I don't think their position is naive. People who block ads might be more savvy than the general population, but those people have also gone out of their way specifically to block ads. It's true that they do hate advertising, or at least the practical effects of it (slow page loading, possible malware, etc).
Sadly, they've caught on to this and now don't even serve up the answer on the page.
Is that why I don't see them on Google any more?
I seem to remember blocking experts-exchange.com from appearing in my search results on Google if I'm logged in, but I don't even see a place where I can manage that list now.
Our belief is that if someone doesn't like them, and they won't click on them, any impressions served to them will only annoy them-- plus, serving ads to people who won't click on them harms campaign performance.
This is a really good point that I haven't seen other sites make. They're right about it, especially the "campaign performance". If 20% of the user base is not going to click on an ad anyway, then why bother padding the numbers to say you served ads to that additional group? Just don't serve them ads, and then your click-through rate improves because you've cut out a chunk of people who aren't going to click on them anyway. That might make the numbers for the overall ad campaign better, which may increase the rates that they can then charge for ads in the future, because they have a higher clickthrough rate.
Therefore: allowing ad-blockers onto your site increases your advertising revenue. Suck it, Forbes.
When did you try it? It sounds like they released the first beta in the beginning of November, the second beta in the middle of December, and they've been working on bug fixes since then. Their blog has several posts through January and this month talking about all of the fixes and improvements they're doing. The posts have well over 100 comments each, so people are actively helping them test. It sounds like they're trying to hit a deadline but I don't see any release date mentioned for the first stable version. I'll switch to Vivaldi regardless whenever the Opera deal goes through, but hopefully they're able to push out a good stable version by then. They show a lot of promise, so some random transsexual person online saying it sucks because they tried a pre-release version at some undetermined point in the future isn't exactly a great argument against using the browser (if you're wondering why it matters that you're a random "transsexual" person instead of just a random person, I would ask why you feel the need to point that fact out). I installed a version when it was initially announced and wasn't all that impressed, it had basic browser functionality, but I'm glad that they are working on it. I'm glad that anyone is working on alternative browsers, the more choice the better. The Brave browser looks interesting as well, but they just started distributing their own binaries instead of linking people to Github so they're probably a little farther behind the Vivaldi team in terms of getting to a stable version. But having features built-in to specifically block tracking and advertising is something that hopefully other people decide to emulate.
APK, you are pathetic. Truly pathetic. Grow the hell up man, get a fucking grip on yourself. You're trolling me and several other people, all day, literally. That's how you spend your time? What the hell is wrong with you? Get a grip and fuck off with the constant trolling.
I don't think anyone is holding back anything. The gear shifters in question, introduced in the Charger and 300 in 2012, have been replaced in those 2 cars for 2015 and were replaced in the Cherokee for 2016. They already got replaced and now they're being investigated because they are "not intuitive" and offer "poor tactile and visual feedback to the driver, increasing the potential for unintended gear selection." Fiat Chrysler was probably generally aware of that, which is why they replaced them, but they're still being investigated anyway.
If they try for progress and fail there's no reason why we shouldn't try to learn whatever lessons we can from their failure.
. They actually host the images on a sub-domain of their main site.
That doesn't mean the ads are hosted on their own server. That subdomain could point to a completely separate server, it could be pointing to an ad network for all you know. Each subdomain has its own IP address, they do not have to be on the same server or even in the same network.
The print subscription price is less than $25 per year and that of course includes physical printing and mailing.
Well, it also includes a shit-ton of ads spread all over the magazine. Think about what they would charge for an ad-free print edition. It would be more than $52 per year.
That 67,000 miles per hour number is relative to the sun. The entire solar system orbits the galaxy at nearly 500,000 miles per hour relative to the galactic center.
