Potentially not, but I normally browse with AB+ on so I cannot say anything other then most sites that are not an advertisement themselves (company web sites) do have ads.
Checked out XKCD and they have a big banner ad for their store, so yes XKCD has at least one ad.
But the internet is not just searches. I would not be able to read/. articles or hundreds of other articles for absolutely nothing without ads. Thousands of bloggers would not be making a living and allowing us to read whatever they write without ads. And even the earliest BBSes had subscription services, and I be not believe that absolutely no abs were ever run on even a single one of them.
"companies would have their own web sites" AKA ads And what about the average user? Where is FB? Where is twitter? Where is newgrounds?
There was no internet before ads. Even the big BBSes charged fees and I am sure at least a few ads were run. So unless you are talking about a few somewhat interconnected universities and military complexes (that for the most part were locked down and not even open to the public), well then if you consider the ability to email a handful of people as the internet before ads and a better place then we still have that. You don't need to look at ads to use a email client or to direct connect to another computer on the internet (in fact I have never seen a SSH ad before).
No that is not at all what I am saying. In fact I am as anti consumerist as you can get. I am saying that just because you do not like paying for something and would rather live in a totally socialistic society does not mean that you get to steal content and revenue from Blogger A who is just trying to do a hobby that he loves and feed his family.
The internet could exist without ads, as it is today, if the government was willing to subsidize all use of the internet. And I am not saying that I do not support a socialistic society that pays for all use of the internet. But we do not live in that world, so it is not OK to take advantage of anyone and everyone who makes a profit off the internet.
"But your forgetting that ads have to, at a minimum, not disturb the user experience." Why? That is like saying that you are justified to pirate any software out of your ability to afford or steal any car that you cannot pay for.
Sure I use AB+ for just that situation but no one should feel justified in doing that.
The internet cannot exist without ads. Imagine if every site above personal hobby projects required you to pay to use its content. Imagine if there was not a single news site that did not charge a subscription cost. Imagine if XKCD charged a subscription cost and Google charged 25 cents to make a search.
That is where we would be without advertising and anyone not willing to help out at all because of some set of principals are just lazy bums and should stop leaking off of everyone around them.
Because the government was never meant to have near omnipotent power over its citizens, which is where we are headed. Originally, citizens were allowed guns to protect them from the military (and conceivably the police). But now technology and tactics have advanced to where you cannot protect yourself from the government at all.
Sure crime, murder, and disorder are bad. But I don't want to live in a country where absolutely none of those exist because the government has absolute control of everything. The government does not even have to abuse this power (simply for that amount of power to exist is an abuse of power) for it to be a dystopia.
It helps to keep the government honest and just to know that really to control the country you need at least 50% of the citizens behind you. But with all the weapons, tech, and know how we have today the government could enforce anything on the people with only a comparative handful of people working with them.
Would +1 if I had mod points. That is the whole point, it was never that expensive, but it almost doubled in price (and was a whole lot more then $2 mentioned). And to make matters worse the company was like. "We are sure that our customers absolutely love how their bill will be double next month while getting the exact same service. What an amazing thing we are doing for our customers."
I cannot say mush about scifi on Wikipedia but in general this is a huge problem for the entire site. Anything that does not appeal to or mean something to their small uniform group is delegated to a either far too little space on Wikipedia or none at all.
I am confused? Why would they have control of that in the first place? If Mint owns Banshee, and Canonical and GNOME do not, then they should get the revenue. And if they are able to change the code then does that non demonstrate that they have the right to? And even if money should be shared with those other two, if Mint is the primary owner would it not make sense for it all to go to them and then they split it up themselves.
Exactly, and I would say there is a lot more reasons to believe that FB is past its prime then to think that it is a company about to sky-rocket to new heights of wealth and success.
That is the first thing I thought. It looks like, because of his name, that he just started out as a very obvious parodyist. He was probably very surprised when people actually believed him.
Because minimum wage is know for how well it motivates the workforce? It would be even worse, because then people would think that they are getting paid to do a job and since it is only minimum wage that they do not have to try very hard.
But they are not, they are performing a duty to their government.
But that does not mean that a modified or high quality GPS unit would not work. All that means is that the generic stuff that civilians get is not good enough.
"It's like trying to navigate the Pacific Ocean when the most accurate details you can give to the computer are "I can see water" and "I'm in a boat"."
