Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu's Mir Moves Ahead With Unity 8 Interface

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by dee. View Post
    Come on, tell me how USA shuts down internet globally. This should be fun.

    By shutting down the root DNS servers; the US is one of six countries who have this ability. Wouldn't kill the internet per se, but with the master lookup tables gone, translating addresses to ip's would be impossible to accomplish, effectively killing the Internet.

    So it is quite "doable", even if it isn't in the US's best interests to do.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by DDF420 View Post
      Its possible if they use their world wide military bases and launch a simultaneous attack on the global pipelines under the sea.They could then very easily take out 99.9% of the net
      Yes - and if they launch all their nuclear missiles, all life on earth can come to an end. We can all think of doomsday scenarios which COULD happen, but it doesn't mean they will.

      Originally posted by uid313 View Post
      Yes, the Internet still works today - because nobody is seriously attempting taking it down.
      DNS servers get their data from other DNS servers, so if you bring down the root DNS servers, then after cache expires whole Internet is down.

      Yeah, we can use namecoin, but less than 0.1% have ever heard of namecoin, and almost nobody know what it is or how to set it up.

      If someone broke the DNS of the Internet, then the Internet would be practically down for 99% users.
      Yeah if the DNS goes down, then most people will be crying to their ISP's, who will do all they can to get a replacement system online. At that point, namecoin, tor, darknet, irc, etc. would all still be working - none of them really need DNS to function. It would be a global crisis, but these already existing, robust infrastructures could be used to build a new global DNS system. We could all move to use namecoin as our new DNS. That'd be kind of awesome actually. In any case I'm fairly certain the problem would get solved, because there would be so much financial incentive to solve it that it would be amazing if it didn't.

      Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
      I was saying that the US can take down the internet in their own country and other countries won't do anything about it. You made it look like the other countries would attack america if they would take down the internet because of gross violation of the rights of the people. All I was saying was that the governments in each country could take down the internet in their respective countries. Not that the US will take it down in the whole world.

      Also I was saying exactly that: they aren't going to do it because it's much better to give people illusion of control. For example your idea that internet protests change the real world. There is power in the internet, but much smaller than you think.
      It's not my problem if you don't understand what is being discussed, or assume things that haven't been said. I stated pretty clearly what I was talking about. I stated very clearly that the US could not shut down global internet on its own. It's you who started extrapolating that to something else.

      Also, the internet is much more powerful than you think. Have you ever heard the phrase "information is power"? Read some Sun Tzu. All the greatest military geniuses have known for centuries that simple fact: who controls knowledge, controls how people think, and thus, controls how they act. Who controls knowledge controls everything. And the internet is a flood, nay, a tsunami of information and knowledge. Do you think corporations spend billions on PR-campaigns just for fun? Just because they like to maintain a reputation? No, they do it because they know that their reputation and image translates directly into financial assets. Do you think corporations pay huge sums to people to utilize facespace and other social media to spread PR(opaganda)? It's because the public opinion has power.

      SOPA and PIPA got repealed because people took action and spread the word. ACTA, the same. And you sit on your high horse and keep condescendingly talking about "keyboard warriors" and whatever - maybe you feel so powerless yourself, or maybe you're too lazy to actually take action to influence things, and you want to convince yourself that it's ok because no one else can have any influence on anything either. Maybe you like to push others down to pull yourself up. But hey, keep on worshiping your corporations, keep on thinking that if you kiss enough corporate ass some slivers of their wealth and glory will eventually trickle down to you - meanwhile, those of us with some backbone are making things happen.

      Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
      Well we reached the conclusion that Ubuntu will get even better and that it dominates the linux world on the desktop without a question while haters gonna hate so we went on other topics.
      Your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds, I see.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
        More ad hominem. Not one of you actually argued why Ubuntu is bad. All you said was that Canonical is evil and gave absolutely no rational reasoning for why they are so evil. You just said that they somehow hurt the linux 'ecosystem'. It's more of a religion for you based on beliefs than rational behavior.
        You're pretty good at ignoring things said directly to you. Is the cognitive dissonance too much to bear?

