You refer to far, far left activity that has no bearing on the political climate in the US. Mainstream politicians on the right make plenty of incitements to violence on what is unfortunately a mainstream news channel. I don't see people who you'd consider left-wing making such extreme comments, but since I'm sure you do, would you care to cite some examples of left-wing politicians or their supporters inciting their audience to violence on a mainstream news outlet?
Don't you think that if those really were the ONLY reasons, then maybe the chip designers would be designing 4GHz chips? Could it be that the hardware designers know something you don't?
The GBC used to get 28 hours on a pair of alkaline Duracell batteries for me back in 1999. It's a lot less convenient to have to worry about recharging after every use instead of rarely.
Code verification in this context doesn't imply an attempt to understand the intent of code before running it. Rather, they verify that the code sticks to a safe subset of possible operations that effectively sandbox it out of being able to do anything nasty. They seem to have thorough design documentation on their wiki. I have no prior familiarity with NaCl, but this seems like an appropriate page to look at: http://www.chromium.org/nativeclient/design-documents/nacl-sfi-model-on-x86-64-systems
I don't know if lazy is really the appropriate word to use when talking about cheap labour.I think it's much more likely that they're actually hard-working people who are overworked and underpaid.
I'm not saying that missing features benefit people who miss them. I certainly would not see any value in using Google Docs for anything except for the real-time collaboration, which works a lot better than various people here seem to think. It would certainly be useful to optionally have more control about when committing happens, or to have some reassurance that conflicts are presented to the user instead of possibly overwriting useful work (I hope they do this right but have never seen it occur - when editing happens in real time you aren't really fast enough to make a conflict). My point is that the people in Google's target market are those office workers who use Word because they need a basic word processor, for which there historically were no low-end alternatives after Microsoft conquered the market in the 90s. I see tons of missing features in Google Docs, but the average person that they're aiming for wouldn't see the point of choosing when to commit your changes, and may not even care that there's a revision history at all (despite this being an insanely vital feature for a product like this).
Oh, is that where you got yours? You might want to fire up reportbug and tell the maintainer that it seems to be producing snarky comments instead of funny ones.
Let me get this straight. You're saying that Google Docs and this product are fundamentally flawed because they don't force the user to lock things before editing?
The versioning is present, it's just implicit, which is the way it should be if the average user is going to willingly use version control.
Well, if you're not serious, then yes, it's long, but if you have a serious specialization in software development then it's a drop in the bucket. Anyway, it's short compared to reading a book, and he's nice enough to not even make you pay for it.
..and what happens to your performance if you don't distinguish remote memory from local memory? Also, there are tons of problems that don't fit into 4GB, such as, for example, pretty much every problem that involves using a database. Even so, at some point cache limitations cease to be the bottleneck. Keep in mind that all of that die space can be used to implement more cores, etc., so it's not as simple as "how much cache can we fit on the die", there's always a tradeoff between competing uses for the die space, and more importantly, for your money.
I'm not a hardware guy, but what you're saying is out of touch with the design tradeoffs CPU designers already make for the following reason. Memory that runs at CPU speed already exists, that's what registers are. Then you have L1 cache, which takes a few cycles to access, L2, which takes I don't remember, a few dozen cycles, and memory, which takes hundreds of cycles, even longer if the TLB cache is being missed as well. Obviously things go faster if you have more registers, more L1, etc., but it's a tradeoff between cost, opportunity costs, and performance. Even if you had copious amounts of these on-die caches, you'd still want more RAM, so that you'd have something to put into the caches instead of limiting the working set size to the size of the cache! Furthermore, there is a hierarchy of storage that looks something like registers > L1 > L2 > L3 > memory > SSDs > disk storage > LAN > WAN. Of course, disk storage would be behind information stored in memory of another CPU node in a supercomputer, but anyway, the point is that the faster tiers are there to make access to the slower ones seem faster than it would be if the slow tiers were accessed directly. If you want to be able to write fast software, I suggest you read Ulrich Drepper's What Every Programmer Should Know About Memory. It's not that long, and very informative.
