I'm not sure there's really a security issue here. From the spec, all its doing is letting the server send back multiple items in response to a request for one item. So if you request X, and the server knows you're going to need Y too, it can send both at once.
If server "knows" that I "need" 2MB of flash ads to see the 40K html page, it would send them to me. IOW browser is out of control what server sends, browser can only discard the content which has wasted my bandwidth and isn't going to be displayed.
It's not like the server can connect to you out of nowhere and start firing stuff at you. And since a server can already send malicious content back in response to a request, the security aspect isn't really worse then it already is.
With HTTP, there is no way server can send me something my browser didn't asked for. It can send something bad *instead* of what my browser asked - but only once and with user visible effect. With SPDY, server can send me loads of junk *silently*, still appearing to be serving legit content.
For static content, it is even worse: first time I visit the page it is cached and then a cached copy used. With SPDY, bandwidth is going to be always wasted for transferring the static content. Yes, I need it to display the page - but no, I have already local cached copy.
My favorite part of the SPDY is server push: now advertisers can clog my internet channel and hog the browser with ads long before the AdBlock kicks in. Or a hacked site would host malware and load it onto potential victims harddrives in parallel to normal surfing. Imagination is the only limit - of how it can go wrong.
For the security reasons, I think SPDY is a bad thing.
And I'm personally not bothered with 1-2s loading times.
P.S. The Chrome guys instead would have invested more times in the bookmarks, to make them useful. They could start by integrating Chrome with the Google Bookmarks.
Perhaps Gamestop will actually make something interesting out of Impulse, but I doubt it. I think unfortunately they will not innovate and will copy Steam instead.
GameStop's ran by bean counters - StarDock by gamers and developers. Who would expect anything good out of it?
Same here. Was same, I mean. Go to the Gizmodo's main page once and click on the "US" link (upper right corner) to switch your country. Then the link from/. summary should work.
P.S. Old Gizmodo's design was ugly. New design - plain horrible. Web 2.0 WTF.
Wikipedia might have won some contributors - if only they had any mean for people to publish their original works on Wikipedia. "Need references" rule makes sure that no original work, even by accident would land in the Wikipedia.
Also, what scientist would want his work to be later easily edited by just about anybody?
If Wikipedia wants to attract academia, they should start mirroring the sites like arxiv.org, allow academics to publish their works, allow academics to use their real name (and protect the real name).
Otherwise, from perspective of academic, what the spaghetti of links could be useful for? Sometimes it even fails to provide any useful keywords to further the research (aka fight against "tainting"). Articles disappear often so linking to Wikipedia is too unreliable.
I went through so many troubles simply trying to buy a Windows (well actually Linux) laptop that I even do not want to recall it.
First of all, what with the shit private vs. corporate customers?? Hey HP and Dell and Toshiba - why all I as a private person could buy from you was the cheap plastic shit?? If you do not what me to buy from you...
And the retailers are f****ing dumb. And the producers produce only the configuration which are right now in stock. WTF? I would never forget the sale guy who told me that there is no difference between this $3000 ThinkPad and this $1200 Acer, it's just IBM is always more expensive.
So I went Apple. Keyboard layout - check. Consistent model numbers so that I know what I buy (and can find a review for it) - check. Competent support - check.
It certainly wasn't intended that way and I can't imagine why you would think that.
One of the great things about the Singularity approach is that the overhead of system calls is reduced to almost nothing. I'd have thought that the benefits for high-end graphics would be obvious.
I already imagine it in all sweet beauty: viruses and malware mixed with the kernel code! Nothing could go wrong!!
There's no conspiracy or childishness on Canonical or GNOME's part. They just weren't communicating well.
Then the Dave Neary's claim that FD.o is broken is a clear exaggeration. Standards bodies are forums where people communicate, often providing only assistance in organizing the communication (aka standardization process). Interested parties should be willing to take part in the communication for the process to work - no standards body can force some party to attend. The goal of standardization is to help formalize the agreement within the industry - not force the agreement out of/onto the industry. (Think of standardization body as of a secretary: they can't do the standardization work for you, they can only help with the process and send the press releases.)
