The entire tech industry has known for years that this was a sinking ship. If these people made no efforts to get out of it, then it is their own fault for finding themselves in the situation they soon face. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people who share's the GP's opinion.
I'll be happy when they die, so old people, especially executives (read: decision makers with my employer) will stop asking about them or suggesting we keep buying and using their crummy products (I'm looking at you, Blackberry Desktop Software).
Speaking as an Android & Linux user, I can tell you that Android, in your words, "looks like crap and sucks battery down" because it comes pre-loaded with tons of useless shit, most of which can't be uninstalled (without great effort). It's the same reason that brand new Windows PCs run more sluggish than they should - greedy assholes paying to have their shit on your new PC by default.
It doesn't mean that Android as a whole is terrible, and if that's your viewpoint, you are sadly misinformed.
You did claim consensus should negate her opinion because the way that whole last paragraph reads, it's implied.
Perhaps that was poor wording on my part. All I was trying to state was that if we were to believe girlintraining any more than we are to believe wikipedia, I simply wanted her to back up her claims that Whitman was "normal". Now that she has provided citations from medical experts to make her case, I applaud her efforts. But people are entitled to their own opinion, and she failed to sway mine. Speaking of that,...
You do claim violence *likely* contributed. This I completely disagree with.
I think it is fair at this point that we agree to disagree. Nature vs. Nurture may not be settled scientifically, but since I am entitled to my opinion, I'm going to keep believing that nurture has a profound impact on human beings. To me, the Whitman story reinforces that point. If you wish to believe I am wrong, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, too.
Why did I think you were offended/incensed/defensive? [...] People who scream are often offended.
Again, poor choice of words on my part, and for that I apologize. My intention was to post a somewhat neutral position, but my last sentence certainly didn't help that cause.
And finally it was because you played the Godwin card. That's what even caught my attention in the first place. Had you not said it, I probably wouldn't have even responded.
It's funny, this is what prompted me to reply to you this time, too. People need to stop putting so much emphasis on the "Godwin card". Why is it that people's brains just shut down the minute Hitler or Nazi's come into an argument? I will concede that it is abused, but that doesn't mean any argument should be dismissed the moment it makes an appearance. People can carefully play that card without unraveling their own argument, and it seems to be your belief that this isn't the case is what makes these arguments break down. I was only trying to say that a person's life, or karma, if you will, can't be boiled down to a couple of sentences about their life. In this case I think I did play it carefully. Would my point really be any different if I had picked another example? And if I had chosen one much less well known, my point wouldn't have gotten across with anyone who had never heard of them and had to run off to Wikipedia to find out what I was talking about. (which incidentally is what led both of us to find out just who the hell this Whitman guy was in the first place...)
Wow. Your post reads so far past what I was attempting to say that I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. I'm not here to argue about how we treated people in America pre-1865, and I'm not here to make blatent generalizations about poor people. Please don't put words in my mouth.
All I am here to argue about is in my humble opinion, it is clear that Charles Whitman did have a lot of exposure to violence, especially at an early age, and that *likely* contributed to his actions. Nothing more, nothing less.
Please see my latest reply to girlintraining and note how I point out that this issue isn't as black-and-white as either of you make it out to be.
I can tell why you seem so incensed and defensive in your response
That's odd; I don't think I conveyed either of those things. I have no idea where you got that impression.
I think the biggest failure in your reasoning is that we are arguing a black-and-white point here. This is most certainly not the case. There are many shades of grey as to the opinion of what caused Whitman to do what he did.
Since I chose to reply to your earlier post, you seem to be under the impression that I don't agree with everything you said, and that is just not the case. The only point you made that I take issue to is being able to call Whitman "a perfectly normal man". I don't dispute any of your claims that the tumor *may* have played a role in his violent impulses, and the Wikipedia article agrees with this assessment too. Furthermore, I would doubt any doctor in 1966 would be able to state as definitive fact whether or not the tumor played a role in his actions. It seems to me that the Connally Commission's purpose was to "right the wrong" of the previous medical examiner stating that there was no way the tumor did play a role. A responsible scientist would have to accept that we just don't know enough about the brain, or at least we didn't in 1966, and be forced to state their opinion in uncertain terms, which is precisely what the Connally Commission did; Wikipedia states that the tumor "conceivably could have had an influence on Whitman's actions."
