Uninformed people who, instead of doing any amount of research on a topic for themselves to actually learn something, instead decide to jump online and "just ask questions". Those people shit in my cheerios.
Really, this is the question Adblock Plus needs to answer.
The ad-blocking company needs to explain to you why you would want to block ads? Are you paying attention? You realize they make the ad-blocker, right?
I still don't get why this setting exists to begin with.
Did you pay them to download and install the ad-blocker? That's why it exists.
Not that I have a problem with anyone doing that, it just strikes me as a little strange that the entirety of his "about me" page on his site is 3 pictures of him cooking and sleeping outside, along with his name. Apparently what defines this person, other than his name, is his ability to cook and sleep outside.
Hopefully, the NSA will be able to lean on twitter to geolocate his posts, and drop a bunker buster on him.
Right, because bombing Moscow in order to carry out the extra-judicial assassination of an American citizen is such a fantastic outcome here. You're a moron.
Putin isn't "keeping him around", he's still in Russia because it's not legal for him to leave the country because the US canceled his travel documents. Don't get me wrong, Putin loses absolutely no sleep that Snowden is in Russia, but to even imagine that Snowden is serving the Russian government when his entire plight is due to the fact that he exposed unconstitutional illegal programs by the US government is laughable. Snowden is more a patriot to this country than someone with your view could ever be. He alerted the US population to illegal overreaches by the US government against the population, and you want to call him a pawn of Russia. You're an idiot. Someone would only do what he did if they believed they were serving the best interests of the US people first and foremost, not the interests of any government.
What are you confused about? You realize that people in Russia have access to computers and food, right? You understand that people who are sympathetic to Snowden have the ability to travel freely, right? On which point are you unclear?
Does he have a job?
Yes.
Is he working for the Russian government?
There's no indication that he is. He's working for a private company.
Admittantly I haven't been following the story that closely.
"Admittantly" is not a word, and it's obvious that you haven't followed anything. But you're "just asking questions", aren't you?
Judging by the commercial that shows someone putting an iPhone up to the payment reader, and nothing happening, then the clerk shakes their hand "no" and a Samsung phone replaces the iPhone and the payment gets accepted, I'm going to guess that every phone will require its own payment reader. Apparently Samsung is trying to show iPhones not working with their payment reader as a feature, according to the commercial at least.
We've already lost 1000 jobs shutting down a bank that made the treasury money.
Jesus Fucking Christ, we need to get that 0.0003% of the population back to work immediately or we're all doomed! Because god forbid some people working jobs that aren't needed have to find another job. Next up, let's all shed a tear for the poor coal miners. We better just keep on pumping that coal in our power plants because otherwise, holy fucking shit, those people might need to find a 21st century job. And, naturally, the #1 goal of every person in this country today is to make sure that every other person keeps their job. We must avoid change at every possible opportunity and at all cost. In fact, I think we need to fire up this nation's telegraph industry again to get all of those telegraph operators their jobs back. Imagine how great that would be for everyone!
If McConnell left government forever I wouldn't be able to contain myself. Let him take his ill-gotten millions and go rot somewhere where it doesn't affect my life. He's the poster boy of what is wrong with government. And he looks and sounds like a turtle.
That graph does show him to the left of literally every other Republican, though, however they measure "ideology". I didn't read through the methodology.
Sorry, I was trying to find the point of your post but I got distracted by all of the random punctuation and bolding. I'm sure you have a point there, but you definitely do like to bury it in sugary fluff. Consider focusing more on the content that you want to get across and less on trying to point out what that content is. Good writing doesn't need to point out the point. Bolding half your post has the side effect of making the un-bolded parts seem unimportant.
APK, you know what "P.S." means, right? In case you don't, I'll offer this common definition:
A postscript (P.S.) is an afterthought, thought of occurring after the letter has been written and signed. The term comes from the Latin post scriptum, an expression meaning "written after" (which may be interpreted in the sense of "that which comes after the writing").
Now, why in the hell does your text after the P.S. contain 39% more text than the text before the P.S.? This is Slashdot, we know you can't edit your posts to add things after the fact, so instead of putting in one or more postscripts, just finish your thought man. And what's with the little "=>" symbol? Are you trying to point out that the postscript is that text just to the right of where you write "P.S."? Let me tell you brother, that's obvious. People trying to interpret the things that you type don't need additional random punctuation whose only purpose is to point out the obvious but instead just end up adding additional confusion. Things like separating sentences with a plus sign (we understand, the next thought is supposed to follow the previous thought), occasionally switching to an ampersand then back to a plus sign, beginning sentences that are not footnotes with an asterisk, etc.
Yes, I stand by "stupid cracker". If you have a more apt term, I'm keen to hear it.
