Part of trying to save other species *is* a responsibility to save our own. We're all ultimately dependent on a functioning ecosystem.
Well pardon me if I find it hard to believe that giving human rights to a chimp living in a lab, would improve the ecosystem.
Sorry if I sound bitter, but I totally despise those "think of the children"-type arguments when they're unfounded.
What has saving the ecosystem with the question at hand? Further more, fine, we give all animals human rights. Will they also follow their obligations? Will they pay taxes, wil they be arrested for walking nude in public or something?
Animals aren't people, plain and simple. They may be quite similar to us, sentient, have feelings, ability to reason, all those things, but aren't people.
Your empathy and mine are placed on different subjects, you feel for possibly sentient beings which is commendable. I feel for beings known to be sentient beyond doubt.
No one who ever had a clue would doubt animals are sentient. It's more about being responsible to save your own species before saving someone else's.
Rats are also sentient, but if they cause damage in my house, I'd still poison them. Life is cruel, the better one survive, but.. please don't put it this low to doubt if mammals that share over 99% of your DNA and has almost the same processes inside their brain happening as yours, are sentient.
Being able to use complex language and write it down doesn't make you more sentient, just more able to express that you are.
Actually, Vista does that. An exploit running successfully in IE7 can just read/write some data in your temp folder and that's about it (this could also be potentially bad, but still much better than otherwise).
Ironically though they forgot to apply the same logic to some auxiliary applications, the browser can touch (such as the pointer...).
Wait, I take that back, from an article on the issue:
"Internet Explorer 7 in Protected Mode (available only in Windows Vista) mitigates this problem."
Hmm.. so Microsoft *did* it properly, after all. Great news for Vista users.
Well, as another poster already said, it would be best if untrusted applications (like web browsers) were run as a different user from your main account. The only way it could access your data would be to require a password for privilege escalation. Unfortunately I don't know of any OS that does this.
Actually, Vista does that. An exploit running successfully in IE7 can just read/write some data in your temp folder and that's about it (this could also be potentially bad, but still much better than otherwise).
Ironically though they forgot to apply the same logic to some auxiliary applications, the browser can touch (such as the pointer...).
May we have 32 days in March and then April, 2nd, please?
That's probably what they thought when introducing the daylight saving change "with a change in the calendar, we'll eradicate stupidity worldwide". Didn't work.
Maybe not, but reacting/responding solely to a headline without context does, in fact, require one to be stupid - a fool, even.
The fools are the people wasting their time to read the crap Slashdot feeds us, not just today, but every day.
I have better things to do with my time, so I'm banning it from my news sources. Honestly, I'm already so sick of arguing with kids and clarifying poorly written article summaries anyway.
If left to the majority of Slashdotters, Slashdot will feature daily joke articles, free porn (so they don't have to browse to another url), Vista rants, "Linux rules" pleads, and ton of Star Trek / dungeons and Dragons "news".
Wait, short of the porn, this is what you have already. Well on the track to perfection. Have fun.
No, but not understanding it's a joke does make you stupid. Sorry.
Have you heard that truth is stranger than fiction? Looks at the articles today. Those who are "in" on the jokes think mostly all articles are jokes (even those that are NOT), and someone who's not aware of this idiocy may accept the lies for truth.
If all our news sources were like that, then real news would be taken for a joke and people would be oblivious that they REALLY bought a deffective Nvidia.
If you can perfectly deduce if a news is joke or not, why do you need news at all, it's all perfectly predictable, isn't it. Oh mighty one.
I know, something untrue on the internet - frankly, I'm shocked.
There's lots of crap in the real world as well, not sure how this makes it ok to contribute to the problem.
Did you beat the little kids for money in school? Lots of other kids did it.
Never watch The Simpsons with suv4x4. Instead of enjoying a good show, suv4x4 will complain about Bart Simpson still looking 10 years old, even though he should be about 30 years old by now (debut on Tracy Ullman show in 1987).
I wonder how many more years it'll take YOU to grow older than 10 year old. The Simpsons isn't aired during CNN Breaking News report, there's no deception.
But explaining the difference to a 10 year old is tough.
The editors clearly think that it is funny. That's kinda sad. My April 1st is always "Day Without Slashdot Day" brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department.
You know, how about taking the next step and making your year "year without slashdot year". Making a decent news site today isn't that hard. If Slashdot's editor aren't mature enough to handle such a basic, maybe we should try to make it on our own.
