Well, my understanding is that they have been publishing numerous "hit pieces" and obvious propaganda nonsense regarding the trial. They are clearly on the industry's side, right?
Market share is down? Opera's user base has doubled in two years. Clearly, TheCounter is only counting stuff in the US, and not in strong Opera markets like Europe and Asia. Heck, Opera has 35% market share in Russia!
They do find holes in Opera. So it's not like they aren't trying. It's just that Opera generally seems to have quite decent security. They are really paranoid. They have blocked all sorts of stuff like local access for remote servers, and while many users are screaming about it because it limits them, it has saved Opera's ass a lot of times. When others have scrambled to fix serious security problems, Opera has been unaffected because of their strict security model.
You seem to think there's a debate here. There isn't. Developing for the web is demonstrably and provably more difficult, expensive, and slow than developing with the best GUI toolkits for the desktop.
You are assuming that everyone is using Windows PCs. This is of course not the case. More and more people are doing stuff from other types of devices. But even on a Windows PC, a web application is a lot less difficult to produce than a native application, regardless of C++ tools.
A simple thought experiment proves you're simply wrong. Which target platform has more restrictions and compromises, a web browser or a desktop OS? Yeah, thought so.
That depends on what you are trying to achieve. Most of the time, the restrictions of the web as a platform are irrelevant compared to the benefits (faster to develop, cheaper, easier to maintain, wider availability, etc.).
So because I don't buy the BS argument that science can actually investigate claims of a SUPERNATURAL being despite the fact that "supernatural" is defined as being outside of nature and science I'm a fundie?
The Christian god is supposedly interacting with reality, which means that those occurrences should be detectable. Furthermore, there are many specific claims about God's nature which we can make a case against. There are even many self-contradictory claims.
I've read some of his stuff and his attempts at theology and philosophy are mediocre at best, ignorant and childish at worst).
Spoken like a true fundie. You don't like what he has to say, so you resort to these pathetic attacks.
By the way, the only reason to include the words "almost certainly" in an assertion is to save face while conceding that, on some level, you can never actually prove what you claim. Dawkins is smart enough to see this, and inserts such language... apparently you are not smart enough to understand why.
Are you some kind of idiot? It's called "intellectual honesty". Dawkins has always been very clear that you can never be 100% certain. In fact, on his scale from 1 to 7 where 1 is absolute faith in God and 7 is absolute denial of God, Dawkins places himself at 6. Dawkins never claimed that he can prove anything.
Your pathetic attacks against intellectual honest are not unexpeected, though.
Anywhere availability is nice in some domains, not so important in others. The corporate world is an area where people tend to use web apps overmuch.
Maybe there's a reason why they use web apps so much. Maybe it's because it's faster, easier and cheaper, along with the other things I mentioned.
As for it being faster and easier to develop web apps than native apps. Ahahaha. Seriously? Tell me you're joking? Not even in the same league - a good desktop GUI development toolkit will _always_ be much more effective.
That's your claim. I disagree, and so does the rest of the world it seems. I am not surprised that C++ programmers feel threatened, though.
I guess it's nice when some commercial entities anoint themselves standards makers.
The commercial entities are part of the process of making standards. The standards process is run by a non-commercial entity. Non-commercial entities (like Mozilla) are also part of the process.
That's why things like Flash and Silverlight are popular with developers. People want to develop web apps the way they develop desktop apps.
Silverlight is not popular. Flash is popular because it covered a need.
Re:Why web developers should be dragged out and sh
on
Site Compatibility and IE8
·
· Score: 2, Informative
why is there this constant push to integrate everything into the web?
Because web is, in theory, accessible from anywhere, from any kind of device, any kind of connection. It's easy to develop web applications. It's faster and easier to develop web apps than native apps.
But then Flash came along and suddenly you've got crap that can't be indexed and is inaccessible to people who are blind or deaf
Which is why web standards need to replace Flash, and that's exactly what Mozilla, Opera, Apple and others are working on with HTML5 and such.
Not quite accurate. Chrome SAVES Google money. You see, with Firefox, Google has to share the search revenue with Mozilla. Chrome gets Google 100% of the search revenue.