You must not know how GPSes work. It does not require the user to know where they are. It used satellites to do that for you. And it does not matter if current GPSes do not like London or if the streets are not all at 90 degree angels or not. With a relatively small amount of work (making sure the internal map is right, punching in the general traffic details) then it would work exactly as a normal cabby would but be better at cost/benefit analysis of a longer route vs high traffic areas reducing speed. These people are not doing anything a computer cannot be programmed to do (Ie pattern recognition), all they are doing is remembering large amounts of spacial data.
I am pretty sure Humans do not have the equivalent of software that works on generic brain hardware. Skills come about by the brain being hard wired to do certain tasks and this has been known for a long time.
The real question here is why do cabby's still have to go though such a intensive training regiment when you could just install a GPS.
How would you know? If the doctors looked and said that you have absolutely no cancer left and then 3 years latter it is back, how would the doctors know that they missed some or if it came back for some other reason? So you are saying that cancer (in your opinion) in general does not really just appear because of some reason? Cancer just grows from other cancer? and nothing causes it in the first place, just ???random chance??? and if you can remove all of it the only reason you will have a reoccurrence is if you get unlucky enough to have that random chance happen again?
In my opinion cancer is not a bacteria or virus and unless it uses crazy star trek temporal mechanics to cause itself then it is simply an effect and removing an effect is doomed to be ineffective long term.
"Wipe out all the cancerous cells or virus particles and you're done."
That seems like a pretty bad endpoint. Doesn't cancer often come back even after being completely wiped out and unless you are saying that you are born with cancer does it not come into existence because of something? I do not think that cancer is some virus or bacteria, and wiping out the effect does not seem like a very effective solution.
The problem is that she did not solve a trillion dollar problem for her field but instead she (if this actually cured cancer) gets rid of a trillion dollars of business in her field. And her bosses could suffer financially for this in a few years time.
Sometimes people don't read the original article and their comment makes that lack of knowledge obvious. But most people at least read the/. summery before commenting, obviously you have not.
Slashdot Mirror
Potentially not, but I normally browse with AB+ on so I cannot say anything other then most sites that are not an advertisement themselves (company web sites) do have ads.
Checked out XKCD and they have a big banner ad for their store, so yes XKCD has at least one ad.
But the internet is not just searches. /. articles or hundreds of other articles for absolutely nothing without ads.
I would not be able to read
Thousands of bloggers would not be making a living and allowing us to read whatever they write without ads.
And even the earliest BBSes had subscription services, and I be not believe that absolutely no abs were ever run on even a single one of them.
"companies would have their own web sites" AKA ads
And what about the average user? Where is FB? Where is twitter? Where is newgrounds?
There was no internet before ads.
Even the big BBSes charged fees and I am sure at least a few ads were run.
So unless you are talking about a few somewhat interconnected universities and military complexes (that for the most part were locked down and not even open to the public), well then if you consider the ability to email a handful of people as the internet before ads and a better place then we still have that. You don't need to look at ads to use a email client or to direct connect to another computer on the internet (in fact I have never seen a SSH ad before).
No that is not at all what I am saying. In fact I am as anti consumerist as you can get.
I am saying that just because you do not like paying for something and would rather live in a totally socialistic society does not mean that you get to steal content and revenue from Blogger A who is just trying to do a hobby that he loves and feed his family.
The internet could exist without ads, as it is today, if the government was willing to subsidize all use of the internet. And I am not saying that I do not support a socialistic society that pays for all use of the internet.
But we do not live in that world, so it is not OK to take advantage of anyone and everyone who makes a profit off the internet.
"But your forgetting that ads have to, at a minimum, not disturb the user experience."
Why? That is like saying that you are justified to pirate any software out of your ability to afford or steal any car that you cannot pay for.
Sure I use AB+ for just that situation but no one should feel justified in doing that.
The internet cannot exist without ads.
Imagine if every site above personal hobby projects required you to pay to use its content. Imagine if there was not a single news site that did not charge a subscription cost. Imagine if XKCD charged a subscription cost and Google charged 25 cents to make a search.
That is where we would be without advertising and anyone not willing to help out at all because of some set of principals are just lazy bums and should stop leaking off of everyone around them.
What does it matte if they got paid, I hope they got paid. Because either way we get a great feature.
Because the government was never meant to have near omnipotent power over its citizens, which is where we are headed.