I got the domain and I'm halfway through coding it:P/not mentioning the name as it'll look like a plug/
I know this is April Fool's and all, and it looks like this year we were spared the pink ponies, but isn't this a tad close to starting a harmful rumor? People are stupid, and nVidia is a publicly traded company. I think there's enough crap to make fun of without having to resort to this type of thing? Just IMO.
You know, expecting real news on a news site doesn't make you stupid.
What makes you stupid is posting lies on your news site just because it's "April's Fool's day" or something of that sort.
And what the hell do we read "slashdottit" like"? Slash Dot... Tit?
Merged the $ and $$ selectors, I dropped the "enumerator" extensions, I altered the way classes are created and so on.. But why are you so intensively interested in what I changed:D
FYI I change things as I suffer mild to moderate NIH syndrome:P I just see a better/more standard way to do something and prefer doing it this way. Prototype is trying too much to copy other languages which I do not care about.
Agreed.I've never been a big fan of USB. The concept is fantastic, a unified connector that links just about any device to any other and can charge them is a great idea. However I am still bitter the Firewire lost out.
I'm not aware of a major standard failing in the past because some random guy (sorry, no offense) was "bitter".
Things change, embrace the, don't reject them. USB is better than Firewire because it's so much simpler to implement (and cheaper). This the actual reason why newer iPods dropped Firewire connectors in favor of exclusive USB connectors.
The electronics required by USB take less space, and are cheaper, and do their job. End of story.
The marketplace demands easy OSes so they can go about wasting their time with bad website UI. Duh.
The market's a tough place. You can be literally the best programmer in the world, but your chances of being hired drop dramatically if you show up on your interview unshaven, dirty, smelly, in your pajamas, and start with: "Hey, is it ok if I fart here, 'cause... Oh wait, too late now".
I'm really not sure how this makes sense given the rise and rise of multi-core CPUs (which are fantastic at image processing).
Those online apps actually *do* use your CPU. You don't think every brush stroke is sent to a server and back in realtime I suppose.
Models like Picassa and others which have a download to the machine make more sense as they don't require you to buy a massive amount of server hardware to support your business model.
Sorry I've just realised... its Web 2.0 bubble isn't it, it has to be in the browser because otherwise its not cool.
The huge benefit of an online app, is you can run it immediately without installation on any computer, anywhere. There are plenty of reasons why you may not want to install an app.
It may be a one-shot: you need it once to tweak a photo on the go, and don't need it anymore. Or you don't want to pollute the computer of a friend with garbage apps he won't use. Or you may not be *allowed* to install anything.
Flash 9 runs on OSX, Windows and Linux, all of those are Flash based editors. They do not try to *replace* desktop apps, but are targeting a niche that grows everyday: casual consumers, pro-sumers and mobile users.
Regarding innovations, there are two kinds of people: those throwing themselves at every fad and trying everything that's "new". And those that just sit bitter aside and comment on how stupid the rest are.
The latter usually end up doing nothing. I'm not sure how this is better than throwing yourself in the bubble.
And I thought the iPhone was gonna be a flop... but now that John Dvorak says so, I *must* be wrong.
You wish it was that simple didn't you:)? The guy's wrong most of the time because he intentionally says ridiculous things, but truth is, he's as clueless as any random jerk out there.
For what we know, iPhone success has nothing to do with Dvorak posting crap. Dvorak never ever mattered for anything.
This is the second post I've seen along these lines and I'm beginning to think people really don't understand what software is or how processors work... Even in the slightest.
It's probably the second post you've seen you didn't understand, as nothing in your reply relates to what I said at all.:P
By the way I'm a programmer, and former assembly programmer, I know how threading works, in the slightest, at least, that is.
The code *I write* doesn't have case statements in it that switch behavior by browser.
You know I refuse to accept you're having sufficient experience with any of this if you'll be talking to me that you must absolutely have browser detection code branching to NEED to test in different browsers.
I've seen my share of out-of-nowhere bugs in browsers trying to interpret code they normally support but fail to render properly, including stuff like Firefox improperly rendering the DOM tree if you nest relative and absolute positions in a certain way and modify it in a certain way with JS (really I have concrete description but too long, never mind), or Opera rendering improperly its scrollbars in scrollable areas setup in a certain way. In all clean, validating, no-weird-hacks-and-tricks code.
