As I understand it (and I could be wrong), the versioning of Mozilla is similar to the Linux kernel. Meaning that if the second number is odd, it's a development branch. If the second number is even it's the stable branch. So ideally there wouldn't be much difference feature wise between the last odd release and the first of the next even releases.
Is this some sort of new twist on mathematics or Greek? The headline states Mozilla 1.2 "Beta" only to be told that the MOzilla 1.2 Alpha was released. I swear you're like my wife who says's it's almost 7:00 at 6:30. It's all relative I guess.
Jumping on those spies (were they spies, or was I?) and blasting them and the light fixtures in 3d glory! Squashing the bad guy with an elevator. Good times.
Quite so, especially since I'm neither american nor a native english speaker myself.
Obviously. I mean hardly any American native speakers of English know how to use "neither/nor" properly. I am an American native English speaker and I almost never hear it. It's almost refreshing. Honestly, that sentence translated into modern American would be "Yeah, cuz, I'm not American or a native english speaker."
Thought you might be interested. Note the very professional attitude the antiadblocker fellow keeps during his part of the discussion. Also note that I never admitted to blocking ads but his tone certainly acts as if I had. I was going to continue the argument but I tired of it. Maybe a couple hundred slashdotters would like to pick up where I left off?;-) In order to keep it as short as possible I'll just copy and paste the email with the embedded replies etc. I'm sure you can figure it out:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Gardner" To: webmaster@AntiAdBlocker.com Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:16 PM Subject: Ad blockers
> Hmmm. I wonder what makes you think that anyone who blocks ads would be > even the slightest bit interested in buying something from a banner ad > that they saw on a website. > I guess it's a good thing your customers can't think this in depth.
From: "AntiAdBlocker" webmaster@antiadblocker.com To: "Jonathan Gardner" Subject: Re: Ad blockers Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 00:52:06 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
A scumbag like yourself probably doesn't understand this, but billions of dollars of products are purchased on the internet. MANY people click and buy products, just not scumbag leeches like yourself that think you're owed something. Also, most websites are paid when you view the ads, not if you click or buy something. If you had an ounce of gray matter you would understand how all the websites you visit are funded. AntiAdBlocker allows the internet to keep running even with scumbags like yourself surfing the web and stealing from webmasters. Shame on you.
AntiAdBlocker
From: "AntiAdBlocker" webmaster@antiadblocker.com To: "Jonathan Gardner" Subject: Re: Ad blockers Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 10:40:56 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
> I can tell from your tone that you are a very professional outfit, > nevertheless you did not answer my question so I will take issue with your > assumptions. I have no doubt that many things are bought over the > internet. I do it myself. > But just as with the real world, when I want something I go and get it. I > NEVER purchase anything from an unsolicited phonecall. > I NEVER purchase something from an unsolicited email. > I NEVER purchase anything just because I see it on an ugly billboard that > mars the beauty of the natural land nor do I buy things I see on an > obtrusive banner ad.
Hogwash. Internet ads are like TV commercials. You watch the TV channel for free and as a condition, they have commercials. It's not unsolicited like a telemarketer. It's an agreement that you watch TV or the internet at a reduced cost if you view the ads. So first of all, internet advertising is not in the same league as junk mail, spam or telemarketers. Secondly, don't lie to yourself. Do you purchase ANYTHING that you've seen on a TV ad? I'm sure you have so don't even lie. That's the same kind of ad as the internet. The ads offset the cost of the program and delivery.
Third, you must be foolish if you think that no one clicks on an ad and buys something. If they didn't, advertisers wouldn't buy anymore ads, would they Mr. smart ass? Also, a lot of internet advertising is branding, just like TV commercials. Most TV commercials don't directly sell something. They just brand a product. Like beer or car commercials. There's tons of beer and car commercials but not once have I even seen a beer or car commercial that gives a number to call to order beer or a car. That's because their branding the product. Many internet ads are the same, just branding. Marketing 101, but obviously, you don't have a clue and even worse you think you know what you're talking about.
