Thanks for the information. I agree, that is a crude way of solving the problem, and it must be an expensive one too. It's not unlike the other obvious method, which is to do the same thing with sound. But there are so many potential problems with that, if it is even possible (i.e. to create sounds humans can understand, but programs can't). If they insist on a test like this, IMHO it should be kept textual. This ensures maximum accessibility, both by different browsers and different humans. Ask a few simple questions, perhaps. The catch is to define "simple" - that will depend on the target audience. But if all else fails, they could always fall back on the captcha test after too many errors.
"[...] humans can read distorted text as the one shown below but current computer programs can't:"
I think they mean "non-blind humans". How exactly will they ever solve that problem? If a blind man's OCR program can read the text, so can the spammer's.
> ALWAYS pop up external links into a new window. It pisses the HELL > out of me when I click on a link IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ARTICLE and > end up LEAVING the site and have to hit back, then select to open > the link in a new window. Well I don't know about you, but my mouse has 3 buttons. 1. Follows the link, replacing the content. 2. Opens a new window and follows the link in that. 3. Brings up the menu etc. Sounds like you're blaming your poor GUI on the web designers and want them to fix it for you. I agree with the parent post, never open new windows, it's something I do myself by pressing the right button.
> But too many legislators have the technical comprehension of a sea slug.
On the other hand, their stalling tactics are playing into our hand isn't it?
As time goes by, eventually it will be our generation sitting in congress,
more techinically adept than the current crop.
Although statistically, they'll probably all be AOLers. Argh.
> Just ignore it, noone is forcing you to click on it.
That's true, for now. But if they can try to ensure your browser fetches and displays the ad,
how long will it be before they try to ensure a certain click ratio too?
"Sorry, you have not clicked on 5% of our ads, which is the minimum required. No content for you."
Of course, after that, we get...
"You have clicked on 8% ads like you should, but you have not bought products for the required minimum amount. Please correct this before you return."
Could be useful, but you may find that, when the helmet switches itself off at your kids' 18th birthday, most of them die of shock. And the ones that survive might demand it turned back on.
Slashdot Mirror
I had the exact same problem, so I got one of these filters:
https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/co...
It wasn't cheap, but it fixes the problem exactly like it was done on the old monitors.
Thanks for the information.
I agree, that is a crude way of solving the problem, and it must be an expensive one too.
It's not unlike the other obvious method, which is to do the same thing with sound. But there are so many potential problems with that, if it is even possible (i.e. to create sounds humans can understand, but programs can't).
If they insist on a test like this, IMHO it should be kept textual. This ensures maximum accessibility, both by different browsers and different humans.
Ask a few simple questions, perhaps. The catch is to define "simple" - that will depend on the target audience. But if all else fails, they could always fall back on the captcha test after too many errors.
From the captcha site:
"[...] humans can read distorted text as the one shown below but current computer programs can't:"
I think they mean "non-blind humans". How exactly will they ever solve that problem? If a blind
man's OCR program can read the text, so can the spammer's.
> ALWAYS pop up external links into a new window. It pisses the HELL
> out of me when I click on a link IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ARTICLE and
> end up LEAVING the site and have to hit back, then select to open
> the link in a new window.
Well I don't know about you, but my mouse has 3 buttons.
1. Follows the link, replacing the content.
2. Opens a new window and follows the link in that.
3. Brings up the menu etc.
Sounds like you're blaming your poor GUI on the web designers and
want them to fix it for you. I agree with the parent post, never
open new windows, it's something I do myself by pressing the right
button.
> And if you did get your hands on the code, what would you do with it?
Print it on toilet paper.
> But too many legislators have the technical comprehension of a sea slug.
On the other hand, their stalling tactics are playing into our hand isn't it?
As time goes by, eventually it will be our generation sitting in congress,
more techinically adept than the current crop.
Although statistically, they'll probably all be AOLers. Argh.
Well, that's pretty simple, right?
YOU have WON!
$10,000,000, yes, that's TEN MILLION DOLLARS is waiting for YOU to pick
up as SOON AS POSSIBLE!
Send your name and address to the office below and claim your prize! A quick
response is essential! Hurry!
---
Then sit back and wait for them to tell you exactly who they are.
It's a pity this story was somehow left off the front page, because eurorights could certainly do with some publicity.
> Just ignore it, noone is forcing you to click on it.
That's true, for now. But if they can try to ensure your browser fetches and displays the ad,
how long will it be before they try to ensure a certain click ratio too?
"Sorry, you have not clicked on 5% of our ads, which is the minimum required. No content for you."
Of course, after that, we get...
"You have clicked on 8% ads like you should, but you have not bought products for the required minimum amount. Please correct this before you return."
Could be useful, but you may find that, when the helmet switches itself off at your kids' 18th birthday, most of them die of shock.
And the ones that survive might demand it turned back on.