"I can't believe this is news worthy. Who cares about online journal company buyouts...haha.."
Oh...nobody really...only about 5 million Live Journal Users. I was reading some of the posts about this on LJ yesterday and someone asked Brad about the "slashdot effect" hitting LJ. His response was that it was only a minor blip since typical LJ traffic is magnitudes greater than slashdot.
Perhaps you need to read just a few more news worthy articles like this to get back in touch with what is going on in the world.
I believe there is such a thing as hard, cold, irrefutable, unchanging, fact. Just to be clear, I am not necessarily saying that any of my beliefs qualify for this title. What I am saying is that mankind in general has been very confused about almost everything and we have translated that confusion to mean that there is no fact, that everything is subjective. Solid fact exists, and is totally independent of mankind's understanding of it or ability to "prove" it.
"Perhaps the third one might be true, a person who excels at multitasking might well find raising children a lot easier and may in turn want to do more of it than someone who didn't really enjoy the experience."
If that were true we would already have this trait.
Oh what the hell, I've got karma to burn and this needs to be said...
You know, this phenomenon never ceases to amaze me. Someone builds a web site that becomes the most popular of it's kind on the Internet and Bozos come out of the woodwork by the dozens to tell them everything they are doing wrong. I have seen the same thing with/. as well as a site that I once built that was the most popular of it's kind that will remain unnamed.
Hey, here's an idea...if you are really that intelligent and think you could do better, prove it. I say put up or shut up because I for one am tired of hearing the ignorant babble of wannabe's who think they know better than the most successful web designers on the planet. You think you can do better? Shut up and prove it. Aint nothing stopping you except that fact you are full of crap.
As for me, I have a deep gratitude and respect for those who create outstanding sites like Craig's List, Slashdot, Live Journal and yes...even Fark. Thanks Craig!
Seriously - when was the last time you heard of an exploit that used straight HTML? All of the recent exploits in ALL browsers, IE included, have been in either Javascript or Active-X, not in the core HTML rendering.
I couldn't agree more. I tested this in my regular IE browser and didn't have a problem, even without a popup blocker. Of course, it may have something to do with the fact that I have ALL scripting turned off in my security settings. (The only pop up windows I ever see are Microsoft's thinly disguised pop up advertisements for their active X BS. Anyone know how to turn that off?) In fact, I have damn near everything turned off in my security settings. If you want to run a program on my personal computer you might try calling me and asking my permission. If you don't know me that well you have no business trying to run programs on my computer.
I often run into web sites that are blank or don't work correctly. I have a choice then of adding them to my trusted sites list, or going in search of a competing source for what I am looking for. Since there are usually hundreds of sources on the Internet for anything you want, I tend not to add sites to the list. I figure that, if someone wants to start right off the bat running insecure programs on my computer without my permission they aren't worth dealing with anyway.
Interestingly, when I clicked the test link I got only a Citibank logo and a form that loaded very quickly. Then I added *.citibank.com to my trusted sites list. When I clicked the test link again, I got the same logo and form but it took about 5 times as long to load because it was surrounded by annoying animated Citibank advertising.
I have been running IE like this for years and I have never been hit by any of the "vulnerabilities" that seem to plague it. I run outlook express the same way and I have never been hit with an email virus in spite of receiving hundreds of them. I am no big fan of Microsoft but you can run this software securely if you just turn off all the BS. It also has the pleasant side effect of filtering out all the web sites and content created by complete morons.
You just outlined the number one reason NOT to vote for small party candidates. I don't want to discount the importance of "issues" in choosing a candidate, but there is a great deal more involved in holding public office than holding specific beliefs and ideals, and most people in this country seem to be missing this point entirely. You can't simply elect your ideological soul mate and suddenly expect a bright new tomorrow to happen just because he is in office.
First of all, an elected president must be ready to immediately put in place a massive organization of highly qualified professionals. While mainstream parties may not be ideologically perfect, they do provide a solid foundation and a good supply of quality personnel for such organizations.
The new president also needs to have the management skill and experience to run that organization. Let me put it this way...Ideologically, I am the perfect candidate for me to vote for. After all, I agree with everything I believe in. However, I would never vote for myself for president because I do not have the managerial skills to actually run the office. I guarantee I would make a complete mess of this country and that has nothing to do with my stand on the issues.
The white house doesn't operate in a vacuum. What kind of connections does your party have in the house and senate, or even in the governments of the various states, to help them further their agenda? It would be almost cruel and unusual punishment to put a third party candidate in the Whitehouse while the entire remainder of the government is in the solid grip of the two main parties. Why don't you just have him spend the next four years beating his head against a brick wall.
