The point I was trying to emphasize is that the browser does not differentiate between content. It does not matter to the browser if the image/flash is an ad or legitimate content. What matters is that you've told the browser not to load items from a certain location.
Maybe it is upbringing? For instance, I shared a bedroom with one of my two brothers. Also, our computer and tv were located in a common room. It was common that I would be doing one thing while my brother(s) were doing another, so perhaps I got accustomed to noise in the background?
Several browsers have implemented a "right click to never see ads from here again" feature that is indispensable once you have used it.
You should be accurate. As I understand, the true text of these options is "Block all images from this server" which can potentially block desired content if the ads are hosted on the same server as the site. This is rare, but it will occur with more frequency with the spread of this feature and ad-blockers.
Journals are advertisement-free, which is why they cost so much. I used to work for a student newspaper and it was ridiculous how much money we were paid for ads. Without that revenue, high subscription costs are the only way to go.
It seems like you're making a few assumptions, or not providing us with the full story.
It's entirely possible that your newspaper was able to charge high ad fees due to demand, as opposed to being forced to charge high ad rates due to cost. The college demographic is highly sought after by advertisers, so putting ads in a paper that you know will be read almost exclusively by your target audience sounds like it would be a good move.
As siblings mentioned, the act of printing is very cheap.
They're doing an average, so roughly you'd expect that the percentage of bugs is about the same even if you were to isolate pieces of code.
No. You have absoutely no expectation of distribution with an average. You can assume the distribution if you like, but you know what they say about assumptions.
If it has a lower percentage of bugs, that means the rest of their proprietary code has an even higher percentage of bugs. Perhaps the kernel itself is higher, which makes things even worse.
What you say about relative error % is correct. However, it's much more likely that the kernel has a lower % of bugs simply because a kernel bug is more likely to crash the entire system. As such, it is in MS' best interest to make the kernel stable before moving onto other areas (Explorer, IE, etc.).
EA makes (made?) a rugby game. It was never on sale in the US, afaik. The control was a little jerky at first, similar to FIFA, but once you got used to it, it wasn't bad. If you didn't know the rules to rugby, though, you were SOL.
I disagree. At my workplace I am constantly hearing people on phone conversations. If I had to "pay attention for a few seconds" every time one of them talked, I would get nothing done.
The human mind can very easily tune things out, as long as it wants to. We don't want to tune out the cell phone conversation because we're all nosy bastards.
There are studies that conclude not all crying is caused by a specific need. I'm not an expert on this, it's just something I've seen a few times. These studies theorize that it is normal for babies to wake up crying for 5 minutes or so and then fall back asleep. New 'intelligent' baby monitors do not alert parents until a child is crying for some set amount of time.
All it takes is one cellphone packed with plastic explosives not checked by the undertrained and ineffective security staff and welcome to Lockerbie part deux
Try it this way: "All it takes is plastic explosives not checked by the undertrained and ineffective security staff and welcome to Lockerbie part deux"
It's explosives that are the danger, not phones. Detonating explosives is trivial. Getting them on the plane is hard.
Yes, there is a difference. The question is what is different that pisses people off?
My answer: It's harder to eavesdrop.
Since you only hear one side of the conversation, you don't fully know what is transpiring. This is annoying, because we've been trained to listen and because we are generally curious social animals. Think about a face to face conversation with a low talker, where you can't hear what they are saying. It's quite irritating, isn't it? It's the same thing when you're listening in on a cell conversation. It has nothing to do with the 'natural sound of conversation', whatever that might be.
Sibling posters mentioned that conversations in foreign languages are also annoying. I believe this is for the same reason. You can't eavesdrop on a conversation in another language, and it pisses you off because you don't know what is going on.
You're right. Aside from volume, the only reason cell conversations piss people off is because it's harder to eavesdrop. When you only hear one side of the conversation you have to do a lot more work to figure out what is being discussed and if there is anything of interest.
Yes. I'm eavesdropping on whatever you're saying on the bus/plane/train. It's very difficult for me to shut it out, whether its a phone or face/face conversation. If it bothers you, talk somewhere else.
Cleanup costs are rarely included in these projects. Utilities and industry fight tooth and nail to absolve themselves of any environmental liability. By including a line item for cleanups, it shows weakness when going to court.
Does anyone else find it odd that Spielberg, who made a large part of his career on the extraterrestrial contact film Close Encounters of the Third Kind, is now making xenophobic "The aliens will kill us all" films?
No. Directors make movies. Just because they successfully make one type of film does not mean they have to keep making that one type.
Just shows how the original film adaption got the visuals pretty much spot on.
Not necessarily. It could also show how the studio wants to tap into then kids, now 20-50 year olds' (with kids) memories of the original film. Yeah, I could have worded that one better. Oh well.
