Ash-Fox neither is you trolling off topic plus and your inability to validly technically disprove apk's solid backed by reputable verifiable facts either.
So, I just tried to use Adblock Plus, which people say it can block in-line advertising just fine and reliably. But, it keeps failing, it won't block the in-line advertising of APK (and APK is bypassing his own adblockng technology to advertise too).
Why do they seem to think they have the right to force my eyelids open ala-Clockwork Orange?
But his argument was:
In all advanced societies around the world, advertising has been a central contributor to assuring such freedom and diversity of expression and economic action.
This fact has been well documented in every major history of media in the United States. As Princeton Professor Paul Starr wrote in his Pulitzer Prize-winning history, âoeThe Creation of the Media,â âoeAmerican journalism became more of an independent and innovative source of information just as it became more of a means of advertising and publicity.â
It is for this very reason â" the virtuous circle that links freedom to advertise to freedom of the press to freedom of expression to economic freedom â" that Article 19, the influential NGO, says: âoeThe right to freedom of expression covers any kind of information or ideas, not only contributions to political, cultural or artistic debate but also mundane and commercially motivated expressions.â
And this is why I hate the ad-block profiteers.
To me it looks like he is speaking specifically of organisations that make profits off adblocking, like adblock plus, not about forcing your gaze. He is talking about maintaining funding for projects, not forcing your gaze.
Censorship is when the source is blocked, not when the destination voluntarily decides not to listen
There are a tier of adverts in adblock plus that don't get blocked as long as they paid to recieve this special evaluation to be in the exemption list. The quote "operating a business model predicated on censorship of content" doesn't seem inaccurate to me?
I don't have much sympathy...... for people who earn 5 or 10 times as much as me, complaining that they don't get even more.
Don't expect when people that earn 5 or 10 "times as much as" you that they give much sympathy when you complain that you "don't get even more". Because honestly, that's what your comment sounds like right now.
Again, however, pay as you go cards are verifiable as such by the merchant. I have seen places that will refuse online processing of pay-as-you-go card that are not tied to any particular billing address, although this is usually done by merchants that are not immediately billing for the full amount that may be expected to be paid.
Being someone that has worked on payment systems before, I never saw any merchant APIs that revealed this information on this side of the pond.
when other payment options may exist such as simple monthly invoicing, or even cheque-free billing/automatic payments are tenuous, at best.... specious at worst.
I said before, I was using Paypal. The card was just a way to get a working U.S. Paypal account.
Pay as you go credit cards are also easily identifiable as such from the first 6 digits. Oh and the country of origin is still identifiable. Sure, you can buy a pay-as-you go credit card while in another country and use it to your hearts content from somewhere else, but then you are talking about doing something that requires doing real work.
As PayPal verifies this, I actually had to order a pay-as-you-go card from the States despite living in Europe. I remember searching online and ordering it was relatively painless.
Right now, people watch out-of-nation Netflix because it's easy to do, when something is inconvenient enough you won't stop the people that are determined to still do it, but those tend to represent a pretty small percentage of the population.
If people find VPNs easy, what I did was is easy too honestly.
The first few (I think it's 6) digits on the card will still indicate which country the issuing bank happens to be in.
Back when Netflix was a US only thing, I used a pay as you go credit card to setup a Paypal account a and random US addresss. Then I would periodically send myself money from my 'real' paypal account to pay for Netflix.
They don't do it that way because they need tracking.
One of the advertising firms that one of the sites I use actually provides a front-end caching proxy that inserts advertising into the content. This is a superior method of advertising injection and tracking.
so... you agree with gstoddart that the term and distinction occurred in the 90s?
I don't disagree or agree, I just know what I witnessed in 1994 and the failure to provide a sufficient year makes it hard to do any sort of research.
Every generation thinks it is unique, special, and the first to discover everything.
That's nice and all, but that assumption doesn't apply to me. I personally think my generation are unimpressive compared to previous generations where it seems we weren't consumers and had knowledge and capability to service electronics on our own, build engines etc. (I discovered this from a fair few people I met in amateur radio).
Honestly, since you seem to have been self aware twenty years ago I'm a little surprised you haven't figured this all out yet.
I was around tennish at the time and I was writing demoscene stuff in m68k assembler that I was sharing on BBSes and mailing away on fidonet. I have a lot of memories (many of which are still with me in electronic form). I don't think I understood the politics that was going on at the time, I just liked doing 'cool stuff' with technology.
The existence of hacking for decades before the 90s is another symptom of the same
Decades? So, if I find distinctions in some amateur radio literature dating back to 1950s, is that enough?
You guys really suck at being clear on a simple question I have asked twice and now I am having to confirm a vague answer from you. For people with experience and knowledge, you're really bad at using it effectively.
I remember on the BBSes in 1994 there were clear distinctions between a cracker, which would invade computer systems, or release cracked software and a hacker, which was more of someone hacking together something in often an ingenius way.
