I do hope you're trolling. I could spend the time to refute your post, but you are literally too stupid to challenge.
2501 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
I do hope you're trolling. I could spend the time to refute your post, but you are literally too stupid to challenge.
Oh look, an Opera fanboy! I was wondering where you were in all this. I expect the rest are weeping in a corner.
FF and Chrome both provide bare-bones browsers that require third-party extensions to come close to Opera's native feature set.
That would be the extension framework that Opera insisted it didn't need, then added anyway? And where do you get off calling the two browsers that caned everyone else for years "bare bones"?
Besides, maybe not everyone requires that functionality in the browser. Better to leave it slim and provide optional installers than let it get bloated.
When those browsers do get more built-in functionality it tends to be cut-down versions of stuff Opera added a few releases back (compare Chrome or FF's New Tab layouts copied from the far-superior Speed Dial in Opera).
See, this is the hipster mindset at work. You complain that other browsers don't have features that Opera has, which is fair enough. Then they add those features, and you complain that they "copied them", and refuse to accept the improvement.
Everyone rips off everyone else and you know it. IE7 was a blatant point-for-point copy of Firefox. Everyone and their mother has ripped off Firebug for their developer toolset. Firefox and IE swiped Chrome's minimalist interface (though I turned it off back in FF4, so I can't honestly say if it still looks that way). Firefox went for Chrome's stupid 6-week release cycle (though Jetpack came of that, and Jetpack is awesome). If I were to go back, I'm willing to bet that I can find features in Opera that other browsers had first - so what?
Windows 8 finally added ISO mounting. OMG, how dare they rip off Linux??!
Opera's rendering engine being killed off in favour of Google's
Webkit belongs to Google now? When the fuck did that happen? Last I checked, Apple spun it off from KHTML.
* And no, Nets^h^h^h^h Firefox is not worth mentioning, too many people have been burned there.
If by "burned" you mean "have enjoyed a consistently accurate rendering engine".
I don't mind Opera using Webkit, so long as they don't use whatever buggy-as-hell bleeding-edge version Chrome uses. I'll keep using Gecko though.
Richard Dawkins comes across as an arrogant asshole
It's possible for a man to be arrogant and correct.
Not until it's tested in court. Getting a Trademark doesn't really seal the right until it's actually tested and tried under the rigours of a Judge.
Then given the requirement for them to protect the trademark, they are forced to take this current action, right? Who they went after doesn't matter (except to you lot, who I guarantee wouldn't be bleating so much if this wasn't a little indie guy). The principle is the same.
The laughably small amount of research I've done suggests that it is in fact a registered trademark of GW's. Doesn't trademark law require them to make good efforts to protect the mark?
Boom, here you go
Christ, you'd think all the people banging on about this could at least run a search...
If they actually have a trademark on "Space Marine" (did the article address this?) then surely they also have a point? I mean, for all the talk of rip-offs in this thread, GW themselves have been ripped off before. *Cough* Warcraft *Hack*
What a surprise, a web-designer suggesting a site should be redesigned.
Surely updating your site's interface to use CSS properly (which isn't necessarily the same as redesigning it) is much less effort than creating and support multi-platform apps?
I'm prototyping an RWD version of our website at the minute, and despite having barely any styling yet, it matches the layout of the original well enough that at first glance it looks like the same site - until you try to view it in a browser that isn't a fullscreen desktop app.
So I'm not the only one who thinks that RWD is another good (if slightly obvious) idea surrounded by bullshit terminology and a design luvvie circlejerk?
Internet Explorer at any version is still the same crappy browser on a Trident rendering engine.
Granted, IE9 and IE10 have improved, but a turd is a turd no matter how you polish it.
See what I mean? "Derrr, it's just shit because it's IE. It doesn't matter if they re-wrote the whole thing, its IE, so it must be shit. Guuuh, more sticky plasters for my knuckles pleeeze."
The above is fiction but I can't help but think that this is the case.
Except that them releasing it contradicts your entire post...
It can't be that hard to port it now can it?
Nah, it's not like Windows 8 had an entirely new interface or anyt-....oh, right.
