it seriously wouldn't be hard to correlate images that have been flagged as saying download in them with redirection scripts and or links that don't originate from the server hosting the website.
Oh great. For the next 3 years, every reCAPTCHA response will be "Download"
I stupidly kept using their site for years after they started doing that. I didn't really quit using it until they started posting "Visit Site" buttons instead of download links. I can't unwaste my time after doing a quick search only to be redirected to a slower download method. And the whole point of visiting download.com was to avoid the hassles of the original site.
Microsoft could have worked on an alternative executable format that is safe and sandboxed
You mean MSI / Windows Installer Service? That's about as good as you can hope for, but it does nothing for a user who is convinced they are downloading a program - and digital signatures aren't even shown to the user to match against the name of the software being installed. It only shows if there's not one or it's invalid.
If the user thinks they're going to install software, they're going to give it admin permission to install necessary registry and file permissions. How do you sandbox that away without blocking a legitimate installer?
When you visit a web site flagged by Safe Browsing (in Chrome), there's a full screen warning before allowing you to go to the site. They could probably replace the ad image with a similar warning that you have to click through in order to load the ad.
But it looks like they're just flagging the whole page (see the article linked in the headline - hey, whipslash, we don't want this), letting the site owner take the damage to their reputation for allowing the ads.
You can't talk to a Winmodem with AT commands - it's basically just a DAC/DSP where the driver itself implements all the modulating, and demodulating. The hardware can basically just open or close the PSTN connection and make/receive sounds. Everything else is software.
I know that the borders from deep threading have changed. The outer border of the page is now grey and it sometimes makes it hard to tell at a glance how many levels deep a comment is. The bottom border of a thread collapses to no gaps. It's visually nicer looking, but harder to follow.
Indeed. I was following the suggestions of the GP.
And they were probably just using shorthand. You were taking it literally and saying it won't work.
This is/. Do your own homework.
I have. I have been doing web coding since 1998. I'm saying that no citation exists for what you're saying, or if there is, it's not reputable in the web world.
If you put TARGET=blank you're the one that's not following standards. It's target="_blank"
Style guides explicitly warn against redirecting links to other windows without giving the user a choice, because, well, it takes away a choice from the user.
Citation please. For external links, it's generally agreed to use a new tab/window by default. For internal links (pages within a site), you don't generally specify.
If you want to force to open in the same tab, drag the link to the address bar or copy and paste the URL. But if you plan to go back to the original page, very few people would prefer to lose that context.
If you build the road elsewhere, how is that going to stop any of this?
A) stop making residential streets thoroughfares. B) start making real main streets that get you from a to b faster than residential streets C) Stop allowing people to build residences on highways.
They aren't "made" into thoroughfares - the traffic goes the path of shortest distance and least resistance. You build a longer route a long way around the residential area and not many will take it.
Slashdot Mirror
P.S. It would honestly be a welcome change compared to house number photos from street view.
it seriously wouldn't be hard to correlate images that have been flagged as saying download in them with redirection scripts and or links that don't originate from the server hosting the website.
Oh great. For the next 3 years, every reCAPTCHA response will be "Download"
To be aware of what the average user sees?
All you have to do is sign up for Google Adsense to end up on Google's blacklist. That's going to backfire real quick. They still have fake download buttons on Adsense.
I stupidly kept using their site for years after they started doing that. I didn't really quit using it until they started posting "Visit Site" buttons instead of download links. I can't unwaste my time after doing a quick search only to be redirected to a slower download method. And the whole point of visiting download.com was to avoid the hassles of the original site.
Microsoft could have worked on an alternative executable format that is safe and sandboxed
You mean MSI / Windows Installer Service? That's about as good as you can hope for, but it does nothing for a user who is convinced they are downloading a program - and digital signatures aren't even shown to the user to match against the name of the software being installed. It only shows if there's not one or it's invalid.
If the user thinks they're going to install software, they're going to give it admin permission to install necessary registry and file permissions. How do you sandbox that away without blocking a legitimate installer?
IMGBurn. Not FOSS, but freeware. There's even ads on their site with the IMGBurn icon and a download button but they are for PC Mechanic.
Microsoft already reboots my computer enough without my permission. I don't want Google doing it too.
You're right. We need cross-platform compatibility for malware. Who's with me?
When you visit a web site flagged by Safe Browsing (in Chrome), there's a full screen warning before allowing you to go to the site. They could probably replace the ad image with a similar warning that you have to click through in order to load the ad.
But it looks like they're just flagging the whole page (see the article linked in the headline - hey, whipslash, we don't want this), letting the site owner take the damage to their reputation for allowing the ads.
You can't talk to a Winmodem with AT commands - it's basically just a DAC/DSP where the driver itself implements all the modulating, and demodulating. The hardware can basically just open or close the PSTN connection and make/receive sounds. Everything else is software.
Use more than one sentence per paragraph. That ought to help.
Isn't Read More redundant when the headline's already a clickable link?
goatse.cx everywhere
I know that the borders from deep threading have changed. The outer border of the page is now grey and it sometimes makes it hard to tell at a glance how many levels deep a comment is. The bottom border of a thread collapses to no gaps. It's visually nicer looking, but harder to follow.
See an example of the old comment system here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20...?
The comment headers are definitely better now.
Count me as another vote for responsive in place of mobile. Anything good on mobile can be moved to the desktop version.
On flat ground, it's easy to hit 12mph bicycling without breaking a sweat. A fast walk would come close and a run would definitely be over the limit.
Indeed. I was following the suggestions of the GP.
And they were probably just using shorthand. You were taking it literally and saying it won't work.
This is /.
Do your own homework.
I have. I have been doing web coding since 1998. I'm saying that no citation exists for what you're saying, or if there is, it's not reputable in the web world.
If you put TARGET=blank you're the one that's not following standards. It's target="_blank"
Style guides explicitly warn against redirecting links to other windows without giving the user a choice, because, well, it takes away a choice from the user.
Citation please. For external links, it's generally agreed to use a new tab/window by default. For internal links (pages within a site), you don't generally specify.
If you want to force to open in the same tab, drag the link to the address bar or copy and paste the URL. But if you plan to go back to the original page, very few people would prefer to lose that context.
If you build the road elsewhere, how is that going to stop any of this?
A) stop making residential streets thoroughfares.
B) start making real main streets that get you from a to b faster than residential streets
C) Stop allowing people to build residences on highways.
They aren't "made" into thoroughfares - the traffic goes the path of shortest distance and least resistance. You build a longer route a long way around the residential area and not many will take it.
This could work. I don't know how much better it is than underrated.
That can be solved without serifs. Just a better font that has more distinct letterforms. The curl at the bottom of a lowercase L is not a serif.
Yes.
You're the one who was speaking in Latin.
At that rate, most of the bicyclists are speeding.