The definition of a "perfectly normal man" varies from region to region, and changes over time, as Zynder points out. I assert that Whitman was not a "perfectly normal man", at least not by the standards of my region in this time period. I didn't grow up in America, and I wasn't subjected to the "gun culture" that seems to come with being an American. But again, in that Wikipedia article, Whitman's father makes the following statement:
His father said of him: "Charlie could plug (shoot) the eye out of a squirrel by the time he was sixteen."
In my region, this would be considered an early exposure to violence. I believe that if you're taught to use a gun at a young age, you shouldn't be taking the lives of innocent animals unless you intend to eat them for survival. Call me a peace lovin' hippie if you will, but this act demonstrates a lack of empathy for other living beings, and that, I would classify as not "normal".
But again, I must stress that this could be considered normal to someone living in another region, who perhaps grew up in America, in the "gun culture". The definition for a "normal" person is subjective.
On a side note, I have seen many of your posts on/. and quite often they are very informative and insightful. But I think a lot of people take issue with the way you refute their counterpoints by putting words in our mouths. For instance, in your reply to Zynder, you state:
... with the GP. He feels threatened by the idea that this sort of thing could happen to anyone and by anyone, I mean him.
I certainly do not feel threatened, and nowhere in my previous post did I even allude to that. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Further to that point, I certainly do believe it is entirely possible that a brain condition could strike anyone at any time and cause them to do very irrational things, like Whitman here. I just think your Whitman example is of someone who was predisposed to violence, and his predisposal to violence *may* have played a role in his actions, too.
Lastly,
I'm right, you're wrong.
That's great. You found one medical expert who agrees with you. Bravo, good for you. But to make a statement like this just shows a childish approach to the argument and paints it as black-and-white. Surely you can see that there are shades of grey to this argument...?
In actuality, this was a perfectly normal man who...
It is very difficult for you to make a statement like this with your proof being a few sentences about a person's life. For instance, I could say that Hitler was an artist, who had an accomplished military career, as well as a career in politics (which must mean he was popular, right?)
Now I really hate to go Godwin so quickly on this, but looking through that Wikipedia article makes it fairly clear that his father was abusive, and he joined the military to get away from him. These two facts scream "predisposition to violence" to me, and I think most other rational thinking people.
And before you try to tell me that the Wikipedia article "undoubtedly is sensationalist garbage", I'm afraid I have to point out that the burden of proof lies with you. Wikipedia is crowdsourced, so many people had to agree what they could post about this guy as fact, and disputed facts are typically mentioned in the "talk" section of the page, which makes no mention of any doubt surrounding the basic facts about his father. Your comment, on the other hand, is your own statement of belief. Why should I believe that your side of the story carries more weight than what many knowledgeable people have to say on the matter?
My last car (a Saturn) had P-R-N-D-3-2. The manual said that "3" is every gear except 4, and was good for "trips in town where the vehicle does not exceed 70 km/h", and "2" was every gear except 1. I always thought that was a little strange.
I would mod you up if I had points. I never tried to figure this out because every time I use alt+tab, I'm doing so in a hurry and results on win7 seem unexpected to me. Now I have an idea of what's going on.
What is very strange is that Win+tab seems to conform to its own order. You would think they would apply consistency between the two functions, since they are so similar, but perhaps Microsoft can't even agree on the right way to do it.
And if everyone on the planet shared their wealth, there would be no poor people.
Seriously, do you honestly believe that "everyone using an ad-blocker" is even feasible? I'm pretty certain that in your lifetime, there's zero chance that every dumb jock, grandmother, and all other technologically inept people are going to go out and install an ad-blocker on all of their computers, phones, tablets and whatever else. Saying that you aren't going to do it because bad things would happen if everybody did it is stupid, when there is no possible chance that everyone will do it.
There are plenty of suckers among my friends that still complain about having to skip the ad video on Youtube, despite the fact that I have told them several times that there are easy ways of getting rid of all those ads for good. It's not that the people without ad-blockers are unaware of their existence, some of them just couldn't be bothered with doing something about it, and you don't sound like one of those people.
It's not the fact that this feature doesn't exist that he has a right to complain about. It is the fact that he complained about this missing feature and they responded to say that it was a popular feature request and they would implement it in the near future. More than a decade goes by, and still no feature. If what he said was true, that makes them liars.
