Or just avoid getting married to someone you have not lived with long enough to find out about all their flaws.
More like avoid getting married at all. That's a sure ticket to the friend zone.
Dating strangers is like shooting fish in a barrel. There might be plenty of fish, but you're guaranteed to end up with... a cold dead fish. Whereas what you described is more like winning the jackpot in the lottery... unless you blow it royally, you ought to be set for life... but as a general rule it's just not going to happen.
picketing is legal if you do not prevent people from going about their business. As soon as you prevent people from going into the store, or keep workers from crossing the picket line to get to their job, etc. then that's illegal.
But your very presence prevents someone else from occupying the space that you're taking up. If a crowd of people descends on a business, its legitimate customers would have to press their way through that mass to do business there. Ever tried to get to the front of a concert?
Yeah, I was wondering when someone would point that out. Too many clueless people thinking they understand copyright law when they obviously have no clue.
Copyright is held by the photographer unless there is paperwork stating otherwise. While the family probably got a license to have the photo duplicated and rights to distribute it, I doubt the photographer signed away his copyright.
The barrier to entry isn't monetary though; it's just publicity. Legal intervention isn't necessary because if YouTube tried to abuse its monopoly (say, if its ads grew overly annoying), people would gradually start looking for alternatives, which would open the market to competitors.
A natural monopoly exists, to a degree, since YouTube does what it does well enough that there is really no need for anyone else to do it. Therefore, simply to compete with it decently, you pretty much have to either do something significantly better than it (which is difficult) or capitalize on a niche market that YouTube isn't geared toward (hello RedTube!).
Anti-dumping laws are designed to prevent someone (who has the ability to make a high initial investment) from gaining a monopoly by selling product at a loss in order to drive competitors out of business. The intent of this, obviously, would be to gain a monopoly, then raise prices exorbitantly high and make back their original loss quickly. Then with their monopoly they would be fairly immune to up-coming competitors, since a high initial investment would then be required to enter the market, and the company dominating the market could simply drop their prices again to force small competitors to go bankrupt.
If you're profiting from it all along, you're not "dumping"... and if you do drive the higher-priced competition out of business and happen to gain a dominant position in the market, you still can't price-gouge anyway because if giving it away is a viable business option then there's no barrier to entry into the market. If you tried to gouge prices someone could just undercut you similarly.
The ability of a browser to execute code in webpages makes it inevitable that eventually we'll have webpages that are behaving as if they were applications. The word isn't being abused, it's evolving.
For that matter, you could argue that the ability of the server-side code to maintain databases and execute code to generate a web page had already made this inevitable. It's just slightly less efficient in some ways than client-side scripting, as it requires a full HTTP request and response for every action. Blackboard (the site all of you recent college students remember using) is a "web application" and it's been around since 1997.
I've nothing wrong with Google or Bing reading my searches I input into them and improving their product that way - I don't think its fair if the other company steals this data off other search engines.
Bing-o.
If MS wants to use its search bar to anonymously send search statistics from Bing searches, I'm okay with that.
I'm less okay with them using it to send search statistics from searches performed on other search engines.
But, you only need to click the bookmark once per page now (not once per post that you should see and don't...).
It's... mostly not too glitchy.
It seems like it should be a greasemonkey script. But I'm not much good at writing those.
I also wouldn't mind seeing at least the stubs of all replies to a selected comment...right now, if two or more people reply to a comment, we have to play the "let's find the reply" game on each one individually...
The 1st decade began on January 1, year 1. The 2nd decade began on January 1, year 11. (...snip...) The 201st decade began on January 1, year 2001. The 202nd decade began on January 1, year 2011 (last month).
btw, how did you like the click-fest to see this reply? I really hope Slashdot fixes this new interface soon, it's so much clunkier than the old one...
I have a bookmark called "Slashdot - Open parent tree".
But yeah, it would be nice if Slashdot would make a "selected" comment automatically open its parent comments. You know, so you could actually see it. And this applies to "unread" comments that get opened by keyboard navigation shortcuts, too...
