Products are things that you pay for. Desktop Opera was not a product for well over a decade. I was really sad when they didn't want my money for it anymore.
What people think of as desktop opera is not a product. It's a, well, frankly I don't know what the heck is it. Promotional material, maybe? The best I can tell, they get zero revenue from it. The money comes from the codebase they license to various embedded vendors, like Nintendo, for example.
I really can't fathom what's the use of desktop Opera other than browsing porn or similar image-heavy galleries. It's really nice when you've got lots and lots of images - like perhaps thousands per page. Other than that, the desktop version seems somewhat pointless. It was useful as a main browser back in the days of Windows 95, but those days are long gone.
I would only use it as a main browser if there was a paid version available, where the users had some input into the direction the development is taking. I did pay for it back when it was still paid-for, and I knew that it's going to stop mattering as soon as they stop taking money for it.
As someone who switched from 10.6 and 10.8 (on various machines) to 10.9 within a week of release, I really don't know what the heck is the complaint. It works fine, on what passes for "ancient" hardware (Core 2 Duo machines, 4-7 years old).
I never bothered with summer tires. I really don't see what you'd need them for unless you're into racing or something like that. Driving speed limits on dry hot pavement doesn't require summer tires. Neither does driving on said pavement, at speed limits, during or after a summer rain. Neither does summer driving on unpaved or poorly paved roads. I think that summer tires are one of those things that are more for entertainment value than anything tangible.
You have no idea of the scale of the U.S. It doesn't help if you get to know in the middle of the night (literally) that the weather is going to turn to shit. There is no snow equipment within the driving distance allowed to make any difference. They would have needed trucks out on the roads by 3-4AM, at the latest, if those were local crews who knew where the heck they are going. For out of state crews to be effective, they'd have needed to get the people and equipment on the interstate, going towards Atlanta, at least 24 hours in advance - and they didn't have such advance notice.
So, to sum it up, you're just talking out of your ass.
Given that $800 is a rather normal price for a set of good all-seasons, it's not that far off the mark, I'd say. Anything with a bit larger tires, like an SUV, can easily cost $1200 for a set of 4 all seasons.
Never mind that if it's cold, a layer of packed snow on a road quickly turns into a layer of ice. It's for the same reason that we have glaciers made of ice when it's only snow on top. Tire loads slowly change the structure of the snow, eventually making it mechanically similar to a polished layer of chrome (hard stuff) on plastic.
Who the heck would put chains on for 2-3 inches of snow? You don't need it, unless maybe if you're in the mountains. That's barely enough for the chains not to damage the pavement. Same goes for snow tires. Yes, they help, but I've driven for a decade without bothering with snow tires, and I manage. It's a bit harder maybe, but it shouldn't paralyze a city. The whole problem was only in people's heads, it had nothing to do with snow. It suddenly turned OK drivers into idiots. There seriously was nothing that anyone needed to do, nobody was at fault except people on the roads.
The big elephant in the room is: why the heck can't just people drive with some snow on the road, like, you know, people elsewhere in the road do? What's so special about Atlanta wussies that they can't just *drive*? Why do they need to fucking stop their cars and lament? Why oh why oh why?
I don't play myself, but a colleague has shown me how much damage one can do in a newb space with a suitably strong ship. From what I recall, Concord was no match for a good while. Maybe I'm just misremembering, it was a while ago.
That's some misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is, right there. A theory must have predictive power - it must be useful for something, that is. Electromagnetic theory, so far, is extremely successful precisely because it works where we need it to work. The monopole demonstration doesn't change it one iota - neither your computer nor your electric plant have stopped working overnight.
It doesn't matter in practice that it doesn't work everywhere, and there's no need to rewrite anything and there's no contradiction. We know that the classical theory of electromagnetism, well, applies to classical scale phenomena, under certain conditions. No scientist in their sane mind would insist that this effect contradicts the classical theory. It's simply outside of the classical theory's scope, just as relativistic effects are outside of the realm of classical mechanics.
The real problem is with extremely widespread, naive understanding of what a scientific theory is and that there are limits to applicability of any scientific theory of nature. The phrase "law of nature" is perhaps the biggest romanticism-imbued snafu there ever was in popularization of science.
Bullshit. Electric motors are limited by the performance of the conductors and the good old magnetic path where the monopoles are of no help. Electric motors with superconducting windings have been built, and they are pretty damn efficient. Heck, stock brushless electric motors are already pretty damn efficient.
Bigger and more expensive is not necessarily better
This is true in many games. Even in something as simplistic as Kenway's Fleet minigame in AC4, you will be bleeding time and money by only using the most powerful, most damage-resistant ships. Many battles take more than a minute of real time with big, heavy ships, that would take just one salvo to be finished with a fast schooner or two. That's just a very trivial example, of course.
