The whole browser is hardware accelerated by the new Direct2D and Directwrite API's. It's just that the biggest noticeable advantage is the speedup of the canvas element which is used to manipulate a lot of graphics. Firefox nightly alphas had it working before the first IE9 preview was released and it will be in FF 4.0. Firefox devs are also working on OpenGL acceleration for other platforms but that's much further away.
You change the order of my words and then want to say that it's a decrease because you screwed with the order yourself... Also you don't understand percentages when it comes to efficiency, cutting consumption in half means that it's 100% more efficient because it's twice as efficient. If it used 1/3rd the fuel then it would be 200% more efficient, 1/4 the fuel is 300% more efficient, etc.
It's completely academic IMO. When I first read it I got the right answer but I was looking at it from a different perspective than the article does. The way I saw it was that 10 mpg vs 20 mpg is a 100% efficiency increase, but 33 mpg vs 50 mpg is only a ~50% efficiency increase. If they wanted to prove their point then they should have kept the ratios of both sets equal instead of using deceptive numbers, especially considering their argument is that we're being informed poorly; they're being hypocritical and contributing to the confusion.
That example is more of a problem with Elo itself. Anybody new to the system is going to have the default points which naturally won't correspond to their real skill, it takes many competitions for them to reach a rating that corresponds to their skill. The bonus points get added to your rating when you win a match, but remember that when you lose a match the amount of points you trade is based on the rating difference. The inflation caused by bonus points will cause you to lose more points when you lose a match and in theory the inflation caused by bonus points should even out amongst all players as they play matches.
I've been in the beta for a week and it's alright but I liked warcraft 1/2 and starcraft 1 more. BW and WC3 required too much micro so I didn't like them. Currently some SC2 units seem useless and some of the new ones are OP.
The matchmaking system in SC2 is working rather well and matches you against similar skilled players. There are some concerns over it because it's loosely based on the Elo rating system used for chess and other competitions, but some people argue that they've destroyed everything good that the Elo system does. Elo gives people a starting pool of points and then trades points between the winner and loser of a match and the amount traded depends on the difference between the numbers. This makes it so that a good player beating a poorly rated player will gain hardly any points whereas if they lose then they lose a lot of points because they're good but lost to someone bad, and if they're evenly skilled then a moderate number of points will be traded. Eventually you top out and reach a number that corresponds with your skill and will stay roughly the same unless skill changes. With the SC2 rating system there are 5 leagues that separate skill levels, and within each league are divisions consisting of 100 players. Each division has its own Elo ratings and if you change leagues because your skill is out of place then your rating resets and you start a new Elo rating all over again in the new league/division. There are also 'bonus' points that accumulate while you're not playing that you can then gain once you do gain, much like WoW's rested xp system. These bonus points cause inflation within each division. For these reasons you can't compare the Elo style rating between divisions or leagues, your rating only shows how good you are within your division.
Amazing how the company that developed the API is the first to demo it... Firefox is likely going to beat them when it comes to shipping a browser that supports the API's though.
Firefox already has support for these in the 3.7 prerelease builds. All of the IE9 tests that showcase the benefits of these two API's worked amazingly on my D2D+DW enabled Firefox, while Chrome fell flat. If you're interested in enabling it then see this: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1775755
As I said above, if you do turn the power output down then you can use the same channel even. There's no magic tiling placement that allows for overlap to occur, it's all about reducing power output so that the signal doesn't travel as far and the same spectrum can be used for small areas that are spread out.
I call BS with your mystical tiling algorithm that allows overlapping channels and which you provide no reference to. For such a thing to work you would have to lower the power output down to prevent interference. If you turn the power output down then the signal doesn't go as far, in which case you could even use the same channel, and you'd have to have many AP's covering very small areas. In a small area as the OP has, you can't turn power output down enough to prevent interference on overlapping channels and even if you could then you'd need more than 3 mounting spots.
