That's not Opera's fault. The web-developer looks at the browser code, sees "Opera", assumes it's a non-compliant browser, and then feeds it trash. Trash-in / Trash-out. It's the developer's fault.
It's also why Opera features "mask as firefox or IE" to trick the web-developer to feed proper code. Then it renders perfectly. I've found several pages that failed to render or gave me an "Opera not supported" feedback, but never found a page that refused to render properly after I used the "mask" option.
Opera passes all the ACID tests, which is more than Firefox 3.6 or IE8 could claim.
>>>I don't think that Opera is ever going to be anything better than that "Weird browser which few people use" - not on desktops anyway.
And yet everyone keeps copying ideas from Opera: - tabbed browsing. - "paste and go" in the address bar - Opera Link (bookmarks stored online) - Opera Turbo (speeds-up phone connections) - Live Bookmarks - Speed Dial (copied by Chrome) - and on and on.
I installed the non-google Chromium 8 yesterday. It's okay but has various annoyances that make me want Opera or SeaMonkey instead. Like the "find" function is not as easy to use, and when you click on a Audio or Video link it doesn't open the link. It just sits there for a while with a little "tab" on the bottom and you have to click on it to open it up. It feels like an unfinished browser.
The one good thing about Chromium is the small size (about 40,000 kilobytes) in memory. Even SeaMonkey (120,000) isn't that small.
Aside -
Anyone know where I can find Puppy Browser (offshoot of firefox) for Windows? Or Mac? I have it on my linux laptop and would like to move it over to my Desktop PC.
>>>There's nothing cool about swastikas, even for Hindus (it's a sacred symbol after all).
Then how come they have swastikas all over their buildings? It's sacred but not hidden. They use the swastika as frequently as we use crosses. If Xbox Live ever extends to India, they'll have to adjust their policy of banning the swastika as "evil", else they'll be pissing off ~1/2 a billion potential users.
Next I suppose you'll argue we should ban the Star of David because Hitler used that too (it was a way to enforce segregation and eventually, mark people for death).
Nothing pisses me off more than people who think the world did not exist before 1900. A symbol that has thousands of years history should be judged on THAT history (i.e. a symbol of luck, health, etc) not the brief 15 year span of the Third Reich. If Hitler had used a Christian cross on his flag, would we then forever be forbidden from using it??? Bullshit.
THINK don't feel. Use your brain and logic like man; not emotions like an animal.
As I recall, I said that ALL these states deserve to be criticized, if they ask for a bailout. California AND Utah.
Also your numbers are skewed because a lot of that money directed to Utah, Wyoming, and other rural states actually goes toward the U.S.-owned property called national parks and military zones. The state or its citizens don't ever see the money.
>>>That's not an *another* war, but a logical continuation of the present series of battles.
I can't believe you're defending the Republi-crats.
The present series of battles and "logic" have nothing to do with one another. The logical response when they destroyed the WTC is the same as if someone blew-up your car: Replace the damaged item and get better security (like maybe a fence) to prevent a repeat. It is *not* logical to go-round shooting up the neighbors and killing 100,000 people, most of whom are innocent of the crime.
>>>Limiting me to one child when I can provide plenty of food for said child...
That's the point..... come the year 2050 when 600 million americans are present means there WON'T be enough food to go around. (Or oil which will be the cause of the food shortage.) .
>>>Asking me to fund said military just ensures a higher likelyhood that my family isnt among those who die.
They aren't asking. They are forcing you to fund military. And the innocents they kill.
So then you believe the government has Zero authority to enforce a quarantine. The next time there's a major breakout of Flu or plague, just let people roam around freely spreading the disease.
I may be Libertarian but even I am not that stupid. Enforce quarantine. The trampling of one person's freedom to travel (i.e. lock them in a home or hospital) is a small price compared to watching millions die if said person spread the virus.
LINK to the specific moment that caused the housing boom. The regulation made it impossible for banks to refuse mortgages, else they'd be charged with racism by the U.S. government. This is what caused the housing boom because it allowed *anyone* to buy a house, even if they were too poor to afford it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64#t=2m10s
Nah. What these ships need is the same thing cars have: Catalytic Converters.
If they can reduce pollution to less than 1% in cars (i.e. LEV standard), then they can do the same for ships. Probably as low as 0.1% because the larger scale would create better efficiency than cars have.