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
          ...the fact is that the mission of Ubuntu is to migrate people from Windows to Ubuntu in as large percent as possible.
          Yes, and that's so lame. Ubuntu has gained a little advantage in popularity over other distros merely because it's an attention whore. Fedora, Debian, Arch and other non-user-friendliness-oriented distributions (read non-attention whores) are almost as known as Ubuntu, yet they don't carry a bunch nonsense users; fame is not worth the cost. Yet, to be realistic, Winbugs and Mac OShit will probably dominate desktops forever, as long as they are the only options people see showcased in stores.

          Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
          Usually the first distro that is used when switching from Windows is Ubuntu not Arch or whatever obscure distro you want to point out and most people remain on Ubuntu since it works.
          I'm grateful that wasn't my case, I migrated directly from Win NT to Arch GNU/Linux. Easy, pleasant and educative experience. Now when I have to use Ubuntu in someone's else computer I realise that user-centered distros like Arch, Gentoo and maybe Slackware are actually the most comprehensible ones, with the very best documentation and forums. Exposing and teaching the system to its users isn't obscure, that's rather illumination whereas Ubuntu, Mint and the likes philosophy is treating all users as if they were complete dumbs (wishing they remain that way) and bloating your system with preinstalled filler you'll never use calling it "added value". THAT means obscurity. Not kidding, Arch installation is super easy; it may take a bit though, however, after you get it running as you want it to run you end up with a killer machine which is going to teach you more in a month of use than any other distro in a decade.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
            By shutting down the root DNS servers; the US is one of six countries who have this ability. Wouldn't kill the internet per se, but with the master lookup tables gone, translating addresses to ip's would be impossible to accomplish, effectively killing the Internet.

            So it is quite "doable", even if it isn't in the US's best interests to do.
            No single country has the ability to shut down all root DNS servers, because there are a lot of them: http://www.root-servers.org/ Most big providers are headquartered in the US, yes, but their actual servers are not in the US. So if there are laws that forbid DNS servers from running in the US, it still won't stop all of the rest. ICANN and co. would be just silly to not continue operating outside the US, because they would otherwise be out of business. And if they were somehow forced out of business, we still have NetNod, RIPE NCC etc. who would jump at the opportunity to take over the vacant niche. So no, no individual country can shut down the root DNS servers, and thus the internet.

            Now, ICANN haz RIPE cheezburger?

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
              Now, ICANN haz RIPE cheezburger?
              Oh no you didn't...

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                Most big providers are headquartered in the US, yes, but their actual servers are not in the US. So if there are laws that forbid DNS servers from running in the US, it still won't stop all of the rest. ICANN and co. would be just silly to not continue operating outside the US, because they would otherwise be out of business.
                Who do you think runs ICANN? Hint: it starts with "US" and ends with "Government"

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN

                1. Spun off from US Government
                2. Located in US territory
                3. Answers to US Government no matter what (US Department of Commerce)
                4. Doesn't manage the root zones directly:

                In July 2008, the U.S. Department of Commerce reiterated an earlier statement[17] that it has "no plans to transition management of the authoritative root zone file to ICANN".
                ICANN is nothing more than a puppet organization of the United States to give the appearance of an independent organization running the zones, but it's still very much under the United State's control.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by IsacDaavid View Post
                  Yes, and that's so lame. Ubuntu has gained a little advantage in popularity over other distros merely because it's an attention whore. Fedora, Debian, Arch and other non-user-friendliness-oriented distributions (read non-attention whores) are almost as known as Ubuntu, yet they don't carry a bunch nonsense users; fame is not worth the cost. Yet, to be realistic, Winbugs and Mac OShit will probably dominate desktops forever, as long as they are the only options people see showcased in stores.



                  I'm grateful that wasn't my case, I migrated directly from Win NT to Arch GNU/Linux. Easy, pleasant and educative experience. Now when I have to use Ubuntu in someone's else computer I realise that user-centered distros like Arch, Gentoo and maybe Slackware are actually the most comprehensible ones, with the very best documentation and forums. Exposing and teaching the system to its users isn't obscure, that's rather illumination whereas Ubuntu, Mint and the likes philosophy is treating all users as if they were complete dumbs (wishing they remain that way) and bloating your system with preinstalled filler you'll never use calling it "added value". THAT means obscurity. Not kidding, Arch installation is super easy; it may take a bit though, however, after you get it running as you want it to run you end up with a killer machine which is going to teach you more in a month of use than any other distro in a decade.
                  Obscurity? Let's not change our SSH ports so that our SSH servers get bruteforced by bots!