Not at all. I'm personally thrilled that new and improved versions of IE are coming out. It's the lowest common denominator, and I have to work to it (at work, anyway). The more new versions come out, and the more people move to them, the closer I am to ditching every IE hack in my code and telling IE8 and lower to fuck off forever.
In that respect, IE9 and above really are a god-send in terms of coding for the web.On top of that, they're vastly improved browsers in themselves. Anyone who's paid any attention to my ramblings on here knows I'm a Mozzy man, but if I'm in a situation where I have to use IE9 or IE10, I no longer feel like I want to throw the machine through a wall.
They're really not bad; they're just still seen as "uncool" because all the hipster kids moved to Chrome. </trollface>
@Andy - Thanks for the condescension, but the reason I don't want a download-only console is because the publishers will use it as a method to screw me over. EA and the like have not and will not drop their prices to compensate for the reduced costs and content of digital distribution. Hell, they moved off Steam because Valve don't treat their customers badly enough for EA's tastes. At launch, the latest FIFA game was 20 quid more expensive online than in a high street store. That is disgusting, and that's why I don't want an online-only console; it'll be too expensive to play on.
I buy lots and lots and lots of games online, but from Steam, Desura, GoG, etc. Having multiple marketplaces on the PC means competition between them, and as a flag-bearer for the industry Valve were pretty bloody exemplary. The result is a convenient, customer-focused system that benefits me. On a console, you have one marketplace, and you're constantly bombarded with loyalty tests to prove you're not some scum-sucking pre-owned game purchaser (which I am).
What I didn't realise was how much more expensive the games are. Because, thanks to Steam, I appear to have to buy two copies of every game now.
OK, look, I have a shitload of consoles, and a massive gaming PC that I built oodles of years ago for oodles of money. Given the option, I always buy stuff on PC, because my PC is just better, and the games are cheaper, by miles. Light years. Parsecs.
Name a game, and I can almost guarantee that the PC version is cheaper on launch. A month or two after release, the PC game is probably available for half the price of the console version. As soon as a Steam sale hits, it's probably a third of the price. That's where I make back the money on my expensive gaming PC, and the part that clueless console feckwits like the guy a few posts back always fail to grasp.
For example, last year I bought every single GTA game ever released on PC, including GTA4, expansion packs and all for....5 quid. Try that on PS3. A month or two ago NiGHTs Into Dreams got a PS3 release. I was going to buy it for 8 quid, then realised I could get it on PC two weeks later for 3.50. So I did.
How the hell are the games you're buying more expensive than console? I couldn't spend more on a PC game than a console game if I tried. And what's this "buying games twice" stuff? A retail game might come with a Steam code, but you still bought it once. I honestly don't understand what you're saying.
The truth is, over the course of its lifetime a gaming PC I build will span two console generations, and in that time, I will save more than the PC's value in game discounts. There's a reason that Steam sales always abuse my wallet: they're worth it. On top of that, online play on a PC has always been superior to a console, as well as free. Patches and mods aren't just readily available, but even encouraged by many developers. It's just a better ecosystem to be gaming in, where I'm treated as a customer and not a criminal, and the notion of after-sales support still exists (unless you're buying from EA, in which case fuck you, you filthy PC pirate).
What about inFAMOUS 3? :-(
I hope it doesn't happen, personally. The story is done. Just because a game series is good doesn't mean you have to keep producing sequels until you run it into the ground.
If you need a new inFamous fix, go play Festival of Blood.
Not having to pay the extra premium to a shop for the privilege of paying minimum wage clerks will save consumers cash
Er, no it bloody won't. EA and the like want rid of that overhead, but not so they can charge less for games. Their games aren't any cheaper online, and are often more expensive, because the profit margins rapidly increase in size.
Honestly, with the way most publishers are treating the customer like shit these days, overcharging for release content while simultaneously holding more content back for DLC - even stuff already made and on the disc you bought - along with their many other heinous practices, I think we may be heading for the second video game crash. There's only so far you can push people.
Bring it on.
I can't imagine that anyone would make a games console these days that relies on a person walking to a shop to buy a piece of plastic.
"Relies on" != "has the option of"
This is Sony we're talking about. Their store is allowed to be so horrendously expensive that the games in it are often 20 quid more on launch day than the physical copies in the shop down the road.
