But if TCP packets are dropped too often just because of bursts (from other connections), the speed drops significantly and the latency goes up a lot too - because the relevant parties have to wait for acks and retransmissions and the TCP window size also decreases.
You're conflating bandwidth with latency. Furthermore, latency only rises during the renegotiation phase, after which latency is once against reduced to its previous level and potentially even better than before as saturation is now being avoided and therefore requiring less buffering (lower latency). This is, after all, entirely the point. The extra buffering is creating a waterfall of latency, even compounding error recovery efforts, which specifically defeats fairly complex algorithms which are designed to address the very issue the extra buffering is actively defeating.
Think of it as a highway with cars whereby the gap between cars is their buffer. Everything flows well until that one driver screws up and slows. It has an effect of causing everyone else behind him to brake and slow. And while it takes that first driver a second to speed back up to his previous speed, it takes one second * cars back, plus reaction time (error correction and renegotiation) to fix the entire highway. So for the bad driver, it delayed him one second. For the 11th driver back (packet), it cost him something like fifteen seconds to resume normal speeds; at which time, some drivers may have left the highway entirely (dropped).
Far too many people ignorantly block all ICMP traffic. As a result, the network path in between the two communicating hosts are forced to buffer more data as the destination host becomes saturated. Worse, this type of filtering has a tendency to quickly compound, which in turn creates the exact type of bufferbloat he's describing.
I wish people would understand there is a difference between, "No route to host", and a black hole. When you find a black hole, chances are really good you've found a host. As such, purposely breaking protocols for people to have an imagined increase in security only breaks the Internet as a whole when it becomes a wide spread tactic. And before people start rattling off that it opens a whole new can of worms, please realize that unlike in the past, stateful firewalls are extremely common today - so no.
Don't forget the blackmail file. If it's something so scandalous that it can be used as a weapon it's probably something that should be out in the open
I had completely forgotten about that. Excellent point!
No matter how you slice it, Assanage is far, far worse than the worst of what he attempts to expose under the guise of righteousness. The fact so many are so easily fools always makes me think of the spell Hitler was able to cast over so many Germans. Just like the name I invoked, Assanage wears horns while the crowds applaud.
I agree Assange is far from perfect but he's got the job done and that's what's important.
Actually, he hasn't. He's sitting on top of shit loads of leaked material. He's not getting the job done. He's basically holding it hostage and selling it to the highest bidder. If he was even remotely, "getting the job done", the material he's sitting on would have long been made public.
The simple facts are known, he's a hypocritical, sociopath, pushing his own selfish agenda and using the pro-wikileaks crowd as ignorant sock puppets.
Special handling is required to ensure that this does not take place while they are being carted around town or after they reach a landfill.
Which is why simply placing it into a bag and/or labeling it asbestos would be more than ample. For the majority of non-fibrous asbestos, the mandated hazmat procedures are the definition of stupidity. As for the example given, a couple hundred dollars would have provided the same level of safety - compared to the rape of $12,000.
Its bloat because the amount of buffering has been steadily on the rise of the years. Furthermore, as links become more congested, the amount of dynamic buffering frequently increases. "Bloat" is completely apropos.
Each of these initial experiments were been designed to clearly demonstrate a now very common problem: excessive buffering in a network path. I call this "bufferbloat". We all suffer from it end-to-end, and not just in our applications, operating systems and home network, as you will see.
Yeah, I see this a lot with nerds. It's pretty fucking annoying when someone launches in a long winded dissertation on some obscure subject, without even bothering to put an introductory paragraph at the top giving even the briefest overview of what the fuck they're even talking about.
Its a series of blog articles. He presumes you've been following his series of articles whereby he introduces the topic and experimentally validates his assertions. If you didn't get the introduction, blame your own laziness or the failure of the poster to also provide a link to the first blog post in the series.
