You'll spend the rest of your life transferring it from medium to medium.

Nope. Actually, every iteration gets exponentially faster. So, recording anything analog means 1:1 recording speeds. But for CDs, it's about 16:1. And once the data is on a hard drive, it might as well be instant.

Is it worth it?

"You ever see The Wire?"
"Nope, never got around to it."
"Here's a copy."

NOTE: the preceding hypothetical conversation assumes you have friends.

Interesting data, thank you for the links.

growing at the same rate, essentially meaning that they're keeping pace with each other, but that Apple got the head start.

Two lines growing at the same rate will never intersect. Thus Apple should still be ahead since they got the head start. But that is not the case. If Android's position has changed, which it has, they cannot be growing at identical rates.

Agree completely. Nokia cannot compete against HTC/Samsung on hardware alone--their labor costs are just too high.

Why would you let all that stuff burn up in the atmosphere when you could sell it on eBay?

For Sale: SPACE SHIT, NO RESERVE.

Substitute "religious" for Muslim and I'd agree with you. All theocracies should be overthrown and abolished, violently if necessary. That goes as much for Iran as it does for Israel.

This thread is a good example of a worst-case scenario since everyone is commenting on the new design, but that also makes it an excellent candidate for real-world usability testing. Try viewing this thread on an Intel Atom platform and see why you need to work on your caching algos and defer loading some of this crap with Ajax. Because right now reading heavily-commented articles is slow as shit. Whomever is responsible for Slashdot's UI that signed off on this needs to have their nuts removed and their parents tortured because it's just awful.

For executables, sure. But for movies and music, no dice.

The problem with that is most browsers don't respect cache headers. The spec is a little vague on what's supposed to happen with HTTPS... some say "cache nothing!" but that's convention and not due to any restriction from the spec. If the stuff you're sending out is static (images, css files, external javascript, etc.--i.e., the stuff that takes the longest amount of time to download) the site should be able to set the expiration cache to a year and expect the browsers to respect that.

That simple action alone would speed up https traffic to a level where people would fine it completely tolerable, and in most cases virtually no different than regular http. The problem is, most browsers see HTTPS and they ignore all the explicit headers and you're back to requesting that same stupid 150K background JPG image over. and over. and over. and over... it's fucking infuriating.

Seriously, browser makers: fix this shit and we can ditch unencrypted HTTP. The most insulting thing is that Internet Explorer is the only browser that gets this right.

They've already developed a "DO NOT TRACK" bit, but you might have missed it because it's labeled different: it's called "DO NOT VISIT."

Why do people get so fundamentally stupid about the web in particular? If, for example, every store you visit tracked your comings & goings and your purchase history, would you still scream bloody murder? NO, because they all already do this and nobody seems to give a rat's ass. But on the Big, Scary Internet the rules are somehow all different.

Nice!

You're blaming the user? Really?

Blaming the user for being an idiot, not blaming the user for wiping out their hard drive. There's a difference.

I'm just saying I'm close to the bottom of the list.

Very subtle.

Sorry, there just wasn't enough room in the margins.

We want flash to die to a better technology or for Adobe to get off their asses and fix it.

Yeah, like HTML5, which supports TrueType font embedding, animated vector graphics, MP3 sound and MP4 video all right out-of-the-box. And has continued to do so for the past decade.

Oh, wait.