ValueClick is the parent company of Commission Junction - one of the larger CPA (affiliate) networks, and the only one that I know of that is publicly traded.
This is a VERY slippery slope you are on and I for one do NOT find that wikipedia should be in the suppression of information business, even temporarily. It goes very much against the grain of what many view wikipedia to be. Wikipedia is very much a social network and would do well not to undermine people's confidence in it, since WE provide the content.
You're welcome to go start your own socially irresponsible repository of information that exposes all submitted/leaked information without regard to consequences.
I'm not even saying this is a bad thing; just not what a private organisation (Wikipedia) chose to do.
You could even call yours "Wikileaks." That has quite a ring to it.
And requires me to figure out the useragent of either every browser out there (to allow) or every bot out there (to deny). At least, as far as I can tell.
No, only "bots" (spiders, nowadays) actually check robots.txt, per the RFC. User-initiated requests don't/shouldn't (no browser I've ever seen) do not request/parse robots.txt.
Oh, please don't do that. Don't assume that we have rights to that directory. I already really really wish I could set robots.txt for just my subdirectory, but no can do since some semi-moron thought it would be a good idea to make me mail my school department's webmaster to exclude part of my directory.
You can do everything that you do with robots.txt via robots meta tags and streamline their inclusion with some server-side scripts if so desired.
I (as a site owner) can actually do something to protect my site and my users against flaws in my site that is relatively easy and non-intrusive (that's the key!).
Unless your users run something besides Firefox.
If MS did this we'd all be crying about how this isn't sanctioned by W3C, and it's "embraceandextend" (tag?).
The theoretical PHB problem here then is that there is no commercial support for ieTab. There is probably some money to be made for someone who manages* to make ieTab work seamlessly in a Mozilla installation in both RHEL (or another well-supported Linux distro) and Windows and providing commercial support for it.
*This isn't a scenario for me and I have no idea how difficult or easy it might be to do this.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd rather be a disgusting American than a naive European with no sense of humor..
Tell you what- you bring the Eiffel Tower or the Tower of Pisa by, and I'll let you take a look at the International Space Station.
An embedded device with an IR transmitter..
I'm off to the patent office to file for protection on this! "Remote controller," I'll call it.
http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:VCLK
ValueClick is the parent company of Commission Junction - one of the larger CPA (affiliate) networks, and the only one that I know of that is publicly traded.
Yeah, good thing no one clicks on Google's ads.
Google reported $21,128,514,000.00 in ad revenues for FY2008.
Google is an American country
I just woke up from a nap.. what did I miss?
the [Chinese] Party's ideals are not driven by religion - fundamentalist or otherwise.
Indeed, you'd need a hell of a lot of trucks to move that much currency. And laundering that much is nigh impossible.
Yes, a lot of big trucks, indeed.
This is a VERY slippery slope you are on and I for one do NOT find that wikipedia should be in the suppression of information business, even temporarily. It goes very much against the grain of what many view wikipedia to be. Wikipedia is very much a social network and would do well not to undermine people's confidence in it, since WE provide the content.
You're welcome to go start your own socially irresponsible repository of information that exposes all submitted/leaked information without regard to consequences.
I'm not even saying this is a bad thing; just not what a private organisation (Wikipedia) chose to do.
You could even call yours "Wikileaks." That has quite a ring to it.
Ugly, lots of over head...
And requires me to figure out the useragent of either every browser out there (to allow) or every bot out there (to deny). At least, as far as I can tell.
No, only "bots" (spiders, nowadays) actually check robots.txt, per the RFC. User-initiated requests don't/shouldn't (no browser I've ever seen) do not request/parse robots.txt.
Oh, please don't do that. Don't assume that we have rights to that directory. I already really really wish I could set robots.txt for just my subdirectory, but no can do since some semi-moron thought it would be a good idea to make me mail my school department's webmaster to exclude part of my directory.
You can do everything that you do with robots.txt via robots meta tags and streamline their inclusion with some server-side scripts if so desired.
But then, you already betrayed your cluelessness when you revealed that you put Flash on the Web.
Yeah! Damn their highly-adopted prescient, open security model and their 99% global penetration! Get off my lawn!
I (as a site owner) can actually do something to protect my site and my users against flaws in my site that is relatively easy and non-intrusive (that's the key!).
Unless your users run something besides Firefox.
If MS did this we'd all be crying about how this isn't sanctioned by W3C, and it's "embraceandextend" (tag?).
That would be like paypal.com inexplicably using paypalobjects.com! Unpossible.
get us out of the need for owing a call all together?
Hear, hear.
I, for one, lose sleep at night knowing I owe a call.
is on the verge of violating her rights as a person
No, they're not. She has no constitutional or intrinsic, fundamental right to work there.
If someone wants to work for a private company, they will follow that company's ethics guidelines, rules, and bylaws. Pretty simple.
create and issue a billion (or so) class B shares, and dilute everyone else's interest
How is this even legal? If you own 5% of the company, you own 5% of the company, and "diluting" that would be theft.
It's never, ever that simple.
There are virtually always multiple classes of shares issued. Also, they might only hold warrants or options rather than actual stock.
There could be anti-dilution or redemption rights attached, but if they (the employees) don't know to look for these things, there won't be.
Yeah, but what happens if instead, everything east of the San Andreas fault sinks into the Atlantic ocean?
Real Estate will return to 2007 levels in California.
That's quite anecdotal. Different people react to different medicines differently.
I know some people find relief from extreme pain only with the use of Dilaudid or similar.
No sense of taste: Zune?
and law enforcement is selling sex, just not fulfilling their part of the agreed upon transaction.
Thieves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larceny#Larceny_by_trick
this is a fallacy; no one would voluntarily emigrate to Canada.
No, they won't. Because although OpenDNS is a bunch of opportunistic scammers, they aren't dumb.
Tell us how you really feel, Lod.
That doesn't stop freetards from using it to troll.
See: GIMP.
(o/t: why can't I add multiple line breaks when posting in plaintext mode now?)
The theoretical PHB problem here then is that there is no commercial support for ieTab. There is probably some money to be made for someone who manages* to make ieTab work seamlessly in a Mozilla installation in both RHEL (or another well-supported Linux distro) and Windows and providing commercial support for it. *This isn't a scenario for me and I have no idea how difficult or easy it might be to do this.