Yes, you can create a browser that uses a shadow-DOM to make JavaScript think that all ads are loaded and not hidden, while some elements are blocked in the DOM seen by the user.
This wouldn't however stop tactics such as obfuscating and randomizing ad URLs and page locations so that pattern-matching block lists won't work.
Packet size is a tradeoff - for high throughput you want big packets, for low latency you want small packets.
There'd be no such trade-off if routers and computers pipelined packets, starting (or queuing) to forward as soon as the destination IP address is read and an interface route determined, possibly also waiting to check the TCP/IP header checksum.
Yes, I was so on her side (advocating for unrestricted but diplomatic criticism), until I saw she'd done the same thing to her critics that was done to her (disrespecting them by replacing their comments with "fart fart fart fart"). The comments on her post are a love-fest, so as well as harsh criticism, probably some respectful criticism has also been substituted. Power games.
Yeah, virtual desktops are great, and my set-up is similar to yours, with keyboard shortcuts to switch between them, each VD with a task focus that I keep constant (general terminals, ssh, browser 1, IDE, development terminals, browser 2, email, video, etc.)
One thing that the NVIDIA Linux driver can do is have each monitor be a separate X-screen (no Xinerama connection). This means you have a separate set of VDs on each monitor, so if there are five on each, you can use keyboard shortcuts to easily display 25 different combinations of content without moving or minimizing windows.
I hope they also get some good microphones, and allocate decent audio bandwidth, so space feels less like the technological frontier it was 50 years ago, and so you don't need an interpreter to work out what they're saying.
Actually, there's a better place for this. New Hampshire has a range of mountains known as the Presidential Range. Mount Washington is probably the best known of these. There are several peaks in this range that don't have names associated with Presidents (or patriots like Samuel Adams and Benjamin Franklin).
Two interesting facts about Julian May's Galactic Milieu science fiction books from the 80s/90s: (1) In the first, published in 1987, a character wonders why one of the peaks in the Presidential Range was named Mount Clinton. And (2), A prominent snow-bound planet settled by North Americans is called Denali.
Keyword is mouth. Not internet. I may be old fashioned, but I still talk (open my mouth, words come out) with relatives and friends, people I can (usually) trust.
I for one don't have a ready and willing pool of friends and relations who are experts in every category of product and service. And when I help others, it still usually requires research, research that eats time and makes use of ad-supported sources.
The old, trusted word of mouth. The best advertising invented.
WOM is great, but it's (a), limited, though the Internet has greatly expanded our sources of WOM (but usually via ad-supported websites), and (b), anecdotal—professionals have the time and resources to better check products out, as well as to pool, format, and summarise individual consumer opinions to make them more digestible.
And why would you need someone else help you buy? Are you so stupid that you don't know what you need? Do you need help when deciding what food/clothes/housing/car you buy?
Yes, no man is an island. Other people know more than me about some things, so I make smarter choices with their help. I don't want my only advice to come from those with a stake in the outcome, which is what advertising is.
If media placements are a bad form of advertising, what's a good way to help us buy? There's demand-driven advertising, like company websites, but you still have to deal with spin. And there's the professional purchasing assistance media you mention, but how do you fund it if not by interrupting the facts with spin, or by putting spin into some of the content? Subscriptions & micro-payments — who'll pay? Affiliate sales— turns the media into vendors.
Here are you only referring to advertising placed in and around content, or all advertising, for example a company's own website, or some point-of-sale display? All advertising is tricksy, but do you ever find it useful?
as much as possible I sit through commercials from network TV's streamed shows, I allow sidebar ads to populate some screen real estate on websites, etc.
But is this mostly due to a simple increased awareness of the company from the publicity that came from the salary stunt/innovation, or because potential customers are being attracted by a policy they approve of, or due to better motivated employees, or because were they growing anyway?
Yes, regarding the problem of selling free software, I'd specifically ask RMS:
Would you support a licence that allowed free redistribution of modified or unmodified source and build systems, but removed the freedom to run (Freedom 0) for non-development uses? The license would specify a default distribution of a use-fee up the chain of fork parents, though a differing split could be negotiated. For example, would you have had trouble with that non-free printer driver back in the 80s if you had been able to tinker and spread your version, even though you and others had to pay to use it, with perhaps some of this money flowing to you for your improvements.
Spam mail isn't down. Legitimate (for varying definitions of legitimate) mail is up.
The opposite could also be true: As the young move from email to social apps, spammers have quickly followed. Just like how spam disappeared from USENET faster than legitimate posts as USENET began to die. I'd like to see evidence that pointed to the correct reason.
