If that is what Adblock Plus is doing then they're not very effective at it. I have seen no ads with APB, non-intrusive or otherwise. 100% ads block, I don't see how something else would do a better. It works, it does the job, it's easy to use, so why change just because a few people think that APB isn't as pure as it could be?
Yes, that's important. I was thinking about getting some hosts into my router because my tv+roku has no adblock (only ever necessary for youtube). But it's a complicated manual process, and I'd have to document exactly what I did, remember to update it periodically in case anything changed, and so forth. Much more work than using a plugin.
Sounds good to me. Remember the world wasn't all that bad before the internet, and I'm saying that as someone who's been on the internet since the early 80s.
That's silly. You think the entire world runs an advertising? Civilization grew up without incessant advertising. We got people to the moon without in-your-face malware ridden advertising. We built the internet without any advertising.
Advertisers used to, in the good old days, work their asses off to sell the ads. It was not free, they needed to have quality ads for companies to accept them, they needed ads that did not annoy their customers. Companies were picky and selective. You needed to be a good advertisers with good ads and respectful ads and you had to know your market and what your market liked. Today it is not the same on the internet, the companies open themselves up to whatever third party cheapass advertising services are out there, they don't pick and choose the ads, they just sign up and wait. They'll even let the advertisers design the web pages and infrastructures in many cases. The goal is to make it all automated; automatic serving of ads to unsuspecting victims, automatic delivery of revenue, automatic analytics so you don't need to know your market, etc. In this regard I don't see advertisers as the only evil going on here, but also the companies are at fault for allowing advertisers to have carte blanche without any oversight. What a tough moral decision: more revenue versus more responsibility.
But remember that we used to get good quality on free broadcast TV. Then it declined. The internet used to be a wonderful place for good content, but then that changed.
The change I think is with the attitude. Originally we had the attitude that advertisements help support and pay for the content. Now the attitude is that content supports and helps distribute the ads. That is, content centric versus advertisement centric.
When ads are short then they're ok. Long story, then follow by "brought to you by General Products Industries" is ok. However what we have is the opposite - the ads take up more bandwidth than the content. They're sort of the equivalent of sitting through a timeshare presentation for an hour so that you can get the prize at the end, only without the prize.
A lot of content providers treat television separately from a computer or smartphone. Ie, Hulu is only on computer, Hulu Plus is only on a television. This involves separate negotiations.
It's a conflict of interest in some ways. They can't tell the content provider what the viewership is because the content provider is also a television channel. There's no way to have a private one on one negotiation when you're a customer of one part of a conglomerate but a competitor of another part of the conglomerate. So the trade secrets remain secret.
The worst part with the bit about the Tolkien Estate is that they have so little actual control over Tolkien's works. A different group (the Saul Zaentz Company) owns rights to the movies, games, and merchandise. The Tolkien estate did sue about the games part, but only because Saul Zaentz Company was expanding that to include casino games. So who should own the rights, the descendants or some sleazy Hollywood holdings company?
Except that people who perceive injustice are called SJWs before they've done anything about it, or called that when the only action they took was to point out that the injustice existed. There very act of perceiving injustice offends these anti-SJW-warriors.
No there are some levels where it's gone quite far beyond "normal human beings". I knew a professor once that seemed to just hate women. He would tell female graduate students "why are you here and not at home having babies?" That's not normal human behavior. Of course he also berated male students as well, he was an equal opportunity hater. But students were reluctant to call him out or complain to others because this was a senior professor so he got away with it.
Perhaps in the context of the question there was a need for synchronization. The poster did not give the context and yet you assume there was no need for synchronization and so he must be wrong.
Most of the code there is obvious. No need for copyright or licensing. The answer to "how do I do a rotate an unsigned integer?" isn't a work of art. Even the longer snippets of code are just that: snippets. They're composed of techniques that are widely known and widely used, and most certainly these snippets were copied from somewhere else in the first place!! There's almost never anything original in stackexchange. Having to put attributions on this is like having to use attributions with tweets. The code snippets almost certainly can not be copyrighted as they're too small and the original authors are unknown or can't be reached.
What next, we can't use code snippets from "The C Programming Language, Kernighan and Ritchie" without attribution? Because there have been billions of copies of those snippets over the years.
