Step 0: use gzip server compression to cram the whole JS library into a few KB.
Still, as the sizing is relative, since the login page is at least as easily compressible, that's an absolute improvement but still doesn't win the race.
But the 95% percent of people with functioning browsers might appreciate those features, so why do the people stuck in 1996 get to dictate what's useful and what's not?
What part of, "Many of the things javascript is used for don't even require javascript to get equivalent functionality," did you fail to understand? Or what about, "There's so many sites out there that use Javascript for things... where CSS would suffice..."?
There's no reason to essentially design two separate sites to support the other 5%.
Apparently you missed that loud woooosh sound that occurred while you were typing.
The GP was talking about unnecessary use of javascript. That doesn't mean design the website twice. It means don't design with javascript in the first place unless there is a compelling requirement to do so. Many of the things javascript is used for don't even require javascript to get equivalent functionality, the examples given so far are drop-down menus and page layout positioning.
You left off step 0 - the server sends over a ton of javascript code that would not be transfered in the non-javascript case. Since neither case requires the retransfer of any of the images, it is easy enough for your example to go either way based on just how much extra javascript gets transferred.
Furthermore, way too many sites have external javascript dependencies, like doubleclick, coremetrics, etc. By ignoring those we are pretty much guaranteed a faster experience.
Alternatively, look at Slashdot itself. Yeah, it has its issues, but I have to say that I love the dynamic content loading. That's so much better (and easier on bandwidth!) than having to load a whole page just to expose a collapsed comment.
Well, we are going to have agree to disagree here. For me, that interface is terrible. I fucking hate clicking every couple of seconds just to read what ought to be there in the first place, it totally kills the flow of reading the comments. I don't care how it is implemented, it is a terrible UI design.
Instead of going all dynamic with a ton of individual database accesses, a smart designer could pre-build entire pages of article comments for the handful of common settings (view at +5, +4, +3, etc) gzip them up and store them in ram every 15-30 seconds and hugely reduce the cpu load on the server, minimize bandwidth consumption and keep the UI human-friendly.
And if you wondering about my sig it is more about how some things now require javascript to get done on slashdot, there are no non-javascript alternatives. That's the kind of bad design that will chase off the most technical users.
Try asking a response officer how easy it is to get a team like that to back you up of a Saturday night. It's not.
Again, see my point about how these toys are not standard issue - of course the average officer can't call in a tactical squad, you gotta have the muckity-mucks involved in order to justify their jobs too. None of which contradicts the fact that these teams exist where they once did not and the justifications for their existence don't match the reality on the ground.
As for the de Menezes killing, there was so much conflicting evidence that it was near impossible to properly assign blame.
And the end result is no blame at all. That is fucking outrageous.
Tomlinson? The inquiry hasn't reported yet,
There never would have been an inquiry if that video hadn't come to light - that is my point.
but there is a lot more going on than we see in that one video.
Unless the guy had an invisible ak-47 it doesn't really matter what else happened before the video started rolling.
And the police did not want and have not welcomed the photography laws,
It doesn't matter what the police want they are just tools of the politicians, see my original post about how it is the politicians pretending to be "tough on crime" and "fighting terrorism" that results in militarization and reduction of oversight. I don't care what department of what government, a reduction of oversight is guaranteed to result in an increase in malfeasance, it is the nature of power and the human psyche.
Anyone with any critical thinking ability could see right through the BS in those press conferences and indeed when they finally figured out something to charge Padilla with it had absolutely nothing to do with any of the claims they made at the time of his arrest, ultimately he was convicted of nothing more than bearing ill-will towards the US.
And they go out at night armed with a short stick and 25 grams of pepper spray. That's hardly a militarised force.
You make the error of assuming that militarization applies to the entire police force. Of course it doesn't. What it does apply to is the creation, training and equiping of "swat" forces just like those used in this case. Just because most bobbies still patrol without a firearm does not mean that militarized tactical teams just like the one described in this story are present in ever more frequent numbers within the police.
