I just looked at slashdot with Internet Explorer, and you're right. It's crazy with shit. I wouldn't mind seeing the weekly poll under my usual Chrome view of the site, or "This day in history". But if it is in a frame with a ton of ads, it's gone.
I was using the standard AdBlock when/. started that banner. I think I tried Adblock Plus as well, since I use that on some systems.
I could get the ad and the banner element to go away, but it returned after restarting the browser. I actually posted a message here on/. about it, saying I would stop visiting if I couldn't resolve that, and someone suggested uBlock Origin. Once installed, I told it to remove the banner ad, and I haven't seen it since.
Now that I think back, there was a side column ad, either here on/. or on another site, that behaved similarly. Could be removed, but just returned again. That also was fixed by uBlock.
No need, except for the fact that the one I used didn't get rid of the banner ad. It made it go away only until I refreshed the page, or went to another story. Then the ad banner was back. So someone recommended uBlock, and that's what I switched to.
You can consider my post an ad if you want. I don't care.
The parents punish the children for their hunger. I'm happy to feed all the poor children, if we take them from their parents who decide to have kids when they don't have the money to support them. Follow that up with spay-n-neuter of the parents, and the situation will be under control very soon.
Give it to them in writing. Or sing it in a song? Draw some pictures?
Future NDA clause: I hereby certify that I have never acted out the ___________ in a game of charades....
I can get around that.
When I was a kid, every Sunday was game night. We either played board games like Monopoly or Life, or card games, or one game that I later found out was called Charades. We called it Cookie Barrel, because the slips of paper we acted out were in a giant cookie jar that looked like a wood barrel, and it had a 'sign' on the side that said "Cookie Barrel".
When the banner ad showed up, I mentioned that my adblocker didn't work on it. Someone suggested uBlock Origin, which is what I now use. No ads anywhere.
Looking at the uBlock icon above, it is blocking 11 items on this page. A couple days ago, one site had over 100 items blocked, with a few more new things being blocked every few seconds. I closed the tab soon after I finished reading the news item, and the count was about 170.
Yeah, I quit watching Law & Order in the late 1990's after seeing several years of it going now where.
It fell off the rails after Jerry Orbach died. Even though he had left the series by then, his death took the wind out of the show. It never really recovered.
Maybe 100 is a new metric for syndication, but there are plenty of old shows that were syndicated that didn't have near that number of episodes. Here's the first two I can think of:
The original Star Trek had about 80 episodes in its thee seasons.
The original Scooby Doo cartoon had 25 in two seasons.
Shit on you for so long? The democrats had a slim majority in congress for a short time at the beginning of Obama's term and since then absolutely jack and shit got done because republicans stuck their fingers in their ears and refused to sign off on anything the President or democrats supported.
Right. Nothing the president wanted ever made it through, besides Obamacare. And the spending increases. And the raising of the debt ceiling. And all of his appointments that sailed through the Senate. And packing the Supreme Court with ultra left wing socialists who don't believe in the Constitution. Gun running, toppling stable allies, burning the Middle East to the ground, importing terrorists, and on and on.
No, he didn't get anything done, because of those damn Republicans that caved on every main issue they faced.
Obama waited until he was 7.95 years through his 8 year term to enact it...
It's perhaps a strategy to sneak it past a Congress intent on obstructing him, as it doesn't give them time to react, such as create a specific law against it.
How could they, when it would need his approval to become law? He would obviously veto it.
Currently, the deposit is 19 yuan and replacing the umbrella cost 60. If you increase the deposit to 60, you may be pricing yourself out of the market. Many of the users are quite poor. And most of them probably don't have a credit card
In any open public area, there are more pollutants than cigarette smoke in the air. Do you seek to prohibit all those as well?
The short answer is yes, where feasible. Do you want the long answer, or will that do?
No, that will do. Now we know you want everything your way, at your leisure, and to hell with anyone with a different opinion. Can't say I'm surprised at this point.
As for restaurants, you can choose to go to one that voluntarily chose to be smoke-free, rather than use the government to make them all smoke-free.
If you're going to make this argument and you want to be taken seriously by people with two neurons to rub together, then you're going to have to address the obvious counterargument, and in fact the argument under which smoking in bars was finally banned: occupational health.
I worked at many restaurants earlier in life, as did many of my family. At the time, at least half the employees smoked cigarettes. Waitresses, cooks, dishwashers, managers, cleanup staff. Usually it was well over three-fourths. So they didn't mind the smoke. The non-smokers, such as myself, chose to work in that environment. I never asked you to ride in on your white stallion to save me.
I am not advocating smoking.
You are advocating for subjecting people who aren't even smokers to smoking, which is actually worse.
I think imposing my will on people is worse than having to face second hand smoke myself.
