That way you're not just linking, your embedding documents and parts of documents. When the remote content is updated, your local content is updated. No "invisible links" to follow.
Even in the "Nerds 2.0" movie (that was what....13 years ago?) He was claiming that Hypertext was what the web should have been.
It must be frustrating to have a great, though complex, idea that gets poorly implemented and looses to a simple idea that changes the world.
It's not his vision that snowballed, and therefore he can't comprehend how a trillion dollar industry is thriving without his help. He may be brilliant, but he doesn't have the common sense to figure that out.
There is not a user on this board that does not have faith - at some level - in science and scientist. That does not mean that science is a religion.
The faith that we have is that the "scientist" are honest, diligent, and correct. We have faith that if they are wrong, sooner or later, the truth will come out and the "science" will be adjusted.
We *know* that if we want to, we can recreate experiments and "prove" that a previous experiment was correct (granted it may take a lifetime of learning, and it may take a ton of money, and tons of sacrifice - but the option is there). Or we can just have faith in the original execution (or faith in those who did the validation).
There are areas in "science" where all we have is faith. String Theory for instance. Maybe it will be proven correct. Maybe it will be replaced by a better (testable) theory. But if you believe it, it's only because you have faith in it. There are no testable experiments - just untested theories and hypothesis. Big Bang? Not currently provable. Absolutely science based. Absolutely takes faith to believe it's true. Might be a really good guess - a great theory - but not - currently - provable.
What we as scientist and science consumers must always remember - publications need to make money, man is not infallible, greed exists, prestige is desirable, misunderstanding are rampant, and most of all - it's okay NOT to believe what you read.
"...Lab have found a 'suspicious bump' in their data that ***could*** indicate they've found a new elementary particle....This discovery comes as the Tevatron is slated to go offline sometime in September...."
IF news outlets can't make money, then eventually there is no need to be a news outlet. IF enough news organizations fail, then there will be a demand for GOOD journalism. When the demand is there, the money will be there, and paywalls will make good sense.
BUT not now. Right now we've got every broadcast and cable news outlet flooding the Internet with news content. Some of it is even decent coverage. So as long as there is a decent option for free news, then paywalls are irrelevant.
That means paywall promoters need to wait another 15 years (or however long existing news outlets can bleed money) OR they will learn how to make money without charging for News.
If you launch from 20 miles up - basically to the point where there aerodynamics starts to become irrelevant, how much could you then save on the size of rocket/amount of fuel needed to reach orbit - or the moon? Clearly not a new or startling idea, but any numbers on what a floating launch pad would buy you? (assuming the capability having a strong enough / lighter than-air launch pad (i.e. launch pad supported by large helium / hydrogen balloons).
"...AT&T made deals concerning devices with guaranteed lacking features. circumventing those guarantees violate all infrastructure designs based on them...."
I have no problem with that. I have a problem with them marketing this as an "unlimited data plan" (or anything that conveys the belief that their plan is unlimited) That is blatant false advertisement.
I would love to see it. If nothing else just so they stop using the word "unlimited" when they really mean "a high cap that most of our customers can deal with - and with limited use".
"...I thought we were against tiered data plans?..." This is a Net Neutrality misnomer, and a product of a press industry that couldn't wrap their head around the issue.
There has always been tiered data plans (dialup vs DSL vs Cable vs T1 vs FiOS.....)
Net Neutrality is all-about charging for bytes - not charging for what the Bytes represent. Hence "neutral".
It makes sense to charge for through-put. You push more data, you pay for more data. What Net Neutrality advocates DON'T want is for the ISP to say "We'll charge you $20/GB/Month for text data and $50/GB/Month for video data and you can't hook up a video phone and you can't hook up a router and you can't hook up your network to a video game console - unless it's a console that we approve......"
Packet inspection and routing/pricing based on content is what Net Neutrality advocates are against.
In the Mobile Internet arena there is the additional desire to clarify the word "unlimited". Where consumers think "unlimited" means "unlimited" and network operators think "unlimited" means "reasonable" (where the operator defines what "reasonable" is).
"...The fact that you're getting a free phone in exchange for paying thousands of dollars..." "...Americans also regularly pay over $100 per month for cable TV... " "...Indeed, how do Americans fall for this stuff..." "...Are we really just that dumb?..."
