Yes. I tell the truth. ("Telling the truth" doesn't mean bad in any case.)
That's very noble of you. However the whole spirit of the resume is, at its core, lying by omission. Which is why companies don't really put much credibility on it.
Don't start replies with Uh. It's combative and makes you look like a dink.
their ad showed it to be 4x as good as it really is. If i went to wendys and got a 1/16th pounder i'd be pretty pissed
I'm hardly defending Apple here, but I think "4x as good" is rather ridiculous. While you seem to think a 1lb'r would be "4x as good" as a 1/4lb, in the Wendy's example I consider what I got 1/10th as satisfying as what's promised on the board (and it would be even worse if they just stuck more meat on it). Instead of a burger bursting with delicious veg, I got some piece of crap that I considered just tossing.
The ad had someone doing tasks at a rate that no one would ever do them. No, people don't jump around pages like that generally, scrolling a PDF for a second and looking up an address (with zero text entry) in milliseconds, instantly absorbing it.
Which is why it was an obvious exaggeration, which is pretty much the case for virtually all ads. I'd rather all ads were a lot more honest (in the case of fast food restaurants it should require random photos of randomly served dishes at regular intervals), but it seems a bit laughable to make such a big deal out of Apple.
Apple should really be slapped for repeatedly misrepresenting [brej.org] their products
Who doesn't? Went to Wendy's the other day and got a #2 combo because it looked pretty awesome on the order board. Got back to the office and opened it up to discover something pretty gross looking, a mash of squashed bun and grey meat. Yum. This isn't a rare case, and is pretty much the norm of advertising.
Are you as awesome as your resume paints you to be?
Sunspider is the standard JS benchmark and it's much broader in scope.
SunSpider isn't a panacea, and it's a bit of a distraction that it's the standard JS benchmark. To whore a bit, I wrote about it here.
This bit of ignorance makes me worry about the whole piece.
You should worry. The whole piece is absolutely ignorant, and is redundant given that it's presenting absolutely nothing that wasn't widely disseminated when Chrome first came out.
Chrome is irrelevant. The irrelevance with Chrome improving JavaScript speed is that it is a single platform, fringe browser -- on the app side no one is now going to do something that much more impressive (wholesale or as an optional feature) given that Chrome does javascript faster. We won't see that until the A-List browsers all improve their speed. To a lesser degree we might see it a bit more once Firefox 3.1 comes out, given that it's actually multi-platform and has enough use that it's worthwhile making a more-functional version that takes advantage of that performance.
It's quite dubious that the only beta browser tested was Chrome, especially when most of the others have publicly available beta versions available for testing.
For me, the clearest sign that this article represents technically incompetent me-too "journalism" was made abundantly clear when they said-
`Obviously, Chrome includes the V8 code and the other browsers do not. We tested the version of Firefox (called Minefield) that does include the V8 code and listed those results below our "official" findings.'
Minefield doesn't include "V8". They mean "JavaScript JITing", I'm going to presume, but chose a terribly inept way of saying it. It's also a bit embarrassing when they decide to fluff up an article with idolizing -- Lars Bak and his team didn't invent this.
Then again I knew something was wrong in the preceding sentence where they said that V8 radically improves the JavaScript "load time".
My guess is that performance and noise are only "fringe benefits" of this feature. The big deal (for microsoft) is probably that this will allow them to make multi-disk games.
Meant to comment on this.
Discs are going out very, very quickly. Microsoft and gamemakers have no interest in sharing profits with distributors and warehouses and fork lift drivers and then retailers, which is why there has been a massive (and logical) push for downloaded games. The fringe benefit in this case is enough for many to think "Gee, maybe I should get a hard drive", and the next step is for them to start buying games online.
Not likely -- you still need to put the disk in the drive to play the game
There are two small rings that thwart actual playing, but it seems unlikely that they just happen to be exactly the areas that it checks to validate ownership. Maybe, but probability hints to otherwise.
Who knows, though. Maybe when sitting idle that's all it does is sit on the copy protection sectors. We'll see.
The running games on the hard drive on the other hand was a letdown, as Halo immediately told me I should not be running the game off the HDD.
Halo was self-aware that it was running from the HDD? I had thought they'd sandboxed these things sufficiently to block that sort of storage awareness.
