How many games support it? Unless it has wide support it's just not worth it.

Are you sure? ARM advertises it as part of all architectures from ARMv5 to ARMv8: http://www.arm.com/files/downloads/ARMv8_Architecture.pdf.

Getting back on topic: the last ARM architecture, ARMv8, is far from what was called "RISC" back in the '70s. E.g. it can run instructions of different sizes (16 vs 32 bit), it has 4 specialized instructions for AES, registers with different sizes (32, 64 and 128 bits), instructions for running a subset of the Java bytecode, a rich set of SIMD operations and specialized instructions for SHA-1 and SHA-256.

Similarily the architecture supported by the new Atom chips (which is AMD64/x86-64 BTW, IA32 is only present for backward compatibility) is almost universally run on RISC-like processors that have instruction translators. Considering that the increased density of the x86-64 instructions usually allows to save more cache transistors than the ones required for decoding the instructions themselves, I think that the power consumption differences that we see are more due to the implementation and different traditional focus areas of ARM vs Intel/AMD than inherent differences in the instruction sets.

You seem to think that HTML 4.01 is a subset of the HTML (a.k.a. "the standard formerly known as HTML5"). That's not the case, HTML 4.01 is a completely different and incompatible HTML dialect. When I say incompatible I mean that 4.01-compliant browsers (which obviously don't exist and never did) would not be able to correctly display ANY of the following website: slashdot, Wikipedia, Google, Yahoo, BBC, CNN, eBay, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and many, many others. If you want an HTML 4.01 browser, you can't just limit existing browsers to a subset of their functionality, you have to write one yourself because 4.01 was so utterly broken and incompatible with the actual web that exists in this reality that no browser vendor ever implemented it. Even lynx is more similar to HTML than to HTML 4.01 when it comes to parsing web pages, otherwise it would be completely unusable. HTML 4.01 was promoted to a "standard" only because the W3C rules at the time were very lax, with the current rules that require two independent complete implementations, it would still be a "working draft".

The web browser interoperability in the last few years (after IE6) is a product of the WHATWG standard, that started in 2004 (it wasn't called HTML back then). Just an example: HTML 4.01 doesn't specify a way to parse HTML that actually works and doesn't specify at all how to handle errors. The result is that every browser had a slightly different and incompatible parsing algorithm. Let me make this clear: no browser ever implemented HTML 4.01. Not a single one of them. Because HTML 4.01 was extremely buggy and unmaintained. It caused the IE6 era. The HTML5 draft on W3C is less buggy but still severely incomplete, stopping making major changes just means that all browsers vendors are completely ignoring the HTML5 from W3C and going instead for the HTML standard that's actively maintained and updated.

Ian Hickson is the editor of both docs (he's actually the editor of the main HTML standard, the WHATWG one; the draft hosted by the W3C is really nothing more that an old and incomplete copy that nobody among browser vendors takes seriously).

He explained very clearly the past and current situation: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2012Jul/0119.html

And, yes, the WHATWG has done an excellent job so far, bringing much needed features to the web and creating an era of faster and more interoperable browsers. If they had just waited for the W3C we would still be stuck with HTML 4.01, IE6, Flash and other plugins.

Also this is not a new development, HTML (from WHATWG) has started gradually leaving the HTML5 (from W3C) behind a long time ago. Where the two differ, all major browsers (including IE) either already follow HTML or plan to. See this post from more than a year ago: http://blog.whatwg.org/html-is-the-new-html5

When people talk about HTML5 features in browsers and websites, they actually refer to the HTML standard. The HTML5 "working draft" on the W3C website doesn't even support the old 2D canvas API, which is implemented by all browsers!

They tried with an atheist but she left the blacklist empty.

We have so much evidence about the existence of the dark matter that's not even funny: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence

Quite the opposite: you're reading too little.

They're interested in game consoles because they already have the capability to hack into PCs, just like every other script kiddie on this planet.

Also, Adblock Plus is a must.

FYI, it works much better on a dual core and most importantly at least 1 GB of RAM. It's very usable on my Galaxy Nexus.

This surprises me. Could you please explain why?

Look, I love equality for everyone and I think prejudice is stupid. But can we please stop pretending that Muslims are a "race" or an ethnic group? They are the followers of a religion, Islam.

Some religious extremists love spreading this lie because it allows them to stop any criticism (legitimate or not) of their actions by labeling it as "discrimination" or even "racism".

Please don't fall for it: there's a very important difference between attributes like ethnicity, skin color, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, place of birth and other characteristics like religion or political ideas.

Everything in the first group is something that people get assigned at birth and cannot change, so discrimination based on them must be strongly opposed. But the stuff in the second group is something that people can change at any time if they want to, so criticizing people for their religion or political ideas should always be fair game.

Funny how the phones designed directly by Google or in strict collaboration with Google (the Nexus series) all have an unlockable booloader and support Google Videos.

I realize you guys are just kidding, but there's a very important and overlooked part of the SPDY protocol. Hopefully TPTB won't understand its implications before it's too late to stop SPDY adoption.

You see, the way I read the spec and the way it's currently implemented, SPDY requires every single connection to be encrypted. It's not optional.

Imagine that, a world where MITM attacks suddenly become much much harder, where your ISP doesn't inject ads in your search results, where your mobile provider cannot "help" you screwing up your HTTP connections with a transparent proxy, where the British government cannot censor a Wikipedia page, where even the small sites can be encrypted because web hosts save bandwidth money by offering this option to everyone.

Imagine a world where net neutrality becomes much harder to break because all big protocols are encrypted all (or at least most) of the time and the deep packet inspection shit that's used much more widely than people think just doesn't work anymore.

SSH, Freenet, Skype BitTorrent and other P2P protocols are already there. This is the chance to do it for HTTP.

Disclaimer: I speak only for myself and not anyone else. IANARE.