That 20GBytes isn't going to fit on a DVD or a cartridge either
No, it fits on a Blu-Ray disc, which is why I picked that size. Game developers are already using that capacity, so expecting them to suddenly move to download-based distribution seems pretty ridiculous.
How about believing that there is any reason these machines were invented, sold to an unaware public, and deployed other than to make the manufacturer, their investors, and those whom the manufacturer pays off money.
Yeah, that sounds about right to me. Why else would the manufacturers build them, other than to make money?
They're marketed as making us safer (an argument which I reject), and the TSA sometimes gets off on being the "big man with the gun", but those are side effects of a product who's sole purpose is to make it purveyors money.
Well, yeah, duh. You could say the same thing about the insidious handcuff manufacturing industry. It's not like they're in it for the greater good. They're in it for a buck.
The question is, why is the government deploying these things? It's possible it's simply because the government feels they could aid in security. 'course, it's also possible they're just lining the pockets of campaign contributors. I'm sure it's actually somewhere in between.
But what they're not doing is attempting to "emasculate and demean the people who pass through them". Yes, that's idiotic.
It does not matter if you get laughed at. Grow up.
It does when it's the job of these people to deal with thousands upon thousands of passengers each day, and to do so in a respectful, professional manner. If these people are sniggering about penis size during training (and worse, abusing this person for a full year), that speaks directly to their ability to be respectful and professional.
The whole purpose of the scanners to emasculate and demean the people who pass through them.
Don't be obtuse. The purpose is to scan people. That's it.
The fact that the people running these things are, apparently, immature simpletons is a huge issue, certainly, and the use of these machines is, in my mind, a gross invasion of privacy. But I don't, for one minute, believe the reason they were invented, and the reason they're being deployed, is to "emasculate and demean the people who pass through them". That is, quite frankly, simply idiotic.
Cart loaders make piracy insanely easy on the Nintendo DS.
No, the total lack of a solid cryptosystem or hardware security makes piracy insanely easy. If the PS3 used solid-state storage, it would still be as unhackable as it is, today, using blu-ray media.
Yes, I know I definitely want to download 20GB of assets over my broadband connection, instead of just popping in a nice optical disc or the latest solid-state storage. I mean, who doesn't want to wait days and days and days while maxing out one's bandwidth cap? Genius!
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.
So your assertion is that, from a performance perspective, Flash and HTML5 are likely to be on par.
Great, I don't disagree with that, and you'll be hard pressed to find a place where I stated otherwise.
However, you *do* disagree with tepples, as do I. And that's whose argument I was attempting to rebut.
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.
I couldn't agree more. But tepples would have us believe that Flash is somehow a fundamentally more efficient technology:
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.
And I'm sorry, but that's absolute fucking bullshit. Yes, the implementations are still improving, but there's nothing about HTML5 or canvas that precludes top-notch performance, and I suspect one of Apple's goals will be to bring just that to Webkit's implementation.
No, most applications don't need this functionality. But for the ones that do, there's absolutely no substitute. If Flash was a new, emerging technology, then this wouldn't be enough - but in fact, it's well-established, stable, and ubiquitous. It might become less popular in the near future, but it ain't dying anytime soon.
If we see advertisers move to HTML5 for their annoying advertising, simply disabling Flash will no longer save me. I will then need to install some kind of ad blocker in order to surf undisturbed.
Then install the ad blocker.
Seriously, how is this such an incredible hardship? You paint this issue as if it's some kind of major deal-breaker for you, but it's literally trivial to deal with. Hell, you, yourself, flat out stated you *already* run an ad blocker, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about, unless you're just complaining for the hell of it.
That's an implementation issue. Both technologies use the same underlying language to actually drive the app. So either the browser you were using had a crappy javascript engine, or the canvas tag was poorly implemented. If it was Firefox (and I say this as a Firefox user), likely both of those is true.
While that's true, let's face it, that functionality is really only leveraged in a few niches. Most people make use of flash for vector animations, sound playback, and video. If HTML5 can usurp one or more of those roles, then you may very well see Flash marginalized to those few areas where it's functionality makes it irreplaceable.
In his defense, he knows this. Talking to him about it, he admits that being a video game pundit is just something he does on the side. And that he gets things wrong a lot. Partly it's prediction, but I suspect mostly it is bravado.
Well, lord knows, if the world needs anything, it's more ignorant blowhards... especially the ones who know they're ignorant, and yet continue to blow harder and harder. But hey, at least he only does it as a hobby, so, kudos, I guess...
He majored in software engineering and information systems, later on he completed his MBA. I am not sure how a business degree and a comp sci degree would help him assemble an effective explosive device.
But... but... he's an "engineer"! Therefore, he's an expert in anything and everything! Seriously, are you new around here or something?
Well, given that the US chess championship for 2010 features a $170,000 purse, while a player may not be able to live only on chess, they can certainly do alright by it, assuming they're any good.