Though Microsoft has been very forthright with statements about the limited benefits of installing to the hard drive, honestly stating that load times will see little or no change (whether because the hard drive and it's bus is particularly slow, or the optical drive is very fast), however I ran out and stuck a hard disk drive on my so-cheap-I-had-to-buy-it (and have been amazingly impressed since. Despite generally being a Microsoft detractor, I am sold on this little box, and marvel what 3 year old technology can achieve graphically) Xbox Arcade-
Your unit is a lot quieter, which is obvious immediately. Purportedly it runs cooler as well (which I haven't measured
Your disc won't be gouged to hell if the unit is moved in any way, which is a known problem with the xbox 360. I accidentally moved mine (after it had sat for probably an hour doing "nothing", and I presumed was idle), to discover that it was still inexplicably spinning the GTA IV disc. Instantly the disc had its little polycarbonate guts eviscerated by the unforgiving head mechanism.
Possible way to "save" broken discs? (see below)
My GTA IV is currently unusable, and I'm too lazy and irritated to send it cross-border to Ohio (with all packaging), and all of the customs shizzle, paying $7.50 to get the disc replaced. With this new HDD install functionality I'm going to try renting GTA IV, installing it to the HD, and see if my b0rked copy is sufficient for the minimal copy protection check it does at the outset. [Crossing Fingers]
>Yeah because as CRT's have shown that problem will never be resolved, and besides staring at a dead pixel in the center of your screen.. Well it's just the bees knees!
Is this some sort of confused attempt at sarcasm? If it is, I think you're pretty remarkably off the mark.
I wonder if the price to produce a plasma television is just inherently much higher than LCD if the already generally lower prices on those were being fixed in many cases.
Plasmas seem to have become a new sort of discount category, with large, low priced plasmas saturating the market (like 40+" for $700). The downside is that they're 1024x768 usually, and are usually off-brands. And the whole burn-in thing makes me completely put off plasma altogether.
you could easily get a CRT of that size for under half that price
Right now I'm trying to unload a 132lb 32" JVC CRT Goliath that I paid $1000 for 6 years ago. I don't know where you were buying CRTs, but that was pretty much the bottom of the category.
However you can get some remarkably good deals with LCDs right now, though you might not get the highest contrast ratio, colour accuracy, or response rate.
It's hardly going out on a limb criticizing IPv4 -- it has proven an easy target for going on two decades now, with its weakness apparent to all.
And the switch to IPv6 is happening. Many backbone providers are rolling it out, and it is gaining wider support among mainstream operating systems and applications. The only reason it hasn't been a hastier migration is that NAT really did undermine the necessity for expediency.
Have you been living under a rock? There's a dozen stories a week about assholes making money selling crap in Second Life.
During the Second Life PR stage, back during its honeymoon, I do remember the "people getting rich on Second Life" stories, though when you looked closer, "rich" ended up meaning "making far less than minimum wage".
The worst part is that these were the hand-picked best examples, and for every one chump even breaking even, there are likely worlds more failing miserably (albeit probably trying to spin a fiction to themselves and online to convince themselves that this is the next big economy). And even if they weren't directly fed to the media by Linden Labs, the media has a vested interested in overblowing these things: It doesn't make for a very compelling story to write "A bunch of assholes sit wasting their lives away, all while pretending they're entrepreneurs despite making less real world money than a kid cutting lawns."
And the stories about big business all rushing to set up their Second Life environments....you've been had, bitches! The only ones making money out of that deal are the pitchmen that sell the services to set up this garbage.
Running each instance in a seperate process is NOT new technology
Well of course. It isn't even new in the browser world. In fact it's where we started.
The earliest browsers required you to run a new instance for each concurrently opened site. This presented onerous resource demands, so they made it more efficient by having multiple window instances run under one process, and then with tabs that obviously carried over to tabs running under one shared process.
This is so much ado about nothing. I can count on one hand the number of times I've had a problem with Firefox that would have been solved by it being in its own process.
Every bandwagoner, technical lightweight is now stomping their feet that Firefox needs to get on this yesterday, but really this is pretty low on the list of things that make a real improvement in people's lives. In fact I would go so far as to call it a gimmick. Presuming that the sandbox of a browser automatically stops sites from doing stupid stuff (unlike IE that will let a site kill just by going into a perpetual loop in JavaScript), and plug-ins are created by an idiot, this is completely unnecessary.
Chrome's great JavaScript is a real story, one upped by Firefox's ThreadMonkey doing one better. Those are real improvements that really do matter.
From the comic it seems like Google really wants to take a new approach to how browsers deal with memory and I think Firefox could learn from that.
New, but also very old. In the nascent web, browsing multiple sites meant opening multiple, process-isolated instances of the browser.
