I don't see how I'm backtracking. Some people will use whatever their local guru tells them - the dumb/scared ones. The same goes for any other browser on Earth. I did not claim that this was not true. Neither did I retract any of the other possible reasons for Opera usage. Please read what I wrote more carefully.
I suppose I didn't think anyone actually thought that Opera has more features than Firefox/Mozilla, because it doesn't. Well...I guess you could assume that all the stuff that's in extensions aren't actually features of the browser itself, in which case I suppose Opera does have more features, but why does that matter? Also, does it really matter if some of the ideas started in Opera? Some of the best ideas for programmers (such as, for example the innerhtml property) came from IE, but you can get them in all the fourth generation browsers now. For that matter, the oldest browser codebase still in use is IEs. Are all the browsers playing "catchup" to IE?
It certainly isn't more integrated with the OS than IE, which leads to security breaches if there are security holes in the program. I didn't think anyone actually believed that, either. Or do you mean "monolithic" - that the code is all in one tightly bound package with lots of interdependencies. That leads to a difficulty in debugging, replacing parts of the code, and writing extensions. Why would you want either of those?
Nice generalization at the end there. Up until a year and a half ago, I was a bigger supporter of IE than Mozilla because I couldn't get Mozilla to do anything cool with javascript even if I did it the Mozilla way. Things have changed.
If Opera catches up with the fourth generation browsers while maintaining it's speed, I will gladly become it's fanboy.
Yes, but unmarried non-virgin is Hebrew for "stoning pit-fodder," so I would say that the translation is most likely close enough. They probably wouldn't have called a non-virgin that.
Since you don't seem to think there is any truth to this, though, go to hotscripts.com. Look in the javascript section. You'll have no trouble finding scripts that won't work under Opera.
It's a question of where you can go.
If the CSS on the page is slightly off, you can still read the page. There are plenty of places you can't go if the javascript doesn't work right. CSS is supported under Mozilla, by the way. There are a few bugs, but it's not close to not having any DOM2 compliance.
Go ahead and pigeonhole me, if it's true. I said that you don't mind using Opera because you don't mind giving up compliance for the sake of speed. You didn't even notice the lack of standards compliance. Are you telling me that the speed isn't important to you? Maybe I missed a category or two of people using Opera, but I wouldn't say that these are purposely distorted reasons. It's not like I'm building some kind of straw man argument based upon them. I actually tried to think of all the reasons I would switch to Opera if I were to use it continuously.
If you include among your reasons "don't mind giving up speed in order to get compliance," you'd get the biggest reason I'm not using Opera.
Keep reading. If you're reading it from the Bible, and not the Torah, you'll find that Jesus said that even this was too much - that judgement should include mercy "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Eye for an eye specifies a specific level of punishment, not a minimum, not a maximum.
Someone who defrauds one person can get a year or so. Doesn't the sheer quantity of the crimes mean he should end up spending a couple hundred years?
A well made directional antenna can give you 8x the range. Also, if you add power, you can generally increase the range of a reciever according to the inverse square law (so 4x the power means 2x the range).
I don't think it's out of the question to have an illegal reciever with 100x the power and a really good directional antenna. That would be an increase of roughly 80x. If RFIDs can normally be picked up at 3ft, they'd make it 240 ft.
Medicine cabinets are normally made of metal, aren't they? Specifically, they're normally made of radio frequency blocking metals. In fact, those RFIDs are not put out in plain sight the way that wireless towers are, so it's difficult to even know where they are, and even if you do, you have to hope that radio frequencies aren't being blocked. Even given an increased range, I don't think that trying to figure out what kind of drugs people are carrying from a distance is practical.
Let me clarify. Plucker breaks down the file into managable-sized chunks and compresses those. Then it seamlessly decompresses any chunks it needs as you're reading. This is for offline browsing - the feature I want. Opera does not do this; you need to make sure that what you send it is webpages that do not take up too much space yourself, and wait while Opera unpacks the entire page into memory.
