JSNES JavaScript NES emulator

Ben Firshman wrote a rather impressive NES emulator. There are already quite a few NES emulators out there already this one impressive is because it’s written in pure JavaScript.

Yet another application of “Atwood’s Law“:

Any application that can be written in JavaScript, will eventually be written in JavaScript.

I should note that I mentioned back in January how someone ported Super Mario brothers to JavaScript. JSNES is different as it is actually emulating and reading ROM’s (looks like they are hex’d), rather than just replicating the game.

Currently it runs in all modern browsers, but only Chrome’s <canvas/> performs well enough at this point to really be playable. With WebGL coming to Firefox and WebKit we’ll hopefully see a lot more of this kind of stuff in the future.

Ares I Rocket Test

Ares I Rocket Test

NASA posted some video of the first stage of the Ares I rocket being test fired out in the desert. 22 million horse power. As powerful as this rocket is, it doesn’t compare to Ares IV and of course the Saturn V.

I get the impression you don’t want to be anywhere near the business end of this thing when it’s lit:

During the test the flame exited the rocket motor out of a nozzle at about mach 3 and burned for approx. 123 seconds and the temperature of that flame approached approx. 4500 F. This is approx two-thirds the temperature of the sun’s surface. At this temperature steel does more than melt, it boils. And sand that was placed around just aft of the rocket motor got hot enough to actually turn to glass

10 Years

Looking at my calendar (which includes things like domain renewals) I noticed that I’ve owned this domain for a decade.

   Domain Name: ACCETTURA.COM
   Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
   Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com
   Name Server: NS1.ACCETTURA.COM
   Name Server: NS2.ACCETTURA.COM
   Name Server: NS3.ACCETTURA.COM
   Name Server: NS5.ACCETTURA.COM
   Name Server: NS6.ACCETTURA.COM
   Name Server: NS7.ACCETTURA.COM
   Status: clientTransferProhibited
   Updated Date: 05-sep-2008
   Creation Date: 13-sep-1999
   Expiration Date: 13-sep-2012

In 1999 Bill Clinton was president, Lance Armstrong won his first Tour de France, David Cone pitched a perfect game for the Yankees, NATO bombed Yugoslavia, John F. Kennedy Jr. died in a plane crash, Melissa Worm tormented the web, the Euro was just established, Napster just debuted, Windows 98 Second Edition launched, Apple just announced the iBook (Jun) and Power Macintosh G4 (Aug).

I wonder what will be nostalgic in September 2019.

802.11n Finalized

802.11n, something I was starting to think would never get beyond draft is now approved. Having suffered through “compliant” 802.11b devices I long ago decided wireless networking is fussy enough to warrant stricter standards. As a result I stuck to Wi-Fi Alliance certified 802.11g devices, and the results have been awesome. I’m still of the opinion that the difference between “compliant” and “certified” is gigantic. Certified 802.11n devices should start to appear in the next few months.

Looks like the goals for any 802.11n upgrade are MIMO (obviously) and preferably dual-band (2.4GHz and 5GHz). I can’t see why I would want to do anything otherwise.

Considering most ISP’s don’t yet provide the downstream or upstream bandwidth necessary to take saturate a good 802.11g network, I’m not sure it’s really necessary to upgrade just yet. Thanks to a solid signal I can sustain up to about 19 Mbps over 802.11g even with WPA2 overhead and slight signal degradation. Under 1ms pings as well. ISP currently offers up to 16 Mbps, 12 Mbps plans for mortals. Rarely is that performance actually seen thanks to “the Internets being a series of tubes”. At least for today upgrading would only improve local network performance, not Internet performance. Most traffic is going outside the network anyway. 802.11n would bring capacity up to 130 Mbps, but since the uplink is still 12 Mbps, that really provides no real performance boost.

For anyone who would argue the faster CPU’s on the newer access points would improve performance, I’ve found that my current AP rarely sees more than a 2% load, with rare spikes up to about 40% capacity.

Of course hardware providers, and retail outlets will continue to tell people that downloading will be 6X faster1, but logic and common sense proves otherwise. It’s the equivalent of a Bugatti Veyron stuck behind a funeral procession.

That of course also assumes all devices are connecting via 802.11n. If you have an 802.11g and 802.11n devices connecting over 2.4 GHz, you’re going to be in mixed mode and slow down while 802.11g devices send/receive anyway. As far as I know there’s no way around that.

Then there’s the issue of all the pre-N adapters sold in laptops over the past few years and their compatibility, which is generally pretty good, but not perfect when mixing vendors.

So despite the marketing getting even stronger, I don’t see how it would be really beneficial to upgrade just yet. The actual performance increase for most activity will be virtually non-existent until ISP’s get faster. I’d rather wait until the hardware matures and prices drop more.

1. up to 6X faster, actual results may vary.