I think it's fair to say as a 'suite' it is dying ("didn't work" is hardly the case, there are still Mozilla Suite users out there). But as a web rendering platform I think it's still developing quite well.
The javascript privilege escalation exploit is quite a biggy so in the interest of creating awareness it isn't a bad thing. The real shameful thing about this is it is pretty much a dupe, giving little or no more information than the first submission..
News of malicious use of the exploit in the wild may have been worthy, but if anything it says the risk is now lower.
Maybe a month or more ago I posted a/. comment telling of my concern that Google were producing too many products at too high of a rate...I wasn't the first and these concerns have been echoed by many others.
Google released a bad product. But that isn't the real news. It isn't even news that they have done anything intentionally evil. The real news here is they released a product as beta that should have been an internal alpha. IMHO they are pushing out their toys too fast and now they're suffering for it. Too cocky for their own good.
I can't help thinking that Bill Gates will may have a smirk on his face right about now. Bill is obviously a savvy man when it comes to business or he wouldn't be the man he is today and I wouldn't be surprised if he was expecting something embarassing like this to happen. I think it's simply brilliant that the "Gates on Google" article came only a day before this calamity.
It's not always a bad thing when the good guys get a slap and have to suck it up. This could actually do Google good, is it me or were people starting to become paranoid and resentful of Google?
Maybe Google will start refining their products now and getting them out of beta? It will be interesting to see Google's reaction.
Cookies are horrendously abused. There should never be a need for cookies until you choose preferences or login to a website.
It's about time the net at large woke up to P3P, or better yet webmasters started thinking before they mindlessly implement cookies for tracking their visitors.
1. Find yourself a nice wild fox, or steal one from captivity if they aren't native to your locale. 2. Get yourself a few litres of fuel, or steal some from Flander's. 3. Buy large box of extra length (safety) matches. 4. ????? -- This must be where the book comes in!! 5. Profit!!
Not sensational, probably offtopic, but nice to be able to tweak some of the settings even Firefox doesn't give you GUI access to. I couldn't resist pointing it out.
CmdrTaco probably just witheld it for you, keeping it nice and safe so you can get some pleasantly manageable reflected glory now, not burnt to a sinder in all that ghastly direct glory then. See? =)
Next time you get rejected for submission on Slashdot consider claiming blag rights over at OldNewsBaby.com. It boosts your ego.
Innovation !== Invention
on
Gates on Google
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
There's a big difference between inventing something and using something.
I have my own personal theory that very few ideas are original. I wouldn't be surprised if collectively people all over the Earth has had every idea Google has manifested.
The importance of innovation vs invention is moot, as one is totally useless without the other.
My favourite definition of innovation (from the results returned by Google's define: operator) is "the process of adopting a new thing, idea, or behavior pattern into a culture." from the Tel el-Far-ah dictionary.
Re:Another day.. another google story..
on
Gates on Google
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Re:Innovate, not copy
on
Gates on Google
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Direct quote from the article.
"I remember when [Payne's team] showed off their first prototype in early 2004people laughed because it was so much like Google," says a former Microsoft executive. "We had copied them. That's not how you lead."
What about other for-pay sites, where only registered users are supposed to be able to see the content? Let's say you login to site.com and call up pagex.html through the Google proxy. A few minutes later, I call up http://site.com/pagex.html through the Google proxy. Even though I didn't log into the site, will Google show me the content they cached during your visit? Will that content show up as a Google result, or in the Google cache?
I'm far from an expert but generally I would think access restricted (htaccess) mandatory login pages and directories will return "must-revalidate" in their Cache-Control header or "private" as the cache type type. This essentially means these pages are only cached by browser caches and other 'safe' caches.
Remember GWA is still just a normal compliant proxy.
Another quality service from Google i'm sure. But this isn't really reducing transfer on the internet at large, it's 1xx% of what would be trasnferred with direct client->website transfers.
My ISP (NTL, UK) run transparent proxies, presumeably these proxies cache content and make my surfing experience better and reduce costs for my ISP (and therefore me, in theory). Shouldn't these proxies be introducing gzip/deflate compression (atleast for the most cached content) anyway?
I can see why this service exists, not all ISP's do cache, but on the ideal internet this just shouldn't need to exist.
If Google really wanted to be charitable and nice they could have approached ISP's directly and helped build up decent caching architecture. The fact of the matter is it isn't in their interests to do so.
Maybe instead of praising Google for doing this you should be hammering your ISP. The more reliant people become soley on Google for many web services the more painful it will be when something eventually pops and there is outcry. And there is a high chance that something will.
