Straddle the lanes as you pass the cameras (or very leisurely change lanes), or sit behind a truck so a set of cameras doesn't see your numberplate (a risky trick if there is more than 2 sets of cameras - you never know which cameras they are measuring between).
On new year's day I did 70 through a temporary 50mph section on a motorway, and didn't get a ticket. I knew there was a set of services in the middle of the 50mph bit, and I was going to be stopping anyway, and as there was fuck-all traffic on the road, and of course no workmen to be endangered, I didn't bother slowing down. I did lane straddle (just put your numberplate over the lane separating lines) as I passed the first set of SPECS cameras, but unexpected to me a few hundred yards before the services was another set of cameras, which I was pretty sure wasn't there the time before I had been through this temporary 50. There was no way I would be able to get my average speed below 50mph before passing them, and I didn't have room to hide or to try and avoid the camera's view. But either the lane straddling worked, or they weren't doing speed checks between the sets of cameras I passed, as I got away with it.
I am getting so sick of seeing monitoring cameras all over the place these days I am thinking about pushing the law. I think it is fully legal to have your numberplate behind the windscreen, or anywhere on the front of the car - the plate doesn't have to be where the original garage fitted it. I am tempted to move the plate so many cameras will simply miss it. I know I will get police attention, but I'd rather argue with a copper (or magistrate) than a fucking camera!
That's how we have got into the situation we are in now.
Nu-Labour's policies were based pretty much totally on what focus groups had to say, so that the politicians knew they were saying things that were popular with as many people as possible. So they could gain and keep power.
They ended up pandering to the self-righteous, even when (at the start) Blair et. al might actually have wanted to make the country fairer in some ways (haha, yeah, I know).
The trolling GP states that homosexuality has "no biological or evolutionary purpose (other than to naturally remove each partners genes from the pool)", but does it?
Homosexuality appears all across human ethnic groups, I think at about the same kind of rate. Seeing as modern societies have only existed for a fraction of the time humans have existed, and an even smaller fraction of time that the homo genus has existed, I think it is probably pretty likely that homosexuality does serve some purpose. Maybe not directly for the homosexual individual, but for the species.
I think the purpose homosexuality serves is so that a group of humans (eg a tribe) will contain adults that are very unlikely to breed. If breeding humans with children from the group die, there are spare humans in the social group who can step in and do (more[1]) parenting. This means children of the breeding humans stand a better chance of making it to adult hood, and passing on their genes.
Seeing as how members of tribal-type societies are much more closely related to one another than more modern human societies, the homosexual individual's genes will get passed on to quite some degree when they help in the raising of children.
[1] Modern western societies are rather odd in their patterns of raising kids, where most of it is done directly by TV^H^H the parents, and specific institutions (schools). Other societies seem to have much raising of kids done by the extended family.
I would LOVE for facebook to have a privacy option "Disable the ability to tag me in any photo"
Pfft, you think they are going to give up their chance of getting data that could be very useful for training an automated facial recognition system?
Lots of real world pictures, probably tagged reasonably accurately. There are loads of groups that would like access to that, and FB will/does sell that access.
@izo - If you have a chance to read the InfoWorld article, you'll see that my original example involved a guy and his boss, and a potential new employer. That's close to the scenario that originally brought this problem to my attention. Back in April, I wrote about - and warned Microsoft about - this precise problem. (See my Windows Secrets Newsletter article.) Somebody there just isn't listening. Privacy problems are real and enduring. Examples are fleeting - mutatis mutandis. No offense intended.
I think MS might be trying to change what is/was just a pile of users into a social network, and this is how MS is trying to force (or trick) most people into joining the network. Many users will not notice what's happening, many will not care, and many that might care will not (act on their) worry as they need to join the network to be able to keep using the free thing (IM).
Maybe it's competition? You can't use facebook's IM thing without having a FB account (and hence being part of networks), so MS figure they can do the same as people seem to accept being users of social networks. And as a bonus, MS get a social network of their own, with lots of users, that they can mine for data to sell to advertisers.
If you are the article's author, do you know if a passport account, set up with a domain that doesn't exist any more, is vulnerable to this privacy hole?
