That's the plausible deniability part. If devs knew they were breaking Edge, that's the illegal market control part. It would be aggravated if the changes in fact served no technical purpose, but what matters is 1) possessing market control and 2) intentionally using that control for an anticompetitive purpose. Note: I am no fan of Microsoft, far from it. But I am even less a fan of unethical or illegal conduct, whether Microsoft does it or Google.
I wonder what the ostensible purpose of this particular empty div tag was. I usually associate such things with malware sites and the like.
Don't get me wrong. I did not intend to imply that emulating Microsoft's underhanded tactics (which went far beyond just manipulating the code) is anything to be proud of.
if anyone thinks that isn't already happening or won't happen, they need a reality check
Some of Google's tactics in pushing Chrome's market share over Firefox bear a strong resemblance to the tactics Microsoft used to suppress Netscape Navigator. It's hard to reach any other conclusion than that those smart Googlers studied Microsoft's tactics and emulated them.
when Google changed it (by adding an empty hidden div no less - something that should have absolutely no effect on a standards compliant layout engine not to mention the video hardware acceleration) it broke their precious benchmark cheat.
What we want to know is, did the Google developer(s) involved intend to break Edge performance or not. We already know about plausible deniability.
I had to code too many IE 6 workarounds and not put in new features due to having to keep IE 6 compatibility for so long, I have no sympathy to this Edge engineer.
Perhaps you could explain how two wrongs don't make a right squares with "don't be evil". Or perhaps the latter is no longer a thing.
Right. There is about 4 orders of magnitude more carbon in the crust than the atmosphere, and maybe 1-2 orders of magnitude less biomass in the crust. It seems like a significant amount of potential methane production to me.
I'm trying to sort out your argument, it's not easy. You propose that all the carbon in oil comes from surface sediments because it is too concentrated to be otherwise? I don't see how this explains how the carbon came to be concentrated in the first place.
The first thought that occurred to me as well. Until now, the debate has been about abiogenic vs fossil origin of oil. But now, questions can be raised about surface vs subsurface biology. Like you, I was taught in school that coal comes from ancient forests of ferns and oil from ancient algae, but how did all that carbon arrive on the surface in the first place?
Wikipedia says ASML's current offering, the NXE:3400B, has 13nm resolution. My (shaky) understanding is, that means barely capable of single patterning at 7 nm. It looks to me like EUV double patterning will be a thing already at 7nm, and certainly at 5nm. But at least it's better than quad patterning that reportedly defeated Intel.
I think everybody's in the same boat, basically, and nobody has a magic bullet. Intel thought they were smart enough to make quad patterning work where others respectfully shied away from it and they were wrong. That should teach them not to make their engineering decisions based on most colorful powerpoint slide. To succeed at EUV, Intel is going to need to learn to pool their tech and play well with others.
Slashdot Mirror
It's normal for Apple products to ship slightly bent. I get it.
The current Xbox is selling so badly that Microsoft refuses to not only give out sales numbers
VGchartz reports them, in short: 85M total for PS4, 39M for XB1. I would not call that a failure but Sony certainly has a commanding lead.
There will never be an intergalactic community.
Not of short-lived protoplasm, anyway.
Hilary's emails. /drool
Sounds like garden variety plausible deniability, nothing more.
Hard to call Google's actions "evil"
It is a question of intent. If Google devs intended to break Edge's hardware acceleration then it is evil, plausible cover story notwithstanding.
You cant have net neutrality while censoring sites.
The site wasn't censored.
That's the plausible deniability part. If devs knew they were breaking Edge, that's the illegal market control part. It would be aggravated if the changes in fact served no technical purpose, but what matters is 1) possessing market control and 2) intentionally using that control for an anticompetitive purpose. Note: I am no fan of Microsoft, far from it. But I am even less a fan of unethical or illegal conduct, whether Microsoft does it or Google.
I wonder what the ostensible purpose of this particular empty div tag was. I usually associate such things with malware sites and the like.
Don't get me wrong. I did not intend to imply that emulating Microsoft's underhanded tactics (which went far beyond just manipulating the code) is anything to be proud of.
if anyone thinks that isn't already happening or won't happen, they need a reality check
Some of Google's tactics in pushing Chrome's market share over Firefox bear a strong resemblance to the tactics Microsoft used to suppress Netscape Navigator. It's hard to reach any other conclusion than that those smart Googlers studied Microsoft's tactics and emulated them.
when Google changed it (by adding an empty hidden div no less - something that should have absolutely no effect on a standards compliant layout engine not to mention the video hardware acceleration) it broke their precious benchmark cheat.
What we want to know is, did the Google developer(s) involved intend to break Edge performance or not. We already know about plausible deniability.
I had to code too many IE 6 workarounds and not put in new features due to having to keep IE 6 compatibility for so long, I have no sympathy to this Edge engineer.
Perhaps you could explain how two wrongs don't make a right squares with "don't be evil". Or perhaps the latter is no longer a thing.
Extinguished by a giant bomb gets so many more clicks than shifting ocean currents.
It's new malware
Actually, it's old malware, goes by the name of Windows.
Mandatory clarification.
Right. There is about 4 orders of magnitude more carbon in the crust than the atmosphere, and maybe 1-2 orders of magnitude less biomass in the crust. It seems like a significant amount of potential methane production to me.
These bugs live in different sorts of rocks than where you find oil.
In recent years igneous reservoirs have become an important new field of oil exploration. Igneous reservoirs make up roughly 5 percent.
These igneous reservoirs are thought to be formed by leakage from nearby sedimentary formations, but could that be wrong?
A new low for editorial proofreading.
Err, decomposed dinosaurs? And dinosaurs are not actual organisms?
I'm trying to sort out your argument, it's not easy. You propose that all the carbon in oil comes from surface sediments because it is too concentrated to be otherwise? I don't see how this explains how the carbon came to be concentrated in the first place.
The first thought that occurred to me as well. Until now, the debate has been about abiogenic vs
fossil origin of oil. But now, questions can be raised about surface vs subsurface biology. Like you, I was taught in school that coal comes from ancient forests of ferns and oil from ancient algae, but how did all that carbon arrive on the surface in the first place?
"Overpriced"
It's a bizarre trade, so far out of the money. But maybe that doesn't mean a whole lot to the audience here.
It's called an Extradition Treaty
Wikipedia says ASML's current offering, the NXE:3400B, has 13nm resolution. My (shaky) understanding is, that means barely capable of single patterning at 7 nm. It looks to me like EUV double patterning will be a thing already at 7nm, and certainly at 5nm. But at least it's better than quad patterning that reportedly defeated Intel.
I think everybody's in the same boat, basically, and nobody has a magic bullet. Intel thought they were smart enough to make quad patterning work where others respectfully shied away from it and they were wrong. That should teach them not to make their engineering decisions based on most colorful powerpoint slide. To succeed at EUV, Intel is going to need to learn to pool their tech and play well with others.