Can you link to an informative source source for this? H.264 Baseline is supported by TI with a DSP-based decoder for longer than the iPhone's been around, for example, so I'd find it really surprising if Apple didn't have proper support for it in some way. It would almost completely defeat the point of using H.264 if Apple did that.
I don't pretend everything is free of cost, and I understand that money is an important way to credit people for useful work they've done, but web standards should be free of cost, and it's nice that Google has stepped up in this case to try to move things back in that direction.
I didn't realize that IE9 was supporting WebM. In that case, the biggest stumbling block to using WebM everywhere is probably iOS. They often require a re-encode anyway, though (H.264 Baseline for iOS, H.264 Main profile for PC-like devices).
I see lots of people saying this, but it's not true. This is designed to indirectly combat choice. Not the choice of what codec to use on the client side, but the choice of accessing the web from completely unencumbered operating systems, with no flash and no patented codecs, or from mobile devices that don't have flash support, or whose manufacturers haven't paid to include the H.264 codec on the device. This is the kind of choice that matters: people on the client side don't care about choosing what codec is used, they care about choosing the devices or operating systems they want to use. A codec that is free from patent royalties is easier to support in free operating systems, browsers, and in mobile devices, where the OS is included out of the box, and the device maker would otherwise need to pay royalties.
Microsoft can still claim to be supporting choice, because they're helping web developers have the choice to use a patent encumbered codec. The use of this codec helps reduce consumer choice in what devices and operating systems they can use.
What is each company's interest in supporting either side? Microsoft recognizes that anything that is good for alternative operating systems and devices is bad for their Windows monopoly, which is why they are pro-H.264. I'm not sure what Apple's motivation is, but maybe it's similarly because all of their devices and software support H.264, and they want to retain a competitive advantage, however small. Google wants the web to be an open standard, because it's what their applications use, and Mozilla can't properly support H.264 without compromising their attempt to offer a free web browser that works just as well on every platform they support.
Besides, it's a WMP plugin. I don't expect to see Linux support.
For Microsoft, lack of Linux support is a bonus. If they can look like they're improving interoperability while actually harming it, that's great for them. I suspect that any web developers that adopt the video element this early are aware of all of these issues, and are either offering multiple formats or a flash-based fallback.
Yes, they could do that, but that would guarantee continuation of the current situation, where Linux users privately infringe patents, and everybody else running a business that needs to use H.264 has to pay royalties. Google and Mozilla are for whatever reason trying to rid the world of this indirect tax by pushing a free alternative, and we should celebrate this instead of questioning the short-term sacrifices they are making to accomplish this.
This is completely not true. Nokia failed to persuade themselves that they should completely invest in Linux and drop Symbian. They don't even have a MeeGo product in the market to persuade people to buy. Also, the N900 sold 100k units in the first 5 weeks (when the price was insanely high), and the head of Nokia's solutions business said at the time that "Sales have substantially exceeded expectations."
Indeed, I've been waiting for 5 years for Nokia to just pick Maemo already and get on with it. Now, since last April, I'm waiting for a Pandora handheld instead. It seems now that I made the right decision.
Your comment points to an obvious solution, one which is actually feasible: start another news organization that is designed in some way to be solidly immune to this sort of interference. There are many facets to this problem. For example, how to both find and select news, how to avoid being compromised as the organization grows, and how to achieve mainstream success. Another important question might be how to select stories that make people think and avoid stories that encourage polarization along political lines.
I'm always incredulous at how many people still use PoF despite how bad it is. OKCupid is so much better (still free though), because the questions help you automatically weed out all the icky people you don't want to have anything to do with.
Slashdot Mirror
You refer to far, far left activity that has no bearing on the political climate in the US. Mainstream politicians on the right make plenty of incitements to violence on what is unfortunately a mainstream news channel. I don't see people who you'd consider left-wing making such extreme comments, but since I'm sure you do, would you care to cite some examples of left-wing politicians or their supporters inciting their audience to violence on a mainstream news outlet?
