Re:Conclusion: Firefox 3.6 scales best across core
on
How Do Browsers Scale?
·
· Score: 1
Exactly. Well said. This measures nothing useful about the browsers themselves because we are told nothing about current performance. (Although we already know that from other sources).
Re:Conclusion: Firefox 3.6 scales best across core
on
How Do Browsers Scale?
·
· Score: -1, Troll
And with Oracle suing everyone in sight, something like that might just happen. Especially if were smart enough to read the javascript and do the right thing.
Re:Conclusion: Firefox 3.6 scales best across core
on
How Do Browsers Scale?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Nope.
The only takeaway you need is:
Chrome 8 had the smallest gain, which, however is due to coding flaw in the Sunspider benchmark that holds back the processing horsepower of the Phenom II X6 processor in general.
Translation: Our results are totally bogus because our tool was broken but rather than fix that, we are just going to shovel these results out there anyway.
Actually the whole "scaling" measurement is pretty much a bogus issue, because at any one time you have the machine you have.
You can easily get another browser but you can't quickly or cheaply run out and get a different computer just to obtain more cores.
Further, the results are bogus (by their own omission) because the one browser that should make the best use of multiple cores (Chrome) was not able to do so because of a flaw in the benchmark in use. When the tool is broken, what is the point of publishing results?
Bombs were not armed. The critical igniter capsule which was designed to be installed just prior to attack was not in the bombs, as per design and regulations, yet you are handing out Darwin awards?
After logging off, revert to the last backup. If there's no data on the computer, there's no personal data on the computer. Anything you need saved goes on removable storage.
The article pertains to staff computers.
Are you saying a prof can't use his university supplied staff computer to work up a lesson plan, unless he puts that plan on some other storage?
You pretty much remove a major portion of the utility of the PC when you start insisting the be reverted on every reboot.
Neither fat nor carbs are bad for you. It's the extreme exclusion of one or the other that is bad. You know vegetables, fruit and such are carbs, right?
Extremes work in the short term but long term your health will suffer.
This is the nutritionist line that comes up every time someone mentions a low card diet.
There are all the dread long term affects, never very specific, and always based on the assumption someone will stop eating carbs for the rest of their life, or never eat any carbs at all while on a low carb diet.
Low card does not equal No-Carb. And even very-lo-card start-out plans (Atkins) doesn't mean forever. There are simply no studies to support the scare mongering about lo-carb diets.
First, for about a month or more, I started riding my bicycle to work.
Then, after it was established that I had been riding my bike for at least a month, I started on a low-carb diet.
Here's why I did it like this:
People don't listen for more than a few sentences and are especially resistant when the information conflicts with what they think they know.
So, I have to ask...
Why didn't you do it in the reverse order? Low-Carb first.
They see you on the bike. Then they see you slimmer. They don't watch what you eat. They just attribute it all to the bike.
You could have skipped the bike, or delayed it till WELL after weight loss of the low-carb. The point would have been without the providing yet another opportunity for people to jump to the wrong conclusion. They probably attribute it ALL to the bike riding finally taking affect.
Ummm.... if it's "non-satellite imagery," where else could it be from? I'd think a guy taking pictures out of a Cessna wouldn't be very economical long-term compared to a drone.
Lots of imagery on Google Earth and Google Maps is non-satellite imagery when you zoom in close. Look at Downtown Seattle some time. You can see the sides of buildings.
Google gets images from a lot of places. In the case of Seattle and NYC the images were taken by aircraft under contract to the city for their own use, and purchased by Google. The resolution is almost as good as the UT Austin images. You can see some weird leaning buildings in Google Earth.
These images were there long before Google even announced the purchase of these drones.
You are spot on, of course. Its not even a fringe competency, any more than stocking the mini-bar makes them competent bar tenders.
The problem here is that hotels, especially those with wifi have no method of determining which room is actually talking on a wifi router at any given time, without issuing individual passwords for each user, perhaps each device. Big chains may have that, but most small ones hang a router on each floor and call it good.
The article speaks to "pen register" data, not necessarily content, but the mere fact they don't seem worried about that suggests they have compromised SSL a long time ago.
Why do governments thing they have to snoop into every email and listen to every word between citizens? Why do we keep electing these fools?
There have been reports that when a grain of sand gets trapped under a case (sliding case), that it can scratch the back glass, and be compressed enough to cause a tiny crack to form which spreads, and the whole back shatters.
But they really only were saying that they couldn't tell if trapped dirt behind the slide case was to blame. (Reference is to previous stories about trapped dirt triggering back glass breakage).