"...I don't think it has anything to do with intelligence....Of course, it doesn't help that a lot of Americans are simply unaware of what goes on elsewhere.."
Yes. American's are dumb. (speaking as an American)
The idea of keeping colonist alive requires them either being self-sufficient or having access to sufficient food/water/shelter.
If they can't get things working in a self-sufficient manor, then they become a 50 year investment. Some politician at some point will consider them expendable and cut funding.
"...and no space exploration outside of LEO will achieve that...."
Isn't getting off the Earth the biggest / most expensive hurdle? Seems to me that it would be "easier" to design space craft to fly through the solar system than it would be to design launch and recover systems.
Because of NASA we know how to do it, and we know that it can be done. With a Cruise ship waiting for passengers there would be a reason to get people off the Earth in a repeatable/ safe(ish) / cost effective way. (As opposed to "failure is not an option in our quest for pure research" that NASA embodies)
Seems to me that once the taxi (cruise ship) of the solar system exists, there will be a number of groups investing in ways to get people there.
"....The executives want no employees, yet still want a mass market they can sell to and get big salaries themselves...."
What exactly is wrong with that?
Are you under the impression that companies are in business for the good of their employee's? Ha! Sorry the wake up call was so disturbing.
Look at it this way. Say you have an opportunity to run a company. What are you going to do?
I know what I would do: Automate where I can automate. If I can write a script to replace a person doing data entry - damn straight I'm going to write the script and get rid of the data-entry person. Even if it costs me $30k to have the script written - the end results is $20K annual savings - AND IT SCALES!
To what end? To no end. If I could run a multi-billion dollar company with 5 employees - call me a fascist money grubbing SOB. I'm doing it! It's not even a question.
To debug the live environment you need to rely on logging. The problem is mutli-fold when you have multiple database with multiple versions (live, staging, production) or maybe a "web services" server that is separate from your app server. It is no doubt easier - and often quicker to debug on the live server.
The problem is that you run the risk of introducing temporary or permanent side-effects that may not be obvious at first. Now you have two (or more problems) that "can't be recreated in development".
At the very least, debug by proxy. Even then this is sloppy - but at least your changes are being tracked (assuming you use version control software to move you code from development/staging to production.)
If your app is not critical - the motivation may not be there. If there is a risk of people dying or going to jail because of a "code fix gone awry" you might have so much anxiety that you'll never want to touch production.
For a small web company developing "brochure-ware" - probably more efficient.
For a small team it's ideal to have individual sandboxes - with one sandbox listed as "staging". Assign the lead developer to turnover code to production. Individual developers have access but are told not to touch anything. They will typically sift through live environment making sure it matches what is in their sandbox, looking at logs, etc.
For a mid-size team you need one person for maintenance (which includes monitoring nightly builds, responding to code turnover requests, managing automated testing). Even more critical if the code you write is compiled, fragile, or highly sensitive. - Individual developers don't have access to the live box - maybe the team lead will.
For large teams or small team "units" part of a large production shop : Several layers of "staging and testing" will exist. Code turnovers are mostly automated. Developers don't have access. Automated rollbacks are possible from a robust code management system.
The key is discipline. If you find yourself modifying live code - you're not disciplined. It means you're not willing to insert logging code and would rather pollute the production environment. There should never be a need to copy from production back to a sandbox (that is what version control software is for!) And version control files should never live on the production server (i.e. in Subversion you never do a checkout of code on the production server - you do an export instead).
Even with controls in place, there may be a tendency to "develop on production by proxy". Which means instead of re-creating the problem in development, the developer is saying "here try this, here try this, here try this". The team lead should recognize this and put a stop to it.
Syntactically PHP is actually a lot more like C/C++ than it is like Perl. It's basically a typeless "C/C++". It had a huge following because you could easily pepper HTML with embedded scripting - and hosting companies could offer PHP because it made for a convenient and sandbox. Yes you could easily kill a PHP script - but the PHP executable has always been stable (I've never seen the executable itself crash - nor have I ever seen PHP crash Apache or the OS - and I've been developing in PHP for 10 years now).
I know I'm in the minority, but I came from C/C++ / Comp Sci background. After years of Motif programming I found PHP a real joy. I no longer had to solve programming language problems (memory management, garbage collection, STL template integration, etc). I just had to solve for the solution of the real problem.