I created an MSN passport years ago, so I could use the MSN messenger service from 3rd party clients, and still do with Pidgin. IIRC, you could sign up and get a user name that was something like blahblah@passport.com, or you could use an existing email address from elsewhere. At the time I had a vanity domain, and used passport@mydomain.tld to sign up, so I knew where the spam had come from. Have these old accounts been migrated across to this thing I will want nothing to do with?
capitalism is grand. king quarter. year over year increase or die at home crying.
Yeap, and even though it is clear that this service has been removed from paying customers for a few reasons, you have still been modded troll for pointing out the truth.
But that seems to be a philosophical underpinning of capitalism: bullshit people, because you can get more money off them if you get away with it. So those who point out the truth, no matter how abrasively, are attacked.
BigPond say they are cutting the service "due to low levels of general usage and limited appeal to a mainstream audience." But it boils down to money. They think they can get rid of that service because the number of people that use it aren't significant enough to kick up a fuss, or if they do, BigPond (now a bit SmallerPond) has decided that it can afford to lose those customers.
There is also their desire to profit off data transfers. Clearly the projected profits based on making people pay for data by selling services with stupidly low transfer limits, weren't the same as the real profits. People found a way to manage their limit, so BigPond are closing the loophole.
And the way they have gone about shutting it down also seems pretty shitty - announce the closure 5 days before hand, on a Friday. Many people won't find out until Monday, many will never even hear about the closure, and the site will just vanish.
But customers of BigPond, you have 4 days of being able to bring BigPond to their knees. This service doesn't count towards the pitiful downloads limit they provide:
wget -r http://files.bigpond.com/
(shame, it doesn't appear you can recursively do downloads if you save the output to/dev/null).
Lead used for roofing material isn't too bad, as it reacts with the air, and acid in rain, to form an unreactive oxide and salt coating that keeps most of the lead itself out of the way of nature.
But lead in physically small pieces can be eaten by birds (as already explained in this thread), and the stomach acid will react with probably the whole piece of lead, meaning it will be absorbed by the body.
Just because there is a worse way of releasing lead into the environment than bullets (through the use of tetraethyl lead as an anti-knocking agent), doesn't mean that leaving little bits of lead lying about is a good idea.
But meat killed with lead bullets does have a certain sweetness to it;)
The thinking distance at 30mph is 30 feet, so if someone steps out from behind a parked van, or something, less than 30 feet away from you, you will probably hit them before your foot hits the brake pedal.
Of course, sensible drivers will realise that there is a blind obstruction coming, and will either slow down, or take steps to minimise problems if someone does step out: like crossing the centre line, if it's safe to.
On the flip side, I'd love a "back off" button I could get to make the plate flash a message at the wanker behind me
I'd like a "hurry the fuck up" button for my front plate for when I'm stuck behind an idiot like you.
What works nicely to get tailgaters off your arse is to speed up and slow down a couple of mph either side of the limit. No brakes, just let your speed drift up and down with the gas pedal alone.
Oscillate your speed at the right rate, and you can probably make the guy behind have to slam his brakes on a couple of times. They will either slow down and back off, or get incredibly pissed off and overtake.
The 2nd time I ever used this technique to deal with a tailgater, the guy behind honked on the first speed oscillation, and tried to drive closer. On the 2nd he overtook, but on the crest of a hill, with a cross roads on!
I think this just illustrates the kind of intellect of people who tailgate. Who in their right mind overtakes on a blind crest, with 2 junctions? Well, the kind of person who think they are more important on the roads than everyone else.
So, using your method, how do I allow Javascript for Slashdot's AJAX interface, while blocking the shitty javascript from the adverts?
Nope, there is definitely a real problem that NoScript addresses.
I deal with this, as best as I can, with adblock filters.
Pretty frequently the advert JS is in separate files, and many sites all run JS by one of a few ad networks. I just create filters to block the JS files that aren't necessary for a site's functionality, and once some filters are made, odds are they will work across many sites.
Unwanted JS within the page's HTML is still a problem though, with NoScript. Adblock can still help here, if JS builds URLs to get junk from 3rd parties. I have been playing with Privoxy recently, to deal with the shortcomings of browser extensions, and to get adblock-like filtering for all applications.
However we do not have to look far (e.g "Thailand Shuts Down 43,000 More Websites", or "FBIs Facebook Monitoring Leads To Arrest In England" both a few stories back) - to see that social network sites like/. are being sniffed, scanned, intercepted and profiles built up for normal citizens all around the world.
