I can't think of any mainstream language except for C that doesn't suffer from the "dialect" problem to some extent
What about GObject?
As you say, C is a very bare-bones language, so it's not uncommon to see the object-oriented wheel reinvented as a C library, incompatible with the other such reinventions.
'They' can also click on that link to see what it's about. 'They' can also figure out what ip address the click came from, then it's short work to figure who is behind that IP address.
What? If you click the HTTPS link, it's harder for a third-party observer (the NSA) to learn which Wikipedia article you're reading.
HTTPS isn't perfect for this though - as I understand it, it has no protection at all against a traffic-pattern sort of analysis (how many articles are there with exactly that number of bytes?).
Not bullet-proof, but a step in the right direction.
Unrelated: I see Firefox's status-bar now hides whether a hovered-over link is HTTP or HTTPS. Anything in the name of dumbing-down, right Mozilla? Seriously...
I think you have a good point, but here's a relevant extract from TFA:
Privacy is the bedrock of individual freedom. It is a universal right that sustains the freedoms of expression and association. These principles enable inquiry, dialogue, and creation and are central to Wikimedia’s vision of empowering everyone to share in the sum of all human knowledge. When they are endangered, our mission is threatened. If people look over their shoulders before searching, pause before contributing to controversial articles, or refrain from sharing verifiable but unpopular information, Wikimedia and the world are poorer for it.
And that's about the only thing they've done for the past ten-ish years.
They've also starting playing catch-up to Chrome (JIT compilation for JavaScript, one-process-per-tab, the UI changes you mentioned, porting to mobile platforms).
The question then becomes; is it bad if Mozilla were gone?
Yes, absolutely.
Even if we assume there is no technical merit whatsoever to Mozilla's suite, they're still the only non-profit offering a web-browser, and they have an excellent track-record of advancing an open web. Google want to screw you for money through advertising. Microsoft seem to be doing ok with IE these days, but they don't have the open-web attitude Mozilla do: only Mozilla had a real objection to 'standardising' H.264, for instance.
Google release Chromium as FOSS, which is great. Still not sure why Chrome isn't FOSS, though.
On top of that, there are currently just 3 major HTML-rendering engines: WebKit, IE's Trident, and Mozilla's Gecko. It would not be good for the web to reduce this to 2, and take another step toward WebKit defining the web.
The only way to do so is to have a browser they controlled. To have a browser most people used provided an almost full proof environment. They could never have done that if they claimed their users could use netscape.
Another way of putting it: how many hours work are you expecting $100 to translate to?
I don't think anyone's disagreeing that it's damn cheap, but personally I find it very annoying when 'free' is abused, though. We tend to call that 'lying', after all.
Thank you. It's a big lie: the Unreal engine is simply not 'free'. Make enough money and they charge royalties:
When you ship a game or application, you pay a 5% royalty on gross revenue after the first $3,000 per product, per quarter.
That's certainly an incredible price, and yes it's free if it's a not-for-profit project, but it's a damned lie to just call it 'free', and samzenpus does a disservice in doing so.
Slashdot Mirror
No, Objective-C is also really damn fast.
Its method-dispatch is somewhat slower than C++'s, but it's by no means slow.
I can't think of any mainstream language except for C that doesn't suffer from the "dialect" problem to some extent
What about GObject?
As you say, C is a very bare-bones language, so it's not uncommon to see the object-oriented wheel reinvented as a C library, incompatible with the other such reinventions.
Ah, the old vote-against appeal: dependable go-to for the American political pundit.
'They' can also click on that link to see what it's about. 'They' can also figure out what ip address the click came from, then it's short work to figure who is behind that IP address.
What? If you click the HTTPS link, it's harder for a third-party observer (the NSA) to learn which Wikipedia article you're reading.
HTTPS isn't perfect for this though - as I understand it, it has no protection at all against a traffic-pattern sort of analysis (how many articles are there with exactly that number of bytes?).
But don't click that link, or the NSAFBI routine might flag you.