Unfortunately, I'm not going to be able to point out the list of incompatibilities because the place where the browser compatibility matrix was stored is down. But hey, you've proven to me that you fit into category #2, since you haven't noticed. Maybe everyone who uses it fits into category #2; I was just trying to think of reasons.
To give you a general overview, Opera does not support the DOM, which means that you can't use javascript to access or manipulate pages very well with it - you can't expect DHTML to work as well on Opera as on the other two. This makes it a lot easier to be fast. I used to always check my scripts with the latest version of Opera, and look at the Opera specs to see if there was support for the functionality I wanted, but I stopped doing that. It's clear that Opera does not see the need to build this functionality into its browser.
This, by the way, is my favorite feature of Mozilla because I know it's pretty much the hardest to implement, and they worked hard to make sure it worked.
because it does what it does amazingly well...and the reason people use Windows despite having all those free options out there is because it does amazingly well. Riighht.
Some people go for the underdog just because. Some people are willing to pay for speed at the cost of compatibility. Others get a warm fuzzy feeling when they buy software. Then there are people who these people dupe into believing that Opera is better and who can't make the decision for themselves because they're too afraid (or ignorant) of computers to find out.
Rest assured, this is still a very small portion of the population, and will likely remain so. I like having my browser being a fully programmable interface, not just a text renderer. I have latex for that.
So you're comparing it to embedded browsers then? That's fine. Obviously we're not talking about the same level of rendering, though. Gecko completely supports DOM, and IE comes close. Opera does not. I gave up trying to get anything I wrote in javascript to work on Opera because so little does. If you don't need to worry about DOM, you can do nice little tricks to speed up and simplify rendering, making things fast. I bet I could make an even smaller browser if I just ignore everything within the tags. It's just not worth it comparing Opera to the other two. It isn't in the same league.
As far as embedded browsers go, personally, I prefer Plucker to Opera: it's free, it's fast, and you can gz compress any files you send to it. Oh, and it runs on my PDA, whereas Opera doesn't.
You're missing the point (and are wrong about why they can't use "Word"). The reason that Microsoft can't trademark "Word" as a word processor is because it's a word that is part of the subject matter. Similarly, if they made a math learning program called "Math," for example, they couldn't trademark the name. They could trademark "Microsoft Math," but that's just silly since they've already got a trademark on Microsoft in the software area, so any use of it in making a product name would already be illegal.
On the other hand, they can trademark the name "Excel" because spreadsheets have nothing to do with the word "Excel."
For this reason, also, MS's use of the name "Windows" for their windowing operating system is questionable, and they may eventually lose a court fight over the ownership of their copyright. It's the risk that you run when you pick a generic name (is it too generic to be a trademark?)
A PDA that can do all those things would most likely run Palm 5, don't you think?
Palm 5 can multitask, though it's more primitive than on a PC. My device, at least (Tungsten E), is based on TI's OMAP chip, which has built-in multimedia functions and is designed specifically to have I/O processes that run at the same time as CPU processes. I've listened to MP3s while reading.
On that note, I use my PDA almost exclusively for one thing: reading. I find that the resolution and sharpness are so good that it's actually less strain than paper. This is not true of the old e-book readers, which were about the cheapest PDAs they could make.
Anybody else have this experience? Buying a $150 PDA for the screen?
I only use my palm in Linux, and I've got one of the new incompatible palms, the Tungsten E (no universal connector, totally compatible with virtually all SDIO cards). It works with plucker, jpilot, and evolution, at least. I don't think that I could get documents-to-go to work in it, though (for reading and creating MS office documents).
The thing that gets me is that if I had a Pocket PC, I know that virtually every CF or SD card (depending on which is available) will work with it, whereas Palms don't have that. All I can get is a memory card. Also, the only decent media application (the one that lets you compress things as much as is possible), is mmplayer, whereas with Pocket PC there have been several apps ported over.
Oh, and when my battery dies, I have to desolder it and solder another in. That really stinks.
Perl 6 is probably producing a GLR parser, as Parse::RecDescent is a GLR parser (it means it would be slower, but more flexible).
Isn't Spirit a LALR parser? Or an LL(1) parser?
