Re:A simple request
on
jQuery in Action
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Don't use it to hide the contents so you can throw up a "but you have cookies disabled and we can't track you."
Thankfully I've only run into this a couple times, and have never returned
Don't try and block off your page because your advertisers want to use javascript to enable a billion popups.
The keyword advertising and the click-anywhere-on-the-page-to-open-a-popup advertising are the worst
Don't use scripting to sanitize your POST submissions; You should handle that on the backend, it's more secure anyway.
After reading the other comments and your clarifications I have to agree on your point (of forcing JS POST sanitation and refusing to post otherwise). I've even run into a couple cases where there is no 'submit' button, just a button that runs some JS that will do the form submit...
Don't use it to load content; That's what CSS and XML are for and it renders faster anyway.
I'd agree for cases where the entire page content is JS loaded, the HTML you get is an empty DIV and a few headers and CSS files. Those sites take forever to really load and degrade to something even worse on bad connections. However using JS to dynamically load subsets of content VS loading the full list (several mb) or doing multiple page loads to navigate the content is Very handy (for reference, part/model tree, full data set was over 5mb, organized in a tree structure, page loaded root of tree, each selection loaded that branch of information from the tree, really worked out great)
Don't try and use javascript to obfusciate or disable standard web features (like view source). It's not going to stop anyone who wants to make a copy and it'll piss off everyone else.
Getting source or pics from 'protected' websites is no harder then Firefox -> Web Developer -> Disable Javascript (after page is loaded):) So much for that protection that irritates everyone else.:)
Don't make your entire site dependent on having javascript enabled. If you're worth your salt as a developer you can find a way to make that page render without enabling javascript. Sure, it may not have all the chrome and pretty-shiny on it, but remember that there's a lot of devices and a lot of browsers that use the web, as well as people who are color blind, blind altogether, or who use low-end systems, or cell phones, or PDAs, etc.
A good way to see the effects of this is to use something like LORI for Firefox, shows number of items downloaded from the server, the total size of the information loaded, and the total time required for you to get it all. One of our dev sites started getting all fancy with really cool JS libraries and tons of CSS and other functionality, which got dropped once we checked and found out that it was loading nearly 300k for all the content (and minimal images, less then 15k).
While I agree on all points, the big one I hate is Flash, unless it's for some rich media functionality (YouTube) I hate flash, and will usually run around the web with it disabled. As much as JS can be missused and abused Flash can be exploited to ruin your web experience.
How exactly is that line drawn? It's something I've always been confused about. It seems like the same code works on either base (maybe requiring a recompile) so they both have gcc, x11, similer libs, ext3, etc.
Is the difference primarily in the Kernel? Is that the only major difference?
Also, the fastest growing computer company is Apple, and OS X is based off of BSD (cousin to Linux?). So Linux (BSD) is growing faster then the rest of the industry.
And just to preempt the trolls, Yes I am a Mac fan/user, own 2 of them, I also have 4 Unix boxes up and running, and Win XP in a VM.
I would Love to see someone else come up with a really nice desktop system like OS X, simply because competition is good and I don't want Mac to get to monopoly status, ever. (And no, they are not a monopoly because they control what hardware OS X will be installed on).
if you sort 4000 blocks of random data into an actual order, but don't combine the data in any serious way, what you have is tons of overlap in all these seperate blocks of data. Just talking about 1-20 on 4 servers:
Server 1: 1, 5,6,9,13
Server 2: 3,11,12,17,19
Server 3: 2,4,7,15,20
Server 4: 8,10,14,16,18
That data may be sorted but it's a mess, and doing this type of sort for a competition is nothing more then getting fast servers and sticking them in the same room and have them all sort random blocks of data, without putting them together it's still fairly random data, you're doing nothing more then single server sort many times over... kinda like lifting 10lb 10 times and saying you can lift 100lb, it may be technically correct but absolutely pointless.
To have any meaning the result of the sort needs to be in the form of:
Server 1: 1,2,3,4,5
Server 2: 6,7,8,9,10
Server 3: 11,12,13,14,15
Server 4: 16,17,18,19,20
Now the data is fully sorted, now you can actually use the sorted data (I need data item 7, that's on server 2) vs (I need data item 7, is it on server 1? no. is it on 2? no, is it on 3? yes)
You may still keep it all on their own servers, but there is sorting and combining going on between servers in order to get the data properly sorted.
Yah, but you gotta wonder at the computing cost of integrating all those datasets into one complete sorted block of data. It could be that those servers can sort at 1gb per min but the overhead for combining is 25% of the computing time.
