I wouldn't really say that Firefly is even sci-fi. Yeah it takes place in the future with spaceships and shit, but it's not really science fiction. It's more of a future fantasy kind of thing.
Sort of like Star Wars, only in the future instead of long, long ago. And without the too little, too late prequels.
Shouldn't just about every word in the english be public domain though? They've certainly been around long enough so the whole idea of ownership of common words is completely stupid.
Which is why "Red Hat Linux" or even a variation on "Red Hat's distribution of Linux" would be accurate. One is the name of the product and one states what belongs to Red Hat. But in that context it is very clear that he was making an intentional attempt to associate Linux as the sole property of Red Hat. This is not an argument about whether or not "Red Hat's Linux" is ever an accurate thing to say, which it could be, but whether or not Schwartz was intentionally trying to link Linux exclusively to Red Hat's distribution. Which he clearly was.
And a user-bandwidth-friendly adBlock would find a way to spoof the download without actually downloading it. Then everyone wins except the advertisers. But by then maybe they'll have learned that annoying potential customers makes fewer actual customers.
You guys are all missing it, or Schwartz is the biggest fool this side of John Romero. He said "Microsoft Windows", the name of the product, "Sun's Solaris", which is in fact belonging to Sun, and "Red Hat's Linux", which is neither belonging to Red Hat nor the name of their product. They neither own Linux nor the rights to the name and thus saying "Red Hat's Linux" in that context is not only misleading but inaccurate. Given Schwartz's history there can be no doubt that it was intentional.
Perhaps not, but if you said, "There were only three major technologies used for displaying webpages, XML, CSS, and Bob's HTML." then you would be saying that. And that's exactly what he did. If he wanted to say "Red Hat's Red Hat Enterprise Linux" or some shit, that'd be different. But Linux is NOT the exclusive name of Red Hat's product. Notice how he said "Microsoft Windows", because windows is a generic term that does not belong to Microsoft and the name of their product is "Microsoft Windows" not "Microsoft's Windows". But he said "Sun's Solaris", which is in fact owned by Sun.
If he had said "Red Hat Linux" that might be a legit argument. But since he didn't it's obvious that he is trying to marginalize Linux down to just Red Hat.
Saying "Slackware's Linux" would be the same as saying "Red Hat's Linux", both of which would be wrong. But thanks for playing, asshat.
It would get a higher percentage of total clicks, but that isn't what they are saying. They are comparing percentage of firefox users to percentage of ie users.
Which might be relevent if they were comparing total click through numbers rather than percentage of users who clicked through. Assuming that their sampling is large enough then those percentages should hold regardless of the number of users using each browser so that even if IE and Firefox had an equal number of users, the IE users would still click far more ads.
How does adblock kill any source of revenue? There aren't advertisers who pay by view are there? Because I sure as fuck don't click on ad banners even when I'm not blocking them.
Tolerance is just another word for putting up with shit that you shouldn't have to. If it matters no one should have to tolerate it, and if it doesn't there is nothing to tolerate at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, you've got to hack root for that.
Sort of like Star Wars, only in the future instead of long, long ago. And without the too little, too late prequels.
What kind of system are you running OpenOffice that it is rendering the system useless until the application is loaded? Must be something crappy.
Look Austin, I'm a reader!
Then the proper phrasing in context would have been "Microsoft's Windows". Get a fucking clue, asshat.
You're a liar! No one reads the articles on /..
Shouldn't just about every word in the english be public domain though? They've certainly been around long enough so the whole idea of ownership of common words is completely stupid.
I'm sorry about Graffiti 2 and your spelling.
Which is why "Red Hat Linux" or even a variation on "Red Hat's distribution of Linux" would be accurate. One is the name of the product and one states what belongs to Red Hat. But in that context it is very clear that he was making an intentional attempt to associate Linux as the sole property of Red Hat. This is not an argument about whether or not "Red Hat's Linux" is ever an accurate thing to say, which it could be, but whether or not Schwartz was intentionally trying to link Linux exclusively to Red Hat's distribution. Which he clearly was.
You're fired.
And a user-bandwidth-friendly adBlock would find a way to spoof the download without actually downloading it. Then everyone wins except the advertisers. But by then maybe they'll have learned that annoying potential customers makes fewer actual customers.
No, but he DID say "Microsoft Windows" because that is the name of the product. Just as "Red Hat Linux" is the name of Red Hat's product.
You guys are all missing it, or Schwartz is the biggest fool this side of John Romero. He said "Microsoft Windows", the name of the product, "Sun's Solaris", which is in fact belonging to Sun, and "Red Hat's Linux", which is neither belonging to Red Hat nor the name of their product. They neither own Linux nor the rights to the name and thus saying "Red Hat's Linux" in that context is not only misleading but inaccurate. Given Schwartz's history there can be no doubt that it was intentional.
Perhaps not, but if you said, "There were only three major technologies used for displaying webpages, XML, CSS, and Bob's HTML." then you would be saying that. And that's exactly what he did. If he wanted to say "Red Hat's Red Hat Enterprise Linux" or some shit, that'd be different. But Linux is NOT the exclusive name of Red Hat's product. Notice how he said "Microsoft Windows", because windows is a generic term that does not belong to Microsoft and the name of their product is "Microsoft Windows" not "Microsoft's Windows". But he said "Sun's Solaris", which is in fact owned by Sun.
Saying "Slackware's Linux" would be the same as saying "Red Hat's Linux", both of which would be wrong. But thanks for playing, asshat.
I guess at least you are really that stupid.
Which might be relevent if they were comparing total click through numbers rather than percentage of users who clicked through. Assuming that their sampling is large enough then those percentages should hold regardless of the number of users using each browser so that even if IE and Firefox had an equal number of users, the IE users would still click far more ads.
Just block the server that is hosting the images when you see them instead of the individual image.
How does adblock kill any source of revenue? There aren't advertisers who pay by view are there? Because I sure as fuck don't click on ad banners even when I'm not blocking them.
No... that's not right...
I bet it was Shinto! That's got to be it. What's my prize?
Are you fucking nuts? If I tried to use scissors with my left hand I'm like to lose an eye!
It's something more real than god and less magical than plastics. Discuss.
Nothing wrong in belief in flying horses that trail pixie dust, either. But it doesn't make you any less crazy for thinking that such a thing exists.
BTW, you've just been dismissed.
But if you remove all the porn from the internet how will they sell all those 200GB+ hard drivese? Are you seriously trying to destroy the economy?