                  Bloat? Is it too hard to use "sudo apt-get remove" and "sudo apt-get install"?

                  Easy to install? I've been using Ubuntu then Xubuntu for 3.5 years or so (and never had any issues), I can't even install Arch... Also, I can install a *buntu in less than 30 minutes. Life's too short to spend hours on an OS install.
                  Last edited by Calinou; 05-14-2013, 04:44 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                    More ad hominem. Not one of you actually argued why Ubuntu is bad. All you said was that Canonical is evil and gave absolutely no rational reasoning for why they are so evil. You just said that they somehow hurt the linux 'ecosystem'. It's more of a religion for you based on beliefs than rational behavior.
                    I didn't say Canonical was evil, bad or hurting the ecosystem - so i don't owe you anything. :\ ~ you do need to learn how to read and who you are responding to though ~ because you just claimed I said a bunch of stuff that i didn't. So no, there is no 'religious belief' on my part, over rationality... Instead, you are just making up shit and/or confusing two different people - either way, you're not only incompetent, but totally impotent.

                    but just to clarify; I don't think Canonical is 'evil'. Personally, i find that definition to be laughable. I also agree that if you're going to call a company 'bad' - we need some clear examples. Now, that being said - i personally find Canonical to be a mixed-bag. (some good traits, some bad ones, in regards to the larger linux community / free software).

                    but a few examples over the years of things that annoy me about Canonical;

                    1. Spreading misinfomation and/or claiming credit for things which they had little to do with (or nothing at all); A few examples;

                    - Mark Shuttleworth claiming credit for things like 6month cycle (total obvious lie to anyone familiar with linux at the time)
                    - RHEL vs. Ubuntu in enterprise computing. (he did not make the distinction between gratis ubuntu in stats ~ which means he was essentially comparing apples to oranges, misrepresenting statistics in order to bolster Canonical/Ubutnu's credibility in the I.T world... absolute BS on Mark's part.)
                    - Claiming Unity existed before GS. (Unity isn't UNR and mark was claiming innovation, where there wasn't any).
                    - Wayland FUD from ubuntu/Canonical developers.

                    2. very low contributions to upstream projects, in which Ubuntu relies on... no surprise there. Even worse though, ubuntu/canonical tend to abuse some of these projects to made themselves 'appear' to have done more development than they have, or they try to do things like take money out of one project (gnome) and shuffle it into their own pockets; like they wanted to do with Banshee music player in 2011. Which is hilarious being as Gnome is a *non-profit organization*, while Canonical is a for profit company (who probably don't make much money at all, but instead try to steal any penny they can, again, from a non-profit organization...pretty pathetic stuff on Canonical's part).

                    3. Mark Shuttleworth was NOT honest or open with his objectives (monetization plans) for Ubuntu to begin with....and if you were around (in the linux community) when Ubuntu first came onto the scene (which i don't think you were), you would get what i am talking about. They presented themselves much differently, than today. (at least RH was always honest about their goals and are heavy contributors, unlike canonical).

                    4. Ubuntu ships spyware *enabled* by default, for monetary purposes ~ it wouldn't be so bad (arguably), if it was an 'opt-in' situation. but it's not - it's the other way around.

                    5. Re-inventing the wheel and/or fragmentation. ie t:hings like Bazaar or Mir (Wayland > Mir , Git > Bazaar).

                    I could think of more reasons/examples why some people aren't Canonical fans, but i don't want to put much time into this... and i think a few examples off the top of my head is enough to show why some people think Canonical is a sh*tty company, largely just out to exploit the larger community (whom they wouldn't exist without) to pick a profit.