The RT-N16 is 2.4GHz only which will be terrible for this scenario. The OP needs to use dual band routers to utilize both bands and maximize the number of clients that can be supported in a small area. 2.4GHz only has 3 non-overlapping channels and if you figure 50 per channel then that's 150 users for 2.4GHz. The 5GHz range has far more usable channels and the majority of N adapters can utilize either band.
I think they mean that greasemonkey, firebug, and similar extensions will be able to strip out the branding code, not that they would have any control over scripting the video to go fullscreen. By removing the branding code you get the browser native controls back which hopefully provide a fullscreen mode. With html5 it is also much easier to just find the URL of the video file and download it or open it in another browser tab/window.
There's a difference between putting the browser in fullscreen and making the embedded video go fullscreen. What good is having the browser fullscreen if the video is still stuck at the same arbitrary resolution it was before?
I'm going to have to put the blame on the browsers for not implementing a "double click the video to go fullscreen" behavior or some sort of key binding. Sites shouldn't have to refrain from branding just to allow the user to go fullscreen, the browser should always provide a method for the user to do it.
1) Encryption/decryption take time. While time for packets to travel across is unchanged, the overhead of (en|de)cryption does add to the overall latency from layer 7 http server to layer 7 client app and vice versa. 2) It's possible that some ISP's may have lower QoS priorities for specific encrypted traffic, traffic they can't identify, or port 443.
Bluetooth and 802.11 (wifi) both use 2.4 GHz spectrum and interfere with one another. Some routers have "bluetooth coexistence mode" to weave 802.11 transmissions into time slots that it doesn't expect nearby bluetooth devices to use but it's better to just avoid bluetooth for a mouse imo. The FCC filing for my Logitech MX700 shows that it uses 27 MHz https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/tcb/GetTcb731Report.do?applicationId=463065&fcc_id='JNZ211596'
Slashdot Mirror
The whole browser is hardware accelerated by the new Direct2D and Directwrite API's. It's just that the biggest noticeable advantage is the speedup of the canvas element which is used to manipulate a lot of graphics. Firefox nightly alphas had it working before the first IE9 preview was released and it will be in FF 4.0. Firefox devs are also working on OpenGL acceleration for other platforms but that's much further away.
Firefox 4.0 betas are slightly faster than IE9 previews using the same hardware acceleration API's (Direct2D and Directwrite).
You change the order of my words and then want to say that it's a decrease because you screwed with the order yourself... Also you don't understand percentages when it comes to efficiency, cutting consumption in half means that it's 100% more efficient because it's twice as efficient. If it used 1/3rd the fuel then it would be 200% more efficient, 1/4 the fuel is 300% more efficient, etc.
It's completely academic IMO. When I first read it I got the right answer but I was looking at it from a different perspective than the article does. The way I saw it was that 10 mpg vs 20 mpg is a 100% efficiency increase, but 33 mpg vs 50 mpg is only a ~50% efficiency increase. If they wanted to prove their point then they should have kept the ratios of both sets equal instead of using deceptive numbers, especially considering their argument is that we're being informed poorly; they're being hypocritical and contributing to the confusion.
That example is more of a problem with Elo itself. Anybody new to the system is going to have the default points which naturally won't correspond to their real skill, it takes many competitions for them to reach a rating that corresponds to their skill. The bonus points get added to your rating when you win a match, but remember that when you lose a match the amount of points you trade is based on the rating difference. The inflation caused by bonus points will cause you to lose more points when you lose a match and in theory the inflation caused by bonus points should even out amongst all players as they play matches.
I've been in the beta for a week and it's alright but I liked warcraft 1/2 and starcraft 1 more. BW and WC3 required too much micro so I didn't like them. Currently some SC2 units seem useless and some of the new ones are OP.
