I prefer the way without blinkenbanners. However, there should not be the government involved. My solution? Pay content through the ISPs. Instead of the web content provider paying for traffic, he should be paid for traffic. After all, content providers are what makes the web useful for content users, and therefore create the market for ISPs. The money the content provider gets for his money would, of course, coming from those getting the content. More exactly, through their internet bill.
Yes, I don't mind paying for content, if I can do so hassle-free. No registration, no exchange of bank account or credit card numbers, no paypal, just my normal internet bill. I pay my ISP, the ISP passes the money on (after taking his cut), and the content provider's ISP pays it to the content provider (again, after taking his cut).
OK, but wouldn't web content providers then try to serve as many bytes as possible per visit? Well, probably, but on one hand, their pipe has a certain maximum bandwidth (they would still pay for the availability of bandwidth, of course), and also their servers can only serve so much (more or better servers cost money, as well), and on the other hand, if their content loads too slowly (and turns out too costly), less people will visit their site, which again reduces revenue. So ultimately the market will regulate that.
Of course content provider would be anyone putting up stuff (any http server would qualify), no matter whether it's a big company or a small private web server. Whether it's worthwhile content would be decided by the market (since sites which don't attract users don't generate revenue to the site owner).
There could be pages who explicitly won't want to pay; those could be put into a special IP range (probably hard for IPv4, since most addresses are already assigned, but probably possible for IPv6; I think 1800::/16 would be a nice option), and probably should also get a special TLD which is exclusively assigned to those IPs (say,.free).
Now I'm realistic enough that I know the chances of implementing this in the real word are close to zero, but that's what I think it would work like in an ideal work.
"Ever load up a completely random webpage to see an advertisement at the top for products related to what you're reading about?"
No. Thanks Adblock!
What are this ads you talk about?
Well, ads are something some people find on web pages. According to what people say, they can distract you from the actual
=== BEST PRICE === EVER HAD PROBLEMS WITH SINGULAR AND PLURAL FORMS? BUY THIS ENGLISH GRAMMAR COURSE FOR ONLY $90,00! Click here for ordering. === BEST PRICE ===
content. I think that's just a myth. I've never seen any.
Actually that might backfire if your false information is taken as true. As an extreme case: Imagine you put the false information in that you are a fan of Osama bin Laden, and then some CIA bot comes along and ads you to the list of people to have a closer look at. Now you'd certainly not be that stupid, but who knows which problems some other, apparently harmless, misinformation may cause?
Well, there are two sorts of advertising: Advertising in places devoted for advertising, and advertising besides articles. For example, in my favourite (paper) computer magazine, there's a range of pages solely reserved for advertising. That's good advertising. I consult that when I'm looking for things to buy, and indeed the computer I'm writing this on right now is from an online shop I know only due to that advertising, so it's obviously effective. On the other hand there are also ads in the article section. I rarely even look at them, and I never ever bought anything which was shown there. Those are the sections I consult when I want to read articles, not when I look for something to buy.
But they were not forced to become iPad buyers. It's not as if you got major problems if you don't own an iPad. So no, they have not been forced to buy the add-ons. They just decided that they preferred to buy an iPad plus those add-ons to having no iPad at all.
Microsoft's research group isn’t the first to work on a sleep proxy – or even the only one presenting sleep proxy research at Usenix – but Microsoft contends that most previous work has evaluated sleep proxies only in small testbeds or simulations.
So apparently even Microsoft admit they are not the first.
"Australian iPad buyers have been forced to buy all manner of unnecessary add-ons"
No, they have not been forced to buy those add-ons. They could simply have refused to buy an iPad under those conditions. If enough people did this, the policy would be reverted really fast.
Drugs Autism is a special form of Autism where you can't communicate with drugs. A Drugs Autism-Linked Fragile X is something unknown which is in danger of being broken by someone with Drug Autism. Now doctors have used that to reverse a syndrome in mice.
#2 Relies on both being done at virtually the same instant. If WU is first, Firefox breaks. If Firefox is first, Firefox breaks again.
