And how exactly did this happen. I have not deleted my cookies for a couple YEARS since I last reloaded my computers, and have yet to have a single problem with stolen passwords or any of these other problems that evil cookies are supposedly causing.
There is the possibility that a large enough group of companies collaborating could use the information to link purchases and browsing habits together. But I really don't care. They want to try to personalize my ads, that's fine too. Why? Because it's a free lunch. They think they're convincing me to buy stuff, when in fact I don't give a fuck. As long as the illusion is maintained, I'm happy to let them think they're learning valuable information about me. If this avenue is cut off to advertisers, either the free lunch will end or something more insidious will take its place.
Most companies only care about using cookies to keep track of visitors to their site anyway, and this can be useful to improve the site. A site that uses tracking information to see what other sites you visit (which is difficult without having their ads directly on other sites, which usually isn't the case because someone else usually hosts the images) and sells your email address is probably not one you want to continue purchasing from.
Let me answer.........short answer........no it doesn't make you evil - it makes you lazy.
The exact same thing can be accomplished without a cookie by evaluting your logs and reviewing what pages are requested in what order from what IP.
Fuck the karma, I wish I could reach through my browser and smack the back of your head for making such an ignorant comment. Many people have enumerated the various reasons that one IP does not map to one computer. And if you're personalizing a site, you definitely can't do it by IP, and adding session ids to the URL is just irritating as fuck.
Greasemonkey 0.3.5 is a "neutered" version of Greasemonkey, lacking any of the GM* APIs which make Greasemonkey scripts more powerful than regular HTML. This means that scripts which depend on GM* APIs will fail with Greasemonkey 0.3.5.
If ethanol is a net negative, it is only sustainable given:
1. Another renewable energy source that's net positive is used for refining and other processes that don't depend on mobile fuel (e.g. solar, wind, nuclear power).
2. Ethanol use is limited to areas that require mobile fuel (mainly vehicles).
If ethanol is net negative but is used for the entire supply chain, then there won't be enough fuel produced to power the supply chain, and it simply won't work. I do agree that oil will not be sustainable. It is net positive, but the supply is limited. Personally, I'm looking to nuclear power as the solution. I think people's fear of nuclear power is largely unjustified. It's quite safe, and when you consider the incredibly tiny amount of nuclear waste produced in comparison to the waste products of coal or oil, it's crazy. You can just seal it in block of concrete or glass or whatever and stick it in some designated waste area. Thousands of times less waste.
Apparently less fuel than it takes to extract the fuel, because the entire process runs on oil. Could the entire biodiesel process, from farming, harvesting, processing, to distribution, be powered by biodiesel and create a net positive? That's the real question. Where do you get your lye and methanol? How much energy did it take to process them? Oil has at least been proven to have a net positive because the entire supply chain runs off of oil. The same can't be said for biodiesel. This isn't to say that it can't be done, but rather that you should consider all the parts of the supply chain that would need to run on biodiesel before seeing if there is a net gain. I doubt this has been studied to the extent necessary.
Oh, and your funeral procession example is a pathetic example. Like you said, methanol is dangerous too.
Simple. Just mine existing fuel, which is generally considered the "production" of a fuel. No one is talking about creating the fuel from a plasma of particles. Finding a waterfall and putting a paddle wheel under it is another example. I'm producing energy from the waterfall. I don't have to move the water up high myself, and no one except you thinks that this is included in the costs.
This is exactly what I was trying to say when I called floppies "cheap". Mod parent up.
I own a couple thumb drives, and I use them much more often than floppies. CDRs could've replaced them if they were more durable, and easier/more universal to write to. For example, if cd-writers had been standard from the beginning, instead of read-only drives, then by now almost everyone would have a cd writer, and since CDR's are cheap, they'd be ideal.
I think it's more likely that it goes something like this:
If (Intel) {
Optimized code
} else {
386 compatible code
}
I doubt that AMD's code is any worse than the generic x86 code output. This isn't to say that it would be hard for them to optimize for AMD -- it would probably be quite easy, but in reality it's probably just spitting out generic x86 compatible code (no special instruction optimizations) if a non-Intel CPU is detected.
Although I don't know the details of Fundable, the idea is great. One person contributing a little money towards a project usually doesn't help the developer much. It's the sum of many people that helps. However, there's a problem -- if not enough people donate, then your donation may have gone to waste. With this method, you can donate and feel safe that either 1) Enough people wil donate to make a difference or 2) You get your money back.
This kinda reminds me of another website whose name eludes me at the moment, but they have a similiar system applied to signatures, and agreeing to do something e.g. confront an organization about an issue.
Bad analogy -- one of the key selling points of a Ferrari is the engine, which is analogous to the CPU/mobo, and there's unlikely to be a big difference there.
Reminds me of the phrase you recite when being sworn in, "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". Marketing often streteches the first and ignores the last two.