Basically you're complaining because you jumped to the middle of a book and then bitched that the chapter you started reading doesn't have an introduction. Most people will wonder what the hell is wrong with you. To then attack the author for other's failings is bizarre to say the least. And all this ignores that blogs are frequently written to be familiar and causal reading; which also entirely invalidates your general tone.
Even more pompous is making a post about it when everyone can clearly see, "bufferbloat" is shorter than constantly saying something tedious like, "excessive packet buffering in the entirety of a network path."
Perhaps this will help the uninitiated. The article describes a wide problem of excessive packet buffering in the entirety of a network path, which has been dubbed, "bufferbloat."
I like leaks, so long as they are done even half way intelligently. The problem with Assange, he's never shown even a shred of intelligence. And his hypocritical view of everything pisses me off - as do his brainless defenders - who are almost always pro-censorship - except for Assange. If the state keeps secrets its bad. If Julian keeps secrets its good. If someone steals documents and gives them to him, they're his. If those documents are released to others, they're still his and he'll sue? WTF? If governments get people killed, they are evil and Captain Assange will protect us. But if Captain Assanage gets people killed, its okay because his cause is more important; "the people have a right to know." And I'm not making this up. This is all from Assanage interviews; link provided below. He's a fucked up sociopath. And keep in mind, that's a fairly pro-Wikileaks/Assanage video and it clearly shows him to be a sociopath and a hypocrite.
Assanage openly admonishes governments for doing exactly what he's doing. In Assanage's mind, if he leaks information and people get killed, its literally okay because the ends justify the means. And yet its that exact same mentality of why he has anything to report. He's a hypocritical prick who clearly has an agenda to push.
A leak service absolutely should exist. Leaks should reveal malfeasance and abuse of power - not state secrets in general. Nor should they reveal secrets for the sole purpose of embarrassment.
Do you really believe this? What makes you think this could be true?
Because its a documented fact of history. And widely known. And widely documented in numerous books. Hell, even History Channel often mentions these facts in various documentaries.
Which one is more plausible?
The most plausible one is you have absolutely know idea what you're talking about.
I don't presume its their only method. Having said that, they've been caught stealing and spying to receive exactly this information. So its hardly a stretch to say the least.
I never said anything about canards - so I'm honestly not sure where that came from.
Please name one single ex-nazi engineer who was a war criminal.
War criminal, as in committed crimes which classify them as a, "war criminal." Without fail, when they were absorbed by either the US or Russia, their records were expunged. In some cases, where they could not clear their record, they simply disappeared from the face of the earth - meaning received new identities.
Asbestos is a very poor example. There are many, many cases where asbestos is actually safe for use. The problem with asbestos is that it become more lucrative, by far, to be anti-asbestos than the industry itself. Hell, removal of perfectly safe asbestos these days actually requires a team of hazmat workers, following hazmat procedures.
The biggest problems with asbestos came from using it as a fibrous insulator whereby fibers and particulate are easily shed and then inhaled. This, of course, created a hazard for installers and post-construction workers and inhabitants every time the material is disturbed. On the other hand, asbestos has far, far more uses than simple insulation, which is why you find it everywhere in old products and buildings. Some are dangerous. Some are now. Law suites and mitigation procedures make absolutely no distinction.
To be clear, I'm not saying asbestos has zero risk. I'm saying the risk has been far, far overblown because its far more lucrative to do so. Most people don't realize that common silica sand is far more hazardous to its workers - that is, if not properly mitigated. In fact, Silicosis is the primary reason so many quarry workers died when the first power tools were introduced to aid them. Back then, they didn't know about it and didn't use water and respirators to mitigate the silica dust. Back then, the life expectancy was 6-8 months. Thusly, the first quarry power tool was dubbed, "The Window Maker".
Its informative because, surprise, my post is completely informative. Idiot. The mods who marked it anything other are fucking idiots. I was too lazy to look up the actual aircraft. I was pretty sure I didn't recall the right one. Regardless, the post is otherwise accurate. The simple fact is, the type of aircraft doesn't matter at all. The fact is, Russia made exact copies of at least one US design - as others corrected and confirmed. The fact remains, the exact type of aircraft doesn't matter in the least to convey the point. The fact is, stealing plans doesn't have to mean a literal build of said plans.