Unless of course you actually want to inform Google about your surfing habbits (which, I agree, you actually might. It may make surfing more useful etc depending what they do with this information - as many others have pointed out already)
Opera uses the netscape navigator plugin API, as does firefox. If you mean EXTENSIONS then no. Opera is very limited in open source or third party extensions..infact, I can't think of one.
Slashdot actually falls over fairly frequently for a high-profile site, but I don't think it's actually related to bandwidth.
This is related to the fact that your relative frame of reference as a geek means these 500ms glitches seem like you're coming down from a 48 hour cocaine binge.
Why do some people read the broadsheets and others the tabloids? Why do people read one tabloid over another, or one broadsheet over another?
Sure all news has a slant or a bias, especially the tabloids, but the readers (aka the people) also have a personal bias. If all news was the same and there were no differences in the quality or, to some extent, any opinion in journalism we wouldn't have a need for more than one news source and honestly... people would find it more difficult to form their own opinions.
Whether you like it or not mostly everyones opinion on obscure or unfamiliar subjects, like Iraq, are influenced by the opinion of our peers and journalism more than from our personal experiences (which in themselves make us 'biased'). We aren't Vulcans. Bias, opinion, controversy, arguments are what makes the news worth reading.
'Slashdot and blogs', if you wish to generalise this form of media in that way, don't correct any of this 'slant'. Slashdot and the majority of comments are grossly biased in some way. These biases change cyclically, like changing fashion. The website as a whole has a infamous stereotype.
In the society in which we live, on many subjects, the 'voices of the people' (90% of blogs are gross offenders) are just regurgitating, syndicating and sometimes reglossing over opinions of those on the front lines of journalism.
"Insightful" translates to opinion and getting others thinking on the same lines as you are (but also translate to sarcasm and parody). "Informative" translates to journalism. News is a mix of both. The advantage of Slashdot is it can keep these two somewhat distinct and this is important for making the masses realise what is fact and what is the good stuff.
Back on topic of the NYT charging for archive content.. good for them, they should. Price is debateable but, as someone way up the comment tree was right in saying, mostly these archives are used for research. Whether or not the NYT is good resource for this depends on what you are researching. This article doesn't really address the issues over the NYT being a good news source.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's fair to say as a 'suite' it is dying ("didn't work" is hardly the case, there are still Mozilla Suite users out there). But as a web rendering platform I think it's still developing quite well.
The javascript privilege escalation exploit is quite a biggy so in the interest of creating awareness it isn't a bad thing. The real shameful thing about this is it is pretty much a dupe, giving little or no more information than the first submission..
News of malicious use of the exploit in the wild may have been worthy, but if anything it says the risk is now lower.
*shakes head and wonders off*
Yes. The Netscape/Mozilla "browser as platform" thing didn't work out
Tell that to the hoards of developers using the Mozilla engine aka Gecko in their products.
Copy and page parent link into new tab or Firefox/Mozilla users set "network.http.sendRefererHeader" in about:config to 0 and then click.
Yeah but engadget has more ads.
Maybe a month or more ago I posted a /. comment telling of my concern that Google were producing too many products at too high of a rate...I wasn't the first and these concerns have been echoed by many others.
Google released a bad product. But that isn't the real news. It isn't even news that they have done anything intentionally evil. The real news here is they released a product as beta that should have been an internal alpha. IMHO they are pushing out their toys too fast and now they're suffering for it. Too cocky for their own good.
I can't help thinking that Bill Gates will may have a smirk on his face right about now. Bill is obviously a savvy man when it comes to business or he wouldn't be the man he is today and I wouldn't be surprised if he was expecting something embarassing like this to happen. I think it's simply brilliant that the "Gates on Google" article came only a day before this calamity.
It's not always a bad thing when the good guys get a slap and have to suck it up. This could actually do Google good, is it me or were people starting to become paranoid and resentful of Google?
Maybe Google will start refining their products now and getting them out of beta? It will be interesting to see Google's reaction.
OK so maybe it does.
Darn.
Since when does Firefox do any pre-fetching? It doesn't.
Cookies are horrendously abused. There should never be a need for cookies until you choose preferences or login to a website.
It's about time the net at large woke up to P3P, or better yet webmasters started thinking before they mindlessly implement cookies for tracking their visitors.
true but about:config doesn't tell you what they mean and the options :P
Precisely
1. Find yourself a nice wild fox, or steal one from captivity if they aren't native to your locale.
2. Get yourself a few litres of fuel, or steal some from Flander's.
3. Buy large box of extra length (safety) matches.
4. ????? -- This must be where the book comes in!!