The police are subject to so much oversight and second-guessing it's not funny.
Which is exactly why the de Menezes inquest was whitewashed - the jury was essentially forbidden from returning a guilty verdict because there was too much oversight. That excessive over-sight is also responsible for the investigation of the Ian Tomlinson killing, oh wait, it took the publication of a cell-phone video showing how the police attacked him with no provocation whatsoever to get any kind of investigation at all.
And then there is the criminalization of photographing the police in the UK as part of "anti-terrorism." Sure it has been claimed that if the police are acting unlawfully, then it is OK to photograph them. Which puts the burden of proof on the photographer, meaning all such photographers need to be legal experts on the entire scope of police powers else they risk going to jail for otherwise performing a civic duty. That ain't funny at all.
As the (winning) republican in the district said, "If that's how she handles leadership at her own events, how could you trust her with running a country?"
Yeah... I think it is pretty foolish to cite a quote from the one person with the most to gain by portraying the situation in the absolutely worst possible light. Unless of course you aren't interested in making a convincing argument but rather just showing support for your team.
Pfft. If you've read about the Busby affair, the dems in question were acting like little princesses and attacked a sheriff. They deserved to get pepper sprayed for their idiocy.
Once a cop starts acting in an illegal manner - he assaulted a woman for refusing to state her birthdate, something perfectly within her right per a recent SCOTUS ruling - he loses all special privileges afforded his position. Sure it may be legally wise to continue to "respect his authority" but ethically not so much. In fact, the crowd's response to try to pull the assaulted woman away from the rogue officer could easily be the more ethical response.
And of course this all ignores the elephant in the room - who called in the noise complaint in the first place? The one reported to have complained about not just a "loud party" but a "loud democrat fundraiser." All of the immediate neighbours that were in town at the time have denied it and the police have refused to release any information - not just the caller's identity but even the tape itself.
And what the hell was with the SWAT-like response? Do they seriously think Osama bin Laden is going to turn up and spin techno for three hours?
To paraphrase for the modern day, "when you have a nice new shiny expensive hammer, all problems tend to look like nails."
Seriously, that sort of response is the result of the increasing militarization of the police in almost all 1st world countries. Because of fear-mongering and patronizing politicians that want to appear to be "tough on crime" police departments are getting all kinds of funding for over-the-top military training and equipment (simultaneously ignoring the pedestrian stuff that actually cuts down crime like simply putting more cops on the beat).
Since the situations that actually require that sort of a response are so few and far between it is inevitable that it gets applied to cases where it is unnecessary and even ludicrous. Fortunately nobody was killed this time, but as part of this same "tough on crime" stance, oversight of the police seems to be consistently weakend such that when someone innocent is killed it is ultimately shrugged off as the police followed "proper procedure" and it was just an unfortunate accident - with no significant reduction or revision in the militarized procedures that are the scapegoat.
While that is certainly better than buy new RIAA CDs, it still doesn't completely eliminate the problem. If enough people buy used, it just increases the price of used discs. The more expensive used discs are, the more incentive there is for someone to buy a new disc and listen to it for a while and eventually resell it. The less they lose by selling it the more likely the are to buy it new. In fact, it might even cause this hypothetical buyer to purchase many more new CDs than the would otherwise because they have more money in hand after reselling than they would before.
Kind of the way the used video game market actually increases the market for new games instead of hurting it.
Pirating is really the only way to make sure your "purchase" does not result in more money going to an RIAA member.
Manipulating light is a creative art, as well as a skill.
Manipulating light is only a creative art when it is done to create something new.
The photographer(s) of these paintings only manipulated light to the extent required to most accurately express what the original painter intended. Its the very definition of mechanical reproduction - the sole arbiter of the quality of the final product is how closely it mimics the original product.
If they offered such a rate class (again, not for "letters" but for "very light packages"), there's nothing preventing from stuffing my 1 page of writing into their packaging, and nothing stopping them from shipping it.
You are delusional. Clearly the only reason for such a "very light packages" class would be for letter delivery and the USPS would be on them in court in minutes. You are now arguing the ridiculous. Game over.