Back to my original question.
In what year does the distinction need to exist to not be considered a retroactive decision to re-define hacker?
For anybody who was around before that, there simply is no distinction, and claiming it has always been so is a lie.
When I was browsing dial up BBSes back 1994, I remember the distinction being made, so this has been going on for a long time.
Out of curiousity, how far ago (like what year, minimum) does the distinction need to be to not be considered a retroactive decision to re-define hacker?
As a third party to this conversation... When it's considered an upgrade instead of an update.
Linux Kernel updates come out constantly but that doesn't magically include new support agreements for (e.g.) that specific version of Ubuntu.
Kernel updates, sure. But kernel upgrades usually involve enabling backport repo or such for a reason.
To be honest as an end user I don't see much more different between Windows 8 / 8.1 and say Windows XP and XP with service packs applied.
As an end user, you should know that Microsoft stopped supporting XP before XP SP1, then XP2 etc. (which Microsoft labelled an upgrade and not an update) so while the lines maybe blurred between service packs and operating system release, it's pretty much the same thing when it comes to support.
i havent used any credit cards and i dont have -any- outstanding debts.
I use credit cards for everything and I don't have any outstanding debts. What I do have though through my bank is:
Extended two year warranty on all purchases through my credit card Cash back on all purchases Insurance on all items purchased through the credit card Money protection that I would not get on my debit card, nor cash A good credit rating, which allows me to get some of the best rates on monthly utility bills and apply for pretty much most loans out there.
When i went to apply for a mortgage, the banks advice was to go get a bunch of credit cards & run them up & that will somehow make me a better credit risk.
That wasn't their advice. Their advice was to use credit cards to produce a track record of your debt handling (pay off every month, problem solved).
BS like this is what you get when you let the banks write all the banking laws.
You made it clear you don't want to be on credit systems and then complain when you can't get the riskier credit ratings for someone that has no history of credit.
Having just done this I can say, "Bullshit!" The 15 minute phone call was just a start. And 15 minutes of my time wasted is a cost. Then they sent me a three page form. Why three pages? Well, they wanted my address. Yes, the address they mailed the form to.
Why has that never happened to me when I cancelled cards, nor when I reversed transactions?
Really? Kind of depends where you use the credit card
Such as?
how many systems you have to update
I am a big credit card user (I pay for 'expensive' hotels, taxis, flights, trains etc on a weekly basis) and I have 6 things I pay with my credit card a month through automated means (subscription or billing systems). Annecdotally, I've lost my wallet twice in my life-time and both times, it was relatively painless to get it sorted quickly. I'm just not seeing the issue?
not too mention you need to worry what other things they are doing, like identity theft.
Why wouldn't you worrying before? That's an absurd approach in today's world. I have credit report alterts setup, identity theft notification etc. despite the fact I have/never/ had a breach.
Just take the judges' credit card and personal information, use it to buy loads of expensive stuff, narcotics and subscriptions to perverse sex sites, then after the judge is done dealing with the credit card company to get the situation corrected just say "no harm done".
It's an annoyance, but getting transactions reversed, new card issued etc. isn't exactly going to take more than maybe a 15 minute phone call. Outside of that, I don't really see the judge going further than that. So, what is your point exactly?
I acknowledge that the drone pilots do face certain job related stress factors but if they want to just say "I can't take it" and walk away in the middle of a mission they can do it if the want to. You don't get that option in a real battle field.
It happens that people suddenly refuse to fight on a real battle field, despite the fact they're in a situation they'll get killed. If someone fails to perform their duty, they can get sent to a military prison and honestly; military prison is not desirable (you're forced to exercise constantly, non-stop). The idea people are walking out either means that they are incredibly stupid (you wouldn't want these people in the forces) or literally having some other psychological issues (which, may be detrimental anyway to the battlefield).
His argument was that an argument criticizing some members of a group was criticizing all members of that group, which was false.
Except it isn't, there are plenty of references on sites like deepfreeze.it showing this group does otherwise which seemed obvious to me what he was talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
But I just did, it didn't block the advertisment!
You just can't tell the ads apart from normal content anymore. The ads, they're evolving...
APK Hosts File Engine isn't blocking this advert either!
Doesn't work. I just verified it didn't block this advert.
Doesn't work, I still see this ad.
So, I just tried to use Adblock Plus, which people say it can block in-line advertising just fine and reliably. But, it keeps failing, it won't block the in-line advertising of APK (and APK is bypassing his own adblockng technology to advertise too).
But his argument was:
To me it looks like he is speaking specifically of organisations that make profits off adblocking, like adblock plus, not about forcing your gaze. He is talking about maintaining funding for projects, not forcing your gaze.
There are a tier of adverts in adblock plus that don't get blocked as long as they paid to recieve this special evaluation to be in the exemption list. The quote "operating a business model predicated on censorship of content" doesn't seem inaccurate to me?
