Yes, there is an easy answer. The ISP pays for the extra bandwidth, change the way they structure their plans to curtail users from using large amounts of bandwidth during peak times, or charge more per customer to cover the expenses.
You may not like that answer, but it was pretty easy. Personally, I have no issue with the ISP throttling my (or others) bandwidth used by applications that are not time sensitive (bittorrent, windows updates, ftp) so that applications that are time sensitive (video, skype, VoIP, SIP, netflix) remain unaffected during peak hours. Note that netflix and video aren't necessarily real-time applications and I'd even be OK with ISPs throttling those services as well so long as it remains fast enough that the buffer never empties and causes stuttering/wait for buffering. I'm not totally thrilled with causing them to drop to a lower quality, but if I had the option of being charged less for a plan that allowed them to do so, then that would be acceptable as well.
You can use the hardware exactly however you want (barring FCC regulations of course). But that's not what you are whining about now is it? You want to use software on that hardware however you want, and you don't own the software. You are leasing it, so no, you can't do whatever you want to the software, but you are free to wipe all the software off the device and use the hardware any way you want.
No, in windows you generally don't have to run as administrator. Only poorly written applications ever really "needed" to run as administrator, and I'll be happy to compile some code for you on linux that requires root access to run, then you can say the same thing about linux NEEDing root.
Really, have you even used windows in the past 10 years?
ASP was released in beta form to developers since 1994 at least, because that is when I started working with it which preceeded PHP by more than a year. PHP 1.0 that came out over a full year later wasn't even remotely competative to ASP, it didn't do nearly anything serious as it was quite literally designed for making pretty home pages, not serious business applications. It wasn't even until 1998 that PHP had more than 1 programmer working on it. Now, I'm going to stop right there, because PHP ISN'T EVEN A STANDARD.
And I'll post a small excerpt from the w3c themselves:
November 1995: The HTML working group runs into problems
The HTML working group was an excellent idea in theory, but in practice things did not go quite as expected. With the immense popularity of the Web, the HTML working group grew larger and larger, and the volume of associated email soared exponentially. Imagine one hundred people trying to design a house. `I want the windows to be double-glazed,' says one. `Yes, but shouldn't we make them smaller, while we're at it,' questions another. Still others chime in: `What material do you propose for the frames - I'm not having them in plastic, that's for sure'; `I suggest that we don't have windows, as such, but include small, circular port-holes on the Southern elevation...' and so on.
You get the idea. The HTML working group emailed each other in a frenzy of electronic activity. In the end, its members became so snowed under with email that no time was left for programming. For software engineers, this was a sorry state of affairs, indeed: `I came back after just three days away to find over 2000 messages waiting,' was the unhappy lament of the HTML enthusiast.
Anyway, the HTML working group still was losing ground to the browser vendors. The group was notably slow in coming to a consensus on a given HTML feature, and commercial organizations were hardly going to sit around having tea, pleasantly conversing on the weather whilst waiting for the results of debates. And they did not. November 1995: Vendors unite to form a new group dedicated to developing an HTML standard
In November, 1995 Dave Raggett called together representatives of the browser companies and suggested they meet as a small group dedicated to standardizing HTML. Imagine his surprise when it worked! Lou Montulli from Netscape, Charlie Kindel from Microsoft, Eric Sink from Spyglass, Wayne Gramlich from Sun Microsystems, Dave Raggett, Tim Berners-Lee and Dan Connolly from the W3 Consortium, and Jonathan Hirschman from Pathfinder convened near Chicago and made quick and effective decisions about HTML.
Now I think that's pretty clear. The HTML body was unable to keep up with innovating nearly as fast as Microsoft was pushing out tools and things that real companies needed. They were SOOOO far behind that it would be closer to say that there was no standard at all that was even close to representing the types of things that Microsoft was putting out tools to do at the time. Innovations came from both IE and Netscape and they were implemented and companies were using them YEARS before the HTML working group standardized anything near it.
