Google, Yellow pages et al, are meant to be a listing of results matching a search term
A list of domains to exclude from results could be construed as "a search term", as the same functionality is available with -site: terms. My practical problems are that 1. entering a long list of -site: terms every time is tedious, and 2. Google Search caps the number of -site: terms in one query. My ideological problem is the intent inherent in the fact that Google Search used to let a logged-in user store what amounts to a list of -site: terms to apply to all queries but has since removed this feature.
you'd have to consent to Google tracking you to figure out what particular things a website does that you don't like.
I'd let Google track my use of Search to save my domain blacklist, but not my visits to third-party sites operated by companies not part of Alphabet.
I wonder why it's taken so long for the adtech industry to realize that hosts does not block random subdomains. If you block (say) 22930cd3.analytics.example.com then 920fa116.analytics.example.com remains unblocked. That file's syntax doesn't provide a way to block *.analytics.example.com, though dnsmasq apparently does.
I'm not talking about ads on Google Search. I'm talking about organic results on Google Search when the organic results that require consent to tracking as a condition of viewing the document outnumber the organic results that do not.
One could just choose not to visit a site using anti-adblock, but I haven't seen a feature in the current version of any major web search engine to build a list of sites from which to hide results.
So I just stopped reading Forbes.
During this period, how did you exclude Forbes and several other sites doing similar things (WIRED, the Inquirer, The Atlantic, Jellynote, TV Tropes, Not Always Right) from search results?
Let me try to rephrase it in more standard English:
What I find frustrating about Facebook is that if you really want to find local underground or niche music shows, or even music in general, most of the promotion now happens on Facebook. Anyone who isn't friends with people in the industry is left out.
This works until a critical mass of sites discover that their ad provider isn't compatible with Disconnect and deliberately add code to detect and reject users of Disconnect.
One could just choose not to visit a site using anti-adblock, but I haven't seen a feature in the current version of any major web search engine to build a list of sites from which to hide results. Google Search used to have a blacklist feature but no longer does.
clicking on the link didn't prompt me for a login password. It took me straight into the account with zero authentication.
It's probably the same code path as the password reset: "I forgot my Facebook password, but I remember my email password. Please mint a one-time code and send it to my email address on file with Facebook so that I can reset my Facebook password."
Web users who have never signed up for Facebook, such as myself, still have a shadow profile that Facebook infers from two kinds of data source. One is information that Facebook members provide to Facebook about a non-member, such as contacts on their phones and tags in photos. The other is a click-stream, or the sequence of URLs of documents loaded in a non-member's browser that contain Facebook analytic devices, such as its like button or comments plug-in.
[Dealing with anti-adblock in] websites linked from Slashdot stories
not visit the site.
And get moderated down for making uninformed comments based on not having read the featured article.
Now how should I tell a major web search engine which domains (plural) I don't want to visit so that it doesn't return them in search results that it presents to me? Google Search limits the number of -site:example.com terms that I can add to each query.
I've heard of progressive JPEG and Adam7-interlaced PNG for still images, but not progressive MPEG. The closest thing I can think of is a CSS trick to display a JPEG filmstrip as an animation, where the underlying JPEG is stored progressively.
Browsers are supposed to render everything in the viewport. Ie: only the visible part. Once the content of the viewport is determined, anything else is wasted cycles.
Is it necessarily "wasted cycles" to prepare for further scrolling of the viewport? My use case often involves loading a document, disconnecting from the Internet, and then scrolling the viewport to the remainder of the document.
W3C's official replacement for lowsrc= is to use formats that support incremental loading, delivering a low-detail image early in the file and the difference between low- and high-detail images later. JPEG has progressive refinement, and PNG has Adam7 interlacing. But not all formats support this; for instance, I don't see a way to make it work for an SVG illustration or for anything animated.
What other replacement did you have in mind, if any?
It'd also break my MO with a laptop: load a bunch of documents in browser tabs to read later, close the lid to put it into suspend, board the bus, open the laptop, and read.
Which only means viewers will be seeing a lot more "To continue, unblock our ads in Chrome and disable tracking protection in Firefox" notices on websites, including websites linked from Slashdot stories.
I'm no son of a bitch, but I can still hear noise in the 100-8000 Hz band when the CPU and GPU loads change on some machines. I'm not quite sure if it's electrical noise leaking into the audio output or magnetostriction in the power supply.
Don't they realize the other hand is bloating webpages up with their near monopoly on online advertising?
What else would you suggest for a site to continue to pay its writers? Each site selling static ad space to advertisers? Paywalls? Or firing all employees and becoming a butcher, as Slashdot user bingoUV suggested?
