Note that Chrome uses shared memory, not messages, to pass the rendering output from the rendering processes to the main browser thread. And it's a sound decision, since it gives them the performance they need without giving up stability.
Here's one excuse: complications when trying to have multiple processes render content on a single window in Mac OS X [mozilla.com] (mentioned near the end of the tab process isolation section).
That's just hearsay of hearsay. In Chrome, only the main process draws to the window: renderer processes draw into shared memory, then the main process takes that rendering and transfers it into a backing store, which it uses to paint the window. (reference) There is no obstacle to using the same mechanism on Mac OS X.
Should you really be so proud of that? You're basically telling us that, while nobody has written a serious Erlang browser so far, Google is reaping the same benefits using plain old C++. That's not exactly going to encourage people to spend time learning Erlang.
That signature is simply talking about propagating the genes that contribute to your intelligence. There's nothing homophobic about that; or are you going to complain that "reproduction has a well-known heterosexual bias"?
Mod parent -1 troll. Didn't even read own links. "Introduced in the United States Senate as S. 2590 by Tom Coburn and Barack Obama on April 6, 2006"
That's what the infobox says. The article proper says: "This bill was introduced by Senator Tom Coburn, for himself and Senators Barack Obama, Tom Carper and John McCain". I guess nobody on Slashdot ever reads anything.
You know, I've heard the same thing about Thai women from people who've been in Thailand. That suggests that we can't discount all differences on "eye of the beholder" grounds. If almost all men agree that someone is beautiful (or ugly), then we might call it a fact (and define beautiful/ugly as what most people find attractive/unattractive); and travelers seem to agree that the average Thai woman is more beautiful than the world average. Further research is needed, though.
That said, I agree that there are much more important qualities than superficial beauty, such as programming skill.
Of course, you can find beautiful people in any country, especially among celebrities. But the more interesting question, and a much harder one to answer, is whether there are differences in the average level of beauty of ordinary people between different countries.
I presume the GP got his impression from visiting England in person; otherwise, it wouldn't even be worth considering. To add to the anectodical data, when I visited England with my family, several years ago, we also noticed something similar: although there was no shortage of cute children, pretty adult women seemed exceedingly rare. I wouldn't go as far as the GP and say that "98% were ugly"; many could be called plain or homely rather than ugly, but there definitely seemed to be far fewer pretty women than there should be.
We noticed this without any negative expectations about English people, and without expressly looking for it, so please regard it as a mere observation. I am also well aware that it's too unsystematic to draw any conclusions.
It could also be a case of beauty being in the eye of the beholder. I am from Europe, though, so I probably don't have the same standards as the GP (who I am assuming is from America, since in the English-speaking web everyone is American by default:-)).
Anyway, I do wonder if any research has been made in the perception of average beauty of people from one nation by people from others. Is it possible to assemble a list of countries ordered by average beauty as perceived by foreigners, of the same dubious utility as those lists of countries by IQ?
Sadly, some of the MPEG video patent holders have big voices in the W3C and demanded that there be no baseline. (What a shock: they don't want to have have a more level compatibility playing field because they don't want to have to compete on quality and price).
Actually, choosing any codec as a baseline would give it a strong competitive advantage that has nothing to do with quality or price. People will use it just because it's widely supported, with price and quality being distant considerations as long as there isn't a *gigantic* gap with the alternatives.
This is supposed to be the reason why Windows, Office, IE etc. still rule the world. (Please note that the means by which widespread adoption is obtained are irrelevant to this argument.)
I can just picture Joe Adobe in his garage, cursing as he packages his "DreamWeaver cs3 like new w/box" for shipping to the highest bidder, Herr Schroeder. "Is this Berlin, MD or Berlin, MA? What a hassle!"
(Do I get double karma to make up of the hassle that slashdot is causing me by not supporting umlauts?)