While coalescing their presentation into tabs is novel, the separation was actually where we started. The "single instance many pages" model was pursued to conserve resources.
1.1 specifically defines services as including the use of Google products. That is the definition that carries for all further uses of the term services.
Call me crazy, but I think I found a flaw in their system.
You're just too cynical.
In other news, I had a personal transportation chip injected into my feet. So long as I'm occupying a moving vehicle, it works perfectly at transporting me around.
But if someone sleeps there at night when nobody wants to sit there, what have you lost?
Aside from the possibility that someone might want to sit there at night, homelessness is frequently caused by psychiatric problems rather than economic problems. The guy who starts bedding on the bench at night will quite possibly develop a sense of ownership over the bench. Soon he has all his "stuff" crowding the bunch, and is aggressive to others who might want to use it.
People aren't just trying to be jerks.
The psychiatric angle to homelessness is why there is no easy fix for this, aside from sending out the nutter trucks and forcibly bringing them all to psychiatric hospitals. Which of course they did did in the not so distant past, but it went out of a favour.
The Core and Core 2 both have serious errata relating to how they handle virtual memory
All CPUs have errata. Nature of the beast.
However this isn't just a claim that "I know how to exploit this in this very specific instance", but rather that he can exploit it in countless complete disconnected ways (e.g. TCP packets, JavaScript, Java, and so on) on a wide variety of operating system. That doesn't pass muster, and sounds like serious grandstanding.
Secondly, no one makes such a grand claim for three months out. No one. It doesn't happen.
I'm sure he has a fault. I'm also fairly sure it's a non-issue fault.
At least he has written some books though. That's more than I can say.
I haven't read his books, so maybe they really are great, however the barrier to entry to authoring technology books is incredibly low nowadays-
* Know a modicum about a topic. * Have a basic command of the English language. * Have lots of time.
This wasn't always the case, but nowadays the tech publishing industry is dominated by flyweights. There are seldom tech editors (or even language editors worth counting), and most books are just full of garbage -- a complete waste of time.
And I don't say this as a spurned author, stewing under rejection letters -- if I had the time and the inclination, and could stomach the poor reputation of the industry, I'd write some books. I say it as a pissed off purchaser who is just blown away by the garbage that passes as information in this industry now. Even reading some of the reviews of Kris' books on Amazon (which I'm always suspicious about when there's a small number, as it's a little easy to stuff with friends and family), it is astounding some of the garbage that he got printed.
Okay, seriously -- based upon nothing but an overly bold claim featuring some massive technical faults, people are actually believing this? My post should be +5 insightful, not funny, because it really isn't intended to be funny.
Are people perhaps thinking this is Eugene Kaspersky or something? This guy is no relation to him.
Maybe, just maybe, someone really is going to sit on an epic, world shaking fault until an October security conference, but every bullshit detector is ringing as loudly as it can ring right now.
October will roll around and some guy will demonstrate some edge condition non-issue and say "Oh, did they misinterpret and overstate? Those bastards!"
Slashdot Mirror
That's very noble of you. However the whole spirit of the resume is, at its core, lying by omission. Which is why companies don't really put much credibility on it.
Don't start replies with Uh. It's combative and makes you look like a dink.
I'm hardly defending Apple here, but I think "4x as good" is rather ridiculous. While you seem to think a 1lb'r would be "4x as good" as a 1/4lb, in the Wendy's example I consider what I got 1/10th as satisfying as what's promised on the board (and it would be even worse if they just stuck more meat on it). Instead of a burger bursting with delicious veg, I got some piece of crap that I considered just tossing.
The ad had someone doing tasks at a rate that no one would ever do them. No, people don't jump around pages like that generally, scrolling a PDF for a second and looking up an address (with zero text entry) in milliseconds, instantly absorbing it.
Which is why it was an obvious exaggeration, which is pretty much the case for virtually all ads. I'd rather all ads were a lot more honest (in the case of fast food restaurants it should require random photos of randomly served dishes at regular intervals), but it seems a bit laughable to make such a big deal out of Apple.
Who doesn't? Went to Wendy's the other day and got a #2 combo because it looked pretty awesome on the order board. Got back to the office and opened it up to discover something pretty gross looking, a mash of squashed bun and grey meat. Yum. This isn't a rare case, and is pretty much the norm of advertising.
Are you as awesome as your resume paints you to be?
Or Google if you search from many types of mobile phone (Google automatically transforms results, as you navigate to them, to simplified versions).