If you need a solution TODAY, and there is no standardize way of doing it, then you can't blame commercial entities for providing it when the standards bodies won't get to it for a number of years. Blame the standards bodies for moving so slowly.
However, you are correct in that developers were using technologies that ONLY existed in IE6, and had no alternative in any formal standard on how to achieve the same goal because Microsoft was delivering what developers needed, and the standards bodies were too busy arguing about useless stuff. Standards are great, but they need to be there in a timely manner, something that they often simply are not. They came too slow, too late, and then expect everyone else that has already been doing it, has developed code, and has released products on it before they were standardized. You were either forced to not deliver anything and say well there is no standard way to do it, or you did it the non-standard way, and delivered.
Everyone wants to blame Microsoft for everything, the real blame is on the standards bodies.
Of course they would, or they would open themselves up to a possible lawsuit asking for damages in the amount of possible profits (+ penalty, interest, legal fees) lost because of it.
If windows was like opera, you wouldn't be able to run 3rd party applications until Windows 11. You'd be stuck with notepad, paint, and solitaire until then.
I would say quite a few have a beta 6. You are probably used to seeing commercial beta releases which you only see the public betas. I've seen semi-public betas get into the 30's.
I can see them just fine. I've had my firefox consuming over 2GB of ram before, with the only tab open being blank at the time. I'm now in the habit of restarting my firefox many times per day, so I can't say for sure if it's still currently a problem or not, but I typically "remember" to kill firefox whenever my work machine starts to get slow out of habit. My home machine rarely cares because it's got 12GB of ram, and even 2GB is really nothing to it.
Because Adobe realizes no matter what they do, HTML5 is the next big "thing". They can either jump on board and try and be at the forefront of it all, making great tools and plug ins, or they can dig themselves in and try to hold back the avalache armed with a shovel. Typically companies that try the dig in approach fail and fail miserably.
Re:Seriously?
on
Drupal 7
·
· Score: 2, Informative
eln is basically correct, but a good content management system does so much more. Typically you can create templates for use in your site (some you can program with code, PHP, asp.net, etc). Then you use those templates to allow users to create pages for the site, say you want to create a site like newegg or amazon, you have a basic template for displaying items (picture, summary, details section with 3 tabs, user comments/ratings, etc). Then a user can input the item code, description and upload a picture, and give the page a status of "complete". Someone else can take a look at the page, and change it's status from "complete" to "reviewed". Then perhaps once a day someone else takes all the reviewed pages, and changes their status to "test". You can then acccess the test site and work with all the pending changes, and once it's been tested, you flip a switch and all test pages now become live. You can also make pages that change based on the time of day, or day of the week, or what ever.
In a nutshell, not only does it manage the content, but also it also encapsulates live, test, and development pages (multiple versions of a page), and the workflow that is involved in going from one to the other.
Just in the CMSs that I am familiar with there is so much either missing that should have been marked "yes", or incorrect answers it is apparent that the site is not just slightly biased but it's more of a sales portal for a couple CMSes (Plone, Drupal).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, there is an easy answer. The ISP pays for the extra bandwidth, change the way they structure their plans to curtail users from using large amounts of bandwidth during peak times, or charge more per customer to cover the expenses.
You may not like that answer, but it was pretty easy. Personally, I have no issue with the ISP throttling my (or others) bandwidth used by applications that are not time sensitive (bittorrent, windows updates, ftp) so that applications that are time sensitive (video, skype, VoIP, SIP, netflix) remain unaffected during peak hours. Note that netflix and video aren't necessarily real-time applications and I'd even be OK with ISPs throttling those services as well so long as it remains fast enough that the buffer never empties and causes stuttering/wait for buffering. I'm not totally thrilled with causing them to drop to a lower quality, but if I had the option of being charged less for a plan that allowed them to do so, then that would be acceptable as well.
Well at least we know what team you are batting for.
Butt Pirates < Ninjas for the rest of us.