Plus their analytics, big CSS fonts, and promotion of more and more javascript frameworks etc.
By "big CSS fonts", do you mean large point size or large byte size?
If the latter: Say a site uses a lightweight JS library built on the advances in vanilla JS since IE <= 11 sunset, self-hosts it, self-hosts Matomo (formerly called Piwik) for analytics, and offers a meaningful functionality subset when JS is off. How is the site supposed to make its fonts smaller to download?
Anonymous Coward wrote about prestitial ads on websites:
It's like trying to watch a movie that I paid for at the theater but before the projector starts, a really loud guy sitting in the seat in front of you stands up, turns around and starts yelling you about some product or service he thinks you might be interested in because the movie kinda is about that. He won't shut up and he's blocking the screen until you agree to read the brochure he's holding out in front of him.
You mean like the commercials that movie theaters have been showing for decades to supplement box office revenue? I imagine theaters do this because the movie studio gets a cut of ticket sales, but not of overpriced popcorn or these ads.
non-phone browsing, for which data rates and caps don't apply.
You appear not to have priced out satellite Internet, fixed cellular Internet, or DSL in some parts of Iowa. They still very much have caps. (Source: Exede.com; Verizon.net)
Then add a setting to enable smooth scrolling only for scrolling initiated by touch, not for scrolling initatied by arrow keys, the mouse wheel, or the up or down arrows on the scroll bar.
True. Unlike Microsoft, Apple puts its own development tools in its own store. There's even Swift Playgrounds on iOS, with limited functionality intended for learning. Good luck seeing Microsoft squeeze a useful subset of Visual Studio onto Windows 10 S, its education-targeted OS.
But without Finder, how would a user of Xcode gather and arrange the source files (some program code, some not) needed to build an application?
Slashdot Mirror
Google, Yellow pages et al, are meant to be a listing of results matching a search term
A list of domains to exclude from results could be construed as "a search term", as the same functionality is available with -site: terms. My practical problems are that 1. entering a long list of -site: terms every time is tedious, and 2. Google Search caps the number of -site: terms in one query. My ideological problem is the intent inherent in the fact that Google Search used to let a logged-in user store what amounts to a list of -site: terms to apply to all queries but has since removed this feature.
you'd have to consent to Google tracking you to figure out what particular things a website does that you don't like.
I'd let Google track my use of Search to save my domain blacklist, but not my visits to third-party sites operated by companies not part of Alphabet.
I guess anti-sheep is to buy a device that supports Replicant OS and obtain apps from the F-Droid repository.
In my case, FB domains are blocked at HOSTS file.
I wonder why it's taken so long for the adtech industry to realize that hosts does not block random subdomains. If you block (say) 22930cd3.analytics.example.com then 920fa116.analytics.example.com remains unblocked. That file's syntax doesn't provide a way to block *.analytics.example.com, though dnsmasq apparently does.
I'm not talking about ads on Google Search. I'm talking about organic results on Google Search when the organic results that require consent to tracking as a condition of viewing the document outnumber the organic results that do not.
Did the Yellow Pages allow businesses that you don't want to visit to clog up almost the entire first page of results in a particular category?
One could just choose not to visit a site using anti-adblock, but I haven't seen a feature in the current version of any major web search engine to build a list of sites from which to hide results.
So I just stopped reading Forbes.
During this period, how did you exclude Forbes and several other sites doing similar things (WIRED, the Inquirer, The Atlantic, Jellynote, TV Tropes, Not Always Right) from search results?
Two questions, one related and one not so:
First, do you have a house phone? Someone in your contacts might have its number, just like that of a cell phone.
Second, how is it feasible to go without a cell phone in the developed world now that payphones have begun to disappear?
FaceBook just needs to add a feature that allows people to "Like" likes.
That's a good way to get your shield eaten.
Let me try to rephrase it in more standard English:
What I find frustrating about Facebook is that if you really want to find local underground or niche music shows, or even music in general, most of the promotion now happens on Facebook. Anyone who isn't friends with people in the industry is left out.
This works until a critical mass of sites discover that their ad provider isn't compatible with Disconnect and deliberately add code to detect and reject users of Disconnect.
One could just choose not to visit a site using anti-adblock, but I haven't seen a feature in the current version of any major web search engine to build a list of sites from which to hide results. Google Search used to have a blacklist feature but no longer does.
when did FB accounts become important enough that anyone really cares if their long unused account gets taken over?
