A review of Google Chrome reviews, or, my rant to Scott

Yesterday, the beta of the Google Chrome web browser was released to the general public.  A few days before that, the "comic book" that Google made to describe its many technical details in a friendly way was accidentally leaked.  I lustily read the entirety of the comic the morning that the beta was due to be released, occasionally gushing about random points to my brother over IM.  I knew it was going to be something important.

So much so, that I emailed my old buddy Scott about it, telling him to get ready for the next Big Google Thing.

Then this morning, three things happened.

1.) I read a "review" of Chrome that was linked from CNN's front page

2.) I angrily shouted aloud to myself about its rampant lies

3.) I received a forwarded email from Scott that he'd received from a coworker, linking to the aforementioned angering CNN "review".  (I hesitate/refuse to give it unquoted creedance.  That would be like calling it a "review" when an 8-year-old decries Algebra to be faulty and unnecessary because he doesn't even understand basic arithematic.)

So then a fourth thing happened.  I spent a half hour ranting to Scott via email.  Here that email is:

---------------------------------------------------

Scott!!!
(And, I hope consequently, [Scott's coworker]...)

I read that review also.  So allow me to rant! ;-D

It's funny you should pass this along to me, because I was so infuriated at about a half dozen things that CNN ignoramus said, that I desperately searched for a "comment" or "reply" link to read him the riot act -- but of course there was none, so I AM going to email him directly and be even more scathing.


First, get your tech news from a REAL tech website!!!!
From Slashdot (aka, "News for Nerds")...
   http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/09/03/1343226.shtml
...there are three good reviews linked:

http://www.monacome.com/2008/08/download-google-chrome-browser-review.html
http://www.geekywood.com/2008/09/google-chrome-review-why-i-love-and-hate-google-chrome.html
http://www.yourgenuineidea.com/2008/09/03/google-chrome-first-impressions/

Here is a significant quote from the first link:

Stephen Shankland [of CNET News] ... confirms Google's claim that Chrome is "many times faster" than its rivals at running JavaScript... He arrived at this conclusion by personally testing the new browser against Internet Explorer, IE 8 beta 2, Firefox 3.0.1 and Safari 3.1.2.  Indeed, that's the consensus among reviewers, readers and the many comments I've read so far about this browser, with some even exclaiming that Chrome is killing both IE 7 and Firefox 3 on their system in boot up, close out, page rendering, and Javascript.

Like CNET, the above reviews use ACTUAL benchmarking measurements, not just vague feelings derived from a flawed control setup -- and probably most importantly -- were done by people with half a brain AND computer knowledge.

My oh my, what could I mean by that slanderous statement?  Well, that brings us to...

 

Second, let's consider the qualifications of this meathead reviewer!

Let's pull out some things that Mr. CNN says, and you decide for yourself if he sounds likeanyone you'd want to be taking computer advice from.  (Or, if it sounds more like, say, your mom assuring everyone the computer is too old and slow because "the internet's not working" when she's using a very weak wifi signal.)

Retarded statement #1:

When playing a YouTube video, Firefox 3 took up 95 percent of the CPU time on a three-year old laptop running Windows XP.

While playing a YouTube video!??!?!?  Ok...  I considered quoting ONLY this, because you really need nothing else to prove this guy does not know what he is talking about.  Does that sound like it could POSSIBLY be right to you, Scott my friend?  I suspect the moron is actually looking at the "CPU Idle" percentage, and not firefox's.  He could be that dumb, judging from his article.  If FF is indeed using that much CPU, then he's definitely got some other crazy shit happening on his computer

P.S.: on MY 3-year-old laptop running windows XP and Firefox3, I have well over 100 tabs open and Firefox is taking all of 6% of my CPU.

Retarded statement #2:

Merely having a YouTube page open on your screen will suck power from your computer's central processing unit, or CPU. This is outrageous behavior for a browser.

I am not even going to credit this with a real response.

Ok, maybe a little.

Having ANYTHING open will "suck power" from the CPU.  It's not a magic box where once pixels are in place, they're held there by fucking gravity or something!!!  What does he THINK will happen??!  Close the goddamned window if you don't want that CPU load, which, again, shouldn't be NOWHERE near the load his infected computer might be declaring.

Retarded statement #3:

Frequently, Firefox would slow down all the other applications on my computer, then seize up completely.

OK, again... Scott, my friend... as a fellow FF user, how often does this happen to YOU???  Either thing.  Firefox affects other applications on his computer!?!?  Unless you ARE pegging your processor, that's just patently untrue.  That's the whole point of XP/NT's multithreaded processing!!

And seizing up completely is something that happens to him frequently!?!?  What!?  What is this yokel doing!?  Firefox has crashed on me so infrequently that I can only remember once in recent memory!  I doubt as if you are much different.  This guy clearly has no place reviewing anything computer related.  

Also, I wrote this email in Gmail in Chrome, and it WAS noticeably faster!  Also, when Chrome did crash on me (and I should probably quote it like "crash") it put up the nice screen (attached) and I just hit reload and was back where I was.  Beautiful!!

