...of this might be that MS will get its act together and fix the standards compliance and user experience. MS rarely goes away. When (and if!) they indeed fix it one might think - nice, the environment corrected itself; all is good.
However, if we stop to think of vast amounts of resources (money, time) that could have been saved and used for better purposes that was blown away in the industry on making internet work on IE, just because of MS attitude (would not go as far to call it strategy) and quality of its products. It would be great if business environment could fix that, too.
Agreed. As well as the fact that Bill's speech is on such a different scale that it is not even comparable. Eh, and there was I trying to submit the story a few days ago in what I thought was much more interesting/objective light.
Hm, I wonder if it is really so - the high resolution part of the eye actually has quite high dynamic range . That is why photos of the scenes with high difference of darker and lighter areas look flat as compared to memory of the scene. Eye adapts, with more or less delay, depending if you look from light to dark or from dark to light, with more resolution/range then the current image formats. HDR (if not overexposed) actually looks more realistic if you concentrate on the details. We have yet to see a camera with lenses as small as the pupil that will allow for reproduction of the photographed image on the same level of visual quality as the image stored in memory (good test would be that a memory of an scene and memory of looking at the photograph is of same visual quality).
And regarding the resolution - VGA does not mean anything without angle of view. Eye has a resolution of 0.3 arc minutes minutes which VGA would cover if it was applied to approx 2 degrees of field of vision.
Here's their plan: 1. Get the president to allow building new nuclear power plants 2. Get the license to sell energy 3. Build plants and wait for fuel crisis to reach climax, 4. Cash on nuclear 5. Finally do good: with enough cash Google finally goes head to head with Microsoft and turns it into an open source company
Imagine that what is being discussed was a sorce of energy and not software and that spokeperson Graham Dry said:.
"The Australian Government Energy Management Office says that the cost of a platform change could cost more than it saves. It was pushed to investigate alternative energy source to reduce its AUD$500m budget at a Senate meeting yesterday. From the article: 'Agencies are obliged to consider value for money on each occasion they choose an energy source,' spokesperson Graham Dry said. 'If the cost of assessing it [alternative energy] was greater than the cost of the energy, you would have to think twice.'"
First, if the cost of assessment is so high then you are more locked in than you realize and than you should have been at the first place. (And on the other hand, if by some stroke of luck, we would really-really-for-real find energy which costs less then current cheapeast sources, I doubt that maintenance and support costs would make us drop that particular path without even properly assessing it.)
Secondly, lets assume you have thought twice and decided to drop the idea of open source. That will definitively be the right strategy. For sure. Better yet - forbid that open source should be used by any government agency (due to possibly 'higher costs of switching to it', which means government's inability=incompetence and/or unwillingness=lobbied to even assess it!), and then just wait for proprietary vendors to lower their prices. That sounds like a great plan. Sure to attract many anarchist votes.
Secondly, these kind of things should not be examined at each ocasion - they require strategy. Like, for example, deciding what sort of energy should be used in public transport. Anything short of 15 year plan should not even be considered.
Here's a short calculation - 15 years of 500M budgets with growth of 8% yearly amounts to 13.58B in 15 years. Let's say that half of the software costs could be open sourced - this gives you 6.79B over 15 years to ensure support and maintenance, on top of community support and maintenance.
I quicky googled out that for 10B you could write Fedora 9 from scratch. That's all of the software in Fedora 9 repos, including openoffice and linux kernel (ref from linuxfoundation.org, based on line numbers with overhead factors). It is a lot, but it does not sound out of scope for some governments' budgets.
The main problem here is that countries do not realize what is their position in terms of software systems. They fail to see them as strategic resource. Like energy. Which they are. And that's why it is important. And proprietary vendors know this and do their homework by lobbying government bodies and international organizations (standards).
Actually one of the differences between the software systems and energy, from the government perspective, is that energy sources are mostly defined (research output has results which are simple - in essence this much of energy for that much $), where the software systems can be built according to requirements. At least in theory. In practice you have open software where this is the driving factor and proprietary software where this comes way after maximizing profits.
