You first claimed that all they do is to recompile Chromium, which is wrong since they've made their own UI. You then admitted that you were wrong but now insisted that they were just a UI company. I then pointed out that they are contributing to Webkit/Blink, and you changed your claim to Opera only making a skin, which is obviously wrong again since they coded their own UI.
Now you've moved the goalpost again. This is getting pathetic.
Of course, your latest claim is demonstrably false as well, since they made their own UI and are adding all sorts of features that don't exist in Chrome.
Now, since your claims are mutually exclusive you have really revealed yourself as a liar and a troll.
You also didn't answer the question about removing that option from Opera 12.
You are extremely confused. That it's not the same browser you were using still doesn't mean they stopped making browsers. Are you trolling?
Again: You claimed that all they do is to recompile Chromium, which is wrong since they've made their own UI. You then admitted that you were wrong but now insisted that they were just a UI company. I then pointed out that they are contributing to Webkit/Blink, and now you're just trying to change the subject.
Now you repeat a claim you know is false (that they just add a skin). That's called a lie. Consciously posting a false claim is called lying. You are a liar.
You also didn't answer the question about removing that option from Opera 12.
So if they removed that option from Opera 12, they would no longer be a browser company? That setting is what defines a browser company? Come on... you are making a fool of yourself
Admit it, you messed up. You claimed that all they do is to recompile Chromium, which is wrong since they've made their own UI. You then admitted that you were wrong but now insisted that they were just a UI company. I then pointed out that they are contributing to Webkit/Blink, and now you're just trying to change the subject.
No, they are still a browser company. They are even contributing to Webkit (now Blink). Anyway, you should at least admit that the claim you made turned out to be false.
The original poster claimed that Opera laid off most of its developers, which is not true at all. They laid off maybe 20-25 developers out of several hundred. In other words, the AC you are responding to is at least 100% more believable than the original poster who has been caught making demonstrably false claims.
For a company that just laid off most of its developers and resigned itself to being a rebranded Google Chrome, this cannot be coincidental.
Laid off most of its developers? Opera had nearly a thousand employees, and hundreds of people working on the browser. 90 people left or were fired, and only about half were engineers (meaning programmers or testers). So if we assume that around half of the engineers who left were developers, something like 20-25 out of several hundred developers are now gone.
Most of its developers?
As for being a rebranded Chrome, the new Opera actually has a totally new user interface, and is not just using Chrome's.
The only vestige of any use from the former Opera Software is Fastmail.fm, and the developers struggle mightily to keep that branch as separate as possible from the Mother Ship.
Right. Your claims are really believable, considering that you made the outrageously false claim that they fired most of their developers when the fact is that they only fired a fraction of them.
This is not the first sign that Opera is dead, but the bad news keeps piling on for this company. First the loss of mobile space due to actual smart phones, then the dropping of support for non-Windows PCs and non-Android smartphones, rumors rampant of a Facebook/someone else takeover, throwing away fifteen years of incremental browser improvement to become a Chrome skin (and thus breaking services like Opera Link), etc. Opera is DOOMED.
Opera is doomed, eh? That must be why they announced a growth to more than 300 million active users a while back. That must be why they are not only profitable, but constantly growing their revenues and profits. Yes, a doomed company which is growing like crazy and getting new users all the time.
Did Opera lose the mobile space to smartphones? That doesn't make sense. They said that most of their new users were actually on smartphones. Again you seem to be making up a lot of weird claims.
I don't know where you are getting you info from, but it's all wrong.
You wrote that you "looked at climate science in the same way and found it to be an utter mess." That leaves no room for ifs-buts-maybes. At best you are contradicting yourself, but you are certainly spreading lies about science.
Your explanation does not make sense. All the data shows that it's the games that sell a console. Wii sales increased well after phones were available for gaming, whenever Nintendo launched a game that appealed to the mass-market.
The Wii has more popular games than almost any other console. 9 games sold more than 10 million copies, which devastates the numbers from the 360 or PS3.
