The zoom in Opera is not supposed to be pinch zooming. Just tap where you want to zoom, as that's how it's supposed to work. Trying to get it working like Safari will just cause frustration. Use it the way it was meant to be used.
It works fine with HTTPS. The server and client use encryption. Of course, you should avoid entering your banking details if you don't trust Opera Software, but most people probably won't care. I certainly don't. Opera is not going to spy on anyone.
Why did the Slashdot editors even bother to link to this single-page piece of text? Why this exact review? Weren't all the reviews that praise Opera Mini pro-Apple enough for you or something?
The problems: Doesn't take the page width into account (in fact, it's the opposite. Text is wrapped to fit the screen width even before you zoom in. This can be disabled in the opera:config page), doesn't resize the screen when you rotate (since the server does the page handling you'll have to reload the page to make the server send it in a new width. Duh), page zooming is clumsy (that's because you are just supposed to touch where you want it to zoom. It's just a single step zoom, so the pinch zoom is a fake emulated one), problems with pages (you get lots of site problems with Safari too), can't import bookmarks, and doesn't have a spelling checker. Oh, and it can't be set as the default browser.
So my summary: Several non-issues, one problem that is shared by Safari, and lack of a spelling checker and a default browser setting.
This review is simply garbage. Why is Slashdot linking to it?
Vastly inferior? I find the zooming much easier because I don't have to mess around with multiple levels (although that can of course be useful sometimes), and it obviously loads pages a hell of a lot faster than Safari. It also has better tabbed browsing, text search on the page, etc.
People use Opera for many different reasons. One of the main reasons to use Opera Mini in particular is that it's insanely fast at loading pages. And it saves you a lot of money if you pay for your bandwidth usage.
I'm hesitant to say too much about this case because there are a lot of rumors flying around. However, one thing that isn't getting much coverage in all of this is that these guys were apparently a couple of "divas". Very demanding, refusing to do what they were paid to, etc. If that is the case, then I fear that switching to a different publisher will only cause history to repeat itself for them. If they are indeed divas who refuse to do their job the way the people who fund them expect them to, then they will definitely get in trouble at EA as well.
But again, rumours are flying all over the place, so don't take my word for it. I thought I would just offer a slightly different perspective than what you see in most of these articles.
In it you'll see the whole picture, including how the 'bongo truck' was never armed and was never legal to attack under the rules of engagement.
So if Osama Bin Laden is shot in the leg and his followers drive by in a civilian car to pick him off and drive away, there's nothing anyone can do?
And that poor bastard strolling down the sidewalk who eats a missile.
Who? When in the full video is that?
And then all the bystanders looking at the building who eat two more. You'll also hear them discuss how they only decided to switch to using missiles on civilians once their 30 mil ran out of ammo.
Again, when and where in the full video?
There entire picture shows very much the video game mentality, and it frames the carelessness of the initial encounter quite well.
There's no carelessness. They clearly point out multiple armed individuals before they are given permission to attack, and the ground troops even discover an RPG round next to one of the bodies.
Yes, war is hell. In the video, though, only the Army is at war. For all the dead Iraqi's, it was 'Thursday'. They had no reasonable expectation that they would be murdered by the military that day.
They carried weapons. They were in an area from which US troops had been attacked. You have failed to produce anything but empty claims, and silly appeals to emotion.
In that case, that just confirms that they did in fact see an RPG while it's more difficult to see one in the video. After all, the ground troops found an RPG round next to one of the bodies.
This is completely false. They did in fact look for weapons, and the alleged enemy combatants were carrying AK-47s. The ground troops also confirmed RPGs, as an RPG round was found next to one of the bodies. If the pilots had a better view than the cameras we are seeing the result of, then we know that they did indeed see the RPG they mentioned several times.
A few seconds before they fire on the van, while the guys in the chopper are swearing about how they want permission to fire.
That's because they believe they are looking at the enemy. And indeed, the group that was shot carried AK-47s, and they found an RPG round next to one of the bodies. Their own troops had been attacked from that area, so they wanted to remove that threat and prevent those attackers from attacking again.
Please keep in mind that what the soldiers in the helicopter see isn't a 360p youtube video (this is obvious from comments they make about details which aren't visible in the youtube video due to the low resolution).
The video resolution is 480p, and you can even download the original video yourself.
Towards the end of the short video when mention of the kids come up one of the chopper guys says it serves them right for bringing their kids to a battle.
This is a blatant lie. The immediate reaction to a kid being wounded is "ah, damn", and a little later, "it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle".
Their level of hatred and eagerness to kill was conspicuous, and their laughter at the desecration of a body being run over by a vehicle chilling.
They were eager to kill an enemy which had just fired upon their own troops from that area (15:28 in the video).
You can see that there is a command and control structure in place no doubt designed to prevent this sort of thing where they have to request permission to engage, but when they lie saying that they've encountered hostiles with AK47s and RPGs, then of course they get permission and that check is totally bypassed, allowing them the slaughter they're so obviously craving. The structure is professional, but it is totally subverted by the butchers on the trigger.
