The solution of course is to ditch.com, and restrict.org and.net and move to country based TLD's entirely. The.com,.net and.org TLD's should be kept for purely international matters that concern everyone on the planet..com ->.co.cctld.org ->.org.cctld.net ->.net.cctld
People could cope, it's just the politics and legal battles that'd ensue. Sad really.
No it doesn't. You just regenerate, with a few clicks, your HTML from your (updated) template files and database/data storage. What i'm talking about is seperating code like this:
(generic visitor processing), from code like this:
<?php if (some_check($_SERVER['REMOTE_ADDR')) {// could check if visitor is using a certain ISP
echo 'some stuff'; } ?>
(specific visitor processing), wherever feasible.
There's absolutely no reason why the the 'static' HTML cache can't contain server side code, the first code example actually generating the second, it's a nice way IMHO to reduce database hits, important if the queries are complex or the db server is under heavy load.
Take for example your average slashdotted site. Thousands of visitors are all wanting to look at the same page and yet there are loads of database queries being run... IMHO this is a sign of a bad design decision from some web developers.
Yes, with database query caches, and very short life web caches like coral, db overheads can be reduced. But it's still a good idea and there are other benefits, such as what happens when your web hosts database goes down.
Back to the flat text file issue, they're great until you edit them, then you have to do locking if the site has anything more than a few concurrent visitors.
The file system is often unfairly overlooked IMHO. How many blogs (what is it now... 70,000 new blogs created per day?) actually need to be stored in database backends? This is a mostly WORM (Write Once Read Many) media, statically generate your HTML and seperate your code into purely generative (stuff that just reads the same old stuff from the db, and generates the same old html for all visitors) and your unique per-visitor logic and you could do miracles. Alot of people don't do this though.
In terms of heirarchial data and the requirement of this structure by 90% of PHP users, you really can't whip up anything in MySQL that will offer astounding performance when looking up (reading) all of: sublings, ancestors and descendents, without introducing some redundant fields, no matter which model you use. (Forget about heirarchial/object databases, find me a web host that offers one and then you can argue this point).
IMHO, some of the new file systems emerging with improved performance and features available, specifically on the Linux platform, are probably more suitable for a subset web applications than a fully fledged relational database. And if you do organise your data well, it's not too much more difficult going from this state to a database, than it is going from one database vendor to another if you wish to in the future.
As/.er's are surely aware, the holy slashdotting takes down alot of sites due to database lag or general lack of db connectivity. It's a good idea to statically generate and cache HTML output whereever feasible and this is obviously not done by many of/. victims.
My point is if you end up caching your HTML, like many database driven sites do and more probably should, it doesn't really matter if your data was in flat/many seperate files or a database.
Yeah so a router between me and my bank or the banks DNS records may have have been comprimised, so I decide to give the bank a bell to request the fingerprint, so in the modern age that is 2005 I fire up my VoIP client and... oh wait.
I was in the final year at my college that had the opportunity to do any decent Computing (Computer Science). The year I left the teacher (who was in his 40's and had spent over two decades as a programmer) left, due to health reasons, and was replaced by a French teacher with minimal 'qualifications' in VB (We had done Pascal and Delphi).
In the second year there were only six of us. Meanwhile the IT course, which was essentially just excel spreadsheets and report writing, was packed out with too many people for the teacher to handle and the class had to be split.
The parent's point is one of the problems with the computing field, many people can't even distinguish between 'office worker who uses a computer' and the actual science behind computing, either that or they can and they're just not interested. Maybe they're under the false impression that every job out there requires intimate knowledge of Microsoft Excel? I mean they 'made' a frickin till system in excel for Christ's sake (with no real programming, just excel formulae)!
The solution to this is simple. Encourage people not to link to popular pages. It still amazes me how some personal pages have a link to Google on a links page.
Too true. How about some serious search innovation from Google?
- Effective (but switchable) web spam filtering, as parent mentions. - The ability to search for strings like "-x flags" (note the quotes) and actually get meaningful results. - More complex patterns (mathematical expressions, anyone?) - Sort search results by the date pages were modified, they were discovered by Google? (useful in circumstances when you're looking for the latest information on a topic). - Semantic sensitive search bots. - Better results for filetype: operator. Why can't Google index all major filetypes even if it can't make them searcheable?
Anyone got any others?
Google could be working constantly behind the scenes on their engine but perhaps they should start making more noise about it. When was the last time Google's web search engine trod some new ground? Or any search engine for that matter (I refer to Google because they are 'innovating' so much).
I have a good aerial and amplifying distributing gizmo feeding terrestrial signals to 2 'portables' and the main TV in my lounge. I live in a strong signal area. On both of the portables the analogue picture is far superior in terms of sharpness and detail and pictures have a much more natural colour than the matching digital broadcast, which is riddled with artifacts. On the big TV in the lounge there is a ever so slight analogue fuzz and lack of sharpness and i'd say on this screen the digital picture seems superior.
