"In christian dogma suicide is self murder and a mortal sin."
So?
Saying God is evil because he lets us do evil things just doesn't make much sense to me... and it totally falls down when you accept that God is just and thorough as well as merciful, and actually NOTHING can harm you except the evil you do yourself and the hardness of heart by which you abide in it. And yes, even if others "make you do it" (that's stated and warned of explicitly in the Bible, so often it's quite hard to miss).
But that's not because God is "evil", but because God can't have various standards for various people, for x BC or 2011 AD - God is and remains God, and the rules are and remain quite simple and clear: clear, untainted love, with not a speck of anything that is not love in it. Not BLIND love, but LOVE. And hey, God promises active help with that, too.
And it's not like asking for repentance is asking much either, it just requires you to drop the notion that you're God and have a better design for eternity... because IF eternity exists, it already does, and it might have its own requirements, and any demands you could put it would just be hot, mortal air, you know? If it doesn't, all of this is moot anyway, no point in debating the morality of a non-existant God after all.
Judeo-Christian religions claim that we are special.
You can say this about anything that makes any claim about anything. And then you go on to insist on what YOU think "special" has to mean. That's however not based on the teachings of any of these religions, you just extrapolate from "we're supposed to be special" (and even that you basically pulled out of your ass).
ninety percent of the universe that is not our kind of matter.
So what? Most of the universe is empty space, so wouldn't that mean that nothingness is God's "most favourite"? Doesn't this strike you as an extremely childish line of "reasoning"? Just because it involves dark matter and physics doesn't make it less childish, you know.
"special" doesn't imply "most frequent", it doesn't even mean "most powerful". just so you know.
And it doesn't really matter because no, the Judeo-Christian religions do not really teach that humans are "somehow special", you keep claiming that but it really requires a citation... they are are actually pretty clear about there being none good than God, *nothing* created is "special" in comparison to the creator.
Given that our hearts are prone to produce convenient lies, to mirror back to us the world we want to see rather than the world that is, I would place my faith in the microscope.
Dude, I was talking about morals and the fate of your soul. As in, FIRST make sure I'm really feeling good about what I am and what I do, THEN I go explore the rest of the universe.
But sure, whatever makes you feel smart. Just at some point stop to ask yourself why you think you need that.
Of course, religious fanatics need not concern themselves with any of this,
What's a religious fanatic? Someone making up stuff about religios topics like you are doing perhaps? Someone claiming to know what others believe and based on what they navigate their existance?
this "faith" has its own internal logic which forces all facts to bend to fit it.
And then they spout off BS like "ninety percent of the universe that is not our kind of matter." haha? Sounds like horrible people. And let me guess, they also like to smear and persecute those who are not of their faith? Oh, at least we got none of these on slashdot haha... otherwise, surely someone would notice.
If dark matter is alive, then we are a mere footnote
Huh? That doesn't follow from anything though.
So basically can't have created us because he created other stuff too? You're just making up arbitrary constants on your own, what does it have to do with anything?
not fine tuned for our kind of life
So? Don't the 3 big religions also speak of a temporal existance, clinging to which is considered to be spiritual death, sin, etc.? The Koran has this part about rolling up the heavens and making something new, Jews have the next world, Christians do too. You know, in Christianity Satan is actually the king of this world. Not to mention that the whole of us being here in the first place is said to have been caused by a FALL... as in, yes, once everything was nice and perfect, then *something* happened, and now we're where we are at.
Sure, that's not "intelligent design", but couldn't care less about ID because that's just a BS waste of time. I mean, IF there is the slightest grain of truth to God, I seriously think it would be a huge waste of time to look into microscopes instead of our hearts... just saying that 99% of such discussions about religion start off with made up (and rather childish) ideas about religions and don't go beyond them, and this is one of them. That's the single one area where slashdot fails time after time.
No, actually the person you replied to you went to great lengths to describe it's not like that at all... so you just ignore that and babble about the good old cliches? As theys said: if you're curious enough, you'll be able to find out. But don't blame others (or actually sock puppets) for your own lack of curiosity.
as long as they don't say that they're really really sorry in the mean time and really mean it.... and if he does punish them they go to the same place as any of their victims who committed suicide to escape the torture and rapes.
so basically your problem with God is that it's not vengeful enough? the whole "mercy" thing puts you off? and based on what? made up stories, sadistic ones at that. your image of God is evil. that's not God though.
