I wonder why they didn't enable this in their tablet layout. I thought performance at first, but It runs acceptably well on my iPad 2 when identifying as OSX Safari in terra browser, and the desktop version even responds to changes in the accelerometer.
Hacking away at the Labs is awesome. This? It's just tinkering with the UI. There are a gajillion different key word searches they could do; tilt tilts the screen, scary ghost scream waits ten seconds and then flashes a scary ghost on the screen with a scream; etc etc.
And, while they're doing that, and Google just works for most people there are a small group of users who'd really appreciate better documentation for searching. Wanna-be power users need to know how to combine terms or have options or how to use stemming etc. I dunno why a single page of instructions with examples is so hard to get.
Hey google folk - snow is pretty and nice but how about considering making your home page black or put a black ribbon (ala "censor" band) to alert more people to the SOPA vote moved to the 21st?
There is a hidden reason for stunts like these. They spread by word of mouth to non-technical users. Those users try them, fail, and then ask their children why. Just like that, Chrome steals one more user from Internet Explorer 6.
On the other hand, Google opposes SOPA, but being overtly political has its problems...
That's very idealistic but isn't really a really good perspective of the situation facing us.
Whatever resistance to SOPA that exists in the federal government exists because of some technology companies making very loud noises. Simply saying, "well, corporations shouldn't have a privileged voice in government at all, so we should condemn corporations even when they're arguing on the right side of an issue" is stabbing your allies in the back. Curtailing Google's political activism won't teach America to govern itself without corporations. It will just give the bad guys even less resistance to their agenda.
Google maybe shouldn't care about politics. But politics cares about Google. And, moreover, the rest of us. We can start telling Google to GTFO of politics once there are other democratic institutions to take its place. Until then, unilateral disarmament is not an option. The best we can do is remind people that Google is a temporary tactical ally, not some angelic being that does no evil.
I agree and I'd support Google putting a message about SOPA on their homepage. However, the commenter above also has a point in that corporations shouldn't be involved in politics.
I'd go a step further and advocate pushing to get ALL the money out of politics. That said, with the way things work at this very moment, anti-SOPA needs all the corporate sponsorship it can get.
My hope is that people will once again be the biggest voice in government instead of corporations.
> What if Google was pro SOPA? Would you be happy with them advertising for it on their front page?
You're writing that as if SOPA was one side of an argument where good people could reasonably be on either one side or the other, and HN and Google just happens to be on the same.
But it's not, SOPA has a right and a wrong side. We're on the right side, Google is on the right side and good people are either uninformed or on the right side. It's not unreasonable to wish for Google to employ some of their considerable clout in evangelising the right side.
If you actually need convincing that SOPA is wrong and are not just being unnecessarily argumentative, then I really don't know what to say to you... Do you know what SOPA is?
I don't need convincing. I am aware that it is a bad thing. I am also aware that Google getting involved is a bad thing. I am also aware that the people on the other side of the argument aren't necessarily bad or uneducated people like the person I was replying to claimed.
I am also aware that Google getting involved is a bad thing.
That's an opinion, one which I (and others) don't agree with.
SOPA is bad for Google, too. Why shouldn't they be involved? The fact of the matter is that corporations are involved in US politics. Like it or dislike it, it's a fact. Advising anti-SOPA corporations to stay out of the fight just feels like a case of misplaced principles. Suggesting that Google sit on the sidelines severely hampers efforts to get the word out and stir up anti-SOPA sentiment among people who may not understand the issue all that well, or may not be particularly interested yet.
I want SOPA to fail. If Google can help with that, I'm all for it, as long as they don't do anything shady or illegal while providing that help.
I don't know why you're getting downvoted. People get stupid when they're this opposed to something. His argument had absolutely no value and your characterization of it was spot on.
I don't think mike-cardwell deserves downvoting either, but I don't think your (and his) characterization was quite fair.
mseebach didn't intend to make a convincing anti-SOPA argument, he was commenting under the assumption that his audience was already opposed to SOPA. He may have been wrong — that's a danger on the internet — but I don't think that makes him stupid.
mseebach: "You're writing that as if SOPA was one side of an argument where good people could reasonably be on either one side or the other, and HN and Google just happens to be on the same. But it's not, SOPA has a right and a wrong side. We're on the right side..."
parody: "My opinion is right because I say it is."
mseebach: "Google is on the right side and good people are either uninformed or on the right side."
parody: "Anyone who doesn't hold the same opinion is either bad, or needs educating."
mseebach: "It's not unreasonable to wish for Google to employ some of their considerable clout in evangelising the right side."