I'm glad I'm not the only person to have come to this conclusion.
Just from publicly available info, considering how many phpBBs and similar there are out there, it wouldn't be technically that hard to profile web users. The spooks have probably got root at Facebook already (via In-Q-Tel), but even if they haven't, writing a custom user-info gatherer for bespoke sites is not a technical mountain.
Even if people use different usernames on different forums, they will most likely pick similar names, or ones that follow a theme. But if a person submit details like IM names or email addresses, cross-referencing people to being specific users from different sites would be easy.
The fact that sites like PayPal sometimes do send out real messages with all the hallmarks of a scam also serves to confuse issues. I seem to recall that this [paypal-marketing.co.uk] site is, in fact, legit.
The holy grail of business is to turn costs into profits. Whilst spam, phishing, owned accounts, etc. look like costs to Paypal, they will very much be looking to change those to profits if possible.
I don't use paypal, as it has always reeked as far as I am concerned, but as I understand it they will freeze accounts at the drop of a hat, for various reasons. If they have just 1% of accounts frozen at any one time, that will be a decent chunk of cash, and they can earn interest on it, and all the other shit capitalists can do when they have capital.
So is it in PP's interests to freeze accounts? If so, they need excuses, and security is always a good-un. They might not purposefully confuse users, they just give the ones willing to take the wrong end of the stick, the wrong end of the stick. PP sending out emails that look like scam emails is just them offering "the wrong end of the stick".
To geeks, it should be pretty straight forward - always, always, always, use the paypal.com domain for anything PP related. Never have other domain names. The drive for profit comes along though, and PP want to totally fill search results for escrow (or whatever) to drown out the competition. Or more importantly, those dirty commies looking to be critical of paypal, or their industry.
The experience I have had of amateurs running web sites as part of a hobby is that compared to what they spend on their hobby, the website's financial costs are a tiny fraction. Relatively it is "pennies", or at least that is how it is seen.
Have I known people running a genuinely major website? Well, I don't know Bezos, Zuckerberg, or even Taco. But what does major mean? Were you trying to define the terms of debate just so you could "win"? The amateur sites I have known of have been reasonable major in their niche, and considering how democratising the web is compared to other media forms (like TV), a minor player on the web is equal (in some respects) to the big boys.
As my sibling AC post points out, Wikipedia. If profit isn't being creamed off, then it does appear that you can run a major site on donations alone.
Clear out your cookies, turn off 3rd party cookies in your browser, and that shit should stop.... or at least be reduced.
Conspiracy theory: There used to be a check box in FF's options to disallow 3rd party cookies, but since version 2 the user has to go into about:config (accepting a scary warning first) to change the option. Google, the world's biggest advertising company, is also the biggest funder of Mozilla. IIRC, they began funding Mozilla somewhere during FF v1's product life.
New products were being released, new movies were in theaters, and I didn't know these things existed. I wanted to know that they existed. I wanted to buy some of those products and see some of those movies.
But be objective, and just think about how many jingles are in your head. Just think how you can recognise brands just through something like a quick glimpse of corporate colours, or a type face. They don't teach that shit at school, so it got into your head somehow - bypassing the filters.
Whilst you think you can filter them out, the psychologists who designed those adverts were aiming otherwise. And they are paid very handsomely, so it must work (either as they say, or just to the businesses buying adverts).
I recommend you make a concerted effort for a month or two to avoid advertising. Install Adblock and NoScript and reign in the cruft on line. If you have a PVR, use it to dodge adverts, and maybe try avoiding TV for a while - or at least programmes with product placement and/or aggressive adverts. Make sure you have a good selection of tapes[1] for the car, so you don't need to hear radio adverts.
The mute button on a TV remote is massively underrated too. With TV ads muted, it is actually quite easy to notice the tricks they use to grab attention. Once someone recognises how the adverts work, they are much less effective.
After a while of this, allow yourself to be exposed to an unfiltered world for a little while, I bet you will notice just how pervasive and persuasive adverts are.
[1] Or 8 track carts, if you are stuck in the past;)
No substance, just a rant. And yet, it seems to resonate with some people here at/. The fact is, if something is free** it is either paid for by advertising or tax dollars. The following are a couple of my favorite free things: my content on the internet (with the exception of netflix). If you hate advertising that much, be prepared for the alternative when you get your wish,. Pay-walls everywhere.
