Not all countries have freedom of speech. I don't know what Austrailia's stand on this is, but it's a tad parochial to assume that the US Bill of Rights holds everywhere.
Any browser that supports cookies, ever since they were invented
Actually, no. When the idea of cookies was first developed, any site could simply ask for your cookies and see what was there. This, of course, led to tremendous abuse and the distrust of all cookies that some people still have. Within a year or so, it became standard for browsers to deliver only those cookies a domain had set, as they do now.
If you're visiting Slashdot, and the page you request has an image from osdn.org, your browser sends a request to osdn.org for that image. Now, osdn.org can see any cookies it's put on your machine, but it can't see any of the slashdot cookies. There may be an extension to Firefox to block that, but if so, I don't know of it.
Since when should you trust a site not to annoy you with ads, block popups and use Adblock and Flashblock.
You and I have much the same way of dealing with ads. However, the idea is that if you are going to see ads, you should see a different one each time. That way, instead of having one product shoved under your nose over and over, you get one look at a large number of products. This increases the chance that you will find at least one of the ads useful and lowers the chance that you will get so fed up you block them all.
As I see it, you have two sensible choices. Either you block all ads or you allow the cookies. Blocking cookies and accepting ads just gets you bombarded with endless repititions of the same thing and that's the worst outcome.
You managed to shoot the political rapids of a science fiction fan club.
That's SMOF: Secret Master Of Fandom. And you have no idea how hardball fan politics can get. Tricky Dicky could have learned lessons in duplicity from us.
On a slightly more serious note, I too block most ads and see no reason why you shouldn't. However, I don't say the advertisers have no right to try to get my attention, or to get me to buy as you seem to.
ROTFLMAO! What a pathetic ad hominem excuse for a reply. I happen to be, among other things, a member of the Board of Directors of LASFS, This World's Oldest Science Fiction club. Just recently I resigned my position as Secretary to the Board over a matter of principle. Not only that, but I did it in such a way that the next secretary won't have the same issue I did because dealing with my resignation forced the issue and caused it to be resolved. Stand on principle all you want, but don't expect the world to change in most cases; I'll admit I was lucky, but then again, I know how to pick my fights and don't start when I don't have a chance.
You're right. I'm a realist talking about the way the world works and you're an idealist demanding that it work the way you want it to. Sorry, but that's just not going to happen and your complaints aren't going to change things. Deal with it.
You seem to be laboring under the assumption that they expect everybody to buy and that your refusal refutes their ideas. They're working on the basis that some of the people seeing the ad will buy, others will ignore. You're just part of the second section.
You proceed from the assumption that I will ever punch the monkey for any reason, they just have to find a good enough reason.
No. I don't. They do. They're acting on the certain knowledge that if they can find the right bait some of the viewers will respond. Their hope is that they can find the bait that you will respond to.
Instead of "punching the monkey" for stuff I am not interested in, I will be asked to "punch the monkey" for stuff I might be interested in gee. I feel warm and fuzzy already.
If you don't own a house and aren't in the market, you're not going to "punch the monkey" for a quote on a mortgage. If you frequently buy movie tickets on line, you might punch it for a discount on your next tickets. That's what targetted advertising is all about.
You always get some time off for good behavior if you earn it. Misbehave and you not only don't get any more, you can lose what you've gotten. It's an incentive plan to encourage prisoners to behave themselves, and from what I gather, it works.
Look at Martha Stewart. How much money did she steal?
Not one red cent. She was questioned in an investigation and lied to the investigators. At no time was she read her rights, at no time was she told she was a suspect and she was never charged with a crime because of the investigation. All she was charged with was lying to protect herself. She was set up just like the victims of AbScam and just like John Delorean. Entrapment, pure and simple.
You can, however, move a pregnant worker out of an environment that's known to be extra risky at that time without trouble. As an example, at a home improvement store, you could shift a pregnant woman from paint to hand-tools, to avoid any possible damage to the fetus, and let her go back to paint again when she comes back from maternaty leave. She'd be doing just as much work, but wouldn't be working around chemicals known to be dangerous at that time.
Depending on what's needed to avoid problems, it might be cheaper to do the testing and provide the safer environment for those who need it. The testing is a one-time expense, and any different equipment is a capital expenditure; medical benefits for carpal can last for months, or even years. I have a friend who's been unable to work for over ten years now because she made the mistake of "working through the pain" of carpal, and will never be able to work for the rest of her life. Her last employer will be paying for that as long as she lives. I'm not faulting them, she could have complained about the pain sooner but chose not to. If she has a genetic predisposition and it were known, this would probably have been avoided because they wouldn't have given her the tasks (copying large numbers of pages of various files in a legal firm) that caused this.