But wouldn't any admin worth their salt already have a modern browser installed?
Sure, employees might not be, uhm, expected to use Ebay and Facebook... but let's say, if even Google stopped caring about anything non-standard, if ALL big sites did... then you'd have Firefox etc. installed virtually everywhere 3 days after that, and two weeks later Microsoft would announce IE 10.
And for those places where you're not allowed to browse at work, well, screw 'em. You're not suggesting we keep all that IE-compatibility crud in the HTML just for those? Nah.... "99% of our sites don't work for blind people, but make sure it's safe for work!!" makes me sick to say the least. I for one wouldn't mind a web without input or eyeballs of people who don't really mean it, but are just procrastinating: if it's not important enough for you to do it AFTER work, just don't do it
Yeah I know, it's not a very popular opinion, but it's the only one I have ^^
Who exactly are the clueless, lazy users? You mean the ones that let Google dictate all their choices?
Yeah... I'm not saying everybody needs to be a geek, but the general populace is seriously lacking curiosity. You know, right clicking stuff and pondering the context menu that comes up, exploring the program configuration and googling a few terms you didn't know before...
... when it comes to the information age, illiteracy seems to be at 99%? And IF this is the information age, it's not a choice. "This is too brainy or dry for me", well guess what, that's like an ice bear saying "the desert is too dry for me", or a desert inhabitant finding the jungle too humid.... the only mode of existance of people without curiosity in the information age is either being extinct, or being a slave. I don't even like that, but that is how it IS now it seems.... sure, I'm ranting and exaggerating, but I *wish* there wasn't some grain of truth to it.
The more serious sickness though is what I'm displaying: thinking you're somehow "better" for being slightly less clueless... instead of just being more responsible.
well it's either that, or lose the other half to web outfits that have some guts? because those sites would be more usable, prettier, AND faster to boot, so assuming everything else is the same.... and frankly, when it's 50/50 of "internet explorer users" vs. JUST ABOUT ANYTHING, gimme the people who don't actively participate in exploding the intarwebs by being clueless and lazy. (and I bet they have less money than the other half, too, if your thoughts go along such whorish lines (mine don't)).
if big (I mean BIG, like imdb, ebay, googlemail, facebook... the meat of the drone web if you will) websites started sticking to the standards and letting the browsers fall where they may, I'm sure even grandgrandparents will figure out a way to ask someone to install firefox etc. for them. because, you know, all those sites wouldn't just silently break, like internet explorer breaks sites that actually stick to standards -- no, they'd display a big, fat warning with a helpful list of compatible browsers... and that would be the moment where mr. and mrs. random pick up the phone, OR buy a new computer, OR simply just leave the internet and do something else for all I care (because them voting with their wallets on the web just makes for shitty election results and famine for all).... but it would be the end of this heritage of bullshit at any rate.
yeah I know, I'm a dreamer. yet all it would take is a bunch of people not being whores for a year, but some can't even do that for 5 minutes it seems, and that's where it fails. "But I'm just taking orders", and "But the others are goosestepping, too"... it's a fucking disgrace.
It's negative alright, but how is that "spin" though? They're even proudly announcing features they're last of all the main browser to implement... sure, it's silly to test all of this now I guess, neither CSS3 nor the browser are there yet... so I'll give you that. But yes, Microsoft does like to make GRAND ANNOUNCEMENTS, even when they just stole and repacked some of last year's dung, and as long as they do that they need to be shot down... until they stop doing that, or stop moving, it's their choice. They're aggressively lying and/or selectively telling the truth knowing most people are more or less sheep --- they're raping your mums, everybody, and if they're not it's only because they can't, NOT because they wouldn't WANT to, and don't you forget that for a second (not posted AC cuz I need the karma) --- they know zero shame, no boundaries, they have no taste and no coders worth shit... their reality is already so negative you'd had to be a masochist to put "negative spin" on it.
those are not firefox's advantages. those are plugins. I know the end result is the same (ignoring perfomance and startup times of course...), but let's be fair. also, Opera just (very) recently added extension, so I guess give it a few years and you won't miss anything important...