As such, the fact is, you're a fucking idiot who can understand the least of what you read. Otherwise, a minor mistake wouldn't have led you so astray up your own ass.
People like you, and the moderators who negatively moderated my post, are exactly what's what with slashdot these days. Fucking useless people.
Not really a good idea at all. Providing a forum helps to create a community. For many games, community is key to longevity and survival. At the same time, people are especially dumb. Given that many gamers are somewhat young people who have no actual experience in the real world, all too often their notion of better is well beyond idiocy. Given that these type of idiots tend to flock together, even a point rating system is likely to have absolutely idiotic notions rated up. So no matter what, you're likely to spend a huge amount of time reading/filter, and even more time explaining (really educating and explaining how the world turns). Worse, all too often, after you explain why such-n-such isn't a good idea or how its just plain impossible, the idiots when then argue with you; as if they have divine insight beyond that of the creator. And I post this because I've seen exactly this behavior all the time.
Long story short, you can't fix stupid. You can't reason with stupid. Meaning, creating a forum (community) is absolutely a really good idea. Attempting to participate in the community (at least with the given target base), is just dumb. Its a huge, unproductive, absolute waste of time. But regardless how much time it would waste for its creators, allowing others of a like mind to share their experiences is all too often, a good thing - for everyone, including the creators.
Besides, if the community isn't a complete waste of humanity, community leads will typically take hold and they can do all the hard work of reading, replying, and filtering. As a result, they'll then take the content, having any real merit, and present it as needed.
I figured I didn't remember the right aircraft but as it didn't matter in the least so far as the point of the post, I didn't care. That was dumb of me given how unintelligent the slashdot readership is these days - and worse, how completely useless most moderators are these days.
Super cruise has an even more important role to play. When in theater, the logistics of fuel management and deployment becomes a headache. With supercruise you can get timely (fast), good range, with less fuel consumed. Which translates to less fuel which needs to be managed for a given mission. Or, alternatively, as you point out, longer missions and/or more time on mission or over target.
I'm starting to wonder about miss-direction. It does look similar to the F-22
Far more likely its based on stolen US plans. This has previously happened several times in the past. The Russians are very well known for stealing US aircraft plans and making it their own. IIRC, The Bear was a literal, exact replication of a US aircraft, except for Russian tags and imperfections from inferior manufacturing capabilities.
But in this case, far, far more is required to replicate US stealth aircraft than simply the plans. Much of what makes it stealthy includes engines, paint, and highly advanced materials. Not to mention the computers and software. Our aircraft have a low end super computer on board; which is especially noteworthy given that most are lucky to have more than a couple dozen Pentium class computers. Beyond that, in some cases, new manufacturing processes are created to allow for manufacturing. So even if it looks like our aircraft, doesn't mean its actually anything other than a distant second.
Having said that, its very, very clear. China intends to create a stealth arms race. And regardless of its current operational state, chances are their program is very active and will likely trigger sizable additional funding for the US within the next couple of years to counter Chinese efforts. Why? Because if you think about it, with a stealth bomber and stealth fighters for escort, your need for ICBMs, outside of deterrence, almost completely evaporates.
I've been that person whom they hold the bus. That's because I carried the workload of four people. It took four people to replace me when I left. Partly because I'm fairly skilled and partly because I worked long hours and sometimes weekends and sometimes even in the middle of the night when I couldn't sleep.
I've also been that person that understood the company was run by complete idiots. When I made a passing comment about the stupidity of the CEO, everyone thought I was an idiot. Within the year, all of those same people had either left the company because of obviously poor management or completely agreed with me and were actively looking.
