I'm quite pro-Internet advertising and stuff like AdBlock pisses me off. I'll gladly click an ad if it interests me and/or I want to help support a site I'm visiting. But, I took a look at that page and it was a bloody mess, I didn't click anything. I could puke a more artistic picture than that.
There was a story about a similar page to this (there are quite a few knockoffs) making a load of cash for a student over here in the UK a while ago, and I thought the same thing then as I do now - WHY are people paying money to put an ad on this site? There are some ideas that, when you hear them, you think, 'damn, I wish i'd thought of that, what a good idea.' This isn't one of them. The reason I didn't think of this is because it's really stupid, and I wouldn't pay anything to get a few pixels on his webpage. Why does anyone else? People are stupid.
'Our'? Speak for yourself. I'm proud that I've never paid one penny to that disgraceful inequity that is the licence fee, and I never shall. I don't use the BBC's services, if you think I should still pay for it, I have 2 words: fuck off.
Anyhow, we were talking specifically about online newspapers. I think you'd agree that the BBC is utterly unique in that it gets free money and is on easy street financially, so it's the last instutution you should be holding up in a debate on how online newspapers should survive. Unless, of course, you're arguing that the BBC should be the only online news site, in which case my same 2-word sentiment applies.
If papers aren't getting money from registration, donations OR ad viewings, why is anyone expecting them to give a shit about improving their online offerings? Frankly, this seems like a no-brainer to me. If I were a newspaper up against this kind of freeloader mentality, I'd just tell online viewers to shove it.
I'm sure YOU would, but that's not the point. People here who have a TV *HAVE* to pay it, don't you get it? That goes against the notion of a free market capitalist system, because choice is taken out of the system. Anyone who says they are 'happy to pay' the licence fee is utterly missing the point, which is that many other people AREN'T.
Yuk. IMHO, single click desktop interfaces suck bigtime.
I sometimes need to be able to select an item, or items, and doing that with single click is annyoying. You can get a system where the focus is given to the item that the mouse hovers over but that's slow to operate. Give me single click to select, double click to operate, anyday.
Nope, not ed2k. ed2k is quite fragmented, like BitTorrent, although to a slightly lesser extent - there are hundreds (minimum) of different servers. You may be thinking of Overnet.
What this all boils down to is a single question that our societies must answer: 'is freedom worth dying for?'
Even that question isn't quite right, as non-free societies usually are just as dangerous as free ones, if not more so. Look at China, where the government performs mass killing every year and the murder rate is still high. The question could equally be put, "is non-freedom worth dying for?", which shows just how much of an obvious decision this should be.
I actually am of the mind that it's a triple-bluff.
At the end of the show, the actors get out of the simulator, point at the TV and laugh at how stupid the audience were. But then, Channel 4 tells them they've actually BEEN in space.
Actually, I quite like the mApply button, you know your changes have definitely been applied when you click it and it's greyed out.
And, frankly, it's really not too hard to understand. Cancel cancels the changes you made *since you last clicked Apply*. If you've made no changes at all or since, it's greyed out. Hard to understand?
As someone who's seen a typical British, US and European toilet, I have to say I fail to understand the non-British designs.:-) Our toilets seem far more effective and water-efficient than the others. There's just a small amount of water in the toilet bowl which is flushed effectively. In the US, well, there's just this giant pool of water that virtually touches your ass when you sit down. When you flush it slowly drains out into this tiny pipe at the bottom, very prone to blockage, whilst water is constantly flowing in from above. Eventually it empties but it seems to waste a LOT of water. Anyone have any idea why they don't just use our design?
At least they're not the European ones. Sorry, I don't like shitting onto a shelf.:-)
I think you're talking BS. If you want a hard power-down, you can almost certainly hold the power button in for 5 seconds. Otherwise it makes sense to have a soft power-down button. If the OS needs to sit around for a while because something's not playing ball, it doesn't do it much good to lose power because your little battery decided to run out.
