Then please link to it because I cannot find anything that supports your fairly ridiculous claim. Especially when their are far more likely scenarios such as user error (you used the wrong resolution) or the video card not supporting the monitor's native resolution.
The claim that someone, much less a major company, made a panel that doesn't show circles as circles requires proof.
I've seen "widescreen" monitors that take a 4:3 aspect ratio pixel count into a widescreen monitor (*cough* Dell *cough*).
It's maybe useful for people who want to use their computer to watch movies, but as an actual computer monitor it was a complete joke. A circle drawn on screen was an oval, text was wide and flat. It was 'widescreen' only in the imaginations of marketing.
Uh, can you please link to such a monitor? I've never seen any monitor with anything other than square pixels. Your comment about 1024x768 makes me think you are confused as the widescreen monitors with a 768 height are 1366 wide not 1024.
You and I clearly have very, very different meanings for the word "aggressively". Microsoft and Apple are both suing Motorola. Google didn't start this fight, so I'm not sure how you can call defending themselves and Android as "using it aggressively".
They *ARE* lobbying for patent reforms, but just because you lobby doesn't mean it will actually work or that things will change, especially when equally rich and powerful companies are lobbying *against* you.
If you want change elect different politicians. Either those that will do the right thing, or those that are even more corrupt and can be more easily bought by companies.
It is that it may be possible to crash chrome from remote, proof of concept exploits may follow soon.
1) Getting it to crash doesn't mean you can actually exploit it. There are boatloads of crashes that you can't exploit
2) The only way you could crash it in this manner in the first place would be to re-target the sync endpoint to get Chrome to connect to a different remote server for syncing, which would be a huge security vulnerability in the first place.
To continue your analogy, Apple then proceeded to *steal the tyre* because it felt it the price was unfair. They didn't make a counter offer, they didn't file a complaint (FRAND has a mechanism to resolve negotiation disputes), they just said "we think that's not fair, so we're just not going to pay anything".
Also, there is no evidence whatsoever that Motorola attempted to charge 10 times the price of everyone else. For all we know they asked for the standard rate, and Apple told them to fuck off.
Android doesn't do subpixel hinting either. It falls apart with GPU-accelerated rendering and rotation. Not to mention it doesn't work unless you know the subpixel layout. Android just has a better font in Roboto. At high densities subpixel rendering simply isn't useful.
So people get a "'Holy shit!' mind blowing moment" because they realise it was programmed in JavaScript instead of Java? That's only because they're programmers, and they know that HTML/JavaScript has historically had shit performance and a crappy UX.
Judging by the video of the device in action, it *still* has shit performance and a crappy UX. That's probably how they figured out it was JavaScript. "Why is this thing so bloody slow and unresponsive? Oh hey, it must be JavaScript! Cool!"
No, you are completely wrong. CSS is built to be murder on a CPU that is completely unable to be GPU accelerated, modern CSS even more so. See all these rounded corners here on Slashdot? Ever wonder how those are rendered? It's not just a bitmap that gets blitted onto the screen like it would be on Android or iOS. Oh no, that's not how HTML+CSS rolls, that's old school trash. No, it's a gradient that is then clipped by an anti-aliased path. Guess what GPUs can't do at all? Paths. And that's just the work needed for the green headers!
Also note that Chrome OS is not targeting smartphones (afaik). It's really quite different.
Correct, they are only targeting hardware that is suitably fast. HTML5 is too bloody slow. Firefox OS will never, ever manage to beat native Android apps in speed, especially not on lower end devices.
"Hey, let's take this slower architecture than our competitors, and put it on slower devices than our competitors - brilliant!"
In other words, "Google already provides a combination of non-intuitive and user-download-required ad hoc ways to do one fourth of something that's being standardized elsewhere, so we should think it's OK for them to ignore the standardizations under way."
Hmm... for a minute there I thought you were shilling for Google. But now I realize you're just cognitively impaired.
Google supports DNT - both on their websites and on their browser. I know slashdoters don't read the article, but is it so hard to even read the title?
Hmm... for a minute there I thought you were FUDing against Google. But now I realize you're just cognitively impaired.
Oh, but really impressive work there - spinning that Google was way ahead of DNT on privacy as a negative thing. Yes, how dare they give you forms of opt out long before there is a standard way of doing that? Those evil bastards!