The simple fact is, knowing the company is run by an idiot doesn't mean you're poisoning the company. Understanding that something is wrong is the first step to fixing it. Of course, given the disparity is power, obviously I can't fix it, but it doesn't mean the company suffers for it - save only for the stupidity of the executives.
The simple fact is, nothing poisons a company moreso than stupid management. Looking to blame employees for poisoning of corporate culture and morale likely means you're part of the problem. That's obviously not an absolute but you should look long and hard to determine if in fact, you are the poison you're looking for; as after all, you may be trying to kill the messenger.
And was that using an OpenGL interface or the standard interface? That's been the party line all along. For the standard interface it will use software compositing. For higher end phones, which has a custom interface, they'll use OpenGL and benefit from GPU acceleration.
That's why you see so many custom interfaces for Android from different manufacturers - so as to better expose their underlying hardware capabilities. It may very well be that for tablet computers, they have an alternate, OpenGL interface which leverages GPU capabilities. Frankly, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised given that one of the comments I read from a core Android developer was actually fairly recently - and it seemed to indicate software compositing was not going anywhere any time soon.
They can probably also move to hardware acceleration for composite effects
They specifically want software compositing. I've even read threads where the core Android devs are flipped with a third party developer who didn't realize it was on purpose (as in a designed "feature") and even offered to re-write that portion of Android so as to allow for proper GPU sanity. The developer had even made some modest changes in his own code base which showed massive speed ups.
Even in recent reads, they show absolutely no sign of ever wanting to move away from software compositing. If they ever move away from software compositing, its because someone smart, who is now empowered, is in a position to make such changes.
Slashdot Mirror
But if TCP packets are dropped too often just because of bursts (from other connections), the speed drops significantly and the latency goes up a lot too - because the relevant parties have to wait for acks and retransmissions and the TCP window size also decreases.
You're conflating bandwidth with latency. Furthermore, latency only rises during the renegotiation phase, after which latency is once against reduced to its previous level and potentially even better than before as saturation is now being avoided and therefore requiring less buffering (lower latency). This is, after all, entirely the point. The extra buffering is creating a waterfall of latency, even compounding error recovery efforts, which specifically defeats fairly complex algorithms which are designed to address the very issue the extra buffering is actively defeating.
Think of it as a highway with cars whereby the gap between cars is their buffer. Everything flows well until that one driver screws up and slows. It has an effect of causing everyone else behind him to brake and slow. And while it takes that first driver a second to speed back up to his previous speed, it takes one second * cars back, plus reaction time (error correction and renegotiation) to fix the entire highway. So for the bad driver, it delayed him one second. For the 11th driver back (packet), it cost him something like fifteen seconds to resume normal speeds; at which time, some drivers may have left the highway entirely (dropped).
It doesn't help that massive numbers of people actively insist on breaking protocols which specifically exist to alleviate some of these types of problems.
Far too many people ignorantly block all ICMP traffic. As a result, the network path in between the two communicating hosts are forced to buffer more data as the destination host becomes saturated. Worse, this type of filtering has a tendency to quickly compound, which in turn creates the exact type of bufferbloat he's describing.
I wish people would understand there is a difference between, "No route to host", and a black hole. When you find a black hole, chances are really good you've found a host. As such, purposely breaking protocols for people to have an imagined increase in security only breaks the Internet as a whole when it becomes a wide spread tactic. And before people start rattling off that it opens a whole new can of worms, please realize that unlike in the past, stateful firewalls are extremely common today - so no.
Don't forget the blackmail file. If it's something so scandalous that it can be used as a weapon it's probably something that should be out in the open
I had completely forgotten about that. Excellent point!
No matter how you slice it, Assanage is far, far worse than the worst of what he attempts to expose under the guise of righteousness. The fact so many are so easily fools always makes me think of the spell Hitler was able to cast over so many Germans. Just like the name I invoked, Assanage wears horns while the crowds applaud.
I agree Assange is far from perfect but he's got the job done and that's what's important.