I find it amusing that you think Fox News is somehow more worthy of scrutiny than CBS; a representative of which intentionally used forged documents to selectively "prove" his wishful thinking. Once a Fox News staffer pulls something like that, let us know.
On election night for the 2000 US presidential election, John Ellis at the Fox News decision desk, first cousin of Jeb Bush, decided Fox would be the first network to call the state of Florida for the Republicans, a call that was so biased by wishful thinking it later had to be subsequently withdrawn. How's that?
Actually, encryption isn't necessarily going to work if they're monitoring ALL of your internet communications. If you're using a system whereby you give somebody your private key on a piece of paper or something, then maybe you can hide it from them. But in practice, most encryption systems rely on first sending your private key over... the public internet. So they just intercept that first and use it to decrypt your further communications.
By your reason, it wouldn't matter how many days there are in a year, it would still be coincidental
No, I think you understood what I meant. It's a co-incidence that you've got almost exactly 365.25 days in a year - something that allows the (relatively) simple ability to fix our measurements by adding a day every 4 years. It could be something like 365.64 rotations per year (solar orbit), which would be a lot more inconvenient.
To a person, animal flesh is food. To a corporation, money is food, and like people, a corporation will do just about anything to ensure a consisten supply of food (money).
I have to say that's about the best summing up of the reason behind corporate evildoing I've heard. They don't just want to make one big ton of money (Microsoft) and be happy with that - they must keep on getting more, always, for eternity. Food to humans is a good analogy. I'll have to write it down somewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
People are?
I'm quite pro-Internet advertising and stuff like AdBlock pisses me off. I'll gladly click an ad if it interests me and/or I want to help support a site I'm visiting. But, I took a look at that page and it was a bloody mess, I didn't click anything. I could puke a more artistic picture than that.
There was a story about a similar page to this (there are quite a few knockoffs) making a load of cash for a student over here in the UK a while ago, and I thought the same thing then as I do now - WHY are people paying money to put an ad on this site? There are some ideas that, when you hear them, you think, 'damn, I wish i'd thought of that, what a good idea.' This isn't one of them. The reason I didn't think of this is because it's really stupid, and I wouldn't pay anything to get a few pixels on his webpage. Why does anyone else? People are stupid.
the funniest post i've seen on slashdot: (#11004868)
You need to give the story ID (sid=... in the URLbar) as well as the post ID to be able to find it.
'Our'? Speak for yourself. I'm proud that I've never paid one penny to that disgraceful inequity that is the licence fee, and I never shall. I don't use the BBC's services, if you think I should still pay for it, I have 2 words: fuck off.
Anyhow, we were talking specifically about online newspapers. I think you'd agree that the BBC is utterly unique in that it gets free money and is on easy street financially, so it's the last instutution you should be holding up in a debate on how online newspapers should survive. Unless, of course, you're arguing that the BBC should be the only online news site, in which case my same 2-word sentiment applies.
If papers aren't getting money from registration, donations OR ad viewings, why is anyone expecting them to give a shit about improving their online offerings? Frankly, this seems like a no-brainer to me. If I were a newspaper up against this kind of freeloader mentality, I'd just tell online viewers to shove it.
And how long until bugmenot.com offers registration information for people who can't be arsed to pay the viewing fee?
We all know God INTELLIGENTLY TWEAKS those virus strands to make them resistant to drugs, FOR THE GOOD OF MANKIND!!
No. God only tweaks nature when it's changed in such a way that it can't currently be explained by scientists.
I'm sure YOU would, but that's not the point. People here who have a TV *HAVE* to pay it, don't you get it? That goes against the notion of a free market capitalist system, because choice is taken out of the system. Anyone who says they are 'happy to pay' the licence fee is utterly missing the point, which is that many other people AREN'T.
And Internets!
Yuk. IMHO, single click desktop interfaces suck bigtime.
