If you read the link you give, it gives reasons why Opera would be significantly underrepresented:
Most browsers generate additional page hits by refreshing webpages when user navigates back through page history; only a few browsers (like Opera) reuse cached content without resending requests to server.
Many browsers and download managers spoof a different user agent string to the web server to prevent erroneous or malicious browser sniffing which could result in receiving broken or incompatible code, or being completely blocked, and thus increasing the statistics for other browsers (as an example, prior to version 9, the Opera web browser had "Identify as Internet Explorer" as the default user setting)
There's no way you can treat these stats as reliable.
Explorer is bundled with Windows, Safari with Mac and iPhone
A selection that includes the Iphone in the top three platforms is even more biased than a selection that doesn't include Opera in the top three browsers!
Try looking at all of the other phones that were available since years before Apple decided to make a phone, many of which come with a version of Opera.
some mobile phones
Yes, some mobile phones, which is more than the Iphone.
I never said anything about margins. The OP said "If you want a cheap, expandable, desktop", and praised Apple for not producing such products, simply because it isn't in their interest.
Other PC games require you to insert the disc every time you boot the game. This could be considered equally atrocious as what Steam does. If you don't have a network connection no game for you versus no disc no game for you.
When I buy a game, it comes with the CD. Do Steam games come with a broadband Internet connection?
If I bought a game and it didn't include a necessary CD, then yes that would be "considered equally atrocious as what Steam does".
Steam only delivers ads for other Steam games. Not for Coca Cola or some crap.
I am in full agreement - but as always, anything that isn't praising Apple gets modded down. Also note how the iphone doesn't even support industry standard cross-platform methods for running games, that almost all other phones support.
Games have been on phones for years, and there is nothing special about the IPHONE here - it's a shame that the media (including Slashdot) give free advertising to Apple, as if they were the only phone company around.
It might perhaps be an interesting statistic that games usage among Iphone users has grown the most, but that doesn't say anything about market share as gaming platforms, or usage overall. Also, since Apple is a late-comer to the market, one would expect growth to be higher, as it is starting from a smaller amount.
I don't recall having a Motorola V980 Gaming Continues To Grow article on CNN, not to mention an article for every other phone.
Although you could say exactly the same thing with "phone" instead of "Iphone". Phones have been doing games for years - and one would expect games to get more advanced, and gaming on phones to become more popular. I'm not sure why it's suddenly news just because Apple show up late to the party.
I agree. And it's not like the employer has a bad deal here - people usually don't get paid for the travel time to work, which often adds up to many hours over a week. Starting the clock when you are in the building is already a compromise that should be more than fair to the employer.
Who in their right mind would design a product to cater to you?
Someone other than Apple.
When it comes to evaluating how good Macs are, I find it odd to resort to special pleading of "Oh, but they want to make a large amount of profit". Yes, we know, thank you for confirming that Macs are expensive.
Back in the days when the Amiga 4000 was rather expensive, you never heard people defending it with "Oh, but Commodore have to make a nice profit off of people, so actually that's okay, and it doesn't matter than high end PCs were much cheaper".
We know that Apple don't cater to all computer users, and are only interested in selling where they can make a profit in a niche market. We know that the PC platform allows you to buy whatever product you want, at a low price. The question is, why is Apple's way of doing things good from a potential buyer's point of view?
Clearly, both series are infinite. Just as clearly, there are "more" even integers than there are odd integer multiples of seven.
This is getting off-topic, but mathematically it doesn't really make sense to say that one set is bigger than the other. You can set up a one-to-one correspondance between the two sets, so in set theory they are considered to be the same size.
What's more interesting however is that there can be "larger" infinite sets - for example, you can't set up a one-to-one correspondance between the integers and the real numbers, so the reals are a larger infinite set. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countably_infinite.)
These theories aren't about trying to disprove unfalsifiable conjecture such as "God" - that's just the political spin put on by the media.
This is about explaining why the Universe is the way it is.
How does this rule out the possibility of an intelligent creator?
The point is that one of the arguments put forward in favour of an "intelligent creator" is that the Universe seems just right for life, so this would disprove that argument. The fact that you can retreat to an unfalsifiable version of "God" that might still exist is neither here not there. (It's a rather weak argument anyway, as you'd still have to explain how conditions were "just right" for an intelligent creator to exist).
Religion is the "answer" to the question of origin.
It doesn't provide an answer at all - I presume this is what you mean by the quotes.
as a human being I find people who think that science can explain everything rather arrogant.
