You show me a mobile device that had drag scrolling, visual voicemail, pinch to zoom, a smooth, responsive UI and a proper browser before the iPhone came along.
Proper browser? Opera has been shipping full web browsers on mobile phones for more than ten years. By the time the iPhone came along, Opera was already shipping its latest generation browser engine on various phones.
Actually, what happened was that he had a hypothesis. His claims weren't accepted until he actually did the proper research to confirm the hypothesis. In other words, exactly the way science should work.
Just one example, which is more public, but probably happens all the time.
As it should. If you are going to make a claim, you'd better be damn sure you have sufficient data to back it up. The whole points is that weak ideas should be rejected.
This was dogma in action.
No, this was science not accepting claims without sufficient data. Once the actual research was done to back up the claims, it was accepted. Just the way it's supposed to work.
No one thought ulcers were caused by an infection at all, but no one had bothered to check. When someone did, he was ignored, and probably laughed at, for years before anyone bothered to try to replicate his results.
No, he was ignored because he didn't have the research to back up his claims. Once he did, it was accepted.
Revenue sharing with search engines. Send them searc traffic, and they'll pay you. That's what Mozilla and Opera are doing. And they are making quite a bit of money from it.
MP3 players didn't fail before the iPod. On the other hand, Flock failed before RockMelt. And where the iPod got massive hype, RockMelt has mostly been met by shrugging shoulders.
The browser is becoming more and more important. It's the platform most development will happen on in the future. Why would Mozilla not want to be part of that, and invest most of its energy into staying relevant on the most important platform in the world?
So the way I take your message is, if you don't agree with somebody's point, they're a troll?
No, the way to take his message is, if you bash Obama while trying to weasel out of it, you are a troll. Exactly as he explained. Apophasis.
Heck, look back at President Obama's rhetoric during the election.
Then look back at how the Repugnicans were suddenly against anything and everything Obama said. Including things they had previously suggested themselves. Bipartisanship requires two sides that are willing to engage in that. The Repugnicans didn't. They did everything to sabotage things, including refusing to vote for things they had previously been staunch supporters of. Worse yet, those fuckers voted against the bailout, but then happily accepted the bailout money in their districts, throwing the money the Obama administration gave them around, and taking all the credit.
Don't you think it's telling that Bush and Reagan both claimed that kind of respect for the Oval Office (even if not always following it) while neither Presidents Obama nor Clinton did?
So what you are saying is that Bush and Reagan set certain standards for the Oval Office, which they both failed miserably at meeting? But then Obama comes around and removes the stick from the Oval Office ass, and doesn't try to set standards he isn't going to meet in the first place? Sounds like Bush and Reagan were both first-class assholes and hypocrites more than anything else. They showed less respect for the Oval Office by ridiculing it like that. Obama shows more respect because he doesn't pretend to be all formal and stick-up-ass about it.
What is relevant is that it does matter to a lot of people.
These idiots should educate themselves, then.
Face it, you fucked up and were undressed and ridiculed by the other guys who exposed your passive-aggressive attacks. Look up the word "Apophasis", too.
Now dig up the same kind of quotes for Bushie. What was that, it's only wrong when some random guy mentions Obama in a setting that might be interpreted as having a connection with superstitious beliefs? I see. At least Obama didn't claim to be on a God-given mission to "save Iraq".
The test makes Opera looks worse than it is, because while they added the brand spanking new Chrome 8, they ignored Opera 10.70, which has been available for some time now. If they can include pre-releases of other browsers, why not Opera? And unlike Chrome 8 which seems to be slower than the previous version, even these unfinished builds of Opera 10.70 are noticeably faster than the latest stable version.
I've always wondered... But how does 3D make the movie better? Why do people want 3D? I watched Avatar in 3D, and it added nothing. In fact, it was more distracting than watching it in 2D.
It is completely false that they are becoming the slowest ones to adopt them. Just because you found two things they weren't the first to implement doesn't mean that they are slow in general.
Opera disgusts me because its users continually make exaggerated and fabricated claims such as these
No one has made exaggerated and fabricated claims. The numbers you are seeing are the ones that are reported by Opera to the company's own investors. And they have the revenue growth to confirm it.
