That is a ridiculous argument you will always be at the mercy of something or someone as a business. The key is to avoid it when possible
Yes, and my argument is that if you aren't committing significant resources to the problem, then all you are doing by avoiding reliance on Google is exchanging it for reliance on something else.
Why would any business owner want ANOTHER middle man that doesn't provide something that has significant value
Doesn't provide anything of significant value? Google employ people to maintain these systems 24/7, with very fast, redundant net connections. That kind of reliability is significantly valuable to a lot of people, and the startup situation you described earlier is far more prone to outages and other business risks.
I leave myself at the mercy of google in order to save the cost of IT administration? That doesn't sound like a good business decision.
It doesn't? So you don't use any web hosting services then, you host everything yourself? But wait, then you are at the mercy of your ISP. So do you have redundant connections? But wait, you're still hosting everything in one place, so you are at the mercy of floods, earthquakes, power outages, etc. So do you have geographically separated offices, with employees at both locations to look after everything?
Yes, there's something to be said for independence. But hosting providers, especially large international ones like Google, offer a lot that would be prohibitively expensive for you to do yourself.
Well the article did give its own definition of Introvert and you are right that in the context of the article the poster you are replying to is wrong. But the word introvert is not the article authors to define.
The article author is hardly inventing his own definition. For example, from Psych Central:
Research differentiates between shyness and introversion, although they are related. Introverts prefer solitary to social activities, but do not fear social encounters like shy people do. "If you see two people standing by a wall at a party," Carducci says, "the introvert is there because he wants to be. The shy person is there because he feels like he has to be".
I know a lot of people that are socially very shy in public, that practically live in IM or WOW etc.
Shyness and introversion are two different things. Introversion is a preference for being alone. Shyness is when somebody feels anxiety around other people.
IM and other virtual communication can be good at alleviating the anxiety shy people feel, enabling them to socialise frequently, but it isn't going to do anything for an introvert who doesn't want to socialise frequently.
Because usually, a major version number change indicates major changes, not patching a single bug. I'd have expected a 4.9 with a security vulnerability patched to be released as 4.9.1.
That doesn't matter. My point is that typical sites didn't used to have dynamically generated content and now they do. That means that the memory use of each httpd instance rises regardless of whether or not any particular request is dynamic. When your clients triple the number of parallel connections they open, that means the peak number of requests can be significantly higher, meaning you need to run a lot more processes. And because those processes need more memory these days, using lots more processes has a bigger impact these days.
Now you can mitigate this problem by pre-emptively separating out your requests, for example by using a CDN or separate hostname/port for static resources, but if you are doing that, the browser uses more connections anyway.
They do this by hosting their static content across multiple sub-domains (which are often on the same physical server).
Same physical server, maybe, but not the same httpd. It would be silly to use "fat" httpd processes that handle dynamic content to just serve static resources when a tiny threaded/async httpd could do the job quicker using a fraction of the memory.
The last Firefox beta didn't have a home button on the main toolbar, and you couldn't put it back via "customise toolbar" unless you knew the workaround of displaying another toolbar and dragging it from that.
And the fact that at least WebKit has introduced a special case for the Acid3 font
That's not the whole story. The Acid3 test assumes specific font-smoothing behaviour (that it doesn't increase the dimensions of the text). This is not always true on OS X and isn't required by any specification. The workaround in Webkit was to guarantee the font-smoothing behaviour that the Acid3 test expected. That font is not a normal font, it's designed specifically for testcases, so both the "bug" and the workaround would not affect normal situations. And the Acid3 test has since been changed to avoid this problem.
Please include this information when mentioning this "ugly thing", because without the pertinent facts, people assume a number of things that simply aren't true.
I think the jump from 2 to 6 makes a lot of sense after almost 10 years
Not all movement has been in the forward direction. Back them, most web traffic was totally static, even the HTML. These days, it's far more likely that the HTML is generated dynamically from something like mod_php. This, in turn, means that rather than tying up a slim process, a persistent connection ties up a "fat" process with a language runtime embedded in it. Three times as many simultaneous persistent connections means up to three times as much memory usage. Not as much of a problem if it's just a bog-standard 1999 static fileserver, but a big problem if you've got a 2008 dynamic interpreter built in.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that this is a bad change, I just think that it's got downsides as well as upsides. This will only further the adoption of lightweight reverse proxies like nginx, pound and varnish.