Dave Neary has an extremely thorough blog post which details problems on all sides that make the issue much more complicated than 'GNOME is being idiotic by not accepting our technology.'
Let's cut the chase: does GNOME provide an alternative notification area spec?
From all written, I can really comment only on the part about "fd.o is broken as a standards body". And all I can say is that pretty much all standard bodies work like that: they rely on cooperation. GNOME didn't take part in talk and later sent list of complaints - instead of drafting new (version of) spec. And GNOME has stopped there, at sending complaints. Standards and specs are not immovable targets, while apparently GNOME childishly refuses to take part in the process by only complaining and calling it "broken." Or I miss something?
I still fail to see how calculus and continuous math correlate with one's ability to succeed in many areas of computer science... I have seen many outstanding programmers who struggled with calculus and never really got it.
Studying math is the training for your brains. Studying it simply makes you smarter. Some can go without it, sure. But for many math is crucial in helping to (unconsciously!) learn how to organize their own thinking process, formalize their own thoughts. Math also teaches brains how to solve problems and (most importantly) that solutions depend (very much so) on definition of the problem. Heck, without the math we wouldn't even have the concept of "definition of the problem."
Additionally, math language is pretty much only common international language. Try to explain some method or proof to the new math-less CS graduates (I've met couple of them already) and they would stare back at you as if your were an alien. All they know is "Java is the programming language," "Bill Gates knew only BASIC and is billionaire now" and "O(n*log(n)) is good, O(n**2) is bad" (without actually knowing what BASIC looks like and what the meaning of the O(x) notation).
Otherwise, the question is kind of well known and answer is also. Those with strong engineering bias (aka "read the books and do all by books") tend to disregard value of math for they look at it as a factual subject. (e.g., I myself haven't seen an integral since graduation. So should I haven't studied them?) Those with scientific bias (aka "books are mostly wrong, should write myself one") tend to appreciate and enjoy the side-effects of the studying math: math language, formalization of processes, defining the problems, etc.
Because now the shares are cheap. And gives more power to Elop.
Nearing collapse, to avoid liquidation, to take Nokia over, MS would buy all the Nokia's shares. And during such takeovers the price normally is set slightly higher than the market one.
P.S. The whole point of conspiracy theories is that they do not have to many any sense at all;)
Re:So much for plan B...
on
Nokia Sells Qt
·
· Score: 3, Funny
The fact just reinforces another conspiracy theory: Nokia is poised to fail and MS is going to buy it for the pennies.
Why else Elop would invest into stock of the failing company?
P.S. For every fact, one can always find even more twisted conspiracy theory.;)
If you do it right, you don't have to continually test. That's the sign of a hacker, not a programmer. Don't get me wrong, that's how I learned too. But then you graduate beyond ADHD "programming" and buy yourself a notepad. Run the test, write down all the issues, fix all of them, test again. Gets you down to maybe 5 iterations, instead of 1000.
From my experience of building seamless UIs, you can never be done in 5 iterations. Finalizing and polishing some UI element placement can easily take 10-20 runs.
Functionality? - often takes minutes to code and yes 3-5 runs. Making the functionality accessible in an intuitive fashion? - days, sometimes weeks.
And it doesn't even matter what type of UI it is - touchscreen, WebUI or CLI - in my experience accessibility and intuitiveness always take much much more time to get right than the core functionality itself.
It may also be the Itanium that fully redeems the brand name and sheds the last vestiges of negativity that have dogged the chip since it launched ten years ago. Poulson incorporates a number of advances in its record-breaking 3.1 Billion transistors. It's socket-compatible with the older Tukwila processors and offers up to eight cores and 54MB of on-die memory.
That is so ridiculous that it is not funny.
Biggest complain about Itanic was always absence of cheap versions, something companies can put on engineer' desks.
Seeing what people do around AMD64 architecture, I doubt Itanic would ever become mainstream - it would remain forever a pet platform of HP's service unit. Similar to IBM's POWER: something sufficiently incompatible so that customers can't migrate overnight to competitor's platform.