And finally, I admit to being somewhat of an altruist and idealist. People like me do NOT do well in politics. We are too quick to give the other side a break, too inclined to play fair. You are better off finding a real bastard who will fight for you, because politics is a nasty business where altruists get stuffed into the office shredder. Sometimes you really do have to compromise your ideals a bit to get at least some of what you want. You may not like lawyers but you had better be ready to hire one when needed.
There was a candidate who was almost ideologically perfect for me. I voted against him in the primary because he wouldn't have been any better at running this country than I would, and believe me, we don't want that! Yeah, I would love to vote only by my ideals, but that is a good way to really screw up my country.
So yeah, I don't agree 100 percent with my main party choice (deliberately avoiding making this a political post), and I know he isn't a flipping saint, but I also know he has a solid organization under him, He has the wherewithal to manage it and he has the guts to fight for at least some of what I want for my country.
Again you are thinking in the wrong direction. They don't care what you do. All they care about is money. You can get a group of five static IP numbers for another $40 per month. Want a name server...that will be extra too.
I've always wondered why the hell they would care about servers
Bottom line...money. In order to run a server on your Verizon Broadband connection you must first get a "business" line. At that point you can kiss the cheap broadband goodbye. I don't have exact current prices and it likely varies depending on how much monopoly power they have in a specific area, but I was paying $120/mo for business DSL with a single static IP...no name servers allowed. The same service just south of me in Seattle (different phone company) was about $39.00 with 5 static IPs included.
They care because they can make more money off that option.
wonder whether it can also be the other way around. That people who are always sick tend to end up negative and pessimistic? I know I would be.
Wish I had some mod points for this. All through the article I kept asking why they were making such wild assumptions about cause and effect. If you can't handle stress well, it would certainly lead to a more pessimistic attitude. That seems to me a more logical assumption than that pessimism causes you to not handle stress as well.
Re:Not to self-aggrandize...
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 1
You make a valid point, but it's not just the legal system that requires authority for the introduction of a concept or idea. In fact this tendency isn't even restricted to humans. I read a study some time ago (I believe in the book "Influence" by Cianaldi). They introduced caramel into primate family groups. When they introduced it first to the top primates, the caramel quickly caught on, with around 75 percent (IIRC) consuming it within a very short time.
However, when they introduced it to other family groups through the lowest members, it took a year for the consumption rate to get up to 25 percent of the group. People, other primates, and even many other animal species, are simply programmed to be more open to ideas coming from those with authority.
interesting link. Did you happen to notice this statement on the page...
Important Message :
We value your help and like it when you refer other poeple to this site, but please do not link to this site and brand Mr. Gibson as a scam, he is not (per se). This site questions the motives of Mr. Gibson, criticizes him and his works by trying to demystifying what he is doing. What you are going to find on this site are Researched Facts and Opinions, Opinions however are refered to as what they are : opinions not facts.
build a site that gives good information about something and lose money
I have seen hundreds of slashdot comments stating straight out they will never pay to view information on the net. Could it just maybe, perhaps be that people are no longer willing to spent mucho bucks and time to create and maintain good, informative sites when no one will pay a penny to view them? I would say this is beginning to look like a prime example of the old adage, "you get what you pay for."
I have a web site. It resides on a server sitting next to me here in my home. To get to it, you have to enter my home, either physically or electronically. I think there is a legitimate case that this is different from information sent to your home via radio, TV, or newspaper. You must enter my private property to retrieve information from my web site and I can legally stipulate how you act on my property, whether you are allowed on my property at all and what you are able to do with any information you obtain there.
Yes, My web site is connected to what can be considered a public conveyance...the Internet. My home is also connected to public access...the street. Anyone can look up my address and come to my house. Simply because I open my door to strangers, does not make my house, or my server, public property.
I do recognize the difference when we are talking about a commercial web site or a store. However, aside from certain rules of non-discrimination, I don't see a significant difference. When I provide information on my business property to my customers, I can stipulate who has access to it and how it is used.
For example, many of the great artworks hanging in museums are not under copyright. However, the museums can, and often do, prohibit visitors from taking photos of such works while visiting, just as I can prohibit people from duplicating information while visiting my private property.
Re:Redifference between uppercase and lowercase
on
Verbing Weirds Google
·
· Score: 1
I couldn't resist seeing what the same site said about google...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=google
Slashdot Mirror
"I can't believe this is news worthy. Who cares about online journal company buyouts...haha.."
