I could be mis-remebering but hasn't the Dutch courts ruled that linking to copyrighted material is not infringing? (as part of a Scientology lawsuit IIRC)
Having been exposed to the Internet at a young age (for both it and myself), I've learned over the years never to touch Ads. Whether benign looking links in my Gmail to the annoying flash ads, there is no way I'm touching them. If I need a product, I find the manufacturer or vendor's website and do what I need to there.
So I pose the question, how long will the ad based revenue system remain relevant once your common internetite learns this lesson?
I don't think they will learn TBH. If they do, well I would refer you to Phineas T. Barnum's comments about birth rates
Americans are dumb. You know how dumb the average person is? Well, by definition, half are dumber than that. (Yeah, I know, it should be "median person," not "average," but it's not as funny that way.)
If intelligence is normally distributed (I have no idea if it is or not) then the 'average' (mean) is the same as the median (and the mode come to that).
The BBC's video streams work perfectly in Linux (I'm using SeaMonkey so FF won't be a problem) the site never gives me problems and the streams are in Real format with Windows Media as an alternative (the wmv streams are not always available)
During the Olympics they've had three streams running from about 9am to midnight every day (you can also watch them on satellite/cable/digital) in addition to the broadcast TV. I'm watching the mens 50km cross-country at 225KB/s as I type this:)
User style sheets are always to supercede site style sheets, according to the CSS specification. The "!important" modifier shouldn't be necessary.
I don't know if Mozilla implements that aspect of CSS correctly though, so it couldn't hurt to put it in there anyway.
Not quite, an author rule at normal precedence will over-ride a user rule at normal precedence (assuming same specificity) however a user !important rule will over-ride an author !important rule.
(see CSS 2.1 Section 6.4.2)
Gun crimes are rare in Britain - there is no legal way for any individual to own a gun and there are stiff penalties (like jail) just for possession. Having a gun is considered a more serious crime than having drugs.
It is legaly possible to own a gun in the UK although the rules are pretty strict (working from memory here since I gave up shooting about 5-6 years ago).
In order to own firearms you have to have a Licence (Firearms Certificate or FAC). In order to get an FAC you have to have to be a full member of a shooting club (though I think this is not always the case for shotguns due to rural / farming use), and there is a mandatory one year probationary member period for shooting clubs. A background check (incl criminal record check etc) is required and the local police (I forget if this is police local to you or to where the weapon(s) will be stored or both) have to sign off on it. You also have to have secure storage available (this can be a registered armoury or a safe cabinet in your house).
The certificate has your photo on it and a list of the categorys (and number of each category) of the firearms it allows. In addition it lists the type and amount of ammunition allowed. When you purchase a weapon it is listed (make, type, serial number etc) on the FAC (both your copy and the home office's). All purchases of ammunition are logged with the certificate number (and flags WILL be raised if you start buying lots of ammo, I had queries when I purchased ammunition for the club I was a member of).
As for types of firearm you can own; Shotguns and manual action rifles are not particularly hard to get a license for (well, relatively not hard). It's even possible to own pistols still, though you'd have to be a memeber of the olympic team (or something along those lines) in order to be able to do so and the handling rules are insane (may only be handled by the registered owner, may only be removed from a secure case on a firing range or armoury etc). I belive certain semi-auto weapons are still legal as well (.22 carbines only if I recall correctly).
Tested on FF 1.0.1 (Win32) without any extension for blocking things, if you clear your cookies and visit the link again, you will get a big fat popup. And no, you will still see the popup even you have every advanced Javascript option unchecked.
I've tried all the links in this thread (and sibling threads all the way back to the OP) and havn't got a popup from any of them. I have cookies set to "FOAD" for all sites so I'm not sure that lack of a cookie is a factor. I think it's more likely that I (and other people) simply didn't get the banner (or other iframe ad) that spawned (or attempts to spawn) a popup.
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041217 MultiZilla/1.7.0.2d
While I could fake the UA string (Mozilla), I don't, and the only site I've had problems with is (or rather was) my (now ex) banks website. They didn't use UA strings to detect the browser but a javascript check (document.layers vs document.all IIRC).
AFAIK checking by UA isn't done so much anymore since checking via scripting gives a much more reliable result and is alot harder (if not impossible) for the end user to spoof.
IE also tends to render pages faster than Firefox under most circumstances (except where Linux advocate article authors have carefully crafted CSS heavy pages which cause IE to slow down a bit).
A person writing a 'Linux advocate article' is likely to be making extensive use of CSS in order to properly separate the document structure and style. In other words they create documents that are easier to maintain and comply with the standards.
I don't suppose most of them will cry if IE renders it slowly but I doubt that's their primary reason for doing it, although they'll certainly be aware that IE's CSS compliance sucks.
It appears, then, that these are people with old machines who won't put up with an increasingly exploited browser but who can't run I.E. 6... either from a power standpoint or an access standpoint. Windows 98 usage only dropped 3% in that time, so nearly all of the converts must be running the older platform.
