-IDE drives are not supported as in who uses them in a real server anyway?? -NFS/TCP/IP/ethernet remote storage * CIFS remote storage -- as in that's not enough?? -NICS supporting the Solaris GLDv3 driver specification-- fine -only MTUs of 1500 bytes are supported (when did you see one smaller recently??) - Windows Server 2008 logo certified hardware-- that's about all of the servers I know, sadly.
Sun may thwart this one, too, but I'll give them a fighting chance. The model's somewhat sound but I'm eager to see the perf numbers and the real availability costs.
We would disagree. If the content can't be used as one browser interprets an instruction differently from the standard, then you're capacity to view the content is thwarted. If I have a 640x480x256 browser on my phone and someone demands 1024x768x10^6, then my phone experience is pretty much hosed. We'll agree on that use case.
Bend towards my phone having the higher res of the two, but because my engine renders CSS differently, the two 'experiences' between my phone and notebook are completely different with the phone incapable of delivering the information correctly or usably.
I believe both browsers, given display geometry equanimity, should render exactly by default.
Oh, don't I know it. To fork this thread into what I don't like about Safari and other K-rendered browsers would pollute an otherwise interesting diatribe.
1- No. SGML, xml, the rest of them ought to be rendered in the same way. You might need binoculars or a microscope. Some cases, though very few, should be obtuse and not renderable.
2- We disagree. webstandards.org....w3c... the mind boggles here and it's like saying we're looking at a symphonic rose, but we're all seeing something else. Indeed, the rods and cones fire the same signals to the brain, as does the impacted tympani and drum. Fie.
3- Web apps and web sites are intrinsically intertwined. Hence the cross-platform needs for conformity and quality with various categories of apps. Examples: Java, php, Flash, and so on. A browser shouldn't need to be an interpreter; instead, a plug-in should do that. A browser historically is a renderer of content. Apps based on various engines are rendered through the 'lens' of a browser. In this context, the 'web apps have different needs than sites' makes no sense. Do browsers need to adapt to the engines that run other apps? No. They're browsers. They render. That's their job.
Re:BloatWare Continues....
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I'm all for evolution. Interoperability has been sacrificed for the sake of tying users to platforms. Same old story, new application. Join our free dev network and we'll grow together! Instead, we grow apart. Is that progress? Are the new features worth it when we make browsers that take a semi to run? Whatever happened to stealthy tight code? Whatever happened to API sets that worked across platforms? It's all about grabbing users and corralling them to increasingly incompatible and proprietary platforms. To both Google and Microsoft: shame on you. We love the neat new stuff. But the ball-and-chain effect gets old.
BloatWare Continues....
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It's hype. By the time you ad in all of the mind-numbing widgetry, the browser becomes the ultimate in madness. It proves the old adage that when you get a really nice hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Mod me whatever, but browsers need to go on a diet so that there can be cross-platform coherency and cohesiveness for apps, whether it's on a phone, a kiosk, a notebook, an HD TV DVR display, or whatever. I want the same page to display the same way on Konqueror, Safari, IEWhatever, Chrome (please, a marketing guy needs a spanking), Opera, or whatever. Stop for a while and get it right guys.
You see, some dork thought they could make a deal where Lexis/Nexis (etc) could pay California to put its codes online in an exclusive deal. It's the content aggregators dream. But this is California-- where all IP madness originates.
there has to be some conformity somehow, but if you take 15.5 in our years, it might be 16.5 otherwise; round up and you're there although the permissibility of this might be questionable.
Then, the drug testing brings up many questions on what's permissible, and these devilish details are distracting from what's important, competitively.
TV channels don't necessarily have more 'mindshare', but we won't quibble. NPR has a wider reaching audience as it's radio. Fox and CNN aren't strongly into radio markets, rather TV. This major difference is the crux of my remark. Additionally, NPR's audience reach is farther. Demographically, it's also larger, and in terms of international radio broadcasters, it has a large reach largely due to AFN. VoA is somewhat different, of course-- as are its motives.
Umm, actually, NPR is heard in more places in the US and on Earth than Fox and CNN. It can also be streamed easily. NPR is also sent through transulator sites to remote parts of the US that extend the reach where no one else goes, like rural Nevada, California, and so on.
AFR and AFN also carry a lot of NPR, and news feeds also extend to the CBC, BBC, RCI, and other sites/broadcasters as well. The news is out. As it should be.
It's our duty to prevent the madness of addressing every molecule in the known universe with their own fracking address, not to mention the pair up with a MAC address. Or a user identity or other hashing datum.
Fie on your perception, as it's misplaced devotion to idiocy incarnate. There is no good reason to address the universe down to the quark. There is no good reason to reveal the atomic source point of communications-- unless you're one of those odd advocates of no anonymity in the slightest.
