It was so bad as a joke that I took it at face value; sorry.
Here's another similar joke which falls flat on its face. I thought it up just now, and as I did so I read that my country's just formed a Conservative-Liberal coalition government. That's pretty harsh punishment, as punishment for bad jokes go, but I think I deserved it.
Why don't we like QRP on 137.5kHz? Because HAMS don't like WOLF.
WOLF is Weak-signal Operation on Low Frequency, see.
The replies to your post remind me that this isn't a geek site any more. Cheering on fashions in body modification? Being a technophile up to the mid-'90s was so much easier. No bullshit!
Why should I respect the developers? Even if I respect them, why should I pay them money for the expression of their thoughts? If they don't want me to hear, they should keep silent.
A government which can't use its whip to push its Party's MPs into voting a particular way such that a majority vote is inevitable is the best sort of government.
After all, an MP is voted in by his constituents to represent his constituents, not his Party.
Gmail users aren't the sort to type out full e-mail addresses, or even know what they are.
While we're at MPAA-piracy-style stats to pretend they care about their users, think of how many billions of keystrokes and/or bytes of bandwidth could be saved if Google advertised the gogle.com misspelling it owns!
there's nothing about HTML5 or canvas that precludes top-notch performance
But there is nothing about Flash or Adobe to stop you implementing a VM which is at least as good. Indeed, there's going to be the slight bonus of precompilation of Flash.
Moreover, canvas suffers the same problem as Flash (but not SVG) that it's just a blank square detached from the DOM. IOW, Javascript+canvas offers no advantages over Flash.
HTML5 video is a good and long overdue idea, however, but it doesn't/replace/ Flash, just one use of it.
What? Canvas is the, well, canvas for Apple's attempt to kill Flash using regular browser Javascript and its implementations' performance is significant to answering the article title's question.
speed once started. Needing to compile only influences one of these.
Wrong. Pre-compilation taking as long as you like is, in the optimised case, going to be better than JIT, which must also take into account compilation time. This isn't even like Java on the server, where you have to worry about time wasted at server startup: this is every time some guy visits your page.
You know the best way to test whether your site sucks? Test it on a 10 year old setup. Current Javascript-based sites make my 900MHz Celeron cry, while Flash was already doing similar business back then.
On the other hand, only Adobe can write a Flash interpreter.
False. The Flash spec is open, and anyone can write a Flash SWF parser and interpreter. You've got the added advantage that the wrangling interests of a few corporations don't get to impose a convoluted mish-mash standard, as is the case with HTML5 (which is why there's never a full conforming implementation of any recent W3C standard). You'd be reasonable to argue that the one-corporation-controlling model of Flash, like.NET or Java or any other number of successful VMs, is not optimal either:-).
It seems the biggest effect Flash video has is to make playing streaming video impossible on low-power systems
Not really. It's not like the decoder which is actually doing the video processing is written in interpreted VM bytecode.
I don't like Flash much, but that's because it lacks decent DOM integration (like Apple's canvas) and because Adobe's implementations suck and they've taken way too long to implicitly admit that their standard needs to have good competing implementations. All the Apple-based arguments are bullshit, however.
Wales is like Peter Mandelson in the UK: a cunning, hypocritical architect of a corrupt organisation who always bounces back because he's engineered social and political relationships such that everyone interested in power would have their ambitions quashed (at best) if they were to turn against him.
Fortunately, if you disregard those with personal interest in Wikipedia's success and the loyal editors who haven't learnt never to count the sunken cost, Wikipedia is regarded as fair and balanced as Fox News on anything mildly controversial. For everything else, it's a bargain basement textbook and trivia compendium.
One is compiled then executed in a VM; the other is already compiled and executed in a VM. In the optimal version of each, Javascript will be slower.
But since everyone and his mother is concentrating on optimising Javascript, we have the wild achievement that, over a decade after its creation, it might in some experimental scenarios be faster than Flash when employed to do what Flash has been able to do for years.
What a low powered sub-notebook (palmtop / netbook / whatever kids call it these days) can't do in Flash because of lack of processing power, it by immediate consequence can't do in HTML5.
What does open/closed source have to do with this?
Yes, why not trust the motives of people who keep everything a secret?
Everyone has to start somewhere.
Absolutely. But a little learning is a dangerous thing where security is concerned - by the writers too, it seems, since they come out with stuff like Python implying imperviousness to buffer overflows (another commenter has covered this well in the posts he links to).
I'd have let them get away with it if they'd chosen a more honestly self-deprecating title. How about, "Brief introduction to inherent problems with the HTML application model we're obsessed with, and necessary workarounds"?
I don't "respect" Google, and the only reason I wouldn't use their code commercially (with correct attribution) if I found it lying in the middle of the road is that I might face legal problems. If you don't want an idea shared, don't tell it to anyone, and I'll respect your right not to be tortured or otherwise forced to reveal it. Otherwise respect my freedom of choice to speak what I know.
But you're strawmanning, because my argument was simply to never trust a security lesson from an outfit like Google. Since my previous posts, I've gone through it, and it turns out the tutorial is so basic and rendered redundant by many far more in-depth security challenges on the web.
