Cool, except as pointed out earlier, some of GOOGLES OWN ADS ARE BLOCKED. Also the standards were created before Google was even on the board. I'm sure Google weren't even on the board at all you'd have some "Follow The Money" conspiracy lined up anyway.
You're heavily implying that the reason Google wouldn't be blocking their own ads is some anticompetitive thing and not just that the ads followed the standards. If you didn't mean to imply it, why did you say "I mean, sure it sounds neutral. But it's not."
Yes, if they violate Google's "good ad" policy. (Technically 3rd party, but they're on the board.) Odds that Google's ads don't meet their own policy? I mean, sure it sounds neutral. But it's not.
So you even know the policy is by a 3rd party but are being disingenuous anyway? The policy covers how the ad behaves, not who delivers it. Nothing in what makes an ad "good" is restricted to something only Google can make.
* expand HTML/CSS so that javascript isn't needed
** "onVisible" which loads contents into a div from a provided URL
** expand CSS to have (non-chainable) animation events that can be activated by "onClick"/"onHover"/etc...
Not sure how much of that belongs in CSS, though that's really semantics. Even still, it falls under "use a different language that would evolve to do the same stuff anyway."
restrict javascript's communication/loading/computational capability
** only allow a single domain to load javascript from
** limit javascript to being able to interact a specified (in the html document) list of domains
** remove lots of the "features" that enable bullshit like this
** make javascript computation a resource which will halt after so instructions are executed
Sure, your web apps will need special whitelisting to work but nobody gives a shit.
Okay so something that is restricted in functionality by design? Sounds great
The embrace of "use javascript to do whatever the fuck you want" has really come back to bite users. It makes people money, so it's not going anywhere until someone gets fed up with all the cat and mouse games and makes a legit system that doesn't rely on it.
Which would either be:
Full page refreshes for every action:
Sites are free to do this now (even you or any of the armchair developers in here could build a site doing this!), but they probably wouldn't because users are used to instant response in their actions
Use some other language:
Which would then evolve to be able to do the same things as JavaScript anyway.
Yeah sure, and if the phone number being spammed is for your business which depends on new people calling it, like for reservations? What if you're a freelancer?
Edge is quite standards compliant, even doing better in Safari in some cases. Yes there may be some things that Edge doesn't support, but one could cherry-pick features that any given browser doesn't support.
Why, back in my day we called people, and of course the person on the other end of the telephone doesn't hear anything until I finish a sentence... oh wait.
Yeah and if they're so far away, walking and biking wouldn't be an option either. That's my point. Rather than the employer pay their employees more, they'll just expect their employees to make unreasonable sacrifices.
It hasn't been updated as needed. One example is the current signaling system. It is 60 - 80 years old. It's highly inaccurate compared to more moderns systems, and if it needs to be repaired, parts are difficult/impossible to come by.
That, like so many things, needed money/time for maintenance/upgrades, but it was never allocated. Now the service has gotten so poor due to the lack of maintenance that the cost to be up to date is prohibitive, thus the spiral.
If the MTA were someone with diabetes health risk, we're past "you should cut back on sugar" and now at "well, guess we're amputating your foot"
1. That doesn't mention anything about a monthly bill
2. Even if it did, it would be about a future version of Windows and therefore not the cause of deadwill69's issue
Something that has no citation, about a future version of Windows, to support an argument against a current version of Windows, gets Modded +5 Insightful
Slashdot Mirror
OK so this whole thing came from something in TFS that you're just choosing to believe is wrong. It all makes sense now.
Cool, except as pointed out earlier, some of GOOGLES OWN ADS ARE BLOCKED. Also the standards were created before Google was even on the board. I'm sure Google weren't even on the board at all you'd have some "Follow The Money" conspiracy lined up anyway.
I'm personally not 100% sure what a "Compliant ad" is...
Helpful examples of what is considered NOT compliant.
You're heavily implying that the reason Google wouldn't be blocking their own ads is some anticompetitive thing and not just that the ads followed the standards. If you didn't mean to imply it, why did you say "I mean, sure it sounds neutral. But it's not."