No, it's worse than that. They basically patented XSLT, and the application of it to target different devices.
Another completely retarded patent.
SunSpider isn't a panacea, and it's a bit of a distraction that it's the standard JS benchmark. To whore a bit, I wrote about it here.
You should worry. The whole piece is absolutely ignorant, and is redundant given that it's presenting absolutely nothing that wasn't widely disseminated when Chrome first came out.
Chrome is irrelevant. The irrelevance with Chrome improving JavaScript speed is that it is a single platform, fringe browser -- on the app side no one is now going to do something that much more impressive (wholesale or as an optional feature) given that Chrome does javascript faster. We won't see that until the A-List browsers all improve their speed. To a lesser degree we might see it a bit more once Firefox 3.1 comes out, given that it's actually multi-platform and has enough use that it's worthwhile making a more-functional version that takes advantage of that performance.
For me, the clearest sign that this article represents technically incompetent me-too "journalism" was made abundantly clear when they said-
`Obviously, Chrome includes the V8 code and the other browsers do not. We tested the version of Firefox (called Minefield) that does include the V8 code and listed those results below our "official" findings.'
Minefield doesn't include "V8". They mean "JavaScript JITing", I'm going to presume, but chose a terribly inept way of saying it. It's also a bit embarrassing when they decide to fluff up an article with idolizing -- Lars Bak and his team didn't invent this.
Then again I knew something was wrong in the preceding sentence where they said that V8 radically improves the JavaScript "load time".
Meant to comment on this.
Discs are going out very, very quickly. Microsoft and gamemakers have no interest in sharing profits with distributors and warehouses and fork lift drivers and then retailers, which is why there has been a massive (and logical) push for downloaded games. The fringe benefit in this case is enough for many to think "Gee, maybe I should get a hard drive", and the next step is for them to start buying games online.
There are two small rings that thwart actual playing, but it seems unlikely that they just happen to be exactly the areas that it checks to validate ownership. Maybe, but probability hints to otherwise.
Who knows, though. Maybe when sitting idle that's all it does is sit on the copy protection sectors. We'll see.
Halo was self-aware that it was running from the HDD? I had thought they'd sandboxed these things sufficiently to block that sort of storage awareness.
Though Microsoft has been very forthright with statements about the limited benefits of installing to the hard drive, honestly stating that load times will see little or no change (whether because the hard drive and it's bus is particularly slow, or the optical drive is very fast), however I ran out and stuck a hard disk drive on my so-cheap-I-had-to-buy-it (and have been amazingly impressed since. Despite generally being a Microsoft detractor, I am sold on this little box, and marvel what 3 year old technology can achieve graphically) Xbox Arcade-
My GTA IV is currently unusable, and I'm too lazy and irritated to send it cross-border to Ohio (with all packaging), and all of the customs shizzle, paying $7.50 to get the disc replaced. With this new HDD install functionality I'm going to try renting GTA IV, installing it to the HD, and see if my b0rked copy is sufficient for the minimal copy protection check it does at the outset. [Crossing Fingers]
>Yeah because as CRT's have shown that problem will never be resolved, and besides staring at a dead pixel in the center of your screen.. Well it's just the bees knees!
Is this some sort of confused attempt at sarcasm? If it is, I think you're pretty remarkably off the mark.
Plasmas seem to have become a new sort of discount category, with large, low priced plasmas saturating the market (like 40+" for $700). The downside is that they're 1024x768 usually, and are usually off-brands. And the whole burn-in thing makes me completely put off plasma altogether.
Right now I'm trying to unload a 132lb 32" JVC CRT Goliath that I paid $1000 for 6 years ago. I don't know where you were buying CRTs, but that was pretty much the bottom of the category.
However you can get some remarkably good deals with LCDs right now, though you might not get the highest contrast ratio, colour accuracy, or response rate.
It's hardly going out on a limb criticizing IPv4 -- it has proven an easy target for going on two decades now, with its weakness apparent to all.
And the switch to IPv6 is happening. Many backbone providers are rolling it out, and it is gaining wider support among mainstream operating systems and applications. The only reason it hasn't been a hastier migration is that NAT really did undermine the necessity for expediency.
During the Second Life PR stage, back during its honeymoon, I do remember the "people getting rich on Second Life" stories, though when you looked closer, "rich" ended up meaning "making far less than minimum wage".