Citation please. I don't believe the problem is as widespread as you think. The Chinese seem generally pleased with the One Child policy, and less than 0.001% do the things you claim
>>>how about I choose a future in which there's plenty of food, energy
This future does not exist. When the oil becomes scarce, there's nothing to replace it. Sure we have solar but you'd have to pave-over half of the States with panels to get the same amount of energy that oil provides us, and since that's impractical, the US will be suffering an "energy drought" and have to revert to 1800s-style living (and population will shrink rapidly to ~100 million via starvation).
I'm sorry you want to stick your head in the ground like an ostrich and deny this will happen, but doing that won't make it go away.
I've heard that even if mankind disappeared tomorrow and therefore our CO2 output dropped to zero, greenhouse warming would still be happening because it's already been set in motion. It's now being pushed forward by water vapor, CO2 from volcanoes, and other factors that represent 95% of the "push" behind the change. (shrug)
As for "conspiracy" I don't buy that nonsense, but it's pretty obvious the Housing Boom was caused by an inadvertent mistake by the Clinton administration, specifically the HUD. They passed a regulation that made it illegal to deny a mortgage application even if the citizen was too poor to pay it back. Hence a run-away boom.
So yes we can blame the Democrats, or at least the ones who were in the white house in 1997.
Don't integrate as it gives power to strangers to wipe your gadgets (or possibly even read them).
Kinda similar to how back in the 80s a friend asked my password, and he decided to "teach" me a lesson by entering my BBS account and changing it. I thought I could trust a 10-year-long friend but after that event, I demoted all my friends to strangers and don't give them squat. "Trust No One"
Nah. What these ships need is the same thing cars have: Catalytic Converters.
If they can reduce pollution to less than 1% in cars (i.e. LEV standard), then they can do the same for ships. Probably as low as 0.1% because the larger scale would create better efficiency than cars have.
People who are against population control are Cold-hearted. The US is projected to be ~600 million by 2050 and the EU will be almost 1000 million. Due to an oil shortage (raising prices to ~$1000 a barrel) there will be a widespread shortage of food in people's homes, and millions of Americans and Europeans will starve.
People who choose this future are cold hearted. A wiser course is to limit the amount of babies produced so population will (1) hold steady from 2010-30 and then (2) go down to around 200 million by mid-century. To choose a future with unrestrained births, where millions of people will be starving is the ultimate inhumanity.
However libertarians do support the constitutional requirement that citizens must provide funding for an Army and Navy. Anarchists would call this "theft" but libertarians realize without the army/navy we could be invaded by England or Canada or Mexico or Japan, and we'd have no way to repel them.
Likewise given a choice between watching millions starve to death circa 2030 due to overpopulation and not enough food to go-round, or imposing a one baby policy, I'm choosing the second as more humane. The fact you say you would choose option 1 instead, leaving millions of 2030s Americans die of hunger because there's ~600 million of else and not enough food, makes me think you are Cold hearted.
>>>someone was holding up a brutal communist regime guilty of a plethora of human rights violations as a beacon of enlightenment
I never said that idiot. PLEASE learn to read. I said I agree with their ONE idea that population needs to be limited (else there will be rampant starvation/plague in the US and EU). Otherwise I think China is a despicable place that mistreats its workers and citizens.
So the Constitution is inhumane? It forces you to fund an army and navy that kills people. (Among other things.) See the world is not black and white. From time to time we must take a *small* amount of liberty in order to promote the common defense and/or avert catastrophe.
Such as forcing you to fund killing. Or lock you in a room against your will, after you commit a crime. Or isolate you in a room to prevent the spread of disease (quarantine). Or limit you to one child, in order to prevent an overpopulation crisis (and starvation et cetera).
Now granted we haven't reached that stage yet but many areas of the world, like China and India, have and so that's why the policy was enacted in China. It's only a matter of time 'til overpopulation crisis happens in the US and EU too..... isn't it better to control population NOW rather than after it's too late? (Just as we prepared for the Y2K disaster ahead, rather than wait for all our computers to crash.)
Or we could just ignore the problem and let Nature deal with it (rampant widespread death).
Of course "fetuses" are not babies, just as "toddlers" are not babies and "children" are not babies, and "teens" are not babies.
