It's not quite what you are after, but there is something available to make servers more robust in the face of Slashdottings. RFC 2782 was published eight years ago, with previous drafts over 12 years old, but no browsers have implemented it to my knowledge. It was reported as a Mozilla bug nine years ago and remained unfixed.
There is an effort under way to publish a revision to the HTTP 1.1 specification, and the connection limit is one of the things that may change. The relevant thread on the mailing list starts here.
the reason for the lack of upload progress is because it's a limitation of the HTTP protocol itself. In order to upload you have to send the data in one big POST request and there's no way, via HTTP, to poll the results on the server.
You don't need to poll the results and it's not a shortcoming of HTTP. You know how much data you have sent, and you know that the server has received it because of the TCP acks.
So don't blame the browsers solely. To get this feature implemented would require modifications to the servers too. So the best way to get this feature implemented in all browsers (in a widely-accepted, standard fashion) is to call for an addition to the HTTP protocol.
No, it really is the fault of the browser vendors and nobody else. You don't need an addition to the HTTP protocol, in fact such a thing is pointless because it's already handled at a lower level of the networking stack.
HTML 4 includes generic media embedding with the <object> element type. The HTML 5 draft specification currently includes <video> and <audio> element types.
The problem here is you don't really know what else you are selecting for or against.
Yes, but remember that this isn't a case of injecting artificial DNA or anything like that. The baby that will eventually be born was potentially going to be born anyway. So the choice is not "I'm picking a big unknown", the choice is "I'm choosing an unknown over something known to be harmful".
I'm not sure I would be embracing this technology just yet.
So instead of picking one of the candidates without any known defects, you are picking one at random, potentially the one that you would have selected anyway. How are you better off?
That's it, I'm joining People for the Ethical Treatment of Asparagus! How dare they send cute little innocent asparagii off to Mars! Don't you know plants have feelings too?
The difference is that the supporters of.xxx could only get what they wanted if the rest of the net became a porn-free zone.
I supported the xxx TLD and you aren't describing what I wanted at all. Just because some people wanted all porn to go in its own TLD, it doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to choose an xxx domain voluntarily.
So it was about censorship and control.
That much is right. You can't have an xxx domain even if you want to. That's censorship and control all right.
Typing "www.search.google" is just more tedious than typing, "google [ctrl][enter]"
Why are you assuming www.search.google.? What's stopping Google from simply using google. as a hostname? That way, you can type "google", hit enter and get to where you want to go. It even saves you from holding down Ctrl.
For example, Disney will have to pay for disney.fun, disney.kids, disney.parks, disney.film, etc. just to make sure that those don't turn into porn sites or worse.
They don't have to do any such thing. They only do so because it costs practically nothing to get "the complete set". Radically expand the possibilities, and they just won't bother.
In all likelihood, what would happen is that they would just purchase.disney as a TLD, and people would just type in disney and get where they wanted to go. And your scenario of disney.film or whatever turning into porn sites wouldn't be a problem because, well, who would bother typing in disney.film instead of just disney? Who would link there?
Mozilla never pretend that extensions magically never have to be maintained to stay working.
I never said they did. My point was that Mozilla are more than happy to take credit for the functionality provided by extensions, and tout it as an advantage they have over other browsers, yet leave users who depend on that functionality high and dry when it suits them.
learn some XUL, and Javascript [...] and maintain it yourself
How user friendly. Do you mention this when talking about how useful Firefox extensions are? That if you don't want the functionality going away in future versions, you should learn to code and do it yourself?
There are positive points and negative points to a community-centred extension feature. Choices like breaking compatibility exacerbate the negative points and Mozilla don't seem to do anything to mitigate that while simultaneously shouting the positive points from the rooftops. Pointing that out isn't "whinging".
Why haven't the coders ported these extensions to Firefox 3.0 if it has been in development for a long time?
That's an elephant in the room that nobody seems to want to talk about. If you are praising extensions, then apparently it's a huge advantage Firefox has over other browsers, but if you are complaining about extensions, then they are all third-party developers that have nothing to do with Firefox. It's a win-win for Mozilla - all of the credit, none of the blame.