Pay-walls on content will only be there if the site is being run for profit. People running a site about a topic, for the love of the topic, will not mind paying the pennies that hosting really costs. And if a site gets really popular, whilst remaining amateur, voluntary donations can easily cover hosting costs.
And if you feel that that is just a rant with no substance, you clearly don't understand what is written between the lines.
Two days ago, there was a mothers' group here demanding that local councils put up signage in all parks warning of the native birds. A 6 mth old child was pecked once by a pee-wee and had to be rushed to hospital to get a bandage.
People don't want to take responsibility for their own lives and actions, and modern politicians buy votes from these people by pandering to them.
RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000)) requires encryption keys to be handed over, or plaintext provided, on penalty of up to two years imprisonment.
I've always been curious how this works if you simply respond "I don't remember".
As I understand things (I studied law at the University of Slashdot, so beware!), they assume you are lying, and bang you up.
No doubt you could appeal and appeal and appeal, all the way to Europe human rights court. The law sounds very unfair, and would the UK government really let it go all the way? Would they want their law ruled as unusable, or would they rather just have it to threaten? With enough delays in the appeals process, you could spend quite a bit of time in prison anyway before either getting a court to say no, or before the crown dropped the case.
Is the purpose of the law to get keys off people, or to stop people from wanting to use encryption at all?
Re:Next Stop: Murder! (Score:-1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward writes: on 03-06-10 22:27 (#32451754) Such a leading question to make YOU feel like the asshole. Only three things you needed to say: "Am I being detained?" "Then I'm free to go?" "Good bye."
Hmm, looks like a pig has got mod points and doesn't like you letting the big secret out!
I can confirm that this technique works. Used it just the other day when me and a mate had been out smoking pot up the hills.
Slashdot Mirror
Straddle the lanes as you pass the cameras (or very leisurely change lanes), or sit behind a truck so a set of cameras doesn't see your numberplate (a risky trick if there is more than 2 sets of cameras - you never know which cameras they are measuring between).
On new year's day I did 70 through a temporary 50mph section on a motorway, and didn't get a ticket. I knew there was a set of services in the middle of the 50mph bit, and I was going to be stopping anyway, and as there was fuck-all traffic on the road, and of course no workmen to be endangered, I didn't bother slowing down. I did lane straddle (just put your numberplate over the lane separating lines) as I passed the first set of SPECS cameras, but unexpected to me a few hundred yards before the services was another set of cameras, which I was pretty sure wasn't there the time before I had been through this temporary 50. There was no way I would be able to get my average speed below 50mph before passing them, and I didn't have room to hide or to try and avoid the camera's view. But either the lane straddling worked, or they weren't doing speed checks between the sets of cameras I passed, as I got away with it.
I am getting so sick of seeing monitoring cameras all over the place these days I am thinking about pushing the law. I think it is fully legal to have your numberplate behind the windscreen, or anywhere on the front of the car - the plate doesn't have to be where the original garage fitted it. I am tempted to move the plate so many cameras will simply miss it. I know I will get police attention, but I'd rather argue with a copper (or magistrate) than a fucking camera!
That's how we have got into the situation we are in now.
Nu-Labour's policies were based pretty much totally on what focus groups had to say, so that the politicians knew they were saying things that were popular with as many people as possible. So they could gain and keep power.
They ended up pandering to the self-righteous, even when (at the start) Blair et. al might actually have wanted to make the country fairer in some ways (haha, yeah, I know).
Maybe they were holding it wrong?
Is this the start of a new slashdot meme?
It would work well in those places where "you must be new here" doesn't quite fit properly.
The trolling GP states that homosexuality has "no biological or evolutionary purpose (other than to naturally remove each partners genes from the pool)", but does it?
Homosexuality appears all across human ethnic groups, I think at about the same kind of rate. Seeing as modern societies have only existed for a fraction of the time humans have existed, and an even smaller fraction of time that the homo genus has existed, I think it is probably pretty likely that homosexuality does serve some purpose. Maybe not directly for the homosexual individual, but for the species.
I think the purpose homosexuality serves is so that a group of humans (eg a tribe) will contain adults that are very unlikely to breed. If breeding humans with children from the group die, there are spare humans in the social group who can step in and do (more[1]) parenting. This means children of the breeding humans stand a better chance of making it to adult hood, and passing on their genes.
