How about you JUST WRITE STANDARD-COMPLIANT CODE, AND STOP FUCKING WORRYING ABOUT WHAT IT'S BEING VIEWED ON?!?!?!?!?!?
Because the current standard is HTML 4, and CSS 2.1, and they SUCK BALLS, and the design by commitee HTML 5 isn't slated to be ratified until late 2014, and who knows when CSS 3 will be, and some (most) of us needed it 8 years ago?
border-radius is part of the CSS Backgrounds and Borders Module of CSS 3, and as such, is still just a candidate recommendation -- hence is NOT a standard yet at least as of July 24, 2012.
And THIS is why we need the government to install security cameras in everyone's home. To save the people from having to monitor themselves or their children. Isn't that the government mandate?
Bonus points if they can just install a V-CHIP into all children's brains to not only monitor their behavior, but to actually alter it so that they can conform to being good passive citizens!
It can be cheaper! See the painting contractor actually bought paint sprayers instead of using an old fashioned brush. Of course it's not going to be cheaper if all you do is paint one house, but it allows the contractor to use 1/4th the man hours in actually doing the paint work. He can pass on these savings through lower costs than if you did it yourself.
Now it doesn't always work out that way, but it can, and sometimes does. Outsourcing/contracting isn't always the correct answer, but sometimes it really is.
It matters because: 1) Many people still use IE. 2) Google/Facebook only support the last 2 versions of IE, so when IE 10 comes out, they will drop support for IE 8. 3) We only support the browsers that google & facebook support, so we no longer need to support IE 8. We are now an IE 9+/Firefox/webkit shop.
1) google, Motorola, and Microsoft are all American companies. 2) they have a case pending in his court room. 3) no matter the source, medium, or location, it is illegal to extort someone on a case to try and settle it. 4) regardless of what was done, google was applying pressure on Microsoft HERE to settle the case here out of court. 5) the fact that google did something that by itself was completely legal does not make the fact that doing it in the context and in coordination of the current case was illegal.
Now while I use the term extortion, IANAL. The actual charge(s) would likely be numerous and use different terms. Witness tampering, extortion, obstruction of justice, etc may all be valid charges, and they all say what google did was illegal.
I think I've made it pretty clear. If you don't understand it, I can't help you and I'm glad you are not a lawyer either because its not all that complicated.
Erm, no. I don't think you know what the word means, either basically, or when used in telecommunications. The ITU defined it as being 1Mbit/sec back in 1988, while the FCC defined it as being 128kbit/s up until the year 2000 or so just so they could claim how fast broadband was available in different markets. Have you tried browsing the web at 128kbit/s? I did, way back before the the FCC ever got involved by bonding multiple overclocked 56k modems. It sucked then, it would have sucked even more 10 years later.
Is it difficult to understand the difference between can and if you do, you will be punished for it? Is it difficult to understand the difference?
I CAN for example, walk outside and pee in my neighbors yard. That doesn't mean that I won't get punished for it (should the police come, or my neighbor step outside).
Additionally, the judge ordered them not to until the case in the US is settled. After that, they can do whatever they want. It wasn't overruled, or invalidated, or did he say what the German courts can or can't do. The judge saw it as extortion, or coercion, and that IS ILLEGAL IN THE UNITED STATES. It doesn't matter that it happened in another country. You can't have a senator and a business man take a trip to europe, and then all of a sudden bribes are ok because it technically happened in another country. A company doing business in the US must abide by US law. Just like any company doing business in another country must abide by their law.
Although there are multiple sources on the last one, some of which make varying claims. Some claim that google refused to do it, others claim that google wanted apple to include latitude (a different google product), the ability to display ads, and the ability to track iOS users. While they aren't required to provide anything at all, it is definitely bad faith since they already had the code base and back end capable of doing so, they wanted to give Android a better map. It wasn't about the code, the work, or the complexity. Apple at one point (allegedly) even offered to pay to have them do it, and it was out right refused.
Basically said they can't enforce the ban they won in Germany. If that's not the definition of overruling, I guess I'm confused.
You are confused. They CAN, and it would remain legal in Germany, however, they were ordered not to. Overruling would be invalidating the decision made by the German courts (which was predicated on possibly invalid assumptions) and seen by the court as extortion, which is still illegal in the United States.
AC not knowing jack about what they are talking about, not surprised.