The free market cannot be trusted to maintain employment stability. If there was a sudden drop or rise in the employment, then people might not be able to afford food or shelter, or in the reverse, the employers would go bankrupt and supply would diminish.
What's the difference between not having cheap enough food and not having enough money to buy food?
Show me a vcr that can accept anything more than that on its component inputs - not even the d-vhs decks will do that.
No they dont, they only do it if it is required by their content providers which none of them do at this point.
Lots of anecdotal evidence floating around the net says otherwise. Maybe its not 100% deployed but lots of people have been bit in the ass by it so far.
You can still get "Tunerless" VCRs and DVD Burners. They take Component and Composite inputs and will record whatever they see onto DVD. But they really aren't able to control the box any.
And they will obey macrovision - which all the satellite/set-top boxes output on their component/s-video/composite outputs. Thus requiring one to buy a macrovision stripper aka a copy-control circumvention device - pretty much exactly the same type of thing that these guys were hiring someone else to build for them.
[quote]Its not an oversimplification; its simply how it is.[/quote]
First you agree.
[quote]So where exactly does it state that UPS can't have a rate for items less than 1lbs[/quote]
Now you repeat the nit-picking of my oversimplification again. Please engage your cache coherence next time.
[quote]Regarding the rest of your post, please read and bold ALL relevent parts, not just the ones you think are relevent.[/quote]
Let me get this straight - you think that the fact that the USPS relaxed their monopoly to allow extremely urgent letters by other shippers somehow means that they did not maintain a monopoly on normal letters?
Maybe 20 years ago, but not today. Nowadays most states are selling their databases, including photos and everything else they have on you, to private companies. Look up the DPPA (Driver's Privacy Protection Act) - it is one of those laws with a contrary name, it restricted a couple of really blatant abuses in exchange for expressly legalizing all kinds of other abuses.
Don't you think that the problem is too many unnecessary id checks in the first place?
Why should you need an ID to get cooking gas? Is the terrorist problem really so big that an ID is necessary to get a mobile phone and does requiring an ID really make a difference to the terrorists anyway?
Instead of more bureaucracy and thus opportunity for corrupt bureaucrats to require their bribes wouldn't it make sense to minimize the roadblocks to the common man rather than building them up in ever more elaborate structures?
The real reason for this space fense is to keep the illegal aliens out. It's just not politically correct to discriminate against the Earth-challenged, so they have to come up with some other justification.
No, there's a pretty clear difference between astro-turfing and normal marketing. In normal marketing you know the message is coming from the company, and thus can easily take said message with a grain of salt.
Oh really?
What is product placement then? What about those advertisements in newspapers and magazines that look like articles? What about infomercials?
here's nothing saying they have a minimum amount to charge for packages less than 1lbs, nor anything preventhing them from offering prices on items less than a pound
Nit-picking the oversimplification does not lead to increased understanding.
the fact is they charge as much as they do simply because they can.
In 1979 the Postal Service authorized the delivery of extremely urgent letters outside the USPS; this has given rise to delivery services such as Federal Express and UPS. These letters must either cost at least the greater of $3 or twice what First Class (or Priority) mail service would cost, or they must be delivered within strict time limits or otherwise lose value. They must be marked "EXTREMELY URGENT". Records of pick up and delivery must be maintained for Postal Service inspection if the time sensitive exception is being used.
It is possible to set up a private mail delivery service known as "lawful private carriage" if the USPS postage is paid in addition to any private postage fee that is collected.
Slashdot Mirror
Step 0: use gzip server compression to cram the whole JS library into a few KB.
Still, as the sizing is relative, since the login page is at least as easily compressible, that's an absolute improvement but still doesn't win the race.
Or maybe most web programmers don't want to spend a lot of time and money supporting the 1% of users out there that don't have or disable JavaScript.
NoScript is the 4th most popular plugin for firefox. Awareness of javascript as a wellspring of exploits seems to be pretty widespread.