As about the collective GWT community producing more stable product across the popular browsers than I can alone, given few (infinite?:) ) iterations, even a monkey can code properly behaving code among the popular browsers. The question is HOW. Most open source projects I've inspected achieve compatibility with incredibly twisted and lame hacks and "patches" since the people who did those patches knew nothing better.
I use a very simple library which is a subset of Prototype (the popular JS library), and I'm consistently surprised that it behaves consistently in *new* versions of browsers I never tested in (virtually all sites I produced worked perfectly in IE7 when it came out without any changes).
The fact this happens doesn't mean I shouldn't test, because sooner or later something weird pops out and I have to be there to fix it. I take my job seriously.
Please look yourself in the mirror and say your organization is better than Google and the GWT community at understanding browser specific DHTML differneces.
You know, I'll accept the rest of your comments as I truly don't know GWT well enough to be certain. I evaluated it, saw sufficient hurdles in using it and rejected it.
However, I don't need to look in the mirror and practice self-help exercises to know the obvious. If you've ever inspected the code of the google pages (the main google search page, google news, gmail, google apps and so on), you'll easily recognize how poorly it is on not purely technical level. They freely mix deprecated HTML 3.2, HTML 4 and XHTML, tag cases and very frequently have just plain weird pieces of code that don't seem to serve any purpose.
Google's pages show thousands of validator errors, and while I'm not a "validatorian", and don't care much if you'll skip the alt tag on images if you'd leave it empty anyways, but Google is truly pushing it.
Google is rich, Google has the biggest expertise in the world crawling messy HTML code and extracting info and delivering relevant results.
But mirror or not, I, and thousands other developers are better at *writing* good and technically well-done sites, and don't need hacks (aka GWT) to do it better than Google can.
True, but until they fix it you can have you cake without buying it.
You know, it's not as if I'm dying to have Delphi for PHP. It's more like THEY dying for us to have it, like it, and finally buy it.
It's extremely hard to convince PHP developers, most of whom selected Apache/PHP because it's free, and Apache/PHP hosts cheap, to buy an app to do what they can do better with free IDE-s like Eclipse PDT.
I can see those being quite hot for servers, where running "many small" tasks is where the game is.
On a desktop PC you often need the focused application (say, some sort of graphical/audio editor, game, or just a very fancy flash web site even) to get most of the power of the CPU to render well.
If you split the speed potential in 16, would desktop users see actual speed benefit? They'll see increased responsiveness from the smoother multitasking of the more and more background tasks running on our everyday OS-es, but can a mostly single-task focused desktop usage really benefit?
How of course, we're witnessing ways to split concerns of a single task application into multiple threads: the new interface of Windows runs in a separate CPU thread and on the GPU, never mind if the app itself is single threaded or not. That's helping.
Still, serial programming is, and is going to be, prevalent for many many years to come, as most tasks a casual / consumer applications performs are inherently serial and not "paralelizable" or whatever that would be called.
My point being, I hope we'll still be getting *faster* threads, not just *more* threads. The situation now is that i's harder harder to communicate "hey we have only 1000 threads/cores unlike the competition which has 1 million, but we're faster!". It's just like AMD's tough position in the past, explaining their chips are faster despite having slower clock-rate.
1) As others have pointed out, they should be running on ESX to get best performance. 2) Physical machine was a dual-proc. How many processors did they assign to the VM? 3) Physical machine had 2GB memory. They assigned 2GB to the VM!! Vmware will take 256MB of this for itself, so that 2GB visible to Windows will be being swapped. 4) How many disks did the physical machine have, and what was on them? If e.g. the physical machine had two disks, the VM should have been given two disk files, with each file being placed on a different physical spindle.
You get the picture.
And still 43% performance drop-off is quite good for the kind of benefits virtualization gives. People pay way heftier performance penalties by using slow language (PHP), frameworks (Ruby On Rails) and plain coding poorly and not caching what is cacheable.
Ok, good. SUV matches the initials of my name, I don't drive a SUV, I drive a biodegradable bike that farts plant seeds, as I already pointed out in another post regarding powerful radars and confused whales.
Slashdot Mirror
Part of trying to save other species *is* a responsibility to save our own. We're all ultimately dependent on a functioning ecosystem.
Well pardon me if I find it hard to believe that giving human rights to a chimp living in a lab, would improve the ecosystem.