Interesting. This is the one I have:
THANK YOU! I long since dealt with the IE6 bugs in our site. These days all I ever fix is Chrome bugs. People love it because it's quick, but bloody hellfire that browser is bugged. That's what you get when you try to release three times a week just that you can have the biggest version number.
How dare those bastards include an optional extra that adds functionality to your site and doesn't break it for anyone else? SCUMBAGS, I say!
Trademark, not patent. Doesn't make it any less ludicrous, but the rules are different. Trademarks are even more litigious.
The prevailing opinion from many here seems to be "it's Windows, it can't possibly be any good, and anyone saying that it is is a fanboy."
Alright then, I'm a developer, and I use Linux 95% of the time. I also don't like tablets, because I want a device that expensive to be good at creating content as well as viewing it, and to me an iPad is an expensive picture frame.
I quite like the Surface. In fact, I'm quite fond of Windows 8, which is already running in the triple-boot setup on my Mac - I'm posting from it now - and I'll be buying a copy today (upgrading an old copy of XP so I can keep my retail 7 licence). I had a play with a Surface the other week and it's nifty. It's quick, easy to use and - admit it - attractive. I've been thinking this about Metro ever since I got my hands on a Windows Phone. It's very accessible and stupidly fast, two things I wouldn't normally associate with MS.
The Surface Pro appeals to me more because it can drop to desktop and run proper stuff. It might not be the right choice for me in the end because 5 minutes into doing any work on it, I'm going to want a Linux terminal (can you dual-boot them?). But to use, they're really quite good.
Windows 8 is a lot better than people say it is. It's faster, has some useful tools built straight in now, such as ISO mounting, and Metro isn't nearly as intrusive as I thought it would be. Same goes for the Surface; it's a lot better than the general haven't-used-one-but-its-Microsoft-so-it-must-be-shit consensus says.
You seem to be providing a pretty decent impression that it's already switched off.
Fancy providing an actual argument, oh intellectual superior? Not sure how you get unintelligent from my post, however sarcastic.
Then read a flippin' book! "Sci fi" films have rarely if ever been more than lasers, explosions, and special effects, you are never going to get a proper thoughtful sci fi film out of Hollywood. Star Wars is fun for the light sabers, space ships, and engaging characters, it's a swashbuckling adventure and nothing more. Don't expect anything any deeper than that.
You haven't watched enough sci-fi. Try some 2001, Blade Runner, A Scanner Darkly - hell, even Gattaca.
I can do action and explosions, too, but it needs a coherent narrative or it's just noise.
Thank you for your Knuckle-Dragger's Guide to Film, complete with MULTIPLE EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!!!11!!!11!1*
I don't want to turn off my brain, ever. Present a film with a straight face and I'll view it the same way. Your argument boils down to "it's great, so long as you ignore all its flaws and just watch the pretty lights." That's not good enough for me, and defences like that are the mark of a really shitty film.
If all you want is lasers and explosions, then good luck to you. I like to have some kind of coherent narrative along with it. Maybe I'm the lunatic here, but to me good sci-fi is mind-expanding, not mind-limiting.
*CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL
hmmm so a few films later what do we think?
That the whole re-working of Bond was to emulate the superior Bourne movies? And I'd rather watch Bourne any day of the week?
It wasn't called ST 9. You're idealising ST to a ridiculous level, the original has none of those things you talk about. You're seriously trying to defend a show which had William Shatner as the lead as being serious, well-written TV?
The original doesn't have any diplomacy? Any idealism at all? You're seriously trying to tell me that Gene Roddenberry conceived of anything even slightly in line with Star Trek XI? Did you watch Star Trek at any point? Do you know what the Federation is supposed to stand for? Don't be a moron.
And if you're going to have a cry about how it's totally not related to the original Star Trek because it doesn't have the number XI in the title, then
a) understand what number XI is before whining, so you look less of an idiot, and
b) explain the part at the beginning of the film where Abrams bends over backwards to connect the film to its predecessors, then writes them off and pisses on their graves
Christ, I'm not even that big a Star Trek fan, but I've seen the majority of it. More than enough to know just how afwul Star Trek XI is.
Gah, don't mention the name Abrams... And don't you dare call him Star Trek's "saviour".