Platform changes don't actually address the underlying issues of incompetent programmers to begin with. Platform changes just wash the bad taste of a now fired programmer out of your mouth when you replace them with someone else who works in a different environment.
I would argue that in that particular case platform matters.
Most modern platforms (C#/.Net, Java) encourage sloppy programming. (*) That works fine on desktops and even in corporate data centers, where minor problems can be brushed off, where excessive resource consumption can be mitigated by throwing in more hardware. But that isn't acceptable for customers like LSE, where even adding piece of dumb hardware might require exhausting test: to make sure that software works with more hardware and the extra hardware itself works without problems too.
(*) Do not get me wrong. As developer, in general, I'm all for the sloppy coding practices, anything what makes life of developer easier.
If Nokia had to sign up with MSFT, then the projects were already endangered - by fact of being owned by the company with failed long-term strategy.
In short-term, I do not think that something would change for the projects. But in the long-term one can expect Nokia's going to distantiate themselves from the projects by either being influenced by the MSFT or by virtue of having no money to support the involvement.
I care about OSS and I'd say the larger problem here is that (from your words) that Nokia still "owns" some pieces of the projects. But if that is true, then the problem was always there, simply waiting to be exposed.
P.S. In other news, Nokia hired ex-MSFT manager. Recall how well that went for SGI and Real.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure there's really a security issue here. From the spec, all its doing is letting the server send back multiple items in response to a request for one item. So if you request X, and the server knows you're going to need Y too, it can send both at once.
If server "knows" that I "need" 2MB of flash ads to see the 40K html page, it would send them to me. IOW browser is out of control what server sends, browser can only discard the content which has wasted my bandwidth and isn't going to be displayed.
It's not like the server can connect to you out of nowhere and start firing stuff at you. And since a server can already send malicious content back in response to a request, the security aspect isn't really worse then it already is.
With HTTP, there is no way server can send me something my browser didn't asked for. It can send something bad *instead* of what my browser asked - but only once and with user visible effect. With SPDY, server can send me loads of junk *silently*, still appearing to be serving legit content.
For static content, it is even worse: first time I visit the page it is cached and then a cached copy used. With SPDY, bandwidth is going to be always wasted for transferring the static content. Yes, I need it to display the page - but no, I have already local cached copy.
My favorite part of the SPDY is server push: now advertisers can clog my internet channel and hog the browser with ads long before the AdBlock kicks in. Or a hacked site would host malware and load it onto potential victims harddrives in parallel to normal surfing. Imagination is the only limit - of how it can go wrong.
For the security reasons, I think SPDY is a bad thing.
And I'm personally not bothered with 1-2s loading times.
P.S. The Chrome guys instead would have invested more times in the bookmarks, to make them useful. They could start by integrating Chrome with the Google Bookmarks.
Perhaps Gamestop will actually make something interesting out of Impulse, but I doubt it. I think unfortunately they will not innovate and will copy Steam instead.
GameStop's ran by bean counters - StarDock by gamers and developers. Who would expect anything good out of it?
Same here. Was same, I mean. Go to the Gizmodo's main page once and click on the "US" link (upper right corner) to switch your country. Then the link from /. summary should work.
P.S. Old Gizmodo's design was ugly. New design - plain horrible. Web 2.0 WTF.
Wikipedia might have won some contributors - if only they had any mean for people to publish their original works on Wikipedia. "Need references" rule makes sure that no original work, even by accident would land in the Wikipedia.
Also, what scientist would want his work to be later easily edited by just about anybody?
If Wikipedia wants to attract academia, they should start mirroring the sites like arxiv.org, allow academics to publish their works, allow academics to use their real name (and protect the real name).
Otherwise, from perspective of academic, what the spaghetti of links could be useful for? Sometimes it even fails to provide any useful keywords to further the research (aka fight against "tainting"). Articles disappear often so linking to Wikipedia is too unreliable.
Summary: I buy Apple laptops.
I went through so many troubles simply trying to buy a Windows (well actually Linux) laptop that I even do not want to recall it.
First of all, what with the shit private vs. corporate customers?? Hey HP and Dell and Toshiba - why all I as a private person could buy from you was the cheap plastic shit?? If you do not what me to buy from you...