Sorry if I sound bitter, but I totally despise those "think of the children"-type arguments when they're unfounded.
What has saving the ecosystem with the question at hand? Further more, fine, we give all animals human rights. Will they also follow their obligations? Will they pay taxes, wil they be arrested for walking nude in public or something?
Animals aren't people, plain and simple. They may be quite similar to us, sentient, have feelings, ability to reason, all those things, but aren't people.
Your empathy and mine are placed on different subjects, you feel for possibly sentient beings which is commendable. I feel for beings known to be sentient beyond doubt.
.. please don't put it this low to doubt if mammals that share over 99% of your DNA and has almost the same processes inside their brain happening as yours, are sentient.
No one who ever had a clue would doubt animals are sentient. It's more about being responsible to save your own species before saving someone else's.
Rats are also sentient, but if they cause damage in my house, I'd still poison them. Life is cruel, the better one survive, but
Being able to use complex language and write it down doesn't make you more sentient, just more able to express that you are.
Actually, Vista does that. An exploit running successfully in IE7 can just read/write some data in your temp folder and that's about it (this could also be potentially bad, but still much better than otherwise).
Ironically though they forgot to apply the same logic to some auxiliary applications, the browser can touch (such as the pointer...).
Wait, I take that back, from an article on the issue:
"Internet Explorer 7 in Protected Mode (available only in Windows Vista) mitigates this problem."
Hmm.. so Microsoft *did* it properly, after all. Great news for Vista users.
Well, as another poster already said, it would be best if untrusted applications (like web browsers) were run as a different user from your main account. The only way it could access your data would be to require a password for privilege escalation. Unfortunately I don't know of any OS that does this.
Actually, Vista does that. An exploit running successfully in IE7 can just read/write some data in your temp folder and that's about it (this could also be potentially bad, but still much better than otherwise).
Ironically though they forgot to apply the same logic to some auxiliary applications, the browser can touch (such as the pointer...).
May we have 32 days in March and then April, 2nd, please?
That's probably what they thought when introducing the daylight saving change "with a change in the calendar, we'll eradicate stupidity worldwide". Didn't work.
The fools are the people wasting their time to read the crap Slashdot feeds us, not just today, but every day.
I have better things to do with my time, so I'm banning it from my news sources. Honestly, I'm already so sick of arguing with kids and clarifying poorly written article summaries anyway.
If left to the majority of Slashdotters, Slashdot will feature daily joke articles, free porn (so they don't have to browse to another url), Vista rants, "Linux rules" pleads, and ton of Star Trek / dungeons and Dragons "news".
Wait, short of the porn, this is what you have already. Well on the track to perfection. Have fun.
No, but not understanding it's a joke does make you stupid. Sorry.
Have you heard that truth is stranger than fiction? Looks at the articles today. Those who are "in" on the jokes think mostly all articles are jokes (even those that are NOT), and someone who's not aware of this idiocy may accept the lies for truth.
If all our news sources were like that, then real news would be taken for a joke and people would be oblivious that they REALLY bought a deffective Nvidia.
If you can perfectly deduce if a news is joke or not, why do you need news at all, it's all perfectly predictable, isn't it. Oh mighty one.
I know, something untrue on the internet - frankly, I'm shocked.
There's lots of crap in the real world as well, not sure how this makes it ok to contribute to the problem.
Did you beat the little kids for money in school? Lots of other kids did it.
Never watch The Simpsons with suv4x4. Instead of enjoying a good show, suv4x4 will complain about Bart Simpson still looking 10 years old, even though he should be about 30 years old by now (debut on Tracy Ullman show in 1987).
I wonder how many more years it'll take YOU to grow older than 10 year old. The Simpsons isn't aired during CNN Breaking News report, there's no deception.
But explaining the difference to a 10 year old is tough.
The editors clearly think that it is funny. That's kinda sad. My April 1st is always "Day Without Slashdot Day" brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department.
:P /not mentioning the name as it'll look like a plug/
You know, how about taking the next step and making your year "year without slashdot year". Making a decent news site today isn't that hard. If Slashdot's editor aren't mature enough to handle such a basic, maybe we should try to make it on our own.
I got the domain and I'm halfway through coding it
... most members here are well aware of it and, dare I saw ...
someone's confusing April's fools day with Halloween here.