Still makes for a big irritant, I have a nice 30" widescreen HD TV that supports up to 1080p, however I bought it just before HDCP... so I can do full res on games, but no Blu-Ray movies because of that...
From what I understand of 32bit limitations and the memory addressing setup that Macs use: Photo Shop CS4 (which Adobe is limiting to 32bit on OS X) would be able to address a max of 4gb of RAM, however, since the OS can handle more than that you would be able to load the machine up with 8+ gb of Ram, which the OS will be able to use and assign to different apps. So on a machine with > 4gb of ram CS4 will get an entire 4gb to play with.
Once Adobe gets their act together and builds a 64bit version for OS X, it will have the normal 64bit process memory limits (which I think is somewhere in the terabyte range)
So, you're saying that the 64bit Leopard OS that is installed on a Mac Pro with 32gb of RAM isn't any good for photo editing because that requires so much RAM???
Mac Pro's can be configured with up to 32gb of RAM (expensive but doable)
OS X Leopard is both 32bit and 64bit running side-by-side, application packages can contain both 32bit and 64bit executables for whatever the hardware can support
And Before you start whining that it's to expensive, it's the price of doing serious graphic design work, don't even bother with the arguments of 'getting away with using p3 500' crap, if you are doing serious work you get a serious product, if you are a hobbyist you make do with limitations.
especially now that they are adopting HDCP and other DRM related technologies.
HDCP is only showing up on a few iTunes movies, though I don't have direct experience I have seen reports from individuals confirming that one movie has HDCP and another doesn't. My suspicion is that the movie companies are making it a requirement for certain movies and Apple is only applying it to those movies. Similar to DRM in music, where Apple is pushing for DRM free music but the music cartels are not allowing it (even though they allow it with Amazon). So far EMI is the only major music label to allow Apple to sell their music DRM free.
Don't be blaming Apple for DRM, go after the music and movie cartels that are requiring it.
You're thinking HDMI, which is the connector, HDCP is a standard for encrypting the video information between the graphics card and the display. It prevents people from using an "unauthorized" display or trying to remove DRM using display adapters/drivers/etc.
HDCP has shown up on several (not all) movies bought through iTunes online store.
From what I understand reading the background of that functionality, the NVidia drivers for mac are a big part of the problem, so they are doing it now as logout feature, after NVidia gets the mac drivers sorted out it will be able to support switching right away.
Yes I am, it sucks, but we use some tables. We made several tries to go completely tableless but between the various browser bugs (ie6, hint, hint) we couldn't get it stable enough for our clients (many of whom were requiring pixel perfect across all browsers).
What we ended up with is a foundation of tables (setting up main content from menu from surrounding area), with CSS defining the properties of the table, then using div's for the rest with CSS. We also setup CSS files for each browser/platform and javascript to load the right CSS file for that browser. So, between giving up and using one or two tables, and separate CSS files for each browser (and some versions, we had separate for ie6 and ie7) we managed to make websites that were stable and pixel perfect across the 6 browsers we tested for our clients: IE6, IE7, Firefox Win, Firefox Mac, Safari Win, Safari Mac (now that I think about it, we found a difference in the early Win version, but it got corrected fairly soon, however we still tested them separately just to be sure)
On a side note, I found out you can really screw up a computer if you have 3 different browsers open on a page that has some interesting Javascript+DHTML stuff going on (pre prototype.js usage days) and go home for the night... took almost an hour for the thing to shutdown...:)
Actually no, Minefield is the development version of Firefox, as they do all the fun breaking code and crashing stuff on Minefield, then when they've gotten in stable they copy it over and call it "Firefox 3.x". So, Minefield == Firefox (alpha version). You don't have a separate browser to test against.
As a webdev I understand your statement all too well, our place ignored Opera but tested on Firefox (win & mac) Safari (win & mac, never found a difference but we still test), IE6 and IE7... That testing covered everything including table layout, DHTML rendering, CSS, and Javascript... very irritating...
Also, you can setup your web server with device-specific includes, now you can have CSS one way for the iPhone, another for the blackberry, another for a laptop, etc. Updating to a new device would be as simple as updating the includes and tweaking the CSS. Using this method you would be developing for just about all devices at once! A user could use several devices to check/update/etc all with very little support effort on your part.
I have a 17-inch MacBook Pro, I don't have a normal laptop case just a backpack and a neoprene sleeve and I've got no dents. I've taken it:
Vacations (camping out for a week or more at a time)
School (dragged it in and unpacked it for each class)
Business trips (lived my weekdays in a hotel for 4-5 months, weekends had running at home)
Everywhere else (I often take it with me to friends houses when I'm helping them with something computer related).