I'm sure somebody is likely to bring it up, so it may as well be me with some additional relevant facts. The HTTP 1.1 specification, RFC 2616, says that:
Clients that use persistent connections SHOULD limit the number of simultaneous connections that they maintain to a given server. A single-user client SHOULD NOT maintain more than 2 connections with any server or proxy. A proxy SHOULD use up to 2*N connections to another server or proxy, where N is the number of simultaneously active users. These guidelines are intended to improve HTTP response times and avoid congestion.
This "improved connection parallelism" is simply changing Firefox from using the RFC-suggested 2 persistent connections, to 6. Now, SHOULDs and SHOULD NOTs are not set in stone, but they do require careful thought before ignoring.
The Bugzilla entry debating this has a comment that points out that other browsers have also started to ignore this part of the specification:
According to the blog, there are "6446 GPL v2 or later" projects in the database, and assuming that more than 2000 of those are v3, that leaves just a little bit over 4400 are v2.
You are misinterpreting the data. "GPL v2 or later" means that these projects originally chose the GPL v2 but used the FSF's recommended wording that automatically allows people to use a later version of the GPL. So 6446 is the number of projects that can be counted as both GPL v2 and GPL v3, and excludes the projects that are specifically GPL v2 only.
There was a definite surge last year of GPL3 projects, followed a sharp decline in December.
This makes it sound like there was a decline in GPL3 projects, which isn't the case. There was a decline in the growth rate of GPL3 projects, meaning that the number of GPL3 projects grew, only not as fast as in previous months.
ISO is deliberately avoiding an Aprils Fool announcement
Which in itself is an announcement. If they rejected OOXML, would anybody think it was a joke? No. If they rubber-stamped OOXML, would anybody think it was a joke? Yes. So, by admitting there is a danger of it being construed as a joke, what is ISO telling everybody?
It's either that, or they aren't bothered about the joke aspect and are just using it as an excuse to stall while they figure stuff out.
Yes, those arguments are similar to what Sony BMG used against citizens via their RIAA subsidiary.
No, they really aren't.
Don't own a computer? Must've been hiding evidence!
Has the RIAA actually used this argument? See I can't tell because you are acting like a fucking idiot, so I can't separate your actual claims from your stupid fantasies.
Have files in inadvertently shared folders? Obviously must have distributed them at least 100 times.
This just demonstrates how stupid your analogy is. Placing files on an internal corporate server is completely different to putting it on Kazaa or whatever. In the one case you are sharing with everybody and there's no reasonable way of determining how many times something is shared, and in the other case, you are "sharing" only with a known set of computers, which have been the subject of a raid, so you know exactly how many infringing copies there are and don't need to guess at all.
Even if you include all the people who used the software, this is a known number. There is no speculation on the number of lost sales necessary. The analogy to sharing with the world via a P2P network is plain wrong.
Sony BMG did even worse: they probably put it on a hacker "darknet" (read: internal fileserver). Since those are explicitly designed to distribute unauthorized copies of software clandestinely
Internal corporate fileservers are not explicitly designed to do any such thing.
they obviously must have served at least 1,000 copies for each unauthorized installation that was found.
Again, that makes no sense. Sony were raided. They know exactly how many unauthorised installations there were.
I know it feels good to try to hang them by their own rope, but you just sound stupid when you say stuff like this. It doesn't resemble their own arguments, so it isn't hanging them by their own rope.
They've been caught infringing copyrights, they'll be prosecuted and their hypocritical behaviour has been exposed. Isn't that enough without trying to drag stupid arguments like this into it? It's almost as if you are trying to discredit the arguments against them by making them sound like the ravings of morons.
That makes no sense. In P2P situations, the idea is that the person has shared each song with lots of people who would otherwise have bought it. Nobody is accusing Sony of putting this software on a P2P network, so where would the idea of "theoretical lost sales" come from? The number of lost sales is known, it's the number of installations Sony were using.
I'm all for holding Sony to their own standards, but let's not just invent crazy behaviour and pretend it's the same thing.