Don't you think that if those really were the ONLY reasons, then maybe the chip designers would be designing 4GHz chips? Could it be that the hardware designers know something you don't?
Paul Allen is a billionaire, he has no need to sell an autobiography. The same story was also told by Cringely in 2006, as described by two people close to Paul Allen: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2006/pulpit_20060330_000890.html
These MS shill comments are getting more and more nonsensical.
I look forward to the inevitable push toward FOSS that a law like this would cause.
The GBC used to get 28 hours on a pair of alkaline Duracell batteries for me back in 1999. It's a lot less convenient to have to worry about recharging after every use instead of rarely.
Mod parent shill.
Code verification in this context doesn't imply an attempt to understand the intent of code before running it. Rather, they verify that the code sticks to a safe subset of possible operations that effectively sandbox it out of being able to do anything nasty. They seem to have thorough design documentation on their wiki. I have no prior familiarity with NaCl, but this seems like an appropriate page to look at: http://www.chromium.org/nativeclient/design-documents/nacl-sfi-model-on-x86-64-systems
I don't know if lazy is really the appropriate word to use when talking about cheap labour.I think it's much more likely that they're actually hard-working people who are overworked and underpaid.
I'm not saying that missing features benefit people who miss them. I certainly would not see any value in using Google Docs for anything except for the real-time collaboration, which works a lot better than various people here seem to think. It would certainly be useful to optionally have more control about when committing happens, or to have some reassurance that conflicts are presented to the user instead of possibly overwriting useful work (I hope they do this right but have never seen it occur - when editing happens in real time you aren't really fast enough to make a conflict). My point is that the people in Google's target market are those office workers who use Word because they need a basic word processor, for which there historically were no low-end alternatives after Microsoft conquered the market in the 90s. I see tons of missing features in Google Docs, but the average person that they're aiming for wouldn't see the point of choosing when to commit your changes, and may not even care that there's a revision history at all (despite this being an insanely vital feature for a product like this).
Oh, is that where you got yours? You might want to fire up reportbug and tell the maintainer that it seems to be producing snarky comments instead of funny ones.
Let me get this straight. You're saying that Google Docs and this product are fundamentally flawed because they don't force the user to lock things before editing? The versioning is present, it's just implicit, which is the way it should be if the average user is going to willingly use version control.
Well, if you're not serious, then yes, it's long, but if you have a serious specialization in software development then it's a drop in the bucket. Anyway, it's short compared to reading a book, and he's nice enough to not even make you pay for it.
..and what happens to your performance if you don't distinguish remote memory from local memory? Also, there are tons of problems that don't fit into 4GB, such as, for example, pretty much every problem that involves using a database. Even so, at some point cache limitations cease to be the bottleneck. Keep in mind that all of that die space can be used to implement more cores, etc., so it's not as simple as "how much cache can we fit on the die", there's always a tradeoff between competing uses for the die space, and more importantly, for your money.
I'm not a hardware guy, but what you're saying is out of touch with the design tradeoffs CPU designers already make for the following reason. Memory that runs at CPU speed already exists, that's what registers are. Then you have L1 cache, which takes a few cycles to access, L2, which takes I don't remember, a few dozen cycles, and memory, which takes hundreds of cycles, even longer if the TLB cache is being missed as well. Obviously things go faster if you have more registers, more L1, etc., but it's a tradeoff between cost, opportunity costs, and performance. Even if you had copious amounts of these on-die caches, you'd still want more RAM, so that you'd have something to put into the caches instead of limiting the working set size to the size of the cache! Furthermore, there is a hierarchy of storage that looks something like registers > L1 > L2 > L3 > memory > SSDs > disk storage > LAN > WAN. Of course, disk storage would be behind information stored in memory of another CPU node in a supercomputer, but anyway, the point is that the faster tiers are there to make access to the slower ones seem faster than it would be if the slow tiers were accessed directly. If you want to be able to write fast software, I suggest you read Ulrich Drepper's What Every Programmer Should Know About Memory. It's not that long, and very informative.