Most cars that use normal keys also have a steering lock built in when the key is removed. So, if you ripped the key out, best case scenario, you'd get the engine to turn off. Worst case scenario, you'd be unable to steer the vehicle.
Does anyone else find it hilarious that by posting a story like this on the internet, especially to slashdot, he is further tying his name to the word "bankruptcy" in automated search algorithms?
Sure, you say that now, but having to deal with getting a replacement every 6 months, not to mention the week or so that you're hobbling along because the phone is clearly on its last legs, would probably make you change your tune after a cheap phone or two.
Thanks for trying. I offer the following rebuttals:
- The Wall Street Journal. When it comes to football, I'm sure they know what they're talking about...
- They only studied four games. FOUR games. I'm sure their average estimates are right on track by only studying FOUR games.
- It is never mentioned which four games these are, which makes a difference. The strategies employed by certain teams lend themselves to wasting game clock time much more than other strategies. How do they know that these four games aren't outliers on a bell curve, perhaps featuring two run-heavy offenses playing against soft defenses?
- They also don't cite their own sources. It basically says "according to a WSJ study, of four games, and similar estimates of (unnamed) researchers."
It's funny how we complain on/. so much of terrible journalism, but when it makes the point we agree with, we believe it without question.
Citation needed. I watch more than my fair share of football, and this is absurd. I'll agree that there is less than 60 minutes as the game clock would indicate, because certain plays do not stop the game clock from running, but to assert that there are only 11 minutes of action is disingenuous.
Also, to the other person who replied to this comment, the latest CBA signed between the NFL and the NFL Players Association limits the number of padded (read: full contact) practices per season. I think it is something like 8-10 padded practices per season, which is practically nothing by most minor football league standards.
Lastly, I'd just like to say Rest In Peace, Junior Seau. He was my first favourite player, and he will be missed. (but not by the/. crowd)
Yeah, but how hard would it have been to put an option in Office 2007 to go back to the menu bar system, if you wanted to? Why piss off 15% of users if you can make 100% of them happy?
Furthermore, those 15% of users are typically the ones in a position to support the product and make recommendations to the other 85%. Pissing off this subset of people was a terrible idea.
Yes, exactly. We can't compare this to breaking into someone's "home". In the case of Mila Kunis and her cellphone, maybe. But if you're breaking into, say, hotmail servers by guessing a password, that is more apt to trying to pick a lock on a locker in a public place, like a train station. It's still theft, but it sounds much less serious than actually breaking into a residence.
Claiming that a UI element (like the start screen or the ribbon) is a "two hour learning curve" is disingenuous.
Whenever I change my login password, I find myself typing in the old password first, for at least a week or two. Using a UI becomes a habit that the user doesn't have to think about, they just use it. The job of a UI is to not get in the way.
So when you completely change the UI, it takes the typical user much more than "two hours" to get used to doing things differently. It can take weeks, months even, to get used to doing things a different way. While the user is getting used to this different method, they constantly have to think about how to interact with the UI, whereas on the old paradigm it didn't require much in the way of brainpower. It was more to do with muscle memory. That can be a hard habit to break.
This is pretty much how I feel too. I use XFCE + compiz for the perfect blend of speed and desktop customizability. Gotta have a little bling. But the way compiz has been going, it looks like the day might come where it is no longer an option, and I hope that KDE will have their shit together by then. I've checked out KDE several times in the past, but it's just never looked "ready" yet. (to be fair it has been a while)
I completely disagree. It's not the users' concern where Canonical gets their money. If they offer their distro for free, it is their own problem how they get their funding. If users don't like their product, there are many, many other free distros to choose from.
Besides, they were doing just fine on their previous funding models, which is what other companies like Red Hat do, right? Why do they need more money? Is the support license money well running dry these days? And if that is the case, whose fault is that?
I think TFS misses on two big points that are helping to bring gaming to Linux.
One of which is Android. There are some pretty decent FPS games running on the SGS3 in 720p.
The other one is the OUYA project, which is also built on Android. They've already raised over $8.5 million and they havent even shipped a console yet.
Will the big publishers follow suit? Who cares? The point is a new market for gaming is emerging. Competition will allow new big publishers to emerge.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds about right. The responsible bankers we all know and love, lending out money to buy Blackberry.