But the 95% percent of people with functioning browsers might appreciate those features, so why do the people stuck in 1996 get to dictate what's useful and what's not?
What part of, "Many of the things javascript is used for don't even require javascript to get equivalent functionality," did you fail to understand? ... where CSS would suffice..."?
Or what about, "There's so many sites out there that use Javascript for things
There's no reason to essentially design two separate sites to support the other 5%.
Apparently you missed that loud woooosh sound that occurred while you were typing.
The GP was talking about unnecessary use of javascript. That doesn't mean design the website twice. It means don't design with javascript in the first place unless there is a compelling requirement to do so. Many of the things javascript is used for don't even require javascript to get equivalent functionality, the examples given so far are drop-down menus and page layout positioning.
New way:
You left off step 0 - the server sends over a ton of javascript code that would not be transfered in the non-javascript case. Since neither case requires the retransfer of any of the images, it is easy enough for your example to go either way based on just how much extra javascript gets transferred.
Furthermore, way too many sites have external javascript dependencies, like doubleclick, coremetrics, etc. By ignoring those we are pretty much guaranteed a faster experience.
Alternatively, look at Slashdot itself. Yeah, it has its issues, but I have to say that I love the dynamic content loading. That's so much better (and easier on bandwidth!) than having to load a whole page just to expose a collapsed comment.
Well, we are going to have agree to disagree here. For me, that interface is terrible. I fucking hate clicking every couple of seconds just to read what ought to be there in the first place, it totally kills the flow of reading the comments. I don't care how it is implemented, it is a terrible UI design.
Instead of going all dynamic with a ton of individual database accesses, a smart designer could pre-build entire pages of article comments for the handful of common settings (view at +5, +4, +3, etc) gzip them up and store them in ram every 15-30 seconds and hugely reduce the cpu load on the server, minimize bandwidth consumption and keep the UI human-friendly.
And if you wondering about my sig it is more about how some things now require javascript to get done on slashdot, there are no non-javascript alternatives. That's the kind of bad design that will chase off the most technical users.
Try asking a response officer how easy it is to get a team like that to back you up of a Saturday night. It's not.
Again, see my point about how these toys are not standard issue - of course the average officer can't call in a tactical squad, you gotta have the muckity-mucks involved in order to justify their jobs too. None of which contradicts the fact that these teams exist where they once did not and the justifications for their existence don't match the reality on the ground.
As for the de Menezes killing, there was so much conflicting evidence that it was near impossible to properly assign blame.
And the end result is no blame at all. That is fucking outrageous.
Tomlinson? The inquiry hasn't reported yet,
There never would have been an inquiry if that video hadn't come to light - that is my point.
but there is a lot more going on than we see in that one video.
Unless the guy had an invisible ak-47 it doesn't really matter what else happened before the video started rolling.
And the police did not want and have not welcomed the photography laws,
It doesn't matter what the police want they are just tools of the politicians, see my original post about how it is the politicians pretending to be "tough on crime" and "fighting terrorism" that results in militarization and reduction of oversight. I don't care what department of what government, a reduction of oversight is guaranteed to result in an increase in malfeasance, it is the nature of power and the human psyche.
We know all about this guy *now*, but we didn't when he was first grabbed...
What are you talking about? The very next day after his arrest, Ashcroft held a nationally-televised press conference. Wolofwitz did one too on the same day.
Anyone with any critical thinking ability could see right through the BS in those press conferences and indeed when they finally figured out something to charge Padilla with it had absolutely nothing to do with any of the claims they made at the time of his arrest, ultimately he was convicted of nothing more than bearing ill-will towards the US.
And they go out at night armed with a short stick and 25 grams of pepper spray. That's hardly a militarised force.
You make the error of assuming that militarization applies to the entire police force. Of course it doesn't. What it does apply to is the creation, training and equiping of "swat" forces just like those used in this case. Just because most bobbies still patrol without a firearm does not mean that militarized tactical teams
just like the one described in this story are present in ever more frequent numbers within the police.