Words have meaning, and the guy didn't say "killing fetuses". He said "killing babies" i.e. the human state AFTER birth to about 2 years old. Killing babies is illegal now and would still be illegal under the One Child policy. It would be a charge of murder.
Oh and yes you committed a strawman argument. Why? Because you assumed I'm pro-abortion ("you think it's okay to kill unborn babies"). You assumed wrong. Damn Jew or Christ or Muslim jackass.
You know it helps if you READ instead of guess. I said *90s* not 70s, and the specific *regulation* (not law) made it impossible for banks to refuse mortgages, else they'd be charged with racism by the U.S. government. This is what caused the housing boom because it allowed *anyone* to buy a house, even if they were too poor to afford it.
Difficult to cite television shows. But just last week NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, Syfy, Bravo, Telemundo, etc celebrated "green week" and it included some of those tales about how heat waves prove global warming.
I also thought it was funny when they said last winter's record snowfall proved global warming as well. Something about warmer air holding more snow. Yeah. Sure. Except it wasn't a record anywhere but Baltimore and DC. Elsewhere like PennsylvaniA the snowfall was not unusual, AND the record was set in the 1950s (5 feet).
>>>raise the standard of living for everyone by encouraging urbanization and free trade
Great. And what happens to that plan when oil becomes as scarce as gold and skyrockets to $1000 a barrel by 2020? It will fall apart. Depopulation is the only solution to an overpopulation problem.
Also it's not inhumane to snip a man's (or woman's) tubes after he has 1 child. It's an extremely simple and painless procedure, and not the least bit equivalent to waterboarding (suffocation).
>>>You know, all the rhetoric doesn't quite obfuscate the basic truth there. We do need to downsize the population before some natural mechanism kicks in and does it for us. There is an upper limit on how many people this planet can support.... >>>
Neither is forcing people to fund an army but sometimes it becomes necessary to lose a *little* liberty in order to avert future disaster (i.e. invasion or overpopulation-induced starvation).
You see... you confuse libertarianism with anarchy, and they are not the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not Opera's fault. The web-developer looks at the browser code, sees "Opera", assumes it's a non-compliant browser, and then feeds it trash. Trash-in / Trash-out. It's the developer's fault.
It's also why Opera features "mask as firefox or IE" to trick the web-developer to feed proper code. Then it renders perfectly. I've found several pages that failed to render or gave me an "Opera not supported" feedback, but never found a page that refused to render properly after I used the "mask" option.
Opera passes all the ACID tests, which is more than Firefox 3.6 or IE8 could claim.
>>>I don't think that Opera is ever going to be anything better than that "Weird browser which few people use" - not on desktops anyway.
And yet everyone keeps copying ideas from Opera:
- tabbed browsing.
- "paste and go" in the address bar
- Opera Link (bookmarks stored online)
- Opera Turbo (speeds-up phone connections)
- Live Bookmarks
- Speed Dial (copied by Chrome)
- and on and on.
Opera is the innovator that everyone else copies.
I installed the non-google Chromium 8 yesterday. It's okay but has various annoyances that make me want Opera or SeaMonkey instead. Like the "find" function is not as easy to use, and when you click on a Audio or Video link it doesn't open the link. It just sits there for a while with a little "tab" on the bottom and you have to click on it to open it up. It feels like an unfinished browser.
The one good thing about Chromium is the small size (about 40,000 kilobytes) in memory. Even SeaMonkey (120,000) isn't that small.
Aside -
Anyone know where I can find Puppy Browser (offshoot of firefox) for Windows? Or Mac? I have it on my linux laptop and would like to move it over to my Desktop PC.
>>>There's nothing cool about swastikas, even for Hindus (it's a sacred symbol after all).
Then how come they have swastikas all over their buildings? It's sacred but not hidden. They use the swastika as frequently as we use crosses. If Xbox Live ever extends to India, they'll have to adjust their policy of banning the swastika as "evil", else they'll be pissing off ~1/2 a billion potential users.
Next I suppose you'll argue we should ban the Star of David because Hitler used that too (it was a way to enforce segregation and eventually, mark people for death).
Nothing pisses me off more than people who think the world did not exist before 1900. A symbol that has thousands of years history should be judged on THAT history (i.e. a symbol of luck, health, etc) not the brief 15 year span of the Third Reich. If Hitler had used a Christian cross on his flag, would we then forever be forbidden from using it??? Bullshit.