Anyway, pass that back along :-D

Jason

Jonas Bros

Today I went trailing the shadows of the Jonas brothers in their hometown of Wyckoff, NJ. The town seemed very christian, WASPy. Even though I was in New Jersey, I almost felt weird about it. I was going door to door. Most people weren't home. Reminds me of the days I used to peddle wrapping paper or something for school around town. Or the time when for one day I worked on the grassroots level of John Kerry's campaign. I was in some crazy town, Dover New Jersey? One that I had never heard of, knocking on doors and trying to beg for donations to Kerry's campaign. It was grueling and humiliating work and very hot weater. They weren't going to pay me a lot -- thats what it was, I was looking for a worthwhile summer job. Didn't find it there. Anyway, the Jonas brothers. They're 16, 18 and 20. Barely out of high school and these kids are world famous. Also, they are virgins. Those two things seem incredibly incongruous. Their father was a pastor and these adorable dipshits wear chastity rings. How could these guys be heart throbs, set the blooming loins of semi-pubescent girls around the entire world afire and still be virgins? So worldy, so experienced, well-known and rich. But these princes have sworn off pussy. Perhaps that's what elevates them. Maybe thats what actually MAKES them princely. That they've been able to be desirable, irresistibly so, and yet be dispassionate and not need to act on their own desires. Especially ones so vulgar as sexual needs. They are whole and the rest of the world needs them. Perhaps these guys are one of the best metaphors for celebrities as christ figuers we have ever had.

ennui

Almost everything seems empty to me, and not worthwhile.


I don’t have the motivation to do anything I used to enjoy. I want to do them – because before they used to bring me peace and pride and purpose – but I can’t get myself there.


I wonder often if I’ll ever return to a productive state, fully engaged in people and the world around me. Now I’m only skimming the surface, complacently assuming the meaning or depth of things I have no intention of really investigating.


As much as I want to have powerful experiences, most of the things I do are bereft. Or I am jaded. Or something. I WANT to be moved. I WANT to be excited, passionate again. But nothing has power for me. Sexual experiences are meaningless and unmoving. My work is boring despite it being “exciting.” Books do not seem worth reading. Basically the only thing that moves me one way or the other are the pangs of rejection.

over two months, when the hell is someone going to post something?

i cheated. i went tanning today to enhance the beauty and compete with jason. my butt is totally burnt. daddy!

Creationism, the new State Religion

I sent the following as part of an email today. It appears as though I flipped out, though I really did not mean to. We'll see if she ever talks to me again. But I really did feel I said something that needed to be said.

So I must ask one real question. (And I must apologize in advance. As I write this parenthetical, I've already written all that follows, and did NOT intend it as a rant! It certainly does look like it came out that way, but I really did just get on a roll and are very curious what someone as intelligent as you would say on the issue...)
You are a science girl! Indoctrinated to the world of the scientific method, and tiered lessons. AND are for lack of a better quantization, agnostic. But you believe that creationism should be taught in public schools?

Now, a secondary school's world-religions or sociology class is one thing, but to dedicate the valuable time of younger children to the beliefs of solely one sect? And where does one draw the line at teaching religion in schools? By almost sheer coincidence, all factions of Christianity are kosher (ha!) with creationism... but why not continue teaching the beliefs of, say, Pentecostal protestants? Are they irrelevant because they are greatly outnumbered by Baptists or Lutherans?

What would the Catholics say/do if they learned their children were being instructed in the ways of an entirely different denomination? Should fair and equal time be given to all divisions of all denominations? If fairness is the issue, should not Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism also be represented, as the vast majority of the world's population doesn't even subscribe to Christianity?

I am sure the Jewish friends that I have would have been yanked from public schooling by their pious parents if their tender minds were being taught christian creationism as science. I'm certain that that is exactly why the founding fathers sought to separate church and state.

Wow, ok...
A little serious for a first email, but as I'm pretty certain you could tell me what exp(pi*i) is off the top of your head, I'm sure you can handle it!

Sorry again for the rant!
Jason

Teach a man to...

I keep thinking to mention this. Several weeks ago I was talking to my mom on the phone and I guess she'd had dinner with my brother and his girlfriend and they were talking about me. Particularly how fastidious I can be. And miserly. Brian said "His time means nothing to him!" which everyone, I think, feted with a "funny but true".

But, really, nothing could be farther from the truth! See proof below:

• Eq. 1: time = money
• Eq. 2: total time/cost = sum(of all used time or money)
• Definition: Investment -- "Property or another possession acquired for future financial return or benefit."
• Therefore if I spend a lot of time learning to do something fucking awesome'ly, I have acquired an investment of knowledge which will likely result in reducing the overall total time I put into something. I now have more of my valuable time.
  

It IS true that frequently I do not know WHEN an investment might produce returns, but no one could deny that they often do. Hooray for bizarre skills!

Family Guy quote

[ Peter points into thin air ]
[ Mel Gibson runs off Mt. Rushmore ]
Lois: He just walked right off the cliff!
Peter: Of course he did, Christians don't believe in gravity!

Ha, yes, gravity is "just a theory" too.
(No, really. Due to incomplete information on causibility, it's not a "law".)