but still, just to humour you:
- vimperator sounds like something I'd like as much as a fork in my eye. I guess that's down to personal preferences. - downloadhelper? I'm happy with Operas download manager. which firefox doesn't have. - downthemall? are you aware that browser has a shortcut to show a list of all links on the current page? assuming you can infer what you want from the url, it's just a matter of clicking them and pressing "save to download folder". - noscript? opera has that built in. so all the features you say opera is lacking, are really just knowledge of opera you are lacking, is that right? - torbutton sounds like a simple enough extension to make. but personally I would consider that pretty much a waste of time for various reasons. - firebug and yslow are also builtin! press ctrl-I to start Dragonfly, switch to the network tab to see the waterfall chart etc... click at CSS elements and actually get why stuff is (or isn't) the way you expect/want it to.... does firefox even have something that comes close, not to mention that not being scattered across various plugins...? - semantic radar sounds nice, I guess that's an extension I'd like to see for opera too. - user agent switcher... is also builtin for Opera... you can even set it on per site basis, just right click the page and "edit site preferences"... *sigh*
now, on the other hand, when will firefox have a bookmark manager that doesn't suck?! maybe I have too many bookmarks, but I can not do without opera's "split view" (bookmark folders in the upper pane, bookmarks in the lower pane) and them being there when I need them and gone the instant I want to... and don't even name any plugins. bookmarks are *essential* to a browser, and they can't even get that right, they just don't fucking care because Joe Schmoe doesn't know what a bookmark is. gah. sorry, I really tried to like it, but for me it's, just like chrome or IE, just something to test webpages with, and only because I have to.
1. how would me posting something false make something incorrect you posted not incorrect?
2. no, I am actually not that guy, so don't even bother to answer "not at all" to question number 1.
3. right now, the windows version of Opera is 8.9 MB, Mac is 13.2 MB, linux ranges from 9 to 14 MB with the average somewhere around 11 MB -- you do realize that this is MUCH closer to 7 MB than to 30 MB? And that Opera has about a trillion features Chrome doesn't have, making this even more poignant?
So basically you're saying, Chrome included a PDF reader weighing 16 MB instead of 20 MB to this skeleton they call browser, and this makes my reply somehow invalid? Look, I'm just trying to help you. If you must use shitty software feel free, but the world isn't just you, so if you wanna spread bullshit do it out of my earshot at least, so not on the internet for starters. Thanks.
Copy Chrome? Firefox was on the "keep it simple, keep it stupid" bandwagon long before Chrome was even around.
Yet, I just love how people keep mentioning Chrome as if it's a fully featured browser.... it doesn't even have print preview, or anything else for that matter. But sure, it does what is intended to do efficiently and quickly, which is to look pretty and phone home, by default at least, and that it does with all the lavish luxury the user-facing parts are lacking haha....
Flash isn't that big... and if they included a 20mb PDF reader, how would that not make them utter idiots? You seriously believe what you just wrote? "I'm pretty sure.." followed by something which isn't even remotely true and which you didn't even test... *sigh* there are two kinds of people, noobs and people who like Opera.
Go back to start and try again when they have a good firebug alternative and an adblocking plugin (not special themes and javascript hacks)
1. Dragonfly (now *you* find me an FF extension that is even just half as good as that one...!)
2. Right click the page, select "block content", click the staff you want blocked and/or enter wildcard patterns for that. I don't get the bit about "special themes", but I sure hope you are aware that firefox add-ons are nothing more than "javascript hacks"? And now Opera has those too by the way ("extensions"). Not that I care, because while I do surf a lot, I simply don't visit sites that are plastered with ads... so the whole "oh ad-blocking is such a must" strikes me as odd. Unless you're into warez or porn of course.
3. Don't even get me started on all the stuff Firefox sucks (or even is a joke) at, which Opera mastered like 5 years ago... not even a contest. "Go back to start" haha? Get a clue...
And yes speculation that the king of Saudis arabia is an ass should be kept secret. Your official position is that he is a good king, you can't contradict that view point without you yourself looking like an ass.
Nope. If the king IS an ass, having the official position that he's not is what makes you look like an ass... wait, actually it makes you BE an ass. If he's an ass and you call him an ass, that makes you.. honest. If he's not an ass and you call him an ass, you're an ass. Hope that helped.
Who decides what is "the right type" though? In my books, you have to be a crackpot to work for the government. Which makes me a crackpot in their books. Who is right? The one with the bigger sacks of money and the heavier array of disinfo catapults.