What I am doing is resisting other people thinking they can take away my personal freedom (which is a broad concept, not a singular item) just because they don't think I should have it.
That's a lot of bullshit. What's proposed is that your freedom (or whoever's, but you're arguing the case, so right now it's going to be you) to pollute your lungs in the pursuit of a low-grade high and/or feeding your addiction does not supersede the right of others to not breathe the combustion byproducts which are not sticking to your lungs, whether they don't for want to for health reasons or just because they think you're disgusting.
If you don't want to inhale pollution, there are things you can do on your own.
As for other people causing pollution you don't want to breathe, if you do anything in your daily life that causes or caused pollution, you are being a hypocrite. And you do things every day that cause or support those who cause pollution. Whether you drive a car, take a plane trip, buy food in a store, use a computer, or have something dry cleaned, there is pollution released that others will be exposed to. But the only thing you want to eliminate is activities you don't participate in, such as smoking. You are a hypocrite, and a selfish one at that.
I think that if you can smoke tobacco without impacting other people, you should be allowed to do that.
I doubt that.
What if there was a national corporation that wanted to run a variety of businesses, and all the businesses allowed smoking on their premises? All potential employees knew there would be smoking at the work place, and all customers knew that as well.
Would you allow that corporation to run restaurants, transportation, entertainment, and leisure businesses if everyone involved accepted those conditions?
In a system with national health, it's reasonable to simply tax tobacco products to pay for the health impact, however much that tax might be, and then go ahead and let people smoke so long as nobody else has to breathe their smoke.
We don't have national health in the US, thankfully, so your argument is a tangent. But are you consistent, and want every one who engages in unhealthy activities to be taxed more?
So did you use the public school-system? If you did and is a smoker you are "stealing" money away from the rest of us since you will be working less than the average non-smoker and die earlier.
Slashdot Mirror
I just looked at slashdot with Internet Explorer, and you're right. It's crazy with shit. I wouldn't mind seeing the weekly poll under my usual Chrome view of the site, or "This day in history". But if it is in a frame with a ton of ads, it's gone.
I was using the standard AdBlock when /. started that banner. I think I tried Adblock Plus as well, since I use that on some systems.
I could get the ad and the banner element to go away, but it returned after restarting the browser. I actually posted a message here on /. about it, saying I would stop visiting if I couldn't resolve that, and someone suggested uBlock Origin. Once installed, I told it to remove the banner ad, and I haven't seen it since.
Now that I think back, there was a side column ad, either here on /. or on another site, that behaved similarly. Could be removed, but just returned again. That also was fixed by uBlock.
Thanks for the response. Have a fun week.
No need, except for the fact that the one I used didn't get rid of the banner ad. It made it go away only until I refreshed the page, or went to another story. Then the ad banner was back. So someone recommended uBlock, and that's what I switched to.
You can consider my post an ad if you want. I don't care.
The parents punish the children for their hunger. I'm happy to feed all the poor children, if we take them from their parents who decide to have kids when they don't have the money to support them. Follow that up with spay-n-neuter of the parents, and the situation will be under control very soon.
Give it to them in writing. Or sing it in a song? Draw some pictures?
Future NDA clause: I hereby certify that I have never acted out the ___________ in a game of charades....
I can get around that.
When I was a kid, every Sunday was game night. We either played board games like Monopoly or Life, or card games, or one game that I later found out was called Charades. We called it Cookie Barrel, because the slips of paper we acted out were in a giant cookie jar that looked like a wood barrel, and it had a 'sign' on the side that said "Cookie Barrel".
Kinda like this one: http://www.laurelleaffarm.com/...
So, unless the NDA specifically says I am not allowed to play Cookie Barrel concerning the sale, I can sign the paper with no worries.
When the banner ad showed up, I mentioned that my adblocker didn't work on it. Someone suggested uBlock Origin, which is what I now use. No ads anywhere.
Looking at the uBlock icon above, it is blocking 11 items on this page. A couple days ago, one site had over 100 items blocked, with a few more new things being blocked every few seconds. I closed the tab soon after I finished reading the news item, and the count was about 170.
Yeah, I quit watching Law & Order in the late 1990's after seeing several years of it going now where.
It fell off the rails after Jerry Orbach died. Even though he had left the series by then, his death took the wind out of the show. It never really recovered.
Maybe 100 is a new metric for syndication, but there are plenty of old shows that were syndicated that didn't have near that number of episodes. Here's the first two I can think of:
The original Star Trek had about 80 episodes in its thee seasons.
The original Scooby Doo cartoon had 25 in two seasons.
Fuck you Spock. I'm a doctor, not a community relations officer.
Your Siri-fu is weak, old man.
Well, I'll bet he never gets killed by a whale he just freed from fishing line.
I call bullshit. Everyone knows you don't scale a coelacanth. You skin them, and then separate the drumsticks.