So far, Apple got the message. The JavaScript handling in the new beta version of Safari is much improved
That's laughable. Did you really buy into the Google BS? Both Mozilla and Apple were optimizing their JS engines before Chrome arrived on the scene. Using the exact same methods as Chrome. Before Chrome.
Nokia used WebKit because they are too crap at this to build something from scratch. It shows. The S60 browser does suck.
Microsoft could build a new engine from scratch. They know how to build browsers. Their browsers may suck compared to the rest, but not as badly as the S60 browser.
If you are saying you can't patent a company because you can't patent a person you are then saying you can't own a company because you can't own a person.
You can't. And besides, you can own something without it being patentable. I can create a new car and not patent it, and I own it. Or I can buy something from someone else. It's mine. I own it. But I can't patent it.
it was made as a public announcement on a publicly viewable board
It wasn't made as a public announcement. It was made as a status update for his friends. That he's using a site anyone can register for (and try to befriend him to access his status updates) doesn't matter.
So, if his portrayal is accurate, then my aforementioned logical criticism (re-read my post, please) is a demonstration of "religious people are morons."
No it isn't. You are just trying to make it look like that because you can't argue rationally against his real position. It's called a straw man. Someone else even responded to you right here in this thread and called you on your claim.
And "there is no proof, therefore God does not exist" does not a logical argument make
No one is making that argument. Especially Dawkins. Which is why he argues for the position "why there almost certainly is no god".
They are not muzzled; they speak up about my religion.
We're finally in an era where criticizing religion most likely won't get you slaughtered. There's no wonder why people speak up about your religion when they get it forced upon them everywhere.
But I do not stand for people mischaracterizing what I say.
And yet you mischaracterize others (especially Dawkins)?
And you think anyone who doesn't believe in your god is arguing stridently.
You know as well as I do the atheist worldview espoused so often here on Slashdot that all that matters is science, and anything that can't be scientifically proven is meaningless.
That science is held in high regard here at Slashdot is irrelevant. Atheism still isn't a worldview. It's about as much of a worldview as not believing in Santa.
It's also called logical positivism combined with scientism, but most people don't know what those terms are.
Atheism still isn't a worldview. This has got nothing to do with atheism as such.
By the way, "Scientism" is usually used by religious fundamentalists who feel threatened by the progress of science. Before you whine about "stridency", maybe you should look at yourself. You could find that you get certain responses from people because of your own... stridency.
Succinctly, If it hasn't failed yet, then it hasn't succeeded either, yet.
Your computer works, does it not? Your computer is a product of the scientific method.
Scientists are as genetically defective as the rest of the human family, studies strongly suggest that scientists can be as hardheaded about their pet projects as the rest of us, and more creative and articulate about defending them and attacking others.
So what? That's why there's peer review, and why others have to be able to repeat your findings.
For example, there are two main theories of the origin of life, basically replication first or Metabolism first. Two scientists were quoted in a science mag (I forget which) and they both called the other's theory "Out of the realm of science."
Sounds like quote mining to me. Creationists do this a lot.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is, Opera's market share is not going down.
The iPhone lacks responsiveness as well. No touch device I've tried gets it right. Including the iPhone.
So how do you show how many packets they sent? Can you show that they sent the whole work?
Well, my understanding is that they have been publishing numerous "hit pieces" and obvious propaganda nonsense regarding the trial. They are clearly on the industry's side, right?
Isn't dn.se just another industry shill?
Market share is down? Opera's user base has doubled in two years. Clearly, TheCounter is only counting stuff in the US, and not in strong Opera markets like Europe and Asia. Heck, Opera has 35% market share in Russia!
They do find holes in Opera. So it's not like they aren't trying. It's just that Opera generally seems to have quite decent security. They are really paranoid. They have blocked all sorts of stuff like local access for remote servers, and while many users are screaming about it because it limits them, it has saved Opera's ass a lot of times. When others have scrambled to fix serious security problems, Opera has been unaffected because of their strict security model.
How can Opera refuse to take part? It's not like their permission is required to download the browser.
You are assuming that everyone is using Windows PCs. This is of course not the case. More and more people are doing stuff from other types of devices. But even on a Windows PC, a web application is a lot less difficult to produce than a native application, regardless of C++ tools.