I think you mean "just don't bother implementing support on the server side". By default DNT doesn't do anything at all. DNT only works on sites that take the engineering time to support it on their servers. Google has gone out of their way and spent time and money to support DNT - why would they then search for a way around it? That doesn't make any sense.
The mobile phone number is used for security to allow you to recover your account if you are one of the (many) idiots that picks a guessable password, re-uses passwords, or completely forgets their password.
Collecting more information doesn't allow Google to show more ads or make more money, that's not how advertising works. You are also incredibly delusional on the value of your information (then again, most of slashdot is). Similarly, targeted advertising requires very *little* information - demographics are huge and wide. We're talking basic keyword matching, with a bit of age range & gender sprinkled in - that's it. Google will also happily show you and let you edit or delete your ad profile, by the way. But there really isn't much information there - there doesn't need to be.
No, Google collects a ton of information because information allows you to solve interesting problems. Any engineer will tell you much the same.
Tegra 2 was *never* hot shit. Nvidia didn't know what they fuck they were doing when they built it, and it is obvious. GPU was weak compared to the competition, the CPU was missing obvious stuff like NEON, it is so memory bandwidth starved it's ridiculous, etc...
What Nvidia managed to do really well, though, was *pretend* it was hot shit, which was convincing enough for tech bloggers.
You seem to care more about NVIDIA's image than about what the Linux community actually needs.
I truly don't understand what the big deal is. Just open up your damn specifications already.
AMD did this, and the Linux community still recommends people buy NVIDIA cards. Vote with your wallet, or shut the fuck up. Keep buying from the company with closed specs instead of open ones, and you'll keep getting closed specs instead of open ones. Not a difficult concept, people.
Google Maps and Earth come from KeyHole Inc. [wikipedia.org].
Yes, and Google then proceeded to turn them into two of the coolest products around. The idea isn't unique, it's the execution that matters. Google saw the potential in the startup, and then did what few else could - they turned that potential into a real, fleshed out, *awesome* product.
Chrome is based on work done by Apple.
This one is simply false. Yes, Chrome uses WebKit, but that's only a piece of the puzzle. WebKit by itself doesn't actually do all that much. Chrome created their own, super simple UI (one of the things they get praised for - simplicity), created the innovative sandboxed multi-process architecture (something Apple then "stole" and put into WebKit2), contributed a ton of code to webkit (Google contributes more to WebKit than Apple does these days - even fixing Safari-only bugs), and, most importantly, created both their own HTTP stack and their own JavaScript engine - and that JS engine is what really put Chrome on the map.
The point being, Google has really left themselves go after the one initial project the founders did at university. Which is fine I guess, but people keep believing they are some kind of innovative company. They are not. Even Microsoft is more that than Google, as they have the largest R&D center on planet, Microsoft Research.
Microsoft *should* be investing more than Google does in R&D - they make double the yearly revenue. To say, however, that Google has "let themselves go" is just ridiculous. Google's network, data centers, and cloud computing infrastructure is second to none. They created their own mass distributed file systems called GFS, they continue to lead the way on data center design, and thrived on the unique approach to using cheap, commodity parts and creating fault-tolerant software instead. They created MapReduce, which Hadoop is trying to re-implement as open source.
And in terms of "pure" R&D, their is the recently announced glasses project, the self driving car, and even the 1GB/s fiber connection they are testing in Kansas City.
Google innovates all the time, it's just most people can't see it or appreciate it because much of it has to do with the incredible scale that Google operates at.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you could also pay Google and get the same great products + active sync support + real customer service + no ads
I've been moving away from Google for about a year now because I feel that they have turned form only partially evil to complete evil.
Oh for fuck's sake, are you kidding? Not support a proprietary, Microsoft protocol and instead using open, free protocols is *EVIL* now?
The only way you can trot this out in relation to "don't be evil" would be this is Google being *LESS* evil.
Then please link to it because I cannot find anything that supports your fairly ridiculous claim. Especially when their are far more likely scenarios such as user error (you used the wrong resolution) or the video card not supporting the monitor's native resolution.
The claim that someone, much less a major company, made a panel that doesn't show circles as circles requires proof.
