If that's the case, than how do you define happiness? What if the survey was anonymous and written (or even scantronned)? Are you saying that people are not good judges of their own happiness indicies?
So get a mod of Fx. Or install an addon globally (i.e. with root-analog permissions in the install directory so the user can't remove it directly, and probably not at all unless they have root-analog access, which would be stupid (but frequent reading of WTF reminds me that stupid != unusual) )
I was under the impression that you can't do that without Trusted/Treacherous Computing, which is more commonly used for Digital Rights/Restrictions Management.
If you're polite about it and don't use abusive ads (read: flashing ads, ads that play sound in response to any stimulus (or none at all) short of a click, ads that pretend to not be ads, ads that obscure the site itself, and ads that collect personal information (doubleclick comes to mind)).
The simple solution is to put a 1×1 GIF whose title contains the word "ad" or something, and test if it is present with JScript. Of course, people with noscript won't even know that you don't want them adblocking. Perhaps you should just put a polite note explaining that the site is advert supported and please don't block the ads? If you're polite about it and don't use abusive ads (read: flashing ads, ads that play sound in response to any stimulus (or none at all) short of a click, ads that pretend to not be ads, ads that obscure the site itself, and ads that collect personal information (doubleclick comes to mind)).
If you're too egregious they'll (they==makers of AB+) just add a whitelist for whichever fake ad you're using as a test. (or they'll (they==users) just disable JScript if you're testing the ads themselves;)
Furthermore, AB+ itself doesn't apply to text ads (there is an element hider but AFAICT it isn't very popular) and if you're using banner ads they take up a lot of bandwidth (read:AB+ costs less in terms of bandwidth, so the bandwidth argument is just plain cheap). Finally, what do you do for people using lynx or something?
Combine it with a safety indicator (McAfee has one called SiteAdvisor, search the addons site for it since I'm lazy) so you know whether it's a good idea or not.
That can't be it, Office for Mac is a self-contained, drag and drop installer and has been since Office 98.
So's Camino (Mozilla's answer to Safari). What's your point?
There's a theory that Mac users are more likely to pay for software, but I haven't seen a lot of numbers to back that up.
Why would a pirate choose to use a user-obsequious system? I mean sure, maybe a script kidde or some such, but at least some of the pirates actually know what they're doing and hence would not want to use a system which doesn't want them to know what they're doing.
Slashdot Mirror
If that's the case, than how do you define happiness? What if the survey was anonymous and written (or even scantronned)? Are you saying that people are not good judges of their own happiness indicies?
whoosh.
How ironic is it that the recursion stops here.
I like to argue with randoms about tribal dances in Kenya, you insensitive clod!
this is roughly how I would respond to you, if I wasn't lazy enough to just link it.
and which party do you support?
and furthermore, Clinton was acquitted (though for political not legal reasons)
yes, but they can't lie manipulatively (you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but not both)
The only reason I haven't tried NetFlix is popups for their product. When they stop annoying me I may try their product.
Popups are why I hesitate to go to weather.com
Agreed, these people are retarded.
Who the fuck modded that troll?
Tab Mix Plus has that functionality, and a whole lot more.
So get a mod of Fx. Or install an addon globally (i.e. with root-analog permissions in the install directory so the user can't remove it directly, and probably not at all unless they have root-analog access, which would be stupid (but frequent reading of WTF reminds me that stupid != unusual) )
I was under the impression that you can't do that without Trusted/Treacherous Computing, which is more commonly used for Digital Rights/Restrictions Management.
I don't recall my eyes suing my brain... WTF is an "inferred" NDA? (I know what a NDA is, tell me about the "inferred")
I think he meant inclusive OR, not XOR. ~
If you're polite about it and don't use abusive ads (read: flashing ads, ads that play sound in response to any stimulus (or none at all) short of a click, ads that pretend to not be ads, ads that obscure the site itself, and ads that collect personal information (doubleclick comes to mind)).
...then the AB+ devs will be nicer to you.
(Why did I hit the "submit" button? D'OH!)
The simple solution is to put a 1×1 GIF whose title contains the word "ad" or something, and test if it is present with JScript. Of course, people with noscript won't even know that you don't want them adblocking. Perhaps you should just put a polite note explaining that the site is advert supported and please don't block the ads? If you're polite about it and don't use abusive ads (read: flashing ads, ads that play sound in response to any stimulus (or none at all) short of a click, ads that pretend to not be ads, ads that obscure the site itself, and ads that collect personal information (doubleclick comes to mind)).
If you're too egregious they'll (they==makers of AB+) just add a whitelist for whichever fake ad you're using as a test. (or they'll (they==users) just disable JScript if you're testing the ads themselves ;)
Furthermore, AB+ itself doesn't apply to text ads (there is an element hider but AFAICT it isn't very popular) and if you're using banner ads they take up a lot of bandwidth (read:AB+ costs less in terms of bandwidth, so the bandwidth argument is just plain cheap). Finally, what do you do for people using lynx or something?
Someone needs to forward that to the *AAs -- they haven't heard.
Combine it with a safety indicator (McAfee has one called SiteAdvisor, search the addons site for it since I'm lazy) so you know whether it's a good idea or not.
Then complain to Adobe, not Ubuntu.
If they charge for all forms of internet access, someone will probably make some noise about antitrust and/or censorship
That can't be it, Office for Mac is a self-contained, drag and drop installer and has been since Office 98.
So's Camino (Mozilla's answer to Safari). What's your point?
There's a theory that Mac users are more likely to pay for software, but I haven't seen a lot of numbers to back that up.
Why would a pirate choose to use a user-obsequious system? I mean sure, maybe a script kidde or some such, but at least some of the pirates actually know what they're doing and hence would not want to use a system which doesn't want them to know what they're doing.
...except that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth.
No dam for you!
Their lawyers will just find a loophole.