It's not going to be faster than Spirit, because GLR parsers are slower than every other kind of parser.
On the other hand, you don't have to do all the wierd stuff you have to do with Spirit because it's mostly just syntactic sugar on top of C++, and therefore uses only C++ syntax (which doesn't look much like the natural pseudocode for creating productions).
Any properly designed system will choose a transformer with wire gauges large enough that "fusing" isn't a problem.
Size and space are an issue. However, any size transformer will always fail in this manner given enough time. The only question is if some other component fails first. You can go learn more about transformer failure yourself, or believe that you're right, as I don't really feel like defending this point. A good place to look would be speakers, which actually have something very similar to this happen a lot more frequently as a cause of failure.
There are a lot of other parts that can fail in a power supply, specifically because it's the first line of defense against a power surge, though, so you're right, it's not a good measurement. The engine question is probably a closer match, but rotary and reciprocating engines both require oil to function, and when you're talking about failure, you're talking about a change in the viscosity. In the computer analog, the shaking harddrive wouldn't necessarily require bearings, though the spinning one does.
The good question is, is vibrating better than spinning? Because we don't have the luxury of nonmoving harddrives at the moment.
I think it could be. You'd need less moving parts, and you'd be able to put them in places that are more easily accessible and replacable.
On the other hand, consider that we do already have such a comparison: power supplies versus harddrives. Other than the fan, power supplies have no moving parts...sort of. But actually the two coils that make up the transformer within a power supply vibrate at 60Hz (in North America), and I've been told that power supply failure normally happens because these wires slowly start to fuse as a result of this stress (culminating in a short)
So which fails more, power supplies or hard drives?
From the article: "Nick came up with clever ways of simplifying the fluid-dynamics equations so they would be usable in production; otherwise it would take weeks to simulate the water."
So...he simplified the equations so that it would take hours instead of weeks. Impressive, I suppose, but not mind-bogglingly so.
Just because Antz was the first one you saw that had water doesn't mean that was a big step.
Water is actually very easy to model because of what we know about fluid dynamics. Easier than almost anything else, actually. Fire is also pretty easy for precisely the same reason. Clouds are also easy because they're governed by a particular fractal - the plasma fractal.
The only problem, I think, is that everything else looks so cartoonish by comparison to the realistic water, fire, and clouds.
Speaking of powers, "Frozone" is not a "Silver Surfer/Iceman hybrid." He's exactly like Iceman, except that he moves by skiing instead of just standing there and letting the ice propel him.
The fact that all the characters are totally cliched lets you think about all the times you read the old comics and never thought about things they might have to deal with, as well as ways of using their powers together that comic book writers don't think about. (And for that matter, how did Iceman get the ice to propel him along anyway?)
They're not the Fantastic Four, though - not exactly.
Fantastic Four and Incredibles analogs: The Invisible Woman - Violet Mr. Fantastic - Elastigirl Thing - Mr. Incredible The Torch - arguably nobody nobody - Dash
So there's one character that doesn't match up. Does Marvel even have a super-fast-and-nothing-else character? They did have a character that looked exactly like Cyclops, with exactly the same power, but he was a very, very minor character. He didn't even have speaking lines.
One thing that I'd like to add is that while all the characters were very well made, they were also slightly stylized, and there weren't a lot of colors or shading effects in any individual character.
Someone could easily make this into a rather inexpensive to make cartoon.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see how I'm backtracking. Some people will use whatever their local guru tells them - the dumb/scared ones. The same goes for any other browser on Earth. I did not claim that this was not true. Neither did I retract any of the other possible reasons for Opera usage. Please read what I wrote more carefully.
I suppose I didn't think anyone actually thought that Opera has more features than Firefox/Mozilla, because it doesn't. Well...I guess you could assume that all the stuff that's in extensions aren't actually features of the browser itself, in which case I suppose Opera does have more features, but why does that matter? Also, does it really matter if some of the ideas started in Opera? Some of the best ideas for programmers (such as, for example the innerhtml property) came from IE, but you can get them in all the fourth generation browsers now. For that matter, the oldest browser codebase still in use is IEs. Are all the browsers playing "catchup" to IE?
