[UBUNTU] Ubuntu 9.10 (final) is here - Page 12 - Overclock.net

GodofGrunts · 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMD+nVidia

Took me like 5 mins

Uhh 9.10 carries an insignificant figure... so the 0 can be dropped. Hence 9.1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor_Jesus

Plus 9.10 looks a lot nicer than 9.1

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMD+nVidia

I know

I'm just having fun

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tator Tot

GHSALHOWRIONGOWINGOSDDHFFOWHT)@*TH#)@HTG@HFHC

I forgot what today was. I didn't log onto *buntu today cause I was playing AT1 this morning! WHY WHY WHY! I WANT IT NOW! But I'm in class

It signifies a month. So it's not insignificant.

Though, the previous release was 9.04, so you could do it just fine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMD+nVidia

See prev post.

I was jk'ing

Quote:

Originally Posted by thiussat

EDIT -- I see numerous people have already corrected you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coma

Nope, it's not a number, it's a version. Like how WoW 1.12 is newer (greater) than WoW 1.8.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vdek

Ok,

1) You fail if you want to go that route because no one else mentioned it. Besides I DID read the thread, just because I didn't post the 2nd post doesn't mean I didn't read it.

2) Zeros are only significant if the numbers that were used to create those number are significant? You must be a proponent of circular logic.

3) Good excuse, "Just trollin"

Inaccurate statements like his need to be corrected lest other people start believing them verbatim.

1) You do fail and you didn't read the post. Don't lie on the internet.

2) No, I'm a fan of science.

3) He was as you can see from

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMD+nVidia

I know

I'm just having fun

vdek · 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by GodofGrunts

1) You do fail and you didn't read the post. Don't lie on the internet.

2) No, I'm a fan of science.

3) He was as you can see from

1) I still don't see where anyone corrected him on the validity of the claim from a scientific standpoint which is where he was making his argument from. I absolutely hate when idiots on the internet try to mangle science.

2) Nice to know, I am obviously not.

3) Still not a good excuse to spew BS.

GodofGrunts · 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by vdek

1) I still don't see where anyone corrected him on the validity of the claim from a scientific standpoint which is where he was making his argument from. I absolutely hate when idiots on the internet try to mangle science.

2) Nice to know, I am obviously not.

3) Still not a good excuse to spew BS.

1) Technically he is correct. Given no other information, the 0 at the end of 9.10 isn't significant.

Now had he multiplied 4.55 with 2.00, Then yes 9.10 would be correct.

3)See 1) He is technically correct. Just go ask your physics teacher (or chemistry)