Show me a connection in which you've achieved under any circumstance a 2.5% overhead, including TCP (and therefore implied IP). Best most networks can achieve is 5.1%, and most can't get better than 7%.
No, because there is no simple way to account for overhead. Your overhead % may not be my overhead %. Overhead could be anywhere from 5% (at best) to way over 15000% at worst.
Of course the opposite is true as well. If you pack 1000 pounds of beef into 1000 crates, and each crate adds 25% to the total weight and you ask UPS to ship it, they aren't going to quote you a price based on the 1000 pounds of beef, it's on the 1250 pounds of crates you gave them.
The FCC needs to step in a setup rules for speed/caps, etc
The same FCC that said anything over 128kbps was "broiadband" until recently (did they actually ever change that?). Yeah, I can see how well that would work. HELL NO!
Unfortunately, it would be near impossible to count application-layer traffic. Each application does (can) have it's data encapsulated differently, and I doubt you really want AT&T to start building application level sniffers to be able to correctly detect the payload.
Being fairly knowledgeable about networks myself, the only fair thing to do is to count the data your stuff actually asks to be sent or someone else sends to you. That includes all the encapsulation, headers, ACKs etc. AT&T is and should remain a dumb pipe just sending and receiving what it is asked to with out trying to dig into the packets in order to try and determine what is actually being sent/received. They have no control over misconfigured networks or machines doing crazy things like dropping the maximum packet size to something absurdly small because someone ran some free "internet tuning" software.
Sorry, I forgot to mention the ACK packets as well. Sending one keystroke per packet (like telnet might), would send 1 byte in a packet with 52+ bytes of overhead, then the receiver would send back an ACK packet that's 52+ bytes back.
*Packet sizes vary depending on whether you are using IPv4, IPv6, vlan tags, options set, timestamps, and the physical media layer being transmitted over. I used 1500 as the maximum packet size, but that ignores the possibility of a different default, jumbo packets, and if a packets is broken up into smaller packets on the way. There is possible others as well, but those are the most common variants.
Sure, depending on the type of traffic. Anything from 5.08% to 5500% (Actually, it could be worse, if you only send one character every 2 hours or so causing a tcp connect, send 1 byte, almost timeout causing a keepalive packet to be sent, then disconnect handshake, rinse repeat) could be "realistic".
Although, I suspect that tomato actually counts the TCP headers as traffic, and I'm more likely to suspect that AT&T counts each packet as 1500 bytes regardless of how much data is actually in it (or perhaps they are rounding packet sizes up to the nearest 64/128/256 bytes).
First, the Wisconsin judge didn't overrule any court in Germany, nor does he have the authority to do so. He can however forbid google from starting another case in another jurisdiction to try and extort a company with a pending case in his jurisdiction.
Secondly, Germany did not make an any initial ruling. As part of cases, judges can put a TEMPORARY ban on products that are part of a patent suit to make sure that they don't infringe. Making one of these temporary bans is not a ruling, and the judge does not have to make any preliminary decision on whether anyone is guilty in order to enforce it.
Thirdly, google CAN bring that suit in Germany before the Wisconsin one is settled, and the courts there have every right to make their own independent verdict on their own case. I think you will find however, that the ramifications of google doing that would be detrimental to their goals. For example, the judge could order the ban of all google products in the US, fine them for ungodly amounts of money, break google up into teeny weeny pieces, or force the company closed or any of those.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why any developer worth their salt who wanted to use these features has been writing code like...
-webkit-border-radius: 4px; ...for the last few years
-moz-border-radius: 4px;
-o-border-radius: 4px;
border-radius: 4px;
Um... No, any developer worth their salt who wanted to use these features has been writing code like...
-moz-border-radius: 4px;
-ms-border-radius: 4px;
-o-border-radius: 4px;
-webkit-border-radius: 4px;
border-radius: 4px;
Just saying...
How about you JUST WRITE STANDARD-COMPLIANT CODE, AND STOP FUCKING WORRYING ABOUT WHAT IT'S BEING VIEWED ON?!?!?!?!?!?
Because the current standard is HTML 4, and CSS 2.1, and they SUCK BALLS, and the design by commitee HTML 5 isn't slated to be ratified until late 2014, and who knows when CSS 3 will be, and some (most) of us needed it 8 years ago?