I'm pretty sure that what they did was at least a violation of Google's TOS. RTFA.
What they did:
Take a search which results in 0 results on both Google and Bing: the manufactured nonsense-word "hiybbprqag".
Then activate a feature they'd secretly built in to Google: a single, hand-picked page is artificially returned as the single and only search result for that term.
A few days/weeks/months later - oh look, there it is showing up on Bing. (In case you're wondering, it's The Wiltern seating chart and tickets to The Wiltern. Google no longer lists it as a result, rather Google has tons of other pages that have now cropped up mentioning that word. No surprise.)
It's basically the same as catching a cheater by writing wrong answers on the sheet you suspect they're copying answers from.
Stonehenge itself was a tool, and probably a better example of a tool that has truly "died". We're not even quite sure how it was used, or what it was used for.
women have certain requirements, and I take care to fulfill them as best I can (remaining employed, getting a degree, owning my own free-standing property *and* remaining in shape) in order to attract and retain a mate
Since when do those things have anything to do with attracting women?
My gainfully employed, 4-year-degree holding, property owning, 21.5 BMI ass is obviously doing something wrong, because it's not working.
Have the javascript hash document.body.innerHTML and return that too.
Different browsers might handle it slightly differently, but there's a finite number of hashes you should expect. Any modification of the HTML done by a MITM will show up as an invalid hash.
It seems like it would be pretty easy to write a GreaseMonkey script to add a pre-defined set of search terms to every search, so you could write out a list in the form -site:spamsite1.com -site:spamsite2.com etc.
You could also probably edit the Firefox search engine definition to do it automatically when you search from the search bar.
Slashdot Mirror
Or just avoid getting married to someone you have not lived with long enough to find out about all their flaws.
More like avoid getting married at all. That's a sure ticket to the friend zone.
Dating strangers is like shooting fish in a barrel. There might be plenty of fish, but you're guaranteed to end up with... a cold dead fish. Whereas what you described is more like winning the jackpot in the lottery... unless you blow it royally, you ought to be set for life... but as a general rule it's just not going to happen.
picketing is legal if you do not prevent people from going about their business. As soon as you prevent people from going into the store, or keep workers from crossing the picket line to get to their job, etc. then that's illegal.
But your very presence prevents someone else from occupying the space that you're taking up. If a crowd of people descends on a business, its legitimate customers would have to press their way through that mass to do business there. Ever tried to get to the front of a concert?
Yeah, I was wondering when someone would point that out. Too many clueless people thinking they understand copyright law when they obviously have no clue.
Copyright is held by the photographer unless there is paperwork stating otherwise. While the family probably got a license to have the photo duplicated and rights to distribute it, I doubt the photographer signed away his copyright.
Yikes, that would be terrible... they'd have to re-scrape all that publicly available data all over again...
(Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time...)
The barrier to entry isn't monetary though; it's just publicity. Legal intervention isn't necessary because if YouTube tried to abuse its monopoly (say, if its ads grew overly annoying), people would gradually start looking for alternatives, which would open the market to competitors.
A natural monopoly exists, to a degree, since YouTube does what it does well enough that there is really no need for anyone else to do it. Therefore, simply to compete with it decently, you pretty much have to either do something significantly better than it (which is difficult) or capitalize on a niche market that YouTube isn't geared toward (hello RedTube!).
Anti-dumping laws are designed to prevent someone (who has the ability to make a high initial investment) from gaining a monopoly by selling product at a loss in order to drive competitors out of business. The intent of this, obviously, would be to gain a monopoly, then raise prices exorbitantly high and make back their original loss quickly. Then with their monopoly they would be fairly immune to up-coming competitors, since a high initial investment would then be required to enter the market, and the company dominating the market could simply drop their prices again to force small competitors to go bankrupt.
If you're profiting from it all along, you're not "dumping"... and if you do drive the higher-priced competition out of business and happen to gain a dominant position in the market, you still can't price-gouge anyway because if giving it away is a viable business option then there's no barrier to entry into the market. If you tried to gouge prices someone could just undercut you similarly.