Instead, break the monopolies of unused CIDR block. Do the math.
Half a league half a league half a league on.... Into the jaws of hell rode the 10^37 to paraphrase Lord Tennyson.
What were these guys smoking? I want some of that delusional stuff. Sure beats the reality of MAKING THE UNIVERSITIES NAT THEIR FAT A's and B's !!!!
After all, doesn't an IPV6 aid the RIAA in tracking down those bandit MP3 thieves???? No NAT means you can nail a user straight away, right???? Ye gawds.
If there's an ISP out there that can't route IPV6, then move away from them, quickly. It's not that tough.
That said, the reason IPV6 adoption isn't huge is just the fact that with the 10^37 addresses, every molecule on earth hasn't been assigned an address.....yet.
Seriously===> IPV6 is employed to subvert NATing, which in turn, lets people traceroute you very handily. Paranoid types please chime in here. IPV6, IMHO, is one of the looniest changes ever made to the Internet. It will be the source of unceasing problems for decades to come.
The temptation will be too great. Crowd control? Voter control? Don't like the price of fuel? Easy. A way will be found to change your mind.
At what price? Chemical weapons developed in the 1950s-1980s cost billions to destroy. Are mind-control weapons going to be equally as horrible? Historical trends would say so.
The issues are charged with disinformation from lobbyists, PACs, spin-meisters, and the just plain delusional. Separating truthful and rational sources from the BSers has become an art form-- because it's sure not science.
It's a wonder that John and Jane Q Voter are able to cut through the madness at all- then to attempt to pin the future on one political candidate or another (as they don't understand science well, either, most of them).
Slashdot Mirror
-IDE drives are not supported as in who uses them in a real server anyway??
-NFS/TCP/IP/ethernet remote storage * CIFS remote storage -- as in that's not enough??
-NICS supporting the Solaris GLDv3 driver specification-- fine
-only MTUs of 1500 bytes are supported (when did you see one smaller recently??)
- Windows Server 2008 logo certified hardware-- that's about all of the servers I know, sadly.
Sun may thwart this one, too, but I'll give them a fighting chance. The model's somewhat sound but I'm eager to see the perf numbers and the real availability costs.
We would disagree. If the content can't be used as one browser interprets an instruction differently from the standard, then you're capacity to view the content is thwarted. If I have a 640x480x256 browser on my phone and someone demands 1024x768x10^6, then my phone experience is pretty much hosed. We'll agree on that use case.
Bend towards my phone having the higher res of the two, but because my engine renders CSS differently, the two 'experiences' between my phone and notebook are completely different with the phone incapable of delivering the information correctly or usably.
I believe both browsers, given display geometry equanimity, should render exactly by default.
Oh, don't I know it. To fork this thread into what I don't like about Safari and other K-rendered browsers would pollute an otherwise interesting diatribe.
1- No. SGML, xml, the rest of them ought to be rendered in the same way. You might need binoculars or a microscope. Some cases, though very few, should be obtuse and not renderable.
2- We disagree. webstandards.org....w3c... the mind boggles here and it's like saying we're looking at a symphonic rose, but we're all seeing something else. Indeed, the rods and cones fire the same signals to the brain, as does the impacted tympani and drum. Fie.
3- Web apps and web sites are intrinsically intertwined. Hence the cross-platform needs for conformity and quality with various categories of apps. Examples: Java, php, Flash, and so on. A browser shouldn't need to be an interpreter; instead, a plug-in should do that. A browser historically is a renderer of content. Apps based on various engines are rendered through the 'lens' of a browser. In this context, the 'web apps have different needs than sites' makes no sense. Do browsers need to adapt to the engines that run other apps? No. They're browsers. They render. That's their job.
I didn't. TFA did. Both seem pretty piggish. Both are companies looking for both dev effort and also advertising revenue.
Are these the same semis that run the latest games?
Is a browser an Xbox or an SGML viewer?
General programmers stopped doing assembly when people realized they weren't as productive as with higher level code.
200MB+??????? Yeah. Right.
Like when I could run Mac code on an Intel platform?
Virtual Mac. How about IE5 on the Mac? Where did that go?
Anyway the Google code is open sourced. If that's corralling then I hate to see what your idea of free is?
Ah, yes, open source. Like the EULA. Open source doesn't necessarily connote free. Ask any Mozilla developer.
Amen.
I'm all for evolution. Interoperability has been sacrificed for the sake of tying users to platforms. Same old story, new application. Join our free dev network and we'll grow together! Instead, we grow apart. Is that progress? Are the new features worth it when we make browsers that take a semi to run? Whatever happened to stealthy tight code? Whatever happened to API sets that worked across platforms? It's all about grabbing users and corralling them to increasingly incompatible and proprietary platforms. To both Google and Microsoft: shame on you. We love the neat new stuff. But the ball-and-chain effect gets old.
