
:) Hilarious that they kept calling it a "tape". "You're there, you're doing it, you're feeling it" .. Google Glass has a way to go.
26 publicly visible posts • joined 28 Aug 2009
Fuck you. We love saying that. Maybe the Reg will start using that more?
No, it is employed because it is a nice half way mark between the product in question and a suitably derogative swear word that they wouldn't usually choose to use, and can be employed en masse against every single person using the product because there aren't many of them, we don't know them, we are assumed not to like the technology (and therefore the person using it), and frankly it is not far removed from what could be found rife in Hitler's Germany. Ithankew.
> even if every single seeder only had a 256Kb upload speed, when the leecher connects to 1,000 of them they will, theoretically, max their download speeds anyway
I'm no expert either, and this paper assumes that upload speed is no longer the primary constraint, so this argument is moot in the context of the paper, but let me point out that your theory works for only one leecher. One leecher, connects to 1000 seeds, they all give him 256Kb upload speed, he's happy. But 100 leechers, all connecting to those 1000 seeds, they cannot give all 100 leechers their entire 256Kb upload speed. Using my Mickey Mouse math, you (one of the 100 leechers) would get 2.56Kb (256 / 100) from each so you'd get 2560K/s download rate in total. In real situations I doubt the figures work out as beneficially as you suggest, with more leechers or less seeds making your actual download rate not reach download capacity.
This is probably why you often see a Peer in your connections list giving you very low rates.. they're already serving other nodes, or have their upload rate extremely crippled, meaning that your connection to them is achieving extremely little for you.
Simply increasing the number of network connections your hardware can handle won't help the fact that the capacity of the nodes you're connecting to is being maxed out.
The point of this article seems to be that if we remove the fact that nodes have limited upload rate, the next most important thing it to try to talk to nodes near you, so your 1Gb/s download comes from a node 2 hops away rather than 50 hops away on the other side of the planet. As has been said above, this is so obvious it's already well implemented in existing solutions and is nothing new.
I got the feeling their point was that they are releasing new major versions more frequently than Android - "They released a dairy product, 4.0, about the same time that we released iOS 5." If one can assume that a major version increase includes significantly improved features (which is debatable, I'll grant you), Apple are saying that since the versions were Android 4 and iOS 5, Apple are now up to iOS 6 and the ball is in Android's court to play catch up. They're bragging about their rate of progress, not the size of their tackle.
Sounds like classic advertising to me. Take away your self esteem, then sell it back to you for the price of the product. In this case they take away your faith that you can be you without their product. People who fall for this deserve to be on Katie Price's list of followers.
> Can't recommend it enough to anyone that doesn't have it already.
I would wholeheartedly agree, however I showed Portal to my brother in law, breathlessly expecting him to go "oh, wow" and be glued to the screen for hours like I was, and he just doodled about, picked up a companion cube, said "mmm" and didn't want to play any more. It doesn't take everyone the same way. I think he wanted guns and aliens.
While improvements in the language are welcome where necessary, we developers are still left trying to support available browsers.
Quote: "It should therefore come as little surprise that Microsoft, Google, and Mozilla have become keenly interested in making sure their browsers run Javascript with as few problems as possible, in case this puts Internet Explorer, Chrome, or Firefox out of contention among web developers."
True enough, but developers cannot simply use the latest features and publish their web apps with a smile on their face. We're not even safe blindly calling our code 'Javascript'. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2714694/which-javascript-versions-does-ie8-supports makes interesting reading.
Just last week I discovered that IE8 doesn't support forEach on Array objects, so [1, 2, 3].forEach(function(i)) {..} fails horribly. IE8 is going to be around until 2020, from what I heard about the extended lifetime of XP, and given that WinXP (probably) will never support IE9 there are going to be a lot of IE8 browsers around out there for a long time.. and of course IE7.. and we still get a few hundred IE6 hits a month. For now, I will stick to homogenising libraries such as http://dojotoolkit.org to write code that safely supports whatever browser the user is on. dojo.forEach([1, 2, 3], function(i) {..}) and you're done.
Of course, at least IE offers long term stability, unlike Mozilla: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/24/microsoft_attacks_mozilla_on_enterprise/
Good luck to the library developers, then, as they safely implement support for the new while maintaining support for the old.
