Exactly. And the goal of educational websites is to promote education amongst the underserved -- targeting the "haves" is kinda counter to their state goals. And if any of the popular education sites misses that point, then in theory the "invisible hand" should guide the smarter education sites to offer low bandwidth versions (and this would quickly be reflected in enrollment counts).

I-frames may cost that much. However, most of the frames are P-frames (using VP8 parlance), which cost a lot less. There is even more room for compression when you consider temporal coherence in additional to adjacent block coherence. (There are Golden frames and alt-reference frames, but those are details of the algorithm/implementation.)

Lolwut? Did they make a lot of good first party games? Last I heard (a year or two ago), devs were complaining how bad sales on the Wii were.

I would agree with 2 out of the 4: open SDK and courting indies. I'm a dev, and yhy the hell do I care about open OS or open hardware? I'm not going to make my own hardware, and neither am I going to ask my customers to install custom OSes (which means the OS has to be full-featured and bug-free before I support said platform). Game developers need ways to make money (most likely just to put food on the table), not to fulfill some ideological desire.

I think the "casual gamer living room" is a myth. Just like the Nintendo Wii and the 0.5 games it sold per console sale.

Or if you read another site, they say Lenovo is getting 2000 patents and cross licensing the rest. I think this is a lot more consistent with the public statements from the horse's mouth, in addition to the higher trust I have for native sources.

And didn't pay $10B for the patents. Here's a nice cost breakdown from public/SEC information or the interwebs:

Original purchase: $12.5B
Motorola's cash on hand from purchase: $2.9B (don't know much went with the sale, though...but definitely less than $2.91B)
Sale of Motorola Home: $2.35B
Sale of Motorola Mobility: $2.91B
Tax losses from Motorola: I don't know how much

So we're talking about a total cost of at most $4.34B for however many patents they're left with. And of course, there's all the invisible moneys they saved from not having to fight patent battles in court. Not to mention all the hardware/manufacturing/supply chain/client expertise they ended up with for use in their hardware projects, such as Glass and pusher robots. Yeah, not a bad deal at all. Heck, with a deal like this, they should do the same to RIMM as well -- widen that moat some more.

So, uh, that's why Google sold Motorola and kept the vast majority (not "some" as you stated) of the patents? Added to the fact that those patents were valued at almost half of the original purchase of Motorola? Oh, and how'd you get the $10B figure? I guess you didn't figure in the sale in Motorola Home for $2.35B? How about the $3B in cash that Motorola had when the original purchase took place? Good job with your "make your own smartphone" theory -- I had a good laugh.

No, the point is Dart more or less includes its own version of jQuery directly in the default library.

I just read your other post, and you start to sound like someone who is uninformed. Chrome is the only other browser other than FF that "supports" Asm.js (technically speaking, all JS engines support Asm.js, so I don't know what you mean by "against it"). You can even run Epic Citadel on Chrome, and performance has been steadily improving.

I think every new version of Chrome they remove more of the webkit prefixes (and I don't think they add any more now?). I thought Google isn't even the "owner" of webkit, and Apple is? I'm also guessing this is one of the reasons why Google forked and went their own way.

I can understand your sentiment where you may not trust these benchmarks to be unbiased. However, I am fairly certain if they are, it'd be pretty easy to prove. Do you have any sites that show to the contrary?

Furthermore, one of the major points of all the "new web languages" is to add (optional) typing, which is where the biggest speedups come from modern JS engines -- type inference and unboxing. So to strip them of these features is akin to saying "you're allowed to benchmark C against Python if you made sure everything in C is type checked before being operated on, even if you know their types." So I'm not exactly sure what you're objecting to here.

Which one of them have expressed interest in each of the language the other is proposing? Let me give you a list:

• Apple: Doesn't care, would rather you program in Objective-C.
• MS: TypeScript, same issue -- who else do you think is adopting that?
• Mozilla: LLJS, and how far along is that? Sure, there's asm.js (we're talking about speed here, yeah?), but that's a compile target and not something you'd want to write by hand from scratch -- that and it's not exactly a new language.
• Google: Dart, and who knows, it might at least be on Opera some day? Caveat: you have to run Dartium if you don't want to compile to JS, but I'm sure they're working on that.

Think about it: the point that everyone is rejecting everyone else's language is because they all have their own wares to peddle. Of course "they" all express negative interest in supporting each other

At the end of the day, of all the modern browsers, which one has the highest market penetration/momentum? If you're going to target the "next generation" of web languages, which one would you chose?

Also from Cornell, not too long ago, solving similar problems. What happened to that one?

Exactly, which is why PNaCl is superior at the end of the day. Good luck trying to jam multi-threaded, shared memory programming into JS. The standards committee itself already hate JS (but they maintain it for the "good of the web"). Don't even think about getting the standards committee to even think about a shared memory (webworkers with ArrayObject ownership transfer is as much of a concession as anyone's ever going to get). All JS VMs will have to be written from scratch just to support this programming model.