I think most "real developers" don't like PHP because it seems too easy. If you don't find it liberating you find it frustrating that you've spent so much of your life searching out malloc bugs - and anything that trivializes your agony is assumed to simply not be that powerful.
Aside from image manipulation (2d/3d), there have been few problems that I've encountered on either the front or back-end that I couldn't solve in PHP that would have been easy (or even easier) to solve in another language. Typically the real problems - like large (millions of records) iterations, searching, or merges are easily solved by letting the database do it's job.
It's true that there exists a huge nest of bad code written in PHP. I've never understood this as an argument against the language however. The person stating the fact usually claims that they are a "real" programmer - if so - then why is it that difficult to discipline yourself to write good code? Taking the simple approach of following a basic MVP paradigm (with or without a formal framework) solves 90% of the rat's nest issues that encompass the "bad" PHP code. PHP can be as structured and well written as any language - it just takes a (very little) bit of discipline.
The Internet indeed does forget. Even the WayBack Machine can't help with everything.
Race results, runs, swims, triathlons, etc, quite often are only displayed through a database lookup. The caching engines that are simply following links have little hope in finding content that require POST style lookups.
I've had some success finding results from "wayback" if I can remember the race name and it happened to have it's own website (which not all races did in the mid 90's - some still don't). But for those races where all I have are vague memories of running a "5k somewhere in Denver in the 90's" - the Internet doesn't seem to remember any better than I do.
Slashdot Mirror
Add "src" to all HTML tags (not just img and object tags):
/>
<p src='http://someRemoteContent/page/#anchorToEmbed'
That way you're not just linking, your embedding documents and parts of documents. When the remote content is updated, your local content is updated. No "invisible links" to follow.
Done. Now where are my $Billions?
-CF
This is exactly right.
Even in the "Nerds 2.0" movie (that was what....13 years ago?) He was claiming that Hypertext was what the web should have been.
It must be frustrating to have a great, though complex, idea that gets poorly implemented and looses to a simple idea that changes the world.
It's not his vision that snowballed, and therefore he can't comprehend how a trillion dollar industry is thriving without his help. He may be brilliant, but he doesn't have the common sense to figure that out.
-CF
There is not a user on this board that does not have faith - at some level - in science and scientist. That does not mean that science is a religion.
The faith that we have is that the "scientist" are honest, diligent, and correct. We have faith that if they are wrong, sooner or later, the truth will come out and the "science" will be adjusted.
We *know* that if we want to, we can recreate experiments and "prove" that a previous experiment was correct (granted it may take a lifetime of learning, and it may take a ton of money, and tons of sacrifice - but the option is there). Or we can just have faith in the original execution (or faith in those who did the validation).
There are areas in "science" where all we have is faith. String Theory for instance. Maybe it will be proven correct. Maybe it will be replaced by a better (testable) theory. But if you believe it, it's only because you have faith in it. There are no testable experiments - just untested theories and hypothesis. Big Bang? Not currently provable. Absolutely science based. Absolutely takes faith to believe it's true. Might be a really good guess - a great theory - but not - currently - provable.
What we as scientist and science consumers must always remember - publications need to make money, man is not infallible, greed exists, prestige is desirable, misunderstanding are rampant, and most of all - it's okay NOT to believe what you read.
-CF
"...Lab have found a 'suspicious bump' in their data that ***could*** indicate they've found a new elementary particle....This discovery comes as the Tevatron is slated to go offline sometime in September...."
How convenient.
-CF
Damn.... My mod points expired yesterday. I would have given you all of them. Definitely sums it up very succinctly.
-CF
By stopping it at its source. So shutdown the NYTimes twitter account - that way there will be no way to re-tweet it.
-CF
Here's the deal,
IF news outlets can't make money, then eventually there is no need to be a news outlet. IF enough news organizations fail, then there will be a demand for GOOD journalism. When the demand is there, the money will be there, and paywalls will make good sense.
BUT not now. Right now we've got every broadcast and cable news outlet flooding the Internet with news content. Some of it is even decent coverage. So as long as there is a decent option for free news, then paywalls are irrelevant.
That means paywall promoters need to wait another 15 years (or however long existing news outlets can bleed money) OR they will learn how to make money without charging for News.