It's been all over the place and plenty of times packed in the back of the car with a ton of other gear and I have no problems, whatever you are doing must be well beyond the normal usage of a laptop. I suspect you'll have the same dent/damage problems with whatever laptop you buy, you are aparently somewhat abusive of your computers.
Ratchet & Clank, Future, Tools of Destruction: approx 25gb (stayed single layer, just barely)
Metal Gear Solid 4: approx 50gb (pushed limits of dual layer)
I'm not sure of others, though I've heard that Resistance 2 is also nearing 50gb (another PS3 exclusive).
The only thing I've heard from the multi-platform crowd is that Oblivion used some more space for better textures on the PS3 version of the game, but beyond that tidbit there was no news about what the size difference was. I for one would be interested in more details on that type of stuff, but very few developers are so open about their games (the reason I know so much about Insomniac games is because of their podcast).
Probably dealing as much with the space requirements as anything else, a 5-7 gb download is no-where near a 30 - 50 gb download, most computers wouldn't have enough free space to handle more then two of them sitting around (to seed) and there wouldn't be very much demand for them with very few people having Blue-Ray burners.
I suspect there won't be a real PS3 disk-based game piracy issue for a while, Blue-Ray will have to be a lot more popular and HD space & bandwidth will have to be pushed in order to make it worth anyone's while.
However, if someone would get on hacking download-able games I'd be all for it, especially if they got home-brew games working, I'd love to be able to dink around with programming a game, load it using USB, and play around with it. I'd probably never be able to do anything impressive but I'd have some fun and interest.
"In the game, the GTbyCITROÃN showcases CitroÃnâ(TM)s dedication to the environment with an electric drive train powered by a fuel cell, totally eliminating pollutant emissions."
So they are worried about the virtual environment. gee, thanks, I always hated driving through virtual smog...
One possibility would be.NET and C#, MS created it as competition to Java but they made it an ISO standard instead of keeping it to themselves, they also made it cross-platform in theory (though they never went through with it and actually rolled out.NET for other platforms). They have since realized how they did right and have tried to screw it up since then, but it's still a good product, and the MONO project is able to do a lot of what they do simply because MS made it into an ISO standard.
Another example is apple announces iNewAwesomeProduct and their stock prices go up because people are betting that they will make money in the future.
Actually the opposite happens for Apple, they announce iNewAwesomeProduct and the stock price drops 5%... don't ask me why... I don't even think the all-mighty Jobs knows why...
Slashdot Mirror
Don't use it to hide the contents so you can throw up a "but you have cookies disabled and we can't track you."
Thankfully I've only run into this a couple times, and have never returned
Don't try and block off your page because your advertisers want to use javascript to enable a billion popups.
The keyword advertising and the click-anywhere-on-the-page-to-open-a-popup advertising are the worst
Don't use scripting to sanitize your POST submissions; You should handle that on the backend, it's more secure anyway.
After reading the other comments and your clarifications I have to agree on your point (of forcing JS POST sanitation and refusing to post otherwise). I've even run into a couple cases where there is no 'submit' button, just a button that runs some JS that will do the form submit...
Don't use it to load content; That's what CSS and XML are for and it renders faster anyway.
I'd agree for cases where the entire page content is JS loaded, the HTML you get is an empty DIV and a few headers and CSS files. Those sites take forever to really load and degrade to something even worse on bad connections. However using JS to dynamically load subsets of content VS loading the full list (several mb) or doing multiple page loads to navigate the content is Very handy (for reference, part/model tree, full data set was over 5mb, organized in a tree structure, page loaded root of tree, each selection loaded that branch of information from the tree, really worked out great)
Don't try and use javascript to obfusciate or disable standard web features (like view source). It's not going to stop anyone who wants to make a copy and it'll piss off everyone else.
Getting source or pics from 'protected' websites is no harder then Firefox -> Web Developer -> Disable Javascript (after page is loaded) :) So much for that protection that irritates everyone else. :)
Don't make your entire site dependent on having javascript enabled. If you're worth your salt as a developer you can find a way to make that page render without enabling javascript. Sure, it may not have all the chrome and pretty-shiny on it, but remember that there's a lot of devices and a lot of browsers that use the web, as well as people who are color blind, blind altogether, or who use low-end systems, or cell phones, or PDAs, etc.
A good way to see the effects of this is to use something like LORI for Firefox, shows number of items downloaded from the server, the total size of the information loaded, and the total time required for you to get it all. One of our dev sites started getting all fancy with really cool JS libraries and tons of CSS and other functionality, which got dropped once we checked and found out that it was loading nearly 300k for all the content (and minimal images, less then 15k).
