Where are you getting flights that cheap? Seriously, I'd've been to the US (from London) for a weekend already if the tickets I could find weren't 5x that.
Okay. But if I see someone state something as a fact, and I think that that something has no evidence for or against it, I'm going to call them out on it.
Will you let someone away with stating something as fact when it has some evidence for it, but more evidence against it? Or, more to the point, is your threshold of acceptable evidence the same for any proposition - so if I see a light in the sky enough times, I can say "it's a satellite, that's a fact" and "it's an alien, that's a fact" with equal validity?
I don't know where these numbers come from.
99.9% is an arbitrary figure; my actual level of confidence that this chocolate teapot doesn't exist is higher than that.
No. Just things that have no evidence for or against them.
You can't disentangle evidence from expectation; evidence is precisely that which causes you to update your expectation (and is meaningless beyond that). If you try to form probability theory without initial expectations, you get paradoxes. So we can only coherently define facts in terms of our final expectations, not the evidence, which is a vanishing intermediate value.
99.9% sure of what? If that was a "what if" scenario, then go ahead and state it as a fact.
Well, I'm more than 99.9% confident that the aforementioned chocolate teapot doesn't exist - and I suspect you are too. Yet you seem unhappy with calling that a fact.
The standard counter to that is: reasonable people would state as fact "there is not a chocolate teapot orbiting the sun at around the same distance as Neptune". It's not that we know anything to imply there isn't, it's that we have no possible reason to imagine such a thing would exist, and no evidence to even suggest it does.
The security concerns are also a non-issue as regular wallets and bank accounts are routinely stolen and money diverted.
For a regular bank account you get your money back when that happens.
The rise of better android handsets to overtake the iPhone was predicted again and again. And then it happened.
/for myself with the transformer I'm already there
Most users of course aren't affected in the least by the build process. Qt's build process is self-contained, but takes hours still. The end result is really the same for end users.
Sure, it's mostly the same for end users, but someone has to manage the insane build process. I remember gnome being dropped from Slackware because just packaging it was taking up too much of Pat V's time.
Having every widget toolkit re-implement every wheel is fairly tiresome. Why not use lower-level libraries like libxml that already work well, and most importantly, are C-based.
Mostly, portability. Qt-based programs are easy to port to even quite silly systems; porting libxml and all the other random libraries different parts of gnome is a lot of effort. Thus there's a fairly complete kde on e.g. windows, wheras only a handful of individual popular gnome programs have been ported.
Programming GTK+ in C++ is a joy (doesn't need moc either). GTK+ in Python is slick too, and actually manages to be fairly pythonic, unlike PyQt, which is really just C++ code in a python syntax.
Disagree, and I think the relative popularity backs me up. Have you read the post from rosegarden's author (wish I could find it) talking about moving from gtkmm to qt?
I don't think Gobject is a BS OO extension anymore than C++ is. Functionally and under the hood they are fairly equivalent.
That this is true is really the worst thing about the gnome approach. C++ and GObject are indeed basically the same thing (and vala makes this even clearer), but Gnome chose to reinvent the wheel, throwing away all our existing experience and tool support with C++.
(And it did feel pretty creepy, but only because they were offering me money off if I bought Strike Witches and Dance in the Vampire Bund together)
All seems condemned in the long run to approximate a state akin to Gaussian noise. -- James Martin