I've seen "widescreen" monitors that take a 4:3 aspect ratio pixel count into a widescreen monitor (*cough* Dell *cough*).
It's maybe useful for people who want to use their computer to watch movies, but as an actual computer monitor it was a complete joke. A circle drawn on screen was an oval, text was wide and flat. It was 'widescreen' only in the imaginations of marketing.
Uh, can you please link to such a monitor? I've never seen any monitor with anything other than square pixels. Your comment about 1024x768 makes me think you are confused as the widescreen monitors with a 768 height are 1366 wide not 1024.
You and I clearly have very, very different meanings for the word "aggressively". Microsoft and Apple are both suing Motorola. Google didn't start this fight, so I'm not sure how you can call defending themselves and Android as "using it aggressively".
They *ARE* lobbying for patent reforms, but just because you lobby doesn't mean it will actually work or that things will change, especially when equally rich and powerful companies are lobbying *against* you.
If you want change elect different politicians. Either those that will do the right thing, or those that are even more corrupt and can be more easily bought by companies.
Chrome always encrypts your passwords on the client side - the other stuff isn't encrypted by default but can be encrypted as well if you choose to.
It is that it may be possible to crash chrome from remote, proof of concept exploits may follow soon.
1) Getting it to crash doesn't mean you can actually exploit it. There are boatloads of crashes that you can't exploit
2) The only way you could crash it in this manner in the first place would be to re-target the sync endpoint to get Chrome to connect to a different remote server for syncing, which would be a huge security vulnerability in the first place.
To continue your analogy, Apple then proceeded to *steal the tyre* because it felt it the price was unfair. They didn't make a counter offer, they didn't file a complaint (FRAND has a mechanism to resolve negotiation disputes), they just said "we think that's not fair, so we're just not going to pay anything".
Also, there is no evidence whatsoever that Motorola attempted to charge 10 times the price of everyone else. For all we know they asked for the standard rate, and Apple told them to fuck off.
Also, is there a physical home button? I can't tell from the photos. A tablet needs at least that one physical button.
There's not one, not two, but *THREE* physical buttons! Power, volume up, and volume down - just like on the Xoom and the Nexus 7.
The tablet is a Pentile display.
Nope, RGB subpixels - standard LCD layout. It is *NOT* pentile. Hence the "RGB Real Stripe", which is Samsung marketing for "we didn't fuck with it"
Android doesn't do subpixel hinting either. It falls apart with GPU-accelerated rendering and rotation. Not to mention it doesn't work unless you know the subpixel layout. Android just has a better font in Roboto. At high densities subpixel rendering simply isn't useful.
So people get a "'Holy shit!' mind blowing moment" because they realise it was programmed in JavaScript instead of Java? That's only because they're programmers, and they know that HTML/JavaScript has historically had shit performance and a crappy UX.
Judging by the video of the device in action, it *still* has shit performance and a crappy UX. That's probably how they figured out it was JavaScript. "Why is this thing so bloody slow and unresponsive? Oh hey, it must be JavaScript! Cool!"
No, you are completely wrong. CSS is built to be murder on a CPU that is completely unable to be GPU accelerated, modern CSS even more so. See all these rounded corners here on Slashdot? Ever wonder how those are rendered? It's not just a bitmap that gets blitted onto the screen like it would be on Android or iOS. Oh no, that's not how HTML+CSS rolls, that's old school trash. No, it's a gradient that is then clipped by an anti-aliased path. Guess what GPUs can't do at all? Paths. And that's just the work needed for the green headers!
Also note that Chrome OS is not targeting smartphones (afaik). It's really quite different.
Correct, they are only targeting hardware that is suitably fast. HTML5 is too bloody slow. Firefox OS will never, ever manage to beat native Android apps in speed, especially not on lower end devices.
"Hey, let's take this slower architecture than our competitors, and put it on slower devices than our competitors - brilliant!"
In other words, "Google already provides a combination of non-intuitive and user-download-required ad hoc ways to do one fourth of something that's being standardized elsewhere, so we should think it's OK for them to ignore the standardizations under way."
Hmm... for a minute there I thought you were shilling for Google. But now I realize you're just cognitively impaired.
Google supports DNT - both on their websites and on their browser. I know slashdoters don't read the article, but is it so hard to even read the title?