The iPad, in contrast, is not just a cheap laptop. It fills a distinctly different need to a laptop. I've not entirely worked out what that need is - it seems to target a market that doesn't contain me - but it's clearly not the same set of uses as a laptop.
Well, if it was, say, $200 cheaper (ie, the $300-400 range), I'd seriously consider getting one as a coffee table computer. ie, something to break out when I want to quickly look up the name of an actor on IMDB, check the local movie theatre listings, or check gmail. Heck, even for some extended, light browsing (eg, checking my GReader feeds) it's probably a really nice alternative to pulling out a laptop.
But at $500? It's just too steep for the functionality it offers (at least IMHO, but I'm also really really cheap:)...
Right, and when the population is like ten or so then two is a significant sample.
No, it's still not. A population of 10 tells you absolutely zilch about chess players as a group, or about high-ranked chess players as a subgroup. The sample itself is simply too small to say anything at all that's statistically meaningful.
And that's ignoring the fact that there are more like hundreds of professional chess players out there.
Two is a significant sample if we're talking about the number of "high profile chess players" in the world.
Really? Could you provide a statistical backing for that claim? Because I *strongly* suspect "two" isn't a significant enough sample to extract a trend in any moderately sized population.
There are always people who want things to remain as they always were, so they don't have to ever change or adapt to new things.
Yeah, if only this were a new thing.
Cloud computing == grid computing. Hell, here in Alberta, there was a project to build a large scale grid computing network at least six years ago, and I'm certain the idea predates that. The only difference is cloud computing has brought the idea into the mainstream.
Which really makes the Slashdot naysayers look even sillier. This is an *old idea*. Heck, the idea of buying CPU cycles on large computers goes back *much* futher than that, all the way back to the days of the first mainframes. The idea of leasing/buying time on a large, distributed computing network is, quite honestly, really frickin' obvious to anyone who's been paying any attention at all.
Slashdot Mirror
That 20GBytes isn't going to fit on a DVD or a cartridge either
No, it fits on a Blu-Ray disc, which is why I picked that size. Game developers are already using that capacity, so expecting them to suddenly move to download-based distribution seems pretty ridiculous.
How about believing that there is any reason these machines were invented, sold to an unaware public, and deployed other than to make the manufacturer, their investors, and those whom the manufacturer pays off money.
Yeah, that sounds about right to me. Why else would the manufacturers build them, other than to make money?
They're marketed as making us safer (an argument which I reject), and the TSA sometimes gets off on being the "big man with the gun", but those are side effects of a product who's sole purpose is to make it purveyors money.
Well, yeah, duh. You could say the same thing about the insidious handcuff manufacturing industry. It's not like they're in it for the greater good. They're in it for a buck.
The question is, why is the government deploying these things? It's possible it's simply because the government feels they could aid in security. 'course, it's also possible they're just lining the pockets of campaign contributors. I'm sure it's actually somewhere in between.
But what they're not doing is attempting to "emasculate and demean the people who pass through them". Yes, that's idiotic.
It does not matter if you get laughed at. Grow up.
It does when it's the job of these people to deal with thousands upon thousands of passengers each day, and to do so in a respectful, professional manner. If these people are sniggering about penis size during training (and worse, abusing this person for a full year), that speaks directly to their ability to be respectful and professional.
The whole purpose of the scanners to emasculate and demean the people who pass through them.
Don't be obtuse. The purpose is to scan people. That's it.
The fact that the people running these things are, apparently, immature simpletons is a huge issue, certainly, and the use of these machines is, in my mind, a gross invasion of privacy. But I don't, for one minute, believe the reason they were invented, and the reason they're being deployed, is to "emasculate and demean the people who pass through them". That is, quite frankly, simply idiotic.
Cart loaders make piracy insanely easy on the Nintendo DS.
No, the total lack of a solid cryptosystem or hardware security makes piracy insanely easy. If the PS3 used solid-state storage, it would still be as unhackable as it is, today, using blu-ray media.
Yes, I know I definitely want to download 20GB of assets over my broadband connection, instead of just popping in a nice optical disc or the latest solid-state storage. I mean, who doesn't want to wait days and days and days while maxing out one's bandwidth cap? Genius!
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.
So your assertion is that, from a performance perspective, Flash and HTML5 are likely to be on par.
Great, I don't disagree with that, and you'll be hard pressed to find a place where I stated otherwise.
However, you *do* disagree with tepples, as do I. And that's whose argument I was attempting to rebut.
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.
I couldn't agree more. But tepples would have us believe that Flash is somehow a fundamentally more efficient technology:
And I'm sorry, but that's absolute fucking bullshit. Yes, the implementations are still improving, but there's nothing about HTML5 or canvas that precludes top-notch performance, and I suspect one of Apple's goals will be to bring just that to Webkit's implementation.