> These banner ads cost internet users time and bandwidth just to download > them to display them and as the ads get bigger the problem gets worse.
The same could be argued about TV commercials. It costs time and bandwidth to view TV commercials, but guess what? Those are the terms of watching TV or the internet for free or at a reduced cost. If a TV show has too many ads, you turn the channel. If an internet site has too many ads, you turn the channel. The notion that YOU are being inconvenienced for getting something for FREE is stupid. The fact is that you pay probably a flat amount per month for your internet connection, just like cable TV. And just like TV, the costs to view the internet are so low because of advertising. Think how much cable TV would cost if there were no ads. I can tell you already, about $10-$15 per channel per month instead of $30 for 50 channels. The same goes with the internet. Ads pay for most of the internet. So your $15-$30 internet connection per month would cost hundreds of dollars if you had to pay for every site you visited. I don't think you understand, or can grasp the fact that if all internet ads were banned tomorrow, either the internet would fold or you would be paying several times more for your internet connection.
Internet ads have become more bold because of people like yourself blocking ads and thinking that sites shouldn't have ads. I don't think you understand that sites don't run off a $10/month server. Most medium-sized sites need a dedicated server which costs hundreds a month. And bandwidth is about $300/Mbps (about 30 times the home cable rate). I have a single site that costs me $2100/month for the server and the bandwidth. And the only way to pay for that is with ads. If everyone blocked ads, the site, and every other medium to large site on the internet would close and the internet would suck. But you probably only care about yourself and don't comprehend the big picture.
> There are many users out there that actually have to pay per the minute > and each ad is costing them real money.
So what? It's your CHOICE to view a site. The ad wasn't sent to you. You came to view it! And you're forgetting that those sites you're viewing also have to pay for you to leech from them. Is that fair? Maybe you pay by the minute, but you're not paying the web sites you visit. And if you're blocking ads, you're stealing from the webmaster.
> Point remains though, that people who block ads weren't going to buy > anything from them anyway.
That is about the most stupid thing I've ever heard and scumbags like yourself always use it. I can spot a idiot scumbag like yourself a thousand miles away when you use that statement. Listen to me now and understand me later. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU BUY IT OR NOT, WEBMASTERS ARE PAID IF YOU VIEW THE AD, NOT IF YOU CLICK ON IT OR BUY IT!!!! Let that soak into that piece of crap you call a brain. Do you understand yet? Ads are paid by impression and are designed for branding for the most part. The fact that you click on them or not doesn't make a difference. It's that you VIEW them. And if you block ads, you're stealing bandwidth from webmasters.
> They're just sick of having to pay in time and/or > money to be forced to see someone's garish snakeoil logo.
99% of internet users don't pay by the minute. And even if you're too stupid to get a flat-fee internet connection, you have the same option as you have with the TV, change the channel if you don't like the program or the ads. Stealing from the webmaster can't be justified just because you're too stupid to have a flat-fee internet connection.
> Shame on YOU for perpetuating the ugliness of the web.
Shame on YOU for stealing from webmasters. I can't wait till AntiAdBlocker is on every site on the web so scumbags like yourself no longer get a free ride and can't steal from webmasters.
Well, they had been powered by Athlon XP 2000+ processors but the someone checked out pricewatch.com and discovered the 2100+. The ones that are going first are the REALLY old ones with the IDE ATA-100 harddrives. Gotta have ATA-133! Now natually these are only the lowend machines for the normal office worker, the database servers must be MUCH more powerfull.
Seems to me that the super long copyrights are causing works to be lost because the original author etc. no longer cares about them, probably because they are dead.
However to use the example of Mickey Mouse, Disney as a corporate individual still very much cares about it's characters and is likely to for quite a long time.
Rather than have works be lost in the extremely long copyright term we have now, why can't we just let copyright holders who DO care about their works renew the copyright until they no longer care about them? This would take care of the work of dead authors and companies that have gone out of business, while allowing Long standing companies protect their "classics."
Just a thought that seems to make too much sense to me.
I've wondered lately why they didn't pick up some fast cash by suing Microsoft. I mean they've been selling Wallside windows since long before there was a Microsoft Windows.