There may well be some things that are fundamentally unknowable - which is true is a matter of opinion, and I'm not sure that either viewpoint is "arrogant".
What I found arrogant however is the idea that "science can't explain everything", but that there somehow exists some other method by which we could explain it. E.g., people who say "Religion explains the 'why' which science can't do", or people who try to give extra credibility to alternative medicine and other hocus pocus by claiming "science isn't the only way to find answers".
Nope, all I'm requiring is that we have some way of knowing how likely these "answers" are to be true or not. Otherwise, it is no different to simply making answers up, which anyone can do.
Nah, things like, "What is the meaning of life?" or "How should a person live their life?" can never be answered by science. That's why religion is complementary.
But religion doesn't provide an answer for the first question either (unless making up an answer counts, in which case it is not a fair comparison). And my point still stands - if there was a meaning of life that we could ever know about, then in principle science could answer that question. The problem is that there does not seem to be an answer, or one that we can ever know - in which case, religion doesn't answer it either.
The second question is a matter of ethics, which I agree is part of many religions, though it's also part of non-religious philosophies too.
The sad thing that atheists miss is that Christianity really does have a transformative power for good on people's lives. Setting aside the metaphysics, and just looking at it pragmatically -- if Christianity makes the world a better place, and makes peoples' lives better, why the fuck are you all so against it?
In what sense do you think atheists are "against it"? I don't see anyone claiming it should be banned.
The only concern to me, and many atheists, is whether it is true. Whether or not a particular false belief happens to have good effects or bad effects is beside the point. And getting back on-topic, the point is that religious beliefs should not be treated differently to any other belief.
just like how "how?" and "why?" are complementary questions.
This is a common argument, but it's never made sense to me. Religion doesn't answer the "why" - it's not even clear that things have a purpose anyway, but either way, making up an answer is not the same providing an actual explanation.
Moreover, if things did have a purpose, and this was something that we could find out about, then that would be in the realm of science (in principle at least).
Consider, supposing someone was murdered, and a relative asks "Why did he have to die?" The blunt scientific answer would be "A bullet entered his body and..." (i.e., "how"), when the person probably means "for what purpose". But motives for the murderer are still in the realm of science and evidence!
If instead someone died in an accident, then someone asking "Why did he have to die" is probably alluding that there is some higher purpose, which is what religions might claim. But there is no evidence for this. So there's no way to know if there is a purpose - and if there was, it would be in the realm of science.
The distinction is that delusional beliefs are fixed, false beliefs that are causing mental ill-health; in other words they are having a deleterious effect on the person's life. Simply discovering that someone believes something that is false does not imply delusion.
Sure, that's a sensible distinction to make - but it's got nothing to do with an exemption for religion.
Some (not all) people with religious beliefs have beliefs that cause problems for the person (and they are often "fixed").
Some (not all) people with non-religious beliefs have beliefs that cause problems for the person.
I believe there was a case recently where some poor child committed suicide after being persecuted online. So, yes, I think they should do something specfic about this.
Whilst an adult impersonating a child in order to trick them is certainly unethical, it's a huge leap to suggest that this caused someone to commit suicide. Consider, supposing the events had been for real: there really was a boy who then dumped her (IIRC what she pretended was something like that) - would it make sense to say that the boy dumping her caused her to kill herself?
Interesting - talking about BlackBerry in a BlackBerry story is "off-topic", but the obligatory mention of the Iphone in every phone story is not off-topic.
I'm left handed, but for using a mouse, my right hand is dominant. This means I can use a keyboard and mouse ambidextrously. Which is very handy for playing FPSs.
Indeed, I feel lost without my daily iPhOnE story.
Perhaps this is the start of a new direction - I look forward to articles about how wonderful it is that the BlackBerry now supports 3G, and how it can do new-fangled things like checking email and web browsing.
Indeed - and it's worth noting that passports were far cheaper before the Government started upping the price in order to combine the passport with the national ID card scheme.
So all these people whining they support ID cards because they want a convenient means of ID - they could have just got a passport, which would've been cheaper, and less hassle (no having to be fingerprinted, and pay for the privilege, for example). But if they want to be stupid and support a worse system, that's up to them; the most annoying thing is that they use this argument to support a compulsory ID card scheme, and thus their idiocy forces this unnecessary system onto the rest of us too, who already have perfectly good ID.
This is a common myth by those who think that "If they're not biased towards my conservative or authoritarian views, there must be a liberal bias". And what's wrong with being liberal anyway? Don't you support people having freedom? I'd rather liberal than Government authoritarianism.