NASA's Cassini spacecraft tasted and sampled a surprising organic brew erupting in geyser-like fashion from Saturn's moon Enceladus during a close flyby on March 12. Scientists are amazed that this tiny moon is so active, "hot" and brimming with water vapor and organic chemicals.
I hereby propose that Enceladus be renamed Tubgirlus in light of this discovery.
Please read my comment again. This isn't about passing or not passing. If you don't meet the preconditions of the Acid3 test, then you simply don't know whether you passed or not because the results are inaccurate.
You could meet the preconditions another way — turn off font smoothing manually in your system settings and then take the Acid3 test. A bit inconvenient, don't you think?
If Apple found a flaw in Acid3, they should let the Acid3 dev(s) know, and possibly help them fix it.
They already talked about it before the fix was committed. See bug #17086.
the Acid3 test only tests stuff that was in finished specs in 2004 or earlier.
Acid3 was designed to only test behaviour that browser vendors have had at least three years to implement, straight from the horse's mouth. It's not new stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and my argument is that if you aren't committing significant resources to the problem, then all you are doing by avoiding reliance on Google is exchanging it for reliance on something else.
Doesn't provide anything of significant value? Google employ people to maintain these systems 24/7, with very fast, redundant net connections. That kind of reliability is significantly valuable to a lot of people, and the startup situation you described earlier is far more prone to outages and other business risks.
It doesn't? So you don't use any web hosting services then, you host everything yourself? But wait, then you are at the mercy of your ISP. So do you have redundant connections? But wait, you're still hosting everything in one place, so you are at the mercy of floods, earthquakes, power outages, etc. So do you have geographically separated offices, with employees at both locations to look after everything?
Yes, there's something to be said for independence. But hosting providers, especially large international ones like Google, offer a lot that would be prohibitively expensive for you to do yourself.
For anybody who's interested, I've put up a user stylesheet that puts things back (more or less) how they were on userstyles.org.
The article author is hardly inventing his own definition. For example, from Psych Central:
Shyness and introversion are two different things. Introversion is a preference for being alone. Shyness is when somebody feels anxiety around other people.
IM and other virtual communication can be good at alleviating the anxiety shy people feel, enabling them to socialise frequently, but it isn't going to do anything for an introvert who doesn't want to socialise frequently.
Because usually, a major version number change indicates major changes, not patching a single bug. I'd have expected a 4.9 with a security vulnerability patched to be released as 4.9.1.
It's the whitespace between the comment and the buttons that does it. Put the following in your user stylesheet:
Remember that there could be a legitimate, spec-condoned reason for a single IP making more than two connections - proxies with multiple users.
That doesn't matter. My point is that typical sites didn't used to have dynamically generated content and now they do. That means that the memory use of each httpd instance rises regardless of whether or not any particular request is dynamic. When your clients triple the number of parallel connections they open, that means the peak number of requests can be significantly higher, meaning you need to run a lot more processes. And because those processes need more memory these days, using lots more processes has a bigger impact these days.
Now you can mitigate this problem by pre-emptively separating out your requests, for example by using a CDN or separate hostname/port for static resources, but if you are doing that, the browser uses more connections anyway.
Same physical server, maybe, but not the same httpd. It would be silly to use "fat" httpd processes that handle dynamic content to just serve static resources when a tiny threaded/async httpd could do the job quicker using a fraction of the memory.
The last Firefox beta didn't have a home button on the main toolbar, and you couldn't put it back via "customise toolbar" unless you knew the workaround of displaying another toolbar and dragging it from that.
That's not the whole story. The Acid3 test assumes specific font-smoothing behaviour (that it doesn't increase the dimensions of the text). This is not always true on OS X and isn't required by any specification. The workaround in Webkit was to guarantee the font-smoothing behaviour that the Acid3 test expected. That font is not a normal font, it's designed specifically for testcases, so both the "bug" and the workaround would not affect normal situations. And the Acid3 test has since been changed to avoid this problem.
Please include this information when mentioning this "ugly thing", because without the pertinent facts, people assume a number of things that simply aren't true.