Slashdot Mirror
Proper browser? Opera has been shipping full web browsers on mobile phones for more than ten years. By the time the iPhone came along, Opera was already shipping its latest generation browser engine on various phones.
That's probably due to hardware acceleration. But you really should test Opera 11 and Chrome 8.
Actually, what happened was that he had a hypothesis. His claims weren't accepted until he actually did the proper research to confirm the hypothesis. In other words, exactly the way science should work.
As it should. If you are going to make a claim, you'd better be damn sure you have sufficient data to back it up. The whole points is that weak ideas should be rejected.
No, this was science not accepting claims without sufficient data. Once the actual research was done to back up the claims, it was accepted. Just the way it's supposed to work.
No, he was ignored because he didn't have the research to back up his claims. Once he did, it was accepted.
Revenue sharing with search engines. Send them searc traffic, and they'll pay you. That's what Mozilla and Opera are doing. And they are making quite a bit of money from it.
Digg? Heh.
Time will tell, though...
That's what he said. They don't make sense either. Then again, there's actually a reason why it's called "Opera". It wasn't just chosen at random.
So it's a bad thing that money flows from rich nations to poor nations? I see.
No, you can't divide it into two distinct groups. One follows the other, and we have observed speciation as well.
Evolution is adaption. You just admitted that evolution is true. Cool.
People who react negatively to jokes that promote xenophobic stereotypes are extremely weak-minded?
The browser is becoming more and more important. It's the platform most development will happen on in the future. Why would Mozilla not want to be part of that, and invest most of its energy into staying relevant on the most important platform in the world?
It is? Source?
No, the way to take his message is, if you bash Obama while trying to weasel out of it, you are a troll. Exactly as he explained. Apophasis.
Then look back at how the Repugnicans were suddenly against anything and everything Obama said. Including things they had previously suggested themselves. Bipartisanship requires two sides that are willing to engage in that. The Repugnicans didn't. They did everything to sabotage things, including refusing to vote for things they had previously been staunch supporters of. Worse yet, those fuckers voted against the bailout, but then happily accepted the bailout money in their districts, throwing the money the Obama administration gave them around, and taking all the credit.
So what you are saying is that Bush and Reagan set certain standards for the Oval Office, which they both failed miserably at meeting? But then Obama comes around and removes the stick from the Oval Office ass, and doesn't try to set standards he isn't going to meet in the first place? Sounds like Bush and Reagan were both first-class assholes and hypocrites more than anything else. They showed less respect for the Oval Office by ridiculing it like that. Obama shows more respect because he doesn't pretend to be all formal and stick-up-ass about it.
These idiots should educate themselves, then.
Face it, you fucked up and were undressed and ridiculed by the other guys who exposed your passive-aggressive attacks. Look up the word "Apophasis", too.
The thing is, you started spewing anti-Obama nonsense. And then you were busted because the Bushies were doing the exact same things.
Now dig up the same kind of quotes for Bushie. What was that, it's only wrong when some random guy mentions Obama in a setting that might be interpreted as having a connection with superstitious beliefs? I see. At least Obama didn't claim to be on a God-given mission to "save Iraq".
Better yet, Bush claimed that he was on a God-given mission in Iraq.
The test makes Opera looks worse than it is, because while they added the brand spanking new Chrome 8, they ignored Opera 10.70, which has been available for some time now. If they can include pre-releases of other browsers, why not Opera? And unlike Chrome 8 which seems to be slower than the previous version, even these unfinished builds of Opera 10.70 are noticeably faster than the latest stable version.
I've always wondered... But how does 3D make the movie better? Why do people want 3D? I watched Avatar in 3D, and it added nothing. In fact, it was more distracting than watching it in 2D.
We never have that choice because God already knows what we'll be choosing.
And the players are still slaves of whatever happened, because it was already predetermined.
It is completely false that they are becoming the slowest ones to adopt them. Just because you found two things they weren't the first to implement doesn't mean that they are slow in general.
No one has made exaggerated and fabricated claims. The numbers you are seeing are the ones that are reported by Opera to the company's own investors. And they have the revenue growth to confirm it.
If you are disgusted by facts, then so be it.
No one is hyping Opera. We are just countering the anti-Opera talking points that go "Opera doesn't have any users," "no one cares about Opera," etc.