Even in the case where the author created original work to put up on stackexchange, the author almost certainly intended for that piece of code to be re-used or it would have been either kept secret of have included a copyright notice.
Turns out you do need the acting skills. My job hiring success went way way up when I stopped being myself who never asked questions in response, didn't show excitement at things that weren't exciting, and so forth. Long stretch of job interviews once where nothing happened. Then finally one hiring manager said that I sounded like a great fit for the job but it seemed like I wasn't interested in the job. Which wasn't true.
Now while it should be true that you really should only have to impress the technical coworkers, it's not how it really works in practice. I had one HR manager actually ask me technical questions and then argue that I got one of them wrong (which I did not). Anyone you meet while on the interview can veto you so you need to be on your best game for all of them.
Head hunters only do the work to find people. In my experience they put in zero effort to determine if someone is a good fit. They're looking for buzzwords in linkedin and elsewhere. They shotgun the resumes to the employers and cross their fingers. I expect the interview because that's the only way to tell if I'm going to be suitable to do the job they want filled, and the only way for me to tell if I will like the job or not.
Google is hardly a dream job. It may seem that way from the outside to an entry level person, but there's a lot of downgrade it. The commute is awful as they crowd far too many people in a tiny area and the offramps back up onto the freeway. Shuttles to remoter locations don't have frequent pickups and often have to move because the owners of the parking lots they go to will change their minds about allowing Google to stop there. Their vaunted 15% time to work on fun projects has changed, now those projects must be something to help the bottom line instead of being a free-for-all university style. The workload and stress can be very high. The pay may be good, but you can get good pay in the area at many places. They are first and foremost an advertising company, that's what it is all about and everything else they do is intended to feed directly into advertising.
But Google has interviewers who do not even understand the job that the candidate will be hired for. So they stick to more generalities rather than adequately understanding the specific qualifications of the candidates. That just seems silly. If they want to hire a security expert then they should have security experts grilling that person, not web developers or hardware engineers or marketing people.
Slashdot Mirror
If that is what Adblock Plus is doing then they're not very effective at it. I have seen no ads with APB, non-intrusive or otherwise. 100% ads block, I don't see how something else would do a better. It works, it does the job, it's easy to use, so why change just because a few people think that APB isn't as pure as it could be?
Yes, that's important. I was thinking about getting some hosts into my router because my tv+roku has no adblock (only ever necessary for youtube). But it's a complicated manual process, and I'd have to document exactly what I did, remember to update it periodically in case anything changed, and so forth. Much more work than using a plugin.
Sharks don't eat sharks. It's professional courtesy.
Sounds good to me. Remember the world wasn't all that bad before the internet, and I'm saying that as someone who's been on the internet since the early 80s.
That's silly. You think the entire world runs an advertising? Civilization grew up without incessant advertising. We got people to the moon without in-your-face malware ridden advertising. We built the internet without any advertising.
Advertisers used to, in the good old days, work their asses off to sell the ads. It was not free, they needed to have quality ads for companies to accept them, they needed ads that did not annoy their customers. Companies were picky and selective. You needed to be a good advertisers with good ads and respectful ads and you had to know your market and what your market liked. Today it is not the same on the internet, the companies open themselves up to whatever third party cheapass advertising services are out there, they don't pick and choose the ads, they just sign up and wait. They'll even let the advertisers design the web pages and infrastructures in many cases. The goal is to make it all automated; automatic serving of ads to unsuspecting victims, automatic delivery of revenue, automatic analytics so you don't need to know your market, etc. In this regard I don't see advertisers as the only evil going on here, but also the companies are at fault for allowing advertisers to have carte blanche without any oversight. What a tough moral decision: more revenue versus more responsibility.
But remember that we used to get good quality on free broadcast TV. Then it declined. The internet used to be a wonderful place for good content, but then that changed.
The change I think is with the attitude. Originally we had the attitude that advertisements help support and pay for the content. Now the attitude is that content supports and helps distribute the ads. That is, content centric versus advertisement centric.
When ads are short then they're ok. Long story, then follow by "brought to you by General Products Industries" is ok. However what we have is the opposite - the ads take up more bandwidth than the content. They're sort of the equivalent of sitting through a timeshare presentation for an hour so that you can get the prize at the end, only without the prize.
More like parasites. Person A talks to person B, and unrelated bystander C thinks "I deserve to make money whenever A talks to B".