It's hype. By the time you ad in all of the mind-numbing widgetry, the browser becomes the ultimate in madness. It proves the old adage that when you get a really nice hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Mod me whatever, but browsers need to go on a diet so that there can be cross-platform coherency and cohesiveness for apps, whether it's on a phone, a kiosk, a notebook, an HD TV DVR display, or whatever. I want the same page to display the same way on Konqueror, Safari, IEWhatever, Chrome (please, a marketing guy needs a spanking), Opera, or whatever. Stop for a while and get it right guys.
You see, some dork thought they could make a deal where Lexis/Nexis (etc) could pay California to put its codes online in an exclusive deal. It's the content aggregators dream. But this is California-- where all IP madness originates.
Behavioral functionality needed to emulate an x86 is non-trivial. Ask Transmeta.
A ton of bricks awaits them, should they or others try. Look again historically at Transmeta.
I wonder why no one has tried to describe this phenomenon so far. It would explain a lot.
there has to be some conformity somehow, but if you take 15.5 in our years, it might be 16.5 otherwise; round up and you're there although the permissibility of this might be questionable.
Then, the drug testing brings up many questions on what's permissible, and these devilish details are distracting from what's important, competitively.
There's some truth to this. The difference between ordinal and cardinal counting means that most Asians start at age 1 at birth.
I think.
TV channels don't necessarily have more 'mindshare', but we won't quibble. NPR has a wider reaching audience as it's radio. Fox and CNN aren't strongly into radio markets, rather TV. This major difference is the crux of my remark. Additionally, NPR's audience reach is farther. Demographically, it's also larger, and in terms of international radio broadcasters, it has a large reach largely due to AFN. VoA is somewhat different, of course-- as are its motives.
Umm, actually, NPR is heard in more places in the US and on Earth than Fox and CNN. It can also be streamed easily. NPR is also sent through transulator sites to remote parts of the US that extend the reach where no one else goes, like rural Nevada, California, and so on.
AFR and AFN also carry a lot of NPR, and news feeds also extend to the CBC, BBC, RCI, and other sites/broadcasters as well. The news is out. As it should be.
Oh, right.
And these days, how many MAC addresses can't be easily re-written, forged, or otherwise mangled for fun and profit?
Passwords are nice. NATing is nice. But the rules say that with a big enough hammer, you can break anything. Ask the NSA.
We would disagree.
It's our duty to prevent the madness of addressing every molecule in the known universe with their own fracking address, not to mention the pair up with a MAC address. Or a user identity or other hashing datum.
Fie on your perception, as it's misplaced devotion to idiocy incarnate. There is no good reason to address the universe down to the quark. There is no good reason to reveal the atomic source point of communications-- unless you're one of those odd advocates of no anonymity in the slightest.
Instead, break the monopolies of unused CIDR block. Do the math.
That's two of us.
How many IPV4 addresses left now?
No one is going to listen to us.
Half a league half a league half a league on....
Into the jaws of hell rode the 10^37 to paraphrase Lord Tennyson.
What were these guys smoking? I want some of that delusional stuff. Sure beats the reality of MAKING THE UNIVERSITIES NAT THEIR FAT A's and B's !!!!
After all, doesn't an IPV6 aid the RIAA in tracking down those bandit MP3 thieves???? No NAT means you can nail a user straight away, right???? Ye gawds.
If there's an ISP out there that can't route IPV6, then move away from them, quickly. It's not that tough.
That said, the reason IPV6 adoption isn't huge is just the fact that with the 10^37 addresses, every molecule on earth hasn't been assigned an address.....yet.
Seriously===> IPV6 is employed to subvert NATing, which in turn, lets people traceroute you very handily. Paranoid types please chime in here. IPV6, IMHO, is one of the looniest changes ever made to the Internet. It will be the source of unceasing problems for decades to come.
Tin, lead, mu metal, something.
A friend relays that HD radio has a subcarrier... ;)
It's the potential superfluity of them, as they're probably short range devices. In the wrong hands, we'll all be buying crunchy peanut butter.
Read the book before I ever saw BladeRunner. Well done.
The temptation will be too great. Crowd control? Voter control? Don't like the price of fuel? Easy. A way will be found to change your mind.
At what price? Chemical weapons developed in the 1950s-1980s cost billions to destroy. Are mind-control weapons going to be equally as horrible? Historical trends would say so.
The issues are charged with disinformation from lobbyists, PACs, spin-meisters, and the just plain delusional. Separating truthful and rational sources from the BSers has become an art form-- because it's sure not science.
It's a wonder that John and Jane Q Voter are able to cut through the madness at all- then to attempt to pin the future on one political candidate or another (as they don't understand science well, either, most of them).