It certainly isn't more integrated with the OS than IE, which leads to security breaches if there are security holes in the program. I didn't think anyone actually believed that, either. Or do you mean "monolithic" - that the code is all in one tightly bound package with lots of interdependencies. That leads to a difficulty in debugging, replacing parts of the code, and writing extensions. Why would you want either of those?
Nice generalization at the end there. Up until a year and a half ago, I was a bigger supporter of IE than Mozilla because I couldn't get Mozilla to do anything cool with javascript even if I did it the Mozilla way. Things have changed.
If Opera catches up with the fourth generation browsers while maintaining it's speed, I will gladly become it's fanboy.
Yes, but unmarried non-virgin is Hebrew for "stoning pit-fodder," so I would say that the translation is most likely close enough. They probably wouldn't have called a non-virgin that.
Wow. The site is down. How convenient for you.
Here's the link that describes the compatibility matrix, though it's down at the moment.
Since you don't seem to think there is any truth to this, though, go to hotscripts.com. Look in the javascript section. You'll have no trouble finding scripts that won't work under Opera.
It's a question of where you can go.
If the CSS on the page is slightly off, you can still read the page. There are plenty of places you can't go if the javascript doesn't work right. CSS is supported under Mozilla, by the way. There are a few bugs, but it's not close to not having any DOM2 compliance.
Go ahead and pigeonhole me, if it's true. I said that you don't mind using Opera because you don't mind giving up compliance for the sake of speed. You didn't even notice the lack of standards compliance. Are you telling me that the speed isn't important to you? Maybe I missed a category or two of people using Opera, but I wouldn't say that these are purposely distorted reasons. It's not like I'm building some kind of straw man argument based upon them. I actually tried to think of all the reasons I would switch to Opera if I were to use it continuously.
If you include among your reasons "don't mind giving up speed in order to get compliance," you'd get the biggest reason I'm not using Opera.
Keep reading. If you're reading it from the Bible, and not the Torah, you'll find that Jesus said that even this was too much - that judgement should include mercy "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Eye for an eye specifies a specific level of punishment, not a minimum, not a maximum.
Someone who defrauds one person can get a year or so. Doesn't the sheer quantity of the crimes mean he should end up spending a couple hundred years?
He knows that when your mailserver recieves the mail and doesn't send a "user doesn't exist" reply back.
So you might as well do as he suggests.
A well made directional antenna can give you 8x the range. Also, if you add power, you can generally increase the range of a reciever according to the inverse square law (so 4x the power means 2x the range).
I don't think it's out of the question to have an illegal reciever with 100x the power and a really good directional antenna. That would be an increase of roughly 80x. If RFIDs can normally be picked up at 3ft, they'd make it 240 ft.
Medicine cabinets are normally made of metal, aren't they? Specifically, they're normally made of radio frequency blocking metals. In fact, those RFIDs are not put out in plain sight the way that wireless towers are, so it's difficult to even know where they are, and even if you do, you have to hope that radio frequencies aren't being blocked. Even given an increased range, I don't think that trying to figure out what kind of drugs people are carrying from a distance is practical.
Let me clarify. Plucker breaks down the file into managable-sized chunks and compresses those. Then it seamlessly decompresses any chunks it needs as you're reading. This is for offline browsing - the feature I want.
Opera does not do this; you need to make sure that what you send it is webpages that do not take up too much space yourself, and wait while Opera unpacks the entire page into memory.
Unfortunately, I'm not going to be able to point out the list of incompatibilities because the place where the browser compatibility matrix was stored is down. But hey, you've proven to me that you fit into category #2, since you haven't noticed. Maybe everyone who uses it fits into category #2; I was just trying to think of reasons.
To give you a general overview, Opera does not support the DOM, which means that you can't use javascript to access or manipulate pages very well with it - you can't expect DHTML to work as well on Opera as on the other two. This makes it a lot easier to be fast. I used to always check my scripts with the latest version of Opera, and look at the Opera specs to see if there was support for the functionality I wanted, but I stopped doing that. It's clear that Opera does not see the need to build this functionality into its browser.