Actually, he hasn't. He's sitting on top of shit loads of leaked material. He's not getting the job done. He's basically holding it hostage and selling it to the highest bidder. If he was even remotely, "getting the job done", the material he's sitting on would have long been made public.
The simple facts are known, he's a hypocritical, sociopath, pushing his own selfish agenda and using the pro-wikileaks crowd as ignorant sock puppets.
Special handling is required to ensure that this does not take place while they are being carted around town or after they reach a landfill.
Which is why simply placing it into a bag and/or labeling it asbestos would be more than ample. For the majority of non-fibrous asbestos, the mandated hazmat procedures are the definition of stupidity. As for the example given, a couple hundred dollars would have provided the same level of safety - compared to the rape of $12,000.
Except that article doesn't have a good picture which strongly illustrates the origin of the word.
What is wrong with moderators these days? They almost never can do their simple job. At best the parent post was offtopic. Flamebait - absolutely not.
Its bloat because the amount of buffering has been steadily on the rise of the years. Furthermore, as links become more congested, the amount of dynamic buffering frequently increases. "Bloat" is completely apropos.
How is this not an introduction?
Each of these initial experiments were been designed to clearly demonstrate a now very common problem: excessive buffering in a network path. I call this "bufferbloat". We all suffer from it end-to-end, and not just in our applications, operating systems and home network, as you will see.
And since you are too lazy or simple minded to read the original link and follow, here's the introductory blog post.
Yeah, I see this a lot with nerds. It's pretty fucking annoying when someone launches in a long winded dissertation on some obscure subject, without even bothering to put an introductory paragraph at the top giving even the briefest overview of what the fuck they're even talking about.
Its a series of blog articles. He presumes you've been following his series of articles whereby he introduces the topic and experimentally validates his assertions. If you didn't get the introduction, blame your own laziness or the failure of the poster to also provide a link to the first blog post in the series.
Basically you're complaining because you jumped to the middle of a book and then bitched that the chapter you started reading doesn't have an introduction. Most people will wonder what the hell is wrong with you. To then attack the author for other's failings is bizarre to say the least. And all this ignores that blogs are frequently written to be familiar and causal reading; which also entirely invalidates your general tone.
Demands for definition are a bit pompous...
A bit?
Even more pompous is making a post about it when everyone can clearly see, "bufferbloat" is shorter than constantly saying something tedious like, "excessive packet buffering in the entirety of a network path."
Perhaps this will help the uninitiated. The article describes a wide problem of excessive packet buffering in the entirety of a network path, which has been dubbed, "bufferbloat."
I like leaks, so long as they are done even half way intelligently. The problem with Assange, he's never shown even a shred of intelligence. And his hypocritical view of everything pisses me off - as do his brainless defenders - who are almost always pro-censorship - except for Assange. If the state keeps secrets its bad. If Julian keeps secrets its good. If someone steals documents and gives them to him, they're his. If those documents are released to others, they're still his and he'll sue? WTF? If governments get people killed, they are evil and Captain Assange will protect us. But if Captain Assanage gets people killed, its okay because his cause is more important; "the people have a right to know." And I'm not making this up. This is all from Assanage interviews; link provided below. He's a fucked up sociopath. And keep in mind, that's a fairly pro-Wikileaks/Assanage video and it clearly shows him to be a sociopath and a hypocrite.
Assanage openly admonishes governments for doing exactly what he's doing. In Assanage's mind, if he leaks information and people get killed, its literally okay because the ends justify the means. And yet its that exact same mentality of why he has anything to report. He's a hypocritical prick who clearly has an agenda to push.
A leak service absolutely should exist. Leaks should reveal malfeasance and abuse of power - not state secrets in general. Nor should they reveal secrets for the sole purpose of embarrassment.
"Killing people is fun."
-Julian Assange
You can be pro-leaks, but if you're pro-Assanage, you're either ignorant or an idiot.
Do you really believe this? What makes you think this could be true?
