Slashdot Mirror
Domain: weill.org
Stories and comments across the archive that link to weill.org.
Comments · 13
-
DRM - Don't Restrict Me
The unofficial motto of the Amazon MP3 store: http://weill.org/photos/show/recent/photo/1832021825/
-
Re:See June 2006 ...
Lenovo often bundles a 3-year warranty with its products. The HP model you cited costs an extra $185-$350 with a 3-year warranty, plus you have to deal with what HP/Compaq calls "tech support."
(HP/Compaq may have cleaned up its act since I had that hellish episode, but I'm not ever buying one of their products again.) -
Re:3 hours of tech support = new computer
BUY CONSOMME. BUY CONSOMME.
-
Re:Not being trollish, but... [generic-man]Insightful eh?
Opera may be smaller, and better in some respects, but your gripe about the adblocker in Forefox is unfounded. The right regular expression (per website of course) for the 'adblock' extension will block ads but not images. Hell, even "*ad*" would block nearly all ads but block almost no images (assuming you never came across 'ad' anywhere in a legimiate image url).
You might be thinking of the built-in function of Firefox, "Block images from [site]". Besides, even if you were to use said built-in function, it would block the site serving the ads, like doubleclick, mediaplex, etc., and not images originating on the site you're looking at. There's also this neat little function that will only load images for originating site (in Options/Preference, under Web Features, check "for the originating site only").
Let's take your "local newspaper" as an example since you seem to use it. Say "Pittsburgh Business Times" (which is where you live according to your website). Here's a url titled "Sales Power":http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/salespower/
Now of course, if you were to block http://*bizjournals* then you would block all images coming from that site (don't want that), although that still wouldn't block any ads that didn't originate on the site anyways. Let's take a look at a doubeclick url:? jst=s_ep_lkhttp://ad.doubleclick.net/click;h=v3|325f|c|19c|%
Long url, eh? Doubleclick is one of the most comment advertising hosts, but you can block anything with "doubleclick" in the url by using this expression: http://*doubleclick* Voila. That blocks nearly all ads on the page.2 a|f;14707869;0-0;0;11022531;4252-336|280;9249835|9 267731|1;;~sscs=%3fhttp://dc.bizjournals.com/event 2 367&Segments=1,11,16,438,1861,2032,2519,2554,2622, 2665&Targets=42,61,396,1708,1871,2336,2367,2439,24 73&Values=25,30,46,50,60,72,82,91,100,110,150,155, 202,305,341,473,565,730,751,830,872,933,949,951,95 9,960,961,962,980,994,996,997,1009&RawValues=GEOMA JORMETRO%2C%2CDOMAINTYPE%2C25%2CST_VERT_TOPIC%2Cbu siness_services__legal_services&Redirect=http%3a%2 f%2fwww.hp.com/sbso/solutions/legal/ad/tablet1100. html%3Fjumpid%3Dex_r295_link/kimsmbvertical/2Qlega l/default
So before you speak of adblocking features built into Firefox or available as addons, do a bit of research first, and don't discount Firefox simply because you're not experienced with it. -
Re:Not standards compliant.
OK, then I guess I'd better go to a valid-HTML search engine.
Oops. Better try Yahoo.
Oops. Better try Ask Jeeves.
Oops. Maybe Teoma, the poor man's Google, works.
Oops. Guess nobody in the real world cares about "web standards" anyway. -
Re:support calls
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
-
Re:ah, fvck 'em
I'm really sorry, but you state that you are religious, and unfortunatly I cannot trust such people.
as you've noted yourself
Anyhow get a piece of white card or paper, cover the bottom half of on your site and pretend that the neck-tie is a stick man body. -
Re:Details?
You need to have an "active" Blogger account. When I logged in last week, I saw this invitation message. I hadn't used my account in a week or so, but Blogger considered me "active" enough to deserve an invite.
-
Roadside America
I've found Roadside America to be a nice resource for the curious travel geek. They even have a review of the Big Duck, which I visited last year.
-
Re:Well, didn't they say "no ads"
Well, they still don't serve ad banners on pages, which keeps low-bandwidth and portable web servers happy. The paid ads that they have for selected keywords are clearly labeled with colored backgrounds and separated from the rest of the links. I can live with that.
What really impressed me in the article was the quote "If we wanted to sell ad banners, we could call DoubleClick and be profitable today." But they're not calling DoubleClick, to the rejoice of privacy-paranoid Slashdot readers everywhere. It's refreshing to see a company provide a useful service without intrusive advertising methods.
I signed up to make my page o' forms a Google Affiliate site, meaning I get three cents (soon to be just one cent) for every time I use it. Google also reserves the right to post ads on the searches from my box, in exchange for them paying me. That's another idea -- people are voluntarily "opting in" to get ads served on their pages in return for a trivial amount of cash. Unfortunately, companies like AllAdvantage [look Ma, no referrer tag!] have been bleeding cash by doing nothing but paying for eyeballs. -
Re:Content is king...
Yeah, the content is all there, but the design is laughable. For example, the front page has two frames, but the links all open in the full window. This breaks compatibility with non-frames-compliant browsers. Textured backgrounds are so three years ago, too.
The only useful content on that site, like homework and school-specific information, takes a good deal of clicking. A casual visitor to the site wouldn't even know that such resources exist, and that the site is actually useful.
But I'm just bitter, I guess, because my past experiences with the technologically backward staff there. At least the district saved money by hiring a couple of high school kids and paying them in independent study credits for their HTML coding. -
Re:Why Script 'Kiddies'?
The term script kiddies creates a negative image of young people using Unix/Linux as being only vandals.
The fears about kids using Unix/Linux usually come from the administration being totally clueless about technology. The vast majority of script kiddies won't touch Linux, because
- It's free, but "free as in speech/beer," not "free as in WaReZ d00d."
- Most of the hacking is done from their home (family's) or school computers, which only run Windows.
- Open source software doesn't mean anything when all the software they use is written in Visual Basic.
-
Re:Computers teach kids the wrong lessons.
True, although the computer can only provide so much help. There is no provision for teaching kids to ask the teacher for further assistance. If the computer provides all the help needed, the student quickly learns that his/her teacher is not needed and is of minimal assistance.
Not to mention the fact that as we can see in this thread, most teachers are idiots with regard to technology. Students learn to respect the computer more than their teachers in classes where technology is overused.
