Slashdot has notoriously always had a comically unfunny April 1st, and at this point I have to think the complete lameness of it all is the real meta-joke.
The whole "HTTP/2 stink" thing seems to be a bit of a meme, but it's remarkable how the people who state it vaguely wave their hands around and make unsupported claims.
1. HTTP/2 is *fantastic* for higher latency connections. If you're a small site and you can't afford to have geolocated servers around the globe, HTTP/2 offers a much better experience for those high latency connections. I've been using SPDY for a couple of years to service clients in Singapore from a server in the US (which for a variety of legislative and technical reasons I can't replicate there). It is absolutely better.
2. HTTP Pipelining is when you know that someone is just doing the "I oppose" thing and searching around for objections. HTTP pipelining is not supported by default in a *single* major browser because it has critical, deadly faults that render it useless. When people bring it up to oppose HTTP/2, their position is rendered irrelevant.
3. HTTP/2 removes the need to do script and resource coalescing. It removes the need to deal with difficult to manage image sprites. All of those are bullshit that are particularly onerous and expensive to little sites.
4. HTTP/2 makes SSL much cheaper to the experience. This is very good.
HTTP/2 is a *huge* benefit especially to the little guy. Google can do every manner of optimization, they can deploy across legions and armies of servers around the globe. This can be expensive and logistically difficult for little sites, especially if you want SSL. HTTP/2 levels the playing field to some degree.
It isn't about "a chip". It's about a system that is designed for a specific thermal and electrical load. nvidia probably got flak from notebook makers who were facing dissatisfied customers.
You only have to look at a lot of the nonsense comments throughout, such as yours -- people just contriving how "easy" everything is, and how simple it is. Yeah, and I'll bet all of you design notebooks. No? Then shut up.
Quite the opposite, if you file and are granted a patent for something that is later ruled invalid, there should be substantial penalties for the filer, because the purpose of a patent application is a government granted monopoly, leveraging the legal power and force of government to suppress other business. If you tell the government that you've done something novel that isn't, and prevent competition through that mechanism, there are substantial social costs (none of the benefits of invention, but all of the costs of a monopoly).
Haven't logged into Slashdot in just short of forever, but I see that you're my foe. To the death!
I know, right? Being valued at $410 billion -- on the backs of two consumer products in a very fickle market -- is just brutally punishing, treating them like some fly-by-night nobodies. How grossly unfair.
It's not a technical limitation...but they'll fix that non limitation in WP8? Am I reading you right?
It is *absolutely* a technical limitation. Microsoft used iOS as the baseline that they emulated, only once they got where iOS was, it had moved long down the road (now supporting Android-like multitasking).
Further it is a bit humorous seeing WP boosters constantly using Android as the punching bag to elevate WP features. Only the Lumia 900 has rather terrible battery life.
I'm not really feeling the advantages. But if we just wait until the next version...
I would strongly sanction what they wrote. The sore loser "change the rules because we lost the game" knee-jerk reaction is an embarrassment.
It's worth noting that Dion basically imploded the Liberal government with their "green shift" plans. If the Liberals didn't backtrack and try for another direction, the Conservatives would have had a much, much larger majority. Kyoto has not sold in Canada at all, and the tiresome "fuck you Harper!" tirades on her do not mirror actual sentiment in Canada.
That comment is, pardon the expression, horse shit. It is fundamentally wrong on virtually every level.
While Canada does, like pretty much every jurisdiction, have levels of government with their own responsibilities, in most matters the federal government reigns supreme. There have been a number of false starts at federal legislation to achieve Kyoto, but they were abandoned because they were politically untenable.
The two most populace provinces -- Quebec and Ontario -- have actually been taking substantial action on greenhouse gases. Ontario gets little credit, but we've been shutting down coal plants while hugely expanding renewable resources.
the Conservative Party of Canada who currently form the Government of Canada tend to base their views on what's "best" for Alberta
Quick question to see how much you really know: How much does Alberta and the oil industry contribute the federal government coffers?
The entirety of this nation has been propped up by the oil sands, like it or not.
" I do not believe that local dialects and pronunciation is the issue"
I have been using the voice input functionality since it came out, and have been shocked at the startling accuracy of it. It is almost never wrong, and is eminently useful for navigation, making calls (by number or by name), or for voice dictation in a message. I use it frequently and it is shockingly rare that it isn't dead on.
I'm talking about just general voice to text, not about translate which adds another language to language issue, however Google has the voice recognition thing DOWN. I imagine there are some accents and manners of speech that present it difficulty however.
I see that you're getting talking points from the internet's biggest misinformed windbag, Fleurian Miller (seriously, that guy is just a stream of baseless, misinformed bullshit. How he gets linked by anyone is a marvel).
Nokia sued over GSM patents, as clearly Nokia had a pretty good lead in that area. Motorola, HTC, Samsung, and others already license those patents. Apple refused. Nokia litigated and won. Those are the breaks.
So....no. Every single person who pulls the "Now they're going after Android" bit is just ignorant of basically everything about this lawsuit.
An expert on codecs is not an expert on patents. The mere idea is ludicrous. His analysis in no way was based upon the specific claims of the patents, but instead was just broadly claiming that they do similar things.
A lot of very smart people have looked at the patents and completely disagree with him. Further, Google is available for all of their lawsuit target needs, yet the silence is deafening.
The best part is that licensing h.264 in no way protects you from patents either -- at any point in the future anyone can come forward and sue every user of h.264, and there is no protection offered by the consortium: They simply protect you from their own patents.
Humorously the uptake rate of new Android versions exceeds the rate that Apple has gotten updates adopted.
This has HUGE ramifications since IE 9 is not slated to support Web-M - which would mean IE 9 would not work with HTML 5 YouTube, while every other browser did.
IE supports plug-ins. Adding a Web-M plug-in is non-difficult, and really I wouldn't be surprised to see Google themselves provide one.