Why would it become just a skin for WebKit? The engine doesn't even matter to most people. Most people will notice that all sites are suddenly working, and that's about it. It's the user interface that makes Opera relevant.
Now you're throwing in the towel to Google, Microsoft and Firefox(which I don't hate I just don't like), leaving yourself open to patent trolls and big business shenanigans
Why would they be more open to patent trolls when using Webkit?
This is going to bite you in the butt, you know it I know it.
This will kill the crew morale; most of the dev's will quit.
Why would it kill morale? If there's anything that would kill morale it's to have to spend most of your time fixing broken sites instead of doing cool new things. According to an Opera employees, the devs are still there.
Opera may continue to grow for a bit; just like Dell did when it started to outsource more and more manufacturing, and then design to asian companies. (One of those companies is now known as Asus). But it the long run, having no technology, it will deteriorate.
What do you mean "having no technology"? How will Opera deteriorate by using the most popular browser engine? How is Opera outsourcing anything. They will be contributing to Webkit.
Your comment is a straw man. No one said it has to be extremely detailed. But it's perfectly possible to make plans. And if things change, then the plan is adjusted accordingly. You don't need to be a commie to plan ahead, son.
The point is that the only empirical way to validate a theory is having that theory make predictions about things that aren't yet measured (most obvious one: the future), then verify those predictions against reality.
No, you can also use historical data and verify your models against those. And those models are based on physics rather than adaption to the data, so how well the model "predicts" past climate says something about how useful that model is.
The scientific consensus theory of 1990-1995-2000 (insofar you can call an averaging of all models a valid theory*) failed.
False. Even Hansen's predictions from the 80s are eerily accurate.
The point is not making claims about historical situations. The point is validating theories, or, in this case, invalidating them.
The point is that the predictions have come true, and the models can be tested against past data because the models are using physics rather than adapting to the actual data.
Although even here warmists have shifted from "global warming" to the more ambiguous and all-encompassing "climate change".
They have not. I have no idea why you are repeating this lie which science deniers frequently spew. I mean, how fucking stupid are you to miss the name of the IPCC? You know what those letters mean, and when it was founded?
Your feelings are irrational and factually wrong. Opera is actually ahead of other browsers when it comes to implementing some standards. The problem is that Opera doesn't get to influence web designers much, so they also have to implement whatever Chrome does.
Poor extensions? They are actually more powerful than Chrome extensions in some ways.
We are at the end phase of the 4th shortened Ice recession,
out of the 23 we've seen in this current ice age;
of course temperatures are growing warmer and more
erratic at an accelerated pace.
Then what's up with all those deniers triumphantly declaring that the warming has stopped?
Maybe a little less dismissive, arrogant cocksuredness from
the lovers of scientific models and prognostication would be
more persuasive.to a public grown pretty wary of scientific
finding largely paid for by the governments that will accumulate
even more power to themselves if they can persuade us the sky
is falling.
Red herring. The validity of the science does not depend on the political actions being taken based on that science. Of course, if you only care about your ideology and not facts it would make sense that you mix the two...
Nice cherry-picking there, denier. How about we look at, say, the last 60 years instead? Oops. Looks like you have exposed yourself as a dishonest cherry-picker.
Skeptic of my agenda? You don't even know what my agenda is. I haven't even made a single political suggestion. All I've done is point out how science deniers deny and attack science.
A skeptic is a skeptic. A denier is a denier. A skeptic is someone who look rationally at the evidence, while the denier simply denies it. A true skeptic will come to accept AGW because of the overwhelming evidence.
As for your second paragraph, science is attacked by people with presumptions and agendas. The classic examples are creationists and tobacco deniers. More recently, vaccine opponents, and other "alternative medicine" loons.
Rational people will notice how all of these (climate deniers, creationists, tobacco deniers, vaccine opponents, etc.) all insist that the science is corrupt and wrong, and that they know much better despite not having a shred of evidence. No research supporting their nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a very strange sinking ship then, considering that they've set new profit and revenue records many quarters in a row now.
In fact, they really started bringing in the big cash once the founder stepped down.