Slashdot Mirror
And how exactly did this happen. I have not deleted my cookies for a couple YEARS since I last reloaded my computers, and have yet to have a single problem with stolen passwords or any of these other problems that evil cookies are supposedly causing.
There is the possibility that a large enough group of companies collaborating could use the information to link purchases and browsing habits together. But I really don't care. They want to try to personalize my ads, that's fine too. Why? Because it's a free lunch. They think they're convincing me to buy stuff, when in fact I don't give a fuck. As long as the illusion is maintained, I'm happy to let them think they're learning valuable information about me. If this avenue is cut off to advertisers, either the free lunch will end or something more insidious will take its place.
Most companies only care about using cookies to keep track of visitors to their site anyway, and this can be useful to improve the site. A site that uses tracking information to see what other sites you visit (which is difficult without having their ads directly on other sites, which usually isn't the case because someone else usually hosts the images) and sells your email address is probably not one you want to continue purchasing from.
The flaw applies to Greasemonkey on all platforms.
s/consumers/customers/g
I think that's what you meant, but it irks me to see that.
If ethanol is a net negative, it is only sustainable given:
1. Another renewable energy source that's net positive is used for refining and other processes that don't depend on mobile fuel (e.g. solar, wind, nuclear power).
2. Ethanol use is limited to areas that require mobile fuel (mainly vehicles).
If ethanol is net negative but is used for the entire supply chain, then there won't be enough fuel produced to power the supply chain, and it simply won't work. I do agree that oil will not be sustainable. It is net positive, but the supply is limited. Personally, I'm looking to nuclear power as the solution. I think people's fear of nuclear power is largely unjustified. It's quite safe, and when you consider the incredibly tiny amount of nuclear waste produced in comparison to the waste products of coal or oil, it's crazy. You can just seal it in block of concrete or glass or whatever and stick it in some designated waste area. Thousands of times less waste.
Apparently less fuel than it takes to extract the fuel, because the entire process runs on oil. Could the entire biodiesel process, from farming, harvesting, processing, to distribution, be powered by biodiesel and create a net positive? That's the real question. Where do you get your lye and methanol? How much energy did it take to process them? Oil has at least been proven to have a net positive because the entire supply chain runs off of oil. The same can't be said for biodiesel. This isn't to say that it can't be done, but rather that you should consider all the parts of the supply chain that would need to run on biodiesel before seeing if there is a net gain. I doubt this has been studied to the extent necessary.
Oh, and your funeral procession example is a pathetic example. Like you said, methanol is dangerous too.
Simple. Just mine existing fuel, which is generally considered the "production" of a fuel. No one is talking about creating the fuel from a plasma of particles. Finding a waterfall and putting a paddle wheel under it is another example. I'm producing energy from the waterfall. I don't have to move the water up high myself, and no one except you thinks that this is included in the costs.
"...various illegal substances. As well as some household cleaners."
This is exactly what I was trying to say when I called floppies "cheap". Mod parent up.
I own a couple thumb drives, and I use them much more often than floppies. CDRs could've replaced them if they were more durable, and easier/more universal to write to. For example, if cd-writers had been standard from the beginning, instead of read-only drives, then by now almost everyone would have a cd writer, and since CDR's are cheap, they'd be ideal.
I said near universal. Btw, I have a laptop without a floppy drive.
The media is a lot cheaper, and support is near universal.
I think it's more likely that it goes something like this:
If (Intel) {
Optimized code
} else {
386 compatible code
}
I doubt that AMD's code is any worse than the generic x86 code output. This isn't to say that it would be hard for them to optimize for AMD -- it would probably be quite easy, but in reality it's probably just spitting out generic x86 compatible code (no special instruction optimizations) if a non-Intel CPU is detected.
I think this is the first time I've seen someone sincerely apologize for a misunderstanding on Slashdot.
Found the site, it was in a Register article: PledgeBank
Although I don't know the details of Fundable, the idea is great. One person contributing a little money towards a project usually doesn't help the developer much. It's the sum of many people that helps. However, there's a problem -- if not enough people donate, then your donation may have gone to waste. With this method, you can donate and feel safe that either 1) Enough people wil donate to make a difference or 2) You get your money back.
This kinda reminds me of another website whose name eludes me at the moment, but they have a similiar system applied to signatures, and agreeing to do something e.g. confront an organization about an issue.
No, she was very strongly opposed to it.
That was perfectly timed -- I couldn't help but laugh when I read that. If I had mod points, you'd get a +1 Funny.
Bad analogy -- one of the key selling points of a Ferrari is the engine, which is analogous to the CPU/mobo, and there's unlikely to be a big difference there.
Ha! I beat the rush and read it last night. And no, I didn't have any page errors, they're probably due to the slashdotting in progress.
Reminds me of the phrase you recite when being sworn in, "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". Marketing often streteches the first and ignores the last two.
Dell: We'd hit it.