Slashdot Mirror
Note that Chrome uses shared memory, not messages, to pass the rendering output from the rendering processes to the main browser thread. And it's a sound decision, since it gives them the performance they need without giving up stability.
That's just hearsay of hearsay. In Chrome, only the main process draws to the window: renderer processes draw into shared memory, then the main process takes that rendering and transfers it into a backing store, which it uses to paint the window. (reference)
There is no obstacle to using the same mechanism on Mac OS X.
Should you really be so proud of that? You're basically telling us that, while nobody has written a serious Erlang browser so far, Google is reaping the same benefits using plain old C++. That's not exactly going to encourage people to spend time learning Erlang.
That signature is simply talking about propagating the genes that contribute to your intelligence. There's nothing homophobic about that; or are you going to complain that "reproduction has a well-known heterosexual bias"?
Mod parent -1 troll. Didn't even read own links. "Introduced in the United States Senate as S. 2590 by Tom Coburn and Barack Obama on April 6, 2006"
That's what the infobox says. The article proper says: "This bill was introduced by Senator Tom Coburn, for himself and Senators Barack Obama, Tom Carper and John McCain".
I guess nobody on Slashdot ever reads anything.
We may see better stories in FPS games in the future, but Halo's legacy will always be that it was the first FPS to have a great tale to tell.
No, that was Marathon.
You must have missed the piano girl yawning and scratching her nose.
You know, I've heard the same thing about Thai women from people who've been in Thailand. That suggests that we can't discount all differences on "eye of the beholder" grounds. If almost all men agree that someone is beautiful (or ugly), then we might call it a fact (and define beautiful/ugly as what most people find attractive/unattractive); and travelers seem to agree that the average Thai woman is more beautiful than the world average. Further research is needed, though.
That said, I agree that there are much more important qualities than superficial beauty, such as programming skill.
Of course, you can find beautiful people in any country, especially among celebrities. But the more interesting question, and a much harder one to answer, is whether there are differences in the average level of beauty of ordinary people between different countries.
:-)).
Anyway, I do wonder if any research has been made in the perception of average beauty of people from one nation by people from others. Is it possible to assemble a list of countries ordered by average beauty as perceived by foreigners, of the same dubious utility as those lists of countries by IQ?
I presume the GP got his impression from visiting England in person; otherwise, it wouldn't even be worth considering. To add to the anectodical data, when I visited England with my family, several years ago, we also noticed something similar: although there was no shortage of cute children, pretty adult women seemed exceedingly rare. I wouldn't go as far as the GP and say that "98% were ugly"; many could be called plain or homely rather than ugly, but there definitely seemed to be far fewer pretty women than there should be.
We noticed this without any negative expectations about English people, and without expressly looking for it, so please regard it as a mere observation. I am also well aware that it's too unsystematic to draw any conclusions.
It could also be a case of beauty being in the eye of the beholder. I am from Europe, though, so I probably don't have the same standards as the GP (who I am assuming is from America, since in the English-speaking web everyone is American by default
Why don't you give students their own mailboxes on your server, instead of sending your mail to external addresses?
Sadly, some of the MPEG video patent holders have big voices in the W3C and demanded that there be no baseline. (What a shock: they don't want to have have a more level compatibility playing field because they don't want to have to compete on quality and price).
Actually, choosing any codec as a baseline would give it a strong competitive advantage that has nothing to do with quality or price. People will use it just because it's widely supported, with price and quality being distant considerations as long as there isn't a *gigantic* gap with the alternatives. This is supposed to be the reason why Windows, Office, IE etc. still rule the world. (Please note that the means by which widespread adoption is obtained are irrelevant to this argument.)
I can just picture Joe Adobe in his garage, cursing as he packages his "DreamWeaver cs3 like new w/box" for shipping to the highest bidder, Herr Schroeder. "Is this Berlin, MD or Berlin, MA? What a hassle!"
(Do I get double karma to make up of the hassle that slashdot is causing me by not supporting umlauts?)