Must be nice working in an enclosed environment like node.js where your platform guarantees a language implementation and such worries are other peoples' business :)
Out of interest, the stock OS delivered from the UK and updated OTA both render Thai fonts beautifully with no tweaks necessary by me. This doesn't help me comprehend the language, but it's perfectly legible :)
I agree I missed the point about my Nexus S being a far more advantageous choice than the Desire range in terms of updates. I do wonder _how_ it got to my phone. I have no data plan, no 3g, but do have wifi in the home.. the update just arrived, and I can't actually tell if it came in from somewhere in Thailand or a server abroad, from the local network operator or Google, via wifi or other comms method.. Ah well, best not look a gift horse in the mouth :) Someone recommend I check out XDA and their 'amazing' custom ROMs, but I simply see no need at present. Same for rooting.
"Add to all of this Google's own admission that more than 90 percent of Android users are running older versions of the mobile operating system that contain serious kernel vulnerabilities."
Over here in Thailand, I was on the verge of buying a Desire HD running 2.2 last year when, on a whim, I asked the assistant whether it would be updatable to the latest version of Android. I'd heard this happened over the air, and was curious as to how it might be implemented in this country. They smiled shyly, and said "No, you cannot". I asked if this is dependent on the network operator, or the handset itself. "No". I asked if you can download the update package and install it yourself via a cable. "No." Apparently, android devices sold in major shopping centers here simply cannot be updated. This was Fortune Town, a pretty respectable place, more so than Pantip Plaza, MBK, or some of the more shady IT dens around town.
I've since bought a Nexus S from the UK, brought it over here, and it updated OTA to 2.3.4 quite happily without me pulling any magic strings or doing a manual update.
I'm left wondering what the hell the assistant was talking about, and whether their devices really would have locked me at the old kernel version. Android has performed wonderfully for me, but sadly the FUD (some real, some imaginary) surrounding the OS is worrying.
Sorry, perhaps I misunderstood.
"
The deal was supposed to be "buy three boxes of beer and save £11", but punters soon realised that instead of charging 20 quid for the triple whammy, Tesco was asking just 11.
"
I didn't glean from this the difference between shelf price and till price. I'm not quite sure how you did, but then, I am half way through a crate of cheap beer.
So far we've seen firefox, add-ons, and the user to blame for these memory leaks. How about the software that's downloaded from the sites you visit and run in the increasingly complex world that is the web browser's internal engines?
Just the other day on IRC I saw someone point out that use of the new fangled 'surface' API's available from many Javascript toolkits meant that memory was not being free'd properly. If a page is re-loaded many times, especially during development but quite possible during normal browsing, the memory usage increased to 1.5Gb fairly quickly.
Try typing "about:memory" into your address bar, and see if there are any obvious culprits. In his case, it was clearly gfx/surface/image : http://i55.tinypic.com/21461k9.png
I don't know who's actually to blame here, it could be the javascript programmer not freeing resources, the library designers not releasing references, the Javascript engine not garbage collecting in the way you expect, the browser for not, I don't know, being omniscient about the previous points, or something else entirely. My point is that it's not simple and we should stop pointing fingers in a kind of Mexican standoff (amusing though the mental image might be).
I make the distinction between the browser and the Javascript virtual machine within it for good reason, though some may disagree and consider them the same thing. Perhaps that would make it easier to blame 'Firefox' for the fault.
I don't often get my 'tard on, but I did a brief google and turned up this tip for disabling the popup/popdown/popaway scroll bars:
http://www.webupd8.org/2011/04/how-to-disable-overlay-scrollbars-in.html
I can only presume it works. Me, I'm sticking with Fedora, but good luck to the rest of you :) I still recommend Ubuntu to my less geeky friends.
eh? I think you were thinking of "memory management". "Garbage collection" should certainly not be alien when using Java.. it's handled for you, certainly, but you still configure it with VM tuning and should at least be aware of it, and if you've never run into memory leaks due to weak references or similar pitfalls of garbage collection mechanisms then you're probably not using Java as much as you thought you do.