I was wrong. This part has value. The "right side" part of it is overreaching though. In my opinion.
Also, I didn't call him stupid, I called the downvoters stupid. I meant it in the way people usually do: I don't like it. The people who can downvote are supposed to be the pillars of our community. Yet they seem more interested in policing opinions than quality. More interested in SOPA than HN. Then they turn around and complain that it's all going to shit. Come on... lets promote the strongest arguments and promptly refute the lousy ones.
There's no right or wrong only better and worse. Which obviously depends on the point of view. What people usually refer to as 'right' is simply what is better for most people (like opposing SOPA)
Yeah, different results for different platforms. Tapped the link on my tablet and just got a list of videos of Sinatra singing "Let It Snow". Nice sentiment, but didn't see why it topped HN.
Firefox takes one core, while Chrome seems to split it across two cores, with a lower combined CPU utilization. I'm using the Nightly's for both browsers.
With open source technology we get multiple implementations and a lot more people working to improve the technology.
Android fragmentation is not the same matter that was being referred to here. A better analogy might be Android and MeeGo or OpenMoko.
Having a real choice is great in my opinion, and having three mainstream browsers (one open, one mostly open, and one totally closed) to choose between is awesome.
That's odd, I use current Aurora and Chromium dev channel.
Well, on Linux.
Both use only one core for the browser, and Xorg uses "another core".
Firefox uses 10% more CPU and the animation is butter smooth.
Chromium uses 10% less CPU and the animation is a little choppy. It looks like Chromium is throttling or something.
None of them use more than 40% CPU on the core used.
This doesn't help that much, almost certainly. It prevents having to recomposite the canvas to the page, but the drawing to the canvas still has to happen....
According to you, non-stupid browsers should have ignored the previous updates to the canvas to save CPU time. Maybe the browser could keep a record of all of the calls made to the canvas API while the canvas is hidden and then execute them when the canvas element becomes unhidden, but that seems clever to me. I certainly wouldn't call implementors of the canvas API that don't do this stupid.
In fact, there are probably good reasons not to do this. For example, if a web app makes frequent updates to a small hidden canvas, keeping a record of all the calls instead of simply executing them could end up using way too much memory.
If a browser simply ignores updates to the hidden canvas, it would be breaking standards.
You pretty much have to implement it that way. Not only because the canvas can later be shown, as halter73 points out, but also because of the getImageData API, which allows one to extract the pixel data from a canvas that's not being shown any time you feel like it.
Also, a hidden canvas can be drawn to other canvases via drawImage, can be serialized to a data: URI at any time and so forth.
So you really do need to be able to produce the right pixel data on demand. That means either doing the drawing when told to draw or buffering up the drawing commands (which can get pretty complicated, because some of them depend on the style of the canvas at the time the draw happened, so you either have to cache a bunch of style information or flush the drawing command buffer when style information changes or ... something). And as halter73 points out, it's very easy to end up with an effective memory leak when doing this sort of buffering.
If you didn't notice, this also ties into an orientation sensor if you've got one. On my MacBook Pro, for example, just tilt your laptop left or right and the snow will fall that direction.
Hrm. Xsnow did that back in the 90ies. Wonder if they'll do an xroach thing where you click on results and the roaches scurry out from under them to other result blocks...
100 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 164 ms ] threadEdit: oh I see, you have to wait for the "Defrost" button to show up before you can "wipe" the frost off. Still doesn't work in IE though :)
And, while they're doing that, and Google just works for most people there are a small group of users who'd really appreciate better documentation for searching. Wanna-be power users need to know how to combine terms or have options or how to use stemming etc. I dunno why a single page of instructions with examples is so hard to get.
Advanced search (bottom of search results)->Advanced search tips (top of the advanced search page)
On the other hand, Google opposes SOPA, but being overtly political has its problems...
What if Google was pro SOPA? Would you be happy with them advertising for it on their front page?
America needs to learn to govern it's self without the intervention of corporations. America doesn't need more of them getting involved.
Whatever resistance to SOPA that exists in the federal government exists because of some technology companies making very loud noises. Simply saying, "well, corporations shouldn't have a privileged voice in government at all, so we should condemn corporations even when they're arguing on the right side of an issue" is stabbing your allies in the back. Curtailing Google's political activism won't teach America to govern itself without corporations. It will just give the bad guys even less resistance to their agenda.
Google maybe shouldn't care about politics. But politics cares about Google. And, moreover, the rest of us. We can start telling Google to GTFO of politics once there are other democratic institutions to take its place. Until then, unilateral disarmament is not an option. The best we can do is remind people that Google is a temporary tactical ally, not some angelic being that does no evil.
