact, I've only ever used it with Firefox
Maybe if they had less than 107 images on their front page they wouldn't have so much of a problem.
I dunno about unique content, but TFA shows around 50 million "Active" sites.
you're an idiot, that's all there is to it.
I don't care if they show me ads, I'm quite happy for a website to display ads to support them. If they're services I'm interested in, I'll even click on them.
But if the showing of the ads makes the page less useful to me I'm either going to go somewhere else, or find a way to prevent the ads from making it less useful to me.
Anyone who runs a web site should be aware of that.
I could be browsing in Lynx - I wouldn't see any ads then, would that make me a freeloader?
Web content is _supposed_ to be free to look at, that's the _point_. It's up to the content providers to figure out how to sustain providing the content. It's their burden to ensure that the ads work, not mine.
> before I realized the main problems: Consistency (1 program = 1 unique config format, 1 unique set of shortcuts, 1 semi-unique input format, 1 unique output format) and blocking bugs I didn't have the time or energy to fix myself.
Yup, that's a pretty fair description of the Windows experience.
1 - yes, one per host. So in theory it should be OK by the time I refresh.
2 - In theory, but it can't be done in parralel with the actual request to the host being looked up, so if the main page is waiting for some component on a separate host before it can continue rendering then the extra DNS query will in fact count towards the total time.
I'd say that 4 hosts are probably better than 2, because of the ability to do things in parralel, but 1 (with pipelining) would be better that either of those. Unfortunately he didn't do any tests of 4 hosts with pipelining.
3. Yes, but if you're already choking your outgoing then 8 connections instead of 2 won't help that situation. (Don't know if that's what happens in my case though).
The last sentence makes sense, though you could just put your images in a different path on the same server and restrict your cookies to the paths they actually apply do (Which is something he advocates anyway to reduce the size of requests)
Also I guess there's a difference between spreading your own content over a few hosts on your own network (which should all have similar response times to each other), and what I see with sites like slashdot, where the other servers are on entirely different networks. The latter shouldn't really make much difference, but it does mean that the response times of those external servers are completely unrelated to and out of the control of the site I'm trying to get to.
I come here because I sometimes find interesting stories. I don't come here out of any sense of obligation to "The Slashdot Community". And that's been how it has been since 1998.
If they want to show ads, that's fine, I don't have a problem with ads in themselves - the slashdot ones aren't _too_ intrusive most of the time. But no one can expect people to like a feature that degrades the performance of a web site. It doesn't take too long of looking at a blank window with the status bar saying "contacting ad.doubleclick.net" before you start to think that it'd be so much nicer if your web browser never tried to contact ad.doubleclick.net in the first place.
So my point is that the ads aren't inobtrusive, they are extremely detrimental to the perceived performance of the site. If they were hosted locally on slashdot servers, or some effort was made to place them such that rendering didn't block while they were loaded, then they'd be fine.
A little clarification to that - I have pipelining on, which may be why multiple hosts is a net loss for me, instead of a gain.
1.5Mbps ADSL.
5 Seconds to refresh the page on slashdot. That's just to getting the page to actually blank and refresh, there's still then the time it takes to load all the comments.
Sometimes it's near instant, but most of the time it's around about that.
Most of the time is spent "Waiting for slashdot.org", or "connecting to images.slashdot.org".
It used to be a hell of a lot worse, but I installed adblock to eliminate all the extra unecesary connections (google analytics, and the various ad servers). I didn't care about the ads or the tracking, it just bugged me that those things made my browsing experience slower.
I find it funny that this guy is suggesting spreading across multiple hosts, it's my completely unscientific and entirely anecdotal experience that the more host names the browser has to resolve to load the page, the longer it takes before you get to see anything.
I'm in Australia so there's a minimum 200 ms latency on roundtrips - five roundtrips and you've added 1 second to the rendering time. Approaches that add extra DNS lookups really aren't going to help. (Though the DNS lookups themselves aren't necesarily going to take 200ms - they could be much faster if they're in my ISPs DNS cache, or the could be longer if it's got to query them)
> I do not want my browser to remember that I had ten pages open and then reopen them when it starts. I'd be running Opera if I wanted that.
Then use the simple switch they provide to make it not do that.
You didn't look very hard - the very first dropdown on the first panel of the options dialogue has the option you're looking for.
An exploit that effects a web browser, not THAT would be impressive ;)
What "Obvious signs"?
;)
I think that if you look hard enough at any digital image, you can find "obvious signs" of manipulation. In fact, you could probably find "obvious signs" of digital manipulation in a purely analogue film print
All it takes is one character wrong.
One missed !, a set of brackets wrong, maybe a rogue comma.
If it's in the right place it could easily corrupt the filesystem or the registry or something else equally as important.
If they've only found it now, then it's most likely something that's only triggered under very rare circumstances. Afterall, it's not just Microsoft who hadn't encountered it before - it's all the thousands of people with copies of the release candidates too.
Even with the best testing and the best processes, these things can still happen. And the point here is that it _was_ caught.
Start doing some personal projects in a different language to the one you're exeperienced in.
If you use an object oriented language, then learn Smalltalk, you'll definitely learn some stuff that you'll be able to apply to your main language.
you mean the warrior style top knot?
The only people I've ever seen with hair like that are certainly not the sorts you'd call feminine. At least not to their face.
If you equate long hair with femininity, then you have larger problems in your life.
Well then most of the world is going to be too cold for you ;)
I'm in Australia and I'm still no stranger to temperatures less than 0.
Admittedly I'm in Canberra, but we still get the 40s though.
Sounds like you need somewhere in Queensland or the Northern Territory.
A patent is not on the concept itself, it's on the actual "invention" - the method and / or mechanism.
Anyone can come up with ideas, but unless you can demonstrate how they work, you don't get a patent.
Unisys (no camel case) didn't exist in 83.
Unisys was created via the merger (or rather, hostile takeover) of Sperry and Burroughs in 1986.
Sperry originally had the patent - and Unisys discovered it and its potential implications later, which is why they appeared to wait so long.
I'd imagine someone knew about the patent when they merged, but it was probably considered unimportant at the time, with both Sperry and Burroughs being mainframe companies. Since CompuServe didn't come up with GIF until the following year there probably wasn't any use of the algorithm outside of the now absorbed Sperry at that time.
> I suppose you're one of those people that call Daddy Long Legs, spiders
;)
Yes, because they are:
because they are
Unless they're not.
Kind of make you wish they had different names, doesn't it?
Which is exactly the point of MiB vs MB - though I honestly have no idea if you're pro MiB or not, I lost track
I'm a right handed person that uses the mouse on the left. (now that my right hand has taken all the mouse abuse it can cope with) Which is admittedly not very common, but I think ctrl+w was chosen simply for the fact that "w" stands for "window", rather than placement. It's just coincidence that it happens to be convenient for right mouse users.
;)
In any case, I'm not entirely sure which is best of the two close button locations - when I'm using FF1.5 it bugs me that I have to switch to a tab to close it, when I'm using FF2 it bugs me that I have to play "chase the tab" when closing a lot of them.
Adding both would be irritating because it wastes space...
I think FF3 needs to implement "close the one I mean"
except that I use the mouse on the left, so ctrl+w is really awkward.
Which is great if you already have your hands on the keyboard. But most browsing is done with the mouse.