Correct me if I am wrong, but encryption prevents caching.
Well, you are wrong. At least as a general statement.
It prevents caching by proxies, but it works fine with regular client/server HTTP caching.
I actually wouldn't mind typing that in or dictating it.
msblows://microsoft.com
Mmmm, braiiiiiiins...
Sorry, you were saying?
Well, they could have gone with "Hypertext Transfer Protocol 2.0 Speed and Mobility Express Professional Server 2013 Edition for Workgroups" instead, or httpsmepew:// for short. I think "S&M" is already a pretty good try for them.
I really like that SPDY insists on SSL secured connections. This is what we should be moving towards and having it forced upon us in the next HTTP revision is a great step. But of course Microsoft tries to be backwards compatible, as they always are.
I say SPDY for modern devices, HTTP 1.1 for the foreseeable future for low powered devices. It still works fine, you know? And by the time HTTP 1.1 is retired, there will be no more devices so underpowered they can't establish a SPDY connection. For the love of god, drop legacy when you get the chance!
Oui, c'est suoirálih.
Well, soon you'll be able to try your luck on Arctic call-in shows. I'd say the chances should be pretty decent there.
I really have no clue whether 230ms is a realistic number.
I currently get a 431ms Japan <> UK ping on a pretty mediocre Japanese ADSL line in the country side.
So, yes, that's realistic.
A lot of members must've brought their kids to work that day.
But that's going to be the other way around soon, what with the Euro going down and the US$1 per bought-European-vote rate increasing.
Then, where is the bad guy in this example?
The car driver coming down the street at 200mph. Without him, there'd be no need to help the old lady across the street in the first place, she could do it alone.
QED.
Ah, grasshopper... the article _is_ the first post. What we need after that is a frist post.
You blew it.
Getting caught in a swarm of thrashing sharp dental structures would make a good horror film.
Yup, which is exactly why the over-DRM'd crap formats are all the more infuriating.
Both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray were proprietary, patent- and DRM-laden standards.
I'll just let these two sentences stand next to each other. They're too good.
It's not that Sony beat HD DVD which undermines your argument, it's that Blu-ray is a horrible technology, mostly exactly because it's DRM-laden. The blue laser is nice, the DRM and all the crap that goes onto a typical Blu-ray disc is not. What won is simply one of the two evils. Therefore, choosing Blu-ray as an "open" technology to show how good Sony is in using open technologies is just... let's call it a bad example.
Both are very closed, but one is a lot more open than the other (the PS3)
So one sucks less than the other, that doesn't make it a great example for "open".
whereas the post I was responding to was claiming that Sony uses proprietary formats.
Because the PS3 is the only device Sony is selling?
Real Programs don't use shared text. Otherwise, how can they use functions for scratch space after they are finished calling them?