Well then that libel case will have to wait for someone who isn't beating around the bush and names specifics....
It remains clear that Palin wasn't advocating the shooting of these politicians.
No. That's the problem. It is only "clear" to her existing fans.
Once her rhetoric was actualized, she immediately pulled the graphic because she was afraid that she'd lose popularity if people saw that graphic AFTER they heard the news of the shooting.
It was in bad taste to post it in the first place. The bad taste was compounded every time they updated the site and did not take that graphic down. Now she's backing away from it by pulling it when the "undecideds" might see it on the news.
As to the charge of "flexible logic". It's pretty clear that the graphics were innocuous, but after a shooting like this they would appear disrespectful of the people who were hurt or killed.
If it was "innocuous" then it wouldn't be a problem after the shooting. And she wouldn't have pulled it. But she did. Because it wasn't "innocuous".
... that isn't baseless assertions, those are good points well put, and you're dodging em. Calling it "libel" may make you feel all grown up, but it's still just the same as a 5 year old covering their ears. Which remains clear.
Hunting rifles? When did we discuss hunting rifles?
Well you're not discussing anything anyway, that's for sure. But since you're unable to click the "parent" button here you go:
Well, guns in Sweden are mostly hunting weapons. We don't have concealed semi-automatic weapons. Semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons generally have only one intended use, and that is to kill people
The line between "hunting rifle" and "assault weapon" is so blurry that neither are accepted by anyone familiar with firearms.
That's bullshit. The "line" may be blurry, but the extremes aren't. Sure, you can use any assault weapon to hunt, and any hunting rifle to snipe people, but you can't fire a gazillion rounds in 3 seconds with a hunting rifle. That may not make it "a hunting rifle", because the experts haven't agreed on a definition, but it makes it "not an assault rifle", period.
Also, anyone with half a brain, familiar with weapons or not, can easily understand what they were getting at without that knowledge. As in "this is so fucking easy to understand unless you're really trying not to, people who don't aren't really accepted by anyone who does."
You never heard of "spray firing"? What about Spray and pray? Gimme a break. Which is basically the gist of my post and all I have to say: YEAH FUCKING RIGHT.
I know a thing or two about computers. Now, if anytime someone not as knowledgable as me says something about them, should I refuse to try to understand what they mean, as long as what they say is not 100% correct? Yeah right.
If you wanna act all professional let's go all the way... Did you know that for anyone familiar with reality no distinction is actually valid and everything is one? You're giving perceptions names and then think they exist, and then debate about fine distinctions within that soup of error haha? Just saying.
"Nowhere in the previous comment was a statement made concerning failure to understand RoF differences."
But that's what the OP was about which got replied to with "hurp durp what is spray firing" etc. was about. So yeah, your statement is *technically* correct but, but another level it's just as much as waste of time.
Slashdot Mirror
"In christian dogma suicide is self murder and a mortal sin."
So?
Saying God is evil because he lets us do evil things just doesn't make much sense to me... and it totally falls down when you accept that God is just and thorough as well as merciful, and actually NOTHING can harm you except the evil you do yourself and the hardness of heart by which you abide in it. And yes, even if others "make you do it" (that's stated and warned of explicitly in the Bible, so often it's quite hard to miss).
But that's not because God is "evil", but because God can't have various standards for various people, for x BC or 2011 AD - God is and remains God, and the rules are and remain quite simple and clear: clear, untainted love, with not a speck of anything that is not love in it. Not BLIND love, but LOVE. And hey, God promises active help with that, too.
And it's not like asking for repentance is asking much either, it just requires you to drop the notion that you're God and have a better design for eternity... because IF eternity exists, it already does, and it might have its own requirements, and any demands you could put it would just be hot, mortal air, you know? If it doesn't, all of this is moot anyway, no point in debating the morality of a non-existant God after all.
You can say this about anything that makes any claim about anything. And then you go on to insist on what YOU think "special" has to mean. That's however not based on the teachings of any of these religions, you just extrapolate from "we're supposed to be special" (and even that you basically pulled out of your ass).
So what? Most of the universe is empty space, so wouldn't that mean that nothingness is God's "most favourite"? Doesn't this strike you as an extremely childish line of "reasoning"? Just because it involves dark matter and physics doesn't make it less childish, you know.