If government imposed artificial scarcity and price controls is such great idea for taxis, then why shouldn't the same model be good for other areas of the economy? Why shouldn't there be a "grocery store medallion" to limit the number of stores, jack up prices, and prevent them from having to compete? How about programmers? Should there be a "programmer medallion" to limit the number of people allowed to write code?
I suppose the difference is that taxi driving is relatively unskilled (especially if there's no route-knowledge test — less important now that there's sat nav). Supply constraints aim to give these unskilled people an adequate full-time job and wage, which may be more socially desirable than open-slather combined with welfare support. But the unintended consequences have concentrated the power and profits in pimp-like medallion owners, who sub-contract to the drivers. Perhaps the solution is an Uber-like system combined with quotas.
The trouble with that is, when given the option of paying or not, the vast majority of users will choose "not," at least given a wide enough target audience (some niches may be filled with more generous people of course..)
I agree that it's hard to sell application software to individuals. But it's much easier to sell application software to businesses (including software that helps make individuals money), and to sell system software (components and tools). Business have both the money and a desire to preserve their reputation, so most will go legit even if the software's open, especially if support comes with the purchase.
So there's no reason why this sort of software shouldn't be open, particularly as such customers are the
ones who are most interested in tinkering. I doubt RMS would have started GNU/FSF if that printer driver had been open source but not free of charge.
It's the best part of twenty years since I wrote any software where we cared about copyright. Everything I've written since then has been useless without our hardware, and that's where we make the money.
You're lucky that you've got closed hardware to act as a dongle for your software. But does this mean people who want to earn a living writing software for open hardware are SOL? I think such people should be able to put a (fixed, non donation) price on use of their work, but at the same time keep the software open so that users can tinker.
Because of predicable data rates, you wouldn't of course need Tx buffer exhaustion interrupts. You can just do a countdown on timer interrupts. Same for receipt of the header. So the only special thing you'd need would be either an interrupt or a poll for receipt of the first byte.
Thanks for those interesting details on how big routers work. Looks like they're optimized for throughput not latency. Though if as you say normal link loadings mean that many packets need to be buffered, pipelining packets isn't going to improve latencies.
But I don't think there's any reason x86 severs, which make up many of the nodes at both ends of a path, couldn't be set up to reliably pipeline packets. A 1500 byte packet on a 1Gbps link is received in 12us, a 20 byte header in 160ns. To reduce latency the processor needs to work out the packet's destination within this interval, which is about 30k instructions. This shouldn't have to touch RAM, because I'm sure the routing tables of all but the most connected hubs can fit in the 25-45MB L3 caches of current Intel server CPUs.
The sequence would be: get interrupted when a header arrives, work out the destination link, initiate a DMA to that link that contains the new header followed by whatever part of the packet has been received up to then, set up interrupts for when the Tx buffer is nearly exhausted, and on each of these DMA whatever else has been received up to that time.
Each core has its own registers, L1 cache, and L2 cache. So if one core were to be devoted to the OS (or just to interrupt processing, which the x86 can do), there'd be either no context switches, or context switches that fit in the caches and so hardly have to touch the RAM. Dedicated cores would especially make sense on servers whose job is to route, filter, and cache traffic, and even on application servers.
Not really. The x86 architecture can't handle the interrupts. That's why modern cards don't interrupt on every packet received.
What, even with so many cores available now that one could be reserved as a network co-processor? If the bottleneck is instead another aspect of the architecture, I'm sure such a trillion dollar industry can work out how to fix it.
As well as handling interrupts on header receipt, you'd also have to handle interrupts on near exhaustion of transmit buffers, so packets can be pipelined in chunks between ports.
There are problems with this approach. First of all higher bandwidth of the interface the less you get out of it.. A 1500 MTU packet vs 10GB or 100GB PHY is not going to be detected by the most 1337 gamer with her 8000000 dpi x-ray laser mouse and super mega ultra polling keyboard.
Transmitting a 1500 byte packet after the 20 byte header has been received reduces latency by a factor of 75. Given enough hops, this can be significant.
The bigger issue is this only works reliably when switching between instantaneously free/equal capacity links otherwise if you don't buffer at all your going to suffer some serious packet loss.
As I said in my other reply, if the incoming and outgoing link speeds don't match, can't you only buffer until time when the outgoing packet can be transmitted continuously? For example, if the outgoing link is twice the speed, starting to transmit when half the packet has been buffered.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you can create a browser that uses a shadow-DOM to make JavaScript think that all ads are loaded and not hidden, while some elements are blocked in the DOM seen by the user.