I'd go a step further and advocate pushing to get ALL the money out of politics. That said, with the way things work at this very moment, anti-SOPA needs all the corporate sponsorship it can get.
My hope is that people will once again be the biggest voice in government instead of corporations.
You're writing that as if SOPA was one side of an argument where good people could reasonably be on either one side or the other, and HN and Google just happens to be on the same.
But it's not, SOPA has a right and a wrong side. We're on the right side, Google is on the right side and good people are either uninformed or on the right side. It's not unreasonable to wish for Google to employ some of their considerable clout in evangelising the right side.
Well, that's me convinced.
That's an opinion, one which I (and others) don't agree with.
SOPA is bad for Google, too. Why shouldn't they be involved? The fact of the matter is that corporations are involved in US politics. Like it or dislike it, it's a fact. Advising anti-SOPA corporations to stay out of the fight just feels like a case of misplaced principles. Suggesting that Google sit on the sidelines severely hampers efforts to get the word out and stir up anti-SOPA sentiment among people who may not understand the issue all that well, or may not be particularly interested yet.
I want SOPA to fail. If Google can help with that, I'm all for it, as long as they don't do anything shady or illegal while providing that help.
mseebach didn't intend to make a convincing anti-SOPA argument, he was commenting under the assumption that his audience was already opposed to SOPA. He may have been wrong — that's a danger on the internet — but I don't think that makes him stupid.
mseebach: "You're writing that as if SOPA was one side of an argument where good people could reasonably be on either one side or the other, and HN and Google just happens to be on the same. But it's not, SOPA has a right and a wrong side. We're on the right side..."
parody: "My opinion is right because I say it is."
mseebach: "Google is on the right side and good people are either uninformed or on the right side."
parody: "Anyone who doesn't hold the same opinion is either bad, or needs educating."
mseebach: "It's not unreasonable to wish for Google to employ some of their considerable clout in evangelising the right side."
I was wrong. This part has value. The "right side" part of it is overreaching though. In my opinion.
Also, I didn't call him stupid, I called the downvoters stupid. I meant it in the way people usually do: I don't like it. The people who can downvote are supposed to be the pillars of our community. Yet they seem more interested in policing opinions than quality. More interested in SOPA than HN. Then they turn around and complain that it's all going to shit. Come on... lets promote the strongest arguments and promptly refute the lousy ones.
There's no right or wrong only better and worse. Which obviously depends on the point of view. What people usually refer to as 'right' is simply what is better for most people (like opposing SOPA)
I would sure like anti SOPA messages from Google. Would give me a warm feeling and a hope for a better future too.
and their main patents belong to stanford university, may be thats why ..
Now imagine a world where every banner or sidebar is full of HTML5 canvas animation ads.
With open source technology we get multiple implementations and a lot more people working to improve the technology.
Remember Android fragmentation? Talk about open source as golden hammer to solve problems.
Having a real choice is great in my opinion, and having three mainstream browsers (one open, one mostly open, and one totally closed) to choose between is awesome.
Both use only one core for the browser, and Xorg uses "another core".
Firefox uses 10% more CPU and the animation is butter smooth. Chromium uses 10% less CPU and the animation is a little choppy. It looks like Chromium is throttling or something.
None of them use more than 40% CPU on the core used.
Video driver is intel i915, acceleration works.
canvasElement.setAttribute('style', 'display:inline !important');
According to you, non-stupid browsers should have ignored the previous updates to the canvas to save CPU time. Maybe the browser could keep a record of all of the calls made to the canvas API while the canvas is hidden and then execute them when the canvas element becomes unhidden, but that seems clever to me. I certainly wouldn't call implementors of the canvas API that don't do this stupid.
In fact, there are probably good reasons not to do this. For example, if a web app makes frequent updates to a small hidden canvas, keeping a record of all the calls instead of simply executing them could end up using way too much memory.
If a browser simply ignores updates to the hidden canvas, it would be breaking standards.
Also, a hidden canvas can be drawn to other canvases via drawImage, can be serialized to a data: URI at any time and so forth.
So you really do need to be able to produce the right pixel data on demand. That means either doing the drawing when told to draw or buffering up the drawing commands (which can get pretty complicated, because some of them depend on the style of the canvas at the time the draw happened, so you either have to cache a bunch of style information or flush the drawing command buffer when style information changes or ... something). And as halter73 points out, it's very easy to end up with an effective memory leak when doing this sort of buffering.
I must say, I found it cool too. Nothing special etc, but, it's winter and stuff. So yea.
https://www.google.com/search?q=let+it+snow&frostwriting...