But beware of the marshall, because it's always High Noon.
A lot of content providers treat television separately from a computer or smartphone. Ie, Hulu is only on computer, Hulu Plus is only on a television. This involves separate negotiations.
It's a conflict of interest in some ways. They can't tell the content provider what the viewership is because the content provider is also a television channel. There's no way to have a private one on one negotiation when you're a customer of one part of a conglomerate but a competitor of another part of the conglomerate. So the trade secrets remain secret.
The worst part with the bit about the Tolkien Estate is that they have so little actual control over Tolkien's works. A different group (the Saul Zaentz Company) owns rights to the movies, games, and merchandise. The Tolkien estate did sue about the games part, but only because Saul Zaentz Company was expanding that to include casino games. So who should own the rights, the descendants or some sleazy Hollywood holdings company?
Except that people who perceive injustice are called SJWs before they've done anything about it, or called that when the only action they took was to point out that the injustice existed. There very act of perceiving injustice offends these anti-SJW-warriors.
No there are some levels where it's gone quite far beyond "normal human beings". I knew a professor once that seemed to just hate women. He would tell female graduate students "why are you here and not at home having babies?" That's not normal human behavior. Of course he also berated male students as well, he was an equal opportunity hater. But students were reluctant to call him out or complain to others because this was a senior professor so he got away with it.
I think the poster's name, "StartsWithABang", needs a trigger warning.
I think Scots sound like Scots because they're also kinda stoned.
Do you need a hug?
Someone took their blow up doll away and they're having a temper tantrum in their mom's basement.
Perhaps in the context of the question there was a need for synchronization. The poster did not give the context and yet you assume there was no need for synchronization and so he must be wrong.
Most of the code there is obvious. No need for copyright or licensing. The answer to "how do I do a rotate an unsigned integer?" isn't a work of art. Even the longer snippets of code are just that: snippets. They're composed of techniques that are widely known and widely used, and most certainly these snippets were copied from somewhere else in the first place!! There's almost never anything original in stackexchange. Having to put attributions on this is like having to use attributions with tweets. The code snippets almost certainly can not be copyrighted as they're too small and the original authors are unknown or can't be reached.
What next, we can't use code snippets from "The C Programming Language, Kernighan and Ritchie" without attribution? Because there have been billions of copies of those snippets over the years.
Even in the case where the author created original work to put up on stackexchange, the author almost certainly intended for that piece of code to be re-used or it would have been either kept secret of have included a copyright notice.
He was only retweeting it.
Turns out you do need the acting skills. My job hiring success went way way up when I stopped being myself who never asked questions in response, didn't show excitement at things that weren't exciting, and so forth. Long stretch of job interviews once where nothing happened. Then finally one hiring manager said that I sounded like a great fit for the job but it seemed like I wasn't interested in the job. Which wasn't true.
Now while it should be true that you really should only have to impress the technical coworkers, it's not how it really works in practice. I had one HR manager actually ask me technical questions and then argue that I got one of them wrong (which I did not). Anyone you meet while on the interview can veto you so you need to be on your best game for all of them.
Head hunters only do the work to find people. In my experience they put in zero effort to determine if someone is a good fit. They're looking for buzzwords in linkedin and elsewhere. They shotgun the resumes to the employers and cross their fingers. I expect the interview because that's the only way to tell if I'm going to be suitable to do the job they want filled, and the only way for me to tell if I will like the job or not.
Google is hardly a dream job. It may seem that way from the outside to an entry level person, but there's a lot of downgrade it. The commute is awful as they crowd far too many people in a tiny area and the offramps back up onto the freeway. Shuttles to remoter locations don't have frequent pickups and often have to move because the owners of the parking lots they go to will change their minds about allowing Google to stop there. Their vaunted 15% time to work on fun projects has changed, now those projects must be something to help the bottom line instead of being a free-for-all university style. The workload and stress can be very high. The pay may be good, but you can get good pay in the area at many places. They are first and foremost an advertising company, that's what it is all about and everything else they do is intended to feed directly into advertising.
But Google has interviewers who do not even understand the job that the candidate will be hired for. So they stick to more generalities rather than adequately understanding the specific qualifications of the candidates. That just seems silly. If they want to hire a security expert then they should have security experts grilling that person, not web developers or hardware engineers or marketing people.