-CF
If you launch from 20 miles up - basically to the point where there aerodynamics starts to become irrelevant, how much could you then save on the size of rocket/amount of fuel needed to reach orbit - or the moon? Clearly not a new or startling idea, but any numbers on what a floating launch pad would buy you? (assuming the capability having a strong enough / lighter than-air launch pad (i.e. launch pad supported by large helium / hydrogen balloons).
-CF
"...AT&T made deals concerning devices with guaranteed lacking features. circumventing those guarantees violate all infrastructure designs based on them...."
I have no problem with that. I have a problem with them marketing this as an "unlimited data plan" (or anything that conveys the belief that their plan is unlimited) That is blatant false advertisement.
-CF
I would love to see it. If nothing else just so they stop using the word "unlimited" when they really mean "a high cap that most of our customers can deal with - and with limited use".
-CF
"...I thought we were against tiered data plans?..." This is a Net Neutrality misnomer, and a product of a press industry that couldn't wrap their head around the issue.
.....)
There has always been tiered data plans (dialup vs DSL vs Cable vs T1 vs FiOS
Net Neutrality is all-about charging for bytes - not charging for what the Bytes represent. Hence "neutral".
It makes sense to charge for through-put. You push more data, you pay for more data. What Net Neutrality advocates DON'T want is for the ISP to say "We'll charge you $20/GB/Month for text data and $50/GB/Month for video data and you can't hook up a video phone and you can't hook up a router and you can't hook up your network to a video game console - unless it's a console that we approve......"
Packet inspection and routing/pricing based on content is what Net Neutrality advocates are against.
In the Mobile Internet arena there is the additional desire to clarify the word "unlimited". Where consumers think "unlimited" means "unlimited" and network operators think "unlimited" means "reasonable" (where the operator defines what "reasonable" is).
-CF
"...The fact that you're getting a free phone in exchange for paying thousands of dollars..." ..."
"...Americans also regularly pay over $100 per month for cable TV... "
"...Indeed, how do Americans fall for this stuff
"...Are we really just that dumb?..."
Yes.
-CF
"...I don't think it has anything to do with intelligence....Of course, it doesn't help that a lot of Americans are simply unaware of what goes on elsewhere.."
Yes. American's are dumb. (speaking as an American)
-CF
There are billions and billions of habitable planets in an infinite universe.
(exaggerated paraphrase of mis-attributed quote of the One (Carl Sagan) MHRIP
-CF
"...They also mentioned it was more than just DNA (ATP was also mentioned, although they implied more)...."
What does "Asian Teen Porn" have to do with this?
The idea of keeping colonist alive requires them either being self-sufficient or having access to sufficient food/water/shelter.
If they can't get things working in a self-sufficient manor, then they become a 50 year investment. Some politician at some point will consider them expendable and cut funding.
Aside from that sounds like a great plan!
-CF
"...and no space exploration outside of LEO will achieve that...."
Isn't getting off the Earth the biggest / most expensive hurdle? Seems to me that it would be "easier" to design space craft to fly through the solar system than it would be to design launch and recover systems.
Because of NASA we know how to do it, and we know that it can be done. With a Cruise ship waiting for passengers there would be a reason to get people off the Earth in a repeatable/ safe(ish) / cost effective way. (As opposed to "failure is not an option in our quest for pure research" that NASA embodies)
Seems to me that once the taxi (cruise ship) of the solar system exists, there will be a number of groups investing in ways to get people there.
Build the infrastructure... they will come...
-CF
"....The executives want no employees, yet still want a mass market they can sell to and get big salaries themselves...."
What exactly is wrong with that?
Are you under the impression that companies are in business for the good of their employee's? Ha! Sorry the wake up call was so disturbing.
Look at it this way. Say you have an opportunity to run a company. What are you going to do?
I know what I would do: Automate where I can automate. If I can write a script to replace a person doing data entry - damn straight I'm going to write the script and get rid of the data-entry person. Even if it costs me $30k to have the script written - the end results is $20K annual savings - AND IT SCALES!
To what end? To no end. If I could run a multi-billion dollar company with 5 employees - call me a fascist money grubbing SOB. I'm doing it! It's not even a question.
-CF
"Duke Nukem"
forever back in development
-CF
"On average we get attacked between 7000 and 9000 times per second.'"
Why is the average a range? Why not just say "On average we get attacked 8000 times per second.'"