How about literally any other term that doesn't make it sound like the race of the person is the real problem? Their racism might be the problem, but their race is not the problem. Maybe "racist" might be a better term than a racist term.
Am I seriously explaining this?
They claimed it was a bomb hoax to try to cover their racist asses.
Look at that, now it's a statement that you don't have to be racist to agree with.
If their priority was to defuse the bomb, then move it and detonate it, then really their only option would have been to comply with his instructions, get the switch position to defuse the tilt sensor, send in a robot to hit the switches, and try and move the thing into the desert to blow it up. No idea how they would actually move it though, that sounds like a hell of a job for people to do with a bomb that weighs almost half a ton and has 7 other detonators on it. But, the first step would be to disable the tilt switch which means giving in to his demands. It sounds like the FBI didn't want to give into his demands though, so defusing the tilt switch was not an option.
I think you're still the moron. The guy above said this:
Fuck this paranoid bullshit. Until terrorism is a real actual problem that harms people as much as say, falling into pools accidentally there's no reason for this allergic reaction of a response.
He's trying to say that maybe people should stop shitting their pants whenever they see an exposed wire. I agree with that sentiment (which, in the context of the story that we are talking about, makes perfect sense - it was an allergic over-reaction to a non-event). But you, for some reason, apparently think that he meant this:
So, you're cool with someone deliberately putting a fake bomb on a bench in a shopping mall, no legal consequences? Please be specific. Are you also OK with waving unloaded guns in people's faces since, you know, they won't actually die, so who cares what they think?
You've taken avoiding allergic reactions to non-events because everyone is paranoid, and now you're talking about deliberate bomb hoaxes and brandishing a weapon in public (note that the charge for that does not require the weapon to be loaded). You've taken the argument to the extreme. I'm sure you know which logical fallacy that is. It's the one often used by morons.
Open up this page in a browser with no ad-blockers (don't worry, I just did it). Scroll down and find the ads. Do you see the precious revenue-generating ads? No? Well, that's because there aren't any.
The Alexa rank for wikipedia.org is #7 globally. If you want to read about their strategy, here is it.
So keep the list going. I've yet to see a suitable alternative.
Wikipedia's 14+ years aren't convincing you yet? You want to know what the difference is between Wikipedia and your own sites which you can't make financially viable without advertising? People actually value the content at Wikipedia, that's why they donate. If you want to determine whether people find the content on your site to be valuable, then put up a donation button and page and explain your position. If your donations bring in enough money to run the site, then people think it's valuable. If they don't, then you're like anyone else with nothing to say and the expectation that people should pay them via advertising to say it, like you have some inherent right to post your babble and be paid for it.
Great if you have the facilities and network to do it. And if you're quirky and interesting enough that someone seems to think affiliating with your website is worth their while.
There are any number of merchandisers just waiting for you to give them a call, while they take their percentage and give you the rest. It's not difficult, and it does not require connections. What it does require is people who think that your content is interesting or quirky enough to make it worth their while and want to pay to support it. I own $50 t-shirts that are not worth $50, but I didn't buy them expecting a superior-quality shirt that would last 20 years. It's not a difficult concept. If you have a valuable site then people will support it, end of story. If you can't manage to meet your bandwidth bill then you have a lot of people using your site who don't care whether it goes away. And that's why people turn to advertising, because they think they have the right to be paid for their stuff that no one really cares about.
That's a terrible analogy. If I walked into a store and someone wearing a clown suit jumped in front of me with a neon sign shouting about things that I should buy, I would just turn around and walk out of the store. Retail stores do not employ that type of advertising, the kind of ads that feature inside stores are not at all similar about the kind of ads that you find online. If Idiocracy comes to pass and you walk inside a store and it's filled with screens shouting ads at you, then you're going to notice a marked decline of people visiting retail locations.
You're not paying for the site, you're paying for how to get there.
Great. If they want me to pay to access their content, fine, set up a paywall and let me decide if it's worth it. If they want to offer content for free and expect to be reimbursed for the bandwidth that I'm using, then they can ask my ISP for their cut of my bandwidth bill.
Any evidence that they would reject apps with "Android" in the title? I think there's some evidence, let me try to find the app store review guidelines somewhere and I'll get back to you with some rule about how they will reject apps that mention the name of any other mobile platform, if such a rule exists.
Slashdot Mirror
Uninformed people who, instead of doing any amount of research on a topic for themselves to actually learn something, instead decide to jump online and "just ask questions". Those people shit in my cheerios.
Really, this is the question Adblock Plus needs to answer.
The ad-blocking company needs to explain to you why you would want to block ads? Are you paying attention? You realize they make the ad-blocker, right?
I still don't get why this setting exists to begin with.
Did you pay them to download and install the ad-blocker? That's why it exists.