Because its a documented fact of history. And widely known. And widely documented in numerous books. Hell, even History Channel often mentions these facts in various documentaries.
Which one is more plausible?
The most plausible one is you have absolutely know idea what you're talking about.
I don't presume its their only method. Having said that, they've been caught stealing and spying to receive exactly this information. So its hardly a stretch to say the least.
I never said anything about canards - so I'm honestly not sure where that came from.
Please name one single ex-nazi engineer who was a war criminal.
War criminal, as in committed crimes which classify them as a, "war criminal." Without fail, when they were absorbed by either the US or Russia, their records were expunged. In some cases, where they could not clear their record, they simply disappeared from the face of the earth - meaning received new identities.
asbestos
Asbestos is a very poor example. There are many, many cases where asbestos is actually safe for use. The problem with asbestos is that it become more lucrative, by far, to be anti-asbestos than the industry itself. Hell, removal of perfectly safe asbestos these days actually requires a team of hazmat workers, following hazmat procedures.
The biggest problems with asbestos came from using it as a fibrous insulator whereby fibers and particulate are easily shed and then inhaled. This, of course, created a hazard for installers and post-construction workers and inhabitants every time the material is disturbed. On the other hand, asbestos has far, far more uses than simple insulation, which is why you find it everywhere in old products and buildings. Some are dangerous. Some are now. Law suites and mitigation procedures make absolutely no distinction.
To be clear, I'm not saying asbestos has zero risk. I'm saying the risk has been far, far overblown because its far more lucrative to do so. Most people don't realize that common silica sand is far more hazardous to its workers - that is, if not properly mitigated. In fact, Silicosis is the primary reason so many quarry workers died when the first power tools were introduced to aid them. Back then, they didn't know about it and didn't use water and respirators to mitigate the silica dust. Back then, the life expectancy was 6-8 months. Thusly, the first quarry power tool was dubbed, "The Window Maker".
Its informative because, surprise, my post is completely informative. Idiot. The mods who marked it anything other are fucking idiots. I was too lazy to look up the actual aircraft. I was pretty sure I didn't recall the right one. Regardless, the post is otherwise accurate. The simple fact is, the type of aircraft doesn't matter at all. The fact is, Russia made exact copies of at least one US design - as others corrected and confirmed. The fact remains, the exact type of aircraft doesn't matter in the least to convey the point. The fact is, stealing plans doesn't have to mean a literal build of said plans.
As such, the fact is, you're a fucking idiot who can understand the least of what you read. Otherwise, a minor mistake wouldn't have led you so astray up your own ass.
People like you, and the moderators who negatively moderated my post, are exactly what's what with slashdot these days. Fucking useless people.
... don't have one. It's really that simple.
Not really a good idea at all. Providing a forum helps to create a community. For many games, community is key to longevity and survival. At the same time, people are especially dumb. Given that many gamers are somewhat young people who have no actual experience in the real world, all too often their notion of better is well beyond idiocy. Given that these type of idiots tend to flock together, even a point rating system is likely to have absolutely idiotic notions rated up. So no matter what, you're likely to spend a huge amount of time reading/filter, and even more time explaining (really educating and explaining how the world turns). Worse, all too often, after you explain why such-n-such isn't a good idea or how its just plain impossible, the idiots when then argue with you; as if they have divine insight beyond that of the creator. And I post this because I've seen exactly this behavior all the time.
Long story short, you can't fix stupid. You can't reason with stupid. Meaning, creating a forum (community) is absolutely a really good idea. Attempting to participate in the community (at least with the given target base), is just dumb. Its a huge, unproductive, absolute waste of time. But regardless how much time it would waste for its creators, allowing others of a like mind to share their experiences is all too often, a good thing - for everyone, including the creators.
Besides, if the community isn't a complete waste of humanity, community leads will typically take hold and they can do all the hard work of reading, replying, and filtering. As a result, they'll then take the content, having any real merit, and present it as needed.