The police are subject to so much oversight and second-guessing it's not funny.
Which is exactly why the de Menezes inquest was whitewashed - the jury was essentially forbidden from returning a guilty verdict because there was too much oversight. That excessive over-sight is also responsible for the investigation of the Ian Tomlinson killing, oh wait, it took the publication of a cell-phone video showing how the police attacked him with no provocation whatsoever to get any kind of investigation at all.
And then there is the criminalization of photographing the police in the UK as part of "anti-terrorism." Sure it has been claimed that if the police are acting unlawfully, then it is OK to photograph them. Which puts the burden of proof on the photographer, meaning all such photographers need to be legal experts on the entire scope of police powers else they risk going to jail for otherwise performing a civic duty. That ain't funny at all.
As the (winning) republican in the district said, "If that's how she handles leadership at her own events, how could you trust her with running a country?"
Yeah... I think it is pretty foolish to cite a quote from the one person with the most to gain by portraying the situation in the absolutely worst possible light. Unless of course you aren't interested in making a convincing argument but rather just showing support for your team.
Pfft. If you've read about the Busby affair, the dems in question were acting like little princesses and attacked a sheriff. They deserved to get pepper sprayed for their idiocy.
Once a cop starts acting in an illegal manner - he assaulted a woman for refusing to state her birthdate, something perfectly within her right per a recent SCOTUS ruling - he loses all special privileges afforded his position. Sure it may be legally wise to continue to "respect his authority" but ethically not so much. In fact, the crowd's response to try to pull the assaulted woman away from the rogue officer could easily be the more ethical response.
And of course this all ignores the elephant in the room - who called in the noise complaint in the first place? The one reported to have complained about not just a "loud party" but a "loud democrat fundraiser." All of the immediate neighbours that were in town at the time have denied it and the police have refused to release any information - not just the caller's identity but even the tape itself.
And what the hell was with the SWAT-like response? Do they seriously think Osama bin Laden is going to turn up and spin techno for three hours?
To paraphrase for the modern day, "when you have a nice new shiny expensive hammer, all problems tend to look like nails."
Seriously, that sort of response is the result of the increasing militarization of the police in almost all 1st world countries. Because of fear-mongering and patronizing politicians that want to appear to be "tough on crime" police departments are getting all kinds of funding for over-the-top military training and equipment (simultaneously ignoring the pedestrian stuff that actually cuts down crime like simply putting more cops on the beat).
Since the situations that actually require that sort of a response are so few and far between it is inevitable that it gets applied to cases where it is unnecessary and even ludicrous. Fortunately nobody was killed this time, but as part of this same "tough on crime" stance, oversight of the police seems to be consistently weakend such that when someone innocent is killed it is ultimately shrugged off as the police followed "proper procedure" and it was just an unfortunate accident - with no significant reduction or revision in the militarized procedures that are the scapegoat.
Buy used CDs instead whenever possible
While that is certainly better than buy new RIAA CDs, it still doesn't completely eliminate the problem. If enough people buy used, it just increases the price of used discs. The more expensive used discs are, the more incentive there is for someone to buy a new disc and listen to it for a while and eventually resell it. The less they lose by selling it the more likely the are to buy it new. In fact, it might even cause this hypothetical buyer to purchase many more new CDs than the would otherwise because they have more money in hand after reselling than they would before.
Kind of the way the used video game market actually increases the market for new games instead of hurting it.
Pirating is really the only way to make sure your "purchase" does not result in more money going to an RIAA member.
Manipulating light is a creative art, as well as a skill.
Manipulating light is only a creative art when it is done to create something new.
The photographer(s) of these paintings only manipulated light to the extent required to most accurately express what the original painter intended. Its the very definition of mechanical reproduction - the sole arbiter of the quality of the final product is how closely it mimics the original product.
If they offered such a rate class (again, not for "letters" but for "very light packages"), there's nothing preventing from stuffing my 1 page of writing into their packaging, and nothing stopping them from shipping it.