I know this is April Fool's and all, and it looks like this year we were spared the pink ponies, but isn't this a tad close to starting a harmful rumor? People are stupid, and nVidia is a publicly traded company. I think there's enough crap to make fun of without having to resort to this type of thing? Just IMO.
You know, expecting real news on a news site doesn't make you stupid.
What makes you stupid is posting lies on your news site just because it's "April's Fool's day" or something of that sort.
And what the hell do we read "slashdottit" like"? Slash Dot... Tit?
Hmm, ok. Could you explain what you changed?
:D
:P I just see a better/more standard way to do something and prefer doing it this way. Prototype is trying too much to copy other languages which I do not care about.
Merged the $ and $$ selectors, I dropped the "enumerator" extensions, I altered the way classes are created and so on.. But why are you so intensively interested in what I changed
FYI I change things as I suffer mild to moderate NIH syndrome
Agreed.I've never been a big fan of USB. The concept is fantastic, a unified connector that links just about any device to any other and can charge them is a great idea. However I am still bitter the Firewire lost out.
I'm not aware of a major standard failing in the past because some random guy (sorry, no offense) was "bitter".
Things change, embrace the, don't reject them. USB is better than Firewire because it's so much simpler to implement (and cheaper). This the actual reason why newer iPods dropped Firewire connectors in favor of exclusive USB connectors.
The electronics required by USB take less space, and are cheaper, and do their job. End of story.
The marketplace demands easy OSes so they can go about wasting their time with bad website UI. Duh.
The market's a tough place. You can be literally the best programmer in the world, but your chances of being hired drop dramatically if you show up on your interview unshaven, dirty, smelly, in your pajamas, and start with: "Hey, is it ok if I fart here, 'cause... Oh wait, too late now".
What library is this?
I created it on my own for personal use (I don't like all of the things Prototype chose to do).
This is the original library.
Go on, try to quickly navigate the submenus of their site here.
Make me feel bitter about their "easiest linux ever" statement, especially the part about "easiest".
I'm really not sure how this makes sense given the rise and rise of multi-core CPUs (which are fantastic at image processing).
Those online apps actually *do* use your CPU. You don't think every brush stroke is sent to a server and back in realtime I suppose.
Models like Picassa and others which have a download to the machine make more sense as they don't require you to buy a massive amount of server hardware to support your business model.
Sorry I've just realised... its Web 2.0 bubble isn't it, it has to be in the browser because otherwise its not cool.
The huge benefit of an online app, is you can run it immediately without installation on any computer, anywhere. There are plenty of reasons why you may not want to install an app.
It may be a one-shot: you need it once to tweak a photo on the go, and don't need it anymore. Or you don't want to pollute the computer of a friend with garbage apps he won't use. Or you may not be *allowed* to install anything.
Flash 9 runs on OSX, Windows and Linux, all of those are Flash based editors. They do not try to *replace* desktop apps, but are targeting a niche that grows everyday: casual consumers, pro-sumers and mobile users.
Regarding innovations, there are two kinds of people: those throwing themselves at every fad and trying everything that's "new". And those that just sit bitter aside and comment on how stupid the rest are.
The latter usually end up doing nothing. I'm not sure how this is better than throwing yourself in the bubble.
And I thought the iPhone was gonna be a flop... but now that John Dvorak says so, I *must* be wrong.
:)? The guy's wrong most of the time because he intentionally says ridiculous things, but truth is, he's as clueless as any random jerk out there.
You wish it was that simple didn't you
For what we know, iPhone success has nothing to do with Dvorak posting crap. Dvorak never ever mattered for anything.
This is the second post I've seen along these lines and I'm beginning to think people really don't understand what software is or how processors work... Even in the slightest.
:P
It's probably the second post you've seen you didn't understand, as nothing in your reply relates to what I said at all.
By the way I'm a programmer, and former assembly programmer, I know how threading works, in the slightest, at least, that is.
The code *I write* doesn't have case statements in it that switch behavior by browser.
:) ) iterations, even a monkey can code properly behaving code among the popular browsers. The question is HOW. Most open source projects I've inspected achieve compatibility with incredibly twisted and lame hacks and "patches" since the people who did those patches knew nothing better.
You know I refuse to accept you're having sufficient experience with any of this if you'll be talking to me that you must absolutely have browser detection code branching to NEED to test in different browsers.
