Ads can be sold by the clickthrough rate or the number of impressions. The thing is, when you watch an ad on TV, no one expects you to run out and buy something. Sometimes you don't need to click through for it to work. As an example, slashdot has ads for Server Beach. I was looking for a host for a client and thought, oh, lemme try server beach, their ad said they had good prices. I'm going to recommend server beach to this client.
If you mean offensive in a "Let's lie to the public about numerous important issues to start a war" sense, Then yes they were very offensive.
If you mean that it's offensive in a Bu5h suX, so does @5hkr0ft sense, then you're on shaky ground. There are trollish and immature posts such as that. I have also, however, seen numerous well articulated posts by the dems of slashdot.
If you read it fast it reads wrong. I initially read it wrong, read the sentence twice and went 'oh'. Even if you do read it wrong and don't reread it, it's blindingly obvious what the poster meant to say anyway.
We shouldn't have to guess from multiple meanings only to be attacked for guessing wrong.
Yes, heaven help us from having to figure out that even though the poster used unambiguous language that he probably meant 30 - 50 cooler as opposed to boiling the camera.
How about the poster doesn't need any help from idiots too dumb to figure this out?
He didn't think sinks would make it go 30 - 50 deg cooler. He said they helped make it cooler than without heat sinks. Reread the sentence, you misunderstood it.
Where do you think government money goes? Does tax money just evaporate once it's in the government's hands? Does it just automatically get transported overseas?
A better argument is that we can continue to create jobs, sure, but that doesn't necessarily lead to actual wage and quality of life increases for bottom tier jobs as Ehrenreich's "Nickel and Dimed" has shown.
Maybe the problem is that their's too much money at the top, and not enough at the bottom, and maybe our capitalist system isn't good at this (ok, I kid, it obviously isn't). I'm not advocating communism, but I AM advocating increased wealth redistribution.
Since when has the right been a friend of the environment (hint, you have to go back to the '70s).
The right spends most of its time looking to say that the environment is just fine and we can just forget about it. Bush just opened tons of federal lands to damaging roadwork for christ sakes.
As for your other two sources, The white house is a part of this agenda and the washington times is the rapidly right wing baby of rev. moon. It doesn't even earn a profit (moon funds its yearly losses), it's a vanity publication to elect bush.
What we have here is two conflicting sides. Now, on one side I see lots of documents, papers, and distinguished scientists. On the other I see a handful of sellouts and a whole bunch of rhetoric.
You're damn right they're on the left, the pro-business right wouldn't take them anyway.
Let's remember, while Mozilla was still on unstable milestones MS had a much more advanced and working browser. It's barely changed since then. They're dragging their asses. It must have been a decision within microsoft, there's no way they could fuck up THIS BADLY with IE development.
IE stills sucks at CSS support. The bottom line is, when I design something and test it in mozilla, it also looks fine in Opera and Safari. When I look at it in IE there's a very good chance something looks wrong due to some missing feature or weird implementation.
They just hack everything together. You can't even use css like tr:hover although a:hover works because of their shitty implementation.
You should probably ask former slaves about how mandatory 'literacy' tests helped their voting. They were given literacy tests of exceeding and ridiculous difficulty. The upshot was that massive numbers were turned away from the polls.
Are you telling me that whitespace support is difficult?
It's not my job to fix the source. yeah this is taco's site and if I don't like it I can leave but that doesn't mean it's not obscenely easy to implement.
What makes you think that the average american, you and I included know the best way to spend our money? We live in a republic. We elect a government to spend our money for us. It works with varying degrees of success but I think the situation is far more nuanced than you make it out to be. What about social welfare? Most people aren't concerned with that.
Did you know that red states, the ones that vote for tax cuts, get MORE dollars back from the federal government than they put in? All this while voting for candidates who promise not to have uncle sam take their hard earned bucks away? It's not like they're voting for equitable distribution, they're voting based on tax cuts and pork and this is the result. How is this possible? Parties focused on re-election not sensibility. And while the party is insane it's constituents are just as mad.