Or are they just making stuff up?
-CF
To debug the live environment you need to rely on logging. The problem is mutli-fold when you have multiple database with multiple versions (live, staging, production) or maybe a "web services" server that is separate from your app server. It is no doubt easier - and often quicker to debug on the live server.
The problem is that you run the risk of introducing temporary or permanent side-effects that may not be obvious at first. Now you have two (or more problems) that "can't be recreated in development".
At the very least, debug by proxy. Even then this is sloppy - but at least your changes are being tracked (assuming you use version control software to move you code from development/staging to production.)
If your app is not critical - the motivation may not be there. If there is a risk of people dying or going to jail because of a "code fix gone awry" you might have so much anxiety that you'll never want to touch production.
-CF
For a one man show the answer is self evident.
For a small web company developing "brochure-ware" - probably more efficient.
For a small team it's ideal to have individual sandboxes - with one sandbox listed as "staging". Assign the lead developer to turnover code to production. Individual developers have access but are told not to touch anything. They will typically sift through live environment making sure it matches what is in their sandbox, looking at logs, etc.
For a mid-size team you need one person for maintenance (which includes monitoring nightly builds, responding to code turnover requests, managing automated testing). Even more critical if the code you write is compiled, fragile, or highly sensitive. - Individual developers don't have access to the live box - maybe the team lead will.
For large teams or small team "units" part of a large production shop : Several layers of "staging and testing" will exist. Code turnovers are mostly automated. Developers don't have access. Automated rollbacks are possible from a robust code management system.
The key is discipline. If you find yourself modifying live code - you're not disciplined. It means you're not willing to insert logging code and would rather pollute the production environment. There should never be a need to copy from production back to a sandbox (that is what version control software is for!) And version control files should never live on the production server (i.e. in Subversion you never do a checkout of code on the production server - you do an export instead).
Even with controls in place, there may be a tendency to "develop on production by proxy". Which means instead of re-creating the problem in development, the developer is saying "here try this, here try this, here try this". The team lead should recognize this and put a stop to it.
-CF
Syntactically PHP is actually a lot more like C/C++ than it is like Perl. It's basically a typeless "C/C++". It had a huge following because you could easily pepper HTML with embedded scripting - and hosting companies could offer PHP because it made for a convenient and sandbox. Yes you could easily kill a PHP script - but the PHP executable has always been stable (I've never seen the executable itself crash - nor have I ever seen PHP crash Apache or the OS - and I've been developing in PHP for 10 years now).
I know I'm in the minority, but I came from C/C++ / Comp Sci background. After years of Motif programming I found PHP a real joy. I no longer had to solve programming language problems (memory management, garbage collection, STL template integration, etc). I just had to solve for the solution of the real problem.
I think most "real developers" don't like PHP because it seems too easy. If you don't find it liberating you find it frustrating that you've spent so much of your life searching out malloc bugs - and anything that trivializes your agony is assumed to simply not be that powerful.
Aside from image manipulation (2d/3d), there have been few problems that I've encountered on either the front or back-end that I couldn't solve in PHP that would have been easy (or even easier) to solve in another language. Typically the real problems - like large (millions of records) iterations, searching, or merges are easily solved by letting the database do it's job.
It's true that there exists a huge nest of bad code written in PHP. I've never understood this as an argument against the language however. The person stating the fact usually claims that they are a "real" programmer - if so - then why is it that difficult to discipline yourself to write good code? Taking the simple approach of following a basic MVP paradigm (with or without a formal framework) solves 90% of the rat's nest issues that encompass the "bad" PHP code. PHP can be as structured and well written as any language - it just takes a (very little) bit of discipline.
-CF
You win.
– Archer
Seriously - no Archer fans here? My god this so the Skytanic!
Danger zone anyone? Anyone?
-CF
The Internet indeed does forget. Even the WayBack Machine can't help with everything.
Race results, runs, swims, triathlons, etc, quite often are only displayed through a database lookup. The caching engines that are simply following links have little hope in finding content that require POST style lookups.
I've had some success finding results from "wayback" if I can remember the race name and it happened to have it's own website (which not all races did in the mid 90's - some still don't). But for those races where all I have are vague memories of running a "5k somewhere in Denver in the 90's" - the Internet doesn't seem to remember any better than I do.
-CF