This is what happens when an object breaks up and the pieces strike a planet, you get a line of impacts. If these fragments both came from the same object then they would have to be very far apart, so the breakup of the object would have happened long ago, and even so they still probably wouldn't strike in the same place. The Earth is not stationary, the equator is rotating at around 1,000 miles per hour and the planet is moving through space at 67,000 miles per hour. So for 2 impact events that occur 11 days apart, you're talking about the earth moving over 17 million miles through space during that time and completing around 11 rotations. If you think that these fragments came from the same object then you're talking about something that must have been in geosynchronous orbit, where the object was orbiting the planet roughly above the area where they came down (probably a little "farther"), and it took one fragment 11 days longer than the other to fall from orbit. They've already identified rocks as belonging to the object that fell, so we aren't talking about man-made space junk, and there aren't any rocky satellites in geosynchronous orbit. In fact, the only rocky satellite in orbit around the planet is the moon, and it is most definitely not in a geosynchronous orbit. The odds are anything but "very high".
Grow up APK. You're a delusional immature sociopath, and people know it. Against a man in his 50s who thinks that posting anonymous messages in support of himself is clever, there's really nothing I can say to make you realize how stupid you look. You think that "high comedy" is calling someone "queer". That is definitely high comedy for people in the range of 11-12 years old. You have illustrated time and time again that your emotional maturity level is about at that level. If your emotional maturity was even at a fraction of your intelligence then you may be able to see yourself for how ridiculous you are, but with your maturity level where it is there's not a chance. Even though I do feel bad for you, still, you need to grow the hell up and move on. You lost this battle a long time ago.
Yeah it looks like the image is from the first strike, not the second. It says the guy who was killed was going to a water tank to drink and that it damaged the water tank and several vehicles. That doesn't sound like something that landed in the middle of a rice paddy.
What I find strange is that there was a strike on Jan. 26th, and so a scientist was camping in the area, and then another strike in the same area only a couple weeks later. What are the odds of that?
So, you just want to let them go? Forget all this trial business and just SAY that up front....
If the military can't prove that they should be held, then yes they should be released. Right now there are 46 people there who are designated to be detained indefinitely because the military says they are too dangerous to release, and that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute them. That doesn't sit right with me, I don't like the idea of that. If the military can prove that they are too dangerous to release, fine, let them. If the military just wants to claim that they are very dangerous but they have no evidence then I don't like what that says about us as a country.
I realize that several of those people that might get released would try to fight us again, and frankly I'm more comfortable with that possibility than letting our military just claim that they are going to be held indefinitely without trial. If they get released and go right back to the battlefield, fine, we'll kill them on the battlefield. If they want to plot attacks then what's the difference if it's them plotting or one of the existing free people plotting? Either way, the intelligence services should be able to do their job and stop the attacks, and then you have evidence that you can use to try them and legitimately lock them away. If the people have no desire to fight at all, and they don't want to plot, they just want to go try to live their lives, then I don't want my military keeping them locked up just because the military claims they are dangerous.
I don't see much of a very valid reason why they should have fewer rights than I do, I don't see much of a reason why the military should be able to lock them up indefinitely because there isn't enough evidence to charge them. I just don't like it, that's not who we are supposed to be as a country. The fact that those people may (or may not) have taken up arms against our soldiers doesn't diminish their humanity.
The point is to get through to a person though, and then waste their time. Listen to the video in TFA. The bot will ask the caller if they are a person, and if the caller does not stop to consider the question then the bot will press 1 a few times to get through to a person, and then proceeds to waste that person's time. In other words, the bot does exactly what a robocall bot does, tries to reach a person then wastes their time.
Oh yeah? Well I know someone who makes a piece of software that modifies the hosts file, with the intention of blocking advertisements, but then in order to market his software he goes online and spams Slashdot. He knows that people hate spam, but he has to feed his ego.
No, APK, it's still obvious when you post. Guess who the only person is that I've ever seen capitalize my username.
Seriosuly man, this is getting really sad for you at this point. I'm sorry you feel the need to keep on replying to everything that I post. Really, it doesn't look good. Linking to this discussion does not look good for you. You need to just drop it and move on.