Next you'll be telling me that Wikipedia has a liberal bias, and that Conservapedia is a much better source...
Oh, and Apple lets you write native code with the same APIs they use, rather than forcing you to use Java.
So I have the choice to use Java on the Iphone if I want, right? I mean, if you're saying it's deserving of smartphone status, I assume it now has all of those features that even bog standard cheap non-smartphones provide, right?
My bog standard cheap phone can run "those billions of redundant solitaire games" btw, for free. As well as a lot more besides. Almost all phones can.
I don't understand why this story just focuses on the Iphone versus the BlackBerry - "Iphone more reliable than only one other phone" - how on earth is that news?
I hope so. But my fear is that they'll try to sneak it in by making it required for certain things (most notably, a passport). So sure, if they said tomorrow everyone had to report to their local ID card office to be fingerprinted, there'd be mass civil disobedience. But instead it'll be that the only way to get a passport is to get one of the new combined ID card and passport. Eventually people will have to renew, and for a lot of people in the UK (myself included), giving up the right to travel abroad is a big sacrifice.
Trick question. If you stop calling the people participating in the act "criminals," then the criminal influence disappears. The behavior does not, however.
Not at all - the criminal behaviour referred to is rape and sex slavery, and that would still be criminal. So the question of whether people would still participate in criminal behaviour if prostitution was legal is fair, because no one is claiming that rape should be legalised(!)
Now if you're now switching the debate to saying that prostitution is bad even if it's legal, then you should say so - without conflating the issue with acts that would still be illegal, like rape, as you did in your earlier post.
Cuz just not calling the people criminals anymore ain't going to work.
You are the one doing the labelling trick - labelling them as "criminals", and then concluding that it's criminal behaviour.
I'm sorry, but you Slashdotters are talking like typical men.
Ah yes, what a great argument. You're the one who wants to tell women what they are allowed to do - you're the typical man. Perhaps you should ask people who work in that industry what they want, rather than telling them?
The happy-go-lucky, sex-positive female who chose the sex industry as a fun, hot way to make a living is the minority.
Firstly, your evidence? Secondly, that doesn't justify criminalising innocent people, when the illegal things would still be illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
If you read the link you give, it gives reasons why Opera would be significantly underrepresented:
Most browsers generate additional page hits by refreshing webpages when user navigates back through page history; only a few browsers (like Opera) reuse cached content without resending requests to server.
Many browsers and download managers spoof a different user agent string to the web server to prevent erroneous or malicious browser sniffing which could result in receiving broken or incompatible code, or being completely blocked, and thus increasing the statistics for other browsers (as an example, prior to version 9, the Opera web browser had "Identify as Internet Explorer" as the default user setting)
There's no way you can treat these stats as reliable.
Explorer is bundled with Windows, Safari with Mac and iPhone
A selection that includes the Iphone in the top three platforms is even more biased than a selection that doesn't include Opera in the top three browsers!
Try looking at all of the other phones that were available since years before Apple decided to make a phone, many of which come with a version of Opera.
some mobile phones
Yes, some mobile phones, which is more than the Iphone.
low price != low margin
I never said anything about margins. The OP said "If you want a cheap, expandable, desktop", and praised Apple for not producing such products, simply because it isn't in their interest.
Other PC games require you to insert the disc every time you boot the game. This could be considered equally atrocious as what Steam does. If you don't have a network connection no game for you versus no disc no game for you.
When I buy a game, it comes with the CD. Do Steam games come with a broadband Internet connection?
If I bought a game and it didn't include a necessary CD, then yes that would be "considered equally atrocious as what Steam does".
Steam only delivers ads for other Steam games. Not for Coca Cola or some crap.
Oh, that makes it okay then.
I am in full agreement - but as always, anything that isn't praising Apple gets modded down. Also note how the iphone doesn't even support industry standard cross-platform methods for running games, that almost all other phones support.
Games have been on phones for years, and there is nothing special about the IPHONE here - it's a shame that the media (including Slashdot) give free advertising to Apple, as if they were the only phone company around.
It might perhaps be an interesting statistic that games usage among Iphone users has grown the most, but that doesn't say anything about market share as gaming platforms, or usage overall. Also, since Apple is a late-comer to the market, one would expect growth to be higher, as it is starting from a smaller amount.
I don't recall having a Motorola V980 Gaming Continues To Grow article on CNN, not to mention an article for every other phone.
Although you could say exactly the same thing with "phone" instead of "Iphone". Phones have been doing games for years - and one would expect games to get more advanced, and gaming on phones to become more popular. I'm not sure why it's suddenly news just because Apple show up late to the party.