And the retailers are f****ing dumb. And the producers produce only the configuration which are right now in stock. WTF? I would never forget the sale guy who told me that there is no difference between this $3000 ThinkPad and this $1200 Acer, it's just IBM is always more expensive.
So I went Apple. Keyboard layout - check. Consistent model numbers so that I know what I buy (and can find a review for it) - check. Competent support - check.
Now the development team is talking about a new development process and what to expect for FF 5 and 6.
I have a great idea. Let's rename FireFox 4/later to Chrome II. That way it would be easier for me to group browsers by their uselessness together.
No title bar, no status bar, bare minimum configuration, fancy useless UI animations => Chrome => safe to ignore.
And unsurprisingly, naysayers proclaim that IE will survive, while firefox will die.
LOL. For some time one of the Web interfaces (think corpo-ware) sold by my employer was broken under IE. Nobody noticed. For two+ years.
Not that suggestion was properly explained and explained by somebody who actually knows what role syscalls play and why they are relatively expensive.
It certainly wasn't intended that way and I can't imagine why you would think that.
One of the great things about the Singularity approach is that the overhead of system calls is reduced to almost nothing. I'd have thought that the benefits for high-end graphics would be obvious.
I already imagine it in all sweet beauty: viruses and malware mixed with the kernel code! Nothing could go wrong!!
There's no conspiracy or childishness on Canonical or GNOME's part. They just weren't communicating well.
Then the Dave Neary's claim that FD.o is broken is a clear exaggeration. Standards bodies are forums where people communicate, often providing only assistance in organizing the communication (aka standardization process). Interested parties should be willing to take part in the communication for the process to work - no standards body can force some party to attend. The goal of standardization is to help formalize the agreement within the industry - not force the agreement out of/onto the industry. (Think of standardization body as of a secretary: they can't do the standardization work for you, they can only help with the process and send the press releases.)
Dave Neary has an extremely thorough blog post which details problems on all sides that make the issue much more complicated than 'GNOME is being idiotic by not accepting our technology.'
Let's cut the chase: does GNOME provide an alternative notification area spec?
From all written, I can really comment only on the part about "fd.o is broken as a standards body". And all I can say is that pretty much all standard bodies work like that: they rely on cooperation. GNOME didn't take part in talk and later sent list of complaints - instead of drafting new (version of) spec. And GNOME has stopped there, at sending complaints. Standards and specs are not immovable targets, while apparently GNOME childishly refuses to take part in the process by only complaining and calling it "broken." Or I miss something?
I still fail to see how calculus and continuous math correlate with one's ability to succeed in many areas of computer science... I have seen many outstanding programmers who struggled with calculus and never really got it.
Studying math is the training for your brains. Studying it simply makes you smarter. Some can go without it, sure. But for many math is crucial in helping to (unconsciously!) learn how to organize their own thinking process, formalize their own thoughts. Math also teaches brains how to solve problems and (most importantly) that solutions depend (very much so) on definition of the problem. Heck, without the math we wouldn't even have the concept of "definition of the problem."
Additionally, math language is pretty much only common international language. Try to explain some method or proof to the new math-less CS graduates (I've met couple of them already) and they would stare back at you as if your were an alien. All they know is "Java is the programming language," "Bill Gates knew only BASIC and is billionaire now" and "O(n*log(n)) is good, O(n**2) is bad" (without actually knowing what BASIC looks like and what the meaning of the O(x) notation).
Otherwise, the question is kind of well known and answer is also. Those with strong engineering bias (aka "read the books and do all by books") tend to disregard value of math for they look at it as a factual subject. (e.g., I myself haven't seen an integral since graduation. So should I haven't studied them?) Those with scientific bias (aka "books are mostly wrong, should write myself one") tend to appreciate and enjoy the side-effects of the studying math: math language, formalization of processes, defining the problems, etc.
Irony is that he said that OpenGL is better - when his opinion mattered.
It's not that OpenGL now, with the mobile gaming on rise, really cares about what anybody says.
Or PC gaming, in its perpetual state "it'll get better with the next patch," is now being held back by the choice of 3D API.