No, most applications don't need this functionality. But for the ones that do, there's absolutely no substitute. If Flash was a new, emerging technology, then this wouldn't be enough - but in fact, it's well-established, stable, and ubiquitous. It might become less popular in the near future, but it ain't dying anytime soon.
Isn't that what I said? :)
If we see advertisers move to HTML5 for their annoying advertising, simply disabling Flash will no longer save me. I will then need to install some kind of ad blocker in order to surf undisturbed.
Then install the ad blocker.
Seriously, how is this such an incredible hardship? You paint this issue as if it's some kind of major deal-breaker for you, but it's literally trivial to deal with. Hell, you, yourself, flat out stated you *already* run an ad blocker, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about, unless you're just complaining for the hell of it.
Which has nothing to do at all with Javascript as a technology. Heck, it probably has a lot more to do with a crappy canvas implementation.
But way to take a benchmark and completely misinterpret it's possible implications.
That's an implementation issue. Both technologies use the same underlying language to actually drive the app. So either the browser you were using had a crappy javascript engine, or the canvas tag was poorly implemented. If it was Firefox (and I say this as a Firefox user), likely both of those is true.
Yes, it is used an awful lot for an awful lot of obnoxious ads... And I can quickly and easily get rid of those ads just by disabling flash.
How am I going to get rid of the obnoxious ads written in HTML5?
With the exact same technology, only this time it'll be a click-to-play video element instead of click-to-play flash embed.
Seriously, the video element is no different than an embed tag in this regard. What makes you think it is?
While that's true, let's face it, that functionality is really only leveraged in a few niches. Most people make use of flash for vector animations, sound playback, and video. If HTML5 can usurp one or more of those roles, then you may very well see Flash marginalized to those few areas where it's functionality makes it irreplaceable.
In his defense, he knows this. Talking to him about it, he admits that being a video game pundit is just something he does on the side. And that he gets things wrong a lot. Partly it's prediction, but I suspect mostly it is bravado.
Well, lord knows, if the world needs anything, it's more ignorant blowhards... especially the ones who know they're ignorant, and yet continue to blow harder and harder. But hey, at least he only does it as a hobby, so, kudos, I guess...
Because, around here, "Troll" == "I disagree with you". Seriously, are you new around here?
He majored in software engineering and information systems, later on he completed his MBA. I am not sure how a business degree and a comp sci degree would help him assemble an effective explosive device.
But... but... he's an "engineer"! Therefore, he's an expert in anything and everything! Seriously, are you new around here or something?
Damn right I'll wine! It works great!
Well, given that the US chess championship for 2010 features a $170,000 purse, while a player may not be able to live only on chess, they can certainly do alright by it, assuming they're any good.
The iPad, in contrast, is not just a cheap laptop. It fills a distinctly different need to a laptop. I've not entirely worked out what that need is - it seems to target a market that doesn't contain me - but it's clearly not the same set of uses as a laptop.
Well, if it was, say, $200 cheaper (ie, the $300-400 range), I'd seriously consider getting one as a coffee table computer. ie, something to break out when I want to quickly look up the name of an actor on IMDB, check the local movie theatre listings, or check gmail. Heck, even for some extended, light browsing (eg, checking my GReader feeds) it's probably a really nice alternative to pulling out a laptop.
But at $500? It's just too steep for the functionality it offers (at least IMHO, but I'm also really really cheap :)...
Right, and when the population is like ten or so then two is a significant sample.
No, it's still not. A population of 10 tells you absolutely zilch about chess players as a group, or about high-ranked chess players as a subgroup. The sample itself is simply too small to say anything at all that's statistically meaningful.
And that's ignoring the fact that there are more like hundreds of professional chess players out there.
When there's only four high-profile chess players....
Uhuh. Yeah, there's a few more than that.
Two is a significant sample if we're talking about the number of "high profile chess players" in the world.
Really? Could you provide a statistical backing for that claim? Because I *strongly* suspect "two" isn't a significant enough sample to extract a trend in any moderately sized population.
Why do high profile chess players always have to go completely batshit crazy?
So, wait... two examples, and you indict an entire group of people?
Wow, well done. Well done indeed.
There are always people who want things to remain as they always were, so they don't have to ever change or adapt to new things.
Yeah, if only this were a new thing.
Cloud computing == grid computing. Hell, here in Alberta, there was a project to build a large scale grid computing network at least six years ago, and I'm certain the idea predates that. The only difference is cloud computing has brought the idea into the mainstream.
Which really makes the Slashdot naysayers look even sillier. This is an *old idea*. Heck, the idea of buying CPU cycles on large computers goes back *much* futher than that, all the way back to the days of the first mainframes. The idea of leasing/buying time on a large, distributed computing network is, quite honestly, really frickin' obvious to anyone who's been paying any attention at all.