I agree. And it's not like the employer has a bad deal here - people usually don't get paid for the travel time to work, which often adds up to many hours over a week. Starting the clock when you are in the building is already a compromise that should be more than fair to the employer.
Who in their right mind would design a product to cater to you?
Someone other than Apple.
When it comes to evaluating how good Macs are, I find it odd to resort to special pleading of "Oh, but they want to make a large amount of profit". Yes, we know, thank you for confirming that Macs are expensive.
Back in the days when the Amiga 4000 was rather expensive, you never heard people defending it with "Oh, but Commodore have to make a nice profit off of people, so actually that's okay, and it doesn't matter than high end PCs were much cheaper".
We know that Apple don't cater to all computer users, and are only interested in selling where they can make a profit in a niche market. We know that the PC platform allows you to buy whatever product you want, at a low price. The question is, why is Apple's way of doing things good from a potential buyer's point of view?
Clearly, both series are infinite. Just as clearly, there are "more" even integers than there are odd integer multiples of seven.
This is getting off-topic, but mathematically it doesn't really make sense to say that one set is bigger than the other. You can set up a one-to-one correspondance between the two sets, so in set theory they are considered to be the same size.
What's more interesting however is that there can be "larger" infinite sets - for example, you can't set up a one-to-one correspondance between the integers and the real numbers, so the reals are a larger infinite set. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countably_infinite .)
These theories aren't about trying to disprove unfalsifiable conjecture such as "God" - that's just the political spin put on by the media.
This is about explaining why the Universe is the way it is.
How does this rule out the possibility of an intelligent creator?
The point is that one of the arguments put forward in favour of an "intelligent creator" is that the Universe seems just right for life, so this would disprove that argument. The fact that you can retreat to an unfalsifiable version of "God" that might still exist is neither here not there. (It's a rather weak argument anyway, as you'd still have to explain how conditions were "just right" for an intelligent creator to exist).
Religion is the "answer" to the question of origin.
It doesn't provide an answer at all - I presume this is what you mean by the quotes.
as a human being I find people who think that science can explain everything rather arrogant.
There may well be some things that are fundamentally unknowable - which is true is a matter of opinion, and I'm not sure that either viewpoint is "arrogant".
What I found arrogant however is the idea that "science can't explain everything", but that there somehow exists some other method by which we could explain it. E.g., people who say "Religion explains the 'why' which science can't do", or people who try to give extra credibility to alternative medicine and other hocus pocus by claiming "science isn't the only way to find answers".
Nope, all I'm requiring is that we have some way of knowing how likely these "answers" are to be true or not. Otherwise, it is no different to simply making answers up, which anyone can do.
Nah, things like, "What is the meaning of life?" or "How should a person live their life?" can never be answered by science. That's why religion is complementary.
But religion doesn't provide an answer for the first question either (unless making up an answer counts, in which case it is not a fair comparison). And my point still stands - if there was a meaning of life that we could ever know about, then in principle science could answer that question. The problem is that there does not seem to be an answer, or one that we can ever know - in which case, religion doesn't answer it either.
The second question is a matter of ethics, which I agree is part of many religions, though it's also part of non-religious philosophies too.
The sad thing that atheists miss is that Christianity really does have a transformative power for good on people's lives. Setting aside the metaphysics, and just looking at it pragmatically -- if Christianity makes the world a better place, and makes peoples' lives better, why the fuck are you all so against it?
In what sense do you think atheists are "against it"? I don't see anyone claiming it should be banned.
The only concern to me, and many atheists, is whether it is true. Whether or not a particular false belief happens to have good effects or bad effects is beside the point. And getting back on-topic, the point is that religious beliefs should not be treated differently to any other belief.
just like how "how?" and "why?" are complementary questions.
This is a common argument, but it's never made sense to me. Religion doesn't answer the "why" - it's not even clear that things have a purpose anyway, but either way, making up an answer is not the same providing an actual explanation.
Moreover, if things did have a purpose, and this was something that we could find out about, then that would be in the realm of science (in principle at least).
Consider, supposing someone was murdered, and a relative asks "Why did he have to die?" The blunt scientific answer would be "A bullet entered his body and ..." (i.e., "how"), when the person probably means "for what purpose". But motives for the murderer are still in the realm of science and evidence!
If instead someone died in an accident, then someone asking "Why did he have to die" is probably alluding that there is some higher purpose, which is what religions might claim. But there is no evidence for this. So there's no way to know if there is a purpose - and if there was, it would be in the realm of science.