Oh...nobody really...only about 5 million Live Journal Users. I was reading some of the posts about this on LJ yesterday and someone asked Brad about the "slashdot effect" hitting LJ. His response was that it was only a minor blip since typical LJ traffic is magnitudes greater than slashdot.
Perhaps you need to read just a few more news worthy articles like this to get back in touch with what is going on in the world.
I believe there is such a thing as hard, cold, irrefutable, unchanging, fact. Just to be clear, I am not necessarily saying that any of my beliefs qualify for this title. What I am saying is that mankind in general has been very confused about almost everything and we have translated that confusion to mean that there is no fact, that everything is subjective. Solid fact exists, and is totally independent of mankind's understanding of it or ability to "prove" it.
"Perhaps the third one might be true, a person who excels at multitasking might well find raising children a lot easier and may in turn want to do more of it than someone who didn't really enjoy the experience."
If that were true we would already have this trait.
Oh what the hell, I've got karma to burn and this needs to be said...
/. as well as a site that I once built that was the most popular of it's kind that will remain unnamed.
You know, this phenomenon never ceases to amaze me. Someone builds a web site that becomes the most popular of it's kind on the Internet and Bozos come out of the woodwork by the dozens to tell them everything they are doing wrong. I have seen the same thing with
Hey, here's an idea...if you are really that intelligent and think you could do better, prove it. I say put up or shut up because I for one am tired of hearing the ignorant babble of wannabe's who think they know better than the most successful web designers on the planet. You think you can do better? Shut up and prove it. Aint nothing stopping you except that fact you are full of crap.
As for me, I have a deep gratitude and respect for those who create outstanding sites like Craig's List, Slashdot, Live Journal and yes...even Fark. Thanks Craig!
Seriously - when was the last time you heard of an exploit that used straight HTML? All of the recent exploits in ALL browsers, IE included, have been in either Javascript or Active-X, not in the core HTML rendering.
I couldn't agree more. I tested this in my regular IE browser and didn't have a problem, even without a popup blocker. Of course, it may have something to do with the fact that I have ALL scripting turned off in my security settings. (The only pop up windows I ever see are Microsoft's thinly disguised pop up advertisements for their active X BS. Anyone know how to turn that off?) In fact, I have damn near everything turned off in my security settings. If you want to run a program on my personal computer you might try calling me and asking my permission. If you don't know me that well you have no business trying to run programs on my computer.
I often run into web sites that are blank or don't work correctly. I have a choice then of adding them to my trusted sites list, or going in search of a competing source for what I am looking for. Since there are usually hundreds of sources on the Internet for anything you want, I tend not to add sites to the list. I figure that, if someone wants to start right off the bat running insecure programs on my computer without my permission they aren't worth dealing with anyway.
Interestingly, when I clicked the test link I got only a Citibank logo and a form that loaded very quickly. Then I added *.citibank.com to my trusted sites list. When I clicked the test link again, I got the same logo and form but it took about 5 times as long to load because it was surrounded by annoying animated Citibank advertising.
I have been running IE like this for years and I have never been hit by any of the "vulnerabilities" that seem to plague it. I run outlook express the same way and I have never been hit with an email virus in spite of receiving hundreds of them. I am no big fan of Microsoft but you can run this software securely if you just turn off all the BS. It also has the pleasant side effect of filtering out all the web sites and content created by complete morons.
You just outlined the number one reason NOT to vote for small party candidates. I don't want to discount the importance of "issues" in choosing a candidate, but there is a great deal more involved in holding public office than holding specific beliefs and ideals, and most people in this country seem to be missing this point entirely. You can't simply elect your ideological soul mate and suddenly expect a bright new tomorrow to happen just because he is in office.
First of all, an elected president must be ready to immediately put in place a massive organization of highly qualified professionals. While mainstream parties may not be ideologically perfect, they do provide a solid foundation and a good supply of quality personnel for such organizations.
The new president also needs to have the management skill and experience to run that organization. Let me put it this way...Ideologically, I am the perfect candidate for me to vote for. After all, I agree with everything I believe in. However, I would never vote for myself for president because I do not have the managerial skills to actually run the office. I guarantee I would make a complete mess of this country and that has nothing to do with my stand on the issues.
The white house doesn't operate in a vacuum. What kind of connections does your party have in the house and senate, or even in the governments of the various states, to help them further their agenda? It would be almost cruel and unusual punishment to put a third party candidate in the Whitehouse while the entire remainder of the government is in the solid grip of the two main parties. Why don't you just have him spend the next four years beating his head against a brick wall.