I'm not so sure that that holds, as you pointed out the w3schools stats in TFA show that IE6 useage has remained fairly constant this year to date at 71% +/- . Looking at the OS stats however, XP has increased it's share by around 9%, and according to MS, XP (home at any rate) comes with IE6, it seems that at least some people are choosing to switch when they change OS'
Another factor in the 'older platform' section is that people on dial-up (which is still a major market segment) often won't change their browser until someone gives them a CD, I've done this for several people (one only got 14.4 due to their isolated location). If they get a CD it's far more likely to be a friend / relative burning them FF / Moz than IE6 (to be honest I don't even know if MS do an IE upgrade CD or if you can d/l an installer).
Slashdot Mirror
I could be mis-remebering but hasn't the Dutch courts ruled that linking to copyrighted material is not infringing? (as part of a Scientology lawsuit IIRC)
I don't think they will learn TBH. If they do, well I would refer you to Phineas T. Barnum's comments about birth rates
If intelligence is normally distributed (I have no idea if it is or not) then the 'average' (mean) is the same as the median (and the mode come to that).
The BBC's video streams work perfectly in Linux (I'm using SeaMonkey so FF won't be a problem) the site never gives me problems and the streams are in Real format with Windows Media as an alternative (the wmv streams are not always available)
During the Olympics they've had three streams running from about 9am to midnight every day (you can also watch them on satellite/cable/digital) in addition to the broadcast TV. I'm watching the mens 50km cross-country at 225KB/s as I type this :)
Not quite, an author rule at normal precedence will over-ride a user rule at normal precedence (assuming same specificity) however a user !important rule will over-ride an author !important rule.
(see CSS 2.1 Section 6.4.2)
It is legaly possible to own a gun in the UK although the rules are pretty strict (working from memory here since I gave up shooting about 5-6 years ago).
In order to own firearms you have to have a Licence (Firearms Certificate or FAC). In order to get an FAC you have to have to be a full member of a shooting club (though I think this is not always the case for shotguns due to rural / farming use), and there is a mandatory one year probationary member period for shooting clubs. A background check (incl criminal record check etc) is required and the local police (I forget if this is police local to you or to where the weapon(s) will be stored or both) have to sign off on it. You also have to have secure storage available (this can be a registered armoury or a safe cabinet in your house).
The certificate has your photo on it and a list of the categorys (and number of each category) of the firearms it allows. In addition it lists the type and amount of ammunition allowed. When you purchase a weapon it is listed (make, type, serial number etc) on the FAC (both your copy and the home office's). All purchases of ammunition are logged with the certificate number (and flags WILL be raised if you start buying lots of ammo, I had queries when I purchased ammunition for the club I was a member of).
As for types of firearm you can own; Shotguns and manual action rifles are not particularly hard to get a license for (well, relatively not hard). It's even possible to own pistols still, though you'd have to be a memeber of the olympic team (or something along those lines) in order to be able to do so and the handling rules are insane (may only be handled by the registered owner, may only be removed from a secure case on a firing range or armoury etc). I belive certain semi-auto weapons are still legal as well (.22 carbines only if I recall correctly).
I've tried all the links in this thread (and sibling threads all the way back to the OP) and havn't got a popup from any of them. I have cookies set to "FOAD" for all sites so I'm not sure that lack of a cookie is a factor. I think it's more likely that I (and other people) simply didn't get the banner (or other iframe ad) that spawned (or attempts to spawn) a popup.
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041217 MultiZilla/1.7.0.2d
Given the many concerns that have been raised over the PATRIOT act I'd have given that 'insightful' rather than 'funny'
While I could fake the UA string (Mozilla), I don't, and the only site I've had problems with is (or rather was) my (now ex) banks website. They didn't use UA strings to detect the browser but a javascript check (document.layers vs document.all IIRC).
AFAIK checking by UA isn't done so much anymore since checking via scripting gives a much more reliable result and is alot harder (if not impossible) for the end user to spoof.
A person writing a 'Linux advocate article' is likely to be making extensive use of CSS in order to properly separate the document structure and style. In other words they create documents that are easier to maintain and comply with the standards.
I don't suppose most of them will cry if IE renders it slowly but I doubt that's their primary reason for doing it, although they'll certainly be aware that IE's CSS compliance sucks.
I'm not so sure that that holds, as you pointed out the w3schools stats in TFA show that IE6 useage has remained fairly constant this year to date at 71% +/- . Looking at the OS stats however, XP has increased it's share by around 9%, and according to MS, XP (home at any rate) comes with IE6, it seems that at least some people are choosing to switch when they change OS'
Another factor in the 'older platform' section is that people on dial-up (which is still a major market segment) often won't change their browser until someone gives them a CD, I've done this for several people (one only got 14.4 due to their isolated location). If they get a CD it's far more likely to be a friend / relative burning them FF / Moz than IE6 (to be honest I don't even know if MS do an IE upgrade CD or if you can d/l an installer).
If there isn't a patch for the IE hole yet, there can't possibly be an exploit in the wild