Back then his words mattered. Now they are not.
Because now the shares are cheap. And gives more power to Elop.
Nearing collapse, to avoid liquidation, to take Nokia over, MS would buy all the Nokia's shares. And during such takeovers the price normally is set slightly higher than the market one.
P.S. The whole point of conspiracy theories is that they do not have to many any sense at all ;)
The fact just reinforces another conspiracy theory: Nokia is poised to fail and MS is going to buy it for the pennies.
Why else Elop would invest into stock of the failing company?
P.S. For every fact, one can always find even more twisted conspiracy theory. ;)
Yes. IceWM for me, please. Simple, elegant, functional. And doesn't stand in the way.
If you do it right, you don't have to continually test. That's the sign of a hacker, not a programmer. Don't get me wrong, that's how I learned too. But then you graduate beyond ADHD "programming" and buy yourself a notepad. Run the test, write down all the issues, fix all of them, test again. Gets you down to maybe 5 iterations, instead of 1000.
From my experience of building seamless UIs, you can never be done in 5 iterations. Finalizing and polishing some UI element placement can easily take 10-20 runs.
Functionality? - often takes minutes to code and yes 3-5 runs. Making the functionality accessible in an intuitive fashion? - days, sometimes weeks.
And it doesn't even matter what type of UI it is - touchscreen, WebUI or CLI - in my experience accessibility and intuitiveness always take much much more time to get right than the core functionality itself.
It may also be the Itanium that fully redeems the brand name and sheds the last vestiges of negativity that have dogged the chip since it launched ten years ago. Poulson incorporates a number of advances in its record-breaking 3.1 Billion transistors. It's socket-compatible with the older Tukwila processors and offers up to eight cores and 54MB of on-die memory.
That is so ridiculous that it is not funny.
Biggest complain about Itanic was always absence of cheap versions, something companies can put on engineer' desks.
Seeing what people do around AMD64 architecture, I doubt Itanic would ever become mainstream - it would remain forever a pet platform of HP's service unit. Similar to IBM's POWER: something sufficiently incompatible so that customers can't migrate overnight to competitor's platform.
So time spent fiddling with a Windows system is somehow magically free?
Yes. Of course. And it always was. I mean, this is different cost center (== costs are booked on different part of budget) so we don't care.
The whole idea of Linux on desktop is silly: Windows OS much better at accommodating the herd mentality.
[/sarcasm] *sad*
Cost of the "movie license" - say $20.
Cost of the disk - less than $0.20.
So, if the $0.20 disk breaks or scratches, why I have to pay the $20 again?
And nobody's talking about free replacement: people ask that they can replace damaged movie disk for the price of the disk.
Yes. Have overlooked the link.
Only PayPal as a payment option?
Platform changes don't actually address the underlying issues of incompetent programmers to begin with. Platform changes just wash the bad taste of a now fired programmer out of your mouth when you replace them with someone else who works in a different environment.
I would argue that in that particular case platform matters.
Most modern platforms (C#/.Net, Java) encourage sloppy programming. (*) That works fine on desktops and even in corporate data centers, where minor problems can be brushed off, where excessive resource consumption can be mitigated by throwing in more hardware. But that isn't acceptable for customers like LSE, where even adding piece of dumb hardware might require exhausting test: to make sure that software works with more hardware and the extra hardware itself works without problems too.
(*) Do not get me wrong. As developer, in general, I'm all for the sloppy coding practices, anything what makes life of developer easier.
Are these the first steps of the Ubuntu/Microsoft merge?
No. But first prospective Qt tech buyer.
If Nokia had to sign up with MSFT, then the projects were already endangered - by fact of being owned by the company with failed long-term strategy.
In short-term, I do not think that something would change for the projects. But in the long-term one can expect Nokia's going to distantiate themselves from the projects by either being influenced by the MSFT or by virtue of having no money to support the involvement.
I care about OSS and I'd say the larger problem here is that (from your words) that Nokia still "owns" some pieces of the projects. But if that is true, then the problem was always there, simply waiting to be exposed.
P.S. In other news, Nokia hired ex-MSFT manager. Recall how well that went for SGI and Real.