That's the one. Thanks.
I figured I didn't remember the right aircraft but as it didn't matter in the least so far as the point of the post, I didn't care. That was dumb of me given how unintelligent the slashdot readership is these days - and worse, how completely useless most moderators are these days.
Super cruise has an even more important role to play. When in theater, the logistics of fuel management and deployment becomes a headache. With supercruise you can get timely (fast), good range, with less fuel consumed. Which translates to less fuel which needs to be managed for a given mission. Or, alternatively, as you point out, longer missions and/or more time on mission or over target.
TU-4, a reverse-engineered copy of the B-29
Yep, this is the one I was thinking of...too lazy to look it up...thus the qualifier.
Regardless, the point remains.
I'm starting to wonder about miss-direction. It does look similar to the F-22
Far more likely its based on stolen US plans. This has previously happened several times in the past. The Russians are very well known for stealing US aircraft plans and making it their own. IIRC, The Bear was a literal, exact replication of a US aircraft, except for Russian tags and imperfections from inferior manufacturing capabilities.
But in this case, far, far more is required to replicate US stealth aircraft than simply the plans. Much of what makes it stealthy includes engines, paint, and highly advanced materials. Not to mention the computers and software. Our aircraft have a low end super computer on board; which is especially noteworthy given that most are lucky to have more than a couple dozen Pentium class computers. Beyond that, in some cases, new manufacturing processes are created to allow for manufacturing. So even if it looks like our aircraft, doesn't mean its actually anything other than a distant second.
Having said that, its very, very clear. China intends to create a stealth arms race. And regardless of its current operational state, chances are their program is very active and will likely trigger sizable additional funding for the US within the next couple of years to counter Chinese efforts. Why? Because if you think about it, with a stealth bomber and stealth fighters for escort, your need for ICBMs, outside of deterrence, almost completely evaporates.
I've been that person whom they hold the bus. That's because I carried the workload of four people. It took four people to replace me when I left. Partly because I'm fairly skilled and partly because I worked long hours and sometimes weekends and sometimes even in the middle of the night when I couldn't sleep.
I've also been that person that understood the company was run by complete idiots. When I made a passing comment about the stupidity of the CEO, everyone thought I was an idiot. Within the year, all of those same people had either left the company because of obviously poor management or completely agreed with me and were actively looking.
The simple fact is, knowing the company is run by an idiot doesn't mean you're poisoning the company. Understanding that something is wrong is the first step to fixing it. Of course, given the disparity is power, obviously I can't fix it, but it doesn't mean the company suffers for it - save only for the stupidity of the executives.
The simple fact is, nothing poisons a company moreso than stupid management. Looking to blame employees for poisoning of corporate culture and morale likely means you're part of the problem. That's obviously not an absolute but you should look long and hard to determine if in fact, you are the poison you're looking for; as after all, you may be trying to kill the messenger.
And was that using an OpenGL interface or the standard interface? That's been the party line all along. For the standard interface it will use software compositing. For higher end phones, which has a custom interface, they'll use OpenGL and benefit from GPU acceleration.
That's why you see so many custom interfaces for Android from different manufacturers - so as to better expose their underlying hardware capabilities. It may very well be that for tablet computers, they have an alternate, OpenGL interface which leverages GPU capabilities. Frankly, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised given that one of the comments I read from a core Android developer was actually fairly recently - and it seemed to indicate software compositing was not going anywhere any time soon.
They can probably also move to hardware acceleration for composite effects
They specifically want software compositing. I've even read threads where the core Android devs are flipped with a third party developer who didn't realize it was on purpose (as in a designed "feature") and even offered to re-write that portion of Android so as to allow for proper GPU sanity. The developer had even made some modest changes in his own code base which showed massive speed ups.
Even in recent reads, they show absolutely no sign of ever wanting to move away from software compositing. If they ever move away from software compositing, its because someone smart, who is now empowered, is in a position to make such changes.