If you can't sue over a capitalization why can you sue for a whole different letter?
Which brings an interesting idea to my mind. Maybe Bobby Fischer could come out of hiding and challenge it to a game. Never mind the computer would only pick days that would have to be cancelled due to weather emergency.
The US military budget is SO high, because when we go to war, we want to destroy weapons and remove evil doers with surgical precision. All the while making the locals love the US. The US ideally would go to war where only weapons ould be destroyed and noone would get killed. To acieve this goal our weapons have to be extremely high tech. Oddly enough it's value of all human life, both ours and the people in the region we're fighting that makes our budget so huge.
What's this I hear about a Kernel recompile? Eegads! One of the VERY first things I had to learn how to do was a kernel config and compile. This was back in the day of RedHat 5.2 (My first distro), and I was getting it to use the 2.2 kernels. I NEEDED to do a compile for it to work my onboard sound and a few other things as I recall. Plenty of people have written up little HOWTOs on the subject. With Xconfig it's really NOT hard at all. A little time consuming to read all the helps for the things you don't know if you need or not, but not difficult. The stable Linux kernel is one of the best written pieces of software around, based on the occurences of warnngs I see during compile time. I recommend a vanilla kernel from the stable branch, unzip it and go on in. Type make xconfig and off you go. when you're done a make dep ; make clean ; make bzImage ; make modules ; make modules_install will do most of the work. Then there's the bit about getting things where they belong. An easy make install does the trick. If you're using LILO edit the/etc/lilo.conf to add your new kernel, don't replace your old one, you may need it. If you're using grub you'll see an error at the end of the make install, it's meaningless, just means that the LILO bit failed. This is VERY brief, but I'm just trying to say to people that a kernel recompile is NOT to be feared. Look for instructions on Google, I'm sure they're out there.
Well, I was in Helsinki in 1989 and they had a Pizza Hut there. They had a really funny pizza called "Tasty Michigan" which had some sort of fish and squid I think. Now, I've lived in Michigan almost all my life and while we have fish. It didn't look right in that Helsinki Pizza Hut. My friend and I also speant about $40US on the pizza we got there, but we didn't care as we had just finished 3 weeks in the USSR eating SPAM dogs (or is that Spam? Which is the meat and which is the mail?) and other things we couldn't recognize. I think we went straight from McDonalds (then $12US for a Quarter Pounder combo) to Pizza Hut. Sorry about the price referneces. Europeans may not find them funny, but to the kids who have never left the US it'll be amazing.
I can't speak for these "new comers" but I'm still waiting for my TI-99/5. How's THAT for a torch!?!
The TI-99/4A was a sweet platform, with a whopping 16k ram and BASIC built right in. Add a big ole Periferal(sp?) Expansion box with a 5.25" floppy drive and you were in the big time. It was also home to the original Parsec game. It kicked!
"The "review" seems to be written to so obviously make Ep2 everything people wanted Ep1 to be? "This time, its great, fantastic, its perfect!" Bit too obvious. "
Yeah, and I suppose you don't believe Microsoft when they say "This time Windows won't crash."
Slashdot Mirror
Where's this complaint when we see:
M$, Microshaft, Micro$oft, Winblows or, Windoze?
I don't care for Microsoft either, but you see these all the time and I don't see you putting the writer down for childishness.
Jonathan
Why does Slashdot have a big square advert for MS VisualStudio.net of all things between the synopsis and the comments?
Kind of distracting.
Jonathan
As I understand it (and I could be wrong), the versioning of Mozilla is similar to the Linux kernel. Meaning that if the second number is odd, it's a development branch. If the second number is even it's the stable branch. So ideally there wouldn't be much difference feature wise between the last odd release and the first of the next even releases.
Cheers,
Jonathan
Im taking the preemptive move of pointing out I've already seen the nasty mistakes in my post.
Darned flexible keyboards in the morning!
Jonathan
Is this some sort of new twist on mathematics or Greek?