That was barely a challenge - probably more to gauge how many people were paying attention. GCHQ put out some interesting challenges from time to time (not all of which are still on their site, so look further if you're searching).
Almost all the code I've deployed since 2001 is or has been (in cases where it's way too outdated to be usable) available publicly. I shan't link to it, because it'd link my real identity to my/. account - I value privacy, even though most of today's 'net users don't.
The first and only office-y job I had before that, before self-employment, guarded its code jealously. While I went some small way to opening things up, they weren't that interested. Since then I've been able to fully form and stick to principle.
Well of course it is closed. It is more or less a trade secret.
Yeah, that's everyone's excuse for closed source.
If PageRank was open source, Google would be no more.
I didn't realise Google were such a one-trick po.. OK, yes I did. Good! Let them "innovate" in better ways than by hiding their super sekrit algorithms from each other. No wonder there's been so little advance in search quality over the past decade.
However, unlike closed source programs, it doesn't hinder usability and it works better than competitors.
Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. There are half a dozen good search engines and, if you're just using Google, you're getting a fairly skewed view of the web. And it certainly hinders usability that others can't improve PageRank!
Android is built on Linux, which is open source. Google's apps on Android are closed source. Chromium is built on WebKit, which is built on KDE's HTML rendering engine, which is open source. Chrome is closed source.
So even when they're taking great advantage of open source, like Apple, they can't resist making sure the full kaboodle is closed. And these are just just their minor projects.
Their major search thing is as closed as they promised it wouldn't be (though no-one remembers that any more).
Let me guess, we'll learn: - Sanitise input so random commands can't be executed on the server; - Don't allow upload of random files such as malformed JPGs which can include executable code; - Don't allow upload of HTML snippets which can contain cross-site scripting vulnerabilities; - Don't use session ID info which can be copy-pasted elsewhere, especially not corresponding to other people's accounts; - Don't do anything Google hasn't thought of, or they'll get pissy. Remember, you're only allowed to be as secure as Google thinks they are!
Slashdot Mirror
For DX you've got to worry about sun spot cycles and/or the time of day and ionosphere conditions.
Over the past few thousand years, these have all been more predictable than geopolitics.
I can walk a few hundred yards from almost anywhere to a convenience store, Wal-mart, etc. and buy a pay as you go cell phone for $50 USD
Indeed. And you'd be reasonable to choose it today. Since the Great War was the war to end all wars, you'll always be able to choose it.
It was so bad as a joke that I took it at face value; sorry.
Here's another similar joke which falls flat on its face. I thought it up just now, and as I did so I read that my country's just formed a Conservative-Liberal coalition government. That's pretty harsh punishment, as punishment for bad jokes go, but I think I deserved it.
Why don't we like QRP on 137.5kHz?
Because HAMS don't like WOLF.
WOLF is Weak-signal Operation on Low Frequency, see.
The replies to your post remind me that this isn't a geek site any more. Cheering on fashions in body modification? Being a technophile up to the mid-'90s was so much easier. No bullshit!
That problem was solved long before we became reliant on the above.
Why should I respect the developers? Even if I respect them, why should I pay them money for the expression of their thoughts? If they don't want me to hear, they should keep silent.
Stories like this make me happy to be a ham. I don't need a complex infrastructure and global political stability to communicate with anyone, woohoo!
Hey, hey, LBJ!
How many kids did you kill today?
The history of destructive non-human testing in the US isn't pretty either.
A government which can't use its whip to push its Party's MPs into voting a particular way such that a majority vote is inevitable is the best sort of government.
After all, an MP is voted in by his constituents to represent his constituents, not his Party.
Gmail users aren't the sort to type out full e-mail addresses, or even know what they are.
While we're at MPAA-piracy-style stats to pretend they care about their users, think of how many billions of keystrokes and/or bytes of bandwidth could be saved if Google advertised the gogle.com misspelling it owns!
You're going to have to give me some evidence for that. No pretending it's still 2008.
there's nothing about HTML5 or canvas that precludes top-notch performance
But there is nothing about Flash or Adobe to stop you implementing a VM which is at least as good. Indeed, there's going to be the slight bonus of precompilation of Flash.
Moreover, canvas suffers the same problem as Flash (but not SVG) that it's just a blank square detached from the DOM. IOW, Javascript+canvas offers no advantages over Flash.
HTML5 video is a good and long overdue idea, however, but it doesn't /replace/ Flash, just one use of it.
What? Canvas is the, well, canvas for Apple's attempt to kill Flash using regular browser Javascript and its implementations' performance is significant to answering the article title's question.
speed once started. Needing to compile only influences one of these.
Wrong. Pre-compilation taking as long as you like is, in the optimised case, going to be better than JIT, which must also take into account compilation time. This isn't even like Java on the server, where you have to worry about time wasted at server startup: this is every time some guy visits your page.
You know the best way to test whether your site sucks? Test it on a 10 year old setup. Current Javascript-based sites make my 900MHz Celeron cry, while Flash was already doing similar business back then.
On the other hand, only Adobe can write a Flash interpreter.