Not so. If there's a choice between using you in a position that would agravate a genetic predisposition to carpal or in one that doesn't, they can simply assign you to something that's less likely to cause carpal. As an example, grocery checkers are far more likely to get carpal than shelf clerks. Moving those most prone to problems off the checkstands is just common sense. Either that, or spend a small amount of money to make the job less damaging for them because it's cheaper than paying the medical expenses. That's not to say I approve of the secret testing; I don't. I just think that if you do have reason to think certain employees are more suseptable to workplace-caused conditions, you not only have every right to make adjustments for it, you have a moral obligation to do so. What you don't have is the right to refuse to employ them unless there's no way to make their job reasonably safe for them.
Nothing new or different about that. It's been said that the biggest ambition of most people in Hollywood is to be the first person to be the second person to do something.
Making a movie with a brand new concept is a risk; sequels are almost risk-free.
...the diameter of a Black Hole is a direct function of the mass of the Black Hole (which includes the mass and effective mass of everything it consumes).
If you want to be accurate, the circumference is a direct function of the mass; the diamater may well be infinite.
Those of you who do not do end user support in Windows and have no experience in it might imagine that teaching Linux would make a difference.
I've done a lot of end-user support for Windows, Mac and various other machines, including Linux. No one of them has a monopoly on stupid end-users. And, I agree with you that teaching students nothing but Linux won't help them get computer jobs in Windows shops. It might, however, create a group of people who use Windows at work and Linux at home, and there are worse things that could happen.
Truman had another option to end the war -- Godzilla. Yes, Godzilla.
Alas, no. Godzilla was still sleeping in his undersea cavern in 1945, and wouldn't waken until disturbed by H-bomb tests in the early '50s. Nice thought, though.
Any time a two-bit tin-plated dictator with delusions of godhood considers pushing the USA around, he's got to remember not only do we have nuclear weapons, we've used them before. Using them the first time is the hardest; it's easier to do it again. I wonder how many times various "strong men" have backed down rather than take that chance. I do know from things I've read over the years, that it was a chance Krushchev never wanted to take. He was at least as worried that we'd start a nuclear exchange as we were that he'd start one. It may be that we've never had to drop another one because we'd dropped the first two.
Slashdot Mirror
Not all countries have freedom of speech. I don't know what Austrailia's stand on this is, but it's a tad parochial to assume that the US Bill of Rights holds everywhere.
Actually, no. When the idea of cookies was first developed, any site could simply ask for your cookies and see what was there. This, of course, led to tremendous abuse and the distrust of all cookies that some people still have. Within a year or so, it became standard for browsers to deliver only those cookies a domain had set, as they do now.
If you're visiting Slashdot, and the page you request has an image from osdn.org, your browser sends a request to osdn.org for that image. Now, osdn.org can see any cookies it's put on your machine, but it can't see any of the slashdot cookies. There may be an extension to Firefox to block that, but if so, I don't know of it.
You and I have much the same way of dealing with ads. However, the idea is that if you are going to see ads, you should see a different one each time. That way, instead of having one product shoved under your nose over and over, you get one look at a large number of products. This increases the chance that you will find at least one of the ads useful and lowers the chance that you will get so fed up you block them all.
As I see it, you have two sensible choices. Either you block all ads or you allow the cookies. Blocking cookies and accepting ads just gets you bombarded with endless repititions of the same thing and that's the worst outcome.
That's SMOF: Secret Master Of Fandom. And you have no idea how hardball fan politics can get. Tricky Dicky could have learned lessons in duplicity from us.
On a slightly more serious note, I too block most ads and see no reason why you shouldn't. However, I don't say the advertisers have no right to try to get my attention, or to get me to buy as you seem to.
ROTFLMAO! What a pathetic ad hominem excuse for a reply. I happen to be, among other things, a member of the Board of Directors of LASFS, This World's Oldest Science Fiction club. Just recently I resigned my position as Secretary to the Board over a matter of principle. Not only that, but I did it in such a way that the next secretary won't have the same issue I did because dealing with my resignation forced the issue and caused it to be resolved. Stand on principle all you want, but don't expect the world to change in most cases; I'll admit I was lucky, but then again, I know how to pick my fights and don't start when I don't have a chance.