Originally, citizens were allowed guns to protect them from the military (and conceivably the police).
But now technology and tactics have advanced to where you cannot protect yourself from the government at all.
Sure crime, murder, and disorder are bad. But I don't want to live in a country where absolutely none of those exist because the government has absolute control of everything. The government does not even have to abuse this power (simply for that amount of power to exist is an abuse of power) for it to be a dystopia.
It helps to keep the government honest and just to know that really to control the country you need at least 50% of the citizens behind you. But with all the weapons, tech, and know how we have today the government could enforce anything on the people with only a comparative handful of people working with them.
If you like it that much then you should have offline versions.
Would +1 if I had mod points.
That is the whole point, it was never that expensive, but it almost doubled in price (and was a whole lot more then $2 mentioned).
And to make matters worse the company was like. "We are sure that our customers absolutely love how their bill will be double next month while getting the exact same service. What an amazing thing we are doing for our customers."
/. in need of comment editing.
* "much"
I cannot say mush about scifi on Wikipedia but in general this is a huge problem for the entire site. Anything that does not appeal to or mean something to their small uniform group is delegated to a either far too little space on Wikipedia or none at all.
I am confused?
Why would they have control of that in the first place?
If Mint owns Banshee, and Canonical and GNOME do not, then they should get the revenue.
And if they are able to change the code then does that non demonstrate that they have the right to?
And even if money should be shared with those other two, if Mint is the primary owner would it not make sense for it all to go to them and then they split it up themselves.
Exactly, and I would say there is a lot more reasons to believe that FB is past its prime then to think that it is a company about to sky-rocket to new heights of wealth and success.
That is the first thing I thought. It looks like, because of his name, that he just started out as a very obvious parodyist. He was probably very surprised when people actually believed him.
Because slowing down an app with a page turning animation makes it easier to use?
Because minimum wage is know for how well it motivates the workforce?
It would be even worse, because then people would think that they are getting paid to do a job and since it is only minimum wage that they do not have to try very hard.
But they are not, they are performing a duty to their government.
Yes it is normal, 34 people are far more then enough to get statistically significant results that are almost identically significant to 100.
But that does not mean that a modified or high quality GPS unit would not work.
All that means is that the generic stuff that civilians get is not good enough.
"It's like trying to navigate the Pacific Ocean when the most accurate details you can give to the computer are "I can see water" and "I'm in a boat"."
You must not know how GPSes work. It does not require the user to know where they are. It used satellites to do that for you.
And it does not matter if current GPSes do not like London or if the streets are not all at 90 degree angels or not.
With a relatively small amount of work (making sure the internal map is right, punching in the general traffic details) then it would work exactly as a normal cabby would but be better at cost/benefit analysis of a longer route vs high traffic areas reducing speed.
These people are not doing anything a computer cannot be programmed to do (Ie pattern recognition), all they are doing is remembering large amounts of spacial data.
I am pretty sure Humans do not have the equivalent of software that works on generic brain hardware. Skills come about by the brain being hard wired to do certain tasks and this has been known for a long time.
The real question here is why do cabby's still have to go though such a intensive training regiment when you could just install a GPS.
How would you know?
If the doctors looked and said that you have absolutely no cancer left and then 3 years latter it is back, how would the doctors know that they missed some or if it came back for some other reason?
So you are saying that cancer (in your opinion) in general does not really just appear because of some reason? Cancer just grows from other cancer? and nothing causes it in the first place, just ???random chance??? and if you can remove all of it the only reason you will have a reoccurrence is if you get unlucky enough to have that random chance happen again?
In my opinion cancer is not a bacteria or virus and unless it uses crazy star trek temporal mechanics to cause itself then it is simply an effect and removing an effect is doomed to be ineffective long term.
"Wipe out all the cancerous cells or virus particles and you're done."
That seems like a pretty bad endpoint. Doesn't cancer often come back even after being completely wiped out and unless you are saying that you are born with cancer does it not come into existence because of something?
I do not think that cancer is some virus or bacteria, and wiping out the effect does not seem like a very effective solution.
The problem is that she did not solve a trillion dollar problem for her field but instead she (if this actually cured cancer) gets rid of a trillion dollars of business in her field.
And her bosses could suffer financially for this in a few years time.
Sometimes people don't read the original article and their comment makes that lack of knowledge obvious. /. summery before commenting, obviously you have not.
But most people at least read the