The headline states Mozilla 1.2 "Beta" only to be told that the MOzilla 1.2 Alpha was released.
I swear you're like my wife who says's it's almost 7:00 at 6:30.
It's all relative I guess.
Cheers,
Jonathan
Hey! Great case. I take it that isn't one of those quiet fans?
Seriously, I like the way the PVC piping and the clear sides come together.
Very nice.
Cheers,
Jonathan
Jumping on those spies (were they spies, or was I?) and blasting them and the light fixtures in 3d glory! Squashing the bad guy with an elevator.
Good times.
Cheers,
Jonathan
Obviously. I mean hardly any American native speakers of English know how to use "neither/nor" properly. I am an American native English speaker and I almost never hear it.
It's almost refreshing.
Honestly, that sentence translated into modern American would be "Yeah, cuz, I'm not American or a native english speaker."
Cheers,
Jonathan
I just used that last of my liquid nitrogen on that Pentium!
Cheers,
Jonathan
Compile a list of those most likely to seek public office and make sure they never get the chance to run.
Cheers,
Jonathan
Thought you might be interested. Note the very professional attitude the antiadblocker fellow keeps during his part of the discussion. Also note that I never admitted to blocking ads but his tone certainly acts as if I had. I was going to continue the argument but I tired of it. Maybe a couple hundred slashdotters would like to pick up where I left off? ;-) In order to keep it as short as possible I'll just copy and paste the email with the embedded replies etc. I'm sure you can figure it out:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Gardner"
To: webmaster@AntiAdBlocker.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:16 PM
Subject: Ad blockers
> Hmmm. I wonder what makes you think that anyone who blocks ads would be
> even the slightest bit interested in buying something from a banner ad
> that they saw on a website.
> I guess it's a good thing your customers can't think this in depth.
From: "AntiAdBlocker" webmaster@antiadblocker.com
To: "Jonathan Gardner"
Subject: Re: Ad blockers
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 00:52:06 -0400
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
A scumbag like yourself probably doesn't understand this, but billions of
dollars of products are purchased on the internet. MANY people click and
buy products, just not scumbag leeches like yourself that think you're owed
something. Also, most websites are paid when you view the ads, not if you
click or buy something. If you had an ounce of gray matter you would
understand how all the websites you visit are funded. AntiAdBlocker allows
the internet to keep running even with scumbags like yourself surfing the
web and stealing from webmasters. Shame on you.
AntiAdBlocker
From: "AntiAdBlocker" webmaster@antiadblocker.com
To: "Jonathan Gardner"
Subject: Re: Ad blockers
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 10:40:56 -0400
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
> I can tell from your tone that you are a very professional outfit,
> nevertheless you did not answer my question so I will take issue with your
> assumptions. I have no doubt that many things are bought over the
> internet. I do it myself.
> But just as with the real world, when I want something I go and get it. I
> NEVER purchase anything from an unsolicited phonecall.
> I NEVER purchase something from an unsolicited email.
> I NEVER purchase anything just because I see it on an ugly billboard that
> mars the beauty of the natural land nor do I buy things I see on an
> obtrusive banner ad.
Hogwash. Internet ads are like TV commercials. You watch the TV channel
for free and as a condition, they have commercials. It's not unsolicited
like a telemarketer. It's an agreement that you watch TV or the internet at
a reduced cost if you view the ads. So first of all, internet advertising
is not in the same league as junk mail, spam or telemarketers.
Secondly, don't lie to yourself. Do you purchase ANYTHING that you've seen
on a TV ad? I'm sure you have so don't even lie. That's the same kind of
ad as the internet. The ads offset the cost of the program and delivery.
Third, you must be foolish if you think that no one clicks on an ad and buys
something. If they didn't, advertisers wouldn't buy anymore ads, would they
Mr. smart ass? Also, a lot of internet advertising is branding, just like
TV commercials. Most TV commercials don't directly sell something. They
just brand a product. Like beer or car commercials. There's tons of beer
and car commercials but not once have I even seen a beer or car commercial
that gives a number to call to order beer or a car. That's because their
branding the product. Many internet ads are the same, just branding.