                    Personally, i have no problems with Canonical making money at all... But i do have a problem with their business practices of being deceptive, inconsistent, not being HEAVY contributors to software from which they completely rely on, etc...

                    for me, personally - at the end of the day, it doesn't matter all that much, since i would never invest any of my own income into Canonical or Ubuntu... I don't particularly like their software, nor their OS and generally, i don't like their shadiness either... Luckily though, I have that choice though. BUT if i didn't, then I doubt that i would even be using Linux (at all) on my desktop, if it was an Ubuntu mono-culture.
                    Last edited by ninez; 05-14-2013, 05:09 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Calinou View Post
                      Obscurity? Let's not change our SSH ports so that our SSH servers get bruteforced by bots!

                      Bloat? Is it too hard to use "sudo apt-get remove" and "sudo apt-get install"?

                      Easy to install? I've been using Ubuntu then Xubuntu for 3.5 years or so (and never had any issues), I can't even install Arch... Also, I can install a *buntu in less than 30 minutes. Life's too short to spend hours on an OS install.
                      I installed my archlinux, in a less of one hour , onlye need to search a easy HOWTO, and go

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Calinou View Post
                        Also, I can install a *buntu in less than 30 minutes. Life's too short to spend hours on an OS install.
                        I do the same with Slackware in 15 minutes. Not that I have to do that very often, Slackware has a stability that Ubuntu will never reach. Maybe you should switch if your life is so short.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                          Haha look at the trolls trying to get people into trouble. If you just came from windows and use Ubuntu do yourself a favor and don't try either Arch or Slackware. You will think the linux world is shit and will run away. Don't listen to these people.

                          the last two people to I which install ubuntu, they asked me to remove ubuntu, because it is not user friendly and so slow on their computers(compiz), they was windows xp users, finally I installed chakra linux with kde on their pc, and they sill use chakra after one year, without problems .

                          not all people in the world, are lazy and forever noob

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                            Most of the things you attribute to malice in these cases look like good old fashioned incompetence. The changed their model and adapted as time went on. Back in 2004 they thought some things would work in their favor and didn't. They changed their mind. Of course they try more combinations to monetize Ubuntu. What would you have done in their place. They are desperate to turn a profit. They reinvent the wheel because they have specific needs and want more control over the development. They don't contribute upstream because it takes manpower to do that. Remember they still don't make a profit. Would it seem sane to throw more money in things that aren't likely to increase the bottom line?
                            First, you don't know if it was just incompetence. but even if so - Canonical is just as incompetent as they were before, this isn't a question of 2004 - i also listed 2011-13 issues. nothing's changed, it's actually gotten worse with them... RedHat turns a sizable profit just fine, while contributing heavily to many projects (because their business model isn't built on buzzwords and BS). And quite frankly, with the level of incompetence and desperation, as you say that Canonical has as a company - why in the hell would i want anything to do with them??

                            why don't you lay out the exact same argument regarding incompetence, desperation, etc - but instead of applying to Ubuntu/Canonical you apply it the car manufacturer whom's vehicle you may be potentially buying ~ does 'desperation' sound appealing??? how about incompetence?? - would you feel safe in that vehicle?? (no!).

                            they don't have specific needs, really, not deal breakers anyway. this is about control.

                            Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                            Didn't they popularize the 6 months release schedule? I am asking not being ironic.
                            nope. In fact, if i remember correctly, they essentially switched to 6month cycle to match gnome2 releases. ( i can't remember the guy's name off-hand, but he was apart of the Gnome camp and was working for Canonical, at the time). Other linux distros had used the 6month cycle, before ubuntu existed.

                            Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                            Well Unity from the netbook edition was before GS. Don't know maybe GS was first with the idea but took them longer to actually release?
                            UNR and Unity are not the same codebase, at all. Official release date means jacksh*t - I ran what became Gnome-Shell on my H/W before unity even had a single commit. (like many other people who were also checking out, what was at the time - Gnome's next generation Shell). It's also funny how you are so daft, you can't even tell the difference in scope between developing a Gnome DE vs. Unity; Unity is a fscking plugin for compiz with some other bits, here and there, slapped on top of Gnome2 in it's original release.. Unity right now (not 'next') is the same stuff, but built on Gnome 3 DE...