Keep up the good work, bankers!
The entire tech industry has known for years that this was a sinking ship. If these people made no efforts to get out of it, then it is their own fault for finding themselves in the situation they soon face. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people who share's the GP's opinion.
I'll be happy when they die, so old people, especially executives (read: decision makers with my employer) will stop asking about them or suggesting we keep buying and using their crummy products (I'm looking at you, Blackberry Desktop Software).
Speaking as an Android & Linux user, I can tell you that Android, in your words, "looks like crap and sucks battery down" because it comes pre-loaded with tons of useless shit, most of which can't be uninstalled (without great effort). It's the same reason that brand new Windows PCs run more sluggish than they should - greedy assholes paying to have their shit on your new PC by default. It doesn't mean that Android as a whole is terrible, and if that's your viewpoint, you are sadly misinformed.
Slashdot is a .org.
You did claim consensus should negate her opinion because the way that whole last paragraph reads, it's implied.
Perhaps that was poor wording on my part. All I was trying to state was that if we were to believe girlintraining any more than we are to believe wikipedia, I simply wanted her to back up her claims that Whitman was "normal". Now that she has provided citations from medical experts to make her case, I applaud her efforts. But people are entitled to their own opinion, and she failed to sway mine. Speaking of that,...
You do claim violence *likely* contributed. This I completely disagree with.
I think it is fair at this point that we agree to disagree. Nature vs. Nurture may not be settled scientifically, but since I am entitled to my opinion, I'm going to keep believing that nurture has a profound impact on human beings. To me, the Whitman story reinforces that point. If you wish to believe I am wrong, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, too.
Why did I think you were offended/incensed/defensive? [...] People who scream are often offended.
Again, poor choice of words on my part, and for that I apologize. My intention was to post a somewhat neutral position, but my last sentence certainly didn't help that cause.
And finally it was because you played the Godwin card. That's what even caught my attention in the first place. Had you not said it, I probably wouldn't have even responded.
It's funny, this is what prompted me to reply to you this time, too. People need to stop putting so much emphasis on the "Godwin card". Why is it that people's brains just shut down the minute Hitler or Nazi's come into an argument? I will concede that it is abused, but that doesn't mean any argument should be dismissed the moment it makes an appearance. People can carefully play that card without unraveling their own argument, and it seems to be your belief that this isn't the case is what makes these arguments break down. I was only trying to say that a person's life, or karma, if you will, can't be boiled down to a couple of sentences about their life. In this case I think I did play it carefully. Would my point really be any different if I had picked another example? And if I had chosen one much less well known, my point wouldn't have gotten across with anyone who had never heard of them and had to run off to Wikipedia to find out what I was talking about. (which incidentally is what led both of us to find out just who the hell this Whitman guy was in the first place...)
All I am here to argue about is in my humble opinion, it is clear that Charles Whitman did have a lot of exposure to violence, especially at an early age, and that *likely* contributed to his actions. Nothing more, nothing less.
Please see my latest reply to girlintraining and note how I point out that this issue isn't as black-and-white as either of you make it out to be.
I can tell why you seem so incensed and defensive in your response
That's odd; I don't think I conveyed either of those things. I have no idea where you got that impression.
Since I chose to reply to your earlier post, you seem to be under the impression that I don't agree with everything you said, and that is just not the case. The only point you made that I take issue to is being able to call Whitman "a perfectly normal man". I don't dispute any of your claims that the tumor *may* have played a role in his violent impulses, and the Wikipedia article agrees with this assessment too. Furthermore, I would doubt any doctor in 1966 would be able to state as definitive fact whether or not the tumor played a role in his actions. It seems to me that the Connally Commission's purpose was to "right the wrong" of the previous medical examiner stating that there was no way the tumor did play a role. A responsible scientist would have to accept that we just don't know enough about the brain, or at least we didn't in 1966, and be forced to state their opinion in uncertain terms, which is precisely what the Connally Commission did; Wikipedia states that the tumor "conceivably could have had an influence on Whitman's actions."