False. The Flash spec is open, and anyone can write a Flash SWF parser and interpreter. You've got the added advantage that the wrangling interests of a few corporations don't get to impose a convoluted mish-mash standard, as is the case with HTML5 (which is why there's never a full conforming implementation of any recent W3C standard). You'd be reasonable to argue that the one-corporation-controlling model of Flash, like .NET or Java or any other number of successful VMs, is not optimal either :-).
It seems the biggest effect Flash video has is to make playing streaming video impossible on low-power systems
Not really. It's not like the decoder which is actually doing the video processing is written in interpreted VM bytecode.
I don't like Flash much, but that's because it lacks decent DOM integration (like Apple's canvas) and because Adobe's implementations suck and they've taken way too long to implicitly admit that their standard needs to have good competing implementations. All the Apple-based arguments are bullshit, however.
Wales is like Peter Mandelson in the UK: a cunning, hypocritical architect of a corrupt organisation who always bounces back because he's engineered social and political relationships such that everyone interested in power would have their ambitions quashed (at best) if they were to turn against him.
Fortunately, if you disregard those with personal interest in Wikipedia's success and the loyal editors who haven't learnt never to count the sunken cost, Wikipedia is regarded as fair and balanced as Fox News on anything mildly controversial. For everything else, it's a bargain basement textbook and trivia compendium.
One is compiled then executed in a VM; the other is already compiled and executed in a VM. In the optimal version of each, Javascript will be slower.
But since everyone and his mother is concentrating on optimising Javascript, we have the wild achievement that, over a decade after its creation, it might in some experimental scenarios be faster than Flash when employed to do what Flash has been able to do for years.
What a low powered sub-notebook (palmtop / netbook / whatever kids call it these days) can't do in Flash because of lack of processing power, it by immediate consequence can't do in HTML5.
Don't make me get Welsh tenor on you...
What does open/closed source have to do with this?
Yes, why not trust the motives of people who keep everything a secret?
Everyone has to start somewhere.
Absolutely. But a little learning is a dangerous thing where security is concerned - by the writers too, it seems, since they come out with stuff like Python implying imperviousness to buffer overflows (another commenter has covered this well in the posts he links to).
I'd have let them get away with it if they'd chosen a more honestly self-deprecating title. How about, "Brief introduction to inherent problems with the HTML application model we're obsessed with, and necessary workarounds"?
I don't "respect" Google, and the only reason I wouldn't use their code commercially (with correct attribution) if I found it lying in the middle of the road is that I might face legal problems. If you don't want an idea shared, don't tell it to anyone, and I'll respect your right not to be tortured or otherwise forced to reveal it. Otherwise respect my freedom of choice to speak what I know.
But you're strawmanning, because my argument was simply to never trust a security lesson from an outfit like Google. Since my previous posts, I've gone through it, and it turns out the tutorial is so basic and rendered redundant by many far more in-depth security challenges on the web.
That was barely a challenge - probably more to gauge how many people were paying attention. GCHQ put out some interesting challenges from time to time (not all of which are still on their site, so look further if you're searching).
Almost all the code I've deployed since 2001 is or has been (in cases where it's way too outdated to be usable) available publicly. I shan't link to it, because it'd link my real identity to my /. account - I value privacy, even though most of today's 'net users don't.
The first and only office-y job I had before that, before self-employment, guarded its code jealously. While I went some small way to opening things up, they weren't that interested. Since then I've been able to fully form and stick to principle.
Try again.
Well of course it is closed. It is more or less a trade secret.
Yeah, that's everyone's excuse for closed source.
If PageRank was open source, Google would be no more.
I didn't realise Google were such a one-trick po.. OK, yes I did. Good! Let them "innovate" in better ways than by hiding their super sekrit algorithms from each other. No wonder there's been so little advance in search quality over the past decade.
However, unlike closed source programs, it doesn't hinder usability and it works better than competitors.
Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. There are half a dozen good search engines and, if you're just using Google, you're getting a fairly skewed view of the web. And it certainly hinders usability that others can't improve PageRank!
Android is built on Linux, which is open source. Google's apps on Android are closed source.
Chromium is built on WebKit, which is built on KDE's HTML rendering engine, which is open source. Chrome is closed source.
So even when they're taking great advantage of open source, like Apple, they can't resist making sure the full kaboodle is closed. And these are just just their minor projects.
Their major search thing is as closed as they promised it wouldn't be (though no-one remembers that any more).
Let me guess, we'll learn:
- Sanitise input so random commands can't be executed on the server;
- Don't allow upload of random files such as malformed JPGs which can include executable code;
- Don't allow upload of HTML snippets which can contain cross-site scripting vulnerabilities;
- Don't use session ID info which can be copy-pasted elsewhere, especially not corresponding to other people's accounts;
- Don't do anything Google hasn't thought of, or they'll get pissy. Remember, you're only allowed to be as secure as Google thinks they are!
Continue the list, guys...
would be better. I have no trust in being taught security principles by a closed source company whose greatest asset is information about me.
All the good security texts are by people who are open with their ideas, open with their methods and open with their code.
I know buying Apple implies being taken in by shiny marketing campaigns, but can we please not make a habit of saying "simples"?