Please provide a link to the w3c recommendation for HTML 5, because I'm sure they would like have it themselves 2 years earlier than planned.
border-radius is part of the CSS Backgrounds and Borders Module of CSS 3, and as such, is still just a candidate recommendation -- hence is NOT a standard yet at least as of July 24, 2012.
http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/
We don't give them the privileges of an adult, so we have no business giving them the responsibilities either.
But we do sometimes give them the privileges of an adult. So your reasoning doesn't hold.
After this post, you can clearly see that netflix's stock dropped by $0.00000001 per share. GO spidercoz!
And THIS is why we need the government to install security cameras in everyone's home. To save the people from having to monitor themselves or their children. Isn't that the government mandate?
Bonus points if they can just install a V-CHIP into all children's brains to not only monitor their behavior, but to actually alter it so that they can conform to being good passive citizens!
You are right, in more oppressive societies, the government would just have them killed. Yay, rest of the world!
Get their mail delivered to a PO Box.
It can be cheaper! See the painting contractor actually bought paint sprayers instead of using an old fashioned brush. Of course it's not going to be cheaper if all you do is paint one house, but it allows the contractor to use 1/4th the man hours in actually doing the paint work. He can pass on these savings through lower costs than if you did it yourself.
Now it doesn't always work out that way, but it can, and sometimes does. Outsourcing/contracting isn't always the correct answer, but sometimes it really is.
It matters because:
1) Many people still use IE.
2) Google/Facebook only support the last 2 versions of IE, so when IE 10 comes out, they will drop support for IE 8.
3) We only support the browsers that google & facebook support, so we no longer need to support IE 8. We are now an IE 9+/Firefox/webkit shop.
That depends in how you think about things.
1) google, Motorola, and Microsoft are all American companies.
2) they have a case pending in his court room.
3) no matter the source, medium, or location, it is illegal to extort someone on a case to try and settle it.
4) regardless of what was done, google was applying pressure on Microsoft HERE to settle the case here out of court.
5) the fact that google did something that by itself was completely legal does not make the fact that doing it in the context and in coordination of the current case was illegal.
Now while I use the term extortion, IANAL. The actual charge(s) would likely be numerous and use different terms. Witness tampering, extortion, obstruction of justice, etc may all be valid charges, and they all say what google did was illegal.
I think I've made it pretty clear. If you don't understand it, I can't help you and I'm glad you are not a lawyer either because its not all that complicated.
Erm, no. I don't think you know what the word means, either basically, or when used in telecommunications. The ITU defined it as being 1Mbit/sec back in 1988, while the FCC defined it as being 128kbit/s up until the year 2000 or so just so they could claim how fast broadband was available in different markets. Have you tried browsing the web at 128kbit/s? I did, way back before the the FCC ever got involved by bonding multiple overclocked 56k modems. It sucked then, it would have sucked even more 10 years later.
Is it difficult to understand the difference between can and if you do, you will be punished for it? Is it difficult to understand the difference?
I CAN for example, walk outside and pee in my neighbors yard. That doesn't mean that I won't get punished for it (should the police come, or my neighbor step outside).
Additionally, the judge ordered them not to until the case in the US is settled. After that, they can do whatever they want. It wasn't overruled, or invalidated, or did he say what the German courts can or can't do. The judge saw it as extortion, or coercion, and that IS ILLEGAL IN THE UNITED STATES. It doesn't matter that it happened in another country. You can't have a senator and a business man take a trip to europe, and then all of a sudden bribes are ok because it technically happened in another country. A company doing business in the US must abide by US law. Just like any company doing business in another country must abide by their law.
Sure...
Sue companies for using h.264 patents they hold?
http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/26/motorola-scales-back-itc-case-against-xbox/
Track everything everyone does online?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/google-tracks-consumers-across-products-users-cant-opt-out/2012/01/24/gIQArgJHOQ_story.html
Circumvent the privacy settings in safari to track people online?
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/10/business/la-fi-google-ftc-20120810
Refuse to integrate turn by turn navigation on the iDevices to try and keep android relevant?
http://www.webpronews.com/google-maps-out-of-ios-6-over-voice-navigation-dispute-sources-say-2012-09
Although there are multiple sources on the last one, some of which make varying claims. Some claim that google refused to do it, others claim that google wanted apple to include latitude (a different google product), the ability to display ads, and the ability to track iOS users. While they aren't required to provide anything at all, it is definitely bad faith since they already had the code base and back end capable of doing so, they wanted to give Android a better map. It wasn't about the code, the work, or the complexity. Apple at one point (allegedly) even offered to pay to have them do it, and it was out right refused.