Mr Pedantic here.. I'm looking at a freeze-frame of the 1995 movie, whose intro reads:
In the third millennium, the world changed. Climate. Nations. All were in upheaval... the earth transformed into a poisonous scorched desert, known as "the Cursed Earth".
So the first movie used rather ambiguous wording which could refer to the planet Earth, or since the text above lacks a capital E on Earth, simply that some earth became scorched and it was called 'the Cursed Earth'.
For the new movie, one could argue that "on Cursed Earth" is dramatic wording implying that events transpire on earth which is considered cursed, and is not necessarily referring to the entire planet or even a region that we fans know as "_the_ Cursed Earth", i.e. that area of nuclear wasteland occupying much of what is currently mainland USA.
I, for one, welcome the new retelling of the old favourite, and will be grateful for what we get. My memories shall remain unsullied.
I would think that having one concept for 'bookmark' and another concept for 'tab' would be enough reason to have a management tool for both. We've had a bookmark management tool for years, before tabs even evolved. Name them, attach descriptions, organise them into folders, and these days, sync them to remote servers and add metadata and whatnot.
Tabs evolved, but the management tools for these are evolving separately to those for bookmarks, and currently the meta-information tools relating to tabs are pretty simple. So I don't think there's any confusion going on; I believe there's a good reason to keep the concept of 'bookmark' and 'tab' separate, because of the way we use each.
Everyone likes a metaphor, so I hope this is a good one. Imagine your browser bookmarks (linking to websites) are the books on your shelf. You own them, but you're not reading them right now. Imagine your tabs (websites you have open) are books you are reading right now. I often have a couple of books on the go, and I'm reading them for different reasons (Jim recommended this one, my brother lent me this one, etc). You want to manage the books you're currently reading, which are probably scattered around your life (home, work etc) close at hand, and think about them differently to the much larger list of books on your shelf. I have many more open tabs at any time than books on the go, so a management tool would be a worthy thing to have.
Having said all this, I agree with another poster here, I just keeps tabs organised into groups by opening a new Firefox window and grouping tabs in each window. For me, it's a benefit that when I restart the browser all those tabs go away, clearing up system memory giving me a fresh start. I have 4 virtual desktops (under Linux) which makes it simple to keep entire Firefox windows, and all their tabs, organised so they don't conflict on my screen.
Things I do currently miss, having seen Tab Candy, is an ability to easily move tabs between windows (when you've started browsing news and now have 6 tabs open in the same window you had your work in and want to separate the two - you can drag each tab but I usually find this quite cumbersome), and an ability to share a browsing session with another person so they see the same tabs open that you do. Integration with an instant messaging API or social networking API would be favourite.
Oh, I dunno, I remember a film about a taxi driver that caught a certain amount of interest, and it was almost completely unrelated to actual taxis. One good thing about film is that it is not necessarily a tedious reworking of the bland facts relating to the subject matter of its namesake, but is in fact a work of imagination that can be, dare I say, creatively worked from, perhaps, bland beginnings.
I'm not saying FtM will be good, just that one shouldn't write a work off based on ones own preconceptions. Then again, you seem to be fairly disgusted by both Reznor and Zuckerberg, so I accept there's probably no winning you round. However, I felt your argument required a rebuttal.
Why answer a rhetorical question?
Pigeon made a valid point, if it was indeed his point, in that the number of Frosted Wheats consumed during development of Chrome (for any platform) would be considered 'rubbish' information by most readers. His post of similarly useless information was equally rubbish, and perhaps equally amusing.
On topic, I welcome yet another platform and combination of architectures to test for in our ever diversifying world of web development. For truly, a testers work is never done. Almost makes me wish Microsoft had taken over the world. Almost...
I frequently type into the address bar in Firefox, and for a long time have been aware of the special characters like #, ^, + etc., details of which are given here under "On the fly":
http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Smart+Location+Bar?style_mode=inproduct
Not a lot of people know that. Apparently.
Combined with the useful ctrl-L keyboard shortcut, which moves the focus to the address bar and highlights the text without disrupting your clipboard (otherwise a problem in X windows), and sensible tagging of useful pages, I find typing into the address bar in Firefox quite powerful. Don't reach for that mouse if you don't have to!