This wouldn't however stop tactics such as obfuscating and randomizing ad URLs and page locations so that pattern-matching block lists won't work.
Packet size is a tradeoff - for high throughput you want big packets, for low latency you want small packets.
There'd be no such trade-off if routers and computers pipelined packets, starting (or queuing) to forward as soon as the destination IP address is read and an interface route determined, possibly also waiting to check the TCP/IP header checksum.
Yes, I was so on her side (advocating for unrestricted but diplomatic criticism), until I saw she'd done the same thing to her critics that was done to her (disrespecting them by replacing their comments with "fart fart fart fart"). The comments on her post are a love-fest, so as well as harsh criticism, probably some respectful criticism has also been substituted. Power games.
Yeah, virtual desktops are great, and my set-up is similar to yours, with keyboard shortcuts to switch between them, each VD with a task focus that I keep constant (general terminals, ssh, browser 1, IDE, development terminals, browser 2, email, video, etc.)
One thing that the NVIDIA Linux driver can do is have each monitor be a separate X-screen (no Xinerama connection). This means you have a separate set of VDs on each monitor, so if there are five on each, you can use keyboard shortcuts to easily display 25 different combinations of content without moving or minimizing windows.
When trying to get laid, all men are wrongheaded.
I hope they also get some good microphones, and allocate decent audio bandwidth, so space feels less like the technological frontier it was 50 years ago, and so you don't need an interpreter to work out what they're saying.
There's a glut of all art. Why? I think:
Actually, there's a better place for this. New Hampshire has a range of mountains known as the Presidential Range. Mount Washington is probably the best known of these. There are several peaks in this range that don't have names associated with Presidents (or patriots like Samuel Adams and Benjamin Franklin).
Two interesting facts about Julian May's Galactic Milieu science fiction books from the 80s/90s: (1) In the first, published in 1987, a character wonders why one of the peaks in the Presidential Range was named Mount Clinton. And (2), A prominent snow-bound planet settled by North Americans is called Denali.
Keyword is mouth. Not internet. I may be old fashioned, but I still talk (open my mouth, words come out) with relatives and friends, people I can (usually) trust.
I for one don't have a ready and willing pool of friends and relations who are experts in every category of product and service. And when I help others, it still usually requires research, research that eats time and makes use of ad-supported sources.
The old, trusted word of mouth. The best advertising invented.
WOM is great, but it's (a), limited, though the Internet has greatly expanded our sources of WOM (but usually via ad-supported websites), and (b), anecdotal—professionals have the time and resources to better check products out, as well as to pool, format, and summarise individual consumer opinions to make them more digestible.
And why would you need someone else help you buy? Are you so stupid that you don't know what you need? Do you need help when deciding what food/clothes/housing/car you buy?
Yes, no man is an island. Other people know more than me about some things, so I make smarter choices with their help. I don't want my only advice to come from those with a stake in the outcome, which is what advertising is.
If media placements are a bad form of advertising, what's a good way to help us buy? There's demand-driven advertising, like company websites, but you still have to deal with spin. And there's the professional purchasing assistance media you mention, but how do you fund it if not by interrupting the facts with spin, or by putting spin into some of the content? Subscriptions & micro-payments — who'll pay? Affiliate sales— turns the media into vendors.
Advertising is a plague
Here are you only referring to advertising placed in and around content, or all advertising, for example a company's own website, or some point-of-sale display? All advertising is tricksy, but do you ever find it useful?
as much as possible I sit through commercials from network TV's streamed shows, I allow sidebar ads to populate some screen real estate on websites, etc.
How often do you find these useful?
Don't leave out that the business is booming
But is this mostly due to a simple increased awareness of the company from the publicity that came from the salary stunt/innovation, or because potential customers are being attracted by a policy they approve of, or due to better motivated employees, or because were they growing anyway?
Yes, regarding the problem of selling free software, I'd specifically ask RMS:
Would you support a licence that allowed free redistribution of modified or unmodified source and build systems, but removed the freedom to run (Freedom 0) for non-development uses? The license would specify a default distribution of a use-fee up the chain of fork parents, though a differing split could be negotiated. For example, would you have had trouble with that non-free printer driver back in the 80s if you had been able to tinker and spread your version, even though you and others had to pay to use it, with perhaps some of this money flowing to you for your improvements.
Spam mail isn't down. Legitimate (for varying definitions of legitimate) mail is up.
The opposite could also be true: As the young move from email to social apps, spammers have quickly followed. Just like how spam disappeared from USENET faster than legitimate posts as USENET began to die. I'd like to see evidence that pointed to the correct reason.
