And in the paragraph directly following the first graph, it says "Around 108 billion people have lived on our planet. This means that about 6.5% of all people ever born are alive right now. (5) As per 2011 estimates from Carl Haub (2011), “How Many People Have Ever Lived on Earth?” Population Reference Bureau." That's the SAME reference that's cited by Wikipedia.
Is there a reason you add it to your Contacts list, instead of just blocking the number itself?
I don't have an iPhone, but according to Apple Support, you can go to your call log (called "Recents") and block the number without having to add it. Apparently you click on the "i" icon and scroll to the bottom.
With an Android phone, you can go into your call log, long press the number you want to block and then select the block option.
AdBlock-Plus took to the digisphere to complain over and over that IAB had “disinvited” them to this convention. That, of course, is as much a lie as the others they routinely try to tell the world. We had never invited them in the first place. They registered for this event online. When we found out, we cancelled the registration and reversed their credit card billing.
So, they weren't "uninvited". That would be a "lie". No, they were banned outright. Cuz that's better.
There are a lot of posts about bundled software being installed by default (like toolbars), but this is just the example from the article's intro. The article is actually about the "Infinity Popup Toolkit". This is not an application that you install on your PC - it's a bunch of JavaScript and Flash code that runs from a web page. Its purpose is to bypass your popup/ad blocker and security controls so that it can show you popup ads.
The question was whether this should be considered malware, since the definition of malware is somewhat vague. The conclusion was that it clearly is malware and should be blocked. This is seems quite obvious, since the software's intention is to ignore your wishes (blocking popups) in order to show you ads. It's quite clear that no one would WANT to run this software, because if they wanted to see popups (which is no one ever), then they wouldn't turn on their popup/ad blocker in the first place.
Anytime an article acknowledges an "AAA title", this is all anyone asks. AAA ain't an acronym. Actually, it alludes to an academic grading arrangement (as adminstered in the U.S. of A.). For games, an "A" applies to advertising allotment, another "A" to amazing game play, as well as an "A" for fanancial succass. At farst, at was davalopers usang tha term, but than vidao jaurnalists, game raviewars and saftware campanaes startad ta call tham AAA gamas. Aftar a faw yaars, pablashars startad cansadaraaa gaaas ta ba AAA bafara ralaasa, whaah than jaatafaad larga aavalapaant and maraatang baaaaaa. Asaaaaaaaaaaa, an aaa aaaaa aaa aaaaaaa.
Sometimes "Element Hiding Helper for Adblock Plus" can help with that. It can block an HTML element based on its name, id, size, etc. When you use it, it selects the element under your mouse pointer and outlines it in red. Then you can use the hotkeys (there's a handy popup that displays them) to select the exact element you want and block it.
It's also useful for blocking certain ad boxes. As long as the element has some kind of identifying feature, you should be able to block it. Some sites get around it by randomizing the name/id or not having any identifying features.
a - a, ka - a, sa - a, ta - a, na - a, ha - a, ma - a, ya - a, ra - a, wa - a i - i, ki - i, shi - i, chi - i, ni - i, hi - i, mi - i, ri - i, etc... n -> n
Decipher these words/phrases: oaouoaiau aiaouoaiau oniia aaaai
No. It's the word "more", which is confusing when used with percentages.
A word with 6 typos would have "20% more typos" than a word with 5 typos. However, this is in itself disputable, because even if a word has more than one error in it, we often just say "it's a typo" instead of "it has 5 typos in it". For instance, if you transpose two letters by mistake (e.g. "flase"), do you say it has 2 typos in it? I know I don't.
Even if we accept the premise that each incorrect letter counts as one "typo", then you would say that "galse" has "20% typos", not "20% MORE typos".
The poster's logic is this: "false" has 0 typos in it. "galse" has 1 typo in it. Since 1 is 100% more than 0, it has "100% more typos".
However, this is incorrect. 1 is NOT 100% more than 0. (1 - 0) divided by 0 is infinite. For it to be true, "false" would have to have 1 typo in it. Since "galse" differs by only 1 letter, this means that it has 2 typos in it, and therefore "100% more typos". Unfortunately, it makes no sense to say that.
Yeah, but... what's the difference between your avatar and a copy of your avatar? If you simulate multiple copies of the yourself, how do you know which one your "consciousness" is transferred to? Maybe it's one of them. Maybe it's none of them. Maybe it's ALL of them, simultaneously. Of course that seems like it's impossible, but YOU'D never know that (or even be able to know that).
What do you define as the "real" you? How do you know that you're not a copy of the real you? Put it another way: How do you know that you're you? Like the characters in a book, the characters don't know that they're not real (unless the author makes it so). You can try to argue, "But I'm conscious, and I feel that I'm real." However, you can't PROVE it to me. Your avatar's copy can say that exact same thing to me and I wouldn't be able to tell either way.
Given an infinite amount of processing power, you could simulate an unlimited number of copies of yourself and an unlimited number of copies of everyone else. Which ones are "real"?
Slashdot Mirror
More like "Devour, Digest, Defecate".
But I thought being disconnected from reality was the goal- oh, I see what you did there. You win. Game over.
Did we hit the comet hard enough to deflect it away from Earth?
Today's xkcd: http://www.xkcd.com/1740/
And in the paragraph directly following the first graph, it says "Around 108 billion people have lived on our planet. This means that about 6.5% of all people ever born are alive right now. (5) As per 2011 estimates from Carl Haub (2011), “How Many People Have Ever Lived on Earth?” Population Reference Bureau." That's the SAME reference that's cited by Wikipedia.