Seeing as how members of tribal-type societies are much more closely related to one another than more modern human societies, the homosexual individual's genes will get passed on to quite some degree when they help in the raising of children.
[1] Modern western societies are rather odd in their patterns of raising kids, where most of it is done directly by TV^H^H the parents, and specific institutions (schools). Other societies seem to have much raising of kids done by the extended family.
I think I heard them say on Channel 4's news this evening that one or more was going to leave the country, so the FBI acted.
They also mentioned that even though "spying" is being bandied about, none of them have been charged with espionage.
So what are we paying for again?
Probably shareholder dividends.
I would also pay for "big bang theory" and "how I met your mother", neither of which are online anywhere.
You not tried the 'bay?
I would LOVE for facebook to have a privacy option "Disable the ability to tag me in any photo"
Pfft, you think they are going to give up their chance of getting data that could be very useful for training an automated facial recognition system?
Lots of real world pictures, probably tagged reasonably accurately. There are loads of groups that would like access to that, and FB will/does sell that access.
(Score:0, Troll)
Your example is just as bad. Because why would anyone befriend a homophobe in this day and age? Or even worse, the fundamentalist christian.
Looks like Pat Robertson has got mod points today!
@izo - If you have a chance to read the InfoWorld article, you'll see that my original example involved a guy and his boss, and a potential new employer. That's close to the scenario that originally brought this problem to my attention. Back in April, I wrote about - and warned Microsoft about - this precise problem. (See my Windows Secrets Newsletter article.) Somebody there just isn't listening. Privacy problems are real and enduring. Examples are fleeting - mutatis mutandis. No offense intended.
I think MS might be trying to change what is/was just a pile of users into a social network, and this is how MS is trying to force (or trick) most people into joining the network. Many users will not notice what's happening, many will not care, and many that might care will not (act on their) worry as they need to join the network to be able to keep using the free thing (IM).
Maybe it's competition? You can't use facebook's IM thing without having a FB account (and hence being part of networks), so MS figure they can do the same as people seem to accept being users of social networks. And as a bonus, MS get a social network of their own, with lots of users, that they can mine for data to sell to advertisers.
If you are the article's author, do you know if a passport account, set up with a domain that doesn't exist any more, is vulnerable to this privacy hole?
I created an MSN passport years ago, so I could use the MSN messenger service from 3rd party clients, and still do with Pidgin. IIRC, you could sign up and get a user name that was something like blahblah@passport.com, or you could use an existing email address from elsewhere. At the time I had a vanity domain, and used passport@mydomain.tld to sign up, so I knew where the spam had come from. Have these old accounts been migrated across to this thing I will want nothing to do with?
capitalism is grand. king quarter. year over year increase or die at home crying.
Yeap, and even though it is clear that this service has been removed from paying customers for a few reasons, you have still been modded troll for pointing out the truth.
But that seems to be a philosophical underpinning of capitalism: bullshit people, because you can get more money off them if you get away with it. So those who point out the truth, no matter how abrasively, are attacked.
BigPond say they are cutting the service "due to low levels of general usage and limited appeal to a mainstream audience." But it boils down to money. They think they can get rid of that service because the number of people that use it aren't significant enough to kick up a fuss, or if they do, BigPond (now a bit SmallerPond) has decided that it can afford to lose those customers.
There is also their desire to profit off data transfers. Clearly the projected profits based on making people pay for data by selling services with stupidly low transfer limits, weren't the same as the real profits. People found a way to manage their limit, so BigPond are closing the loophole.
And the way they have gone about shutting it down also seems pretty shitty - announce the closure 5 days before hand, on a Friday. Many people won't find out until Monday, many will never even hear about the closure, and the site will just vanish.
But customers of BigPond, you have 4 days of being able to bring BigPond to their knees. This service doesn't count towards the pitiful downloads limit they provide:
(shame, it doesn't appear you can recursively do downloads if you save the output to /dev/null).
According to rainmouse above, statistically the guy could actually step out 5 times before dying!
Lead used for roofing material isn't too bad, as it reacts with the air, and acid in rain, to form an unreactive oxide and salt coating that keeps most of the lead itself out of the way of nature.
But lead in physically small pieces can be eaten by birds (as already explained in this thread), and the stomach acid will react with probably the whole piece of lead, meaning it will be absorbed by the body.
