Adobe needed API support from Apple before they could add hardware video decoding to their Flash Player.
Hardware-accelerate h.264 wasn't and isn't the reason Flash sucks.
Silverlight plays h.264 video without this magical cure-all API at a fraction of the CPU usage of Flash player. In fact, Silverlight still bests the 10.1 beta (Flash uses the newly publicized API; Silverlight does not).
you can rest assured, that now that Apple has finally provided an API for developers to use, Adobe has jumped on it,
Two things. First, that blog entry doesn't have anything to do with the new h.264 API access.
Second, notice what's buried in that blog? That it took until 10.1 to rewrite Flash in Cocoa (thus opening up to them a whole world of APIs that Flash could have been using)--and it still falls back to Carbon in most usage scenarios. Carbon was deprecated in 2004 after two years of Apple urging Adobe (and other vendors) to move to Cocoa because Carbon was a legacy platform. It's 2010 and they finally got the memo.
Until 10.1, Adobe couldn't physically use the API that you claim has been holding back Flash performance. They only wrote 10.1 because Flash's terrible performance couldn't be ignored any longer.
You say h.264 acceleration was to blame. Setting aside that your link doesn't speak to that at all, it concludes, "This is by no means panacea for all performance issues in the Flash Player. Far from it. But it is a small step to a larger goal which is to improve the experience in the browser with the ever more complex web content out there."
What was holding them up from rewriting Flash in Cocoa so it could access non-deprecated APIs the past six years? How was Microsoft able to deliver a better product without whining? Why is Silverlight's performance, lacking any hardware acceleration, still better than the hardware-accelerated Flash beta?
Of course, if I go out of the country I wouldn't as roaming would kill me.
When out of the country shop around at the airport for pre-paid SIMs with good data bundles. If you're lucky, you can do it while waiting for your bags.
In many countries, even rich ones, I've been able to get online for a few bucks a day that way.
Carry a second phone and suddenly you don't have to worry about crap hotel wifi nearly so much anymore.
You see, noone who really wants to die OD's on tylenol because it's a horrible way to die (though something like taking some monk's hood is probably even worse). You don't try to off yourself with tylenol unless either you want to *punish* yourself, you don't know any better, or you are doing it to get attention (which since it takes a while gives them plenty of time to "save" you).
a different article i read on the same device claimed the inventor discovered the cows actually produce considerably less methane when using this device. which makes sense, as the constant movement would increase the efficiency of their digestive track, which means less undigested food in the bowels, which means less food for the methane-producing bacteria in their colon.
Not to mention that a huge number of cows are fed corn, which is a food that eventually causes liver failure -- by the time the cow is slaughtered, it was basically going to die anyway. But hey, the FDA says that the quality of beef is determined by marbling, and corn gives way more marbling than grass (the cow's natural food, which we don't exactly lack), and it lets us grow and subsidize a shitload of corn, so who cares about the cows?
More importantly the corn changes the acidity of the cows stomach which promotes e.coli. growth.
I think the phone was found in "Redwood City, CA", not "Redmond, WA".
Apple deliberately leak information all the time. This is a well known "secret". Just do a google search for "How apple leak information".
Android has been getting a lot of press recently with all the new android devices coming out. It's very conceivable this was done deliberately as a "leak" as long as there was a promise to return the device. Do really think that these guys would actually pull this thing apart if they didn't have permission? I'm sure such an act is potentially illegal otherwise.
How do you keep an employee from taking that training you just paid for and leaving for what the employee sees as greener pastures? How do you get a return on the huge investment you just dumped into that employee? That is the real issue on why many companies won't expend the dime on training.
In the Netherlands, you can add a clause to any contract basically stating that when they are going on training, they will repay 100% if they leave in one year, 66% in 2, 33% in 3 and 0% after that (or any other declining rate that will hold up in court - 100% in 10 years will not hold up). Most of the companies are part of mandatory collective bargaining agreements with a similar clause.
So one of my friend has a new and shiny MBA - and he will have to fork over a serious amount of money if he decides to leave next year. If the new hiring company wants him bad enough, they'll pay it.
I'm surprised this isn't a standard clause in the USA as well, because it solves most of the issues in this area.
There are precisely 2 lunar points that have effectively 24/7 line-of-sight to the Earth - each pole.
The Moon is tidally locked with Earth. That means one entire face of the Moon always faces Earth, 24/7. And it's not hard to get communication on the far side. Just set up a repeater communication spacecraft circling the L2 (2nd Lagrange point) of the Earth-Moon system. That is the point behind the Moon where the combined gravitational force of the Earth and Moon balances the centripetal force of the satellite. It's technically unstable, but a spacecraft can loiter there for as long as it can maneuver (at least years). Because the Moon is between L2 and Earth, the spacecraft needs to circle L2 far enough away, that it has line of sight with Earth. It's not that hard. As a result, you can have nearly full coverage of the lunar surface without much effort.
My point was that the volcanoes are "more green" because they create less of the non-green SO2 compound.
No, I don't particularly like the action parts of Mass Effect anyway. For me it's all about the storyline, meeting characters and making though decisions.
I like ME1 a lot, but altough it's story is a bit more epic than it's sequel, the way the story is told in part 2 is a lot more engaging and immerse. The dialog is better and also brought better visually by offering more interesting camera movement.
And even though the universe to explore is smaller in part 2, it's also a lot nicer, offering a few hub worlds instead of just one large Citadel and all of the landing points are actually nicely designed levels instead of generic repetitive generated worlds.
All in all ME2 just feels more refined and realistic, while still offering a great story and interesting charactars and dialog. What's not to like?
"Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberrys!" -- Monty Python and the Holy Grail