The candy may have had a problem, but the Wonka candy company still exists today. They make Runts, Mike and Ike, etc. I believe they are now making Wonka Bars again. This was probably to get the name out there again before the release of the new film.
I agree that this incident was an administrative cock-up, but I'm saying that the design is flawed by the fact that the user's are not given the chance to choose their AIM service provider (or indeed run their own server)
AOL obviously doesn't release their server software, but the client software allows you to connect to any server/port you like. So, you can choose your own provider, and since part of the AIM protocol is open (Oscar? I think?), you could do your own server.
Client-side verification
This includes validating that all the fields in a form are filled in, as well as checking that the user entered the correct password. Naturally, this is the silliest reason to require Javascript, as the validation step still has to be done on the server side anyway, making the client-side validation a redundant convenience at best, and an addle-brained sign of utter incompetence at worst.
Just what I want.. a user posting 300 times before realizing that, yes, they must fill out the form. Think about something like Yahoo mail. I can go into a new message and if I forget to put in a To:, it will still post to the server and come back and say that I'm a moron. With JS verification, I would know instantly.
Obviously client-side verification shouldn't be used for passwords, but checking that a form is at least completely filled out is very helpful, both as a designer and a web user. Client side verification is practically instant and does not burden the server with incomplete requests. Of course, client side verification does not exempt you from having to perform server side verification.
Technically it's not forcing the link to be opened in a new window. The browser can do whatever it likes with the "target" attribute, including ignoring it.
Many sites put external links in a new window to reinforce the idea that you are leaving their website. Yes, these types of things are obvious to us, but to many people it is simply not as clear. There are other reasons why one might want something to open in a new window/tab. As a designer, I would rather have that option open to me. Of course, as I mentioned above, I have no guarantee that the user will actually follow my suggestion.
Well, since Ad-aware is run with the full consent of the user, I don't see how it would "exceed the authorizations of the user" or whatever the lawsuit language is.
Slashdot Mirror
The point I was trying to emphasize is that the browser does not differentiate between content. It does not matter to the browser if the image/flash is an ad or legitimate content. What matters is that you've told the browser not to load items from a certain location.
Maybe it is upbringing? For instance, I shared a bedroom with one of my two brothers. Also, our computer and tv were located in a common room. It was common that I would be doing one thing while my brother(s) were doing another, so perhaps I got accustomed to noise in the background?
Several browsers have implemented a "right click to never see ads from here again" feature that is indispensable once you have used it.
You should be accurate. As I understand, the true text of these options is "Block all images from this server" which can potentially block desired content if the ads are hosted on the same server as the site. This is rare, but it will occur with more frequency with the spread of this feature and ad-blockers.
Now we've got an analogy thats 2 pages long. Brilliant. You might as well just explain the concepts already.
Not to mention the fact that almost all computer<->physical world analogies are flawed.
Journals are advertisement-free, which is why they cost so much. I used to work for a student newspaper and it was ridiculous how much money we were paid for ads. Without that revenue, high subscription costs are the only way to go.
It seems like you're making a few assumptions, or not providing us with the full story.
It's entirely possible that your newspaper was able to charge high ad fees due to demand, as opposed to being forced to charge high ad rates due to cost. The college demographic is highly sought after by advertisers, so putting ads in a paper that you know will be read almost exclusively by your target audience sounds like it would be a good move.
As siblings mentioned, the act of printing is very cheap.
They're doing an average, so roughly you'd expect that the percentage of bugs is about the same even if you were to isolate pieces of code.
No. You have absoutely no expectation of distribution with an average. You can assume the distribution if you like, but you know what they say about assumptions.
If it has a lower percentage of bugs, that means the rest of their proprietary code has an even higher percentage of bugs. Perhaps the kernel itself is higher, which makes things even worse.
What you say about relative error % is correct. However, it's much more likely that the kernel has a lower % of bugs simply because a kernel bug is more likely to crash the entire system. As such, it is in MS' best interest to make the kernel stable before moving onto other areas (Explorer, IE, etc.).
EA makes (made?) a rugby game. It was never on sale in the US, afaik. The control was a little jerky at first, similar to FIFA, but once you got used to it, it wasn't bad. If you didn't know the rules to rugby, though, you were SOL.
I disagree. At my workplace I am constantly hearing people on phone conversations. If I had to "pay attention for a few seconds" every time one of them talked, I would get nothing done.
The human mind can very easily tune things out, as long as it wants to. We don't want to tune out the cell phone conversation because we're all nosy bastards.
Just a note.. I hate jerks as much as anyone else.. It's just that I understand that you can't legislate manners and maintain a free society.
