The goal is a single, standard, package that runs across all the major platforms.

That's a very good thing.

You've missed the point of Firefox OS -- They win when other platforms allow their app packages.

Philosophically, not financially, of course.

But it's significantly less than competing smartphone alternatives in that market. The price is even lower than many feature phones (most, if you only count dual-sim models) at just Rs 2000.

It's still a big investment, sure, but you're getting a LOT more bang for your rupees.

No, you won't. You can't disprove the null hypothesis. (Er, unless you know the population parameters exactly, but that's pretty damn rare.) There's a very good reason we use terms like 'reject' and 'failed to reject'.

" ... invented a useless steam engine."

How did you make it all the way to grad school without encountering the phrase "failed to reject the null hypothesis"?

Don't universities teach basic methodology any more? WTF?

It gets worse: It was Roman controlled at the time.

Out of curiosity, why do you call it an "ADD comment"?

While I'm thinking about it, if this is so unimportant to you, why do you continue to engage me?

What to know what I think? I think you're deeply insecure. I think you really need imaginary foes to fight against to make yourself feel important. Why else would you care so much about what a bunch of anonymous people say on a web forum?

Well, considering that you insisted on engaging me several days after I made the post that so offended you, I figured you cared very deeply about my thoughts and opinions.

Your continued participation in this "discussion" seems to support that belief.

Pretend? Do you not think that the ability to ignore uses that cause you serious distress is valuable? It seems to me that that is exactly the sort of advice you need!

It will clearly improve your life significantly. Just think of all the hours of angst you'll spare yourself!

If by "Egyptians" you mean "Greeks".

Me. What the hell would I do with it? Pave the driveway?

For perspective: It's the comments section on a website.

A handy tip: You can effectively ignore users by clicking the little "Alter Relationship" bobble beside their name. Then use the Configuring Comments feature to knock your foes down to -6.

Are you sure this time? :)

Take it easy. I don't know what SuperKendall did to you in the past. I know he's irritated me before, so I understand, but it's time to let it go.

Trust me. You'll feel so much better.

No, I'd call him a driver. Think: "A person who drives is a driver."

To continue: A person who dives is a diver. A person who dines is a diner. A person who runs is a runner. A person who calls is a caller.

We can all agree with that. Why is there contention when we say that a person who games is a gamer?

As it should be? No. I'll agree that the term carries with it additional connotations, particularly where video games are concerned. It is, however, important to note that those additional connotations are decidedly negative!

See, when the simple term was corrupted, self-described "gamers" rallied to redefine the term; stripping out the negative bits and emphasizing what they considered the positives.

To now abandon the original meaning (simply, one who games) further corrupts the term. If the "gamer" communities' goal was to shake off the negative connotations attached to the term, then their better off sticking to the uncorrupted use of the word -- not further corrupting it! It does little more than further isolate "gamers", allowing additional negative stereotypes to arise.

Oh, you're one of those. Never mind, you can't reason with an MRA.

Not at all. We're talking about Python here.