Marketing 101, but obviously, you don't have a clue and even worse you think
you know what you're talking about.
> These banner ads cost internet users time and bandwidth just to download
> them to display them and as the ads get bigger the problem gets worse.
The same could be argued about TV commercials. It costs time and bandwidth
to view TV commercials, but guess what? Those are the terms of watching TV
or the internet for free or at a reduced cost. If a TV show has too many
ads, you turn the channel. If an internet site has too many ads, you turn
the channel. The notion that YOU are being inconvenienced for getting
something for FREE is stupid. The fact is that you pay probably a flat
amount per month for your internet connection, just like cable TV. And just
like TV, the costs to view the internet are so low because of advertising.
Think how much cable TV would cost if there were no ads. I can tell you
already, about $10-$15 per channel per month instead of $30 for 50 channels.
The same goes with the internet. Ads pay for most of the internet. So your
$15-$30 internet connection per month would cost hundreds of dollars if you
had to pay for every site you visited. I don't think you understand, or can
grasp the fact that if all internet ads were banned tomorrow, either the
internet would fold or you would be paying several times more for your
internet connection.
Internet ads have become more bold because of people like yourself blocking
ads and thinking that sites shouldn't have ads. I don't think you
understand that sites don't run off a $10/month server. Most medium-sized
sites need a dedicated server which costs hundreds a month. And bandwidth
is about $300/Mbps (about 30 times the home cable rate). I have a single
site that costs me $2100/month for the server and the bandwidth. And the
only way to pay for that is with ads. If everyone blocked ads, the site,
and every other medium to large site on the internet would close and the
internet would suck. But you probably only care about yourself and don't
comprehend the big picture.
> There are many users out there that actually have to pay per the minute
> and each ad is costing them real money.
So what? It's your CHOICE to view a site. The ad wasn't sent to you. You
came to view it! And you're forgetting that those sites you're viewing also
have to pay for you to leech from them. Is that fair? Maybe you pay by the
minute, but you're not paying the web sites you visit. And if you're
blocking ads, you're stealing from the webmaster.
> Point remains though, that people who block ads weren't going to buy
> anything from them anyway.
That is about the most stupid thing I've ever heard and scumbags like
yourself always use it. I can spot a idiot scumbag like yourself a thousand
miles away when you use that statement. Listen to me now and understand me
later. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU BUY IT OR NOT, WEBMASTERS ARE PAID IF YOU
VIEW THE AD, NOT IF YOU CLICK ON IT OR BUY IT!!!! Let that soak into that
piece of crap you call a brain. Do you understand yet? Ads are paid by
impression and are designed for branding for the most part. The fact that
you click on them or not doesn't make a difference. It's that you VIEW
them. And if you block ads, you're stealing bandwidth from webmasters.
> They're just sick of having to pay in time and/or
> money to be forced to see someone's garish snakeoil logo.
99% of internet users don't pay by the minute. And even if you're too
stupid to get a flat-fee internet connection, you have the same option as
you have with the TV, change the channel if you don't like the program or
the ads. Stealing from the webmaster can't be justified just because you're
too stupid to have a flat-fee internet connection.
> Shame on YOU for perpetuating the ugliness of the web.
Shame on YOU for stealing from webmasters. I can't wait till AntiAdBlocker
is on every site on the web so scumbags like yourself no longer get a free
ride and can't steal from webmasters.
AntiAdBlocker
Well, personally I don't often refer to Linux as GNU/Linux, but I'm not about to tell someone else that they can't.
Cheers,
Jonathan
Armand Hammer
Cheers,
Jonathan
Well, they had been powered by Athlon XP 2000+ processors but the someone checked out pricewatch.com and discovered the 2100+.
The ones that are going first are the REALLY old ones with the IDE ATA-100 harddrives. Gotta have ATA-133! Now natually these are only the lowend machines for the normal office worker, the database servers must be MUCH more powerfull.