Yeah, I almost included a mention of a presidential veto in my comment above. Even if Congress refuses to adopt any of his policies, he can sure as hell veto the more onerous things they decide to pinch off.
I know Sanders won't get everything he wants, but socialism isn't something positive in this country.
The term isn't seen as positive, but in practice it's fairly well liked. Social Security and Medicare are pretty good examples. Many of his policies are favored by a majority. His problem is really an image problem. If he called himself a Social Democrat he would be more well-received than calling himself a Democratic Socialist, even though they both describe the same kinds of policies. Referring to himself as a socialist causes a kind of knee-jerk reaction in a lot of people who just instantly hate him. The label "socialist" is the only label that will cause fewer people to vote for you than if you label yourself "atheist". That's changing among younger people, but it's a fact. It has a bad reputation (possibly deservedly so), but in practice a little bit of socialism can do a lot of good. That's what he's trying to illustrate with the comparisons to some of the European socialist countries like Denmark or the Nordic countries.
But, all labels aside, this is really what I want to move away from. That cluster in the upper right (Clinton included) I think is a problem for this country. We just need more voices and more ideas, and we as a country need to be able to listen and react to those in a rational way without just casually dismissing anything that isn't conservative authoritarian. It may take someone on the far left to help pull the country more towards the center.
I'm also saying that what ever they did to get into Gitmo, a military run establishment on foreign soil is a matter for the military NOT our criminal courts.
So, don't question the military then, right? Whenever the military decides to lock anyone up for life you just sort of assume that the person deserves that, right?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think their position is naive. People who block ads might be more savvy than the general population, but those people have also gone out of their way specifically to block ads. It's true that they do hate advertising, or at least the practical effects of it (slow page loading, possible malware, etc).
Sadly, they've caught on to this and now don't even serve up the answer on the page.
Is that why I don't see them on Google any more?
I seem to remember blocking experts-exchange.com from appearing in my search results on Google if I'm logged in, but I don't even see a place where I can manage that list now.
It's definitely a good start.
Our belief is that if someone doesn't like them, and they won't click on them, any impressions served to them will only annoy them-- plus, serving ads to people who won't click on them harms campaign performance.
This is a really good point that I haven't seen other sites make. They're right about it, especially the "campaign performance". If 20% of the user base is not going to click on an ad anyway, then why bother padding the numbers to say you served ads to that additional group? Just don't serve them ads, and then your click-through rate improves because you've cut out a chunk of people who aren't going to click on them anyway. That might make the numbers for the overall ad campaign better, which may increase the rates that they can then charge for ads in the future, because they have a higher clickthrough rate.
Therefore: allowing ad-blockers onto your site increases your advertising revenue. Suck it, Forbes.
When did you try it? It sounds like they released the first beta in the beginning of November, the second beta in the middle of December, and they've been working on bug fixes since then. Their blog has several posts through January and this month talking about all of the fixes and improvements they're doing. The posts have well over 100 comments each, so people are actively helping them test. It sounds like they're trying to hit a deadline but I don't see any release date mentioned for the first stable version. I'll switch to Vivaldi regardless whenever the Opera deal goes through, but hopefully they're able to push out a good stable version by then. They show a lot of promise, so some random transsexual person online saying it sucks because they tried a pre-release version at some undetermined point in the future isn't exactly a great argument against using the browser (if you're wondering why it matters that you're a random "transsexual" person instead of just a random person, I would ask why you feel the need to point that fact out). I installed a version when it was initially announced and wasn't all that impressed, it had basic browser functionality, but I'm glad that they are working on it. I'm glad that anyone is working on alternative browsers, the more choice the better. The Brave browser looks interesting as well, but they just started distributing their own binaries instead of linking people to Github so they're probably a little farther behind the Vivaldi team in terms of getting to a stable version. But having features built-in to specifically block tracking and advertising is something that hopefully other people decide to emulate.