This couldn't be more wrong. The fact is that the group they fired upon was carrying AK-47s, and they found an RPG round next to one of the bodies (19:20 in the video). But of course, simple facts won't help when dealing with your personal hatred.
But the commitment to professionalism of the higher ups also comes into question when they cover this up rather than bringing these bastards up on charges. In so doing they subvert the very structures they've set in place. In a situation like that, truth is sacred not for any philosophical reasons, but because it is essential to operations, the system depends on it so completely.
How did they cover it up? What charges should they be brought up on? It looks to me like they followed procedure. Did you actually watch the video, or are you just spouting nonsense based on your own ignorance and bigotry?
Listen to the comments by the pilots, they beg to fire on clearly unarmed people in civilian clothing. Then when they learn they fire on kids, they say "well that should teach them not to take kids into battle".
You are twisting their words and being dishonest about the context. They honestly believe they are looking at an enemy combatant. Indeed, the ground troops found an RPG rounds next to the bodies (19:20 in the video), and there are AK-47s! US troops were also taking fire from that area (15:28). They want to kill a deadly enemy, not a civilian.
As for the comment about the kids, the immediate comment when it turns out a child is wonded is "ah, damn" at 17:15 in the video. And their actual comment is not "that should teach them", but "it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle" at 18:09. In other words, they are shaken by the fact that there are kids, but they also have to focus on their job, so they put the blame on the people who actually brought the kids there.
So because companies that contributed to GSM get to license the patent under RAND, that means that Apple, a company which contributed SHIT to GSM should be able to just leech off the IP of the companies who contributed to GSM? The blatant hypocrisy of insane Apple fanboys is amazing.
The only problem is, unlike with every other company Nokia will not except ONLY money in the case of Apple - they also demand cross-licencing of patents (presumably similar to the ones in question).
Yes, cross-licensing. Just like they are doing with all other mobile manufacturers.
Why do you think it's fair that Nokia can demand different terms from licensers of a technology
They aren't demanding anything different. They are demanding the same as from other manufacturers.
Apple has a lawsuit going there, demanding they be able to pay Nokia as per normal terms.
No, Apple has a lawsuit going on because they refused to follow the rules everyone else is following, and felt so special they didn't think it was necessary to honor the IP of other companies. But now they are suing HTC over their own IP. Blatantly hypocritical bullshit.
It seems that what you are saying is that Google as a company doesn't really care about OSS except when it's good for the bottom line, but individual employees may care. Just like Microsoft. As a company, Microsoft is evil (not saying that Google is), but there are still a lot of good, decent, clever people working there.
Hardware support for Theora is easy to fix, especially because you don't have to sacrifice your firstborn to support it, unlike the licensing fees for H.264.
I suggest the exact opposite - if IE stood alone development would have been accelerated.
It pretty much did. And what happened? Microsoft disbanded the IE team! Did that accelerate development? Heh.
The funny part of your claim is that for all intents and purposes IE did drive all other browsers out of the market circa 2000 if you consider pure market share. This fact alone pretty much nulls your argument.
The argument isn't invalid just because the year was wrong. Desperate much?
Users of Windows were already free to choose any browser they wish to use; there was no increase in "freedom" due to the EU's meaningless requirement.
There was, because the user now gets to choose what to use from the start. Further to that, the browser ballot both punishes Microsoft for its wrongdoings, and helps prevent it from happening again.
If Microsoft was preventing users from downloading or installing alternative browsers I would applaud the actions of the EU.
Microsoft actively tried to prevent people from using other browsers, using anything from bullying of OEMs, to tying web technologies to IE and Windows. I suggest that you educate yourself on Microsoft's abusive history.
Every single modern operating system comes bundled with software and users now expect this.
And Windows still comes bundled with browsers. Your point?
Microsoft is a monopoly according to the law. Monopolies, according to the law, can exist even when there are others in the market. Apple is not a monopoly. Apple has a "monopoly" over its own products, but that's a completely different thing.
Slashdot Mirror
The zoom in Opera is not supposed to be pinch zooming. Just tap where you want to zoom, as that's how it's supposed to work. Trying to get it working like Safari will just cause frustration. Use it the way it was meant to be used.
It works fine with HTTPS. The server and client use encryption. Of course, you should avoid entering your banking details if you don't trust Opera Software, but most people probably won't care. I certainly don't. Opera is not going to spy on anyone.
The problems: Doesn't take the page width into account (in fact, it's the opposite. Text is wrapped to fit the screen width even before you zoom in. This can be disabled in the opera:config page), doesn't resize the screen when you rotate (since the server does the page handling you'll have to reload the page to make the server send it in a new width. Duh), page zooming is clumsy (that's because you are just supposed to touch where you want it to zoom. It's just a single step zoom, so the pinch zoom is a fake emulated one), problems with pages (you get lots of site problems with Safari too), can't import bookmarks, and doesn't have a spelling checker. Oh, and it can't be set as the default browser.
So my summary: Several non-issues, one problem that is shared by Safari, and lack of a spelling checker and a default browser setting.