This, by the way, is my favorite feature of Mozilla because I know it's pretty much the hardest to implement, and they worked hard to make sure it worked.
because it does what it does amazingly well ...and the reason people use Windows despite having all those free options out there is because it does amazingly well. Riighht.
Some people go for the underdog just because. Some people are willing to pay for speed at the cost of compatibility. Others get a warm fuzzy feeling when they buy software. Then there are people who these people dupe into believing that Opera is better and who can't make the decision for themselves because they're too afraid (or ignorant) of computers to find out.
Rest assured, this is still a very small portion of the population, and will likely remain so. I like having my browser being a fully programmable interface, not just a text renderer. I have latex for that.
So you're comparing it to embedded browsers then? That's fine. Obviously we're not talking about the same level of rendering, though. Gecko completely supports DOM, and IE comes close. Opera does not. I gave up trying to get anything I wrote in javascript to work on Opera because so little does. If you don't need to worry about DOM, you can do nice little tricks to speed up and simplify rendering, making things fast. I bet I could make an even smaller browser if I just ignore everything within the tags. It's just not worth it comparing Opera to the other two. It isn't in the same league.
As far as embedded browsers go, personally, I prefer Plucker to Opera: it's free, it's fast, and you can gz compress any files you send to it. Oh, and it runs on my PDA, whereas Opera doesn't.
You're missing the point (and are wrong about why they can't use "Word").
The reason that Microsoft can't trademark "Word" as a word processor is because it's a word that is part of the subject matter. Similarly, if they made a math learning program called "Math," for example, they couldn't trademark the name. They could trademark "Microsoft Math," but that's just silly since they've already got a trademark on Microsoft in the software area, so any use of it in making a product name would already be illegal.
On the other hand, they can trademark the name "Excel" because spreadsheets have nothing to do with the word "Excel."
For this reason, also, MS's use of the name "Windows" for their windowing operating system is questionable, and they may eventually lose a court fight over the ownership of their copyright. It's the risk that you run when you pick a generic name (is it too generic to be a trademark?)
Yes, but if you were going to pick the most generic one-word name for a word processor you could think of, what would it be?
How about for an office suite?
And a spreadsheet program? "Spreadsheet" is what springs to my mind.
When you use a word that is not normally used in a particular frame of reference, you can't trademark it. This is not the case for Excel.
A PDA that can do all those things would most likely run Palm 5, don't you think?
Palm 5 can multitask, though it's more primitive than on a PC. My device, at least (Tungsten E), is based on TI's OMAP chip, which has built-in multimedia functions and is designed specifically to have I/O processes that run at the same time as CPU processes.
I've listened to MP3s while reading.
On that note, I use my PDA almost exclusively for one thing: reading. I find that the resolution and sharpness are so good that it's actually less strain than paper. This is not true of the old e-book readers, which were about the cheapest PDAs they could make.
Anybody else have this experience? Buying a $150 PDA for the screen?
I only use my palm in Linux, and I've got one of the new incompatible palms, the Tungsten E (no universal connector, totally compatible with virtually all SDIO cards). It works with plucker, jpilot, and evolution, at least. I don't think that I could get documents-to-go to work in it, though (for reading and creating MS office documents).
The thing that gets me is that if I had a Pocket PC, I know that virtually every CF or SD card (depending on which is available) will work with it, whereas Palms don't have that. All I can get is a memory card. Also, the only decent media application (the one that lets you compress things as much as is possible), is mmplayer, whereas with Pocket PC there have been several apps ported over.
Oh, and when my battery dies, I have to desolder it and solder another in. That really stinks.
No, it wasn't AOL, or commercial business.
It was because the Llama really whipped Winamp's ass a couple of weeks ago.
I'm sure it surprised everyone when it happened.
Ironically, when I to the GRE, I happened to look at the bottom to see who was getting what scores in each category (language, analytical, math).