This is never more apparent than when a new major version of Firefox is released. Mozilla break compatibility and wash their hands of the mess, and if the extensions you use aren't maintained any more, then, well, tough.
Developers who are that lazy aren't going to look at weblogs and give a damn about removing meaningless browser restrictions.
No, I have honestly seen people argue that it's not worth supporting anything but Internet Explorer because all of their users use Internet Explorer, when the reason all of their users use Internet Explorer is because the site in question is Internet Explorer-only by design or has massive bugs in other browsers. It's less about a lazy attitude and more about a stupid, head-in-the-sand attitude.
My email is not a web page, and I don't *want* it to be one.
HTML != web page. HTML is hypertext. It can be used for more than just web pages. Email is a good example. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with including links, emphasised text, etc. in an email. That doesn't make it a web page, it just makes it user-friendlier.
In fact, the absence of real markup in email has led to stupid conventions and kludgy workarounds. The lack of links means you have to display the raw URL and hope it doesn't wrap or trip up on one of the numerous flawed regexps mail clients use to pull them out. The lack of bold and italics means you have conventions like *this* that many mail clients autoformat - occasionally being overzealous and mangling text that wasn't supposed to be formatted.
run their dorky embedded javascript, or download their 1x1 12ab95rtyd62534.gif tracking images. [snip] Wallpaper? Muzak? Sick.
Yes, those things are stupid to include in HTML emails. That doesn't mean that HTML emails are bad, it means things like music in emails are bad. Just because you can abuse a technology, it doesn't mean that technology isn't useful.
For example, a common spammer tactic is to leave the body of the message blank and attach their message as text in an attached image. Does this mean attachments are bad? Does this mean that the average person should refrain from sending attachments? Of course not. Just because somebody abuses a technology, it doesn't mean that people shouldn't use it at all, it just means that they should use it responsibly.
The same goes for HTML emails. You think JavaScript and music in HTML emails are stupid? Don't send email like that then. Of course, even if you do, it's not going to do anything, because despite your belief, mail client developers don't have the attitude that HTML emails are web pages, and they treat them rather differently - by not executing JavaScript or playing music, for example.
CSS Style sheets for email?
This is entirely reasonable, or at least it would be if mail clients implemented it adequately.
To my knowledge, those people were put in civilian prisons under civilian law, within national borders, and none of them were tortured. Guantanamo Bay, on the other hand, is when the USA military stashes all the people it tortures abroad so that they aren't subject to USA law. They don't seem to be remotely the same thing, apart from imprisonment without trial.
Now, the Tories have become the more liberal party like the Dems in the USA and are vehemenetly trying to prevent the degradation of Habeas Corpus principles.
It's not the Tories that have changed, it's the USA becoming more and more right-wing, making everything else look liberal in comparison. Preventing a government from expanding its power and taking away rights is something a conservative party is supposed to do. They are supposed to be, you know, conservative.
I keep seeing this argument trotted out, and it really needs to stop. Just because my country has done some ass-backward immoral things lately doesn't mean I cannot frown upon stupid acts occurring elsewhere in the world.
The person that comment was responding to wasn't "frowning upon stupid acts", he said: "despite people bitching about the US' policies, we still have among the world's most stringent policies regarding the rights of the accused". Given that, it seems perfectly appropriate to bring up Guantanamo Bay and Abu Grahib. It's not national one-upmanship or "bitching", it's the rejection of the idea that a nation that tortures is some kind of a protector of human rights.
Rhetorical questions aren't a terribly good argumentative technique--unless you truly know the answers before you ask them.
You seem to have misinterpreted me. I wasn't implying that the answers to those questions are "no". I was saying that the answer in each case is the same - that they are a trade-off.
It's true that memory and intelligence are distinct, but the effect in both cases is the same. We're talking about using technology as a substitute for using our natural abilities. In the ancient Greek case, we're talking about using literacy as a substitute for memorisation. Did that cause our memory to wither? Transportation is used as a substitute for walking places. Did that cause our health to wither? Calculators are used as a substitute for mental arithmetic. Did that cause our arithmetic skills to wither? Google is used as a substitute for general knowledge. Is that causing our knowledge to wither?