Don't expect when people that earn 5 or 10 "times as much as" you that they give much sympathy when you complain that you "don't get even more". Because honestly, that's what your comment sounds like right now.
Being someone that has worked on payment systems before, I never saw any merchant APIs that revealed this information on this side of the pond.
I said before, I was using Paypal. The card was just a way to get a working U.S. Paypal account.
As PayPal verifies this, I actually had to order a pay-as-you-go card from the States despite living in Europe. I remember searching online and ordering it was relatively painless.
If people find VPNs easy, what I did was is easy too honestly.
Back when Netflix was a US only thing, I used a pay as you go credit card to setup a Paypal account a and random US addresss. Then I would periodically send myself money from my 'real' paypal account to pay for Netflix.
One of the advertising firms that one of the sites I use actually provides a front-end caching proxy that inserts advertising into the content. This is a superior method of advertising injection and tracking.
You have always had that right, whether or not you'll win in court is another matter.
I don't disagree or agree, I just know what I witnessed in 1994 and the failure to provide a sufficient year makes it hard to do any sort of research.
That's nice and all, but that assumption doesn't apply to me. I personally think my generation are unimpressive compared to previous generations where it seems we weren't consumers and had knowledge and capability to service electronics on our own, build engines etc. (I discovered this from a fair few people I met in amateur radio).
I was around tennish at the time and I was writing demoscene stuff in m68k assembler that I was sharing on BBSes and mailing away on fidonet. I have a lot of memories (many of which are still with me in electronic form). I don't think I understood the politics that was going on at the time, I just liked doing 'cool stuff' with technology.
Decades? So, if I find distinctions in some amateur radio literature dating back to 1950s, is that enough?
You guys really suck at being clear on a simple question I have asked twice and now I am having to confirm a vague answer from you. For people with experience and knowledge, you're really bad at using it effectively.
I remember on the BBSes in 1994 there were clear distinctions between a cracker, which would invade computer systems, or release cracked software and a hacker, which was more of someone hacking together something in often an ingenius way.
Back to my original question.
In what year does the distinction need to exist to not be considered a retroactive decision to re-define hacker?
When I was browsing dial up BBSes back 1994, I remember the distinction being made, so this has been going on for a long time.
Out of curiousity, how far ago (like what year, minimum) does the distinction need to be to not be considered a retroactive decision to re-define hacker?
As a third party to this conversation... When it's considered an upgrade instead of an update.
Kernel updates, sure. But kernel upgrades usually involve enabling backport repo or such for a reason.
As an end user, you should know that Microsoft stopped supporting XP before XP SP1, then XP2 etc. (which Microsoft labelled an upgrade and not an update) so while the lines maybe blurred between service packs and operating system release, it's pretty much the same thing when it comes to support.
I use credit cards for everything and I don't have any outstanding debts. What I do have though through my bank is:
Extended two year warranty on all purchases through my credit card
Cash back on all purchases
Insurance on all items purchased through the credit card
Money protection that I would not get on my debit card, nor cash
A good credit rating, which allows me to get some of the best rates on monthly utility bills and apply for pretty much most loans out there.
That wasn't their advice. Their advice was to use credit cards to produce a track record of your debt handling (pay off every month, problem solved).
You made it clear you don't want to be on credit systems and then complain when you can't get the riskier credit ratings for someone that has no history of credit.
Why has that never happened to me when I cancelled cards, nor when I reversed transactions?
Such as?
I am a big credit card user (I pay for 'expensive' hotels, taxis, flights, trains etc on a weekly basis) and I have 6 things I pay with my credit card a month through automated means (subscription or billing systems). Annecdotally, I've lost my wallet twice in my life-time and both times, it was relatively painless to get it sorted quickly. I'm just not seeing the issue?
Why wouldn't you worrying before? That's an absurd approach in today's world. I have credit report alterts setup, identity theft notification etc. despite the fact I have /never/ had a breach.
It's an annoyance, but getting transactions reversed, new card issued etc. isn't exactly going to take more than maybe a 15 minute phone call. Outside of that, I don't really see the judge going further than that. So, what is your point exactly?
I served in armed forces (not American) and honestly... Helping save lives of your fellow soldiers on the ground seems like a good reason to me.
Done.
It happens that people suddenly refuse to fight on a real battle field, despite the fact they're in a situation they'll get killed. If someone fails to perform their duty, they can get sent to a military prison and honestly; military prison is not desirable (you're forced to exercise constantly, non-stop). The idea people are walking out either means that they are incredibly stupid (you wouldn't want these people in the forces) or literally having some other psychological issues (which, may be detrimental anyway to the battlefield).
As a European, I use my credit card mostly on taxis, not cash, nor mobile phone payments.
Except it isn't, there are plenty of references on sites like deepfreeze.it showing this group does otherwise which seemed obvious to me what he was talking about.