I am not avoiding any questions. I answered them all.

Who is talking about dalnet? Why are you banging on about that? You claim that you were talking about the Ars Technica IRC server. What does dalnet have to do with that?

1) Again you are talking about what people are "supposed" to do. According to what?

2) Gays can, and do, sleep with people of the opposite sex to produce offspring. Gay doesn't mean sterile.

3) I have never self-identified as such; you are projecting.

4) Define "normal".

1) If they want.

2) Homosexuals breed all the time. Homosexual doesn't mean sterile.

3) I wouldn't have said so, no.

4) Yes, of course.

re: IRC

Since I'm friends with the owners of the server, and since the Ars Technica IRC chanserv recognizes me and ops me on those channels that I moderate, and since this has been true since the early days of the IRC server, I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. Do you have any links that might provide elucidation?

I remember this incident: http://www.compatdb.org/support/topics/81050_good_old_apk.html#Post81050

But it does not contain the details that you claim. It's a bit hard to tell, of course, since all your posts seem to have been deleted (funny that).

1) Humans aren't _supposed_ to do anything. The only purpose in life is that which we choose for ourselves. You say men are not supposed to do this or that; why not? Says who?

2) See #1.

3) I'm not sure that her name is any of your damn business. I think she'd be surprised to learn that she's a man.

4) Again, claims of homosexuality would be a great surprise to my girlfriend. And even if I were gay, I doubt my parents would care. Why would they?

Yeah, of course you're not. You just show the same writing style, insults, and preoccupation with homosexuality and what my parents think as he does. But you're not the same person, nuh uh.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010304194832/http://www.inkvine.fluff.org/~peter/download/apk.txt
http://web.archive.org/web/20010304195402/www.inkvine.fluff.org/~peter/download/apk2.txt
http://web.archive.org/web/20010304195402/www.inkvine.fluff.org/~peter/download/apk3.txt
http://web.archive.org/web/20010304195402/www.inkvine.fluff.org/~peter/download/apk4.txt

Any of the language there looking familiar to you?

I'm sure it's all an honest coincidence, no doubt.

I also have no fucking clue what you're trying to say about IRC. Perhaps you could elaborate?

1) We have no intrinsic purpose, so the question makes no sense.

2) See #1.

3) Ask my girlfriend.

4) Er, yes.

APK, what the hell are you talking about? Some /. submission (that never got posted to the front page) about someone's false positive from McAfee? Who cares?

Most or all big ad campaigns are based on impressions rather than clicks, because big advertisers know that there is value even when people do not click, due to increased brand awareness and so on. It's unbranded and low-end advertising (e.g. Google's text ads) that are click-based.

The BBC is scaling back its funding of web content amidst complaints that it spends too much. It should still have a strong web presence (especially news.bbc.co.uk), but state funding is no panacea.

Except that plainly isn't true. He claims, for example, that it's only clicks on ads that matter. Not fucking true. Clicks matter for bargain basement Google ads. They're not what count for high profile advertising. Wladimir doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

Because advertisers aren't retarded and understand that brand awareness is itself valuable, and not click-dependent.

It's pretty fucking obvious why it's wrong, and it's even addressed in the fucking article: TV/radio advertising is based on _predicted audience_. Web advertising is based on _actual audience_. Web advertisers only pay for people who see the ads. There's no need to model some proportion of people blocking ads; they're never counted as ad views in the first place.

Your understanding has no basis in reality. Both traditional DirectShow and new Media Foundation codecs can be--and are--shared.