If the Wii is rotting in a closet, it is because Nintendo stopped making games people wanted to play, and started churning out crap like "Maternal Instincts"-Metroid.
Why would people buy a console when they already have a phone or tablet? Er, why would they buy a console when they already had a PC? Phones and tablets are nothing but personal computers in a different form factor.
People will buy consoles if those consoles have games they want to play. It's also obvious that a lot of types of games simply suck on tablets and phones because you don't have dedicated gaming controls on those. Don't underestimate the power of physical buttons for gaming.
I don't like the term "casual" so I'm just using it to attempt to use a language he understands. 2D Mario is highly accessible to the masses. You know, "casual gamers." They love it.
The "casual" market is in fact there all the time. All you need to do is release games the "casual" market wants. Easier said than done, but Nintendo did it with Wii. They managed to release several games that sold better than any game on the other systems.
Nintendo is fucked because they gave up on the "casual" market. The Wii U is an attept at a "hardcore market" console. Nintendo said so themselves. Nintendo will fail at hardcore, so they should return to making "casual" games like 2D Mario and Wii Sports.
Look, Nintendo managed to release games that massively increased the Wii console sales long after the initial rush had died down. This shows that the "casual" market is there for anyone who bothers to make games that cater to this market.
15 years ago things were less clear, so obviously there were more papers looking into whether the warming was man-made or not. What the numbers are showing is that research today takes for granted that the warming is man-made and don't mention it specifically. Much like biologists take Evolution for granted and don't position papers for or against it anymore.
It's not that they are only willing to use a crappy medium. It's that this crappy medium is the only place to keep in touch with all these people online.
I haven't seen any sources. Why not simply repost them if you actually do have sources?
Youtube his appearance on "The Colbert Report" and "The Daily Show". He has claimed the same thing many times in public formats, so I'm willing to bet it's not restricted to those 2 show episodes. Here is an article where he is making the claim.
I'm sorry, but you can't just point to a couple of TV shows. You need to give me the exact quotes and when and where they were made.
Now, you did come up with one specific example, but it turns out you were lying. He did not say he wants to outlaw religion. He said that teaching creationism to kids is abuse, and that it shouldn't be allowed in schools.
Hard to understand the Westboro Baptist Church example I take it?
No, I want examples of atheists that are the equivalent of the WBC.
If you refuse to admit Krauss is a bigot teaching hatred of Religion then no amount of proof would do any good would it?
He is not a bigot, and is not teaching hatred of religion. But the claim you made was that some atheist somewhere was as bad as the WBC. Evidence, please.
Many atheists are biased the same way a "Bible thumping zealot" is biased. No amount of facts will change their arguments, and they will never consider facts that counter their beliefs. They believe that their beliefs are right, and just like Religious zealots, condemn anyone that believes differently than they do.
So you can't actually back up your claims, and now you're trying to change the subject? That's just in addition to being caught lying, of course.
Again: Whose messages of hating religion? What are these messages? What are they shouting? Who are they? Sources/examples, please.
Krauss shouts "death to religion" and wants to outlaw it? Sources, please.
The crusades may very well have been a war for land, but they were done in the name of religion. Now, I happen to think the reason for the crusades was justifiable (repel the attacker)...
A militant religionist attacks and kills people. That's why he's called militant. A militant atheist uses words, not weapons, and does not kill anyone.
Whose messages of hating religion? What are these messages? What are they shouting? Who are they? Also: Sources/examples, please.
Mao and Stalin were militant Communists, not Militant Atheists. They killed in the name of Communism, not Atheism. Their opposition to religion was incidental and not a cause of the killing, because religion posed a threat to Communist power.
Stalin and Mao are never referred to as militant atheists. When people talk about militant atheists, they're always referring to people like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. Indeed, this was what you were saying as well. You said they were just shouting something, not killing anyone. So you were indeed referring to someone using words and not violence.
Also, Stalin and Mao are dead, and you were referring to current atheists.
Now, again, where are these militant atheists that are shouting "Death to Religion"?
So where are these militant atheists, and is shouting "Death to Religion" the only thing that makes them militant?