Los Santos (based on Los Angeles) is a city that's located in the state of San Andreas (based on California). Time to bone up on fictional geography!
Can't be. The 6 is missing.
Is there a reason you add it to your Contacts list, instead of just blocking the number itself?
I don't have an iPhone, but according to Apple Support, you can go to your call log (called "Recents") and block the number without having to add it. Apparently you click on the "i" icon and scroll to the bottom.
With an Android phone, you can go into your call log, long press the number you want to block and then select the block option.
(see what I did there?)
You made a Corning pun?
But enough talk, halve at you!
According to Rothenberg:
So, they weren't "uninvited". That would be a "lie". No, they were banned outright. Cuz that's better.
The first thing that came to mind: "I don't know where you get your delusions, _____ _____." (fill in the blanks)
Put an end to unattributed "malgislation" (eww, let's keep working on finding the right word) and then you'll really be heroes.
"Illegislation"?
There are a lot of posts about bundled software being installed by default (like toolbars), but this is just the example from the article's intro. The article is actually about the "Infinity Popup Toolkit". This is not an application that you install on your PC - it's a bunch of JavaScript and Flash code that runs from a web page. Its purpose is to bypass your popup/ad blocker and security controls so that it can show you popup ads.
The question was whether this should be considered malware, since the definition of malware is somewhat vague. The conclusion was that it clearly is malware and should be blocked. This is seems quite obvious, since the software's intention is to ignore your wishes (blocking popups) in order to show you ads. It's quite clear that no one would WANT to run this software, because if they wanted to see popups (which is no one ever), then they wouldn't turn on their popup/ad blocker in the first place.
You can block Internet ads now? Why didn't anyone tell me about this sooner!? I'm installing this right now! Thanks!!
Javascript developers think they're amazing (Javascript 760000, followed by HTML at a measly 323)
https://github.com/search?utf8...
Anytime an article acknowledges an "AAA title", this is all anyone asks. AAA ain't an acronym. Actually, it alludes to an academic grading arrangement (as adminstered in the U.S. of A.). For games, an "A" applies to advertising allotment, another "A" to amazing game play, as well as an "A" for fanancial succass. At farst, at was davalopers usang tha term, but than vidao jaurnalists, game raviewars and saftware campanaes startad ta call tham AAA gamas. Aftar a faw yaars, pablashars startad cansadaraaa gaaas ta ba AAA bafara ralaasa, whaah than jaatafaad larga aavalapaant and maraatang baaaaaa. Asaaaaaaaaaaa, an aaa aaaaa aaa aaaaaaa.
You can buy 200 unbiased reviews? What, do they use Mechanical Turk for this?
Side note: It's unbiased if they don't know anything about the product!
Is this what's known as a "copypasta"?
Sometimes "Element Hiding Helper for Adblock Plus" can help with that. It can block an HTML element based on its name, id, size, etc. When you use it, it selects the element under your mouse pointer and outlines it in red. Then you can use the hotkeys (there's a handy popup that displays them) to select the exact element you want and block it.
It's also useful for blocking certain ad boxes. As long as the element has some kind of identifying feature, you should be able to block it. Some sites get around it by randomizing the name/id or not having any identifying features.
ITT: QQ on cue/queue
Let's do this for Japanese!
a - a, ka - a, sa - a, ta - a, na - a, ha - a, ma - a, ya - a, ra - a, wa - a
i - i, ki - i, shi - i, chi - i, ni - i, hi - i, mi - i, ri - i, etc...
n -> n
Decipher these words/phrases:
oaouoaiau
aiaouoaiau
oniia
aaaai
No. It's the word "more", which is confusing when used with percentages.
A word with 6 typos would have "20% more typos" than a word with 5 typos. However, this is in itself disputable, because even if a word has more than one error in it, we often just say "it's a typo" instead of "it has 5 typos in it". For instance, if you transpose two letters by mistake (e.g. "flase"), do you say it has 2 typos in it? I know I don't.
Even if we accept the premise that each incorrect letter counts as one "typo", then you would say that "galse" has "20% typos", not "20% MORE typos".
The poster's logic is this:
"false" has 0 typos in it.
"galse" has 1 typo in it.
Since 1 is 100% more than 0, it has "100% more typos".
However, this is incorrect. 1 is NOT 100% more than 0. (1 - 0) divided by 0 is infinite. For it to be true, "false" would have to have 1 typo in it. Since "galse" differs by only 1 letter, this means that it has 2 typos in it, and therefore "100% more typos". Unfortunately, it makes no sense to say that.
Therefore, the poster's logic is galse.
No, it charges your credit card.
Is this what's known as "vaporware"?
Yeah, but... what's the difference between your avatar and a copy of your avatar? If you simulate multiple copies of the yourself, how do you know which one your "consciousness" is transferred to? Maybe it's one of them. Maybe it's none of them. Maybe it's ALL of them, simultaneously. Of course that seems like it's impossible, but YOU'D never know that (or even be able to know that).
What do you define as the "real" you? How do you know that you're not a copy of the real you? Put it another way: How do you know that you're you? Like the characters in a book, the characters don't know that they're not real (unless the author makes it so). You can try to argue, "But I'm conscious, and I feel that I'm real." However, you can't PROVE it to me. Your avatar's copy can say that exact same thing to me and I wouldn't be able to tell either way.
Given an infinite amount of processing power, you could simulate an unlimited number of copies of yourself and an unlimited number of copies of everyone else. Which ones are "real"?