The definition of a "perfectly normal man" varies from region to region, and changes over time, as Zynder points out. I assert that Whitman was not a "perfectly normal man", at least not by the standards of my region in this time period. I didn't grow up in America, and I wasn't subjected to the "gun culture" that seems to come with being an American. But again, in that Wikipedia article, Whitman's father makes the following statement:
His father said of him: "Charlie could plug (shoot) the eye out of a squirrel by the time he was sixteen."
In my region, this would be considered an early exposure to violence. I believe that if you're taught to use a gun at a young age, you shouldn't be taking the lives of innocent animals unless you intend to eat them for survival. Call me a peace lovin' hippie if you will, but this act demonstrates a lack of empathy for other living beings, and that, I would classify as not "normal".
/. and quite often they are very informative and insightful. But I think a lot of people take issue with the way you refute their counterpoints by putting words in our mouths. For instance, in your reply to Zynder, you state:
But again, I must stress that this could be considered normal to someone living in another region, who perhaps grew up in America, in the "gun culture". The definition for a "normal" person is subjective.
On a side note, I have seen many of your posts on
... with the GP. He feels threatened by the idea that this sort of thing could happen to anyone and by anyone, I mean him.
I certainly do not feel threatened, and nowhere in my previous post did I even allude to that. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Further to that point, I certainly do believe it is entirely possible that a brain condition could strike anyone at any time and cause them to do very irrational things, like Whitman here. I just think your Whitman example is of someone who was predisposed to violence, and his predisposal to violence *may* have played a role in his actions, too.
Lastly,
I'm right, you're wrong.
That's great. You found one medical expert who agrees with you. Bravo, good for you. But to make a statement like this just shows a childish approach to the argument and paints it as black-and-white. Surely you can see that there are shades of grey to this argument...?
In actuality, this was a perfectly normal man who...
It is very difficult for you to make a statement like this with your proof being a few sentences about a person's life. For instance, I could say that Hitler was an artist, who had an accomplished military career, as well as a career in politics (which must mean he was popular, right?)
Now I really hate to go Godwin so quickly on this, but looking through that Wikipedia article makes it fairly clear that his father was abusive, and he joined the military to get away from him. These two facts scream "predisposition to violence" to me, and I think most other rational thinking people.
And before you try to tell me that the Wikipedia article "undoubtedly is sensationalist garbage", I'm afraid I have to point out that the burden of proof lies with you. Wikipedia is crowdsourced, so many people had to agree what they could post about this guy as fact, and disputed facts are typically mentioned in the "talk" section of the page, which makes no mention of any doubt surrounding the basic facts about his father. Your comment, on the other hand, is your own statement of belief. Why should I believe that your side of the story carries more weight than what many knowledgeable people have to say on the matter?
My last car (a Saturn) had P-R-N-D-3-2. The manual said that "3" is every gear except 4, and was good for "trips in town where the vehicle does not exceed 70 km/h", and "2" was every gear except 1. I always thought that was a little strange.
I would mod you up if I had points. I never tried to figure this out because every time I use alt+tab, I'm doing so in a hurry and results on win7 seem unexpected to me. Now I have an idea of what's going on.
What is very strange is that Win+tab seems to conform to its own order. You would think they would apply consistency between the two functions, since they are so similar, but perhaps Microsoft can't even agree on the right way to do it.
And if everyone on the planet shared their wealth, there would be no poor people.
Seriously, do you honestly believe that "everyone using an ad-blocker" is even feasible? I'm pretty certain that in your lifetime, there's zero chance that every dumb jock, grandmother, and all other technologically inept people are going to go out and install an ad-blocker on all of their computers, phones, tablets and whatever else. Saying that you aren't going to do it because bad things would happen if everybody did it is stupid, when there is no possible chance that everyone will do it.
There are plenty of suckers among my friends that still complain about having to skip the ad video on Youtube, despite the fact that I have told them several times that there are easy ways of getting rid of all those ads for good. It's not that the people without ad-blockers are unaware of their existence, some of them just couldn't be bothered with doing something about it, and you don't sound like one of those people.
I would hope that you'd have to put your phone in "listen" mode before it would detect such a signal.
It's not the fact that this feature doesn't exist that he has a right to complain about. It is the fact that he complained about this missing feature and they responded to say that it was a popular feature request and they would implement it in the near future. More than a decade goes by, and still no feature. If what he said was true, that makes them liars.
