But I rarely find those who accuse people of being bleeding hearts to be full of wisdom, or of having any intention other than protecting their profits or the status quo.
I don't want either. If a site forces me to have one of those two choices then I will leave that site.
That's not uncommon. I follow a link to a breaking news story and see a blank page. I'll just skip it rather than deal with the tedium of unblocking scripts one by one until something appears. It was probably click bait anyway.
The whole reason I have adblock is because I kept wondering why my fast computer was so slow even though I was idle. Turns out the browser which was on a completely different screen and blocked by other windows was busy animating ads and running scripts, sucking up memory as well.
Their ads are costing ME money. Dollars and cents. For the junk mail I get every week, someone other than me has to pay for the post office to deliver it. But for web ads, they are sucking up my bandwidth. Many people are still on dialup as the only thing they can afford, and those ads greatly diminish the quality of browsing the web. People pay overage fees for mobile phones if they exceed their bandwidth limits, and yet many sites have more than half their data coming from advertisements instead of actual content (though I use "content" loosely since the internet has so little of value anymore).
Good. Turn off their website. Nothing of value will be lost, and no one will shed a tear. There are a tiny handful of sites I might consider paying for. Very tiny. If I was forced to stop visiting all sites but those I would do it. Maybe cancel the ISP.
Any worthwhile sites? I would give money to BBC news on the web if I were allowed to. The only other sites where I've seen paywalls tend to be magazines, and I'm not interested in those. There are a few sites that I have unblocked from adblock, after they have requested this and I knew they were reasonable sites.
Treat it like NPR or PBS. You can support if you want to but you are not required to. No one calls those who don't send money at the annual pledge break freeloaders or pirates. So that's how most of these sites are run; they don't block the content if the ads don't get served up even though they are capable of it. Or treat like broadcast TV, no one is forced to sit down and endure the insipid advertising, we're allowed to leave the room and with DVRs we are allowed to fast forward and skip the ads, and we certainly don't catch any viruses from watching them.
If everyone blocked 100% of the ads, the internet would be a very different place. It would also be a very nice place. Stop comparing those who block ads to being pirates. The web sites are perfectly capable of not displaying the content if adblocks are detected. I'd rather prevent malware and stop obnoxious ads. If that means I can't see some of these sites then I am happy to skip them. Likewise, I do not pirate and have never pirated, I would never say "I had to" pirate a show to watch it because if I don't want to pay for it them I will skip it.
Which is BS. In the past people knew what ads they promoted. If they didn't like an ad they would reject it. Celebrities promoting a product knew which product it was. The television show host would know the product and use it by name, "promotional consideration paid for by..." If someone came up to me and offered me $100 to promote their product by wearing a tee-shirt, I'd be damn sure I knew what that product was before agreeing.
What trade secrets? The only purpose of an NDA in this case was to keep things secret until release date, at which point there are no more secrets. They want the rush of new eager buyers who know nothing about the device except that it says "Apple" on it, they don't want these fans to learn prematurely that there are no magic elves inside.
Hmm, maybe I meant lollipop. I can't remember which is the latest one. But it is indeed turned off in the latest. It is possible this is only with some carriers and is not a lollipop specific feature. Note that the "Data Enabler Widget" app which was commonly used to do this has a lot of angry comments that it's no longer working. When I use that widget I get a notification (written by the widget author of course, not Google), "Android does not allow 3rd party apps to modify 'Data enabled' settings due to security reasons."
Now if you root the phone then I suspect you can get this re-enabled, but this is not the sort of thing an average user does.
No, it's going to be a massive fine. They've already set aside over $7 billion for recalls and repairs over this. 2014 profit for VW was nearly EUR 11 billion. This is enough to hurt already. And that's before fines and penalties. Then count in the huge drop in stock price. US fines alone could get up to $18 billion. This goes way beyond operating costs.
If you're stuck in a school that is failing and you are not allowed to leave that school, how is that not being a victim of the system? Should we step back and let the system work itself out? Not treating them like a victim means blaming them for getting bad grades? Or maybe it means clucking our tongues at the bad luck of being born in the wrong part of town without lifting one finger to try to change that luck.
If someone is hurt and lying in the street, do you walk on by because you don't want to treat them as a victim? No, a decent human being either helps or seeks out help. So if you see students trapped in failing schools, do you try to help out or look the other way?
They are capable, but they are not given equal opportunities to shine. If you come from the bottom 10% of schools in the country then you start out at a severe disadvantage that is nearly impossible to overcome. No one ever implied that one group as "incapable", you are the one who introduced that word.
You yourself may not be racist, but the system is highly racist because the unequal opportunities in this country coincide very closely to race. The system is highly broken. The status quo is repugnant. Why defend it?
And why the term "bleeding heart" being used as an insult? The meaning on the surface means that the person cares so much about others else that they're hurting themself; the implication of using it as an insult implies that one should be cold-hearted instead. There should be nothing shameful about having empathy and wanting to help others.
Slashdot Mirror
Down with the 95%!
It's not a conversational word, but I hear it spoken on television and radio. Ok, more on radio than TV these days as TV has gotten pretty dumb.
But I rarely find those who accuse people of being bleeding hearts to be full of wisdom, or of having any intention other than protecting their profits or the status quo.
"Sexconker - the name you can trust!"
Not a concern when you stop browsing the web and get back to work. You slackers!