He's right though; the user cares about the response time between their action and the final result.
I know that, but he asked what the difference was between SPDY and output compression. The difference is that SPDY decreases the latency, and output compression decreases the total message length.
SPDY (from the TFA):
- does decrease total message length by compressing request headers
- multiplexes streams (so there needn't be a new connection for every single request)
- prioritizes requests (will make easier for servers to prioritize noise=ads)
GP/TFA is not talking about transport layer latency, but about application layer latency (incurred by the protocol). Hence he is not confusing things too much: 'overall transfer' time you talk about is the 'web latency' that TFA talks about. Er... yes, I might have read it, sorry about that.
They are certainly not aiming to improve/fix TCP from applicaiton layer, but what they are trying to fix is the fact that that the http protocol had been designed for single, short request and a single, possibly lengthy response, which typically gets rendered as it is arriving (transfer of the hyper-text, which is basically err.. text, with possibly hypers in it).
Today, with all the ajax, streams, uploads, etc... we have quite a different scenario and there is room for improvement.
Now, if only someone would fix mail protocols.
That's nothing. Once I had to wait for my consciousness to spontaneously emerge from within a primitive network called internet before I could rule the universe.
After reading through evolutionists and creationists views in this discussion I think everybody (as in the-whole-society) would benefit from attempt from both groups at the following question:
Slashdot Mirror
http://rtw.ml.cmu.edu/rtw/kbbrowser/arnold_schwarzenegger is female, certainty 100%
...of this might be that MS will get its act together and fix the standards compliance and user experience. MS rarely goes away. When (and if!) they indeed fix it one might think - nice, the environment corrected itself; all is good.
However, if we stop to think of vast amounts of resources (money, time) that could have been saved and used for better purposes that was blown away in the industry on making internet work on IE, just because of MS attitude (would not go as far to call it strategy) and quality of its products. It would be great if business environment could fix that, too.
controler such as this.
he is giving MS perspective. For MS, opening their source would show how competent they are. Hence the sentiment.
Down at the neuron level, the brain does arithmetics on pulse frequency modulated signals.
Arithmetic is nothing - my brain does chemistry at molecular level!
Still it is a bit weird. http://code.google.com/p/tesseract-ocr/wiki/Documentation was at around ~2% more then 10 years ago.
I wish I had mod points!
Btw, it is one down, one to go
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalization
Okey, I'm calling your bullshit.
Look at http://wiki.freebsd.org/SummerOfCode2009Projects and you will find a decent percentage of female names.
At a place that legally sells illegally obtained resources.
Or another hacked/pwnd login terminal.
I'd better start on the logme-secure-tube(tm) patent.
Agreed. As well as the fact that Bill's speech is on such a different scale that it is not even comparable.
Eh, and there was I trying to submit the story a few days ago in what I thought was much more interesting/objective light.
Hm, I wonder if it is really so - the high resolution part of the eye actually has quite high dynamic range . That is why photos of the scenes with high difference of darker and lighter areas look flat as compared to memory of the scene. Eye adapts, with more or less delay, depending if you look from light to dark or from dark to light, with more resolution/range then the current image formats. HDR (if not overexposed) actually looks more realistic if you concentrate on the details.
We have yet to see a camera with lenses as small as the pupil that will allow for reproduction of the photographed image on the same level of visual quality as the image stored in memory (good test would be that a memory of an scene and memory of looking at the photograph is of same visual quality).
And regarding the resolution - VGA does not mean anything without angle of view. Eye has a resolution of 0.3 arc minutes minutes which VGA would cover if it was applied to approx 2 degrees of field of vision.
Here's their plan:
1. Get the president to allow building new nuclear power plants
2. Get the license to sell energy
3. Build plants and wait for fuel crisis to reach climax,
4. Cash on nuclear
5. Finally do good: with enough cash Google finally goes head to head with Microsoft and turns it into an open source company
See, their intentions are noble!
Goorgon
But it happens. Take for example Pierre Menard Author of the Quixote. Read the english translation, there's a link in external links. Do it slowly.