When reference is made to 82%, its always specific to screens.
But lets go with your theory, and assume out that a "quarter" of all breakage is attributable to the back glass. Lets further assume that breakage was ONLY Front OR Back.
That still leaves 52% more breakage than the iPhone 3G. That in itself is rather significant. Further is demolishes the suggestion that the increased breakage is ONLY the result of having twice the glass.
However it seems to me that back breakage is likely to occur in a significant percentage of front screen break events, as crushing accidents or edge drops put both glass pieces at risk. So that 25% seems unlikely to be an exclusive subset that you can separate out.
And they get their information from? Is there a place to report breakage on their site?
Square Trade loses money for every screen break.
Nobody has better stats than Square Trade, because Apple takes one look at it and says user abuse, and does not bother counting it. Same for the carriers.
Nobody is keeping statistics EXCEPT the third party insurance providers. This is largely true in medicine as well. Unless there is a contagious factor, the only nationwide stats you will find on injuries (broken arms) is from insurance carriers. Why you choose to denigrate that fact when Apple is involved but not for heart attacks is sort of, well, suspicious.
If you are going to run windows software you can bet they will start with with a Virtual Machine approach or Wine, and neither one buys them much security without diligence.
he idea that a government funded military lab would develop from the ground up and achieve something that would run windows but wasn't as vulnerable seems highly unlikely.
Budgets lapse. People Come and Go. It would be a mess.
But what this really is about, proffesional writer claims he works better without all the bells and whistle. Unknown nobody claims this is not true. I take the writers word for it that he writers faster without over yours. Hope this doesn't offend you. Damn spell check, should have been DOES.
So you immediately assume I'm not a professional writer? Based on what?
Has it occurred to you that the story is here on/. because it is novel, unusual, and bucks the trend?
That means of course that the vast majority of writers use word processors.
Why is it you value the word of the odd-man-out over the overwhelmingly larger body of writers?
By post production (probably the wrong words) I meant production of the basic text, not publishing tasks.
After you type "The End", you realize your work has only begun, and now you need several passes thru the text for readability, continuity, and basic editing. Then your editor gets to bleed all over it. Lather, Rinse Repeat.
This story failed to sell me on the concept. Is the idea that because it's hard to navigate in ed, you're not tempted to rewrite during the first pass? Seems a bit weak, you should probably have the mental power to just not do that.
It failed to convince me too.
Almost every word processor has a non-layout presentation option used for banging out text without sacrificing running spell checking, syntax, auto capitalization, or the use of outlining capability, etc.
Self imposing a limitation making it harder to make changes mean more post production work. Consistency suffers. Continuity is the first causality. Errors creep in and persist.
Some things should be changed at the minute you decide to make the change, or the text suffers. No amount of editing after the fact will find all of these. (Especially in technical writing, where your editor will know far less about the subject than you).
No one who writes anything of length works in page layout view or worries about fonts, page breaks while entering the basic document. New writers may make this mistake their first time, but soon learn.
But in technical writing, when a term or a name changes you pretty much have to find and fix that immediately, because your editor won't have a clue. In non technical writing, when it becomes important for continuity to insert some facts or flesh out a character earlier in the story to support a later story twist, you have a choice of inserting it inline, with the intent of moving it later, or finding the appropriate place, and inserting it right then when the idea is fresh. The former leads to more re-writes.
A well developed story, or a well thought out technical outline saves far more time than simply forgoing structural edits by using self limiting tools with the hope of remembering to relocate, rewrite, or revise text later. The annotation features of word processors would actually help in these tasks if one wanted to put them off till later.
That the writer in TFA feels the need to impose self exile from modern tools suggest more about his work habits and discipline than about word processor technology.
There are still a few authors that write with a typewriter. Or even in long hand. Some are even successful. Not many. Fewer every day.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly.
Well said. This measures nothing useful about the browsers themselves because we are told nothing about current performance. (Although we already know that from other sources).
Links?
Did you mean http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_(web_browser)
Seriously, if you are going to start your argument frofrom there I see no point in continuing, since you seem trapped in the prior century.
Good point.
And with Oracle suing everyone in sight, something like that might just happen. Especially if were smart enough to read the javascript and do the right thing.
Nope.
The only takeaway you need is:
Chrome 8 had the smallest gain, which, however is due to coding flaw in the Sunspider benchmark that holds back the processing horsepower of the Phenom II X6 processor in general.
Translation: Our results are totally bogus because our tool was broken but rather than fix that, we are just going to shovel these results out there anyway.