THINK don't feel. Use your brain and logic like man; not emotions like an animal.
>>>Who's bailing out who exactly?
As I recall, I said that ALL these states deserve to be criticized, if they ask for a bailout. California AND Utah.
Also your numbers are skewed because a lot of that money directed to Utah, Wyoming, and other rural states actually goes toward the U.S.-owned property called national parks and military zones. The state or its citizens don't ever see the money.
>>>That's not an *another* war, but a logical continuation of the present series of battles.
I can't believe you're defending the Republi-crats.
The present series of battles and "logic" have nothing to do with one another. The logical response when they destroyed the WTC is the same as if someone blew-up your car: Replace the damaged item and get better security (like maybe a fence) to prevent a repeat. It is *not* logical to go-round shooting up the neighbors and killing 100,000 people, most of whom are innocent of the crime.
>>>Limiting me to one child when I can provide plenty of food for said child...
That's the point..... come the year 2050 when 600 million americans are present means there WON'T be enough food to go around. (Or oil which will be the cause of the food shortage.)
.
>>>Asking me to fund said military just ensures a higher likelyhood that my family isnt among those who die.
They aren't asking.
They are forcing you to fund military.
And the innocents they kill.
So then you believe the government has Zero authority to enforce a quarantine. The next time there's a major breakout of Flu or plague, just let people roam around freely spreading the disease.
I may be Libertarian but even I am not that stupid. Enforce quarantine. The trampling of one person's freedom to travel (i.e. lock them in a home or hospital) is a small price compared to watching millions die if said person spread the virus.
LINK to the specific moment that caused the housing boom. The regulation made it impossible for banks to refuse mortgages, else they'd be charged with racism by the U.S. government. This is what caused the housing boom because it allowed *anyone* to buy a house, even if they were too poor to afford it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64#t=2m10s
Nah. What these ships need is the same thing cars have: Catalytic Converters.
If they can reduce pollution to less than 1% in cars (i.e. LEV standard), then they can do the same for ships. Probably as low as 0.1% because the larger scale would create better efficiency than cars have.
Citation please. I don't believe the problem is as widespread as you think. The Chinese seem generally pleased with the One Child policy, and less than 0.001% do the things you claim
>>>how about I choose a future in which there's plenty of food, energy
This future does not exist. When the oil becomes scarce, there's nothing to replace it. Sure we have solar but you'd have to pave-over half of the States with panels to get the same amount of energy that oil provides us, and since that's impractical, the US will be suffering an "energy drought" and have to revert to 1800s-style living (and population will shrink rapidly to ~100 million via starvation).
I'm sorry you want to stick your head in the ground like an ostrich and deny this will happen, but doing that won't make it go away.
I've heard that even if mankind disappeared tomorrow and therefore our CO2 output dropped to zero, greenhouse warming would still be happening because it's already been set in motion. It's now being pushed forward by water vapor, CO2 from volcanoes, and other factors that represent 95% of the "push" behind the change.
(shrug)
As for "conspiracy" I don't buy that nonsense, but it's pretty obvious the Housing Boom was caused by an inadvertent mistake by the Clinton administration, specifically the HUD. They passed a regulation that made it illegal to deny a mortgage application even if the citizen was too poor to pay it back. Hence a run-away boom.
So yes we can blame the Democrats, or at least the ones who were in the white house in 1997.
Don't integrate as it gives power to strangers to wipe your gadgets (or possibly even read them).
Kinda similar to how back in the 80s a friend asked my password, and he decided to "teach" me a lesson by entering my BBS account and changing it. I thought I could trust a 10-year-long friend but after that event, I demoted all my friends to strangers and don't give them squat. "Trust No One"
"apology is policy"
Nah. What these ships need is the same thing cars have: Catalytic Converters.
If they can reduce pollution to less than 1% in cars (i.e. LEV standard), then they can do the same for ships. Probably as low as 0.1% because the larger scale would create better efficiency than cars have.
+1.
People who are against population control are Cold-hearted. The US is projected to be ~600 million by 2050 and the EU will be almost 1000 million. Due to an oil shortage (raising prices to ~$1000 a barrel) there will be a widespread shortage of food in people's homes, and millions of Americans and Europeans will starve.