Everything about this article suggests some raving idiot sitting in the dark lamenting how the world won't adhere to his bullshit beliefs.
That's ridiculous. He's not sitting in the dark, he's sitting next to his car cooking and sleeping.
Not that I have a problem with anyone doing that, it just strikes me as a little strange that the entirety of his "about me" page on his site is 3 pictures of him cooking and sleeping outside, along with his name. Apparently what defines this person, other than his name, is his ability to cook and sleep outside.
It's not even clear to me that what's being described in the article is even an attack.
Then what is Apple patching?
Hopefully, the NSA will be able to lean on twitter to geolocate his posts, and drop a bunker buster on him.
Right, because bombing Moscow in order to carry out the extra-judicial assassination of an American citizen is such a fantastic outcome here. You're a moron.
Putin isn't "keeping him around", he's still in Russia because it's not legal for him to leave the country because the US canceled his travel documents. Don't get me wrong, Putin loses absolutely no sleep that Snowden is in Russia, but to even imagine that Snowden is serving the Russian government when his entire plight is due to the fact that he exposed unconstitutional illegal programs by the US government is laughable. Snowden is more a patriot to this country than someone with your view could ever be. He alerted the US population to illegal overreaches by the US government against the population, and you want to call him a pawn of Russia. You're an idiot. Someone would only do what he did if they believed they were serving the best interests of the US people first and foremost, not the interests of any government.
What is he doing in Russia?
Uh, well, he's living and working.
But how does he have a computer or food?
What are you confused about? You realize that people in Russia have access to computers and food, right? You understand that people who are sympathetic to Snowden have the ability to travel freely, right? On which point are you unclear?
Does he have a job?
Yes.
Is he working for the Russian government?
There's no indication that he is. He's working for a private company.
Admittantly I haven't been following the story that closely.
"Admittantly" is not a word, and it's obvious that you haven't followed anything. But you're "just asking questions", aren't you?
Note that advertisement, advertiser, advertising, etc each have 1 letter D. "Add" is a mathematics term.
Judging by the commercial that shows someone putting an iPhone up to the payment reader, and nothing happening, then the clerk shakes their hand "no" and a Samsung phone replaces the iPhone and the payment gets accepted, I'm going to guess that every phone will require its own payment reader. Apparently Samsung is trying to show iPhones not working with their payment reader as a feature, according to the commercial at least.
We've already lost 1000 jobs shutting down a bank that made the treasury money.
Jesus Fucking Christ, we need to get that 0.0003% of the population back to work immediately or we're all doomed! Because god forbid some people working jobs that aren't needed have to find another job. Next up, let's all shed a tear for the poor coal miners. We better just keep on pumping that coal in our power plants because otherwise, holy fucking shit, those people might need to find a 21st century job. And, naturally, the #1 goal of every person in this country today is to make sure that every other person keeps their job. We must avoid change at every possible opportunity and at all cost. In fact, I think we need to fire up this nation's telegraph industry again to get all of those telegraph operators their jobs back. Imagine how great that would be for everyone!
If McConnell left government forever I wouldn't be able to contain myself. Let him take his ill-gotten millions and go rot somewhere where it doesn't affect my life. He's the poster boy of what is wrong with government. And he looks and sounds like a turtle.
Right, and Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz flew down for photo ops in support of her liberal ideology.
That graph does show him to the left of literally every other Republican, though, however they measure "ideology". I didn't read through the methodology.
Sorry, I was trying to find the point of your post but I got distracted by all of the random punctuation and bolding. I'm sure you have a point there, but you definitely do like to bury it in sugary fluff. Consider focusing more on the content that you want to get across and less on trying to point out what that content is. Good writing doesn't need to point out the point. Bolding half your post has the side effect of making the un-bolded parts seem unimportant.
APK, you know what "P.S." means, right? In case you don't, I'll offer this common definition:
A postscript (P.S.) is an afterthought, thought of occurring after the letter has been written and signed. The term comes from the Latin post scriptum, an expression meaning "written after" (which may be interpreted in the sense of "that which comes after the writing").
Now, why in the hell does your text after the P.S. contain 39% more text than the text before the P.S.? This is Slashdot, we know you can't edit your posts to add things after the fact, so instead of putting in one or more postscripts, just finish your thought man. And what's with the little "=>" symbol? Are you trying to point out that the postscript is that text just to the right of where you write "P.S."? Let me tell you brother, that's obvious. People trying to interpret the things that you type don't need additional random punctuation whose only purpose is to point out the obvious but instead just end up adding additional confusion. Things like separating sentences with a plus sign (we understand, the next thought is supposed to follow the previous thought), occasionally switching to an ampersand then back to a plus sign, beginning sentences that are not footnotes with an asterisk, etc.
Seriously, all those emoji glyphs and not a single crudely-drawn penis.