It's a choice between artifacts and fuzz. I was kind of hoping when they killed off the analogue broadcasts they'd crank up the bitrate a bit, but this seems unlikely given some other comments here.
BTW I believe Sky, the UK's leading (only read) satellite broadcaster, have been testing digital HDTV broadcasts for some time now, and some content is being broadcast in HD.
How would increased resolution make artifacts go away? Higher res. = More bandwidth = Higher compression ratios required.
Maybe you mean MPEG-4/AVC codecs that will encode these HDTV broadcasts? Oh wait, then I need a set top box that can handle MPEG-4 instead of the shitty MPEG-2 DVB streams we get from digi-cable and digi-terrestrial now.
Only a minority of the slave keeping population seemed to object at the time. Ethics and morality change judging the past by todays standards it ludicrous. IMO, grandparent or whatever is spot on.
Maybe one day the pressures created by the ease of commiting piracy will lead to a more mature society with much more freely available enjoyment.
The thought springs to mind that PHP, as it happens, would be uniquely suited to working with the hypotethical XML databases, due to it's rather particular concept of arrays. As many of us undoubtely know, a PHP array can be used to contain a tree of arbitrary shape and size, and with nodes of arbitrary types. A native, 1-on-1 match to an XML tree.
Indeed this is trivial to acheive using PHP's XML functions (expat, not SimpleXML). However, since you have to parse the entire XML file in a linear manner anyway, it's better to use these functions to setup callbacks for the element open, close and filling events, which will save alot of memory over parsing big XML streams into an associative array and just extracting a few elements.
Actually Nominet, the UK domain authority, has stated they don't want control of the Internet to leave U.S. soil.No surprises there, given our chummy relationship with you Yanks.
Slashdot Mirror
The solution of course is to ditch .com, and restrict .org and .net and move to country based TLD's entirely. The .com, .net and .org TLD's should be kept for purely international matters that concern everyone on the planet. .com -> .co.cctld .org -> .org.cctld .net -> .net.cctld
People could cope, it's just the politics and legal battles that'd ensue. Sad really.
No it doesn't. You just regenerate, with a few clicks, your HTML from your (updated) template files and database/data storage. What i'm talking about is seperating code like this:
// could check if visitor is using a certain ISP
<?php
while($row = mysql_fetch_row(...from blog entry table)) {
echo <<<HTML
<tr><td>$row['something']</td></tr>
HTML;
}
?>
(generic visitor processing), from code like this:
<?php
if (some_check($_SERVER['REMOTE_ADDR')) {
echo 'some stuff';
}
?>
(specific visitor processing), wherever feasible.
There's absolutely no reason why the the 'static' HTML cache can't contain server side code, the first code example actually generating the second, it's a nice way IMHO to reduce database hits, important if the queries are complex or the db server is under heavy load.
Take for example your average slashdotted site. Thousands of visitors are all wanting to look at the same page and yet there are loads of database queries being run... IMHO this is a sign of a bad design decision from some web developers.
Yes, with database query caches, and very short life web caches like coral, db overheads can be reduced. But it's still a good idea and there are other benefits, such as what happens when your web hosts database goes down.
Of course, you can say it backwards, which is sisoinocranulociliscipocsorcimartluonomuenp, but that's going a bit too far, don't you think?
Back to the flat text file issue, they're great until you edit them, then you have to do locking if the site has anything more than a few concurrent visitors.
/.er's are surely aware, the holy slashdotting takes down alot of sites due to database lag or general lack of db connectivity. It's a good idea to statically generate and cache HTML output whereever feasible and this is obviously not done by many of /. victims.
The file system is often unfairly overlooked IMHO. How many blogs (what is it now... 70,000 new blogs created per day?) actually need to be stored in database backends? This is a mostly WORM (Write Once Read Many) media, statically generate your HTML and seperate your code into purely generative (stuff that just reads the same old stuff from the db, and generates the same old html for all visitors) and your unique per-visitor logic and you could do miracles. Alot of people don't do this though.
In terms of heirarchial data and the requirement of this structure by 90% of PHP users, you really can't whip up anything in MySQL that will offer astounding performance when looking up (reading) all of: sublings, ancestors and descendents, without introducing some redundant fields, no matter which model you use. (Forget about heirarchial/object databases, find me a web host that offers one and then you can argue this point).
IMHO, some of the new file systems emerging with improved performance and features available, specifically on the Linux platform, are probably more suitable for a subset web applications than a fully fledged relational database. And if you do organise your data well, it's not too much more difficult going from this state to a database, than it is going from one database vendor to another if you wish to in the future.
As
My point is if you end up caching your HTML, like many database driven sites do and more probably should, it doesn't really matter if your data was in flat/many seperate files or a database.
How many comments until someone asks "Why not distribute the source?"?
Ah geeks..always finding a way to answer the question with a better(?) one.
Google's adult directory ?
...you ever see 'Little Britain'?