The thing that really stuck out was that MBA students were much, much lower than everyone else in analytical.
Home recording at almost the same quality as studio recording, and for under $2G
It could have driven the prices down.
It still could, really.
Perl 6 is probably producing a GLR parser, as Parse::RecDescent is a GLR parser (it means it would be slower, but more flexible).
Isn't Spirit a LALR parser? Or an LL(1) parser?
It's not going to be faster than Spirit, because GLR parsers are slower than every other kind of parser.
On the other hand, you don't have to do all the wierd stuff you have to do with Spirit because it's mostly just syntactic sugar on top of C++, and therefore uses only C++ syntax (which doesn't look much like the natural pseudocode for creating productions).
It didn't come from a cartoon. It came from a comic book. The cartoon was later, and they just kept it the same.
Any properly designed system will choose a transformer with wire gauges large enough that "fusing" isn't a problem.
Size and space are an issue. However, any size transformer will always fail in this manner given enough time. The only question is if some other component fails first. You can go learn more about transformer failure yourself, or believe that you're right, as I don't really feel like defending this point. A good place to look would be speakers, which actually have something very similar to this happen a lot more frequently as a cause of failure.
There are a lot of other parts that can fail in a power supply, specifically because it's the first line of defense against a power surge, though, so you're right, it's not a good measurement. The engine question is probably a closer match, but rotary and reciprocating engines both require oil to function, and when you're talking about failure, you're talking about a change in the viscosity. In the computer analog, the shaking harddrive wouldn't necessarily require bearings, though the spinning one does.
The good question is, is vibrating better than spinning? Because we don't have the luxury of nonmoving harddrives at the moment.
I think it could be. You'd need less moving parts, and you'd be able to put them in places that are more easily accessible and replacable.
On the other hand, consider that we do already have such a comparison: power supplies versus harddrives. Other than the fan, power supplies have no moving parts...sort of. But actually the two coils that make up the transformer within a power supply vibrate at 60Hz (in North America), and I've been told that power supply failure normally happens because these wires slowly start to fuse as a result of this stress (culminating in a short)
So which fails more, power supplies or hard drives?
From the article: "Nick came up with clever ways of simplifying the fluid-dynamics equations so they would be usable in production; otherwise it would take weeks to simulate the water."
So...he simplified the equations so that it would take hours instead of weeks. Impressive, I suppose, but not mind-bogglingly so.
That's why I said "arguably nobody." The baby had other powers. Notice I said "nobody" for one listing but arguably for another? Yeah.
Anyone who had seen the movie would have thought of the baby when seeing my comment. No spoiler was needed.
Just because Antz was the first one you saw that had water doesn't mean that was a big step.
Water is actually very easy to model because of what we know about fluid dynamics. Easier than almost anything else, actually. Fire is also pretty easy for precisely the same reason.
Clouds are also easy because they're governed by a particular fractal - the plasma fractal.
The only problem, I think, is that everything else looks so cartoonish by comparison to the realistic water, fire, and clouds.
Speaking of powers, "Frozone" is not a "Silver Surfer/Iceman hybrid." He's exactly like Iceman, except that he moves by skiing instead of just standing there and letting the ice propel him.
The fact that all the characters are totally cliched lets you think about all the times you read the old comics and never thought about things they might have to deal with, as well as ways of using their powers together that comic book writers don't think about. (And for that matter, how did Iceman get the ice to propel him along anyway?)
They're not the Fantastic Four, though - not exactly.
Fantastic Four and Incredibles analogs:
The Invisible Woman - Violet
Mr. Fantastic - Elastigirl
Thing - Mr. Incredible
The Torch - arguably nobody
nobody - Dash
So there's one character that doesn't match up. Does Marvel even have a super-fast-and-nothing-else character? They did have a character that looked exactly like Cyclops, with exactly the same power, but he was a very, very minor character. He didn't even have speaking lines.
One thing that I'd like to add is that while all the characters were very well made, they were also slightly stylized, and there weren't a lot of colors or shading effects in any individual character.
Someone could easily make this into a rather inexpensive to make cartoon.