Hmm... for a minute there I thought you were FUDing against Google. But now I realize you're just cognitively impaired.
Oh, but really impressive work there - spinning that Google was way ahead of DNT on privacy as a negative thing. Yes, how dare they give you forms of opt out long before there is a standard way of doing that? Those evil bastards!
"find a way around it"?
I think you mean "just don't bother implementing support on the server side". By default DNT doesn't do anything at all. DNT only works on sites that take the engineering time to support it on their servers. Google has gone out of their way and spent time and money to support DNT - why would they then search for a way around it? That doesn't make any sense.
The mobile phone number is used for security to allow you to recover your account if you are one of the (many) idiots that picks a guessable password, re-uses passwords, or completely forgets their password.
That's been way faster for a while. Try the Intel x86 ones (which are very fast), or the GPU acceleration option for the ARM ones.
Censorship is far more than a "mere filtering of words". The sheer stupidity and ignorance of what you said is staggering.
Then again, you basically said "censorship is far and away more dangerous than censorship" and managed to get modded insightful, so whatever.
Collecting more information doesn't allow Google to show more ads or make more money, that's not how advertising works. You are also incredibly delusional on the value of your information (then again, most of slashdot is). Similarly, targeted advertising requires very *little* information - demographics are huge and wide. We're talking basic keyword matching, with a bit of age range & gender sprinkled in - that's it. Google will also happily show you and let you edit or delete your ad profile, by the way. But there really isn't much information there - there doesn't need to be.
No, Google collects a ton of information because information allows you to solve interesting problems. Any engineer will tell you much the same.
I remember when the tegra 2 was hot shit.
Tegra 2 was *never* hot shit. Nvidia didn't know what they fuck they were doing when they built it, and it is obvious. GPU was weak compared to the competition, the CPU was missing obvious stuff like NEON, it is so memory bandwidth starved it's ridiculous, etc...
What Nvidia managed to do really well, though, was *pretend* it was hot shit, which was convincing enough for tech bloggers.
So enable encryption - that's a fully supported option in Chrome. All Google's servers ever get are an encrypted blob.
You seem to care more about NVIDIA's image than about what the Linux community actually needs.
I truly don't understand what the big deal is. Just open up your damn specifications already.
AMD did this, and the Linux community still recommends people buy NVIDIA cards. Vote with your wallet, or shut the fuck up. Keep buying from the company with closed specs instead of open ones, and you'll keep getting closed specs instead of open ones. Not a difficult concept, people.
Google Maps and Earth come from KeyHole Inc. [wikipedia.org].
Yes, and Google then proceeded to turn them into two of the coolest products around. The idea isn't unique, it's the execution that matters. Google saw the potential in the startup, and then did what few else could - they turned that potential into a real, fleshed out, *awesome* product.
Chrome is based on work done by Apple.
This one is simply false. Yes, Chrome uses WebKit, but that's only a piece of the puzzle. WebKit by itself doesn't actually do all that much. Chrome created their own, super simple UI (one of the things they get praised for - simplicity), created the innovative sandboxed multi-process architecture (something Apple then "stole" and put into WebKit2), contributed a ton of code to webkit (Google contributes more to WebKit than Apple does these days - even fixing Safari-only bugs), and, most importantly, created both their own HTTP stack and their own JavaScript engine - and that JS engine is what really put Chrome on the map.
The point being, Google has really left themselves go after the one initial project the founders did at university. Which is fine I guess, but people keep believing they are some kind of innovative company. They are not. Even Microsoft is more that than Google, as they have the largest R&D center on planet, Microsoft Research.
Microsoft *should* be investing more than Google does in R&D - they make double the yearly revenue. To say, however, that Google has "let themselves go" is just ridiculous. Google's network, data centers, and cloud computing infrastructure is second to none. They created their own mass distributed file systems called GFS, they continue to lead the way on data center design, and thrived on the unique approach to using cheap, commodity parts and creating fault-tolerant software instead. They created MapReduce, which Hadoop is trying to re-implement as open source.
And in terms of "pure" R&D, their is the recently announced glasses project, the self driving car, and even the 1GB/s fiber connection they are testing in Kansas City.
Google innovates all the time, it's just most people can't see it or appreciate it because much of it has to do with the incredible scale that Google operates at.