Funny how militant religionists are the ones killing people, while militant atheists merely shout, according to you guys who love labeling atheists as militants.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't they merge different products/companies? If so they will have lots of overlapping positions which doesn't make sense at all.
They hired them because they had different products/teams. When those were merged, some people were no longer needed.
Simple, really.
You keep changing your claims.
You first claimed that all they do is to recompile Chromium, which is wrong since they've made their own UI. You then admitted that you were wrong but now insisted that they were just a UI company. I then pointed out that they are contributing to Webkit/Blink, and you changed your claim to Opera only making a skin, which is obviously wrong again since they coded their own UI.
Now you've moved the goalpost again. This is getting pathetic.
Of course, your latest claim is demonstrably false as well, since they made their own UI and are adding all sorts of features that don't exist in Chrome.
Now, since your claims are mutually exclusive you have really revealed yourself as a liar and a troll.
You also didn't answer the question about removing that option from Opera 12.
You are extremely confused. That it's not the same browser you were using still doesn't mean they stopped making browsers. Are you trolling?
Again: You claimed that all they do is to recompile Chromium, which is wrong since they've made their own UI. You then admitted that you were wrong but now insisted that they were just a UI company. I then pointed out that they are contributing to Webkit/Blink, and now you're just trying to change the subject.
Now you repeat a claim you know is false (that they just add a skin). That's called a lie. Consciously posting a false claim is called lying. You are a liar.
You also didn't answer the question about removing that option from Opera 12.
So if they removed that option from Opera 12, they would no longer be a browser company? That setting is what defines a browser company? Come on... you are making a fool of yourself
Admit it, you messed up. You claimed that all they do is to recompile Chromium, which is wrong since they've made their own UI. You then admitted that you were wrong but now insisted that they were just a UI company. I then pointed out that they are contributing to Webkit/Blink, and now you're just trying to change the subject.
No, they are still a browser company. They are even contributing to Webkit (now Blink). Anyway, you should at least admit that the claim you made turned out to be false.
That AC obviously isn't the same as any of the other ACs. It's just someone trolling or making a joke.
That's not true at all. They have made their own user interface on top of Chromium.
The original poster claimed that Opera laid off most of its developers, which is not true at all. They laid off maybe 20-25 developers out of several hundred. In other words, the AC you are responding to is at least 100% more believable than the original poster who has been caught making demonstrably false claims.
Laid off most of its developers? Opera had nearly a thousand employees, and hundreds of people working on the browser. 90 people left or were fired, and only about half were engineers (meaning programmers or testers). So if we assume that around half of the engineers who left were developers, something like 20-25 out of several hundred developers are now gone.
Most of its developers?
As for being a rebranded Chrome, the new Opera actually has a totally new user interface, and is not just using Chrome's.
Right. Your claims are really believable, considering that you made the outrageously false claim that they fired most of their developers when the fact is that they only fired a fraction of them.
Opera is doomed, eh? That must be why they announced a growth to more than 300 million active users a while back. That must be why they are not only profitable, but constantly growing their revenues and profits. Yes, a doomed company which is growing like crazy and getting new users all the time.
Did Opera lose the mobile space to smartphones? That doesn't make sense. They said that most of their new users were actually on smartphones. Again you seem to be making up a lot of weird claims.
I don't know where you are getting you info from, but it's all wrong.
You wrote that you "looked at climate science in the same way and found it to be an utter mess." That leaves no room for ifs-buts-maybes. At best you are contradicting yourself, but you are certainly spreading lies about science.
Your explanation does not make sense. All the data shows that it's the games that sell a console. Wii sales increased well after phones were available for gaming, whenever Nintendo launched a game that appealed to the mass-market.
The Wii has more popular games than almost any other console. 9 games sold more than 10 million copies, which devastates the numbers from the 360 or PS3.
If the Wii is rotting in a closet, it is because Nintendo stopped making games people wanted to play, and started churning out crap like "Maternal Instincts"-Metroid.