The distinction is that delusional beliefs are fixed, false beliefs that are causing mental ill-health; in other words they are having a deleterious effect on the person's life. Simply discovering that someone believes something that is false does not imply delusion.
Sure, that's a sensible distinction to make - but it's got nothing to do with an exemption for religion.
Some (not all) people with religious beliefs have beliefs that cause problems for the person (and they are often "fixed").
Some (not all) people with non-religious beliefs have beliefs that cause problems for the person.
I believe there was a case recently where some poor child committed suicide after being persecuted online. So, yes, I think they should do something specfic about this.
Whilst an adult impersonating a child in order to trick them is certainly unethical, it's a huge leap to suggest that this caused someone to commit suicide. Consider, supposing the events had been for real: there really was a boy who then dumped her (IIRC what she pretended was something like that) - would it make sense to say that the boy dumping her caused her to kill herself?
Interesting - talking about BlackBerry in a BlackBerry story is "off-topic", but the obligatory mention of the Iphone in every phone story is not off-topic.
I'm left handed, but for using a mouse, my right hand is dominant. This means I can use a keyboard and mouse ambidextrously. Which is very handy for playing FPSs.
Indeed, I feel lost without my daily iPhOnE story.
Perhaps this is the start of a new direction - I look forward to articles about how wonderful it is that the BlackBerry now supports 3G, and how it can do new-fangled things like checking email and web browsing.
Indeed - and it's worth noting that passports were far cheaper before the Government started upping the price in order to combine the passport with the national ID card scheme.
So all these people whining they support ID cards because they want a convenient means of ID - they could have just got a passport, which would've been cheaper, and less hassle (no having to be fingerprinted, and pay for the privilege, for example). But if they want to be stupid and support a worse system, that's up to them; the most annoying thing is that they use this argument to support a compulsory ID card scheme, and thus their idiocy forces this unnecessary system onto the rest of us too, who already have perfectly good ID.
Your evidence of liberal bias?
This is a common myth by those who think that "If they're not biased towards my conservative or authoritarian views, there must be a liberal bias". And what's wrong with being liberal anyway? Don't you support people having freedom? I'd rather liberal than Government authoritarianism.
Next you'll be telling me that Wikipedia has a liberal bias, and that Conservapedia is a much better source...
Oh, and Apple lets you write native code with the same APIs they use, rather than forcing you to use Java.
So I have the choice to use Java on the Iphone if I want, right? I mean, if you're saying it's deserving of smartphone status, I assume it now has all of those features that even bog standard cheap non-smartphones provide, right?
My bog standard cheap phone can run "those billions of redundant solitaire games" btw, for free. As well as a lot more besides. Almost all phones can.
I don't understand why this story just focuses on the Iphone versus the BlackBerry - "Iphone more reliable than only one other phone" - how on earth is that news?
Indeed - in the UK, it was only in the last year that we finally repealed the Christian Blasphemy law, after someone tried to sue the BBC using it.
I hope so. But my fear is that they'll try to sneak it in by making it required for certain things (most notably, a passport). So sure, if they said tomorrow everyone had to report to their local ID card office to be fingerprinted, there'd be mass civil disobedience. But instead it'll be that the only way to get a passport is to get one of the new combined ID card and passport. Eventually people will have to renew, and for a lot of people in the UK (myself included), giving up the right to travel abroad is a big sacrifice.
Trick question. If you stop calling the people participating in the act "criminals," then the criminal influence disappears. The behavior does not, however.
Not at all - the criminal behaviour referred to is rape and sex slavery, and that would still be criminal. So the question of whether people would still participate in criminal behaviour if prostitution was legal is fair, because no one is claiming that rape should be legalised(!)
Now if you're now switching the debate to saying that prostitution is bad even if it's legal, then you should say so - without conflating the issue with acts that would still be illegal, like rape, as you did in your earlier post.
Cuz just not calling the people criminals anymore ain't going to work.
You are the one doing the labelling trick - labelling them as "criminals", and then concluding that it's criminal behaviour.
I'm sorry, but you Slashdotters are talking like typical men.
Ah yes, what a great argument. You're the one who wants to tell women what they are allowed to do - you're the typical man. Perhaps you should ask people who work in that industry what they want, rather than telling them?
The happy-go-lucky, sex-positive female who chose the sex industry as a fun, hot way to make a living is the minority.
Firstly, your evidence? Secondly, that doesn't justify criminalising innocent people, when the illegal things would still be illegal.