The worst part is that these were the hand-picked best examples, and for every one chump even breaking even, there are likely worlds more failing miserably (albeit probably trying to spin a fiction to themselves and online to convince themselves that this is the next big economy). And even if they weren't directly fed to the media by Linden Labs, the media has a vested interested in overblowing these things: It doesn't make for a very compelling story to write "A bunch of assholes sit wasting their lives away, all while pretending they're entrepreneurs despite making less real world money than a kid cutting lawns."
And the stories about big business all rushing to set up their Second Life environments....you've been had, bitches! The only ones making money out of that deal are the pitchmen that sell the services to set up this garbage.
Well of course. It isn't even new in the browser world. In fact it's where we started.
The earliest browsers required you to run a new instance for each concurrently opened site. This presented onerous resource demands, so they made it more efficient by having multiple window instances run under one process, and then with tabs that obviously carried over to tabs running under one shared process.
This is so much ado about nothing. I can count on one hand the number of times I've had a problem with Firefox that would have been solved by it being in its own process.
Every bandwagoner, technical lightweight is now stomping their feet that Firefox needs to get on this yesterday, but really this is pretty low on the list of things that make a real improvement in people's lives. In fact I would go so far as to call it a gimmick. Presuming that the sandbox of a browser automatically stops sites from doing stupid stuff (unlike IE that will let a site kill just by going into a perpetual loop in JavaScript), and plug-ins are created by an idiot, this is completely unnecessary.
Chrome's great JavaScript is a real story, one upped by Firefox's ThreadMonkey doing one better. Those are real improvements that really do matter.
New, but also very old. In the nascent web, browsing multiple sites meant opening multiple, process-isolated instances of the browser.
While coalescing their presentation into tabs is novel, the separation was actually where we started. The "single instance many pages" model was pursued to conserve resources.
1.1 specifically defines services as including the use of Google products. That is the definition that carries for all further uses of the term services.
Woooosh....
You're just too cynical.
In other news, I had a personal transportation chip injected into my feet. So long as I'm occupying a moving vehicle, it works perfectly at transporting me around.
Aside from the possibility that someone might want to sit there at night, homelessness is frequently caused by psychiatric problems rather than economic problems. The guy who starts bedding on the bench at night will quite possibly develop a sense of ownership over the bench. Soon he has all his "stuff" crowding the bunch, and is aggressive to others who might want to use it.
People aren't just trying to be jerks.
The psychiatric angle to homelessness is why there is no easy fix for this, aside from sending out the nutter trucks and forcibly bringing them all to psychiatric hospitals. Which of course they did did in the not so distant past, but it went out of a favour.
Ouch. Boy, that really stangs.
Only in reality he's marginally known among a very small circle, and has some very low circulation books.
Let's wait and see, why don't we, and we'll revisit it then. Everything about this, and I mean everything (including his resume) screams bullshit.
All CPUs have errata. Nature of the beast.
However this isn't just a claim that "I know how to exploit this in this very specific instance", but rather that he can exploit it in countless complete disconnected ways (e.g. TCP packets, JavaScript, Java, and so on) on a wide variety of operating system. That doesn't pass muster, and sounds like serious grandstanding.
Secondly, no one makes such a grand claim for three months out. No one. It doesn't happen.
I'm sure he has a fault. I'm also fairly sure it's a non-issue fault.
I haven't read his books, so maybe they really are great, however the barrier to entry to authoring technology books is incredibly low nowadays-
* Know a modicum about a topic.
* Have a basic command of the English language.
* Have lots of time.
This wasn't always the case, but nowadays the tech publishing industry is dominated by flyweights. There are seldom tech editors (or even language editors worth counting), and most books are just full of garbage -- a complete waste of time.
And I don't say this as a spurned author, stewing under rejection letters -- if I had the time and the inclination, and could stomach the poor reputation of the industry, I'd write some books. I say it as a pissed off purchaser who is just blown away by the garbage that passes as information in this industry now. Even reading some of the reviews of Kris' books on Amazon (which I'm always suspicious about when there's a small number, as it's a little easy to stuff with friends and family), it is astounding some of the garbage that he got printed.
Okay, seriously -- based upon nothing but an overly bold claim featuring some massive technical faults, people are actually believing this? My post should be +5 insightful, not funny, because it really isn't intended to be funny.
Are people perhaps thinking this is Eugene Kaspersky or something? This guy is no relation to him.
Maybe, just maybe, someone really is going to sit on an epic, world shaking fault until an October security conference, but every bullshit detector is ringing as loudly as it can ring right now.
October will roll around and some guy will demonstrate some edge condition non-issue and say "Oh, did they misinterpret and overstate? Those bastards!"