Actually the whole "scaling" measurement is pretty much a bogus issue, because at any one time you have the machine you have.
You can easily get another browser but you can't quickly or cheaply run out and get a different computer just to obtain more cores.
Further, the results are bogus (by their own omission) because the one browser that should make the best use of multiple cores (Chrome) was not able to do so because of a flaw in the benchmark in use. When the tool is broken, what is the point of publishing results?
So the safety features worked as designed.
Bombs were not armed. The critical igniter capsule which was designed to be installed just prior to attack was not in the bombs, as per design and regulations, yet you are handing out Darwin awards?
After logging off, revert to the last backup. If there's no data on the computer, there's no personal data on the computer. Anything you need saved goes on removable storage.
The article pertains to staff computers.
Are you saying a prof can't use his university supplied staff computer to work up a lesson plan, unless he puts that plan on some other storage?
You pretty much remove a major portion of the utility of the PC when you start insisting the be reverted on every reboot.
Neither fat nor carbs are bad for you. It's the extreme exclusion of one or the other that is bad. You know vegetables, fruit and such are carbs, right?
Extremes work in the short term but long term your health will suffer.
This is the nutritionist line that comes up every time someone mentions a low card diet.
There are all the dread long term affects, never very specific, and always based on the assumption someone will stop eating carbs for the rest of their life, or never eat any carbs at all while on a low carb diet.
This just a perpetuation of the misunderstanding of the low carb diet. Yet its been proven in the Military, proven even by organizations that were vocal foes for years. Every serious study has supported the low-card diet.
Low card does not equal No-Carb. And even very-lo-card start-out plans (Atkins) doesn't mean forever. There are simply no studies to support the scare mongering about lo-carb diets.
First, for about a month or more, I started riding my bicycle to work.
Then, after it was established that I had been riding my bike for at least a month, I started on a low-carb diet.
Here's why I did it like this:
People don't listen for more than a few sentences and are especially resistant when the information conflicts with what they think they know.
So, I have to ask...
Why didn't you do it in the reverse order? Low-Carb first.
They see you on the bike. Then they see you slimmer. They don't watch what you eat. They just attribute it all to the bike.
You could have skipped the bike, or delayed it till WELL after weight loss of the low-carb. The point would have been without the providing yet another opportunity for people to jump to the wrong conclusion. They probably attribute it ALL to the bike riding finally taking affect.
The cars are not driver less.
From the link you posted:
"With someone behind the wheel to take control if something went awry..."
Ummm.... if it's "non-satellite imagery," where else could it be from?
I'd think a guy taking pictures out of a Cessna wouldn't be very economical long-term compared to a drone.
Lots of imagery on Google Earth and Google Maps is non-satellite imagery when you zoom in close. Look at Downtown Seattle some time. You can see the sides of buildings.
Google gets images from a lot of places. In the case of Seattle and NYC the images were taken by aircraft under contract to the city for their own use, and purchased by Google. The resolution is almost as good as the UT Austin images. You can see some weird leaning buildings in Google Earth.
These images were there long before Google even announced the purchase of these drones.
Tell that to the air traffic control union.
You are spot on, of course.
Its not even a fringe competency, any more than stocking the mini-bar makes them competent bar tenders.
The problem here is that hotels, especially those with wifi have no method of determining which room is actually talking on a wifi router at any given time, without issuing individual passwords for each user, perhaps each device. Big chains may have that, but most small ones hang a router on each floor and call it good.
The article speaks to "pen register" data, not necessarily content, but the mere fact they don't seem worried about that suggests they have compromised SSL a long time ago.
Why do governments thing they have to snoop into every email and listen to every word between citizens? Why do we keep electing these fools?
There have been reports that when a grain of sand gets trapped under a case (sliding case), that it can scratch the back glass, and be compressed enough to cause a tiny crack to form which spreads, and the whole back shatters.
Of course who knows if these reports are true.
http://www.iphonehacks.com/2010/10/apple-investigating-potential-issue-with-slide-on-cases-and-iphone-4-causing-cracked-glass-back-panel.html
What part of "Unless there is a contagious factor" don't you understand?
But they really only were saying that they couldn't tell if trapped dirt behind the slide case was to blame. (Reference is to previous stories about trapped dirt triggering back glass breakage).
When reference is made to 82%, its always specific to screens.
But lets go with your theory, and assume out that a "quarter" of all breakage is attributable to the back glass. Lets further assume that breakage was ONLY Front OR Back.