This review is simply garbage. Why is Slashdot linking to it?
Since Opera Mini compresses pages up to 90% it won't end up being that expensive.
But hey, keep hatin'!
People use Opera for many different reasons. One of the main reasons to use Opera Mini in particular is that it's insanely fast at loading pages. And it saves you a lot of money if you pay for your bandwidth usage.
Opera Mini is just a thin client. I don't think they need a lot of compatibility layers for that.
But again, rumours are flying all over the place, so don't take my word for it. I thought I would just offer a slightly different perspective than what you see in most of these articles.
So if Osama Bin Laden is shot in the leg and his followers drive by in a civilian car to pick him off and drive away, there's nothing anyone can do?
Who? When in the full video is that?
Again, when and where in the full video?
There's no carelessness. They clearly point out multiple armed individuals before they are given permission to attack, and the ground troops even discover an RPG round next to one of the bodies.
They carried weapons. They were in an area from which US troops had been attacked. You have failed to produce anything but empty claims, and silly appeals to emotion.
In that case, that just confirms that they did in fact see an RPG while it's more difficult to see one in the video. After all, the ground troops found an RPG round next to one of the bodies.
This is completely false. They did in fact look for weapons, and the alleged enemy combatants were carrying AK-47s. The ground troops also confirmed RPGs, as an RPG round was found next to one of the bodies. If the pilots had a better view than the cameras we are seeing the result of, then we know that they did indeed see the RPG they mentioned several times.
That's because they believe they are looking at the enemy. And indeed, the group that was shot carried AK-47s, and they found an RPG round next to one of the bodies. Their own troops had been attacked from that area, so they wanted to remove that threat and prevent those attackers from attacking again.
The video resolution is 480p, and you can even download the original video yourself.
This is a blatant lie. The immediate reaction to a kid being wounded is "ah, damn", and a little later, "it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle".
They were eager to kill an enemy which had just fired upon their own troops from that area (15:28 in the video).
This couldn't be more wrong. The fact is that the group they fired upon was carrying AK-47s, and they found an RPG round next to one of the bodies (19:20 in the video). But of course, simple facts won't help when dealing with your personal hatred.
How did they cover it up? What charges should they be brought up on? It looks to me like they followed procedure. Did you actually watch the video, or are you just spouting nonsense based on your own ignorance and bigotry?
You are twisting their words and being dishonest about the context. They honestly believe they are looking at an enemy combatant. Indeed, the ground troops found an RPG rounds next to the bodies (19:20 in the video), and there are AK-47s! US troops were also taking fire from that area (15:28). They want to kill a deadly enemy, not a civilian.
As for the comment about the kids, the immediate comment when it turns out a child is wonded is "ah, damn" at 17:15 in the video. And their actual comment is not "that should teach them", but "it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle" at 18:09. In other words, they are shaken by the fact that there are kids, but they also have to focus on their job, so they put the blame on the people who actually brought the kids there.
Nice try, though.
So because companies that contributed to GSM get to license the patent under RAND, that means that Apple, a company which contributed SHIT to GSM should be able to just leech off the IP of the companies who contributed to GSM? The blatant hypocrisy of insane Apple fanboys is amazing.
Yes, cross-licensing. Just like they are doing with all other mobile manufacturers.
They aren't demanding anything different. They are demanding the same as from other manufacturers.
No, Apple has a lawsuit going on because they refused to follow the rules everyone else is following, and felt so special they didn't think it was necessary to honor the IP of other companies. But now they are suing HTC over their own IP. Blatantly hypocritical bullshit.
It seems that what you are saying is that Google as a company doesn't really care about OSS except when it's good for the bottom line, but individual employees may care. Just like Microsoft. As a company, Microsoft is evil (not saying that Google is), but there are still a lot of good, decent, clever people working there.
Unfortunately, W3Counter isn't very reliable. Neither is Net Applications, but W3Counter is probably worse.
Give Opera 10.5 a try, then.
Hardware support for Theora is easy to fix, especially because you don't have to sacrifice your firstborn to support it, unlike the licensing fees for H.264.
What a great argument for taking away the choice from everyone else!
It pretty much did. And what happened? Microsoft disbanded the IE team! Did that accelerate development? Heh.
The argument isn't invalid just because the year was wrong. Desperate much?
There was, because the user now gets to choose what to use from the start. Further to that, the browser ballot both punishes Microsoft for its wrongdoings, and helps prevent it from happening again.
Microsoft actively tried to prevent people from using other browsers, using anything from bullying of OEMs, to tying web technologies to IE and Windows. I suggest that you educate yourself on Microsoft's abusive history.
And Windows still comes bundled with browsers. Your point?
Does Chrome OS hold a monopoly in the market?
How about educating yourself instead of expecting everyone else to feed it to you with a spoon?
Microsoft is a monopoly according to the law. Monopolies, according to the law, can exist even when there are others in the market. Apple is not a monopoly. Apple has a "monopoly" over its own products, but that's a completely different thing.