So link to the HTTPS version.
Not bullet-proof, but a step in the right direction.
Unrelated: I see Firefox's status-bar now hides whether a hovered-over link is HTTP or HTTPS. Anything in the name of dumbing-down, right Mozilla? Seriously...
I think you have a good point, but here's a relevant extract from TFA:
Privacy is the bedrock of individual freedom. It is a universal right that sustains the freedoms of expression and association. These principles enable inquiry, dialogue, and creation and are central to Wikimedia’s vision of empowering everyone to share in the sum of all human knowledge. When they are endangered, our mission is threatened. If people look over their shoulders before searching, pause before contributing to controversial articles, or refrain from sharing verifiable but unpopular information, Wikimedia and the world are poorer for it.
dia format
?
As AC says above: because that's not how it works.
50 fps looks awful, because it's mapped onto the 60fps refresh-rate of the monitor.
If G-Sync and/or FreeSync were in widespread use, you'd be right to say that 50fps looks almost as good as 60fps.
Maybe in a few years dynamic-refresh-rate will be a standard feature. Here's hoping.
I'm not a huge fan of its UI either, but it's not a terrible browser.
I can't speak on behalf of KDE, but: it's not likely. It's lacking that vital 'k'.
Throw together a C++ wrapper whose name kontains a 'k', and maybe it'll happen.
Oh come on. Slashdot deserves better trolling than this.
IE is no longer the trainwreck it once was. It's a perfectly usable browser these days.
(Posted through Firefox.)
Let's hope you don't find yourself forced to use an ultra-slow Internet connection: they removed the Load images by default checkbox a while ago now.
You have to screw around in about:config to get the same effect.
The thinking behind this: some nonsense about options being confusing.
Except that Opera is pretty much just a repackaged Chrome at this point.
And that's about the only thing they've done for the past ten-ish years.
They've also starting playing catch-up to Chrome (JIT compilation for JavaScript, one-process-per-tab, the UI changes you mentioned, porting to mobile platforms).
The question then becomes; is it bad if Mozilla were gone?
Yes, absolutely.
Even if we assume there is no technical merit whatsoever to Mozilla's suite, they're still the only non-profit offering a web-browser, and they have an excellent track-record of advancing an open web. Google want to screw you for money through advertising. Microsoft seem to be doing ok with IE these days, but they don't have the open-web attitude Mozilla do: only Mozilla had a real objection to 'standardising' H.264, for instance.
Google release Chromium as FOSS, which is great. Still not sure why Chrome isn't FOSS, though.
On top of that, there are currently just 3 major HTML-rendering engines: WebKit, IE's Trident, and Mozilla's Gecko. It would not be good for the web to reduce this to 2, and take another step toward WebKit defining the web.
Known, by people who know about the history of the web-browser.
Can we all get along now?
The only way to do so is to have a browser they controlled. To have a browser most people used provided an almost full proof environment. They could never have done that if they claimed their users could use netscape.
What?
Another way of putting it: how many hours work are you expecting $100 to translate to?
I don't think anyone's disagreeing that it's damn cheap, but personally I find it very annoying when 'free' is abused, though. We tend to call that 'lying', after all.
Whatever. Citation still needed. I'm not interested in your guesswork.
If you can simulate a solar system, that meets the requirements of big in my book :)
Not necessarily. How much is going on in those solar-systems? If it's just modelling a few spheres, that doesn't count.
Citation needed. I have nothing at all to go on to judge whether you are right, Junta is right, or both of you are wrong.
Thank you. It's a big lie: the Unreal engine is simply not 'free'. Make enough money and they charge royalties:
When you ship a game or application, you pay a 5% royalty on gross revenue after the first $3,000 per product, per quarter.
That's certainly an incredible price, and yes it's free if it's a not-for-profit project, but it's a damned lie to just call it 'free', and samzenpus does a disservice in doing so.
I don't recall Dubya calling himself green.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Pollution and mining accidents from coal kill far more people than nuclear accidents do.