It's not language-level, just as there are no language-level functions methods. But you can always make an explicit vtable in C, and write some macros to hide the virtual dispatch.

Enforcing modality would be a bit tricky for a dialog created by a different process. And if it's non-modal, then what should be the expected behavior if user switches back to the main app and navigates away from wherever it is that he was when he caused the dialog to appear, then switches to the dialog again and opens a file?

Qt has bindings to half a dozen different languages, from C# to Python.

FWIW, it's fairly easy to take a C++ library and wrap it in C.

The point is that Alt+Tab is most-recently-used-app pretty much everywhere, and Ctrl+Tab is most-recently-used-tab (or document) in all multitab apps. This actually makes a lot of sense when you have many tabs open, but are going back and forth between a few of them, e.g. copy pasting text or some such - as GP rightly notes, this is especially common once your tabs run "web apps" rather than just websites.

If you just want to switch to next/prev tab, there's already a shortcut for that, Ctrl+PageUp/Down. Ctrl+Tab is really meant to be the "switch to whatever I was using before" shortcut, fulfilling a different but also very common need.

Don't forget high DPI issues on Windows. It seems like Chrome is still the only app that I actually use that's not high-DPI-aware and so gets bitmap upscaling.

This has nothing to do with the original point of the thread, since you're showing a dependencies of a Gtk 2.x app (and doesn't involve anything from Gnome). OP was claiming that Gtk 3.x introduced dependencies on Gnome.

Which it does.

In principle, there's no reason that income gained from investments should be taxed lower than income gained by being paid for performing some job. So let's start there, at least. Perhaps with the money that increased capital gains tax would bring, we could lower that hypothetical uniform rate.

I was using "rent" here in a broader sense of economic rent, not in the narrow common sense of renting property. Rent is any wealth that you didn't produce yourself, but you get from other people as a share of the wealth they produced, by letting them use your capital (i.e. renting it out). See also: rentier. All income that is gained from investments is rent (though in some cases it can be "rent" from yourself, as when you are a one-man public company and your stock grows).

There's nothing tricky about it. If you did some work that was paid directly, it's "sweat of the brow". If you gave someone money and got back a financial instrument, and then got dividends simply for holding that instrument, or by selling it for more, then that's not "sweat of the brow" (well, it is, of course, since dividends and stock value comes from someone, somewhere producing more wealth - it's not your sweat, though).

Oh? Are you saying that if a company is going to get five billion of pure profit per year instead of ten, they're going to close shop?

I'm pretty sure that Google's corporate lawyers are quite familiar with GPL and LGPL. They do, after all, ship Linux in commercial products.

Yes, of course, the value of the cross-licensed patents should enter into consideration. And Apple claims that its patents (which were mostly UI stuff like swipe-to-unlock) so valuable that any such cross-licensing agreement with Samsung and others is beyond consideration. Which is, of course, bullshit as well.

The documents in question shouldn't have been classified in the first place, as they are directly relevant to the topic the committee is studying (indeed, as obvious from their contents, they're crucial). The reason why they even came up is because the committee was searching for relevant search terms!

CIA shouldn't be able to pull the "classified" card on the committee that is specifically formed to investigate their abuses, including classifying things that aren't classified. They most certainly shouldn't be able to raid other committee's computers to destroy the copies (what guarantee do we have that only those copies were destroyed, and nothing else?).

No, not like that at all. I haven't noticed Tesla suing the dealerships, they just get buy without them.

If Apple was able to make iPhone without entering any patent deals at all, and that was that, I'd be the first to applaud them. But as it is, they're actively using those same patents offensively rather than defensively to strangle the competition, not in the market, but in courts. Their brave new world is worse for everyone but themselves, so fuck them.

Only a fucking moron would think that detecting a phone number inside arbitrary text is not a problem with an obvious solution. You could ask that on StackOverflow, and get half a dozen thorough answers by the end of the day.

I think that what he was referring to is the fact that Apple has refused to license those FRAND patents on the same terms that other companies did (small price + cross-licensing agreement), and demanded to just pay in cash, and a ridiculously small amount at that - the one that's nowhere even near in value to that cross-licensing that everyone else opts for.

The problem with Apple is not just that its patents are bad - they're actually rather typical and exemplify the flaws of the system. The problem is that they're not playing by the established rules of the game, where you either cross-license with other major players, or ask for a reasonable amount (which is about an order of magnitude less than here) for full patent coverage.

Apple, meanwhile, has been refusing to license some things outright, and demanding outrageous fees for others, that would basically make their competitors' devices priced beyond competitive range. Basically, patents were like nuclear MAD - every big guy has a lot, but no-one is going to launch an all out attack - and then a new guy on the block said, "hey, this looks like fun", and pressed the red button.

Hopefully, this will be sufficient incentive for the companies involve to try to curtail future damage by lobbying for a patent reform.