If history is any measure, after a generation in which people complain about such dystrophy, society will begin considering the ability to use the replacement to be a quality. Literacy is now a skill, not something causing bad memory. Driving is considered a skill. The ability to use a calculator is considered a skill. The ability to search effectively will soon be considered a skill.
Do you honestly suppose that after the last eight years that those groups are going to flock to McCain in the general election?
I think bstarrfield's point was that those groups might just not vote as much as they would otherwise. These groups are needed to counterbalance the Republican vote, so without them the Democrats could lose the election again.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not quite what you are after, but there is something available to make servers more robust in the face of Slashdottings. RFC 2782 was published eight years ago, with previous drafts over 12 years old, but no browsers have implemented it to my knowledge. It was reported as a Mozilla bug nine years ago and remained unfixed.
There is an effort under way to publish a revision to the HTTP 1.1 specification, and the connection limit is one of the things that may change. The relevant thread on the mailing list starts here.
You don't need to poll the results and it's not a shortcoming of HTTP. You know how much data you have sent, and you know that the server has received it because of the TCP acks.
No, it really is the fault of the browser vendors and nobody else. You don't need an addition to the HTTP protocol, in fact such a thing is pointless because it's already handled at a lower level of the networking stack.
HTML 4 includes generic media embedding with the <object> element type. The HTML 5 draft specification currently includes <video> and <audio> element types.
Yes, but remember that this isn't a case of injecting artificial DNA or anything like that. The baby that will eventually be born was potentially going to be born anyway. So the choice is not "I'm picking a big unknown", the choice is "I'm choosing an unknown over something known to be harmful".
So instead of picking one of the candidates without any known defects, you are picking one at random, potentially the one that you would have selected anyway. How are you better off?
That's it, I'm joining People for the Ethical Treatment of Asparagus! How dare they send cute little innocent asparagii off to Mars! Don't you know plants have feelings too?
I supported the xxx TLD and you aren't describing what I wanted at all. Just because some people wanted all porn to go in its own TLD, it doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to choose an xxx domain voluntarily.
That much is right. You can't have an xxx domain even if you want to. That's censorship and control all right.
Why are you assuming www.search.google.? What's stopping Google from simply using google. as a hostname? That way, you can type "google", hit enter and get to where you want to go. It even saves you from holding down Ctrl.
No dynamic typing. Fewer libraries than Perl. Lame.
They don't have to do any such thing. They only do so because it costs practically nothing to get "the complete set". Radically expand the possibilities, and they just won't bother.
In all likelihood, what would happen is that they would just purchase .disney as a TLD, and people would just type in disney and get where they wanted to go. And your scenario of disney.film or whatever turning into porn sites wouldn't be a problem because, well, who would bother typing in disney.film instead of just disney? Who would link there?
Telnet? You are spoilt! Telnet automatically converts linefeeds to carriage-return/linefeed combinations. Use netcat if you want the raw stuff.
I never said they did. My point was that Mozilla are more than happy to take credit for the functionality provided by extensions, and tout it as an advantage they have over other browsers, yet leave users who depend on that functionality high and dry when it suits them.
How user friendly. Do you mention this when talking about how useful Firefox extensions are? That if you don't want the functionality going away in future versions, you should learn to code and do it yourself?
There are positive points and negative points to a community-centred extension feature. Choices like breaking compatibility exacerbate the negative points and Mozilla don't seem to do anything to mitigate that while simultaneously shouting the positive points from the rooftops. Pointing that out isn't "whinging".
The truth is that he has fallen out of favour with the government since Torchwood uncovered evidence that he is working with Davros.
Personally, I think the government shouldn't be in the business of giving out meaningless awards and I would refuse one on that basis.
That's an elephant in the room that nobody seems to want to talk about. If you are praising extensions, then apparently it's a huge advantage Firefox has over other browsers, but if you are complaining about extensions, then they are all third-party developers that have nothing to do with Firefox. It's a win-win for Mozilla - all of the credit, none of the blame.