How did you measure those numbers? It would be tremendously useful to me to be able do the same.
Can you link to an informative source source for this? H.264 Baseline is supported by TI with a DSP-based decoder for longer than the iPhone's been around, for example, so I'd find it really surprising if Apple didn't have proper support for it in some way. It would almost completely defeat the point of using H.264 if Apple did that.
I don't pretend everything is free of cost, and I understand that money is an important way to credit people for useful work they've done, but web standards should be free of cost, and it's nice that Google has stepped up in this case to try to move things back in that direction.
I didn't realize that IE9 was supporting WebM. In that case, the biggest stumbling block to using WebM everywhere is probably iOS. They often require a re-encode anyway, though (H.264 Baseline for iOS, H.264 Main profile for PC-like devices).
I see lots of people saying this, but it's not true. This is designed to indirectly combat choice. Not the choice of what codec to use on the client side, but the choice of accessing the web from completely unencumbered operating systems, with no flash and no patented codecs, or from mobile devices that don't have flash support, or whose manufacturers haven't paid to include the H.264 codec on the device. This is the kind of choice that matters: people on the client side don't care about choosing what codec is used, they care about choosing the devices or operating systems they want to use. A codec that is free from patent royalties is easier to support in free operating systems, browsers, and in mobile devices, where the OS is included out of the box, and the device maker would otherwise need to pay royalties.
Microsoft can still claim to be supporting choice, because they're helping web developers have the choice to use a patent encumbered codec. The use of this codec helps reduce consumer choice in what devices and operating systems they can use.
What is each company's interest in supporting either side? Microsoft recognizes that anything that is good for alternative operating systems and devices is bad for their Windows monopoly, which is why they are pro-H.264. I'm not sure what Apple's motivation is, but maybe it's similarly because all of their devices and software support H.264, and they want to retain a competitive advantage, however small. Google wants the web to be an open standard, because it's what their applications use, and Mozilla can't properly support H.264 without compromising their attempt to offer a free web browser that works just as well on every platform they support.
Besides, it's a WMP plugin. I don't expect to see Linux support.
For Microsoft, lack of Linux support is a bonus. If they can look like they're improving interoperability while actually harming it, that's great for them. I suspect that any web developers that adopt the video element this early are aware of all of these issues, and are either offering multiple formats or a flash-based fallback.
Yes, they could do that, but that would guarantee continuation of the current situation, where Linux users privately infringe patents, and everybody else running a business that needs to use H.264 has to pay royalties. Google and Mozilla are for whatever reason trying to rid the world of this indirect tax by pushing a free alternative, and we should celebrate this instead of questioning the short-term sacrifices they are making to accomplish this.
This is completely not true. Nokia failed to persuade themselves that they should completely invest in Linux and drop Symbian. They don't even have a MeeGo product in the market to persuade people to buy. Also, the N900 sold 100k units in the first 5 weeks (when the price was insanely high), and the head of Nokia's solutions business said at the time that "Sales have substantially exceeded expectations."
Indeed, I've been waiting for 5 years for Nokia to just pick Maemo already and get on with it. Now, since last April, I'm waiting for a Pandora handheld instead. It seems now that I made the right decision.
Your comment points to an obvious solution, one which is actually feasible: start another news organization that is designed in some way to be solidly immune to this sort of interference. There are many facets to this problem. For example, how to both find and select news, how to avoid being compromised as the organization grows, and how to achieve mainstream success. Another important question might be how to select stories that make people think and avoid stories that encourage polarization along political lines.
I'm always incredulous at how many people still use PoF despite how bad it is. OKCupid is so much better (still free though), because the questions help you automatically weed out all the icky people you don't want to have anything to do with.