That depends on what you are trying to achieve. Most of the time, the restrictions of the web as a platform are irrelevant compared to the benefits (faster to develop, cheaper, easier to maintain, wider availability, etc.).
The Christian god is supposedly interacting with reality, which means that those occurrences should be detectable. Furthermore, there are many specific claims about God's nature which we can make a case against. There are even many self-contradictory claims.
Spoken like a true fundie. You don't like what he has to say, so you resort to these pathetic attacks.
Are you some kind of idiot? It's called "intellectual honesty". Dawkins has always been very clear that you can never be 100% certain. In fact, on his scale from 1 to 7 where 1 is absolute faith in God and 7 is absolute denial of God, Dawkins places himself at 6. Dawkins never claimed that he can prove anything.
Your pathetic attacks against intellectual honest are not unexpeected, though.
Being "a foreigner" doesn't mean that your English skills have to be lacking.
Maybe there's a reason why they use web apps so much. Maybe it's because it's faster, easier and cheaper, along with the other things I mentioned.
That's your claim. I disagree, and so does the rest of the world it seems. I am not surprised that C++ programmers feel threatened, though.
The commercial entities are part of the process of making standards. The standards process is run by a non-commercial entity. Non-commercial entities (like Mozilla) are also part of the process.
Silverlight is not popular. Flash is popular because it covered a need.
Because web is, in theory, accessible from anywhere, from any kind of device, any kind of connection. It's easy to develop web applications. It's faster and easier to develop web apps than native apps.
Which is why web standards need to replace Flash, and that's exactly what Mozilla, Opera, Apple and others are working on with HTML5 and such.
Not quite accurate. Chrome SAVES Google money. You see, with Firefox, Google has to share the search revenue with Mozilla. Chrome gets Google 100% of the search revenue.
That's laughable. Did you really buy into the Google BS? Both Mozilla and Apple were optimizing their JS engines before Chrome arrived on the scene. Using the exact same methods as Chrome. Before Chrome.
But with Firefox, Google has to share revenue with Mozilla. With Chrome, Google gets everything.
Actually, if Chrome takes over for Firefox, Google gets 100% of the search revenue. Right now, they have to pay a lot of money to Mozilla.
What, everyone using the same browser?
Repeat after me: Browser. Monoculture. Is. Harmful.
Not just because of the security nightmare it is to have a browser monoculture, but who's going to push everything forward?
Microsoft could build a new engine from scratch. They know how to build browsers. Their browsers may suck compared to the rest, but not as badly as the S60 browser.
You can't. And besides, you can own something without it being patentable. I can create a new car and not patent it, and I own it. Or I can buy something from someone else. It's mine. I own it. But I can't patent it.
If you resist, sure. If you don't, no resisting charge.
In which case you shouldn't be driving in the first place. Fatigue is as bad as alcohol in traffic, research shows.
It wasn't made as a public announcement. It was made as a status update for his friends. That he's using a site anyone can register for (and try to befriend him to access his status updates) doesn't matter.
No it isn't. You are just trying to make it look like that because you can't argue rationally against his real position. It's called a straw man. Someone else even responded to you right here in this thread and called you on your claim.
No one is making that argument. Especially Dawkins. Which is why he argues for the position "why there almost certainly is no god".
We're finally in an era where criticizing religion most likely won't get you slaughtered. There's no wonder why people speak up about your religion when they get it forced upon them everywhere.
And yet you mischaracterize others (especially Dawkins)?
And you think anyone who doesn't believe in your god is arguing stridently.
That science is held in high regard here at Slashdot is irrelevant. Atheism still isn't a worldview. It's about as much of a worldview as not believing in Santa.
Atheism still isn't a worldview. This has got nothing to do with atheism as such.
By the way, "Scientism" is usually used by religious fundamentalists who feel threatened by the progress of science. Before you whine about "stridency", maybe you should look at yourself. You could find that you get certain responses from people because of your own... stridency.
Your computer works, does it not? Your computer is a product of the scientific method.
So what? That's why there's peer review, and why others have to be able to repeat your findings.
Sounds like quote mining to me. Creationists do this a lot.