Just because there is a worse way of releasing lead into the environment than bullets (through the use of tetraethyl lead as an anti-knocking agent), doesn't mean that leaving little bits of lead lying about is a good idea.
But meat killed with lead bullets does have a certain sweetness to it ;)
The thinking distance at 30mph is 30 feet, so if someone steps out from behind a parked van, or something, less than 30 feet away from you, you will probably hit them before your foot hits the brake pedal.
Of course, sensible drivers will realise that there is a blind obstruction coming, and will either slow down, or take steps to minimise problems if someone does step out: like crossing the centre line, if it's safe to.
On the flip side, I'd love a "back off" button I could get to make the plate flash a message at the wanker behind me
I'd like a "hurry the fuck up" button for my front plate for when I'm stuck behind an idiot like you.
What works nicely to get tailgaters off your arse is to speed up and slow down a couple of mph either side of the limit. No brakes, just let your speed drift up and down with the gas pedal alone.
Oscillate your speed at the right rate, and you can probably make the guy behind have to slam his brakes on a couple of times. They will either slow down and back off, or get incredibly pissed off and overtake.
The 2nd time I ever used this technique to deal with a tailgater, the guy behind honked on the first speed oscillation, and tried to drive closer. On the 2nd he overtook, but on the crest of a hill, with a cross roads on!
I think this just illustrates the kind of intellect of people who tailgate. Who in their right mind overtakes on a blind crest, with 2 junctions? Well, the kind of person who think they are more important on the roads than everyone else.
So, using your method, how do I allow Javascript for Slashdot's AJAX interface, while blocking the shitty javascript from the adverts?
Nope, there is definitely a real problem that NoScript addresses.
I deal with this, as best as I can, with adblock filters.
Pretty frequently the advert JS is in separate files, and many sites all run JS by one of a few ad networks. I just create filters to block the JS files that aren't necessary for a site's functionality, and once some filters are made, odds are they will work across many sites.
Unwanted JS within the page's HTML is still a problem though, with NoScript. Adblock can still help here, if JS builds URLs to get junk from 3rd parties. I have been playing with Privoxy recently, to deal with the shortcomings of browser extensions, and to get adblock-like filtering for all applications.
However we do not have to look far (e.g "Thailand Shuts Down 43,000 More Websites", or "FBIs Facebook Monitoring Leads To Arrest In England" both a few stories back) - to see that social network sites like /. are being sniffed, scanned, intercepted and profiles built up for normal citizens all around the world.
I'm glad I'm not the only person to have come to this conclusion.
Just from publicly available info, considering how many phpBBs and similar there are out there, it wouldn't be technically that hard to profile web users. The spooks have probably got root at Facebook already (via In-Q-Tel), but even if they haven't, writing a custom user-info gatherer for bespoke sites is not a technical mountain.
Even if people use different usernames on different forums, they will most likely pick similar names, or ones that follow a theme. But if a person submit details like IM names or email addresses, cross-referencing people to being specific users from different sites would be easy.
The fact that sites like PayPal sometimes do send out real messages with all the hallmarks of a scam also serves to confuse issues. I seem to recall that this [paypal-marketing.co.uk] site is, in fact, legit.
The holy grail of business is to turn costs into profits. Whilst spam, phishing, owned accounts, etc. look like costs to Paypal, they will very much be looking to change those to profits if possible.
I don't use paypal, as it has always reeked as far as I am concerned, but as I understand it they will freeze accounts at the drop of a hat, for various reasons. If they have just 1% of accounts frozen at any one time, that will be a decent chunk of cash, and they can earn interest on it, and all the other shit capitalists can do when they have capital.
So is it in PP's interests to freeze accounts? If so, they need excuses, and security is always a good-un. They might not purposefully confuse users, they just give the ones willing to take the wrong end of the stick, the wrong end of the stick. PP sending out emails that look like scam emails is just them offering "the wrong end of the stick".
To geeks, it should be pretty straight forward - always, always, always, use the paypal.com domain for anything PP related. Never have other domain names. The drive for profit comes along though, and PP want to totally fill search results for escrow (or whatever) to drown out the competition. Or more importantly, those dirty commies looking to be critical of paypal, or their industry.
The experience I have had of amateurs running web sites as part of a hobby is that compared to what they spend on their hobby, the website's financial costs are a tiny fraction. Relatively it is "pennies", or at least that is how it is seen.
