Before someone corrects me, I'll do it myself: The article or summary didn't actually say "bright streak," the summary said "dark streak and bright flash."
In response to my own comment, either what I said above, or it's the smoke trail from a plane hitting the ocean. And since when did "bright streak" mean "dull gray streak"
You seem to be confused by the/. comment threading system, I was not replying to you, I was replying to an AC who said:
"Good. As soon as the internet isn't profibitable at all, the commercialization will go away and it will be returned to the hands of academics, hobbiests and enthusiasts."
"it's increasingly evident the OS wars are down to three - Microsoft Windows, Sun's Solaris, and Red Hat's Linux."
Did it occur to anyone, that perhaps he just believes the Red Hat distro to be the only distro of any real threat to Windows, and Solaris (of course, doesn't mean he's correct). Why is that statement taken as him attributing the Linux kernel to Red Hat?
I'm against having people forced to view ads, it's their right to block them should they wish, but I think people should still be more considerate as to the consequences of doing so.
Take slashdot (as an example), if everyone blocks ads, how would they "adapt"? My guess would be A) they won't, or B) they'll be reduced to making paid subscriptions mandatory, and perhaps increasing the number of advertisements masqueraded as genuine stories (such as the recent Cannon printer promotion). Is that really a better alternative?
> (ie: text-based ads that don't use iframes), like how google ads are made up.
Wrong. Google Ads use JavaScript, and iframes, they can be easily blocked several ways: with AdBlock (and similar such extensions/programs), disabling JavaScript, or disabling iframes.
Just to prove that science is cool; Tania, the editor of Nerdling zine has travelled to Antarctica just to publish some interesting reading material on her blog.
I don't think "just to" means what you thinks it means.
You do realise many spammers are from the Russian Mafia? Please don't be surprised when you find a horse's head on your pillow, and don't expect any sympathy from people who told you being a vigilante moron with the delusions of moral superiority is a Bad Thing(TM).
Actually, people can have different numbers of ribs. Some people actually have genetic mutations that give then extra rib bones at the shoulders.
And your point is what exactly? he clearly meant that Women as a rule always have a different number of ribs, according to the Bible. How exactly is your post disproving to this?
Slashdot Mirror
Before someone corrects me, I'll do it myself: The article or summary didn't actually say "bright streak," the summary said "dark streak and bright flash."
> RTFA
Are we allowed to do that?
In response to my own comment, either what I said above, or it's the smoke trail from a plane hitting the ocean. And since when did "bright streak" mean "dull gray streak"
Seriously, it just looks like the guy needs to clean his camera lens to me.
The parent listed Outlook Express in context to "open source" I took him to mean "free" as opposed to the actual definition of "open source."
> what else *Open Source* e-mail clients can I choose in Windows?
Pirated Outlook.
You seem to be confused by the /. comment threading system, I was not replying to you, I was replying to an AC who said:
"Good. As soon as the internet isn't profibitable at all, the commercialization will go away and it will be returned to the hands of academics, hobbiests and enthusiasts."
He said:
"it's increasingly evident the OS wars are down to three - Microsoft Windows, Sun's Solaris, and Red Hat's Linux."
Did it occur to anyone, that perhaps he just believes the Red Hat distro to be the only distro of any real threat to Windows, and Solaris (of course, doesn't mean he's correct). Why is that statement taken as him attributing the Linux kernel to Red Hat?
If this is your belief, why are you on /. (a commercial website)?
I'm against having people forced to view ads, it's their right to block them should they wish, but I think people should still be more considerate as to the consequences of doing so.
Take slashdot (as an example), if everyone blocks ads, how would they "adapt"? My guess would be A) they won't, or B) they'll be reduced to making paid subscriptions mandatory, and perhaps increasing the number of advertisements masqueraded as genuine stories (such as the recent Cannon printer promotion). Is that really a better alternative?
> (ie: text-based ads that don't use iframes), like how google ads are made up.
Wrong. Google Ads use JavaScript, and iframes, they can be easily blocked several ways: with AdBlock (and similar such extensions/programs), disabling JavaScript, or disabling iframes.
> ... that the world's people can build for themselves.
So, tell me, who exactly built them before?
> "Everyday" is the same as "every day":
I meant to say: ' "Everyday" is not the same as "every day"'
"Everyday" is the same as "every day":
Everyday -- Commonplace and ordinary; "the familiar everyday world"
The dictionary called, it wants its definition of redundant back.
I don't think "just to" means what you thinks it means.
You do realise many spammers are from the Russian Mafia? Please don't be surprised when you find a horse's head on your pillow, and don't expect any sympathy from people who told you being a vigilante moron with the delusions of moral superiority is a Bad Thing(TM).
The purpose of installing Gentoo is to install Gentoo, how exactly does installing Gentoo (using this method) defeat the purpose of installing Gentoo?
> Damnit "you" meant you not "I"
That's wrong as well. I think maybe I should stop now.
Damnit "you" meant you not "I"
> Think about what you could discover or learn if you could simulate[sic] anything?
I misspelled stimulate
> Apparently, not to many /. readers care judging by the lack of posting activity.
No, It's just all the Holopr0n jokes have been exhausted.
Yeah, please read my reply to my own post. Your arguing with the wrong person.
> How exactly is your post disproving to this?
Just to clarify my argument I probably should have said: "How exactly is your post proving this to be true?"
And your point is what exactly? he clearly meant that Women as a rule always have a different number of ribs, according to the Bible. How exactly is your post disproving to this?