People who choose this future are cold hearted. A wiser course is to limit the amount of babies produced so population will (1) hold steady from 2010-30 and then (2) go down to around 200 million by mid-century. To choose a future with unrestrained births, where millions of people will be starving is the ultimate inhumanity.
>>>So libertarians are for the draft
Did I say that. Even once? No.
However libertarians do support the constitutional requirement that citizens must provide funding for an Army and Navy. Anarchists would call this "theft" but libertarians realize without the army/navy we could be invaded by England or Canada or Mexico or Japan, and we'd have no way to repel them.
Likewise given a choice between watching millions starve to death circa 2030 due to overpopulation and not enough food to go-round, or imposing a one baby policy, I'm choosing the second as more humane. The fact you say you would choose option 1 instead, leaving millions of 2030s Americans die of hunger because there's ~600 million of else and not enough food, makes me think you are Cold hearted.
>>>someone was holding up a brutal communist regime guilty of a plethora of human rights violations as a beacon of enlightenment
I never said that idiot. PLEASE learn to read. I said I agree with their ONE idea that population needs to be limited (else there will be rampant starvation/plague in the US and EU). Otherwise I think China is a despicable place that mistreats its workers and citizens.
So the Constitution is inhumane? It forces you to fund an army and navy that kills people. (Among other things.) See the world is not black and white. From time to time we must take a *small* amount of liberty in order to promote the common defense and/or avert catastrophe.
Such as forcing you to fund killing.
Or lock you in a room against your will, after you commit a crime.
Or isolate you in a room to prevent the spread of disease (quarantine).
Or limit you to one child, in order to prevent an overpopulation crisis (and starvation et cetera).
Now granted we haven't reached that stage yet but many areas of the world, like China and India, have and so that's why the policy was enacted in China. It's only a matter of time 'til overpopulation crisis happens in the US and EU too..... isn't it better to control population NOW rather than after it's too late? (Just as we prepared for the Y2K disaster ahead, rather than wait for all our computers to crash.)
Or we could just ignore the problem and let Nature deal with it (rampant widespread death).
Of course "fetuses" are not babies, just as "toddlers" are not babies and "children" are not babies, and "teens" are not babies.
Words have meaning, and the guy didn't say "killing fetuses". He said "killing babies" i.e. the human state AFTER birth to about 2 years old. Killing babies is illegal now and would still be illegal under the One Child policy. It would be a charge of murder.
Oh and yes you committed a strawman argument.
Why?
Because you assumed I'm pro-abortion ("you think it's okay to kill unborn babies"). You assumed wrong. Damn Jew or Christ or Muslim jackass.
You know it helps if you READ instead of guess. I said *90s* not 70s, and the specific *regulation* (not law) made it impossible for banks to refuse mortgages, else they'd be charged with racism by the U.S. government. This is what caused the housing boom because it allowed *anyone* to buy a house, even if they were too poor to afford it.
LINK to the specific moment that caused the housing boom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64#t=2m10s
Difficult to cite television shows. But just last week NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, Syfy, Bravo, Telemundo, etc celebrated "green week" and it included some of those tales about how heat waves prove global warming.
I also thought it was funny when they said last winter's record snowfall proved global warming as well. Something about warmer air holding more snow. Yeah. Sure. Except it wasn't a record anywhere but Baltimore and DC. Elsewhere like PennsylvaniA the snowfall was not unusual, AND the record was set in the 1950s (5 feet).
>>>raise the standard of living for everyone by encouraging urbanization and free trade
Great. And what happens to that plan when oil becomes as scarce as gold and skyrockets to $1000 a barrel by 2020? It will fall apart. Depopulation is the only solution to an overpopulation problem.
Also it's not inhumane to snip a man's (or woman's) tubes after he has 1 child. It's an extremely simple and painless procedure, and not the least bit equivalent to waterboarding (suffocation).
>>>You know, all the rhetoric doesn't quite obfuscate the basic truth there. We do need to downsize the population before some natural mechanism kicks in and does it for us. There is an upper limit on how many people this planet can support....
>>>
+1 diplomatic
Neither is forcing people to fund an army but sometimes it becomes necessary to lose a *little* liberty in order to avert future disaster (i.e. invasion or overpopulation-induced starvation).
You see... you confuse libertarianism with anarchy, and they are not the same thing.