The ability of a browser to execute code in webpages makes it inevitable that eventually we'll have webpages that are behaving as if they were applications. The word isn't being abused, it's evolving.
For that matter, you could argue that the ability of the server-side code to maintain databases and execute code to generate a web page had already made this inevitable. It's just slightly less efficient in some ways than client-side scripting, as it requires a full HTTP request and response for every action. Blackboard (the site all of you recent college students remember using) is a "web application" and it's been around since 1997.
I've nothing wrong with Google or Bing reading my searches I input into them and improving their product that way - I don't think its fair if the other company steals this data off other search engines.
Bing-o.
If MS wants to use its search bar to anonymously send search statistics from Bing searches, I'm okay with that.
I'm less okay with them using it to send search statistics from searches performed on other search engines.
Yikes! That's alotta script, just to see the parent comments!
The current incarnation of it is "Slashdot - Fix discussion keybindings" and looks like this:
javascript:if(window._k);else{window._k=function(e){try{if(e.target.tagName=='TEXTAREA'||e.target.tagName=='INPUT'||String('\rADFGSW\xbc\xbe\xdb\xdd').indexOf(String.fromCharCode(e.keyCode))<1)return;}catch(e){};var%20t=setTimeout(function(){for(var%20z=document,d=z.getElementsByTagName('div'),i=0,e,c=0;i<d.length;i++)if(d[i].className=='currcomment'){e=d[i].id.split('_').pop();i=[e];while(z.getElementById('tree_'+e)&&z.getElementById('tree_'+e).parentNode.id!='commentlisting')i.push(e=z.getElementById('tree_'+e).parentNode.id.split('_').pop());while(i.length>1)if(z.getElementById('tree_'+(e=i.pop()))&&z.getElementById('tree_'+e).className.indexOf('oneline')>=0)D2.setFocusComment(Number(e));setTimeout('D2.selectParent('+i.pop()+');',100);i=d.length;}},100);};window.addEventListener("keydown",window._k,false);window._k();};void(0);
But, you only need to click the bookmark once per page now (not once per post that you should see and don't...).
It's ... mostly not too glitchy.
It seems like it should be a greasemonkey script. But I'm not much good at writing those.
I also wouldn't mind seeing at least the stubs of all replies to a selected comment...right now, if two or more people reply to a comment, we have to play the "let's find the reply" game on each one individually...
Yeah, that would be nice.
AM and PM would start at 0 and go to 11:59, rather than starting at 12:00, going up to 12:59, rolling over to 1:00, then counting up to 11:59
You got that horribly mangled. Using 24-hour notation and standard mathematical inequality signs:
00:00 = PM
00:00 < AM <= 12:00
12:00 < PM <= 23:59
GGGP didn't say the 2010's. He said this decade. Obviously he thinks your method of referring to decades is dumb.
At least, to be consistent, after the 80s and 90s should come the 100s and 110s.
The 1st decade began on January 1, year 1.
The 2nd decade began on January 1, year 11.
(...snip...)
The 201st decade began on January 1, year 2001.
The 202nd decade began on January 1, year 2011 (last month).
Yikes. (I broke commenting.) No, try this instead.
javascript:if(window._1x);else{window._1x=true;window.addEventListener("keydown",function(e){if(e.target.tagName=='TEXTAREA'||e.target.tagName=='INPUT')return;var%20t=setTimeout(function(){for(var%20d=document.getElementsByTagName('div'),i=0,e,c=0;i<d.length;i++)if(d[i].className=='currcomment'){e=d[i].id.split('_').pop();i=[e];while(document.getElementById('tree_'+e)&&document.getElementById('tree_'+e).parentNode.id!='commentlisting')i.push(e=document.getElementById('tree_'+e).parentNode.id.split('_').pop());while(i.length>1)if(document.getElementById('tree_'+(e=i.pop()))&&document.getElementById('tree_'+e).className.indexOf('oneline')>=0)D2.setFocusComment(Number(e));setTimeout('D2.selectParent('+i.pop()+');',100);i=d.length;}},100);},false);};void(0);
This sort of fixes it. Bookmark it and use it (once) on every Slashdot topic page.