"special" doesn't imply "most frequent", it doesn't even mean "most powerful". just so you know.
And it doesn't really matter because no, the Judeo-Christian religions do not really teach that humans are "somehow special", you keep claiming that but it really requires a citation... they are are actually pretty clear about there being none good than God, *nothing* created is "special" in comparison to the creator.
Dude, I was talking about morals and the fate of your soul. As in, FIRST make sure I'm really feeling good about what I am and what I do, THEN I go explore the rest of the universe.
But sure, whatever makes you feel smart. Just at some point stop to ask yourself why you think you need that.
What's a religious fanatic? Someone making up stuff about religios topics like you are doing perhaps? Someone claiming to know what others believe and based on what they navigate their existance?
And then they spout off BS like "ninety percent of the universe that is not our kind of matter." haha? Sounds like horrible people. And let me guess, they also like to smear and persecute those who are not of their faith? Oh, at least we got none of these on slashdot haha... otherwise, surely someone would notice.
Huh? That doesn't follow from anything though. So basically can't have created us because he created other stuff too? You're just making up arbitrary constants on your own, what does it have to do with anything?
So? Don't the 3 big religions also speak of a temporal existance, clinging to which is considered to be spiritual death, sin, etc.? The Koran has this part about rolling up the heavens and making something new, Jews have the next world, Christians do too. You know, in Christianity Satan is actually the king of this world. Not to mention that the whole of us being here in the first place is said to have been caused by a FALL... as in, yes, once everything was nice and perfect, then *something* happened, and now we're where we are at. Sure, that's not "intelligent design", but couldn't care less about ID because that's just a BS waste of time. I mean, IF there is the slightest grain of truth to God, I seriously think it would be a huge waste of time to look into microscopes instead of our hearts... just saying that 99% of such discussions about religion start off with made up (and rather childish) ideas about religions and don't go beyond them, and this is one of them. That's the single one area where slashdot fails time after time.
No, actually the person you replied to you went to great lengths to describe it's not like that at all... so you just ignore that and babble about the good old cliches? As theys said: if you're curious enough, you'll be able to find out. But don't blame others (or actually sock puppets) for your own lack of curiosity.
so basically your problem with God is that it's not vengeful enough? the whole "mercy" thing puts you off? and based on what? made up stories, sadistic ones at that. your image of God is evil. that's not God though.
But wouldn't any admin worth their salt already have a modern browser installed?
Sure, employees might not be, uhm, expected to use Ebay and Facebook... but let's say, if even Google stopped caring about anything non-standard, if ALL big sites did... then you'd have Firefox etc. installed virtually everywhere 3 days after that, and two weeks later Microsoft would announce IE 10.
And for those places where you're not allowed to browse at work, well, screw 'em. You're not suggesting we keep all that IE-compatibility crud in the HTML just for those? Nah.... "99% of our sites don't work for blind people, but make sure it's safe for work!!" makes me sick to say the least. I for one wouldn't mind a web without input or eyeballs of people who don't really mean it, but are just procrastinating: if it's not important enough for you to do it AFTER work, just don't do it
Yeah I know, it's not a very popular opinion, but it's the only one I have ^^
Yeah... I'm not saying everybody needs to be a geek, but the general populace is seriously lacking curiosity. You know, right clicking stuff and pondering the context menu that comes up, exploring the program configuration and googling a few terms you didn't know before...
... when it comes to the information age, illiteracy seems to be at 99%? And IF this is the information age, it's not a choice. "This is too brainy or dry for me", well guess what, that's like an ice bear saying "the desert is too dry for me", or a desert inhabitant finding the jungle too humid.... the only mode of existance of people without curiosity in the information age is either being extinct, or being a slave. I don't even like that, but that is how it IS now it seems.... sure, I'm ranting and exaggerating, but I *wish* there wasn't some grain of truth to it.
