No, it's Slashdot. You have to put é to get é.

I have no idea if beta is similarly broken, but I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised.

(OK, I can understand the use case of robotic vacuums for cats.)

Yes. It's for transporting the cat from one side of the room to the other.

TSA prohibits arranging your junk

I thought they did that for you?

As is not at least linking to the single-page view.

(And who breaks pages in the middle of a sentence?)

I probably see a half dozen accidents a year avoided by someone taking the shoulder
because the car in front stopped too fast.

You mean "by someone taking the shoulder because they were driving too damn close to the car in front", I think...

Pale Moon has a 64-bit version.

Well, Pale Moon has a 64-bit Windows version. It doesn't have versions for 64-bit OS X or Linux. Or 32-bit, for that matter.

Given there's a fair number of non-Windows users on Slashdot — assuming Beta hasn't driven them all off, that is — it might have helped to mention Pale Moon is Windows-only.

So, how about FreedomSSL, then?

Make me!

make: *** No rule to make target `me!'. Stop.

I vote for the return of OMG!!! Ponies!!!

Imagine a world where after 3 years the applications can't even run on your old system and you have to replace it to get new applications.

As a Mac user, I have to say that I don't need to imagine very hard.

Most users upgrade to a new version of OS X within the first month or so. App developers target the new version pretty much from the start, with old OS versions becoming unsupported fairly quickly.

And Apple's not afraid to cut off old hardware with a new OS X release, in order to avoid having to keep a load of legacy support code around. You generally get a bit longer than 3 years, though; 5 or 6 is more like it. And once you're cut off from new OS X versions, you're cut off from new versions of a lot of other software.

Since you're on slashdot, zero tolerance by an anonymous coward means you're getting fed ads.

Unless you're logged in with the "Disable ads" box checked and you also checked the "Post anonymously" box, of course :)

As for content providers having the right to display on my computer when I request their site: when I go to example.com, I'm requesting content from example.com. If that page has an include from doubleclick.net, I'm not the one requesting doubleclick.net — example.com is. They have no right to agree to that on my behalf, and I'm quite happy to take whatever action is necessary to enforce that.

Your last two paragraphs get to the point of the whole matter, of course: somebody who's deliberately blocking ads is not going to sit there and view them rather than look at a blank page — they're going to go somewhere else.

Perhaps if a large number of sites start requiring ads we'll see something like the piracy scene, where someone downloads the page with ads, copies the actual content out of it, and republishes that somewhere on the darker side of the net.

"git bisect start nopoop poop"?

Some days it feels like it came from /dev/urandom...