I get about 15000 spam emails a month.
If government imposed artificial scarcity and price controls is such great idea for taxis, then why shouldn't the same model be good for other areas of the economy? Why shouldn't there be a "grocery store medallion" to limit the number of stores, jack up prices, and prevent them from having to compete? How about programmers? Should there be a "programmer medallion" to limit the number of people allowed to write code?
I suppose the difference is that taxi driving is relatively unskilled (especially if there's no route-knowledge test — less important now that there's sat nav). Supply constraints aim to give these unskilled people an adequate full-time job and wage, which may be more socially desirable than open-slather combined with welfare support. But the unintended consequences have concentrated the power and profits in pimp-like medallion owners, who sub-contract to the drivers. Perhaps the solution is an Uber-like system combined with quotas.
The trouble with that is, when given the option of paying or not, the vast majority of users will choose "not," at least given a wide enough target audience (some niches may be filled with more generous people of course..)
I agree that it's hard to sell application software to individuals. But it's much easier to sell application software to businesses (including software that helps make individuals money), and to sell system software (components and tools). Business have both the money and a desire to preserve their reputation, so most will go legit even if the software's open, especially if support comes with the purchase.
So there's no reason why this sort of software shouldn't be open, particularly as such customers are the ones who are most interested in tinkering. I doubt RMS would have started GNU/FSF if that printer driver had been open source but not free of charge.
It's the best part of twenty years since I wrote any software where we cared about copyright. Everything I've written since then has been useless without our hardware, and that's where we make the money.
You're lucky that you've got closed hardware to act as a dongle for your software. But does this mean people who want to earn a living writing software for open hardware are SOL? I think such people should be able to put a (fixed, non donation) price on use of their work, but at the same time keep the software open so that users can tinker.
Because of predicable data rates, you wouldn't of course need Tx buffer exhaustion interrupts. You can just do a countdown on timer interrupts. Same for receipt of the header. So the only special thing you'd need would be either an interrupt or a poll for receipt of the first byte.
Thanks for those interesting details on how big routers work. Looks like they're optimized for throughput not latency. Though if as you say normal link loadings mean that many packets need to be buffered, pipelining packets isn't going to improve latencies.
But I don't think there's any reason x86 severs, which make up many of the nodes at both ends of a path, couldn't be set up to reliably pipeline packets. A 1500 byte packet on a 1Gbps link is received in 12us, a 20 byte header in 160ns. To reduce latency the processor needs to work out the packet's destination within this interval, which is about 30k instructions. This shouldn't have to touch RAM, because I'm sure the routing tables of all but the most connected hubs can fit in the 25-45MB L3 caches of current Intel server CPUs.
The sequence would be: get interrupted when a header arrives, work out the destination link, initiate a DMA to that link that contains the new header followed by whatever part of the packet has been received up to then, set up interrupts for when the Tx buffer is nearly exhausted, and on each of these DMA whatever else has been received up to that time.
Each core has its own registers, L1 cache, and L2 cache. So if one core were to be devoted to the OS (or just to interrupt processing, which the x86 can do), there'd be either no context switches, or context switches that fit in the caches and so hardly have to touch the RAM. Dedicated cores would especially make sense on servers whose job is to route, filter, and cache traffic, and even on application servers.
Not really. The x86 architecture can't handle the interrupts. That's why modern cards don't interrupt on every packet received.
What, even with so many cores available now that one could be reserved as a network co-processor? If the bottleneck is instead another aspect of the architecture, I'm sure such a trillion dollar industry can work out how to fix it.
As well as handling interrupts on header receipt, you'd also have to handle interrupts on near exhaustion of transmit buffers, so packets can be pipelined in chunks between ports.
There are problems with this approach. First of all higher bandwidth of the interface the less you get out of it.. A 1500 MTU packet vs 10GB or 100GB PHY is not going to be detected by the most 1337 gamer with her 8000000 dpi x-ray laser mouse and super mega ultra polling keyboard.
Transmitting a 1500 byte packet after the 20 byte header has been received reduces latency by a factor of 75. Given enough hops, this can be significant.
The bigger issue is this only works reliably when switching between instantaneously free/equal capacity links otherwise if you don't buffer at all your going to suffer some serious packet loss.
As I said in my other reply, if the incoming and outgoing link speeds don't match, can't you only buffer until time when the outgoing packet can be transmitted continuously? For example, if the outgoing link is twice the speed, starting to transmit when half the packet has been buffered.