Apparently, it's a bug in Firefox. Running 3.6.3 on Windows does the same thing: if you click the "Ignore this warning" in the window with the page's source, nothing happens.
At my office, we enjoy our privacy. For looking at each other's code, we use screen sharing. Anyone can access anyone's screen at any time, but we only do it when someone asks us to. Privacy problem solved by everyone facing the center and "check this out" solved by screen sharing.
So, because I'm in China and I "borrow" your American identity doesn't constitute any abuse? Not even if I talk to your clients and convince them that I am you and demand money from them and threaten them with legal hassle if they refuse to pay? Not even if I empty your bank accounts? These bastards are using the domain as key element in a their scam of using this poor guy's identity to defraud his old customers. Someone tries to explain it to you and you still think that is not clear evidence of abuse?
What the fuck could possibly constitute "abuse" for you? We are now witnessing the birth of a new generation: the slashtards.
And what's wrong with that? If a server can't handle much load, it's probably not that important and it is also less valuable to the user if there is greater chance in getting a browser error page instead of what the user expects. Slashdotting, power failure, tsumani, cleaning lady tripping over the network cables, poor server-side scripting, badly configured web server... What's the difference anyway? The user's experience is degraded by all these factors, therefore the site should receive lower ranking. I've always thought search engines take page load times into consideration.
1) "there was nothing" - nobody ever said there was nothing before the big bang 2) "not one atom" - atoms formed very late after the big bang began 3) "there was nothing"... "tiny thing showed up out of thin air" - so you say there was nothing but there was air? 4) "and exploded" - the big bang is an expansion (still taking place today), not an explosion 5) "the most basic laws of physics say that there is absolutely no possible way the physical universe should be here" - no, they don't say that 6) "life popped up" - it didn't pop up, it evolved 7) "Yeah I feel sooo dumb for wondering why the physical universe could not have just popped into place from thin air for no reason" - you should 8) "no ability to think for them self" - spelling fail: "no ability to think for themselves" So, we have at least 8 critical mistakes in 10 sentences. No, wait, I see one more: 9) I smell a hasty generalization logical fallacy, since you don't mention agnostics (probably because you don't even know nor care that they exist). What IS that smell? 10) "elistist simpletons" - yeah, this explains the smell of nonsense bullshit There we go. 10 mistakes in 10 sentences.
I don't understand what is wrong with everyone on the internet. You cry about privacy but willingly give out your real-life information to these websites.
"We" (I'm not part of the "we") willingly give it away, because that's what their TOS say: if you use false information, you don't exist, therefore your account will be deleted, because it doesn't belong to anyone (or you are impersonating someone, which is against the law in any country on Earth).
But I just hate logging in to my computer and getting bombarded with four or five different update notices.
If you actually perform the update, they go away. I've never encountered your "problem" and I've never seen any crapware installed by Adobe's updater set to automatic.
These lab tests always seem to fail in the real world.
True, but the concept is still pretty cool! What if you apply it to something else, like a "smart" book? What if the text automatically changes the appearance so that people with eye problems won't need to wear their glasses or will be able to read when even their glasses couldn't help. Those "details" you speak of are actually details. As a product, in its current state, Text 2.0 will fail... but don't forget, there are still many people with lots of money out there who are interested in these weird projects. All one has to see is the potential of a product, not the product its self.
You're close. The winner will be the one with the most common icon. People are stupid and Microsoft knows that, so all it has to do is advertise IE as being "The Internet" (remember AOL?) and say that "Internet Explorer" is the only browser Microsoft recommends, for obvious ("objective") reasons such as compatibility, stability, etc.
I care about other things as well, startup times for example (won by Opera), but if I had to pick one most important category for me, it's page load times. YMMV, obviously.
I care about security and safety, so I just avoid IE. I care about privacy so I avoid Chrome. I care about bloatness so I avoid Opera. I care about functionality so I choose Firefox. I think it's the lesser of all evils. Correct me if I am wrong.
Yeah, but after a while, you gain enough experience to be on your own. It also ensures that you have someone to mentor you about the obligations and rights of journalists in the real world (not just on paper).
If you're acutely aware, and certain, that your non-action is allowing an illegal activity to take place then why not intervene?
Because, in some parts of the world you are accused of conspiracy for just allowing an illegal activity to take place if you or your property were in any way involved even if you were not aware, while in other parts of the world it is strictly prohibited to do anything about it except call the police. In many places, if you see someone raping a child, the only action you are allowed to make is call the police. If you try to help the child, you may go to prison as well, because whatever happened was... none of your business. Both of these "rules" are democratic countries.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, you are so far behind the schedule! When's the last time you've been on Freenet?
Apparently, it's a bug in Firefox. Running 3.6.3 on Windows does the same thing: if you click the "Ignore this warning" in the window with the page's source, nothing happens.
At my office, we enjoy our privacy. For looking at each other's code, we use screen sharing. Anyone can access anyone's screen at any time, but we only do it when someone asks us to. Privacy problem solved by everyone facing the center and "check this out" solved by screen sharing.