I sometimes need to be able to select an item, or items, and doing that with single click is annyoying. You can get a system where the focus is given to the item that the mouse hovers over but that's slow to operate. Give me single click to select, double click to operate, anyday.
Nope, not ed2k. ed2k is quite fragmented, like BitTorrent, although to a slightly lesser extent - there are hundreds (minimum) of different servers. You may be thinking of Overnet.
tit-for-tat violence brings LESS SECURITY not more
No flame intended here, but - unless one side annihilates the other.
Take a loaded gun, put it to your head and pull the trigger. You'll be free until you die.
What this all boils down to is a single question that our societies must answer: 'is freedom worth dying for?'
Even that question isn't quite right, as non-free societies usually are just as dangerous as free ones, if not more so. Look at China, where the government performs mass killing every year and the murder rate is still high. The question could equally be put, "is non-freedom worth dying for?", which shows just how much of an obvious decision this should be.
I actually am of the mind that it's a triple-bluff.
At the end of the show, the actors get out of the simulator, point at the TV and laugh at how stupid the audience were. But then, Channel 4 tells them they've actually BEEN in space.
Actually, I quite like the mApply button, you know your changes have definitely been applied when you click it and it's greyed out.
And, frankly, it's really not too hard to understand. Cancel cancels the changes you made *since you last clicked Apply*. If you've made no changes at all or since, it's greyed out. Hard to understand?
As someone who's seen a typical British, US and European toilet, I have to say I fail to understand the non-British designs. :-) Our toilets seem far more effective and water-efficient than the others. There's just a small amount of water in the toilet bowl which is flushed effectively. In the US, well, there's just this giant pool of water that virtually touches your ass when you sit down. When you flush it slowly drains out into this tiny pipe at the bottom, very prone to blockage, whilst water is constantly flowing in from above. Eventually it empties but it seems to waste a LOT of water. Anyone have any idea why they don't just use our design?
:-)
At least they're not the European ones. Sorry, I don't like shitting onto a shelf.
for all toilets except the one in my own house I deposit my waste in them and let someone else worry about it.
I feel sorry for the people who go in after you...
I think you're talking BS. If you want a hard power-down, you can almost certainly hold the power button in for 5 seconds. Otherwise it makes sense to have a soft power-down button. If the OS needs to sit around for a while because something's not playing ball, it doesn't do it much good to lose power because your little battery decided to run out.
All that doesn't make what I said any less true.
I find it amusing that you think Fox News is somehow more worthy of scrutiny than CBS; a representative of which intentionally used forged documents to selectively "prove" his wishful thinking. Once a Fox News staffer pulls something like that, let us know.
On election night for the 2000 US presidential election, John Ellis at the Fox News decision desk, first cousin of Jeb Bush, decided Fox would be the first network to call the state of Florida for the Republicans, a call that was so biased by wishful thinking it later had to be subsequently withdrawn. How's that?
Who uses Solaris 10?
So married people are less likely to commit copyright violations? :-)
Actually, encryption isn't necessarily going to work if they're monitoring ALL of your internet communications. If you're using a system whereby you give somebody your private key on a piece of paper or something, then maybe you can hide it from them. But in practice, most encryption systems rely on first sending your private key over... the public internet. So they just intercept that first and use it to decrypt your further communications.
By your reason, it wouldn't matter how many days there are in a year, it would still be coincidental
No, I think you understood what I meant. It's a co-incidence that you've got almost exactly 365.25 days in a year - something that allows the (relatively) simple ability to fix our measurements by adding a day every 4 years. It could be something like 365.64 rotations per year (solar orbit), which would be a lot more inconvenient.
To a person, animal flesh is food. To a corporation, money is food, and like people, a corporation will do just about anything to ensure a consisten supply of food (money).
I have to say that's about the best summing up of the reason behind corporate evildoing I've heard. They don't just want to make one big ton of money (Microsoft) and be happy with that - they must keep on getting more, always, for eternity. Food to humans is a good analogy. I'll have to write it down somewhere.