Star Trek XI was an atrocity. Even if you can summon the mental gymnastics to overcome the plot holes, the adherence to the "spiky haired young people who inexplicably know kung fu" demographic, the eye-burning abuse of lens flares and the utter stupidity required to write off decades of existing Trek, it looked, sounded and acted nothing like Star Trek. No diplomacy, no intellect, no sense of wonder or exploration, just BLOW SHIT UP!
Star Trek XII can go fuck itself.
Fortunately, I've long since given up on Star Wars. It was overrated to begin with, and the prequel trilogy was hilariously bad.
I wouldn't pay for YouTube as it is because there is so little content that is of any quality
Oh, I wouldn't say that. It's become a veritable archive for forgotten/unreleased TV shows. Everything from Horizon documentaries to 80s cartoons.
There are also a number of talking heads on YouTube that are actually worth listening to. Separate the camwhores from the skilled reviewers and you can find people like TotalBiscuit doing pretty good stuff.
I dont think i could stand reading for too long on a tablet, my good old Kindle however i can sit for hours and read (and do). Am i nearly dead? At 31 I hope not.
I'm five years younger still (shocker for some of the old grumps on this thread) and I use my e-reader daily. My tablet? Oh, that's right, I don't own one.
But then I had one of these modern progressive educations, so I'm reading silly stuff like Verne and Wells, rather than the proper classics, like 50 Shades of Grey.
Why would companies leave France if they are still making profit after the new taxes?
Because if France get away with it, then other tax-loving countries (like ours) will follow suit. Our public are currently acting in a fashion that seems demented to me; flat out demanding taxation from the government. They could totally put this into action here.
I didn't realise the phrase "rock solid reliable" was that common.
I was thinking of calling fake, that looks so much like an iPhone.
Still, gimme! Mozzy's way of doing things like this never ceases to appeal to me.
Perhaps if you didn't constantly mollycoddle your children away from even the slightest mention of sex, they wouldn't be so fascinated with it?
Also, puberty. Let me tell you how this is: porn doesn't make teenagers horny. Teenagers are horny, therefore porn.
As long as Opera is the only browser on mobile devices that automatically rewraps text when zoomed in
It isn't. Firefox Mobile does it.
Now, I'm sure that someone will come up with the "...but there's a plug-in for Firefox that does that..." whine.
Nope, no plugin required (though on the original FF Mobile it was the most popular plugin). People requested it, Mozilla added it, job done.
But but... without Opera, where would the Firefox developers get their inspiration from?
Yeah, I mean Opera's so awesome, it doesn't need a plugin architectu-.... Oh.
Maybe Firefox should never follow suit. Webkit is fast, but it's also buggy. Comparing the number of site rendering errors I've had to fix in Gecko vs Webkit isn't even a contest, because the number for Gecko is 0.
Friend of mine went with them. Sure, on paper it looked good: piss cheap and a no-throttling guarantee. There was one part of the advert that put me off, though: the word "Sky".
Sure enough, his router now drops off the net completely several times a day, and he's had several long outages.
Over here, on Titan ADSL, I've had one outage in 4 years (excepting their scheduled 3am upgrades that I happen to be awake for).
Plus I think Mozilla has been brainwashed by HTML5 gurus
Or they are the HTML5 gurus...
Mozilla are about standards and ideals, and generally hold to them with surprising (read: refreshing) tenacity. They're unlikely to want to build in anything that's even slightly proprietary, and from what I've seen of B2G in the past, it's a very open, standards-based system - exactly what I'd expect from Mozzy.
Besides, it's intended to run on even the lowest-powered smartphones. Adding abstraction layers and VMs doesn't exactly help with that.
All the more reason to push back. It is a bit like accusations of witchcraft a few centuries ago. In a free society, people have to be able to discuss what is or is not discriminatory.
....Like you're doing right now?
Oh, no! The oppression! How can I, a working white male, ever survive in such a restrictive society!
Fucking hell, did I just wander onto the Daily Fail? First set of replies and people are spouting off about tree-hugging liberals and crying racism.
OK, OK, I did wonder about this, looking at the first half of the article. I mean, "asian" is the wrong term, but there are far-eastern facial features. If all it's doing is that, then...
"and superimpose “rice paddy” hats, moustaches and other elements."