Why do you think that earning a buck means you automatically know how to spend it? What about tariffs supported by our republican candidate? What about non-tarrif barriers (like farm subsidies) too? These affect spending immensely. Where does the control lie?
Now if you're not a conservative as the previous paragraph assumes, but a libertarian -- and hence opposed to NTBs and tarrifs and the like -- the questions change. The only question there is, is over positive liberty, social programs, etc. This has been covered in enough policy and philosophy debates over the years that I feel there is little I can add to the discussion. I'm tired and I dont' want to extend this post by several pages, so I'll just say I'm far more convinced of the good of (some) government run programs than more radically libertarian leaning stuff:).
At any rate this is all irrelevant to the present election. George Bush didn't really cut taxes, he shifted them. By increasing spending and cutting taxes thereby increasing the deficit all he's done is shifted today's taxes onto another generation. If you want to cut taxes vote for a president who promises to cut expenditures first, taxes second. Because Reagan and Bush have only ever done the tax side of this (reagan even failed trying this). As any reasonable analysis can tell you, the clowns in office talk such utter horseshit and have zero emphasis on real policy, they need to move over and let the real boys play.
More cash in your pocket equaling more control is nothing but a myth.
You're telling me they can't even support whitespace? Try searching for a two word string with quotes around it. It won't obey even that simple convention. And I don't see why if a billion other sites have much better searches slashdot's can't be different. I mean this is really simple stuff we're' talking about here.
Slashdot Mirror
if you read the article they note that this is the first such projector to make that there are no seams between projection screens.
Ads can be sold by the clickthrough rate or the number of impressions. The thing is, when you watch an ad on TV, no one expects you to run out and buy something. Sometimes you don't need to click through for it to work. As an example, slashdot has ads for Server Beach. I was looking for a host for a client and thought, oh, lemme try server beach, their ad said they had good prices. I'm going to recommend server beach to this client.
In this case ads don't need to be clicked.
It's horribly ugly. Of this I assure you as you appear to be either:
1. Blind
2. Blind to beauty
3. All of the above
Libraries are for boring old people and boring old music. They shouldn't stray from canonical works.
I probably am biased.
Why not just play on intermediate and let the fools scoff?
That's an anecdotal observation that I quite simply havn't seen.
It depends on how you define offensive.
If you mean offensive in a "Let's lie to the public about numerous important issues to start a war" sense, Then yes they were very offensive.
If you mean that it's offensive in a Bu5h suX, so does @5hkr0ft sense, then you're on shaky ground. There are trollish and immature posts such as that. I have also, however, seen numerous well articulated posts by the dems of slashdot.
so you're saying that, as a republicans, republicans don't offend as much as dems?
Oh yeah, no bias there.
If you read it fast it reads wrong. I initially read it wrong, read the sentence twice and went 'oh'. Even if you do read it wrong and don't reread it, it's blindingly obvious what the poster meant to say anyway.
Yes, heaven help us from having to figure out that even though the poster used unambiguous language that he probably meant 30 - 50 cooler as opposed to boiling the camera.
How about the poster doesn't need any help from idiots too dumb to figure this out?
He didn't think sinks would make it go 30 - 50 deg cooler. He said they helped make it cooler than without heat sinks. Reread the sentence, you misunderstood it.
Where do you think government money goes? Does tax money just evaporate once it's in the government's hands? Does it just automatically get transported overseas?
A better argument is that we can continue to create jobs, sure, but that doesn't necessarily lead to actual wage and quality of life increases for bottom tier jobs as Ehrenreich's "Nickel and Dimed" has shown.
Maybe the problem is that their's too much money at the top, and not enough at the bottom, and maybe our capitalist system isn't good at this (ok, I kid, it obviously isn't). I'm not advocating communism, but I AM advocating increased wealth redistribution.
Since when has the right been a friend of the environment (hint, you have to go back to the '70s).