javascript:if(window._1x);else{window._1x=true;window.addEventListener("keydown",function(){var%20t=setTimeout(function(){for(var%20d=document.getElementsByTagName('div'),i=0,e,c=0;i<d.length;i++)if(d[i].className=='currcomment'){e=d[i].id.split('_').pop();i=[e];while(document.getElementById('tree_'+e)&&document.getElementById('tree_'+e).parentNode.id!='commentlisting')i.push(e=document.getElementById('tree_'+e).parentNode.id.split('_').pop());while(i.length>1)if(document.getElementById('tree_'+(e=i.pop()))&&document.getElementById('tree_'+e).className.indexOf('oneline')>=0)D2.setFocusComment(Number(e));setTimeout('D2.selectParent('+i.pop()+');',500);i=d.length;}},100);},false);};void(0);
btw, how did you like the click-fest to see this reply? I really hope Slashdot fixes this new interface soon, it's so much clunkier than the old one...
I have a bookmark called "Slashdot - Open parent tree".
It looks something like this:
javascript:for(var%20d=document.getElementsByTagName('div'),i=0,e;i<d.length;i++)if(d[i].className=='currcomment'){e=d[i].id.split('_').pop();i=[e];while(document.getElementById('tree_'+e))i.push(e=document.getElementById('tree_'+e).parentNode.id.split('_').pop());while(i.length>1)if(document.getElementById('tree_'+(e=i.pop()))&&document.getElementById('tree_'+e).className.indexOf('oneline')>=0)D2.setFocusComment(Number(e));setTimeout('D2.selectParent('+i.pop()+');',500);i=d.length;}void(0);
But yeah, it would be nice if Slashdot would make a "selected" comment automatically open its parent comments. You know, so you could actually see it. And this applies to "unread" comments that get opened by keyboard navigation shortcuts, too...
That's a bit like saying buggy whips are still in use since an auto's gas pedal does basically the same thing.
I'm pretty sure that what they did was at least a violation of Google's TOS. RTFA.
What they did:
Take a search which results in 0 results on both Google and Bing: the manufactured nonsense-word "hiybbprqag".
Then activate a feature they'd secretly built in to Google: a single, hand-picked page is artificially returned as the single and only search result for that term.
A few days/weeks/months later - oh look, there it is showing up on Bing. (In case you're wondering, it's The Wiltern seating chart and tickets to The Wiltern. Google no longer lists it as a result, rather Google has tons of other pages that have now cropped up mentioning that word. No surprise.)
It's basically the same as catching a cheater by writing wrong answers on the sheet you suspect they're copying answers from.
Stonehenge itself was a tool, and probably a better example of a tool that has truly "died". We're not even quite sure how it was used, or what it was used for.
women have certain requirements, and I take care to fulfill them as best I can (remaining employed, getting a degree, owning my own free-standing property *and* remaining in shape) in order to attract and retain a mate
Since when do those things have anything to do with attracting women?
My gainfully employed, 4-year-degree holding, property owning, 21.5 BMI ass is obviously doing something wrong, because it's not working.
(obligatory hand-wave) Those aren't the women I'm looking for.
Have the javascript hash document.body.innerHTML and return that too.
Different browsers might handle it slightly differently, but there's a finite number of hashes you should expect. Any modification of the HTML done by a MITM will show up as an invalid hash.
It seems like it would be pretty easy to write a GreaseMonkey script to add a pre-defined set of search terms to every search, so you could write out a list in the form -site:spamsite1.com -site:spamsite2.com etc.
You could also probably edit the Firefox search engine definition to do it automatically when you search from the search bar.
Note to self: Never, ever, try out a feminine hygine product... even in the privacy of my own bathroom.
Not even once.