Are you serious?? This time dilated, point-and-click style of play is quite visible, and it sucks. It's almost like a card game with visual effects thrown in as a second thought. It's a game where flying is like entering data into the fucking flight management system on an A340, as far as I can tell. If you call that fun, you're nuts, as far as I'm concerned. Ask any professional pilot how much fun FMS is, and the answer equally applies to EVE Online. To me, a space battle is when you need to keep a 3D representation of what's where to some extent in your own brain, and actually use proportional controls to steer the ship, acquire targets, etc. There were some simulator games in the 90s that were way more fun to play than that thing.
You're just making stuff up as you go along. Seriously.
There is no useful string algorithm where the Nth unit of the string is "interesting" without first looking at the N-1 preceding units in order to calculate N
So obviously, the scenario of having fixed-format strings and having to extract something from their middle is not a useful string algorithm to you?
I suspect also you think UTF-16 is fixed-size
You really missed where I said "use UCS-2 - a fixed-width encoding, as opposed to say UTF-16". Use of any non-fixed-width encoding inside of a string class implies that you must use iterators instead of integer indices, otherwise every indexed string access has O(N) cost. The workaround is to embed index marks within the string, but then you have internal representation that can't interoperate as-is with anything else out there.
however you cannot change it to a version that does not throw exceptions on UTF-8 encoding errors
Qt doesn't explicitly throw. It is mostly exception safe when faced with exceptions thrown in user code, but that's it. None of its own code throws. QTextCodec IIRC by default replaces undecodable input by the unicode replacement character. Where the heck did you get the idea about exceptions and Qt?
Based on a non-article? I sure hope your mission itself isn't all that critical, 'cuz you fail at reading, and Cogswell fails at articulating his thoughts, if he has any worth articulating, that is.
It's even worse: I just have no idea what the article's point is, other than having a stab at some poor-man's innuendo. It's like if the author set out to write something, then promptly forgot what. Definitely doesn't cog well, that one.
You probably have buggy code that depended on implementation-defined behavior (or even undefined behavior), and it came back to bite you. It's on you to instrument your app to get crash reports and figure out what went wrong - if it's "broken" under both 4.7 and 4.8, it's very likely your own bug.
Slashdot Mirror
Products are things that you pay for. Desktop Opera was not a product for well over a decade. I was really sad when they didn't want my money for it anymore.
You do realize that the server-side anything was, and is, an option that's off by default?
What people think of as desktop opera is not a product. It's a, well, frankly I don't know what the heck is it. Promotional material, maybe? The best I can tell, they get zero revenue from it. The money comes from the codebase they license to various embedded vendors, like Nintendo, for example.
I really can't fathom what's the use of desktop Opera other than browsing porn or similar image-heavy galleries. It's really nice when you've got lots and lots of images - like perhaps thousands per page. Other than that, the desktop version seems somewhat pointless. It was useful as a main browser back in the days of Windows 95, but those days are long gone.
I would only use it as a main browser if there was a paid version available, where the users had some input into the direction the development is taking. I did pay for it back when it was still paid-for, and I knew that it's going to stop mattering as soon as they stop taking money for it.
As someone who switched from 10.6 and 10.8 (on various machines) to 10.9 within a week of release, I really don't know what the heck is the complaint. It works fine, on what passes for "ancient" hardware (Core 2 Duo machines, 4-7 years old).
I never bothered with summer tires. I really don't see what you'd need them for unless you're into racing or something like that. Driving speed limits on dry hot pavement doesn't require summer tires. Neither does driving on said pavement, at speed limits, during or after a summer rain. Neither does summer driving on unpaved or poorly paved roads. I think that summer tires are one of those things that are more for entertainment value than anything tangible.
1. You have non-local crews that will take longer to figure out where they are going and what to do there.
2. You need to drive those crews into Atlanta from hundreds of miles away.
3. Those trucks don't really go above 65mph.
4. They knew it's going to turn bad ~4 hours before the morning commute started.
So, now you understand.
You have no idea of the scale of the U.S. It doesn't help if you get to know in the middle of the night (literally) that the weather is going to turn to shit. There is no snow equipment within the driving distance allowed to make any difference. They would have needed trucks out on the roads by 3-4AM, at the latest, if those were local crews who knew where the heck they are going. For out of state crews to be effective, they'd have needed to get the people and equipment on the interstate, going towards Atlanta, at least 24 hours in advance - and they didn't have such advance notice.
So, to sum it up, you're just talking out of your ass.
Given that $800 is a rather normal price for a set of good all-seasons, it's not that far off the mark, I'd say. Anything with a bit larger tires, like an SUV, can easily cost $1200 for a set of 4 all seasons.
Never mind that if it's cold, a layer of packed snow on a road quickly turns into a layer of ice. It's for the same reason that we have glaciers made of ice when it's only snow on top. Tire loads slowly change the structure of the snow, eventually making it mechanically similar to a polished layer of chrome (hard stuff) on plastic.