In other words: You seem to be a bit confused.
That's just a small part of it. Most if it is through revenue deals with Google and others (they get paid when people use the Google search field).
Maybe the engine made them different, but it also caused problems. Constant complaints about compatibility problems, for one.
What makes Oepra different from Chrome when it's using Webkit? Less site compatibility?
It's the user interface and features of course.
Why would it become just a skin for WebKit? The engine doesn't even matter to most people. Most people will notice that all sites are suddenly working, and that's about it. It's the user interface that makes Opera relevant.
But most of it is from the regular end user version where Opera makes money every time you search.
How is it just another Webkit clone? It's actually using Webkit. And how is using Webkit worse than using Presto?
Why would they be more open to patent trolls when using Webkit?
Why, and how?
Why would it kill morale? If there's anything that would kill morale it's to have to spend most of your time fixing broken sites instead of doing cool new things. According to an Opera employees, the devs are still there.
What do you mean "having no technology"? How will Opera deteriorate by using the most popular browser engine? How is Opera outsourcing anything. They will be contributing to Webkit.
Smartphones don't have web browsers?
It's not that everyone should suffer. It's that she's whining about not being given additional privileges for no good reason.
Your comment is a straw man. No one said it has to be extremely detailed. But it's perfectly possible to make plans. And if things change, then the plan is adjusted accordingly. You don't need to be a commie to plan ahead, son.
No, you can also use historical data and verify your models against those. And those models are based on physics rather than adaption to the data, so how well the model "predicts" past climate says something about how useful that model is.
False. Even Hansen's predictions from the 80s are eerily accurate.
The point is that the predictions have come true, and the models can be tested against past data because the models are using physics rather than adapting to the actual data.
"The Commies made plans on a large scale, and therefore we should not do it" ???
They have not. I have no idea why you are repeating this lie which science deniers frequently spew. I mean, how fucking stupid are you to miss the name of the IPCC? You know what those letters mean, and when it was founded?
Consensus is not a decision. It is the collective judgment of the scientific community.
How come Lindzen gets to publish research if your other lie is true?
Why would anyone read denialist propaganda sites like that?
Because they shipped the prefixes in production versions, and didn't even remove them again later.
Your feelings are irrational and factually wrong. Opera is actually ahead of other browsers when it comes to implementing some standards. The problem is that Opera doesn't get to influence web designers much, so they also have to implement whatever Chrome does.
Poor extensions? They are actually more powerful than Chrome extensions in some ways.
What makes you think all those things have not already been considered?
Oh yeah, that's right. Deniers just spew the same old ignorant garbage regardless.
"The commies planned ahead. Therefore we should not do it."
???
Ah yes. Denialism 101. When facts are overwhelming, fall back and return to mindlessly spewing dishonest talking points.
Then what's up with all those deniers triumphantly declaring that the warming has stopped?
Red herring. The validity of the science does not depend on the political actions being taken based on that science. Of course, if you only care about your ideology and not facts it would make sense that you mix the two...
Nice cherry-picking there, denier. How about we look at, say, the last 60 years instead? Oops. Looks like you have exposed yourself as a dishonest cherry-picker.
Skeptic of my agenda? You don't even know what my agenda is. I haven't even made a single political suggestion. All I've done is point out how science deniers deny and attack science.
A skeptic is a skeptic. A denier is a denier. A skeptic is someone who look rationally at the evidence, while the denier simply denies it. A true skeptic will come to accept AGW because of the overwhelming evidence.
As for your second paragraph, science is attacked by people with presumptions and agendas. The classic examples are creationists and tobacco deniers. More recently, vaccine opponents, and other "alternative medicine" loons.
Rational people will notice how all of these (climate deniers, creationists, tobacco deniers, vaccine opponents, etc.) all insist that the science is corrupt and wrong, and that they know much better despite not having a shred of evidence. No research supporting their nonsense.
Old Wiis were easy to crack. Newer Wiis were much harder to hardmod, and software updates made it increasingly harder to softmod.
But all of this is just a side discussion. The main point is that you are mistaken about the Wii and Wii U.