This is never more apparent than when a new major version of Firefox is released. Mozilla break compatibility and wash their hands of the mess, and if the extensions you use aren't maintained any more, then, well, tough.
Personally, I think of this picture [NSFW], mainly because the users got shafted too.
No, I have honestly seen people argue that it's not worth supporting anything but Internet Explorer because all of their users use Internet Explorer, when the reason all of their users use Internet Explorer is because the site in question is Internet Explorer-only by design or has massive bugs in other browsers. It's less about a lazy attitude and more about a stupid, head-in-the-sand attitude.
HTML != web page. HTML is hypertext. It can be used for more than just web pages. Email is a good example. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with including links, emphasised text, etc. in an email. That doesn't make it a web page, it just makes it user-friendlier.
In fact, the absence of real markup in email has led to stupid conventions and kludgy workarounds. The lack of links means you have to display the raw URL and hope it doesn't wrap or trip up on one of the numerous flawed regexps mail clients use to pull them out. The lack of bold and italics means you have conventions like *this* that many mail clients autoformat - occasionally being overzealous and mangling text that wasn't supposed to be formatted.
Yes, those things are stupid to include in HTML emails. That doesn't mean that HTML emails are bad, it means things like music in emails are bad. Just because you can abuse a technology, it doesn't mean that technology isn't useful.
For example, a common spammer tactic is to leave the body of the message blank and attach their message as text in an attached image. Does this mean attachments are bad? Does this mean that the average person should refrain from sending attachments? Of course not. Just because somebody abuses a technology, it doesn't mean that people shouldn't use it at all, it just means that they should use it responsibly.
The same goes for HTML emails. You think JavaScript and music in HTML emails are stupid? Don't send email like that then. Of course, even if you do, it's not going to do anything, because despite your belief, mail client developers don't have the attitude that HTML emails are web pages, and they treat them rather differently - by not executing JavaScript or playing music, for example.
This is entirely reasonable, or at least it would be if mail clients implemented it adequately.
To my knowledge, those people were put in civilian prisons under civilian law, within national borders, and none of them were tortured. Guantanamo Bay, on the other hand, is when the USA military stashes all the people it tortures abroad so that they aren't subject to USA law. They don't seem to be remotely the same thing, apart from imprisonment without trial.
It's not the Tories that have changed, it's the USA becoming more and more right-wing, making everything else look liberal in comparison. Preventing a government from expanding its power and taking away rights is something a conservative party is supposed to do. They are supposed to be, you know, conservative.
The person that comment was responding to wasn't "frowning upon stupid acts", he said: "despite people bitching about the US' policies, we still have among the world's most stringent policies regarding the rights of the accused". Given that, it seems perfectly appropriate to bring up Guantanamo Bay and Abu Grahib. It's not national one-upmanship or "bitching", it's the rejection of the idea that a nation that tortures is some kind of a protector of human rights.
You seem to have misinterpreted me. I wasn't implying that the answers to those questions are "no". I was saying that the answer in each case is the same - that they are a trade-off.
It's true that memory and intelligence are distinct, but the effect in both cases is the same. We're talking about using technology as a substitute for using our natural abilities. In the ancient Greek case, we're talking about using literacy as a substitute for memorisation. Did that cause our memory to wither? Transportation is used as a substitute for walking places. Did that cause our health to wither? Calculators are used as a substitute for mental arithmetic. Did that cause our arithmetic skills to wither? Google is used as a substitute for general knowledge. Is that causing our knowledge to wither?
If history is any measure, after a generation in which people complain about such dystrophy, society will begin considering the ability to use the replacement to be a quality. Literacy is now a skill, not something causing bad memory. Driving is considered a skill. The ability to use a calculator is considered a skill. The ability to search effectively will soon be considered a skill.
Don't forget that it has to use the Wisdom of Clowns.
Google Code is a hosting service any open source developer can use. Just because it's on Google Code, it doesn't mean Google created it.
I think bstarrfield's point was that those groups might just not vote as much as they would otherwise. These groups are needed to counterbalance the Republican vote, so without them the Democrats could lose the election again.