IAAC, the memorizing is a terrible way to learn chemistry (actually it's a bad way to learn anything). you'll never learn anything by memorizing rules
When I read this the first thing that came to mind for me was calculus...God how I hate advanced calculus...
Yeah so a router between me and my bank or the banks DNS records may have have been comprimised, so I decide to give the bank a bell to request the fingerprint, so in the modern age that is 2005 I fire up my VoIP client and... oh wait.
Check this site out, it tells you most of the services you don't want, and the ones you definately don't want to kill.
http://www.theeldergeek.com/services_guide.htm
...and how did the project turn out!?
the main reason AMD doesn't sell well is crappy marketing
Isn't this because Intel forces OEM's to include their crappy jingly advert in their own?
Didn't we just read an article about how Windows takes 5x the number of CPU cycles to start a process?
And to only strengthen your point, threads are much less efficient than Windows on Linux, I believe.
Hardware costs. MPEG-2 decoder chips are relatively cheap. It takes a very beefy PC to decode 1080i MPEG-4 AVC (in software).
I was in the final year at my college that had the opportunity to do any decent Computing (Computer Science). The year I left the teacher (who was in his 40's and had spent over two decades as a programmer) left, due to health reasons, and was replaced by a French teacher with minimal 'qualifications' in VB (We had done Pascal and Delphi).
In the second year there were only six of us. Meanwhile the IT course, which was essentially just excel spreadsheets and report writing, was packed out with too many people for the teacher to handle and the class had to be split.
The parent's point is one of the problems with the computing field, many people can't even distinguish between 'office worker who uses a computer' and the actual science behind computing, either that or they can and they're just not interested. Maybe they're under the false impression that every job out there requires intimate knowledge of Microsoft Excel? I mean they 'made' a frickin till system in excel for Christ's sake (with no real programming, just excel formulae)!
The solution to this is simple. Encourage people not to link to popular pages. It still amazes me how some personal pages have a link to Google on a links page.
What we need is what DNS should have been for domain names, but for webpages.
Too true. How about some serious search innovation from Google?
- Effective (but switchable) web spam filtering, as parent mentions.
- The ability to search for strings like "-x flags" (note the quotes) and actually get meaningful results.
- More complex patterns (mathematical expressions, anyone?)
- Sort search results by the date pages were modified, they were discovered by Google? (useful in circumstances when you're looking for the latest information on a topic).
- Semantic sensitive search bots.
- Better results for filetype: operator. Why can't Google index all major filetypes even if it can't make them searcheable?
Anyone got any others?
Google could be working constantly behind the scenes on their engine but perhaps they should start making more noise about it. When was the last time Google's web search engine trod some new ground? Or any search engine for that matter (I refer to Google because they are 'innovating' so much).
I have a good aerial and amplifying distributing gizmo feeding terrestrial signals to 2 'portables' and the main TV in my lounge. I live in a strong signal area. On both of the portables the analogue picture is far superior in terms of sharpness and detail and pictures have a much more natural colour than the matching digital broadcast, which is riddled with artifacts. On the big TV in the lounge there is a ever so slight analogue fuzz and lack of sharpness and i'd say on this screen the digital picture seems superior.
It's a choice between artifacts and fuzz. I was kind of hoping when they killed off the analogue broadcasts they'd crank up the bitrate a bit, but this seems unlikely given some other comments here.
BTW I believe Sky, the UK's leading (only read) satellite broadcaster, have been testing digital HDTV broadcasts for some time now, and some content is being broadcast in HD.
Maybe HDTV will be good enough to make this moot
How would increased resolution make artifacts go away? Higher res. = More bandwidth = Higher compression ratios required.
Maybe you mean MPEG-4/AVC codecs that will encode these HDTV broadcasts? Oh wait, then I need a set top box that can handle MPEG-4 instead of the shitty MPEG-2 DVB streams we get from digi-cable and digi-terrestrial now.
Their morals/rights were irrelevent unless they could and would preach them.
Was slavery ethical? Was the holocaust ethical?
Only a minority of the slave keeping population seemed to object at the time. Ethics and morality change judging the past by todays standards it ludicrous. IMO, grandparent or whatever is spot on.
Maybe one day the pressures created by the ease of commiting piracy will lead to a more mature society with much more freely available enjoyment.
The thought springs to mind that PHP, as it happens, would be uniquely suited to working with the hypotethical XML databases, due to it's rather particular concept of arrays. As many of us undoubtely know, a PHP array can be used to contain a tree of arbitrary shape and size, and with nodes of arbitrary types. A native, 1-on-1 match to an XML tree.
Indeed this is trivial to acheive using PHP's XML functions (expat, not SimpleXML). However, since you have to parse the entire XML file in a linear manner anyway, it's better to use these functions to setup callbacks for the element open, close and filling events, which will save alot of memory over parsing big XML streams into an associative array and just extracting a few elements.
Actually Nominet, the UK domain authority, has stated they don't want control of the Internet to leave U.S. soil.No surprises there, given our chummy relationship with you Yanks.
Googledot