                            So i am curious - which do you really think takes longer? -> developing a few odds and ends for a pre-existing desktop (gnome2 + compiz) vs. Developing an entire new desktop (which entails everything from WM, compositor, a slerw of applications, etc). If you can sit here with a straight face and say Ubuntu/Canonical slapping a few components on top of Gnome is somehow much more work - all i can do is laugh at you - you have ZERO concept of the work that goes into this kind of thing.

                            Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                            Wayland has been in development for many years now and they still have major issues. I understand Canonical not wanting to have anything to do with them. They look really amateurish. They don't have a minimize button for christ.
                            Canonical is only able to build Mir because of years of work and participation of Wayland devs, kernel devs, etc - to which Canonical said they were going to contribute/support and did almost no contributions to :\ ~ frankly, you've got this ASS-BACkWARDS. Canonical are amateurs who are good at throwing arounf buzzwords / marketing but contribute very little to actual software, particularly, anything that's actually hard to do

                            Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                            RHEL vs Ubuntu I am not getting what you're trying to say. RHEL costs money and Ubuntu is free from what I know.
                            and this is one of the problems - you don't know sh*t - yet page after page of these silly ubuntu fanboy rants :\ here have a look, since apparently, with all your Ubuntu/Canonical fanboyness, you've never even botherede to visit their website; http://www.canonical.com/enterprise-...untu-advantage

                            What i was saying is that Mark Shuttleworth was trying to make it look like Ubuntu was a bigger deal in the industry, compared to RHEL - the part that he left out; he was including ALL ubuntu stats against RHEL - which is silly, since one is purely enterprise, while the other is free and has some undisclosed amount of companies paying for support. This essentially means Mark has painted a bogus picture by including all ubuntu stats, rather than comparing just the enterprise stuff - note: many IT professionals won't even purchase services from RedHat or Canonical, if they are capable of taking care of their servers/workstations themselves. - so mark's numbers are conflated junk.

                            Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                            I don't get how they are not heavy contributors. Hell they created a new interface called Unity. They employ a lot of people that work on open source software. They try to integrate all of that into a distro for the masses. Ok not everything goes upstream but that is because of lack of manpower. They are not Red Hat you know, not in terms of profits or number of employees....
                            "hell they created Unity"??!?!?! ROFL... Unity is not some amazing feat, dude and it's not a freedesktop standard, either - they've 'contributed' to themselves here, not the larger community, which isn't surprising. - You seem quite delusional as to the complexity of Unity vs. other software... it's not some crazy engineering feat and it's not a big contribution to anyone but themselves... and i have no problem with them trying to be "a distro for the masses" - that's just great - but then in turn, don't sh*t on other developers, projects, companies, etc that do circles around you (canonical) in terms of what they contribute. (which is typically what Mark Shutteworth and Canonical like to do - talk sh*t, spread FUD, etc). They employ some people that work on open source, sure. but not as broad and equally significant of contributions, as you think.... sorry, random user on launchpad contributing a patch, that ends up being upstream'd isn't a Canonical employee contribution.

                            BTW, thanks for pointing out the obvious; you are correct, Canonical is no RedHat. ~ at least, you recognize that
                            Last edited by ninez; 05-14-2013, 09:20 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                              No single country has the ability to shut down all root DNS servers, because there are a lot of them: http://www.root-servers.org/ Most big providers are headquartered in the US, yes, but their actual servers are not in the US. So if there are laws that forbid DNS servers from running in the US, it still won't stop all of the rest. ICANN and co. would be just silly to not continue operating outside the US, because they would otherwise be out of business. And if they were somehow forced out of business, we still have NetNod, RIPE NCC etc. who would jump at the opportunity to take over the vacant niche. So no, no individual country can shut down the root DNS servers, and thus the internet.

                              Now, ICANN haz RIPE cheezburger?
                              Agreed, mostly.