Yes, I stand by "stupid cracker". If you have a more apt term, I'm keen to hear it.
How about literally any other term that doesn't make it sound like the race of the person is the real problem? Their racism might be the problem, but their race is not the problem. Maybe "racist" might be a better term than a racist term.
Am I seriously explaining this?
They claimed it was a bomb hoax to try to cover their racist asses.
Look at that, now it's a statement that you don't have to be racist to agree with.
Well. Then I'm glad I live in the good ol' USA and not whatever third-world fascist backwater you clearly live in.
If their priority was to defuse the bomb, then move it and detonate it, then really their only option would have been to comply with his instructions, get the switch position to defuse the tilt sensor, send in a robot to hit the switches, and try and move the thing into the desert to blow it up. No idea how they would actually move it though, that sounds like a hell of a job for people to do with a bomb that weighs almost half a ton and has 7 other detonators on it. But, the first step would be to disable the tilt switch which means giving in to his demands. It sounds like the FBI didn't want to give into his demands though, so defusing the tilt switch was not an option.
I think you're still the moron. The guy above said this:
Fuck this paranoid bullshit. Until terrorism is a real actual problem that harms people as much as say, falling into pools accidentally there's no reason for this allergic reaction of a response.
He's trying to say that maybe people should stop shitting their pants whenever they see an exposed wire. I agree with that sentiment (which, in the context of the story that we are talking about, makes perfect sense - it was an allergic over-reaction to a non-event). But you, for some reason, apparently think that he meant this:
So, you're cool with someone deliberately putting a fake bomb on a bench in a shopping mall, no legal consequences? Please be specific. Are you also OK with waving unloaded guns in people's faces since, you know, they won't actually die, so who cares what they think?
You've taken avoiding allergic reactions to non-events because everyone is paranoid, and now you're talking about deliberate bomb hoaxes and brandishing a weapon in public (note that the charge for that does not require the weapon to be loaded). You've taken the argument to the extreme. I'm sure you know which logical fallacy that is. It's the one often used by morons.
Unless you're an EE student or Flavor Flav, yes it's generally unusual to just be cruising around with a clock.
They claimed it was a bomb hoax to try to cover their stupid cracker asses.
What a stupid cracker may look like.
By all means though, this story doesn't have nearly enough racism. Please continue to add more.
Open up this page in a browser with no ad-blockers (don't worry, I just did it). Scroll down and find the ads. Do you see the precious revenue-generating ads? No? Well, that's because there aren't any.
The Alexa rank for wikipedia.org is #7 globally. If you want to read about their strategy, here is it.
So keep the list going. I've yet to see a suitable alternative.
Wikipedia's 14+ years aren't convincing you yet? You want to know what the difference is between Wikipedia and your own sites which you can't make financially viable without advertising? People actually value the content at Wikipedia, that's why they donate. If you want to determine whether people find the content on your site to be valuable, then put up a donation button and page and explain your position. If your donations bring in enough money to run the site, then people think it's valuable. If they don't, then you're like anyone else with nothing to say and the expectation that people should pay them via advertising to say it, like you have some inherent right to post your babble and be paid for it.
Great if you have the facilities and network to do it. And if you're quirky and interesting enough that someone seems to think affiliating with your website is worth their while.
There are any number of merchandisers just waiting for you to give them a call, while they take their percentage and give you the rest. It's not difficult, and it does not require connections. What it does require is people who think that your content is interesting or quirky enough to make it worth their while and want to pay to support it. I own $50 t-shirts that are not worth $50, but I didn't buy them expecting a superior-quality shirt that would last 20 years. It's not a difficult concept. If you have a valuable site then people will support it, end of story. If you can't manage to meet your bandwidth bill then you have a lot of people using your site who don't care whether it goes away. And that's why people turn to advertising, because they think they have the right to be paid for their stuff that no one really cares about.
That's a terrible analogy. If I walked into a store and someone wearing a clown suit jumped in front of me with a neon sign shouting about things that I should buy, I would just turn around and walk out of the store. Retail stores do not employ that type of advertising, the kind of ads that feature inside stores are not at all similar about the kind of ads that you find online. If Idiocracy comes to pass and you walk inside a store and it's filled with screens shouting ads at you, then you're going to notice a marked decline of people visiting retail locations.
You're not paying for the site, you're paying for how to get there.
Great. If they want me to pay to access their content, fine, set up a paywall and let me decide if it's worth it. If they want to offer content for free and expect to be reimbursed for the bandwidth that I'm using, then they can ask my ISP for their cut of my bandwidth bill.
Any evidence that they would reject apps with "Android" in the title? I think there's some evidence, let me try to find the app store review guidelines somewhere and I'll get back to you with some rule about how they will reject apps that mention the name of any other mobile platform, if such a rule exists.