Who the heck would put chains on for 2-3 inches of snow? You don't need it, unless maybe if you're in the mountains. That's barely enough for the chains not to damage the pavement. Same goes for snow tires. Yes, they help, but I've driven for a decade without bothering with snow tires, and I manage. It's a bit harder maybe, but it shouldn't paralyze a city. The whole problem was only in people's heads, it had nothing to do with snow. It suddenly turned OK drivers into idiots. There seriously was nothing that anyone needed to do, nobody was at fault except people on the roads.
The big elephant in the room is: why the heck can't just people drive with some snow on the road, like, you know, people elsewhere in the road do? What's so special about Atlanta wussies that they can't just *drive*? Why do they need to fucking stop their cars and lament? Why oh why oh why?
:) Someone gets it, at least.
I don't play myself, but a colleague has shown me how much damage one can do in a newb space with a suitably strong ship. From what I recall, Concord was no match for a good while. Maybe I'm just misremembering, it was a while ago.
That's some misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is, right there. A theory must have predictive power - it must be useful for something, that is. Electromagnetic theory, so far, is extremely successful precisely because it works where we need it to work. The monopole demonstration doesn't change it one iota - neither your computer nor your electric plant have stopped working overnight.
It doesn't matter in practice that it doesn't work everywhere, and there's no need to rewrite anything and there's no contradiction. We know that the classical theory of electromagnetism, well, applies to classical scale phenomena, under certain conditions. No scientist in their sane mind would insist that this effect contradicts the classical theory. It's simply outside of the classical theory's scope, just as relativistic effects are outside of the realm of classical mechanics.
The real problem is with extremely widespread, naive understanding of what a scientific theory is and that there are limits to applicability of any scientific theory of nature. The phrase "law of nature" is perhaps the biggest romanticism-imbued snafu there ever was in popularization of science.
Except that as far as I understand it, those classical equations are unaffected. It's a quantum-scale effect.
Bullshit. Electric motors are limited by the performance of the conductors and the good old magnetic path where the monopoles are of no help. Electric motors with superconducting windings have been built, and they are pretty damn efficient. Heck, stock brushless electric motors are already pretty damn efficient.
Why would CCP do this, though? How does the price of resources other than PLEX affect their real-world business?
Bigger and more expensive is not necessarily better
This is true in many games. Even in something as simplistic as Kenway's Fleet minigame in AC4, you will be bleeding time and money by only using the most powerful, most damage-resistant ships. Many battles take more than a minute of real time with big, heavy ships, that would take just one salvo to be finished with a fast schooner or two. That's just a very trivial example, of course.
Are you serious?? This time dilated, point-and-click style of play is quite visible, and it sucks. It's almost like a card game with visual effects thrown in as a second thought. It's a game where flying is like entering data into the fucking flight management system on an A340, as far as I can tell. If you call that fun, you're nuts, as far as I'm concerned. Ask any professional pilot how much fun FMS is, and the answer equally applies to EVE Online. To me, a space battle is when you need to keep a 3D representation of what's where to some extent in your own brain, and actually use proportional controls to steer the ship, acquire targets, etc. There were some simulator games in the 90s that were way more fun to play than that thing.
High sec spaces sometimes see players with resources and bravado who simply don't care much about the repercussions, they kill for fun.
They do program management, and that's very important. healthcare.gov would fare much better if it had NASA-style, competent program oversight.
You're just making stuff up as you go along. Seriously.
There is no useful string algorithm where the Nth unit of the string is "interesting" without first looking at the N-1 preceding units in order to calculate N
So obviously, the scenario of having fixed-format strings and having to extract something from their middle is not a useful string algorithm to you?
I suspect also you think UTF-16 is fixed-size
You really missed where I said "use UCS-2 - a fixed-width encoding, as opposed to say UTF-16". Use of any non-fixed-width encoding inside of a string class implies that you must use iterators instead of integer indices, otherwise every indexed string access has O(N) cost. The workaround is to embed index marks within the string, but then you have internal representation that can't interoperate as-is with anything else out there.
however you cannot change it to a version that does not throw exceptions on UTF-8 encoding errors
Qt doesn't explicitly throw. It is mostly exception safe when faced with exceptions thrown in user code, but that's it. None of its own code throws. QTextCodec IIRC by default replaces undecodable input by the unicode replacement character. Where the heck did you get the idea about exceptions and Qt?
Based on a non-article? I sure hope your mission itself isn't all that critical, 'cuz you fail at reading, and Cogswell fails at articulating his thoughts, if he has any worth articulating, that is.
It's even worse: I just have no idea what the article's point is, other than having a stab at some poor-man's innuendo. It's like if the author set out to write something, then promptly forgot what. Definitely doesn't cog well, that one.
Protip: Don't confuse compiler devs with people who specify programming languages. It makes you look stupid.
You probably have buggy code that depended on implementation-defined behavior (or even undefined behavior), and it came back to bite you. It's on you to instrument your app to get crash reports and figure out what went wrong - if it's "broken" under both 4.7 and 4.8, it's very likely your own bug.