Why would people buy a console when they already have a phone or tablet? Er, why would they buy a console when they already had a PC? Phones and tablets are nothing but personal computers in a different form factor.
People will buy consoles if those consoles have games they want to play. It's also obvious that a lot of types of games simply suck on tablets and phones because you don't have dedicated gaming controls on those. Don't underestimate the power of physical buttons for gaming.
You wrote that you found climate science to be "an utter mess." Hard to interpret that in any other way.
Read the report. Also, see other areas of science where the same is the case (scientists move on), such as Evolution.
I don't like the term "casual" so I'm just using it to attempt to use a language he understands. 2D Mario is highly accessible to the masses. You know, "casual gamers." They love it.
Then again, most females seem to enjoy the blatantly misogynistic stalker-rapist fantasy that is the Twilight Saga...
The "casual" market is in fact there all the time. All you need to do is release games the "casual" market wants. Easier said than done, but Nintendo did it with Wii. They managed to release several games that sold better than any game on the other systems.
Nintendo is fucked because they gave up on the "casual" market. The Wii U is an attept at a "hardcore market" console. Nintendo said so themselves. Nintendo will fail at hardcore, so they should return to making "casual" games like 2D Mario and Wii Sports.
Look, Nintendo managed to release games that massively increased the Wii console sales long after the initial rush had died down. This shows that the "casual" market is there for anyone who bothers to make games that cater to this market.
15 years ago things were less clear, so obviously there were more papers looking into whether the warming was man-made or not. What the numbers are showing is that research today takes for granted that the warming is man-made and don't mention it specifically. Much like biologists take Evolution for granted and don't position papers for or against it anymore.
Translated: "Evolution does not contradict my ideology, so I accept it. AGW does, so I reject it."
It is obvious that your position on these has got nothing to do with the actual science.
It's not that they are only willing to use a crappy medium. It's that this crappy medium is the only place to keep in touch with all these people online.
I haven't seen any sources. Why not simply repost them if you actually do have sources?
I'm sorry, but you can't just point to a couple of TV shows. You need to give me the exact quotes and when and where they were made.
Now, you did come up with one specific example, but it turns out you were lying. He did not say he wants to outlaw religion. He said that teaching creationism to kids is abuse, and that it shouldn't be allowed in schools.
No, I want examples of atheists that are the equivalent of the WBC.
He is not a bigot, and is not teaching hatred of religion. But the claim you made was that some atheist somewhere was as bad as the WBC. Evidence, please.
So you can't actually back up your claims, and now you're trying to change the subject? That's just in addition to being caught lying, of course.
Again: Whose messages of hating religion? What are these messages? What are they shouting? Who are they? Sources/examples, please.
Krauss shouts "death to religion" and wants to outlaw it? Sources, please.
The crusades may very well have been a war for land, but they were done in the name of religion. Now, I happen to think the reason for the crusades was justifiable (repel the attacker)...
A militant religionist attacks and kills people. That's why he's called militant. A militant atheist uses words, not weapons, and does not kill anyone.
Whose messages of hating religion? What are these messages? What are they shouting? Who are they? Also: Sources/examples, please.
Mao and Stalin were militant Communists, not Militant Atheists. They killed in the name of Communism, not Atheism. Their opposition to religion was incidental and not a cause of the killing, because religion posed a threat to Communist power.
Stalin and Mao are never referred to as militant atheists. When people talk about militant atheists, they're always referring to people like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. Indeed, this was what you were saying as well. You said they were just shouting something, not killing anyone. So you were indeed referring to someone using words and not violence.
Also, Stalin and Mao are dead, and you were referring to current atheists.
Now, again, where are these militant atheists that are shouting "Death to Religion"?
So where are these militant atheists, and is shouting "Death to Religion" the only thing that makes them militant?
Funny how militant religionists are the ones killing people, while militant atheists merely shout, according to you guys who love labeling atheists as militants.
What are you talking about? You are just being a typical denier now.
Hold on for a second.. What, exactly, is a "militant atheist," and how do you know what characteristics they tend to show?