That still leaves 52% more breakage than the iPhone 3G. That in itself is rather significant. Further is demolishes the suggestion that the increased breakage is ONLY the result of having twice the glass.
However it seems to me that back breakage is likely to occur in a significant percentage of front screen break events, as crushing accidents or edge drops put both glass pieces at risk. So that 25% seems unlikely to be an exclusive subset that you can separate out.
And they get their information from?
Is there a place to report breakage on their site?
Square Trade loses money for every screen break.
Nobody has better stats than Square Trade, because Apple takes one look at it and says user abuse, and does not bother counting it. Same for the carriers.
Nobody is keeping statistics EXCEPT the third party insurance providers. This is largely true in medicine as well. Unless there is a contagious factor, the only nationwide stats you will find on injuries (broken arms) is from insurance carriers. Why you choose to denigrate that fact when Apple is involved but not for heart attacks is sort of, well, suspicious.
The iPhone 4 only has one screen. The glass back is not a screen. The article is quite specific about this.
As to you other point, that may be true, because I've noticed over the years that only people who eventually die buy life insurance. &_&
But according to the linked article:
Our data shows that iPhone 4 owners are reporting accidents 68% more frequently than iPhone 3gs owners.
iPhone 4 owners reported 82% more damaged screens in the first 4 months compared to iPhone 3gs owners.
The back is not a screen. There is 68% more accidents, probably attributable to that glass back.
But when just screen damage is compared, its much worse, 82%.
It almost appears if the front screen breaks more than the back glass.
And who else would have any statistics that you would trust better? The manufacturer?
Exactly.
If you run windows apps, you have to replicate or emulate, and that would be wine.
They could run VMs that get fresh loaded images each reboot, but that's still windows, and still vulnerable while its running.
Mod parent insightful.
If you are going to run windows software you can bet they will start with with a Virtual Machine approach or Wine, and neither one buys them much security without diligence.
he idea that a government funded military lab would develop from the ground up and achieve something that would run windows but wasn't as vulnerable seems highly unlikely.
Budgets lapse. People Come and Go. It would be a mess.
But what this really is about, proffesional writer claims he works better without all the bells and whistle. Unknown nobody claims this is not true. I take the writers word for it that he writers faster without over yours. Hope this doesn't offend you. Damn spell check, should have been DOES.
So you immediately assume I'm not a professional writer? Based on what?
Has it occurred to you that the story is here on /. because it is novel, unusual, and bucks the trend?
That means of course that the vast majority of writers use word processors.
Why is it you value the word of the odd-man-out over the overwhelmingly larger body of writers?
Or was is just a convenient cheap shot?
My bad...
By post production (probably the wrong words) I meant production of the basic text, not publishing tasks.
After you type "The End", you realize your work has only begun, and now you need several passes thru the text for readability, continuity, and basic editing. Then your editor gets to bleed all over it. Lather, Rinse Repeat.
This story failed to sell me on the concept. Is the idea that because it's hard to navigate in ed, you're not tempted to rewrite during the first pass? Seems a bit weak, you should probably have the mental power to just not do that.
It failed to convince me too.
Almost every word processor has a non-layout presentation option used for banging out text without sacrificing running spell checking, syntax, auto capitalization, or the use of outlining capability, etc.
Self imposing a limitation making it harder to make changes mean more post production work. Consistency suffers. Continuity is the first causality. Errors creep in and persist.
Some things should be changed at the minute you decide to make the change, or the text suffers. No amount of editing after the fact will find all of these. (Especially in technical writing, where your editor will know far less about the subject than you).
No one who writes anything of length works in page layout view or worries about fonts, page breaks while entering the basic document. New writers may make this mistake their first time, but soon learn.
But in technical writing, when a term or a name changes you pretty much have to find and fix that immediately, because your editor won't have a clue. In non technical writing, when it becomes important for continuity to insert some facts or flesh out a character earlier in the story to support a later story twist, you have a choice of inserting it inline, with the intent of moving it later, or finding the appropriate place, and inserting it right then when the idea is fresh. The former leads to more re-writes.
A well developed story, or a well thought out technical outline saves far more time than simply forgoing structural edits by using self limiting tools with the hope of remembering to relocate, rewrite, or revise text later. The annotation features of word processors would actually help in these tasks if one wanted to put them off till later.
That the writer in TFA feels the need to impose self exile from modern tools suggest more about his work habits and discipline than about word processor technology.
There are still a few authors that write with a typewriter. Or even in long hand. Some are even successful. Not many. Fewer every day.