Not all movement has been in the forward direction. Back them, most web traffic was totally static, even the HTML. These days, it's far more likely that the HTML is generated dynamically from something like mod_php. This, in turn, means that rather than tying up a slim process, a persistent connection ties up a "fat" process with a language runtime embedded in it. Three times as many simultaneous persistent connections means up to three times as much memory usage. Not as much of a problem if it's just a bog-standard 1999 static fileserver, but a big problem if you've got a 2008 dynamic interpreter built in.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that this is a bad change, I just think that it's got downsides as well as upsides. This will only further the adoption of lightweight reverse proxies like nginx, pound and varnish.
Really? Steps you perform to find something using less-than-awesomebar:
Steps you perform to find something using history:
I'm sure somebody is likely to bring it up, so it may as well be me with some additional relevant facts. The HTTP 1.1 specification, RFC 2616, says that:
This "improved connection parallelism" is simply changing Firefox from using the RFC-suggested 2 persistent connections, to 6. Now, SHOULDs and SHOULD NOTs are not set in stone, but they do require careful thought before ignoring.
The Bugzilla entry debating this has a comment that points out that other browsers have also started to ignore this part of the specification:
You are misinterpreting the data. "GPL v2 or later" means that these projects originally chose the GPL v2 but used the FSF's recommended wording that automatically allows people to use a later version of the GPL. So 6446 is the number of projects that can be counted as both GPL v2 and GPL v3, and excludes the projects that are specifically GPL v2 only.
This makes it sound like there was a decline in GPL3 projects, which isn't the case. There was a decline in the growth rate of GPL3 projects, meaning that the number of GPL3 projects grew, only not as fast as in previous months.
Which in itself is an announcement. If they rejected OOXML, would anybody think it was a joke? No. If they rubber-stamped OOXML, would anybody think it was a joke? Yes. So, by admitting there is a danger of it being construed as a joke, what is ISO telling everybody?
It's either that, or they aren't bothered about the joke aspect and are just using it as an excuse to stall while they figure stuff out.
No, they really aren't.
Has the RIAA actually used this argument? See I can't tell because you are acting like a fucking idiot, so I can't separate your actual claims from your stupid fantasies.
This just demonstrates how stupid your analogy is. Placing files on an internal corporate server is completely different to putting it on Kazaa or whatever. In the one case you are sharing with everybody and there's no reasonable way of determining how many times something is shared, and in the other case, you are "sharing" only with a known set of computers, which have been the subject of a raid, so you know exactly how many infringing copies there are and don't need to guess at all.
Even if you include all the people who used the software, this is a known number. There is no speculation on the number of lost sales necessary. The analogy to sharing with the world via a P2P network is plain wrong.
Internal corporate fileservers are not explicitly designed to do any such thing.
Again, that makes no sense. Sony were raided. They know exactly how many unauthorised installations there were.
I know it feels good to try to hang them by their own rope, but you just sound stupid when you say stuff like this. It doesn't resemble their own arguments, so it isn't hanging them by their own rope.
They've been caught infringing copyrights, they'll be prosecuted and their hypocritical behaviour has been exposed. Isn't that enough without trying to drag stupid arguments like this into it? It's almost as if you are trying to discredit the arguments against them by making them sound like the ravings of morons.
That makes no sense. In P2P situations, the idea is that the person has shared each song with lots of people who would otherwise have bought it. Nobody is accusing Sony of putting this software on a P2P network, so where would the idea of "theoretical lost sales" come from? The number of lost sales is known, it's the number of installations Sony were using.
I'm all for holding Sony to their own standards, but let's not just invent crazy behaviour and pretend it's the same thing.
I hereby propose that Enceladus be renamed Tubgirlus in light of this discovery.
Please see my other comments regarding the font special-casing. It's nowhere near as bad as it seems.
Please read my comment again. This isn't about passing or not passing. If you don't meet the preconditions of the Acid3 test, then you simply don't know whether you passed or not because the results are inaccurate.
You could meet the preconditions another way — turn off font smoothing manually in your system settings and then take the Acid3 test. A bit inconvenient, don't you think?
They already talked about it before the fix was committed. See bug #17086.
You know, I needn't have gone to the bother of checking the dates. Here it is, straight from Ian Hickson's weblog:
Here's another quote to confirm it after the Acid3 test was finished:
Acid3 was designed to only test behaviour that browser vendors have had at least three years to implement, straight from the horse's mouth. It's not new stuff.