Not my ads, monkey boy! I don't work in that industry and never have. I'm just pointing out their logic as opposed to your whining.
You're right. I'm a realist talking about the way the world works and you're an idealist demanding that it work the way you want it to. Sorry, but that's just not going to happen and your complaints aren't going to change things. Deal with it.
You seem to be laboring under the assumption that they expect everybody to buy and that your refusal refutes their ideas. They're working on the basis that some of the people seeing the ad will buy, others will ignore. You're just part of the second section.
No. I don't. They do. They're acting on the certain knowledge that if they can find the right bait some of the viewers will respond. Their hope is that they can find the bait that you will respond to.
I did; localhost seemed to be slightly quicker, but I didn't actually time it. YMMV.
If you don't own a house and aren't in the market, you're not going to "punch the monkey" for a quote on a mortgage. If you frequently buy movie tickets on line, you might punch it for a discount on your next tickets. That's what targetted advertising is all about.
Because localhost "responds" right away and, since you're probably not running a webserver, the connection gets refused with the minimum wait.
You always get some time off for good behavior if you earn it. Misbehave and you not only don't get any more, you can lose what you've gotten. It's an incentive plan to encourage prisoners to behave themselves, and from what I gather, it works.
Not one red cent. She was questioned in an investigation and lied to the investigators. At no time was she read her rights, at no time was she told she was a suspect and she was never charged with a crime because of the investigation. All she was charged with was lying to protect herself. She was set up just like the victims of AbScam and just like John Delorean. Entrapment, pure and simple.
He's that rude, is he? Either that, or he thinks that nobody has any right to express (or hear) any opinion except his.
You can, however, move a pregnant worker out of an environment that's known to be extra risky at that time without trouble. As an example, at a home improvement store, you could shift a pregnant woman from paint to hand-tools, to avoid any possible damage to the fetus, and let her go back to paint again when she comes back from maternaty leave. She'd be doing just as much work, but wouldn't be working around chemicals known to be dangerous at that time.
Depending on what's needed to avoid problems, it might be cheaper to do the testing and provide the safer environment for those who need it. The testing is a one-time expense, and any different equipment is a capital expenditure; medical benefits for carpal can last for months, or even years. I have a friend who's been unable to work for over ten years now because she made the mistake of "working through the pain" of carpal, and will never be able to work for the rest of her life. Her last employer will be paying for that as long as she lives. I'm not faulting them, she could have complained about the pain sooner but chose not to. If she has a genetic predisposition and it were known, this would probably have been avoided because they wouldn't have given her the tasks (copying large numbers of pages of various files in a legal firm) that caused this.
Not so. If there's a choice between using you in a position that would agravate a genetic predisposition to carpal or in one that doesn't, they can simply assign you to something that's less likely to cause carpal. As an example, grocery checkers are far more likely to get carpal than shelf clerks. Moving those most prone to problems off the checkstands is just common sense. Either that, or spend a small amount of money to make the job less damaging for them because it's cheaper than paying the medical expenses. That's not to say I approve of the secret testing; I don't. I just think that if you do have reason to think certain employees are more suseptable to workplace-caused conditions, you not only have every right to make adjustments for it, you have a moral obligation to do so. What you don't have is the right to refuse to employ them unless there's no way to make their job reasonably safe for them.
Making a movie with a brand new concept is a risk; sequels are almost risk-free.
As the meta-mod in question, I have to agree that your post was off-topic. It might be correct, but it's too far from the topic for me to pass. Sorry.
If you want to be accurate, the circumference is a direct function of the mass; the diamater may well be infinite.
I've done a lot of end-user support for Windows, Mac and various other machines, including Linux. No one of them has a monopoly on stupid end-users. And, I agree with you that teaching students nothing but Linux won't help them get computer jobs in Windows shops. It might, however, create a group of people who use Windows at work and Linux at home, and there are worse things that could happen.
Alas, no. Godzilla was still sleeping in his undersea cavern in 1945, and wouldn't waken until disturbed by H-bomb tests in the early '50s. Nice thought, though.
Any time a two-bit tin-plated dictator with delusions of godhood considers pushing the USA around, he's got to remember not only do we have nuclear weapons, we've used them before. Using them the first time is the hardest; it's easier to do it again. I wonder how many times various "strong men" have backed down rather than take that chance. I do know from things I've read over the years, that it was a chance Krushchev never wanted to take. He was at least as worried that we'd start a nuclear exchange as we were that he'd start one. It may be that we've never had to drop another one because we'd dropped the first two.