Then write the modules so that independent updates work. Basically that means to make the browser-independent component's interface stable (Microsoft has plenty of experience with this type of compatibility!), and make new versions of the Firefox extension work with older versions of the browser independent component's interface (new features which need the new system component can safely be omitted for that situation).
Indeed, if you are having a conversation with someone you know, and at one point in conversation he says: "BTW a good covering of the subject can be found at http://tinyurl.com/foo" and the bot changes the text to "BTW a good covering of the subject can be found at http://tinyurl.com/bar" you have little chance to notice before you click on it that a bot-in-the-middle changed the link.
Of course, I have preview enabled in tinyurl, so I'd see the real URL before I go there, and even if I couldn't recognize the real URL as obviously wrong, NoScript would likely protect me from any malware on that site (and the fact that I'm using Linux would protect me further, since the malware is most likely Windows specific anyway).
Well, there is truth to both sides. Keeping a language static would be no good. There have been times where people objected to too much French in the German language. A lot of those words have fallen out of use, but some are still used today, and I don't think you'll find many people who consider that a problem.
On the other hand, the use of English just to sound "modern" is so large that it indeed is sort of a problem. A lot of perfect, unproblematic German words get replaced by English words for no good reason.
Yes, and any system that's susceptible to being hacked can and will be reprogrammed in face of abject failure (and consequent losses) to close the security hole. That's why systems are so secure these days. Oh, wait...
Well, if the stock exchange is used as a casino, maybe they should use the same rule casinos use: If you win too much, you are not allowed to continue playing.
Slashdot Mirror
My impression is that currently most Apple stories boil down to "Apple restricts what you can do with your iWhatever."
I prefer the way without blinkenbanners. However, there should not be the government involved. My solution? Pay content through the ISPs. Instead of the web content provider paying for traffic, he should be paid for traffic. After all, content providers are what makes the web useful for content users, and therefore create the market for ISPs. The money the content provider gets for his money would, of course, coming from those getting the content. More exactly, through their internet bill.
Yes, I don't mind paying for content, if I can do so hassle-free. No registration, no exchange of bank account or credit card numbers, no paypal, just my normal internet bill. I pay my ISP, the ISP passes the money on (after taking his cut), and the content provider's ISP pays it to the content provider (again, after taking his cut).
OK, but wouldn't web content providers then try to serve as many bytes as possible per visit? Well, probably, but on one hand, their pipe has a certain maximum bandwidth (they would still pay for the availability of bandwidth, of course), and also their servers can only serve so much (more or better servers cost money, as well), and on the other hand, if their content loads too slowly (and turns out too costly), less people will visit their site, which again reduces revenue. So ultimately the market will regulate that.
Of course content provider would be anyone putting up stuff (any http server would qualify), no matter whether it's a big company or a small private web server. Whether it's worthwhile content would be decided by the market (since sites which don't attract users don't generate revenue to the site owner).
There could be pages who explicitly won't want to pay; those could be put into a special IP range (probably hard for IPv4, since most addresses are already assigned, but probably possible for IPv6; I think 1800::/16 would be a nice option), and probably should also get a special TLD which is exclusively assigned to those IPs (say, .free).
Now I'm realistic enough that I know the chances of implementing this in the real word are close to zero, but that's what I think it would work like in an ideal work.
"Ever load up a completely random webpage to see an advertisement at the top for products related to what you're reading about?"
No. Thanks Adblock!
What are this ads you talk about?
Well, ads are something some people find on web pages. According to what people say, they can distract you from the actual
=== BEST PRICE ===
EVER HAD PROBLEMS WITH SINGULAR AND PLURAL FORMS?
BUY THIS ENGLISH GRAMMAR COURSE FOR ONLY $90,00!
Click here for ordering.
=== BEST PRICE ===
content. I think that's just a myth. I've never seen any.
