Konqueror isn't identical to Safari. They might both be WebKit based, but that doesn't guarantee identical rendering behaviour. They could use different build options, different configurations, etc. And that's not to mention the big one: they use totally different JavaScript engines.
Seems to me the sensible way to go is to do what everyone already does: ignore Konqueror completely, and just bite the bullet getting a Mac for Safari.
There's more to 64 bit than just the bigger address space. Annoyingly Google don't seem to be giving much away here beyond "stability, performance, and security"
If only there were a total monoculture for the web, huh?
No. I, for one, don't want WebKit to be the only game in town. That Mozilla and Microsoft are still maintaining their own rendering-engines is a good thing. (Especially considering that Microsoft is actually doing a good job these days.)
An AC already said this, albeit less clearly, but: the reason people don't is that they get great value from Facebook. So no, it's not as simple as just delete your account. The true cost of doing this is high.
As a Brit: annoyingly, she's not the only one of our leaders who has no idea about technology. This probably won't be the last time they try to screw with the nuts and bolts of modern technology.
We also had that stupid cookie law. Rather than ruling that, say, e-commerce sites be required to provide the option to delete your credit-card details on request (something websites still aren't required to do), they forced websites to show a warning if they used cookies. Perhaps in some alternate universe, people actually wanted that. In that alternate universe, it was no doubt implemented as a browser extension, and the law was still pointless.
The asymmetry of mis-estimation is partly explained by a sort of optimism.
Our instinct is to plan for no obstacles/distractions/complications, where in reality it's rare for work to proceed in this way.
Another cause is that (as Dutch Gun points out) often in software development, you've never done a task quite like that before, so you can't draw directly from past experience.
very small chunks of performance-critical code, such as massively parallel bits down in the guts of raytracing engines. Now whether they actually use functional programming languages or not is another question.
Looking at OpenCL/Vulkan/Direct3D/OpenMP/etc, the answer seems to be a clear no. The lots-of-'threads'-running-sequential-C-code model seems to work pretty well though, and programmers are essentially forced to think about state. You don't stand much of a chance messing about with globals in those environments (but I guess you could try it).
Smashing satellites is also a problem, no? But david_thornley already made this point.
if only you did this research before going on the anti-Capitalism crusade.
I don't think you're in any place to be smug. I remind you that you never did any research. You had no idea there were comparatively young laws on the books, specific to space debris.
My point stands, though: if someone — a human — is injured by space-junk, it can easily be traced to the original owners, who can then be sued/prosecuted by the victim(s).
Don't be ridiculous. If your crew/space-station/space-ship/satellite gets smashed to pieces by floating metal in space, how exactly are you going to figure out whose floating metal it was?
And suppose you somehow manage to figure out it was the Chinese government? Then what?
As of December 2016 there were 5 satellite collisions with space waste.
So sure, no humans have yet been harmed. Good job cherry-picking.
Apparently though there really is a legal deterrent these days in at least some countries. Wikipedia doesn't comment on how effective this has been, but even if it's working great I guess it doesn't help with the existing junk.
Slashdot Mirror
Konqueror isn't identical to Safari. They might both be WebKit based, but that doesn't guarantee identical rendering behaviour. They could use different build options, different configurations, etc. And that's not to mention the big one: they use totally different JavaScript engines.
Seems to me the sensible way to go is to do what everyone already does: ignore Konqueror completely, and just bite the bullet getting a Mac for Safari.
There's more to 64 bit than just the bigger address space. Annoyingly Google don't seem to be giving much away here beyond "stability, performance, and security"
The interwebs seem to support that there's a performance improvement but the difference isn't huge.
The ZDNet article really adds nothing over Google's blog post. Would've made more sense to have the summary link directly to that.
If only there were a total monoculture for the web, huh?
No. I, for one, don't want WebKit to be the only game in town. That Mozilla and Microsoft are still maintaining their own rendering-engines is a good thing. (Especially considering that Microsoft is actually doing a good job these days.)
Why don't they make a 64 bit version of office and release that?
Well, why would they? Is there a pressing technical reason to make the effort?
It's not that this stuff can't be done with web forums+email+SMS, but that Facebook does it all, and does it with a smooth UI.
But what's the replacement going to be? Diaspora?