The more serious sickness though is what I'm displaying: thinking you're somehow "better" for being slightly less clueless... instead of just being more responsible.
what exactly are you talking about?
well it's either that, or lose the other half to web outfits that have some guts? because those sites would be more usable, prettier, AND faster to boot, so assuming everything else is the same.... and frankly, when it's 50/50 of "internet explorer users" vs. JUST ABOUT ANYTHING, gimme the people who don't actively participate in exploding the intarwebs by being clueless and lazy. (and I bet they have less money than the other half, too, if your thoughts go along such whorish lines (mine don't)).
if big (I mean BIG, like imdb, ebay, googlemail, facebook... the meat of the drone web if you will) websites started sticking to the standards and letting the browsers fall where they may, I'm sure even grandgrandparents will figure out a way to ask someone to install firefox etc. for them. because, you know, all those sites wouldn't just silently break, like internet explorer breaks sites that actually stick to standards -- no, they'd display a big, fat warning with a helpful list of compatible browsers... and that would be the moment where mr. and mrs. random pick up the phone, OR buy a new computer, OR simply just leave the internet and do something else for all I care (because them voting with their wallets on the web just makes for shitty election results and famine for all).... but it would be the end of this heritage of bullshit at any rate.
yeah I know, I'm a dreamer. yet all it would take is a bunch of people not being whores for a year, but some can't even do that for 5 minutes it seems, and that's where it fails. "But I'm just taking orders", and "But the others are goosestepping, too"... it's a fucking disgrace.
It's negative alright, but how is that "spin" though? They're even proudly announcing features they're last of all the main browser to implement... sure, it's silly to test all of this now I guess, neither CSS3 nor the browser are there yet... so I'll give you that. But yes, Microsoft does like to make GRAND ANNOUNCEMENTS, even when they just stole and repacked some of last year's dung, and as long as they do that they need to be shot down... until they stop doing that, or stop moving, it's their choice. They're aggressively lying and/or selectively telling the truth knowing most people are more or less sheep --- they're raping your mums, everybody, and if they're not it's only because they can't, NOT because they wouldn't WANT to, and don't you forget that for a second (not posted AC cuz I need the karma) --- they know zero shame, no boundaries, they have no taste and no coders worth shit... their reality is already so negative you'd had to be a masochist to put "negative spin" on it.
But it's not "their own" code, it's OUR codec now. unlike H264, which only is "kinda, but not really" ours.
And how about a hearty "fuck freedom for (clueless, lazy) users!", while we are at it? If users would vote for Hitler, don't let them vote, kthxbye.
those are not firefox's advantages. those are plugins. I know the end result is the same (ignoring perfomance and startup times of course...), but let's be fair. also, Opera just (very) recently added extension, so I guess give it a few years and you won't miss anything important...
but still, just to humour you:
- vimperator sounds like something I'd like as much as a fork in my eye. I guess that's down to personal preferences.
- downloadhelper? I'm happy with Operas download manager. which firefox doesn't have.
- downthemall? are you aware that browser has a shortcut to show a list of all links on the current page? assuming you can infer what you want from the url, it's just a matter of clicking them and pressing "save to download folder".
- noscript? opera has that built in. so all the features you say opera is lacking, are really just knowledge of opera you are lacking, is that right?
- torbutton sounds like a simple enough extension to make. but personally I would consider that pretty much a waste of time for various reasons.
- firebug and yslow are also builtin! press ctrl-I to start Dragonfly, switch to the network tab to see the waterfall chart etc... click at CSS elements and actually get why stuff is (or isn't) the way you expect/want it to.... does firefox even have something that comes close, not to mention that not being scattered across various plugins...?
- semantic radar sounds nice, I guess that's an extension I'd like to see for opera too.
- user agent switcher... is also builtin for Opera... you can even set it on per site basis, just right click the page and "edit site preferences"... *sigh*
now, on the other hand, when will firefox have a bookmark manager that doesn't suck?! maybe I have too many bookmarks, but I can not do without opera's "split view" (bookmark folders in the upper pane, bookmarks in the lower pane) and them being there when I need them and gone the instant I want to... and don't even name any plugins. bookmarks are *essential* to a browser, and they can't even get that right, they just don't fucking care because Joe Schmoe doesn't know what a bookmark is. gah. sorry, I really tried to like it, but for me it's, just like chrome or IE, just something to test webpages with, and only because I have to.
1. how would me posting something false make something incorrect you posted not incorrect?
2. no, I am actually not that guy, so don't even bother to answer "not at all" to question number 1.
3. right now, the windows version of Opera is 8.9 MB, Mac is 13.2 MB, linux ranges from 9 to 14 MB with the average somewhere around 11 MB -- you do realize that this is MUCH closer to 7 MB than to 30 MB? And that Opera has about a trillion features Chrome doesn't have, making this even more poignant?
So basically you're saying, Chrome included a PDF reader weighing 16 MB instead of 20 MB to this skeleton they call browser, and this makes my reply somehow invalid? Look, I'm just trying to help you. If you must use shitty software feel free, but the world isn't just you, so if you wanna spread bullshit do it out of my earshot at least, so not on the internet for starters. Thanks.
figures.
Copy Chrome? Firefox was on the "keep it simple, keep it stupid" bandwagon long before Chrome was even around.
Yet, I just love how people keep mentioning Chrome as if it's a fully featured browser.... it doesn't even have print preview, or anything else for that matter. But sure, it does what is intended to do efficiently and quickly, which is to look pretty and phone home, by default at least, and that it does with all the lavish luxury the user-facing parts are lacking haha....
Flash isn't that big... and if they included a 20mb PDF reader, how would that not make them utter idiots? You seriously believe what you just wrote? "I'm pretty sure.." followed by something which isn't even remotely true and which you didn't even test... *sigh* there are two kinds of people, noobs and people who like Opera.
1. Dragonfly (now *you* find me an FF extension that is even just half as good as that one...!)
2. Right click the page, select "block content", click the staff you want blocked and/or enter wildcard patterns for that. I don't get the bit about "special themes", but I sure hope you are aware that firefox add-ons are nothing more than "javascript hacks"? And now Opera has those too by the way ("extensions"). Not that I care, because while I do surf a lot, I simply don't visit sites that are plastered with ads... so the whole "oh ad-blocking is such a must" strikes me as odd. Unless you're into warez or porn of course.
3. Don't even get me started on all the stuff Firefox sucks (or even is a joke) at, which Opera mastered like 5 years ago... not even a contest. "Go back to start" haha? Get a clue...
Nah, not by a stretch.. that would be Opera...
so? all the more reason to stop participating in that.
Nope. If the king IS an ass, having the official position that he's not is what makes you look like an ass... wait, actually it makes you BE an ass. If he's an ass and you call him an ass, that makes you.. honest. If he's not an ass and you call him an ass, you're an ass. Hope that helped.
Who decides what is "the right type" though? In my books, you have to be a crackpot to work for the government. Which makes me a crackpot in their books. Who is right? The one with the bigger sacks of money and the heavier array of disinfo catapults.
Or freedom fries, when you already ate.
Well then that libel case will have to wait for someone who isn't beating around the bush and names specifics....
Well you're not discussing anything anyway, that's for sure. But since you're unable to click the "parent" button here you go:
Well, guns in Sweden are mostly hunting weapons. We don't have concealed semi-automatic weapons. Semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons generally have only one intended use, and that is to kill people
That's bullshit. The "line" may be blurry, but the extremes aren't. Sure, you can use any assault weapon to hunt, and any hunting rifle to snipe people, but you can't fire a gazillion rounds in 3 seconds with a hunting rifle. That may not make it "a hunting rifle", because the experts haven't agreed on a definition, but it makes it "not an assault rifle", period.
Also, anyone with half a brain, familiar with weapons or not, can easily understand what they were getting at without that knowledge. As in "this is so fucking easy to understand unless you're really trying not to, people who don't aren't really accepted by anyone who does."
You never heard of "spray firing"? What about Spray and pray? Gimme a break. Which is basically the gist of my post and all I have to say: YEAH FUCKING RIGHT.
I know a thing or two about computers. Now, if anytime someone not as knowledgable as me says something about them, should I refuse to try to understand what they mean, as long as what they say is not 100% correct? Yeah right.
If you wanna act all professional let's go all the way... Did you know that for anyone familiar with reality no distinction is actually valid and everything is one? You're giving perceptions names and then think they exist, and then debate about fine distinctions within that soup of error haha? Just saying.
"Nowhere in the previous comment was a statement made concerning failure to understand RoF differences."
But that's what the OP was about which got replied to with "hurp durp what is spray firing" etc. was about. So yeah, your statement is *technically* correct but, but another level it's just as much as waste of time.
"the early reports are that the suspect is hispanic"
Uhm no, actually they are that he's white...
Also, that's not how you spell "handle", Mr. Brainiac.