                              Shutting down domain names doesn't imply an internet blackout, domains are simply aliases. All previously crawled web content would be easily accessible, you only need to know the IP address of your favourite search engine. I think P2P networks like bittorrent would not even notice the change (implying trackers are reached via IP addresses). Perhaps email would be a bit harder to work around.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                                And yet they are number one linux distro. Fascinating isn't it? Maybe they don't suck that much hmmm?? Sure they're not perfect but...
                                I hate to point out something PAINFULLY obvious, to almost anyone with half a brain; popularity is not mutually exclusive to quality. - and if that is how you measure this kind thing (which by your own admission, apparently you do) - then i guess you are one of these folk's who would jump of a cliff (to your death) just because everyone else was. You also avoided my question and it does not change the fact (nor did you even dispute!), that Canonical is desperate and incompetent.

                                It's great to see that popularity is the driving factor in your thought process. I assume you only value top40 music, as well?

                                Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                                Don't know. It also depends on how many people are working on it don't you think? And for the record I consider the whole gnome shell just an a programming exercise for people with nothing better to do. Gnome 2 was good enough. No need to throw everything out and 'revolutionize' the desktop.
                                I already know, that you don't have a fscking clue about what is involved, you've already made that VERY clear. Gnome-Shell is just a shell - like Unity... GS is a small part of the Gnome stack. And they didn't 'throw everything out', my desktop barely changed between gnome2 to gnome3 upgrade. - I just had to reconfigure a few things and not use GS...and wtf are you even talking about- Unity is just as dramatic of a change as GS. (people just have different tastes). Gnome 2 was good for a time, but it was also quite dated... Frankly, you seem to be ignoring the fact that Gnome is a complete software stack, Unity is NOT - it is a shell, for a customized version of Gnome..

                                i don't think that you are qualified to call any DE a "programming exercise" based on your previous comments about Unity being some huge contribution to open source, and it's development pace vs. Gnome 3... you're laughable dude. no clue at all. just a fanboy grasping at straws..

                                Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                                Yes they do. Right now no DE on linux is actually ready for the masses. Unity is the closest there is. KDE would be the most familiar to windows users but it has its problems.
                                If these are the 'specifics' that you have come up with, please just SFTU. you're not doing yourself any favors here, nor have you made a single compelling argument. Unity is the closest - says who? YOU <- right? So now, i am to take your personal opinion as being factual in nature??!?! ROFL..lolololololol You know that Unity has had plenty of bad reviews by many people and that an ubuntu derivative became #1 on distrowatch (and still is) in part because the Default Ubuntu experience (ie: Unity) isn't as popular as you think, it is. (ie: alternate DEs are quite popular in Ubuntu). It would seem to me, that if Unity is the closest, than by that logic - Ubuntu's default GUI should be far more popular - hell, by now shouldn't Unity be in every distro then?

                                Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                                They're bad at talking with the community. That doesn't mean that the product is shit.
                                ...and/or they are desperate for money and make bad decisions, which is analogous to a car manufacturer 'cutting corners' and making an inferior, shite or even dangerous product. I'm sorry, that you weren't capable of understanding my simple analogy - but it quite apt and still stands...

                                Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                                I don't care about how hard it was to make but how useful it was to people. There are a lot of projects that contain some hardcore code that no one uses. I don't care about the LOC or any other metric except what the masses think about it. That is the purpose of Ubuntu. Linux for the masses. If I could write 10 LOC and cure cancer it would be pretty cool don't you think?
                                Completely fallacious.. Now you are changing the scope/direction of my reply and not addressing it (in a very disingenuous way, to boot. probably because you're too much of a pussy to just admit your mistake) - My point was challenging your position that Unity was some big contribution (which it's not). It's not nearly as big as you thought, it's not a freedesktop standard and only really serves Ubuntu/Canonical's interests... You were wrong, end of story. ...hardcore code that no one uses?!? - you mean like the majority of software that Ubuntu is built on that they don't contribute to, right? lol... I wasn't talking about obscure code that no one uses, dummy.

                                ....and if the only metric you care about is what other people think about something - you're pathetic. Those other metrics ALL matter, to some degree or another...and being as you are ignorant on everything except 'what the masses, think' (well, your interpretation of that, anyway.), your uninformed (and ill-formed) opinions mean absolutely fsck all... I hate to have to explain this to you, but you are 1 person NOT the entire planet, pal. - thus, you do not speak for all of them, you just claim to...
                                Last edited by ninez; 05-14-2013, 11:50 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X