You are delusional. Clearly the only reason for such a "very light packages" class would be for letter delivery and the USPS would be on them in court in minutes. You are now arguing the ridiculous. Game over.
The free market cannot be trusted to maintain employment stability. If there was a sudden drop or rise in the employment, then people might not be able to afford food or shelter, or in the reverse, the employers would go bankrupt and supply would diminish.
What's the difference between not having cheap enough food and not having enough money to buy food?
The sad part is that it seems that only Aussies treat Aussies like a bunch of criminals.
That's because they forgot to kick out the guards.
Macrovision only works on 480i/p signals
Show me a vcr that can accept anything more than that on its component inputs - not even the d-vhs decks will do that.
No they dont, they only do it if it is required by their content providers which none of them do at this point.
Lots of anecdotal evidence floating around the net says otherwise. Maybe its not 100% deployed but lots of people have been bit in the ass by it so far.
You can still get "Tunerless" VCRs and DVD Burners. They take Component and Composite inputs and will record whatever they see onto DVD. But they really aren't able to control the box any.
And they will obey macrovision - which all the satellite/set-top boxes output on their component/s-video/composite outputs. Thus requiring one to buy a macrovision stripper aka a copy-control circumvention device - pretty much exactly the same type of thing that these guys were hiring someone else to build for them.
[quote]Its not an oversimplification; its simply how it is.[/quote]
First you agree.
[quote]So where exactly does it state that UPS can't have a rate for items less than 1lbs[/quote]
Now you repeat the nit-picking of my oversimplification again. Please engage your cache coherence next time.
[quote]Regarding the rest of your post, please read and bold ALL relevent parts, not just the ones you think are relevent.[/quote]
Let me get this straight - you think that the fact that the USPS relaxed their monopoly to allow extremely urgent letters by other shippers somehow means that they did not maintain a monopoly on normal letters?
Most states don't have your photograph on file.
Maybe 20 years ago, but not today. Nowadays most states are selling their databases, including photos and everything else they have on you, to private companies. Look up the DPPA (Driver's Privacy Protection Act) - it is one of those laws with a contrary name, it restricted a couple of really blatant abuses in exchange for expressly legalizing all kinds of other abuses.
Don't you think that the problem is too many unnecessary id checks in the first place?
Why should you need an ID to get cooking gas?
Is the terrorist problem really so big that an ID is necessary to get a mobile phone and does requiring an ID really make a difference to the terrorists anyway?
Instead of more bureaucracy and thus opportunity for corrupt bureaucrats to require their bribes wouldn't it make sense to minimize the roadblocks to the common man rather than building them up in ever more elaborate structures?
Even if this scheme fixes that problem I'm sure it will open up brand new opportunities to take advantage of people in interesting and creative ways.
The real reason for this space fense is to keep the illegal aliens out.
It's just not politically correct to discriminate against the Earth-challenged, so they have to come up with some other justification.
How many operations does it take to boot Linux?
As many licks as it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop.
No, there's a pretty clear difference between astro-turfing and normal marketing. In normal marketing you know the message is coming from the company, and thus can easily take said message with a grain of salt.
Oh really?
What is product placement then?
What about those advertisements in newspapers and magazines that look like articles?
What about infomercials?
here's nothing saying they have a minimum amount to charge for packages less than 1lbs, nor anything preventhing them from offering prices on items less than a pound
Nit-picking the oversimplification does not lead to increased understanding.
the fact is they charge as much as they do simply because they can.
In 1979 the Postal Service authorized the delivery of extremely urgent letters outside the USPS; this has given rise to delivery services such as Federal Express and UPS. These letters must either cost at least the greater of $3 or twice what First Class (or Priority) mail service would cost, or they must be delivered within strict time limits or otherwise lose value. They must be marked "EXTREMELY URGENT". Records of pick up and delivery must be maintained for Postal Service inspection if the time sensitive exception is being used.
It is possible to set up a private mail delivery service known as "lawful private carriage" if the USPS postage is paid in addition to any private postage fee that is collected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes