
Does anyone see the irony of this statement?
Demographics have shown that not only are FireFox users a somewhat small percentage of the internet, they actually are even smaller in terms of online spending, therefore blocking FireFox seems to have only minimal financial drawbacks...
If it is true that Firefox users are a "somewhat small percentage" of the (users browsing) the Internet, then doesn't that also mean that the supposed loss of revenue incurred by these site owners is proportionally small? Based on this, we must assume that any site owner that purposefully blocks access by a Firefox browser actually believes that Firefox usage is significant, and not small.
It's not an uncommon practice: Belittle the enemy who is greater than you hoping that he will believe your words and not reason.
By the way... If a Firefox user is intelligent enough to install AdBlock in order to filter ads, wouldn't they also be intelligent enough to install User Agent Switcher in order to fool the site into thinking that they are borwsing the Internet with IE on Windows98?
RIAA for the InterWeb, Huh?
Over time it is becoming increasingly clear that Slashdot is going to hell. While this has always been true, it seems that we've crossed some threshold, reached some critical mass, where everything is going wrong. Mismoderation seems to have reached an all-time high; certainly complaints about it (mine included) have increased dramatically in the last couple of months. Editors can't edit, and never could. Advertisements from known spammers are all over the site. This isn't what I ca
Basically, my plans of meeting some friends and standing in line for the Wii were disrupted by some kind of stomach illness that I believe was caused by a steak sandwich I ordered during the OSU/Michigan game.
Chemistry professors never die, they just fail to react.