Basically said they can't enforce the ban they won in Germany. If that's not the definition of overruling, I guess I'm confused.
You are confused. They CAN, and it would remain legal in Germany, however, they were ordered not to. Overruling would be invalidating the decision made by the German courts (which was predicated on possibly invalid assumptions) and seen by the court as extortion, which is still illegal in the United States.
2.5-5% would be for local communication
AC not knowing jack about what they are talking about, not surprised.
Show me a connection in which you've achieved under any circumstance a 2.5% overhead, including TCP (and therefore implied IP). Best most networks can achieve is 5.1%, and most can't get better than 7%.
No, because there is no simple way to account for overhead. Your overhead % may not be my overhead %. Overhead could be anywhere from 5% (at best) to way over 15000% at worst.
Of course the opposite is true as well. If you pack 1000 pounds of beef into 1000 crates, and each crate adds 25% to the total weight and you ask UPS to ship it, they aren't going to quote you a price based on the 1000 pounds of beef, it's on the 1250 pounds of crates you gave them.
The FCC needs to step in a setup rules for speed/caps, etc
The same FCC that said anything over 128kbps was "broiadband" until recently (did they actually ever change that?). Yeah, I can see how well that would work. HELL NO!
Unfortunately, it would be near impossible to count application-layer traffic. Each application does (can) have it's data encapsulated differently, and I doubt you really want AT&T to start building application level sniffers to be able to correctly detect the payload.
Being fairly knowledgeable about networks myself, the only fair thing to do is to count the data your stuff actually asks to be sent or someone else sends to you. That includes all the encapsulation, headers, ACKs etc. AT&T is and should remain a dumb pipe just sending and receiving what it is asked to with out trying to dig into the packets in order to try and determine what is actually being sent/received. They have no control over misconfigured networks or machines doing crazy things like dropping the maximum packet size to something absurdly small because someone ran some free "internet tuning" software.
Sorry, I forgot to mention the ACK packets as well. Sending one keystroke per packet (like telnet might), would send 1 byte in a packet with 52+ bytes of overhead, then the receiver would send back an ACK packet that's 52+ bytes back.
*Packet sizes vary depending on whether you are using IPv4, IPv6, vlan tags, options set, timestamps, and the physical media layer being transmitted over. I used 1500 as the maximum packet size, but that ignores the possibility of a different default, jumbo packets, and if a packets is broken up into smaller packets on the way. There is possible others as well, but those are the most common variants.
Is 20-30% A realistic estimation of TCP headers?
Sure, depending on the type of traffic. Anything from 5.08% to 5500% (Actually, it could be worse, if you only send one character every 2 hours or so causing a tcp connect, send 1 byte, almost timeout causing a keepalive packet to be sent, then disconnect handshake, rinse repeat) could be "realistic".
Although, I suspect that tomato actually counts the TCP headers as traffic, and I'm more likely to suspect that AT&T counts each packet as 1500 bytes regardless of how much data is actually in it (or perhaps they are rounding packet sizes up to the nearest 64/128/256 bytes).
Umm... No.
First, the Wisconsin judge didn't overrule any court in Germany, nor does he have the authority to do so. He can however forbid google from starting another case in another jurisdiction to try and extort a company with a pending case in his jurisdiction.
Secondly, Germany did not make an any initial ruling. As part of cases, judges can put a TEMPORARY ban on products that are part of a patent suit to make sure that they don't infringe. Making one of these temporary bans is not a ruling, and the judge does not have to make any preliminary decision on whether anyone is guilty in order to enforce it.
Thirdly, google CAN bring that suit in Germany before the Wisconsin one is settled, and the courts there have every right to make their own independent verdict on their own case. I think you will find however, that the ramifications of google doing that would be detrimental to their goals. For example, the judge could order the ban of all google products in the US, fine them for ungodly amounts of money, break google up into teeny weeny pieces, or force the company closed or any of those.
Sue companies for using h.264 patents they hold?
Track everything everyone does online?
Circumvent the privacy settings in safari to track people online?
Refuse to integrate turn by turn navigation on the iDevices to try and keep android relevant?
I'm sure there is a ton more.