There are studies that conclude not all crying is caused by a specific need. I'm not an expert on this, it's just something I've seen a few times. These studies theorize that it is normal for babies to wake up crying for 5 minutes or so and then fall back asleep. New 'intelligent' baby monitors do not alert parents until a child is crying for some set amount of time.
All it takes is one cellphone packed with plastic explosives not checked by the undertrained and ineffective security staff and welcome to Lockerbie part deux
Try it this way: "All it takes is plastic explosives not checked by the undertrained and ineffective security staff and welcome to Lockerbie part deux"
It's explosives that are the danger, not phones. Detonating explosives is trivial. Getting them on the plane is hard.
Yes, there is a difference. The question is what is different that pisses people off?
My answer: It's harder to eavesdrop.
Since you only hear one side of the conversation, you don't fully know what is transpiring. This is annoying, because we've been trained to listen and because we are generally curious social animals. Think about a face to face conversation with a low talker, where you can't hear what they are saying. It's quite irritating, isn't it? It's the same thing when you're listening in on a cell conversation. It has nothing to do with the 'natural sound of conversation', whatever that might be.
Sibling posters mentioned that conversations in foreign languages are also annoying. I believe this is for the same reason. You can't eavesdrop on a conversation in another language, and it pisses you off because you don't know what is going on.
You're right. Aside from volume, the only reason cell conversations piss people off is because it's harder to eavesdrop. When you only hear one side of the conversation you have to do a lot more work to figure out what is being discussed and if there is anything of interest.
Yes. I'm eavesdropping on whatever you're saying on the bus/plane/train. It's very difficult for me to shut it out, whether its a phone or face/face conversation. If it bothers you, talk somewhere else.
hydro plant (read: damn)
That's dam. I believe it comes from the Dutch.
beautiful kinetic sculptures that look like old-fashioned airplane tripellars (what's the real word I'm looking for for a three-bladed propeller?)
Propeller. More accurately, wind turbines are rotors or possibly impellers.
Cleanup costs are rarely included in these projects. Utilities and industry fight tooth and nail to absolve themselves of any environmental liability. By including a line item for cleanups, it shows weakness when going to court.
Does anyone else find it odd that Spielberg, who made a large part of his career on the extraterrestrial contact film Close Encounters of the Third Kind, is now making xenophobic "The aliens will kill us all" films?
No. Directors make movies. Just because they successfully make one type of film does not mean they have to keep making that one type.
Just shows how the original film adaption got the visuals pretty much spot on.
Not necessarily. It could also show how the studio wants to tap into then kids, now 20-50 year olds' (with kids) memories of the original film. Yeah, I could have worded that one better. Oh well.
It'd have to be Godfather Part II good to make it in my book.
According to the review on NPR this morning, it sounds like it will be much closer to Godfather Part III.
The candy may have had a problem, but the Wonka candy company still exists today. They make Runts, Mike and Ike, etc. I believe they are now making Wonka Bars again. This was probably to get the name out there again before the release of the new film.
I agree that this incident was an administrative cock-up, but I'm saying that the design is flawed by the fact that the user's are not given the chance to choose their AIM service provider (or indeed run their own server)
AOL obviously doesn't release their server software, but the client software allows you to connect to any server/port you like. So, you can choose your own provider, and since part of the AIM protocol is open (Oscar? I think?), you could do your own server.
Client-side verification This includes validating that all the fields in a form are filled in, as well as checking that the user entered the correct password. Naturally, this is the silliest reason to require Javascript, as the validation step still has to be done on the server side anyway, making the client-side validation a redundant convenience at best, and an addle-brained sign of utter incompetence at worst.
Just what I want.. a user posting 300 times before realizing that, yes, they must fill out the form. Think about something like Yahoo mail. I can go into a new message and if I forget to put in a To:, it will still post to the server and come back and say that I'm a moron. With JS verification, I would know instantly.
Obviously client-side verification shouldn't be used for passwords, but checking that a form is at least completely filled out is very helpful, both as a designer and a web user. Client side verification is practically instant and does not burden the server with incomplete requests. Of course, client side verification does not exempt you from having to perform server side verification.
Technically it's not forcing the link to be opened in a new window. The browser can do whatever it likes with the "target" attribute, including ignoring it.
Many sites put external links in a new window to reinforce the idea that you are leaving their website. Yes, these types of things are obvious to us, but to many people it is simply not as clear. There are other reasons why one might want something to open in a new window/tab. As a designer, I would rather have that option open to me. Of course, as I mentioned above, I have no guarantee that the user will actually follow my suggestion.
If that passage holds in court, then the case is moot, and ad-aware has nothing to worry about.
Well, since Ad-aware is run with the full consent of the user, I don't see how it would "exceed the authorizations of the user" or whatever the lawsuit language is.