The computer is a "communication" device. It is a fairly safe assumption that it is, or will be connected to the internet at some point, more often sooner rather than later (or never)..
Erm, computer is inherently a computing device, not a communication device, thats why they call it a "computer" and not "communicator".
No. Not even close.
Knee-jerk much? At least spend a second Googling something you know nothing about before commenting.
This is EXACTLY like Opera Turbo - which is an optimizing proxy server - the only key difference is that Google's service is browser agnostic and Opera's designed to work with Opera browsers only.
-Em
How do you expect a 3rd party without your TLS private key to proxy AND compress (i.e. modifying the content) your HTTPS connections?
Its Google - we expect magic. Damn the common sense!!!
Seriously though - they could support it by you providing them with a key/cert - just like any other HTTPS proxy. The issue is that the way GHS works - it is very difficult, if not impossible, to support SSL. They would have to have a separate dedicated IP for each site (i.e. no just assigning your DNS to ghs.google.com) or a very large, very convoluted, ever changing certificates with a LOT of aliases. This is why GHS never supported SSL - even for content hosted by Google.
-Em
Holy shit, 6 out of 7 respondents to the GP (all but anredo) completely missed the point. [insert standard complaint about slashdot going downhill].
Web pages with script are not static, and caching the HTML script output does nothing. Server-side code generally has to be run per-visitor. Akamai has all sorts of crazy custom XML to specify which portions are static.
Setting up a proper CDN for the modern web is more complicated than just redirecting some DNS entries.
LOL. Talk about pot calling kettle black. This is what happens when you read the slashdot summary instead of the source material. Allow me to explain what you are missing - what Google is doing is not a CDN at all, its just a bad summary. They are providing an optimizing proxy - it could care less if your content is static or dynamic, as long as it generates HTML output, it will work. It is unclear from first glance if the proxy is a caching proxy - I would guess it is - but even then it would be a stretch to call it a CDN in a modern sense of the word.
The next time Microsoft releases a patch for a security vulnerability I would like to see this sentiment repeated.
Generally I think when Microsoft release a patch of a security vulnerability - I do say good job. Everyone has security problems, the issue is how they deal with it - and Microsoft in the past often ignored the issue for a long time (I dont deal a lot with Windows these days, but it does seem that that has shifted as of late)
Of course as others pointed out - this less like Microsoft patches to their own code and more like forced Anti-Malware install - for which I have mixed feelings.
I suggest looking up the difference between "division" and "subsidiary".
For the Google challenged: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/subsidiary
Well, it might not any more. As I said in another post, I did this a decade ago. The laws may have changed since then. But back then, intrastate shipments and being too close to the distribution center in terms of ownership or management could bust Nexus protections in a hurry.
In this case, Amazon ran this warehouse through a subsidiary. This is not a case of a separate company doing distribution, it's a separate division of the same company. That's not arm's-length, that's married with kids.
I suggest looking up the difference between "division" and "subsidiary". Subsidiary is by definition a separate company, so yes, it is a case of a separate company. Having tangled with Amazon's lawyers (not a very pleasant experience), I know for sure those guys do not leave anything to chance - so I am sure they crossed the T's and dotted the I's when it came to this sort of thing.
Meanwhile Texas already screwed its people out of thousands of jobs and millions in taxes that the distribution center WAS paying.
The Distrbution Center has an unknown number of employees, but Amazon claiming that they are avoiding hiring "up to 1,000" new employees when they canceled plans to open multiple DCs. So I doubt this one DC had "thousands of jobs". Still sucks to be Texas on this one, but they'll probably make more in this sales tax revenue suit than the jobs will ever make them in income tax.
Most DCs don't employ thousands of people - by the time you reach the point where that many people are necessary you'll have put in significant automation systems because there won't be enough room for all of them. Amazon's an efficient company, and they know distribution. If that DC had 250 employees I'd be surprised.
PS: Just looked it up. http://www.statesman.com/business/119-to-lose-jobs-when-amazon-closes-texas-1248784.html 119 jobs lost.
Well, they CLAIMED to be creating up to a thousand new jobs in planned expansions, though you are probably right, the real number would have been smaller (thus "up to" claim). Still, thats 119 REAL jobs slashed, still sucks for 119 families that have to either loose jobs or move out of state.
Really, Texas should get off their ass and just tax every internet purchase, like NY did. It'll save a lot of headaches to everyone involved instead of trying to trying to do weaselly and shady back-billing that even their own Governor disapproves of (as per the article you linked).
