so i am not allowed to question stupid rules?

a car coming at you at a very high rate of speed compounded with your speed in the opposite direction is a low possibility of survival

as opposed to a zero chance of survival from the idiot swiping you from behind because you cannot SEE him at all, and have NO chance of evasive maneuvers

and so i will continue to prefer a low chance of survival over a zero chance of survival, and continue to ride against traffic, and continue to advise others to do the same, and support that the laws will change to recognize this common sense

i stopped reading there

straw man

i do not do this and you reacting to this other situation amounts to a change of subject, meaning you are not adding to the topic and have nothing useful or valid to say on the issue here

yes, absolutely, the car coming at you at a very high rate of speed compounded with your speed in the opposite direction is a low possibility of survival

as opposed to a zero chance of survival from the idiot swiping you from behind because you cannot SEE him at all, and have NO chance of evasive maneuvers

and so i will continue to prefer a low chance of survival over a zero chance of survival, and continue to ride against traffic, and continue to advise others to do the same, and support that the laws will change to recognize this common sense

yes, absolutely, the car coming at you at a very high rate of speed compounded with your speed in the opposite direction is a low possibility of survival

as opposed to a zero chance of survival from the idiot swiping you from behind because you cannot SEE him at all, and have NO chance of evasive maneuvers

and so i will continue to prefer a low chance of survival over a zero chance of survival, and continue to ride against traffic, and continue to advise others to do the same, and support that the laws will change to recognize this common sense

thank you for noting what the real problem is: not the behavior of cyclists, but of heavy cars and trucks, and why cyclists should behave defensively... and therefore ride on the side of the road against oncoming traffic

thank you

still wondering why you fail to note that the reason Seth Vidal is dead is because he was obeying the law and your advice, and therefore did not have any warning as to the car that killed him

the points you are listing above all involve objects moving at high rates of speed, as if this isn't the status quo with cars/ trucks on your average road already

i would rather deal with a fast moving object i can SEE than one i cannot see

i shall continue to insist other cyclists conform to what i am advising, rather than the other way around, out of their own selfish sense of preservation of life and limb

and then the laws, and bad advice like yours, should change as well

you are commenting under a story in which a guy died because he was obeying the law and your advice, and therefore did not have any warning as to the car that killed him

i will be riding and walking against traffic out of self-preservation, and will continue to advise others to do the same

if any other cyclists come to blows with me over that, i will go home with a black eye, and still alive, rather than in a body bag, like Seth Vidal

if the desire to preserve my life is selfish in the matter of road rules that as far as i understand make no sense whatsoever, then i shall be selfish, and i shall insist other cyclists conform to what i am advising, rather than the other way around, out of their own selfish sense of preservation as well

and then the laws, and bad advice like yours, should change as well

you are commenting under a story in which a guy died because he was obeying the law and your advice, and therefore did not have any warning as to the car that killed him

i will be riding and walking against traffic out of self-preservation, and will continue to advise others to do the same

thanks for the level headed reply

i will be riding and walking against traffic out of self-preservation, and will continue to advise others to do the same

random murderous nutjobs like yourself notwithstanding

if you are walking or riding along the side of a road, choose to walk/ ride on the side that makes you face traffic

in some places this is actually against the law. i still advise the practice

because i would rather see the car/ truck that is about to kill me, and probably be able to leap at the last moment. you have no such opportunity at self-preservation when you walk/ ride with vehicular traffic coming at you from behind

some might say you are making life harder for other cyclists/ walkers obeying the law and walking/ riding with their backs to traffic. to which i say: i am sorry you are an idiot, who prioritizes the risk of a fine over the potential to save your life. you should start riding/ walking against traffic too

Oh please, not that again.
http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=53517

I think you're just misunderstanding how these apps work, both for HTML5 and for Android native apps.

Your typical Android "native" app (which does not actually use the NDK) expresses its user interface in a text file containing XML, with Java event handlers attached to it to respond to various user actions. This XML is parsed at runtime and the corresponding Android UI toolkit objects are created.

Your typical "HTML5" app expresses its user interface in a text file containing HTML, with JavaScript event handlers attached to it. The HTML is parsed at runtime and the corresponding DOM nodes and CSS boxes are created.

Both can use OpenGL via the appropriate language bindings (WebGL in the case of HTML5 apps), but typically neither one actually does, leaving that up to the runtime (the browser in the case of the HTML5 appe, the Android runtime libraries for Android native apps) instead.

For a locally installed HTML5 app there are no sockets or TCP involved in a web browser: just reading (or mmapping) data from persistent storage.

If you actually look at the design documents for FirefoxOS they discuss this issue directly. There are actually _fewer_ layers there for rendering than there are for non-NDK Android apps.

On Android your typical "native" app is written in Java and uses GL for graphics if it needs fast 3D graphics. The Java is interpreted (on older Android) or JIT-compiled (Android 2.2 and newer). And this JIT is not exactly like HotSpot in terms of the performance it produces. For audio it uses whatever the system libraries are.

On FirefoxOS your typical app is written in JavaScript and uses WebGL for graphics if it needs fast 3D graphics. The JavaScript is JIT-compiled. The output can be within a factor of 2 of the performance of C++ code for game engines (see http://www.unrealengine.com/html5/ if you've missed it). For audio, it uses the browser's Web Audio implementation.

The two setups are actually a lot more similar than it seems at first glance.

What do you think a browser and an OS do, exactly?

A web browser needs to do render text, various high-performance graphics stuff, show some widgets that a user can interact with, provide a programmable runtime that can be used to create things like gmail or the github UI out of those widgets, do various network access, handle prioritizing things like web workers, painting, layout, and so forth. Oh, and nowadays also audio processing, real-time audio and video communications (WebRTC) and a few other things along those lines.

The non-kernel part of an OS needs to have libraries for high-performance graphics, show some widgets a user can interact with, a modern one will typically provide a programmable runtime for creating UI backed by some logic out of those widgets (C#, Objective C, Dalvik, etc). Pretty similar to a browser, actually.

Oh, and an OS needs to mediate hardware access, which is done by the kernel. Oddly enough, Mozilla is not creating a kernel from scratch; they're using the Android neé Linux kernel in FirefoxOS. Maybe because they figured this was not something they were experts in and maybe using an existing reasonably good solution would be better than trying to create a new thing.

Which is why it was possible to create FirefoxOS by taking a browser and adding a few APIs for touching hardware that the kernel exposes (things like cameras, FM radio, cell radio, etc). Plus a bunch of optimizations to the browser core that are needed no matter what to have a competitive browser.

You mean the "slow startup speed" that's 2x faster than Chrome? See http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/chrome-27-firefox-21-opera-next,3534-4.html for what the startup times look like if you actually measure them.