Have I known people running a genuinely major website? Well, I don't know Bezos, Zuckerberg, or even Taco. But what does major mean? Were you trying to define the terms of debate just so you could "win"? The amateur sites I have known of have been reasonable major in their niche, and considering how democratising the web is compared to other media forms (like TV), a minor player on the web is equal (in some respects) to the big boys.
As my sibling AC post points out, Wikipedia. If profit isn't being creamed off, then it does appear that you can run a major site on donations alone.
Clear out your cookies, turn off 3rd party cookies in your browser, and that shit should stop.... or at least be reduced.
Conspiracy theory: There used to be a check box in FF's options to disallow 3rd party cookies, but since version 2 the user has to go into about:config (accepting a scary warning first) to change the option. Google, the world's biggest advertising company, is also the biggest funder of Mozilla. IIRC, they began funding Mozilla somewhere during FF v1's product life.
New products were being released, new movies were in theaters, and I didn't know these things existed. I wanted to know that they existed. I wanted to buy some of those products and see some of those movies.
http://rss.thepiratebay.org/201
HTH
That's what you are meant to think.
But be objective, and just think about how many jingles are in your head. Just think how you can recognise brands just through something like a quick glimpse of corporate colours, or a type face. They don't teach that shit at school, so it got into your head somehow - bypassing the filters.
Whilst you think you can filter them out, the psychologists who designed those adverts were aiming otherwise. And they are paid very handsomely, so it must work (either as they say, or just to the businesses buying adverts).
I recommend you make a concerted effort for a month or two to avoid advertising. Install Adblock and NoScript and reign in the cruft on line. If you have a PVR, use it to dodge adverts, and maybe try avoiding TV for a while - or at least programmes with product placement and/or aggressive adverts. Make sure you have a good selection of tapes[1] for the car, so you don't need to hear radio adverts.
The mute button on a TV remote is massively underrated too. With TV ads muted, it is actually quite easy to notice the tricks they use to grab attention. Once someone recognises how the adverts work, they are much less effective.
After a while of this, allow yourself to be exposed to an unfiltered world for a little while, I bet you will notice just how pervasive and persuasive adverts are.
[1] Or 8 track carts, if you are stuck in the past ;)
No substance, just a rant. And yet, it seems to resonate with some people here at /. The fact is, if something is free** it is either paid for by advertising or tax dollars. The following are a couple of my favorite free things: my content on the internet (with the exception of netflix). If you hate advertising that much, be prepared for the alternative when you get your wish,. Pay-walls everywhere.
Pay-walls on content will only be there if the site is being run for profit. People running a site about a topic, for the love of the topic, will not mind paying the pennies that hosting really costs. And if a site gets really popular, whilst remaining amateur, voluntary donations can easily cover hosting costs.
And if you feel that that is just a rant with no substance, you clearly don't understand what is written between the lines.
Two days ago, there was a mothers' group here demanding that local councils put up signage in all parks warning of the native birds. A 6 mth old child was pecked once by a pee-wee and had to be rushed to hospital to get a bandage.
People don't want to take responsibility for their own lives and actions, and modern politicians buy votes from these people by pandering to them.
RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000)) requires encryption keys to be handed over, or plaintext provided, on penalty of up to two years imprisonment.
I've always been curious how this works if you simply respond "I don't remember".
As I understand things (I studied law at the University of Slashdot, so beware!), they assume you are lying, and bang you up.
No doubt you could appeal and appeal and appeal, all the way to Europe human rights court. The law sounds very unfair, and would the UK government really let it go all the way? Would they want their law ruled as unusable, or would they rather just have it to threaten? With enough delays in the appeals process, you could spend quite a bit of time in prison anyway before either getting a court to say no, or before the crown dropped the case.
Is the purpose of the law to get keys off people, or to stop people from wanting to use encryption at all?
Re:Next Stop: Murder! (Score:-1, Troll)
by Anonymous Coward writes: on 03-06-10 22:27 (#32451754)
Such a leading question to make YOU feel like the asshole. Only three things you needed to say: "Am I being detained?" "Then I'm free to go?" "Good bye."
Hmm, looks like a pig has got mod points and doesn't like you letting the big secret out!
I can confirm that this technique works. Used it just the other day when me and a mate had been out smoking pot up the hills.
Needless to say, we weren't caught.