While I agree on all points, the big one I hate is Flash, unless it's for some rich media functionality (YouTube) I hate flash, and will usually run around the web with it disabled. As much as JS can be missused and abused Flash can be exploited to ruin your web experience.
How exactly is that line drawn? It's something I've always been confused about. It seems like the same code works on either base (maybe requiring a recompile) so they both have gcc, x11, similer libs, ext3, etc.
Is the difference primarily in the Kernel? Is that the only major difference?
By waiving their flag of choice patriotically over the ensuing fireworks.
Also, the fastest growing computer company is Apple, and OS X is based off of BSD (cousin to Linux?). So Linux (BSD) is growing faster then the rest of the industry.
And just to preempt the trolls, Yes I am a Mac fan/user, own 2 of them, I also have 4 Unix boxes up and running, and Win XP in a VM.
I would Love to see someone else come up with a really nice desktop system like OS X, simply because competition is good and I don't want Mac to get to monopoly status, ever. (And no, they are not a monopoly because they control what hardware OS X will be installed on).
if you sort 4000 blocks of random data into an actual order, but don't combine the data in any serious way, what you have is tons of overlap in all these seperate blocks of data. Just talking about 1-20 on 4 servers:
That data may be sorted but it's a mess, and doing this type of sort for a competition is nothing more then getting fast servers and sticking them in the same room and have them all sort random blocks of data, without putting them together it's still fairly random data, you're doing nothing more then single server sort many times over... kinda like lifting 10lb 10 times and saying you can lift 100lb, it may be technically correct but absolutely pointless.
To have any meaning the result of the sort needs to be in the form of:
Now the data is fully sorted, now you can actually use the sorted data (I need data item 7, that's on server 2) vs (I need data item 7, is it on server 1? no. is it on 2? no, is it on 3? yes)
You may still keep it all on their own servers, but there is sorting and combining going on between servers in order to get the data properly sorted.
Yah, but you gotta wonder at the computing cost of integrating all those datasets into one complete sorted block of data. It could be that those servers can sort at 1gb per min but the overhead for combining is 25% of the computing time.
right, so it's 250gb sorted in 6 hours... now where does the sorting and integration of the 4000 250gb blocks of sorted data come in? :)
Still makes for a big irritant, I have a nice 30" widescreen HD TV that supports up to 1080p, however I bought it just before HDCP... so I can do full res on games, but no Blu-Ray movies because of that...
Non-XBox 360 owners
From what I understand of 32bit limitations and the memory addressing setup that Macs use: Photo Shop CS4 (which Adobe is limiting to 32bit on OS X) would be able to address a max of 4gb of RAM, however, since the OS can handle more than that you would be able to load the machine up with 8+ gb of Ram, which the OS will be able to use and assign to different apps. So on a machine with > 4gb of ram CS4 will get an entire 4gb to play with.
Once Adobe gets their act together and builds a 64bit version for OS X, it will have the normal 64bit process memory limits (which I think is somewhere in the terabyte range)
Wait... what??
So, you're saying that the 64bit Leopard OS that is installed on a Mac Pro with 32gb of RAM isn't any good for photo editing because that requires so much RAM???
And Before you start whining that it's to expensive, it's the price of doing serious graphic design work, don't even bother with the arguments of 'getting away with using p3 500' crap, if you are doing serious work you get a serious product, if you are a hobbyist you make do with limitations.
especially now that they are adopting HDCP and other DRM related technologies.
HDCP is only showing up on a few iTunes movies, though I don't have direct experience I have seen reports from individuals confirming that one movie has HDCP and another doesn't. My suspicion is that the movie companies are making it a requirement for certain movies and Apple is only applying it to those movies. Similar to DRM in music, where Apple is pushing for DRM free music but the music cartels are not allowing it (even though they allow it with Amazon). So far EMI is the only major music label to allow Apple to sell their music DRM free.
Don't be blaming Apple for DRM, go after the music and movie cartels that are requiring it.
You're thinking HDMI, which is the connector, HDCP is a standard for encrypting the video information between the graphics card and the display. It prevents people from using an "unauthorized" display or trying to remove DRM using display adapters/drivers/etc.
HDCP has shown up on several (not all) movies bought through iTunes online store.
From what I understand reading the background of that functionality, the NVidia drivers for mac are a big part of the problem, so they are doing it now as logout feature, after NVidia gets the mac drivers sorted out it will be able to support switching right away.