The right spends most of its time looking to say that the environment is just fine and we can just forget about it. Bush just opened tons of federal lands to damaging roadwork for christ sakes.
As for your other two sources, The white house is a part of this agenda and the washington times is the rapidly right wing baby of rev. moon. It doesn't even earn a profit (moon funds its yearly losses), it's a vanity publication to elect bush.
What we have here is two conflicting sides. Now, on one side I see lots of documents, papers, and distinguished scientists. On the other I see a handful of sellouts and a whole bunch of rhetoric.
You're damn right they're on the left, the pro-business right wouldn't take them anyway.
This isn't about ethics, this is about the administration ignoring data.
I've read the article, that's why I said that it had to be a corporate decision.
Ever notice the "if your download doesn't start in 5 seconds click here" line usually on the very same page?
Let's remember, while Mozilla was still on unstable milestones MS had a much more advanced and working browser. It's barely changed since then. They're dragging their asses. It must have been a decision within microsoft, there's no way they could fuck up THIS BADLY with IE development.
IE stills sucks at CSS support. The bottom line is, when I design something and test it in mozilla, it also looks fine in Opera and Safari. When I look at it in IE there's a very good chance something looks wrong due to some missing feature or weird implementation.
They just hack everything together. You can't even use css like tr:hover although a:hover works because of their shitty implementation.
Tech central is just a notch above mozillaquest.
It's the right wing equivalent of pomo bullshit.
The point is that there is the potential for these tests to be abused.
You should probably ask former slaves about how mandatory 'literacy' tests helped their voting. They were given literacy tests of exceeding and ridiculous difficulty. The upshot was that massive numbers were turned away from the polls.
Are you telling me that whitespace support is difficult?
It's not my job to fix the source. yeah this is taco's site and if I don't like it I can leave but that doesn't mean it's not obscenely easy to implement.
You're using elitist irresponsibly.
:).
What makes you think that the average american, you and I included know the best way to spend our money? We live in a republic. We elect a government to spend our money for us. It works with varying degrees of success but I think the situation is far more nuanced than you make it out to be. What about social welfare? Most people aren't concerned with that.
Did you know that red states, the ones that vote for tax cuts, get MORE dollars back from the federal government than they put in? All this while voting for candidates who promise not to have uncle sam take their hard earned bucks away? It's not like they're voting for equitable distribution, they're voting based on tax cuts and pork and this is the result. How is this possible? Parties focused on re-election not sensibility. And while the party is insane it's constituents are just as mad.
Why do you think that earning a buck means you automatically know how to spend it? What about tariffs supported by our republican candidate? What about non-tarrif barriers (like farm subsidies) too? These affect spending immensely. Where does the control lie?
Now if you're not a conservative as the previous paragraph assumes, but a libertarian -- and hence opposed to NTBs and tarrifs and the like -- the questions change. The only question there is, is over positive liberty, social programs, etc. This has been covered in enough policy and philosophy debates over the years that I feel there is little I can add to the discussion. I'm tired and I dont' want to extend this post by several pages, so I'll just say I'm far more convinced of the good of (some) government run programs than more radically libertarian leaning stuff
At any rate this is all irrelevant to the present election. George Bush didn't really cut taxes, he shifted them. By increasing spending and cutting taxes thereby increasing the deficit all he's done is shifted today's taxes onto another generation. If you want to cut taxes vote for a president who promises to cut expenditures first, taxes second. Because Reagan and Bush have only ever done the tax side of this (reagan even failed trying this). As any reasonable analysis can tell you, the clowns in office talk such utter horseshit and have zero emphasis on real policy, they need to move over and let the real boys play.
More cash in your pocket equaling more control is nothing but a myth.
You're telling me they can't even support whitespace? Try searching for a two word string with quotes around it. It won't obey even that simple convention. And I don't see why if a billion other sites have much better searches slashdot's can't be different. I mean this is really simple stuff we're' talking about here.