Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Not really happy (Score 1) 171

The whole "HTTP/2 stink" thing seems to be a bit of a meme, but it's remarkable how the people who state it vaguely wave their hands around and make unsupported claims.

1. HTTP/2 is *fantastic* for higher latency connections. If you're a small site and you can't afford to have geolocated servers around the globe, HTTP/2 offers a much better experience for those high latency connections. I've been using SPDY for a couple of years to service clients in Singapore from a server in the US (which for a variety of legislative and technical reasons I can't replicate there). It is absolutely better.

2. HTTP Pipelining is when you know that someone is just doing the "I oppose" thing and searching around for objections. HTTP pipelining is not supported by default in a *single* major browser because it has critical, deadly faults that render it useless. When people bring it up to oppose HTTP/2, their position is rendered irrelevant.

3. HTTP/2 removes the need to do script and resource coalescing. It removes the need to deal with difficult to manage image sprites. All of those are bullshit that are particularly onerous and expensive to little sites.

4. HTTP/2 makes SSL much cheaper to the experience. This is very good.

HTTP/2 is a *huge* benefit especially to the little guy. Google can do every manner of optimization, they can deploy across legions and armies of servers around the globe. This can be expensive and logistically difficult for little sites, especially if you want SSL. HTTP/2 levels the playing field to some degree.

Comment Re:"risks serious damage to the system" (Score 1) 138

It isn't about "a chip". It's about a system that is designed for a specific thermal and electrical load. nvidia probably got flak from notebook makers who were facing dissatisfied customers.

You only have to look at a lot of the nonsense comments throughout, such as yours -- people just contriving how "easy" everything is, and how simple it is. Yeah, and I'll bet all of you design notebooks. No? Then shut up.

Comment Obvious Evolution (Score 1) 414

It is an obvious evolution, I believe. Once mobile processors are as powerful as most desktop processors ( and how far off can that really be? ) it won't make sense to have a computer and a phone. The phone will be your computer. It will automatically pair up with your large screen monitor and keyboard when you are at home - and you can move the experience from screen to screen throughout your home or business. In the not too distant future, we will have flexible screens, so I can unfurl a 20" screen anywhere I need it. Also, Apple has been making more moves towards appliance computing than just adopting things like Launchpad. Starting with Lion, they are changing the way users think about documents - where they live, how they are saved. Apple's long term view is definitely about making computing easier and challenging existing paradigms. The danger is making something that doesn't appeal to power users. I for one think Apple can pull it off though.

Comment Re:How I see it... (Score 1) 1144

No no no. This isn't about spending levels, this is about the Affordable Care Act. Besides, we are already at sequester levels. This is already a compromise. But, again, they aren't debating spending levels, they are specifically talking about defunding or delaying Obamacare. Let's not be disingenuous.

Comment Re:Do they get a refund? (Score 5, Insightful) 110

Quite the opposite, if you file and are granted a patent for something that is later ruled invalid, there should be substantial penalties for the filer, because the purpose of a patent application is a government granted monopoly, leveraging the legal power and force of government to suppress other business. If you tell the government that you've done something novel that isn't, and prevent competition through that mechanism, there are substantial social costs (none of the benefits of invention, but all of the costs of a monopoly).

Comment Re:Krugman (Score 4, Interesting) 540

You should probably read the article. Krugman is not saying these things, Gordon is. Krugman disagrees with him.

What Gordon then does is suggest that IR #3 has already mostly run its course, that all our mobile devices and all that are new and fun but not that fundamental. Itâ(TM)s good to have someone questioning the tech euphoria; but Iâ(TM)ve been looking into technology issues a lot lately, and Iâ(TM)m pretty sure heâ(TM)s wrong, that the IT revolution has only begun to have its impact.

Slashdot Top Deals

365 Days of drinking Lo-Cal beer. = 1 Lite-year