Yes, if they violate Google's "good ad" policy. (Technically 3rd party, but they're on the board.) Odds that Google's ads don't meet their own policy? I mean, sure it sounds neutral. But it's not.
So you even know the policy is by a 3rd party but are being disingenuous anyway?
The policy covers how the ad behaves, not who delivers it. Nothing in what makes an ad "good" is restricted to something only Google can make.
Good thing systemd alternatives haven't had any bugs ever!
In February, Chrome started blocking ads (including those owned or served by Google)
M$ BAD! I didn't RTFA or RTFS, BUT, BAD M$ BAD!! Now to wait and get +5 insightful!!
Ah yes, literally the only two purposes for JavaScript are games or harvesting information.
Now who's using a dichotomy?
Right, you just want reduced functionality and think that users as a whole would be fine with that.
* expand HTML/CSS so that javascript isn't needed ** "onVisible" which loads contents into a div from a provided URL ** expand CSS to have (non-chainable) animation events that can be activated by "onClick"/"onHover"/etc...
Not sure how much of that belongs in CSS, though that's really semantics. Even still, it falls under "use a different language that would evolve to do the same stuff anyway."
restrict javascript's communication/loading/computational capability ** only allow a single domain to load javascript from ** limit javascript to being able to interact a specified (in the html document) list of domains ** remove lots of the "features" that enable bullshit like this ** make javascript computation a resource which will halt after so instructions are executed
Sure, your web apps will need special whitelisting to work but nobody gives a shit.
Okay so something that is restricted in functionality by design? Sounds great
First off, it's not a dichotomy since there is the 3rd option of Status Quo. Second, if you can provide a third (fourth?) situation, I'm all ears.
The embrace of "use javascript to do whatever the fuck you want" has really come back to bite users. It makes people money, so it's not going anywhere until someone gets fed up with all the cat and mouse games and makes a legit system that doesn't rely on it.
Which would either be:
Full page refreshes for every action:
Sites are free to do this now (even you or any of the armchair developers in here could build a site doing this!), but they probably wouldn't because users are used to instant response in their actions
Use some other language:
Which would then evolve to be able to do the same things as JavaScript anyway.
"Just block everything not in your contact list".
Yeah sure, and if the phone number being spammed is for your business which depends on new people calling it, like for reservations? What if you're a freelancer?
WebKit, which isn't the same as Blink.
Yes I know Blink is a fork of WebKit, and WebKit is a fork of KHTML.
Edge is quite standards compliant, even doing better in Safari in some cases.
Yes there may be some things that Edge doesn't support, but one could cherry-pick features that any given browser doesn't support.
Evil technology!
Why, back in my day we called people, and of course the person on the other end of the telephone doesn't hear anything until I finish a sentence... oh wait.
Yeah and if they're so far away, walking and biking wouldn't be an option either.
That's my point. Rather than the employer pay their employees more, they'll just expect their employees to make unreasonable sacrifices.
It hasn't been updated as needed.
One example is the current signaling system. It is 60 - 80 years old. It's highly inaccurate compared to more moderns systems, and if it needs to be repaired, parts are difficult/impossible to come by.
That, like so many things, needed money/time for maintenance/upgrades, but it was never allocated. Now the service has gotten so poor due to the lack of maintenance that the cost to be up to date is prohibitive, thus the spiral.
If the MTA were someone with diabetes health risk, we're past "you should cut back on sugar" and now at "well, guess we're amputating your foot"
That means employers would not be able to hire people for minimum wage; they will have to pay them more.
HAHAHAHA
No, the response will be for them to ride a bike, walk, or just live closer.
1. That doesn't mention anything about a monthly bill
2. Even if it did, it would be about a future version of Windows and therefore not the cause of deadwill69's issue
That's Slashdot for you.
Something that has no citation, about a future version of Windows, to support an argument against a current version of Windows, gets Modded +5 Insightful
That's not from "not paying a bill" though.
Anyone who pirates (or whatever word you want to use) should be forced to do their own job for free.
Maybe they've evolved past needing meat and became vegetarian! Then they'll come to Earth and never shut up about it.