Cheers,
Jonathan
Then explain those NASTY ketchup flavored potato chips. ;-)
Jonathan
However to use the example of Mickey Mouse, Disney as a corporate individual still very much cares about it's characters and is likely to for quite a long time.
Rather than have works be lost in the extremely long copyright term we have now, why can't we just let copyright holders who DO care about their works renew the copyright until they no longer care about them? This would take care of the work of dead authors and companies that have gone out of business, while allowing Long standing companies protect their "classics."
Just a thought that seems to make too much sense to me.
Cheers,
Jonathan
If you can't sue over a capitalization why can you sue for a whole different letter?
Cheers,
Jonathan
Which brings an interesting idea to my mind. Maybe Bobby Fischer could come out of hiding and challenge it to a game.
Never mind the computer would only pick days that would have to be cancelled due to weather emergency.
Cheers,
Jonathan
Haven't you ever seen Ultra-man? The MONSTERS of course. Right after they stomp through the oil refinery.
Cheers,
Jonathan
The US military budget is SO high, because when we go to war, we want to destroy weapons and remove evil doers with surgical precision. All the while making the locals love the US.
The US ideally would go to war where only weapons ould be destroyed and noone would get killed.
To acieve this goal our weapons have to be extremely high tech.
Oddly enough it's value of all human life, both ours and the people in the region we're fighting that makes our budget so huge.
Cheers,
Jonathan
What's this I hear about a Kernel recompile? /etc/lilo.conf to add your new kernel, don't replace your old one, you may need it. If you're using grub you'll see an error at the end of the make install, it's meaningless, just means that the LILO bit failed.
Eegads! One of the VERY first things I had to learn how to do was a kernel config and compile. This was back in the day of RedHat 5.2 (My first distro), and I was getting it to use the 2.2 kernels. I NEEDED to do a compile for it to work my onboard sound and a few other things as I recall.
Plenty of people have written up little HOWTOs on the subject. With Xconfig it's really NOT hard at all. A little time consuming to read all the helps for the things you don't know if you need or not, but not difficult.
The stable Linux kernel is one of the best written pieces of software around, based on the occurences of warnngs I see during compile time.
I recommend a vanilla kernel from the stable branch, unzip it and go on in. Type make xconfig and off you go. when you're done a make dep ; make clean ; make bzImage ; make modules ; make modules_install will do most of the work.
Then there's the bit about getting things where they belong. An easy make install does the trick. If you're using LILO edit the
This is VERY brief, but I'm just trying to say to people that a kernel recompile is NOT to be feared. Look for instructions on Google, I'm sure they're out there.
Jonathan
Well, I was in Helsinki in 1989 and they had a Pizza Hut there. They had a really funny pizza called "Tasty Michigan" which had some sort of fish and squid I think. Now, I've lived in Michigan almost all my life and while we have fish. It didn't look right in that Helsinki Pizza Hut.
My friend and I also speant about $40US on the pizza we got there, but we didn't care as we had just finished 3 weeks in the USSR eating SPAM dogs (or is that Spam? Which is the meat and which is the mail?) and other things we couldn't recognize.
I think we went straight from McDonalds (then $12US for a Quarter Pounder combo) to Pizza Hut.
Sorry about the price referneces. Europeans may not find them funny, but to the kids who have never left the US it'll be amazing.
Jonathan
I can't speak for these "new comers" but I'm still waiting for my TI-99/5.
How's THAT for a torch!?!
The TI-99/4A was a sweet platform, with a whopping 16k ram and BASIC built right in.
Add a big ole Periferal(sp?) Expansion box with a 5.25" floppy drive and you were in the big time.
It was also home to the original Parsec game. It kicked!
Jonathan
I can see it now. Our first Anti-Hydrogen space ship explodes upon landing, so we switch to Anti-Helium, because it's safer. ;-)
Jonathan
"The "review" seems to be written to so obviously make Ep2 everything people wanted Ep1 to be? "This time, its great, fantastic, its perfect!" Bit too obvious. "
Yeah, and I suppose you don't believe Microsoft when they say "This time Windows won't crash."
Sheesh, skeptics!
Jonathan