Yes I am, it sucks, but we use some tables. We made several tries to go completely tableless but between the various browser bugs (ie6, hint, hint) we couldn't get it stable enough for our clients (many of whom were requiring pixel perfect across all browsers).
What we ended up with is a foundation of tables (setting up main content from menu from surrounding area), with CSS defining the properties of the table, then using div's for the rest with CSS. We also setup CSS files for each browser/platform and javascript to load the right CSS file for that browser. So, between giving up and using one or two tables, and separate CSS files for each browser (and some versions, we had separate for ie6 and ie7) we managed to make websites that were stable and pixel perfect across the 6 browsers we tested for our clients: IE6, IE7, Firefox Win, Firefox Mac, Safari Win, Safari Mac (now that I think about it, we found a difference in the early Win version, but it got corrected fairly soon, however we still tested them separately just to be sure)
On a side note, I found out you can really screw up a computer if you have 3 different browsers open on a page that has some interesting Javascript+DHTML stuff going on (pre prototype.js usage days) and go home for the night... took almost an hour for the thing to shutdown... :)
Actually no, Minefield is the development version of Firefox, as they do all the fun breaking code and crashing stuff on Minefield, then when they've gotten in stable they copy it over and call it "Firefox 3.x". So, Minefield == Firefox (alpha version). You don't have a separate browser to test against.
As a webdev I understand your statement all too well, our place ignored Opera but tested on Firefox (win & mac) Safari (win & mac, never found a difference but we still test), IE6 and IE7... That testing covered everything including table layout, DHTML rendering, CSS, and Javascript... very irritating...
Also, you can setup your web server with device-specific includes, now you can have CSS one way for the iPhone, another for the blackberry, another for a laptop, etc. Updating to a new device would be as simple as updating the includes and tweaking the CSS. Using this method you would be developing for just about all devices at once! A user could use several devices to check/update/etc all with very little support effort on your part.
I won't be impressed until they go into luggage, or as I should say, "The Luggage".
Checked the press conference, the 17"s will get a spec refresh but will not go to the new look/design.
holy cow, where are you using it, a rockslide???
I have a 17-inch MacBook Pro, I don't have a normal laptop case just a backpack and a neoprene sleeve and I've got no dents. I've taken it:
It's been all over the place and plenty of times packed in the back of the car with a ton of other gear and I have no problems, whatever you are doing must be well beyond the normal usage of a laptop. I suspect you'll have the same dent/damage problems with whatever laptop you buy, you are aparently somewhat abusive of your computers.
The two I know about are PS3 only:
I'm not sure of others, though I've heard that Resistance 2 is also nearing 50gb (another PS3 exclusive).
The only thing I've heard from the multi-platform crowd is that Oblivion used some more space for better textures on the PS3 version of the game, but beyond that tidbit there was no news about what the size difference was. I for one would be interested in more details on that type of stuff, but very few developers are so open about their games (the reason I know so much about Insomniac games is because of their podcast).
Probably dealing as much with the space requirements as anything else, a 5-7 gb download is no-where near a 30 - 50 gb download, most computers wouldn't have enough free space to handle more then two of them sitting around (to seed) and there wouldn't be very much demand for them with very few people having Blue-Ray burners.
I suspect there won't be a real PS3 disk-based game piracy issue for a while, Blue-Ray will have to be a lot more popular and HD space & bandwidth will have to be pushed in order to make it worth anyone's while.
However, if someone would get on hacking download-able games I'd be all for it, especially if they got home-brew games working, I'd love to be able to dink around with programming a game, load it using USB, and play around with it. I'd probably never be able to do anything impressive but I'd have some fun and interest.
from press release found at parents link:
"In the game, the GTbyCITROÃN showcases CitroÃnâ(TM)s dedication to the environment with an electric drive train powered by a fuel cell, totally eliminating pollutant emissions."
So they are worried about the virtual environment. gee, thanks, I always hated driving through virtual smog...
One possibility would be .NET and C#, MS created it as competition to Java but they made it an ISO standard instead of keeping it to themselves, they also made it cross-platform in theory (though they never went through with it and actually rolled out .NET for other platforms). They have since realized how they did right and have tried to screw it up since then, but it's still a good product, and the MONO project is able to do a lot of what they do simply because MS made it into an ISO standard.
Another example is apple announces iNewAwesomeProduct and their stock prices go up because people are betting that they will make money in the future.
Actually the opposite happens for Apple, they announce iNewAwesomeProduct and the stock price drops 5%... don't ask me why... I don't even think the all-mighty Jobs knows why...