Avoiding the ads takes no sacrifice at all. Install an ad blocker. Your pages will load faster as well. And then step two, install noscript.
I don't want either. If a site forces me to have one of those two choices then I will leave that site.
That's not uncommon. I follow a link to a breaking news story and see a blank page. I'll just skip it rather than deal with the tedium of unblocking scripts one by one until something appears. It was probably click bait anyway.
The whole reason I have adblock is because I kept wondering why my fast computer was so slow even though I was idle. Turns out the browser which was on a completely different screen and blocked by other windows was busy animating ads and running scripts, sucking up memory as well.
Their ads are costing ME money. Dollars and cents. For the junk mail I get every week, someone other than me has to pay for the post office to deliver it. But for web ads, they are sucking up my bandwidth. Many people are still on dialup as the only thing they can afford, and those ads greatly diminish the quality of browsing the web. People pay overage fees for mobile phones if they exceed their bandwidth limits, and yet many sites have more than half their data coming from advertisements instead of actual content (though I use "content" loosely since the internet has so little of value anymore).
Good. Turn off their website. Nothing of value will be lost, and no one will shed a tear. There are a tiny handful of sites I might consider paying for. Very tiny. If I was forced to stop visiting all sites but those I would do it. Maybe cancel the ISP.
But then we'd have to endure even more endless Septembers!
Advertising is welfare for those lacking worthwhile skills to offer the public.
Any worthwhile sites? I would give money to BBC news on the web if I were allowed to. The only other sites where I've seen paywalls tend to be magazines, and I'm not interested in those. There are a few sites that I have unblocked from adblock, after they have requested this and I knew they were reasonable sites.
Treat it like NPR or PBS. You can support if you want to but you are not required to. No one calls those who don't send money at the annual pledge break freeloaders or pirates. So that's how most of these sites are run; they don't block the content if the ads don't get served up even though they are capable of it. Or treat like broadcast TV, no one is forced to sit down and endure the insipid advertising, we're allowed to leave the room and with DVRs we are allowed to fast forward and skip the ads, and we certainly don't catch any viruses from watching them.
If everyone blocked 100% of the ads, the internet would be a very different place. It would also be a very nice place. Stop comparing those who block ads to being pirates. The web sites are perfectly capable of not displaying the content if adblocks are detected. I'd rather prevent malware and stop obnoxious ads. If that means I can't see some of these sites then I am happy to skip them. Likewise, I do not pirate and have never pirated, I would never say "I had to" pirate a show to watch it because if I don't want to pay for it them I will skip it.
Which is BS. In the past people knew what ads they promoted. If they didn't like an ad they would reject it. Celebrities promoting a product knew which product it was. The television show host would know the product and use it by name, "promotional consideration paid for by..." If someone came up to me and offered me $100 to promote their product by wearing a tee-shirt, I'd be damn sure I knew what that product was before agreeing.
If there was no NDA agreement signed, then the legal team couldn't do much.
I see you have a hypothesis.
What trade secrets? The only purpose of an NDA in this case was to keep things secret until release date, at which point there are no more secrets. They want the rush of new eager buyers who know nothing about the device except that it says "Apple" on it, they don't want these fans to learn prematurely that there are no magic elves inside.
It's a tear-down, a public service, not equivalent to burglary.
I don't pre-order games or get them when they're brand new. Any long time gamer knows to wait for the first few patches and player reviews.
It's not an obscure word. Just what was your attendance record at school anyway?
Hmm, maybe I meant lollipop. I can't remember which is the latest one. But it is indeed turned off in the latest. It is possible this is only with some carriers and is not a lollipop specific feature. Note that the "Data Enabler Widget" app which was commonly used to do this has a lot of angry comments that it's no longer working. When I use that widget I get a notification (written by the widget author of course, not Google), "Android does not allow 3rd party apps to modify 'Data enabled' settings due to security reasons."
Now if you root the phone then I suspect you can get this re-enabled, but this is not the sort of thing an average user does.
No, it's going to be a massive fine. They've already set aside over $7 billion for recalls and repairs over this. 2014 profit for VW was nearly EUR 11 billion. This is enough to hurt already. And that's before fines and penalties. Then count in the huge drop in stock price. US fines alone could get up to $18 billion. This goes way beyond operating costs.
So prosecute as fraud, without bringing the clean air act into it?
If you're stuck in a school that is failing and you are not allowed to leave that school, how is that not being a victim of the system? Should we step back and let the system work itself out? Not treating them like a victim means blaming them for getting bad grades? Or maybe it means clucking our tongues at the bad luck of being born in the wrong part of town without lifting one finger to try to change that luck.
If someone is hurt and lying in the street, do you walk on by because you don't want to treat them as a victim? No, a decent human being either helps or seeks out help. So if you see students trapped in failing schools, do you try to help out or look the other way?
They are capable, but they are not given equal opportunities to shine. If you come from the bottom 10% of schools in the country then you start out at a severe disadvantage that is nearly impossible to overcome. No one ever implied that one group as "incapable", you are the one who introduced that word.
You yourself may not be racist, but the system is highly racist because the unequal opportunities in this country coincide very closely to race. The system is highly broken. The status quo is repugnant. Why defend it?
And why the term "bleeding heart" being used as an insult? The meaning on the surface means that the person cares so much about others else that they're hurting themself; the implication of using it as an insult implies that one should be cold-hearted instead. There should be nothing shameful about having empathy and wanting to help others.