Do you have anything to support that FUD?
(Judging by your comment's score, currently -1)
Time for a car analogy:
Talk about bad timing...
What the hell is Winni? A Google search for Winni didn't help much.
Yes, nothing seems to work besides the homepage. And even the :hover styles are broken.
So, because I'm in China and I "borrow" your American identity doesn't constitute any abuse? Not even if I talk to your clients and convince them that I am you and demand money from them and threaten them with legal hassle if they refuse to pay? Not even if I empty your bank accounts? These bastards are using the domain as key element in a their scam of using this poor guy's identity to defraud his old customers. Someone tries to explain it to you and you still think that is not clear evidence of abuse?
What the fuck could possibly constitute "abuse" for you? We are now witnessing the birth of a new generation: the slashtards.
[citation needed]
Really, I'd love to get my hands on the document that admits what you say. Thanks in advance!
And what's wrong with that? If a server can't handle much load, it's probably not that important and it is also less valuable to the user if there is greater chance in getting a browser error page instead of what the user expects. Slashdotting, power failure, tsumani, cleaning lady tripping over the network cables, poor server-side scripting, badly configured web server... What's the difference anyway? The user's experience is degraded by all these factors, therefore the site should receive lower ranking. I've always thought search engines take page load times into consideration.
Since you're posting comments on Slashdot, I guess I could tell you to do exactly the same thing.
1) "there was nothing" - nobody ever said there was nothing before the big bang ... "tiny thing showed up out of thin air" - so you say there was nothing but there was air?
2) "not one atom" - atoms formed very late after the big bang began
3) "there was nothing"
4) "and exploded" - the big bang is an expansion (still taking place today), not an explosion
5) "the most basic laws of physics say that there is absolutely no possible way the physical universe should be here" - no, they don't say that
6) "life popped up" - it didn't pop up, it evolved
7) "Yeah I feel sooo dumb for wondering why the physical universe could not have just popped into place from thin air for no reason" - you should
8) "no ability to think for them self" - spelling fail: "no ability to think for themselves"
So, we have at least 8 critical mistakes in 10 sentences. No, wait, I see one more:
9) I smell a hasty generalization logical fallacy, since you don't mention agnostics (probably because you don't even know nor care that they exist).
What IS that smell?
10) "elistist simpletons" - yeah, this explains the smell of nonsense bullshit
There we go. 10 mistakes in 10 sentences.
I don't understand what is wrong with everyone on the internet. You cry about privacy but willingly give out your real-life information to these websites.
"We" (I'm not part of the "we") willingly give it away, because that's what their TOS say: if you use false information, you don't exist, therefore your account will be deleted, because it doesn't belong to anyone (or you are impersonating someone, which is against the law in any country on Earth).
Yes, the headlines used to be a lot closer to reality.
But I just hate logging in to my computer and getting bombarded with four or five different update notices.
If you actually perform the update, they go away. I've never encountered your "problem" and I've never seen any crapware installed by Adobe's updater set to automatic.
These lab tests always seem to fail in the real world.
True, but the concept is still pretty cool! What if you apply it to something else, like a "smart" book? What if the text automatically changes the appearance so that people with eye problems won't need to wear their glasses or will be able to read when even their glasses couldn't help. Those "details" you speak of are actually details. As a product, in its current state, Text 2.0 will fail... but don't forget, there are still many people with lots of money out there who are interested in these weird projects. All one has to see is the potential of a product, not the product its self.
You're close. The winner will be the one with the most common icon. People are stupid and Microsoft knows that, so all it has to do is advertise IE as being "The Internet" (remember AOL?) and say that "Internet Explorer" is the only browser Microsoft recommends, for obvious ("objective") reasons such as compatibility, stability, etc.
Oh, the irony!
Ah, so you're the one who found it. Sorry about that...
I care about other things as well, startup times for example (won by Opera), but if I had to pick one most important category for me, it's page load times. YMMV, obviously.
I care about security and safety, so I just avoid IE. I care about privacy so I avoid Chrome. I care about bloatness so I avoid Opera. I care about functionality so I choose Firefox. I think it's the lesser of all evils. Correct me if I am wrong.
It's called "awareness."
Yeah, but after a while, you gain enough experience to be on your own. It also ensures that you have someone to mentor you about the obligations and rights of journalists in the real world (not just on paper).
If you're acutely aware, and certain, that your non-action is allowing an illegal activity to take place then why not intervene?
Because, in some parts of the world you are accused of conspiracy for just allowing an illegal activity to take place if you or your property were in any way involved even if you were not aware, while in other parts of the world it is strictly prohibited to do anything about it except call the police. In many places, if you see someone raping a child, the only action you are allowed to make is call the police. If you try to help the child, you may go to prison as well, because whatever happened was... none of your business. Both of these "rules" are democratic countries.
The Ph key? Is that next to the Any key?
I want some of your pot.