Since sites like Slashdot started offering Facebook Login as a login option.
clicking on the link didn't prompt me for a login password. It took me straight into the account with zero authentication.
It's probably the same code path as the password reset: "I forgot my Facebook password, but I remember my email password. Please mint a one-time code and send it to my email address on file with Facebook so that I can reset my Facebook password."
Web users who have never signed up for Facebook, such as myself, still have a shadow profile that Facebook infers from two kinds of data source. One is information that Facebook members provide to Facebook about a non-member, such as contacts on their phones and tags in photos. The other is a click-stream, or the sequence of URLs of documents loaded in a non-member's browser that contain Facebook analytic devices, such as its like button or comments plug-in.
[Dealing with anti-adblock in] websites linked from Slashdot stories
not visit the site.
And get moderated down for making uninformed comments based on not having read the featured article.
Now how should I tell a major web search engine which domains (plural) I don't want to visit so that it doesn't return them in search results that it presents to me? Google Search limits the number of -site:example.com terms that I can add to each query.
preogresive Mpeg
I've heard of progressive JPEG and Adam7-interlaced PNG for still images, but not progressive MPEG. The closest thing I can think of is a CSS trick to display a JPEG filmstrip as an animation, where the underlying JPEG is stored progressively.
Browsers are supposed to render everything in the viewport. Ie: only the visible part. Once the content of the viewport is determined, anything else is wasted cycles.
Is it necessarily "wasted cycles" to prepare for further scrolling of the viewport? My use case often involves loading a document, disconnecting from the Internet, and then scrolling the viewport to the remainder of the document.
W3C's official replacement for lowsrc= is to use formats that support incremental loading, delivering a low-detail image early in the file and the difference between low- and high-detail images later. JPEG has progressive refinement, and PNG has Adam7 interlacing. But not all formats support this; for instance, I don't see a way to make it work for an SVG illustration or for anything animated.
What other replacement did you have in mind, if any?
It'd also break my MO with a laptop: load a bunch of documents in browser tabs to read later, close the lid to put it into suspend, board the bus, open the laptop, and read.
Which only means viewers will be seeing a lot more "To continue, unblock our ads in Chrome and disable tracking protection in Firefox" notices on websites, including websites linked from Slashdot stories.
I'm no son of a bitch, but I can still hear noise in the 100-8000 Hz band when the CPU and GPU loads change on some machines. I'm not quite sure if it's electrical noise leaking into the audio output or magnetostriction in the power supply.
Don't they realize the other hand is bloating webpages up with their near monopoly on online advertising?
What else would you suggest for a site to continue to pay its writers? Each site selling static ad space to advertisers? Paywalls? Or firing all employees and becoming a butcher, as Slashdot user bingoUV suggested?
Plus their analytics, big CSS fonts, and promotion of more and more javascript frameworks etc.
By "big CSS fonts", do you mean large point size or large byte size?
If the latter: Say a site uses a lightweight JS library built on the advances in vanilla JS since IE <= 11 sunset, self-hosts it, self-hosts Matomo (formerly called Piwik) for analytics, and offers a meaningful functionality subset when JS is off. How is the site supposed to make its fonts smaller to download?
Anonymous Coward wrote about prestitial ads on websites:
It's like trying to watch a movie that I paid for at the theater but before the projector starts, a really loud guy sitting in the seat in front of you stands up, turns around and starts yelling you about some product or service he thinks you might be interested in because the movie kinda is about that. He won't shut up and he's blocking the screen until you agree to read the brochure he's holding out in front of him.
You mean like the commercials that movie theaters have been showing for decades to supplement box office revenue? I imagine theaters do this because the movie studio gets a cut of ticket sales, but not of overpriced popcorn or these ads.
Chrome will soon block ads on sites that use prestitial ads with countdown or any prestitials on mobile.
non-phone browsing, for which data rates and caps don't apply.
You appear not to have priced out satellite Internet, fixed cellular Internet, or DSL in some parts of Iowa. They still very much have caps. (Source: Exede.com; Verizon.net)
Then add a setting to enable smooth scrolling only for scrolling initiated by touch, not for scrolling initatied by arrow keys, the mouse wheel, or the up or down arrows on the scroll bar.
True. Unlike Microsoft, Apple puts its own development tools in its own store. There's even Swift Playgrounds on iOS, with limited functionality intended for learning. Good luck seeing Microsoft squeeze a useful subset of Visual Studio onto Windows 10 S, its education-targeted OS.
But without Finder, how would a user of Xcode gather and arrange the source files (some program code, some not) needed to build an application?