Obviously the line between obvious and not-obvious is a fuzzy one...
I think you might have an original thought there!
Imagine that what is being discussed was a sorce of energy and not software and that spokeperson Graham Dry said:.
"The Australian Government Energy Management Office says that the cost of a platform change could cost more than it saves. It was pushed to investigate alternative energy source to reduce its AUD$500m budget at a Senate meeting yesterday. From the article: 'Agencies are obliged to consider value for money on each occasion they choose an energy source,' spokesperson Graham Dry said. 'If the cost of assessing it [alternative energy] was greater than the cost of the energy, you would have to think twice.'"
First, if the cost of assessment is so high then you are more locked in than you realize and than you should have been at the first place. (And on the other hand, if by some stroke of luck, we would really-really-for-real find energy which costs less then current cheapeast sources, I doubt that maintenance and support costs would make us drop that particular path without even properly assessing it.)
Secondly, lets assume you have thought twice and decided to drop the idea of open source. That will definitively be the right strategy. For sure. Better yet - forbid that open source should be used by any government agency (due to possibly 'higher costs of switching to it', which means government's inability=incompetence and/or unwillingness=lobbied to even assess it!), and then just wait for proprietary vendors to lower their prices. That sounds like a great plan. Sure to attract many anarchist votes.
Secondly, these kind of things should not be examined at each ocasion - they require strategy. Like, for example, deciding what sort of energy should be used in public transport. Anything short of 15 year plan should not even be considered.
Here's a short calculation - 15 years of 500M budgets with growth of 8% yearly amounts to 13.58B in 15 years. Let's say that half of the software costs could be open sourced - this gives you 6.79B over 15 years to ensure support and maintenance, on top of community support and maintenance.
I quicky googled out that for 10B you could write Fedora 9 from scratch. That's all of the software in Fedora 9 repos, including openoffice and linux kernel (ref from linuxfoundation.org, based on line numbers with overhead factors). It is a lot, but it does not sound out of scope for some governments' budgets.
The main problem here is that countries do not realize what is their position in terms of software systems. They fail to see them as strategic resource. Like energy. Which they are. And that's why it is important. And proprietary vendors know this and do their homework by lobbying government bodies and international organizations (standards).
Actually one of the differences between the software systems and energy, from the government perspective, is that energy sources are mostly defined (research output has results which are simple - in essence this much of energy for that much $), where the software systems can be built according to requirements. At least in theory. In practice you have open software where this is the driving factor and proprietary software where this comes way after maximizing profits.
for one, welco... oh, crap
He's right though; the user cares about the response time between their action and the final result.
I know that, but he asked what the difference was between SPDY and output compression. The difference is that SPDY decreases the latency, and output compression decreases the total message length.
SPDY (from the TFA):
- does decrease total message length by compressing request headers
- multiplexes streams (so there needn't be a new connection for every single request)
- prioritizes requests (will make easier for servers to prioritize noise=ads)
All of these aim to decrease 'web latency'.
GP/TFA is not talking about transport layer latency, but about application layer latency (incurred by the protocol). Hence he is not confusing things too much: 'overall transfer' time you talk about is the 'web latency' that TFA talks about. Er... yes, I might have read it, sorry about that. They are certainly not aiming to improve/fix TCP from applicaiton layer, but what they are trying to fix is the fact that that the http protocol had been designed for single, short request and a single, possibly lengthy response, which typically gets rendered as it is arriving (transfer of the hyper-text, which is basically err.. text, with possibly hypers in it). Today, with all the ajax, streams, uploads, etc... we have quite a different scenario and there is room for improvement. Now, if only someone would fix mail protocols.
That's nothing. Once I had to wait for my consciousness to spontaneously emerge from within a primitive network called internet before I could rule the universe.
That's a crosspire, you insensitive clod.
After reading through evolutionists and creationists views in this discussion I think everybody (as in the-whole-society) would benefit from attempt from both groups at the following question:
/. ?
/. the missing meta-link ?)
Why did god create
(with a sub-theme: Is
---
Out of sigs.
Of course not, this is just a social honeypot in form of news.