OK, yeah. There is a difference between playing Photoshop with your face and releasing an app that changes you into ching-chong-Chinaman. What, did it have a "slitty eyes" slider?
As for the rest of you, I really wish Nelson and friends over at SYB were still going. They'd have a field day on this article.
RCS is universal, and that's all it needs to be. A universal standard implemented everywhere is never going to be bleeding-edge, but RCS still undercuts the core of what the closed networks do rather nicely. The person you're talking to might not have Facebook, Skype, etc, but you can bet your ass you can send them an SMS - that's the position RCS is aiming for. It doesn't need to do everything the others do, if users prefer convenience over a feature list (and we're repeatedly told that they do).
Granted, it was not open ocean. But. it validates the safety card design, and that's the important thing.
I thought someone might bring this up. The article specifically said "ocean", so this doesn't really count.
Also, it's not really a validation of the safety card if an ocean crash doesn't happen like this. Oceans have swells, waves, etc that make them almost impossible to pull off a high-speed landing on. Rivers don't really have this issue.
Don't forget, those using OperaMini or Opera in super-zippy-whoohoo mode will appear to be from...where is it, Finland?
Better make sure to account for both of them, then. Not both browsers, I mean; both people. :-p
*Ducks to avoid Opera fanboy rage*
Here in central Europe we find it hilarious that 4" of snow can bring a country to a standstill. Friday is the right day to have it though.
The media are, as usual, playing it up like right shites. The BBC keep going on about a "rare RED weather warning." Yeah, that would be in Wales. On the Black Mountains. Ooooh, I'm so afraid!
The papers like to throw around "travel chaos!" and "country at a standstill" like they do everything else. And like every other regurgitated headline, their relationship with reality is strained at best.
This morning I got up, got into the car (which I didn't have to defrost, for the first time this week), and drove normally on perfectly serviceable roads/motorways into a major city. No issues at all. In fact, it was much nicer than normal, because so many people had actually listened to the media bleating and chickened out, the motorway was practically deserted.
I am not a big fan of Mills & Boon -style paperback fiction but I'm sure it's a "great reading experience" for you. However try using your Kindle for PDF reference material intended for A4 size, you will soon wish you had a 10 inch tablet instead.
I do exactly that on my Sony PRS-T1. Pinch-to-zoom is obviously a bit laggier than a capacitive screen but works perfectly well.
I'm one of those people that believes in having the best gadget for a particular job. I own a smartphone, but keep an iAudio J3 for my music, because it's just far better at it, and has an insane battery life. Same goes for my e-reader, my PSP, etc; I have them alongside my smartphone because they're better at their given tasks.
Sure, I could read my eBooks on a larger, heavier, more cumbersome device with a lower battery life and a screen that can't be read in the sun. Alternatively, I could continue reading them on a device that fits in my jacket pocket, has a battery that lasts a month, and weighs practically nothing.
Seriously, when Sony touted this reader as the "lightest on the market", I honestly didn't give a shit. I've never gone in for "oooh, ours is so thin" with smartphones - hell, I used to own a HTC Athena - but I was surprised at just what a difference it makes with an e-reader. Makes a lot of sense when you think about it. I'm going to be holding the device I read on in any number of positions (such as above my head in bed) for long periods of time. Even the difference between the Sony and a Kindle is noticeable to my keyboard-buggered wrists. I'd hate to try using a large tablet for the same.
There's a problem in there somewhere
Yes, there is. It's the part where you imply that it's stupid to blame a form of entertainment, such as video games, but then attempt to blame an inanimate object instead.
I don't blame the video game.
I don't blame the gun.
I blame the shithead pullling the trigger, and so should you.
There still remains the issue that in the US you can get types of weapons, along with rather.. generous.. amounts of ammunition that fall well outside any need for personal protection and/or hunting purposes.
Because, for the millionth time, the guns exist as a means of potential rebellion, or to fight off invaders. The people who founded the US government didn't trust governments, including the one they were founding!
You can argue all you want over the current feasibility/likelihood of such things, but it will not in any way change the principle of the document.
“Congress should fund research into the effects that violent video games have on young minds. We don't benefit from ignorance. We don't benefit from not knowing the science of this epidemic of violence.”
Nice to see that the president isn't deciding anything in advance.