The matchmaking system in SC2 is working rather well and matches you against similar skilled players. There are some concerns over it because it's loosely based on the Elo rating system used for chess and other competitions, but some people argue that they've destroyed everything good that the Elo system does. Elo gives people a starting pool of points and then trades points between the winner and loser of a match and the amount traded depends on the difference between the numbers. This makes it so that a good player beating a poorly rated player will gain hardly any points whereas if they lose then they lose a lot of points because they're good but lost to someone bad, and if they're evenly skilled then a moderate number of points will be traded. Eventually you top out and reach a number that corresponds with your skill and will stay roughly the same unless skill changes. With the SC2 rating system there are 5 leagues that separate skill levels, and within each league are divisions consisting of 100 players. Each division has its own Elo ratings and if you change leagues because your skill is out of place then your rating resets and you start a new Elo rating all over again in the new league/division. There are also 'bonus' points that accumulate while you're not playing that you can then gain once you do gain, much like WoW's rested xp system. These bonus points cause inflation within each division. For these reasons you can't compare the Elo style rating between divisions or leagues, your rating only shows how good you are within your division.
Firefox DOES support D2D+DW for this uber 2D performance, see my post below for help enabling it.
Amazing how the company that developed the API is the first to demo it... Firefox is likely going to beat them when it comes to shipping a browser that supports the API's though.
Firefox already has support for these in the 3.7 prerelease builds. All of the IE9 tests that showcase the benefits of these two API's worked amazingly on my D2D+DW enabled Firefox, while Chrome fell flat. If you're interested in enabling it then see this: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1775755
As I said above, if you do turn the power output down then you can use the same channel even. There's no magic tiling placement that allows for overlap to occur, it's all about reducing power output so that the signal doesn't travel as far and the same spectrum can be used for small areas that are spread out.
I call BS with your mystical tiling algorithm that allows overlapping channels and which you provide no reference to. For such a thing to work you would have to lower the power output down to prevent interference. If you turn the power output down then the signal doesn't go as far, in which case you could even use the same channel, and you'd have to have many AP's covering very small areas. In a small area as the OP has, you can't turn power output down enough to prevent interference on overlapping channels and even if you could then you'd need more than 3 mounting spots.
The RT-N16 is 2.4GHz only which will be terrible for this scenario. The OP needs to use dual band routers to utilize both bands and maximize the number of clients that can be supported in a small area. 2.4GHz only has 3 non-overlapping channels and if you figure 50 per channel then that's 150 users for 2.4GHz. The 5GHz range has far more usable channels and the majority of N adapters can utilize either band.
I think they mean that greasemonkey, firebug, and similar extensions will be able to strip out the branding code, not that they would have any control over scripting the video to go fullscreen. By removing the branding code you get the browser native controls back which hopefully provide a fullscreen mode. With html5 it is also much easier to just find the URL of the video file and download it or open it in another browser tab/window.
There's a difference between putting the browser in fullscreen and making the embedded video go fullscreen. What good is having the browser fullscreen if the video is still stuck at the same arbitrary resolution it was before?
I'm going to have to put the blame on the browsers for not implementing a "double click the video to go fullscreen" behavior or some sort of key binding. Sites shouldn't have to refrain from branding just to allow the user to go fullscreen, the browser should always provide a method for the user to do it.
1) Encryption/decryption take time. While time for packets to travel across is unchanged, the overhead of (en|de)cryption does add to the overall latency from layer 7 http server to layer 7 client app and vice versa.
2) It's possible that some ISP's may have lower QoS priorities for specific encrypted traffic, traffic they can't identify, or port 443.
Only on slashdot will you find a comparison where a 1970's terminal is declared superior to a modern gameboy-like product. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLATO_(computer_system)
I had to go through 3 links just to find the poor guy's name. http://www3.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/nov/30/hm-recollected-famous-amnesic-launches-bold-new-br/
Bluetooth and 802.11 (wifi) both use 2.4 GHz spectrum and interfere with one another. Some routers have "bluetooth coexistence mode" to weave 802.11 transmissions into time slots that it doesn't expect nearby bluetooth devices to use but it's better to just avoid bluetooth for a mouse imo. The FCC filing for my Logitech MX700 shows that it uses 27 MHz https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/tcb/GetTcb731Report.do?applicationId=463065&fcc_id='JNZ211596'