APK, you are pathetic. Truly pathetic. Grow the hell up man, get a fucking grip on yourself. You're trolling me and several other people, all day, literally. That's how you spend your time? What the hell is wrong with you? Get a grip and fuck off with the constant trolling.
I don't think anyone is holding back anything. The gear shifters in question, introduced in the Charger and 300 in 2012, have been replaced in those 2 cars for 2015 and were replaced in the Cherokee for 2016. They already got replaced and now they're being investigated because they are "not intuitive" and offer "poor tactile and visual feedback to the driver, increasing the potential for unintended gear selection." Fiat Chrysler was probably generally aware of that, which is why they replaced them, but they're still being investigated anyway.
If they try for progress and fail there's no reason why we shouldn't try to learn whatever lessons we can from their failure.
What is a "display ad"? Is that the opposite of a text ad?
. They actually host the images on a sub-domain of their main site.
That doesn't mean the ads are hosted on their own server. That subdomain could point to a completely separate server, it could be pointing to an ad network for all you know. Each subdomain has its own IP address, they do not have to be on the same server or even in the same network.
The print subscription price is less than $25 per year and that of course includes physical printing and mailing.
Well, it also includes a shit-ton of ads spread all over the magazine. Think about what they would charge for an ad-free print edition. It would be more than $52 per year.
That 67,000 miles per hour number is relative to the sun. The entire solar system orbits the galaxy at nearly 500,000 miles per hour relative to the galactic center.
This is what happens when an object breaks up and the pieces strike a planet, you get a line of impacts. If these fragments both came from the same object then they would have to be very far apart, so the breakup of the object would have happened long ago, and even so they still probably wouldn't strike in the same place. The Earth is not stationary, the equator is rotating at around 1,000 miles per hour and the planet is moving through space at 67,000 miles per hour. So for 2 impact events that occur 11 days apart, you're talking about the earth moving over 17 million miles through space during that time and completing around 11 rotations. If you think that these fragments came from the same object then you're talking about something that must have been in geosynchronous orbit, where the object was orbiting the planet roughly above the area where they came down (probably a little "farther"), and it took one fragment 11 days longer than the other to fall from orbit. They've already identified rocks as belonging to the object that fell, so we aren't talking about man-made space junk, and there aren't any rocky satellites in geosynchronous orbit. In fact, the only rocky satellite in orbit around the planet is the moon, and it is most definitely not in a geosynchronous orbit. The odds are anything but "very high".
Hong Kong (Taiwan)
What does HK have to do with Taiwan?
Grow up APK. You're a delusional immature sociopath, and people know it. Against a man in his 50s who thinks that posting anonymous messages in support of himself is clever, there's really nothing I can say to make you realize how stupid you look. You think that "high comedy" is calling someone "queer". That is definitely high comedy for people in the range of 11-12 years old. You have illustrated time and time again that your emotional maturity level is about at that level. If your emotional maturity was even at a fraction of your intelligence then you may be able to see yourself for how ridiculous you are, but with your maturity level where it is there's not a chance. Even though I do feel bad for you, still, you need to grow the hell up and move on. You lost this battle a long time ago.
Yeah it looks like the image is from the first strike, not the second. It says the guy who was killed was going to a water tank to drink and that it damaged the water tank and several vehicles. That doesn't sound like something that landed in the middle of a rice paddy.
What I find strange is that there was a strike on Jan. 26th, and so a scientist was camping in the area, and then another strike in the same area only a couple weeks later. What are the odds of that?
So, you just want to let them go? Forget all this trial business and just SAY that up front....
If the military can't prove that they should be held, then yes they should be released. Right now there are 46 people there who are designated to be detained indefinitely because the military says they are too dangerous to release, and that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute them. That doesn't sit right with me, I don't like the idea of that. If the military can prove that they are too dangerous to release, fine, let them. If the military just wants to claim that they are very dangerous but they have no evidence then I don't like what that says about us as a country.