You winked with your left eye again. He totally saw you do it.
Shit on you for so long? The democrats had a slim majority in congress for a short time at the beginning of Obama's term and since then absolutely jack and shit got done because republicans stuck their fingers in their ears and refused to sign off on anything the President or democrats supported.
Right. Nothing the president wanted ever made it through, besides Obamacare. And the spending increases. And the raising of the debt ceiling. And all of his appointments that sailed through the Senate. And packing the Supreme Court with ultra left wing socialists who don't believe in the Constitution. Gun running, toppling stable allies, burning the Middle East to the ground, importing terrorists, and on and on.
No, he didn't get anything done, because of those damn Republicans that caved on every main issue they faced.
Oh my gerd! The Libturds have culturally appropriated the term "Snowflake" from us!
What will be do now?
Maybe we still call the liberal scum "snowflake", but without the last consonant sound at the end.
Fuck off, you damn liberal snowfla.
Maybe we can even use it amongst ourselves. "What's up, my snowfla?"
Sweden.
Poe's Law: Idiots can't understand a joke, blame others for lack of humor.
If it was worth doing, a president would enact such measures much earlier that a week before leaving office.
It's perhaps a strategy to sneak it past a Congress intent on obstructing him, as it doesn't give them time to react, such as create a specific law against it.
How could they, when it would need his approval to become law? He would obviously veto it.
Currently, the deposit is 19 yuan and replacing the umbrella cost 60. If you increase the deposit to 60, you may be pricing yourself out of the market. Many of the users are quite poor. And most of them probably don't have a credit card
Yet they have the app on their cell phone.
Fine. Give up your personal freedom on someone else's whim. If that makes you happy. I can't force you to have personal freedom if you don't want it.
In any open public area, there are more pollutants than cigarette smoke in the air. Do you seek to prohibit all those as well?
The short answer is yes, where feasible. Do you want the long answer, or will that do?
No, that will do. Now we know you want everything your way, at your leisure, and to hell with anyone with a different opinion. Can't say I'm surprised at this point.
As for restaurants, you can choose to go to one that voluntarily chose to be smoke-free, rather than use the government to make them all smoke-free.
If you're going to make this argument and you want to be taken seriously by people with two neurons to rub together, then you're going to have to address the obvious counterargument, and in fact the argument under which smoking in bars was finally banned: occupational health.
I worked at many restaurants earlier in life, as did many of my family. At the time, at least half the employees smoked cigarettes. Waitresses, cooks, dishwashers, managers, cleanup staff. Usually it was well over three-fourths. So they didn't mind the smoke. The non-smokers, such as myself, chose to work in that environment. I never asked you to ride in on your white stallion to save me.
I am not advocating smoking.
You are advocating for subjecting people who aren't even smokers to smoking, which is actually worse.
I think imposing my will on people is worse than having to face second hand smoke myself.
What I am doing is resisting other people thinking they can take away my personal freedom (which is a broad concept, not a singular item) just because they don't think I should have it.
That's a lot of bullshit. What's proposed is that your freedom (or whoever's, but you're arguing the case, so right now it's going to be you) to pollute your lungs in the pursuit of a low-grade high and/or feeding your addiction does not supersede the right of others to not breathe the combustion byproducts which are not sticking to your lungs, whether they don't for want to for health reasons or just because they think you're disgusting.
If you don't want to inhale pollution, there are things you can do on your own.
As for other people causing pollution you don't want to breathe, if you do anything in your daily life that causes or caused pollution, you are being a hypocrite. And you do things every day that cause or support those who cause pollution. Whether you drive a car, take a plane trip, buy food in a store, use a computer, or have something dry cleaned, there is pollution released that others will be exposed to. But the only thing you want to eliminate is activities you don't participate in, such as smoking. You are a hypocrite, and a selfish one at that.
I think that if you can smoke tobacco without impacting other people, you should be allowed to do that.
I doubt that.
What if there was a national corporation that wanted to run a variety of businesses, and all the businesses allowed smoking on their premises? All potential employees knew there would be smoking at the work place, and all customers knew that as well.
Would you allow that corporation to run restaurants, transportation, entertainment, and leisure businesses if everyone involved accepted those conditions?
In a system with national health, it's reasonable to simply tax tobacco products to pay for the health impact, however much that tax might be, and then go ahead and let people smoke so long as nobody else has to breathe their smoke.
We don't have national health in the US, thankfully, so your argument is a tangent. But are you consistent, and want every one who engages in unhealthy activities to be taxed more?
It
So did you use the public school-system? If you did and is a smoker you are "stealing" money away from the rest of us since you will be working less than the average non-smoker and die earlier.
And people think I'm nuts.
Right. To you it is simply a matter of money.
Yes, but trees and fish are not actively trying to kill workers.