So, as long as the Texas DC was:
1. Only ever used to ship Amazon product to Amazon customers OUTSIDE Texas, and
2. Not owned by Amazon or shares a parent company with Amazon.
It sounds logical but has nothing to do with legal reality.
Reality is simple: Company A Sells a product, but they contract to Company B to do their distribution. Company B is not selling anything, so it is not in charge of collecting any sales tax, all they have to pay is income tax from the contract. It does not matter who owns what - as long as these are separate companies and are run as separate companies. It's a loophole, but a very established and known one. And it is very hard one to close down, as it would pretty much screw every public company - after all they are owned by a lot of people in a lot of states. Plus same people own lots of other company stocks, so by your logic they would all have to be treated as one company.
The only way out of this is by just flat taxing everything shipping to your state, like NY does. But really, that just screws the people of your state. Meanwhile Texas already screwed its people out of thousands of jobs and millions in taxes that the distribution center WAS paying. Go Texas!
"Showing" isn't about the server or client. You can have a server-client connection without showing anything.
Besides that you missed the concept of "example", you focused on "showing", where the key word was "request". You request something of a server and receive a reply action. The confusion here is that X-Server machine is CLIENT to user request to display something but it is a SERVER to the program doing the actual displaying.
It's actually quite simple: The server controls a resource, and the client uses that resource through the server. For example the file server controls the files, and the clients connect to it to access them. The web server controls the web pages, and the web clients connect to it to access them. The sound server controls the sound device, and the clients connect to it to access them. And the display server controls the display, and the clients connect to it to use that display.
Yes, except it is not so simple because you are missing the human factor. The trouble comes from definitions and how they are interpreted. For example you state that a "sounds server" serves sound output (i.e. sound card) but you can just as well call a shoutcast server a "sound server" - which is the opposite. Now you and I understand that they are both "servers", and that when someone listens to a shoutcast server they are a client to the shoutcast server AND a client to a sound card server and that they are two separate sessions, but to a lay-person this is not obvious in the least.
I guess the real reason for the confusion is that for many people, "server" means "big machine somewhere else". While the X server is on the possibly small machine in front of you.
Pretty much.
-Em
Confusing? X is the server, and handles connections to it telling it what to display. Like httpd (apache) is a server and handles a Web client telling it what Web page to send down the pipe. People weren't confused running the Tetrinet server, seeing the clients connect to them and output images to the screen; but they're confused running the X server, seeing the clients connect?
It is confusing because while it makes sense from point of view of the X protocol, from the point of view of the user, the "server" appears to be the client and the "client" appears to be the server. If I connect to server and request an image - in the http protocol, I connect to a server(apache), and it shows content on the client(browser). However if I am doing the same thing using X, it appears as if I connect to server(remote system), and request to show an image, and it shows content on client(my display or X-Server). What is actually happening is that the remote server's program is the client that requests to display things on the server - but that is not what the user sees. Thus the confusion of so many people, which is understandable as it is not the most logical thing unless you understand the X protocol.
-Em
that guarantees the leaks from Wikileaks are legitimate and not some delusional writing from Sarah Palin?
That is my thought as well. The best way to silence WikiLeaks is to leak tons of false data that seems right, let it make a lot of noise, then prove that it is all fake. No one will trust them again - so hearing another major leak right after the pentagon one - makes me wonder just how real is this...
-Em
The definition you gave applies to every business that uses a EULA or any other take-it-or-leave-it contract. Got any real-world definitions?
Yeah, exactly, which is why those contracts are generally unenforceable. Look up legal term "Contract of adhesion".
-Em
I like that you put that much effort into replying to a troll
Thanks, it amused me
What is with the fucking sheep. Be original and think of another herd animal. You're just like the other sheeple comparing people to sheep.
Harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away; Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air...
It is called communication. You see, the point is not to be "original" or even to entertain people, but to get a concept across - and judging by your reaction it clearly did - as you clearly knew exactly what I was talking about - you even mentioned the word "sheeple" to underscore my point (and, if I may say, make yourself a bit of a hypocrite)
So, you see, "sheep" is the perfect choice of a herd animal exactly because everyone else uses this word in that context.
HTH,
-Em
Can we seriously cool it with the 'OMG Lockdown!' claims? Yes, Apple introduced an app store for macs this week, but at the moment there are plenty of other ways to get applications, and use of said app store is certainly not required. When the lockdown is actually in place, then we can complain and move on from OS X to [insert your favorite Linux flavor here]. Let's stop rolling down this slippery slope already.
And thats, my friends, is how you boil frogs... (erm, make that sheep)
Remember to say hello to your bank teller.