5. Profit!!
I personally don't use Firefox. But I do use K-Meleon (uses Mozilla) and, just 15 minutes ago, found all the mozilla preferences in a nice table.
Not sensational, probably offtopic, but nice to be able to tweak some of the settings even Firefox doesn't give you GUI access to. I couldn't resist pointing it out.
CmdrTaco probably just witheld it for you, keeping it nice and safe so you can get some pleasantly manageable reflected glory now, not burnt to a sinder in all that ghastly direct glory then. See? =)
Next time you get rejected for submission on Slashdot consider claiming blag rights over at OldNewsBaby.com. It boosts your ego.
*Shiver*
There's a big difference between inventing something and using something.
I have my own personal theory that very few ideas are original. I wouldn't be surprised if collectively people all over the Earth has had every idea Google has manifested.
The importance of innovation vs invention is moot, as one is totally useless without the other.
My favourite definition of innovation (from the results returned by Google's define: operator) is "the process of adopting a new thing, idea, or behavior pattern into a culture." from the Tel el-Far-ah dictionary.
I've never had an error on Google.
I have. They look like this
They even admit copying the top dogs.
Google vs ..the fight concluded.
Microsoft
I'm far from an expert but generally I would think access restricted (htaccess) mandatory login pages and directories will return "must-revalidate" in their Cache-Control header or "private" as the cache type type. This essentially means these pages are only cached by browser caches and other 'safe' caches.
Remember GWA is still just a normal compliant proxy.
Another quality service from Google i'm sure. But this isn't really reducing transfer on the internet at large, it's 1xx% of what would be trasnferred with direct client->website transfers.
My ISP (NTL, UK) run transparent proxies, presumeably these proxies cache content and make my surfing experience better and reduce costs for my ISP (and therefore me, in theory). Shouldn't these proxies be introducing gzip/deflate compression (atleast for the most cached content) anyway?
I can see why this service exists, not all ISP's do cache, but on the ideal internet this just shouldn't need to exist.
If Google really wanted to be charitable and nice they could have approached ISP's directly and helped build up decent caching architecture. The fact of the matter is it isn't in their interests to do so.
Maybe instead of praising Google for doing this you should be hammering your ISP. The more reliant people become soley on Google for many web services the more painful it will be when something eventually pops and there is outcry. And there is a high chance that something will.
Unless of course you actually want to inform Google about your surfing habbits (which, I agree, you actually might. It may make surfing more useful etc depending what they do with this information - as many others have pointed out already)
I'm using Opera 8 and it seems to support all of Google web services flawlessly.
Maybe it's time you upgraded
Opera uses the netscape navigator plugin API, as does firefox. If you mean EXTENSIONS then no. Opera is very limited in open source or third party extensions..infact, I can't think of one.
This is related to the fact that your relative frame of reference as a geek means these 500ms glitches seem like you're coming down from a 48 hour cocaine binge.
Sure you can, but coral cache is not without it's limitations.
Why do some people read the broadsheets and others the tabloids? Why do people read one tabloid over another, or one broadsheet over another?
Sure all news has a slant or a bias, especially the tabloids, but the readers (aka the people) also have a personal bias. If all news was the same and there were no differences in the quality or, to some extent, any opinion in journalism we wouldn't have a need for more than one news source and honestly... people would find it more difficult to form their own opinions.
Whether you like it or not mostly everyones opinion on obscure or unfamiliar subjects, like Iraq, are influenced by the opinion of our peers and journalism more than from our personal experiences (which in themselves make us 'biased'). We aren't Vulcans. Bias, opinion, controversy, arguments are what makes the news worth reading.
'Slashdot and blogs', if you wish to generalise this form of media in that way, don't correct any of this 'slant'. Slashdot and the majority of comments are grossly biased in some way. These biases change cyclically, like changing fashion. The website as a whole has a infamous stereotype.
In the society in which we live, on many subjects, the 'voices of the people' (90% of blogs are gross offenders) are just regurgitating, syndicating and sometimes reglossing over opinions of those on the front lines of journalism.
"Insightful" translates to opinion and getting others thinking on the same lines as you are (but also translate to sarcasm and parody). "Informative" translates to journalism. News is a mix of both. The advantage of Slashdot is it can keep these two somewhat distinct and this is important for making the masses realise what is fact and what is the good stuff.
Back on topic of the NYT charging for archive content.. good for them, they should. Price is debateable but, as someone way up the comment tree was right in saying, mostly these archives are used for research. Whether or not the NYT is good resource for this depends on what you are researching. This article doesn't really address the issues over the NYT being a good news source.