Actually that might backfire if your false information is taken as true. As an extreme case: Imagine you put the false information in that you are a fan of Osama bin Laden, and then some CIA bot comes along and ads you to the list of people to have a closer look at. Now you'd certainly not be that stupid, but who knows which problems some other, apparently harmless, misinformation may cause?
Well, there are two sorts of advertising: Advertising in places devoted for advertising, and advertising besides articles.
For example, in my favourite (paper) computer magazine, there's a range of pages solely reserved for advertising. That's good advertising. I consult that when I'm looking for things to buy, and indeed the computer I'm writing this on right now is from an online shop I know only due to that advertising, so it's obviously effective. On the other hand there are also ads in the article section. I rarely even look at them, and I never ever bought anything which was shown there. Those are the sections I consult when I want to read articles, not when I look for something to buy.
But why would you care at all if you're using Kubuntu?
(Protip: the phrase doesn't mean what you think it does)
He just told that he doesn't care at all (he said he couldn't care less; if he cared at all, he could care less).
(Protip: Not everyone gets the phrase wrong, so when you want to accuse someone of getting it wrong, first make sure he really did.)
Do you have to go to orbit for it, or does the camera have enough resolution to recognize you when looking towards the satellite from ground? :-)
What about combining this with a normal password? Then an attacker would need both your picture and your password.
OTOH, you might want to keep a picture of yourself, in case you get injured at your head and the bandage makes your computer not recognize you.
We have to be #1 at everything dont we?
I didn't see .us in the top ten list.
Well, if it's not a commercial site, and you're not an organization, what's left?
But they were not forced to become iPad buyers. It's not as if you got major problems if you don't own an iPad. So no, they have not been forced to buy the add-ons. They just decided that they preferred to buy an iPad plus those add-ons to having no iPad at all.
FTFA:
So apparently even Microsoft admit they are not the first.
No, they have not been forced to buy those add-ons. They could simply have refused to buy an iPad under those conditions. If enough people did this, the policy would be reverted really fast.
Drugs Autism is a special form of Autism where you can't communicate with drugs.
A Drugs Autism-Linked Fragile X is something unknown which is in danger of being broken by someone with Drug Autism.
Now doctors have used that to reverse a syndrome in mice.
SCNR :-)
Then write the modules so that independent updates work. Basically that means to make the browser-independent component's interface stable (Microsoft has plenty of experience with this type of compatibility!), and make new versions of the Firefox extension work with older versions of the browser independent component's interface (new features which need the new system component can safely be omitted for that situation).
Indeed, I only trust the zeroes, not the ones.
Well, he didn't write that. A bot changed it during submission. :-)
Indeed, if you are having a conversation with someone you know, and at one point in conversation he says: "BTW a good covering of the subject can be found at http://tinyurl.com/foo" and the bot changes the text to "BTW a good covering of the subject can be found at http://tinyurl.com/bar" you have little chance to notice before you click on it that a bot-in-the-middle changed the link.
Of course, I have preview enabled in tinyurl, so I'd see the real URL before I go there, and even if I couldn't recognize the real URL as obviously wrong, NoScript would likely protect me from any malware on that site (and the fact that I'm using Linux would protect me further, since the malware is most likely Windows specific anyway).
Well, there is truth to both sides. Keeping a language static would be no good. There have been times where people objected to too much French in the German language. A lot of those words have fallen out of use, but some are still used today, and I don't think you'll find many people who consider that a problem.
On the other hand, the use of English just to sound "modern" is so large that it indeed is sort of a problem. A lot of perfect, unproblematic German words get replaced by English words for no good reason.
Yes, and any system that's susceptible to being hacked can and will be reprogrammed in face of abject failure (and consequent losses) to close the security hole. That's why systems are so secure these days. Oh, wait ...
+5 blessed Ferrari of Laying
However, maybe a Scroll of Laying would be cheaper.
Well, if the stock exchange is used as a casino, maybe they should use the same rule casinos use: If you win too much, you are not allowed to continue playing.
Maybe because his biological left eye works just fine?
And he will hand us a speeding ticket.
Even hookers may avoid him now.