Also note that this one is being used to market Chrome, even to Firefox users, which is pretty insidious. See this tweet with screenshot from Dave Flanagan:
https://twitter.com/__DavidFlanagan/status/20516612817828249...
Also note that this one is being used to market Chrome, even to Firefox users, which is pretty insidious. See this tweet with screenshot from Dave Flanagan:
https://twitter.com/__DavidFlanagan/status/20516612817828249...
We have a number of browser vendors on board, including Mozilla, and have recently reached a consensus to push forward with the (webkit-proposed) Web Audio API rather than the Mozilla-proposed MediaStream processing API and Audio Data API.
You can find much more information here: http://www.w3.org/2011/audio/wiki/Main_Page
We'd really welcome input from developers and browser implementers at any stage.
If you don't like the post, downvote, but there's a reason why most techies like these sort of tech demos and we especially like it when we see a big company using them.
They aren't locking other browsers out (my FF 11 on Linux is working adequately). They're going to market regardless, I'd rather see things like this than raw ads.
I assume you never use Google since they just use search to push their ads?
https://twitter.com/__DavidFlanagan/status/20542007304375501...
Kudos to Google for fixing this.
Nobody has to agree with everything an employer does (ever), and I certainly don't agree with everything my employers do -- sometimes, that disagreement was public when I posted comments here under my real name. This was always a passing phenomenon, though, something like this:
> I think we could do better at X, and I'm definitely hearing what you're saying.
You, on the other hand, have months upon months of comments that betray a, to steal your word, insidious resentment of the company that you work for. You are semi anonymous, which is good for you but a terrible representation of Google; there is only one comment that I found where you forget to say "their" and you instead say "our".
I'm genuinely not trying to be an asshole, but I've seen you for a long time be negative about Google, and I don't think continuing to work there is going to make it any better for you or the company. There's a legally-questionable comment in your history, too, regarding ongoing litigation, which at my employer would be an immediate termination.
EDIT: I went back far enough to find that you're not anonymous.
If you don't work at Google, your wording is a suspiciously odd mistake, and a misrepresentation.
> OP: <joke about free time>
>> You: I'd rather they do something other than doodles with their time.
>>> Commenter: Oh, but the doodles solve real problems!
>>>> You: Google's doodles perpetuate the image that the CORPORATION I WORK AT is a fun place to be, helping to improve OUR image and attract the right recruits.
Whose image are the doodles improving other than Google's? What is the intended company for recruits that are tickled by a Google Doodle? You say the words "I work at" and "our" in your comment. I resent having to explain this word by word. I now see an alternative explanation, which would be that you're responding to "real problems" instead, but your timing is extraordinarily awkward if that is the case and makes no sense in context.
Obviously, I left that comment with the impression that you work for Google. It was only after I stared at it for fifteen minutes as a result of this discussion that I realized there could be an alternative meaning. You need to be more careful about how you word things.
> More like helping to perpetuate the image that "the corporation where I work is a "fun" place to be".
...where I'm quoting a Googler (not me).
I also love that I'm gray in less than sixty seconds for trying to help you be a little more clear in your comments due to a pretty severe misunderstanding.