You can use the hardware exactly however you want (barring FCC regulations of course). But that's not what you are whining about now is it? You want to use software on that hardware however you want, and you don't own the software. You are leasing it, so no, you can't do whatever you want to the software, but you are free to wipe all the software off the device and use the hardware any way you want.
No, in windows you generally don't have to run as administrator. Only poorly written applications ever really "needed" to run as administrator, and I'll be happy to compile some code for you on linux that requires root access to run, then you can say the same thing about linux NEEDing root.
Really, have you even used windows in the past 10 years?
Are you trying to say that your ass has long been a supported of the open sores community?
And it matters on today's 3G mobile phones that won't be seeing any bandwidth upgrades for the next 2 years.
ASP was released in beta form to developers since 1994 at least, because that is when I started working with it which preceeded PHP by more than a year. PHP 1.0 that came out over a full year later wasn't even remotely competative to ASP, it didn't do nearly anything serious as it was quite literally designed for making pretty home pages, not serious business applications. It wasn't even until 1998 that PHP had more than 1 programmer working on it. Now, I'm going to stop right there, because PHP ISN'T EVEN A STANDARD.
And I'll post a small excerpt from the w3c themselves:
November 1995: The HTML working group runs into problems
The HTML working group was an excellent idea in theory, but in practice things did not go quite as expected. With the immense popularity of the Web, the HTML working group grew larger and larger, and the volume of associated email soared exponentially. Imagine one hundred people trying to design a house. `I want the windows to be double-glazed,' says one. `Yes, but shouldn't we make them smaller, while we're at it,' questions another. Still others chime in: `What material do you propose for the frames - I'm not having them in plastic, that's for sure'; `I suggest that we don't have windows, as such, but include small, circular port-holes on the Southern elevation...' and so on.
You get the idea. The HTML working group emailed each other in a frenzy of electronic activity. In the end, its members became so snowed under with email that no time was left for programming. For software engineers, this was a sorry state of affairs, indeed: `I came back after just three days away to find over 2000 messages waiting,' was the unhappy lament of the HTML enthusiast.
Anyway, the HTML working group still was losing ground to the browser vendors. The group was notably slow in coming to a consensus on a given HTML feature, and commercial organizations were hardly going to sit around having tea, pleasantly conversing on the weather whilst waiting for the results of debates. And they did not.
November 1995: Vendors unite to form a new group dedicated to developing an HTML standard
In November, 1995 Dave Raggett called together representatives of the browser companies and suggested they meet as a small group dedicated to standardizing HTML. Imagine his surprise when it worked! Lou Montulli from Netscape, Charlie Kindel from Microsoft, Eric Sink from Spyglass, Wayne Gramlich from Sun Microsystems, Dave Raggett, Tim Berners-Lee and Dan Connolly from the W3 Consortium, and Jonathan Hirschman from Pathfinder convened near Chicago and made quick and effective decisions about HTML.
Now I think that's pretty clear. The HTML body was unable to keep up with innovating nearly as fast as Microsoft was pushing out tools and things that real companies needed. They were SOOOO far behind that it would be closer to say that there was no standard at all that was even close to representing the types of things that Microsoft was putting out tools to do at the time. Innovations came from both IE and Netscape and they were implemented and companies were using them YEARS before the HTML working group standardized anything near it.
If you need a solution TODAY, and there is no standardize way of doing it, then you can't blame commercial entities for providing it when the standards bodies won't get to it for a number of years. Blame the standards bodies for moving so slowly.
IE6/ASP wasn't really optimized for each other.
However, you are correct in that developers were using technologies that ONLY existed in IE6, and had no alternative in any formal standard on how to achieve the same goal because Microsoft was delivering what developers needed, and the standards bodies were too busy arguing about useless stuff. Standards are great, but they need to be there in a timely manner, something that they often simply are not. They came too slow, too late, and then expect everyone else that has already been doing it, has developed code, and has released products on it before they were standardized. You were either forced to not deliver anything and say well there is no standard way to do it, or you did it the non-standard way, and delivered.