People use Facebook for a reason.
An AC already said this, albeit less clearly, but: the reason people don't is that they get great value from Facebook. So no, it's not as simple as just delete your account. The true cost of doing this is high.
As a Brit: annoyingly, she's not the only one of our leaders who has no idea about technology. This probably won't be the last time they try to screw with the nuts and bolts of modern technology.
We also had that stupid cookie law. Rather than ruling that, say, e-commerce sites be required to provide the option to delete your credit-card details on request (something websites still aren't required to do), they forced websites to show a warning if they used cookies. Perhaps in some alternate universe, people actually wanted that. In that alternate universe, it was no doubt implemented as a browser extension, and the law was still pointless.
The w3c is a follower, not a leader.
But that doesn't make them pointless. Far better to have a curated standard than scattered innovations from different browsers.
The asymmetry of mis-estimation is partly explained by a sort of optimism.
Our instinct is to plan for no obstacles/distractions/complications, where in reality it's rare for work to proceed in this way.
Another cause is that (as Dutch Gun points out) often in software development, you've never done a task quite like that before, so you can't draw directly from past experience.
But caches work.
Perhaps if you're editing video, you might need high-speed access to tens of gigabytes of data, but for everyone else, caching should do fine.
A modern CPU without caches would be unthinkable. Why write them off for secondary storage?
Amazon says its price changes are not attempts to gather data on customers' spending habits, but rather to give shoppers the lowest price out there.
Then why are they price changes and not price decreases?
I have no particular problem with varying price-points, but I don't see that Amazon gets to say it's intended for the customer's benefit.
very small chunks of performance-critical code, such as massively parallel bits down in the guts of raytracing engines. Now whether they actually use functional programming languages or not is another question.
Looking at OpenCL/Vulkan/Direct3D/OpenMP/etc, the answer seems to be a clear no. The lots-of-'threads'-running-sequential-C-code model seems to work pretty well though, and programmers are essentially forced to think about state. You don't stand much of a chance messing about with globals in those environments (but I guess you could try it).
Of course, it is about humans.
Smashing satellites is also a problem, no? But david_thornley already made this point.
if only you did this research before going on the anti-Capitalism crusade.
I don't think you're in any place to be smug. I remind you that you never did any research. You had no idea there were comparatively young laws on the books, specific to space debris.
My point stands, though: if someone — a human — is injured by space-junk, it can easily be traced to the original owners, who can then be sued/prosecuted by the victim(s).
Don't be ridiculous. If your crew/space-station/space-ship/satellite gets smashed to pieces by floating metal in space, how exactly are you going to figure out whose floating metal it was?
And suppose you somehow manage to figure out it was the Chinese government? Then what?
Who are "they" and "what" are they doing?
Well, rather obviously, 'they' is everyone who contributes to space junk, and 'what' is their contribution to space junk. Do keep up.
No one — in the 60+ years history of humanity's space-exploration so far — has been injured by space debris
You're really going to try downplaying the space junk problem? Fine, I'll quote Wikipedia at you.
As of December 2016 there were 5 satellite collisions with space waste.
So sure, no humans have yet been harmed. Good job cherry-picking.
Apparently though there really is a legal deterrent these days in at least some countries. Wikipedia doesn't comment on how effective this has been, but even if it's working great I guess it doesn't help with the existing junk.
Because they're still doing it. It's clearly not working as a deterrent.
Good point. Doesn't sound hard.
No. Don't be silly. Right now, no-one is worried about getting sued for leaving space-junk. That proves my point.
Only retarded capitalists deny something that can save money due secondary reasons.
You're ignoring that it's not the same capitalist who will pay the cost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
If I launch a satellite in a cheap 'junk-heavy' way, it's not me who it harms.
But you'll still know where and when the signal stopped.
Huh. Surprised to see you didn't post as AC. Nonsense that stupid is rarely something anyone wants to own.
Yup. What is this doing on the front-page?
Not all left-leaners are the same when it comes to question of military intervention.
Reminds of this comment I saw earlier.
Sigh did you not even bother to read the comment?
I'm not commenting on whether that is good or bad
That's GDDR5 so it will be counted as quadpumped. In reality it's 1700MHz
Ah, of course. Thanks.