WebP lossy may not catch on, but it isn't pointless. Compared to JPEG, in return for a muddier image (to my eyes, at least) you get alpha support. As Google is one of the biggest distributors of images on the Internet, I think the real purpose is to pay less for licensing JPEG.
WebP lossless seems much less useful to me. Unless there's licensing issues I'm not aware of, it seems pretty pointless.
Microsoft is pushing Metro as their new UI, and (possibly, it sounds like Microsoft hasn't even decided) their only ARM SDK. Of course they have an Office port in the works. Otherwise, Office would be unsellable.
Coincidentally, at my company we decided on a (gradual) move from XML to JSON yesterday. (We've discussed it a number of times, but this time we finally made the choice.)
No. Cross platform can be fine, if it's done well. Firefox isn't. Safari isn't, either. (Though indications are the suck in Safari doesn't go all the way down through WebKit.)
'll give you what you need to be successful on #WindowsPhone, incl. free phones, dev tools, and training, etc"
Success being, of course, a relative term. I would like to think that developers having their plans broken by WebOS's collapse would make future plans based more on market size and what success on a platform would actually look like rather than free hardware and an emotional outreach. But maybe not; after all, they developed for WebOS to begin with.
I'm 35. I have older and younger friends who fall on both sides of that. Age is a part of it, sure, but 29 is by no means the cap and it isn't the only part. Some people were simply raised to think of dishonesty (in all its forms) as a tool they can use, and some were raised to avoid it at all costs.
I agree with you, except I think "making stuff" is too positively worded. Google codes stuff others have made and gives theirs away. It's engineering, but calling it creative is going too far.
But I still think it came across as incredibly whiney and disorganized. Had it been a personal blog, this would have made sense. However, it was on the "Official Google Blog." I think a bit of coordination there would be reasonable.
At least we know now why Google didn't seem too bothered about winning the Nortel patents.
Err. Are we talking about the same Google here? The one that whined publicly and repeatedly over the anticompetitiveness of the patents being for sale at all after they lost, insisted on an investigation, then misrepresented that investigation to the public as an "intervention"?
They're fighting this like a cold war. It isn't. Apple in particular doesn't want Google to stop selling products entirely, and doesn't want Google to start paying Apple. It isn't about competition, it's about copying. Apple wants Google to stop copying Apple. Google holding patents won't help, and Google suing Apple won't help. The lawsuits won't stop until Google stops copying or dies.
I'm fully on Apple's side on this one. Google's been treating the entire industry as their R&D arm for years without actually doing anything meaningful and innovative on their own. It needs to stop. Giving away other people's ideas isn't cool just because they're giving them away.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that the virus no longer exists outside of labs, vaccinating everyone for it at a cost of 300-600 lives is very significant.
I know I don't. Are you sure Google doesn't?
If everyone in the US received the smallpox vaccine, 300-600 people would die. That's not insignificant.
WebP lossy may not catch on, but it isn't pointless. Compared to JPEG, in return for a muddier image (to my eyes, at least) you get alpha support. As Google is one of the biggest distributors of images on the Internet, I think the real purpose is to pay less for licensing JPEG.
WebP lossless seems much less useful to me. Unless there's licensing issues I'm not aware of, it seems pretty pointless.
Because the current smallpox vaccine can kill. Not many, sure, but if you try to apply it to an entire population? Some people are going to die.
Only because it's already old news in Internet time. :)
"Quick! Let's turn the conversation to jail breaking!"
You think the Mac App Store is simpler, licensing-wise?
Not at all.
Microsoft is pushing Metro as their new UI, and (possibly, it sounds like Microsoft hasn't even decided) their only ARM SDK. Of course they have an Office port in the works. Otherwise, Office would be unsellable.
Coincidentally, at my company we decided on a (gradual) move from XML to JSON yesterday. (We've discussed it a number of times, but this time we finally made the choice.)
I can't wait to see all the interesting ideas developers have for using this read only API.
And I, too, have used Firefox since it was Phoenix. I enjoyed it then.
No. Cross platform can be fine, if it's done well. Firefox isn't. Safari isn't, either. (Though indications are the suck in Safari doesn't go all the way down through WebKit.)
I think Firefox lost "good" long before the rapid releases began. Rapid releases were just a (failed) attempt to fix the suck.
I'm not sure Firefox ever really lost anything, though. It's possible my tolerance for lame cross platform solutions has just gone way, way down.
'll give you what you need to be successful on #WindowsPhone, incl. free phones, dev tools, and training, etc"
Success being, of course, a relative term. I would like to think that developers having their plans broken by WebOS's collapse would make future plans based more on market size and what success on a platform would actually look like rather than free hardware and an emotional outreach. But maybe not; after all, they developed for WebOS to begin with.
Preview.
If you can't figure out how to scale a photo without Photoshop, you truly are ignorant.
I'm 35. I have older and younger friends who fall on both sides of that. Age is a part of it, sure, but 29 is by no means the cap and it isn't the only part. Some people were simply raised to think of dishonesty (in all its forms) as a tool they can use, and some were raised to avoid it at all costs.
I agree with you, except I think "making stuff" is too positively worded. Google codes stuff others have made and gives theirs away. It's engineering, but calling it creative is going too far.
I see your point. Yes, quite likely.
But I still think it came across as incredibly whiney and disorganized. Had it been a personal blog, this would have made sense. However, it was on the "Official Google Blog." I think a bit of coordination there would be reasonable.
Ah, so you think all that (public) whining was just an act? That's possible, but I'm not sure that's any better.
Err. Are we talking about the same Google here? The one that whined publicly and repeatedly over the anticompetitiveness of the patents being for sale at all after they lost, insisted on an investigation, then misrepresented that investigation to the public as an "intervention"?
They seem pretty bothered to me.
They're fighting this like a cold war. It isn't. Apple in particular doesn't want Google to stop selling products entirely, and doesn't want Google to start paying Apple. It isn't about competition, it's about copying. Apple wants Google to stop copying Apple. Google holding patents won't help, and Google suing Apple won't help. The lawsuits won't stop until Google stops copying or dies.
I'm fully on Apple's side on this one. Google's been treating the entire industry as their R&D arm for years without actually doing anything meaningful and innovative on their own. It needs to stop. Giving away other people's ideas isn't cool just because they're giving them away.
So you're of the "This is Google, we can trust them" school of thought?
It's because Opera is, in fact, not worthy of mention. By anyone. Ever.
I feel like I've broken a rule just by responding to your comment on it.