I realize that several of those people that might get released would try to fight us again, and frankly I'm more comfortable with that possibility than letting our military just claim that they are going to be held indefinitely without trial. If they get released and go right back to the battlefield, fine, we'll kill them on the battlefield. If they want to plot attacks then what's the difference if it's them plotting or one of the existing free people plotting? Either way, the intelligence services should be able to do their job and stop the attacks, and then you have evidence that you can use to try them and legitimately lock them away. If the people have no desire to fight at all, and they don't want to plot, they just want to go try to live their lives, then I don't want my military keeping them locked up just because the military claims they are dangerous.
I don't see much of a very valid reason why they should have fewer rights than I do, I don't see much of a reason why the military should be able to lock them up indefinitely because there isn't enough evidence to charge them. I just don't like it, that's not who we are supposed to be as a country. The fact that those people may (or may not) have taken up arms against our soldiers doesn't diminish their humanity.
The point is to get through to a person though, and then waste their time. Listen to the video in TFA. The bot will ask the caller if they are a person, and if the caller does not stop to consider the question then the bot will press 1 a few times to get through to a person, and then proceeds to waste that person's time. In other words, the bot does exactly what a robocall bot does, tries to reach a person then wastes their time.
Oh yeah? Well I know someone who makes a piece of software that modifies the hosts file, with the intention of blocking advertisements, but then in order to market his software he goes online and spams Slashdot. He knows that people hate spam, but he has to feed his ego.
I think that rupturing a telemarketer's eardrum would be considered a feature, not a bug.
No, APK, it's still obvious when you post. Guess who the only person is that I've ever seen capitalize my username.
Seriosuly man, this is getting really sad for you at this point. I'm sorry you feel the need to keep on replying to everything that I post. Really, it doesn't look good. Linking to this discussion does not look good for you. You need to just drop it and move on.
And, seriously, grow up.
Yeah, I almost included a mention of a presidential veto in my comment above. Even if Congress refuses to adopt any of his policies, he can sure as hell veto the more onerous things they decide to pinch off.
I know Sanders won't get everything he wants, but socialism isn't something positive in this country.
The term isn't seen as positive, but in practice it's fairly well liked. Social Security and Medicare are pretty good examples. Many of his policies are favored by a majority. His problem is really an image problem. If he called himself a Social Democrat he would be more well-received than calling himself a Democratic Socialist, even though they both describe the same kinds of policies. Referring to himself as a socialist causes a kind of knee-jerk reaction in a lot of people who just instantly hate him. The label "socialist" is the only label that will cause fewer people to vote for you than if you label yourself "atheist". That's changing among younger people, but it's a fact. It has a bad reputation (possibly deservedly so), but in practice a little bit of socialism can do a lot of good. That's what he's trying to illustrate with the comparisons to some of the European socialist countries like Denmark or the Nordic countries.
But, all labels aside, this is really what I want to move away from. That cluster in the upper right (Clinton included) I think is a problem for this country. We just need more voices and more ideas, and we as a country need to be able to listen and react to those in a rational way without just casually dismissing anything that isn't conservative authoritarian. It may take someone on the far left to help pull the country more towards the center.
He sure is a persistent little fella. "Persistent" in the sense that he has a fever-like reaction to being argued with, anyway.
And what, let them just die in a prison in Cuba?
I'm also saying that what ever they did to get into Gitmo, a military run establishment on foreign soil is a matter for the military NOT our criminal courts.
So, don't question the military then, right? Whenever the military decides to lock anyone up for life you just sort of assume that the person deserves that, right?
We have solid evidence to support their detention. But that evidence is classified.
Then how do we know how solid that evidence is?
An Anonymous Coward calling out my name, huh? You're a funny guy, APK.
Seriously though, grow up. And, really, my balls aren't going to suck themselves.