Most cars that use normal keys also have a steering lock built in when the key is removed. So, if you ripped the key out, best case scenario, you'd get the engine to turn off. Worst case scenario, you'd be unable to steer the vehicle.
Does anyone else find it hilarious that by posting a story like this on the internet, especially to slashdot, he is further tying his name to the word "bankruptcy" in automated search algorithms?
Sure, you say that now, but having to deal with getting a replacement every 6 months, not to mention the week or so that you're hobbling along because the phone is clearly on its last legs, would probably make you change your tune after a cheap phone or two.
Thanks for trying. I offer the following rebuttals:
/. so much of terrible journalism, but when it makes the point we agree with, we believe it without question.
- The Wall Street Journal. When it comes to football, I'm sure they know what they're talking about...
- They only studied four games. FOUR games. I'm sure their average estimates are right on track by only studying FOUR games.
- It is never mentioned which four games these are, which makes a difference. The strategies employed by certain teams lend themselves to wasting game clock time much more than other strategies. How do they know that these four games aren't outliers on a bell curve, perhaps featuring two run-heavy offenses playing against soft defenses?
- They also don't cite their own sources. It basically says "according to a WSJ study, of four games, and similar estimates of (unnamed) researchers."
It's funny how we complain on
The average NFL game has 11 minutes of action.
Citation needed. I watch more than my fair share of football, and this is absurd. I'll agree that there is less than 60 minutes as the game clock would indicate, because certain plays do not stop the game clock from running, but to assert that there are only 11 minutes of action is disingenuous.
/. crowd)
Also, to the other person who replied to this comment, the latest CBA signed between the NFL and the NFL Players Association limits the number of padded (read: full contact) practices per season. I think it is something like 8-10 padded practices per season, which is practically nothing by most minor football league standards.
Lastly, I'd just like to say Rest In Peace, Junior Seau. He was my first favourite player, and he will be missed. (but not by the
Yeah, but how hard would it have been to put an option in Office 2007 to go back to the menu bar system, if you wanted to? Why piss off 15% of users if you can make 100% of them happy?
Furthermore, those 15% of users are typically the ones in a position to support the product and make recommendations to the other 85%. Pissing off this subset of people was a terrible idea.
Yes, exactly. We can't compare this to breaking into someone's "home". In the case of Mila Kunis and her cellphone, maybe. But if you're breaking into, say, hotmail servers by guessing a password, that is more apt to trying to pick a lock on a locker in a public place, like a train station. It's still theft, but it sounds much less serious than actually breaking into a residence.
Claiming that a UI element (like the start screen or the ribbon) is a "two hour learning curve" is disingenuous.
Whenever I change my login password, I find myself typing in the old password first, for at least a week or two. Using a UI becomes a habit that the user doesn't have to think about, they just use it. The job of a UI is to not get in the way.
So when you completely change the UI, it takes the typical user much more than "two hours" to get used to doing things differently. It can take weeks, months even, to get used to doing things a different way. While the user is getting used to this different method, they constantly have to think about how to interact with the UI, whereas on the old paradigm it didn't require much in the way of brainpower. It was more to do with muscle memory. That can be a hard habit to break.
This is pretty much how I feel too. I use XFCE + compiz for the perfect blend of speed and desktop customizability. Gotta have a little bling. But the way compiz has been going, it looks like the day might come where it is no longer an option, and I hope that KDE will have their shit together by then. I've checked out KDE several times in the past, but it's just never looked "ready" yet. (to be fair it has been a while)
I completely disagree. It's not the users' concern where Canonical gets their money. If they offer their distro for free, it is their own problem how they get their funding. If users don't like their product, there are many, many other free distros to choose from.
Besides, they were doing just fine on their previous funding models, which is what other companies like Red Hat do, right? Why do they need more money? Is the support license money well running dry these days? And if that is the case, whose fault is that?
I think TFS misses on two big points that are helping to bring gaming to Linux.
One of which is Android. There are some pretty decent FPS games running on the SGS3 in 720p.
The other one is the OUYA project, which is also built on Android. They've already raised over $8.5 million and they havent even shipped a console yet.
Will the big publishers follow suit? Who cares? The point is a new market for gaming is emerging. Competition will allow new big publishers to emerge.
I clicked on your link just in case you attempt to measure /.'s impact on your numbers. Go Firefox!