I've seen my share of out-of-nowhere bugs in browsers trying to interpret code they normally support but fail to render properly, including stuff like Firefox improperly rendering the DOM tree if you nest relative and absolute positions in a certain way and modify it in a certain way with JS (really I have concrete description but too long, never mind), or Opera rendering improperly its scrollbars in scrollable areas setup in a certain way. In all clean, validating, no-weird-hacks-and-tricks code.
As about the collective GWT community producing more stable product across the popular browsers than I can alone, given few (infinite?
I use a very simple library which is a subset of Prototype (the popular JS library), and I'm consistently surprised that it behaves consistently in *new* versions of browsers I never tested in (virtually all sites I produced worked perfectly in IE7 when it came out without any changes).
The fact this happens doesn't mean I shouldn't test, because sooner or later something weird pops out and I have to be there to fix it. I take my job seriously.
Please look yourself in the mirror and say your organization is better than Google and the GWT community at understanding browser specific DHTML differneces.
You know, I'll accept the rest of your comments as I truly don't know GWT well enough to be certain. I evaluated it, saw sufficient hurdles in using it and rejected it.
However, I don't need to look in the mirror and practice self-help exercises to know the obvious. If you've ever inspected the code of the google pages (the main google search page, google news, gmail, google apps and so on), you'll easily recognize how poorly it is on not purely technical level. They freely mix deprecated HTML 3.2, HTML 4 and XHTML, tag cases and very frequently have just plain weird pieces of code that don't seem to serve any purpose.
Google's pages show thousands of validator errors, and while I'm not a "validatorian", and don't care much if you'll skip the alt tag on images if you'd leave it empty anyways, but Google is truly pushing it.
Google is rich, Google has the biggest expertise in the world crawling messy HTML code and extracting info and delivering relevant results.
But mirror or not, I, and thousands other developers are better at *writing* good and technically well-done sites, and don't need hacks (aka GWT) to do it better than Google can.
True, but until they fix it you can have you cake without buying it.
You know, it's not as if I'm dying to have Delphi for PHP. It's more like THEY dying for us to have it, like it, and finally buy it.
It's extremely hard to convince PHP developers, most of whom selected Apache/PHP because it's free, and Apache/PHP hosts cheap, to buy an app to do what they can do better with free IDE-s like Eclipse PDT.
I can see those being quite hot for servers, where running "many small" tasks is where the game is.
On a desktop PC you often need the focused application (say, some sort of graphical/audio editor, game, or just a very fancy flash web site even) to get most of the power of the CPU to render well.
If you split the speed potential in 16, would desktop users see actual speed benefit? They'll see increased responsiveness from the smoother multitasking of the more and more background tasks running on our everyday OS-es, but can a mostly single-task focused desktop usage really benefit?
How of course, we're witnessing ways to split concerns of a single task application into multiple threads: the new interface of Windows runs in a separate CPU thread and on the GPU, never mind if the app itself is single threaded or not. That's helping.
Still, serial programming is, and is going to be, prevalent for many many years to come, as most tasks a casual / consumer applications performs are inherently serial and not "paralelizable" or whatever that would be called.
My point being, I hope we'll still be getting *faster* threads, not just *more* threads. The situation now is that i's harder harder to communicate "hey we have only 1000 threads/cores unlike the competition which has 1 million, but we're faster!". It's just like AMD's tough position in the past, explaining their chips are faster despite having slower clock-rate.
There's quite a lot wrong with their setup.
1) As others have pointed out, they should be running on ESX to get best performance.
2) Physical machine was a dual-proc. How many processors did they assign to the VM?
3) Physical machine had 2GB memory. They assigned 2GB to the VM!! Vmware will take 256MB of this
for itself, so that 2GB visible to Windows will be being swapped.
4) How many disks did the physical machine have, and what was on them?
If e.g. the physical machine had two disks, the VM should have been given two disk files, with each file being placed on a different physical spindle.
You get the picture.
And still 43% performance drop-off is quite good for the kind of benefits virtualization gives. People pay way heftier performance penalties by using slow language (PHP), frameworks (Ruby On Rails) and plain coding poorly and not caching what is cacheable.
I wonder about suv4x4. [grin] :P
Ok, good. SUV matches the initials of my name, I don't drive a SUV, I drive a biodegradable bike that farts plant seeds, as I already pointed out in another post regarding powerful radars and confused whales.