And finally, I admit to being somewhat of an altruist and idealist. People like me do NOT do well in politics. We are too quick to give the other side a break, too inclined to play fair. You are better off finding a real bastard who will fight for you, because politics is a nasty business where altruists get stuffed into the office shredder. Sometimes you really do have to compromise your ideals a bit to get at least some of what you want. You may not like lawyers but you had better be ready to hire one when needed.
There was a candidate who was almost ideologically perfect for me. I voted against him in the primary because he wouldn't have been any better at running this country than I would, and believe me, we don't want that! Yeah, I would love to vote only by my ideals, but that is a good way to really screw up my country.
So yeah, I don't agree 100 percent with my main party choice (deliberately avoiding making this a political post), and I know he isn't a flipping saint, but I also know he has a solid organization under him, He has the wherewithal to manage it and he has the guts to fight for at least some of what I want for my country.
Name servers??? Why would they care?
Again you are thinking in the wrong direction. They don't care what you do. All they care about is money. You can get a group of five static IP numbers for another $40 per month. Want a name server...that will be extra too.
I've always wondered why the hell they would care about servers
Bottom line...money. In order to run a server on your Verizon Broadband connection you must first get a "business" line. At that point you can kiss the cheap broadband goodbye. I don't have exact current prices and it likely varies depending on how much monopoly power they have in a specific area, but I was paying $120/mo for business DSL with a single static IP...no name servers allowed. The same service just south of me in Seattle (different phone company) was about $39.00 with 5 static IPs included.
They care because they can make more money off that option.
wonder whether it can also be the other way around. That people who are always sick tend to end up negative and pessimistic? I know I would be.
Wish I had some mod points for this. All through the article I kept asking why they were making such wild assumptions about cause and effect. If you can't handle stress well, it would certainly lead to a more pessimistic attitude. That seems to me a more logical assumption than that pessimism causes you to not handle stress as well.
You make a valid point, but it's not just the legal system that requires authority for the introduction of a concept or idea. In fact this tendency isn't even restricted to humans. I read a study some time ago (I believe in the book "Influence" by Cianaldi). They introduced caramel into primate family groups. When they introduced it first to the top primates, the caramel quickly caught on, with around 75 percent (IIRC) consuming it within a very short time.
However, when they introduced it to other family groups through the lowest members, it took a year for the consumption rate to get up to 25 percent of the group. People, other primates, and even many other animal species, are simply programmed to be more open to ideas coming from those with authority.
Instead of the Blue Screen Of Death, you now get a Blue Case Of Death?
yeah...but wouldn't "blue balls" be considered prior art?
No...but I remember a program that made an Apple II floppy sound like it was having an orgasm...
interesting link. Did you happen to notice this statement on the page...
Important Message :
We value your help and like it when you refer other poeple to this site, but please do not link to this site and brand Mr. Gibson as a scam, he is not (per se). This site questions the motives of Mr. Gibson, criticizes him and his works by trying to demystifying what he is doing. What you are going to find on this site are Researched Facts and Opinions, Opinions however are refered to as what they are : opinions not facts.
it's like campaign brainstorming..."find out everything we are doing wrong and accuse the opposition of it."
hmmm...which should I do?
Build a site that sells something and make money
or
build a site that gives good information about something and lose money
I have seen hundreds of slashdot comments stating straight out they will never pay to view information on the net. Could it just maybe, perhaps be that people are no longer willing to spent mucho bucks and time to create and maintain good, informative sites when no one will pay a penny to view them? I would say this is beginning to look like a prime example of the old adage, "you get what you pay for."
What if google cache's your content? I grabbed it off of google, what do you have then?
I have Google trespassing on my private property
I have a web site. It resides on a server sitting next to me here in my home. To get to it, you have to enter my home, either physically or electronically. I think there is a legitimate case that this is different from information sent to your home via radio, TV, or newspaper. You must enter my private property to retrieve information from my web site and I can legally stipulate how you act on my property, whether you are allowed on my property at all and what you are able to do with any information you obtain there. Yes, My web site is connected to what can be considered a public conveyance...the Internet. My home is also connected to public access...the street. Anyone can look up my address and come to my house. Simply because I open my door to strangers, does not make my house, or my server, public property. I do recognize the difference when we are talking about a commercial web site or a store. However, aside from certain rules of non-discrimination, I don't see a significant difference. When I provide information on my business property to my customers, I can stipulate who has access to it and how it is used. For example, many of the great artworks hanging in museums are not under copyright. However, the museums can, and often do, prohibit visitors from taking photos of such works while visiting, just as I can prohibit people from duplicating information while visiting my private property.
I couldn't resist seeing what the same site said about google... http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=google