Everyone wants to blame Microsoft for everything, the real blame is on the standards bodies.
That is incorrect, at least in the USA. There is no law that states that business must sell unless...
"you opened to the public for a specific service, you can't reject somebody because of exercising that service"
That is incorrect. Owners of private property can ban anyone from their property for any reason they want, or absolutely no reason at all.
Of course they would, or they would open themselves up to a possible lawsuit asking for damages in the amount of possible profits (+ penalty, interest, legal fees) lost because of it.
There is no "special" data. You can get it too.
Yes, I know. RTFA.
$8.99 / minute.
Really? Because I could swear my computer, and my PS3 play games and they aren't compressed into h.264 before being put in the monitor/tv.
If windows was like opera, you wouldn't be able to run 3rd party applications until Windows 11. You'd be stuck with notepad, paint, and solitaire until then.
Here's another, currently on beta 20: http://www.newsleecher.com//?id=download
Sorry, the Office machine has 4Gb of RAM (3.4GB useable) and is running 32-bit version of XP.
Home: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit SP1, EVga X58 3X SLI Motherboard, Intel 930 CPU, 12GB of kingston DDR3 Hyper-X, PNY NVidia 8800Gtx (Replaced a dead NVidia 295GTX temporarily - waiting for the NVidia 580 to come out), Intel 80GB Gen 2 SSD Boot Drive (74GB S:), Corsair H50 Water CPU cooler, 2 Seagate 1TB 7200.12 drives (954GB Raid-0 (683GB C:, 247GB P:), and 477 GB Raid-1 (465GB U:)), and 2 Seagate 320GB 7200.10 drives (305GB Raid-1 (Backup)), 8GB OCZ RallyX Thumbdrive (7.47GB R:) in a cooler master HAF-X case.
Office: HP Machine running Windows XP SP3, E6600 CPU (or similar), 160GB Seagate 7200.10 Drive (160GB C:), integrated video (Intel chipset).
Does that help?
I would say quite a few have a beta 6. You are probably used to seeing commercial beta releases which you only see the public betas. I've seen semi-public betas get into the 30's.
I can see them just fine. I've had my firefox consuming over 2GB of ram before, with the only tab open being blank at the time. I'm now in the habit of restarting my firefox many times per day, so I can't say for sure if it's still currently a problem or not, but I typically "remember" to kill firefox whenever my work machine starts to get slow out of habit. My home machine rarely cares because it's got 12GB of ram, and even 2GB is really nothing to it.
Because Adobe realizes no matter what they do, HTML5 is the next big "thing". They can either jump on board and try and be at the forefront of it all, making great tools and plug ins, or they can dig themselves in and try to hold back the avalache armed with a shovel. Typically companies that try the dig in approach fail and fail miserably.
eln is basically correct, but a good content management system does so much more. Typically you can create templates for use in your site (some you can program with code, PHP, asp.net, etc). Then you use those templates to allow users to create pages for the site, say you want to create a site like newegg or amazon, you have a basic template for displaying items (picture, summary, details section with 3 tabs, user comments/ratings, etc). Then a user can input the item code, description and upload a picture, and give the page a status of "complete". Someone else can take a look at the page, and change it's status from "complete" to "reviewed". Then perhaps once a day someone else takes all the reviewed pages, and changes their status to "test". You can then acccess the test site and work with all the pending changes, and once it's been tested, you flip a switch and all test pages now become live. You can also make pages that change based on the time of day, or day of the week, or what ever.
In a nutshell, not only does it manage the content, but also it also encapsulates live, test, and development pages (multiple versions of a page), and the workflow that is involved in going from one to the other.
lol, I would love to see the UK try and sue the US military for libel, that would be pretty funny.
Just in the CMSs that I am familiar with there is so much either missing that should have been marked "yes", or incorrect answers it is apparent that the site is not just slightly biased but it's more of a sales portal for a couple CMSes (Plone, Drupal).