This happened to me for articles about breast cancer. Removed them all and never again talk about breast cancer prevention as I don't want to lose my ad account.
Just insert a disallow line in your personal robots.txt file.
- Maybe we can end up having some sort of robots.txt to wear, recognizable from devices such as glass. All this technology is new, so there's much things to try and invent.
This is the reason I don't use Google+
I have active pages with more than a million users in facebook, opened an account for Google+ when it came out, but I freaked out when I read about them banning users for not using their real names, even losing all other associated google accounts (AdSense, especially). No way I am willing to use Google+ along with AdSense if I sense that in any way something as trivial as using whatever fake name I want can create problems with my account.
And hence, another website, with millions of traffic and social followers, does not even promote G+. Just a grain of sand, but I'm sure I'm not the only one.
OK, So now, they no longer require this "real name", but even so, your other accounts are not independent. Being banned for any reason (I really never should be, never had any problems in facebook for example, but you never know) would result in ban from gmail and AdSense. If not so, that's the impression I have, and reason I still keep away (even if they probably changed policies). I need to be really certain I will never have such things in danger before I even touch or activate G+ again.
You should make sure they see at least once a week a message saying something like "upgrade to receive tech support & access to private forum/mailing list". Maybe even every time they open the program.
Make them always know and realize (be conscious of it) that even though they have the "free" product, they could get support if they pay for it. If one does not know or realize about it until they have problems, it will be normal for them to become angry.
Lack of commercial accounts is a big reason for failure.
An example, some of my sites have a huge work behind in creating a facebook group of followers. If a user has facebook, I can communicate with them. If they have G+, I cant do so as easily without risking having the account deleted. So I promote facebook to my users, not google+ (share buttons and I like it buttons). It's not just me, website owners don't want to lose track of their users, and Google+ right now is not helping at all.
To me it's like:
The iphone and other mobile devices shouldn't have browsers, since they would be fundamentally flawed: "sites are developed for bigger screens, with a larger resolution, it would be troublesome for users to see those sites in a mobile device, so it's better to not support browsers and html at all".
Just because some flash sites are not developing flash taking into account touchscreen devices (it's a new thing!) does not mean it cant be done.
The whole thing seems stupid to me. It really scares me to think this person makes money developing flash sites. It seems he is totally unable to adapt, change his methods or do things better than he does. Come on! Sure there are flash files that would create problems and would need to be further developed, but to say it's fundamentally flawed because of that is bullshit.
I'd guess incoming email also counts, so that figure even looks low to me when I personally might be getting half a million spam messages per day. I guess at least they did have some spam filter or the number would be much higher.
Wow, that's interesting... IE7 is on linux even before it is on Win2000. Actually, they say it will never come out for win 2000.
Now... can I run a windows simulator inside my windows in order to run these programs MS is specifically blocking from win2000? Such as IE7, windows live writer (a blog editing program), windows live messenger, etc.
I'm just guessing, no expert at this, but... Maybe a workaround would be to not provide the link itself, but only the url. That is... no using of the a href tag.
Then, it could be considered as citing, just as books cite authors... you see the name, book, editorial, etc... and you have to manually search for it to buy it. In this case, you'd have to copy the url and enter it in the address bar.
- Places is still in the roadmap, just not for v2.0. (maybe 3.0 if not earlier)
- Places was too buggy to work with. Nightly testers report far "too many" bugs with it... even if they were fixed, imagine all those bugs that would be uncovered if used by the masses (nightly tester build bugs are a good indication of how many bugs will be found if open, it's somewhat proportional).
This is sort of what happened with my favorite game: Continuum / Subspace. Subspace was one of the first massive multiplayer games for the internet... I played it first in 1995 with a 24k modem... and I continue playing it year after year, still my favorite game.
Virgen Interactive released the game after it gave up on selling it (I guess it was too much ahead of times). The most popular client for it is Continuum.
Ugh, I had to turn off my Norton firewall & antivirus to be able to read Slashdot... Some mean editor decided to place the trigger words in the article text!!!
Slashdot Mirror
I cant live without money, I live with what I earn from AdSense. Yes, I'm too dependent on Google, but it's how it is.
This happened to me for articles about breast cancer. Removed them all and never again talk about breast cancer prevention as I don't want to lose my ad account.
Just insert a disallow line in your personal robots.txt file. - Maybe we can end up having some sort of robots.txt to wear, recognizable from devices such as glass. All this technology is new, so there's much things to try and invent.
Apple has already patented the brain as well as anything samsung can possibly think of.
No,you're wrong. Apple has patented cornered brainwaves.
This is the reason I don't use Google+ I have active pages with more than a million users in facebook, opened an account for Google+ when it came out, but I freaked out when I read about them banning users for not using their real names, even losing all other associated google accounts (AdSense, especially). No way I am willing to use Google+ along with AdSense if I sense that in any way something as trivial as using whatever fake name I want can create problems with my account. And hence, another website, with millions of traffic and social followers, does not even promote G+. Just a grain of sand, but I'm sure I'm not the only one. OK, So now, they no longer require this "real name", but even so, your other accounts are not independent. Being banned for any reason (I really never should be, never had any problems in facebook for example, but you never know) would result in ban from gmail and AdSense. If not so, that's the impression I have, and reason I still keep away (even if they probably changed policies). I need to be really certain I will never have such things in danger before I even touch or activate G+ again.
You should make sure they see at least once a week a message saying something like "upgrade to receive tech support & access to private forum/mailing list". Maybe even every time they open the program. Make them always know and realize (be conscious of it) that even though they have the "free" product, they could get support if they pay for it. If one does not know or realize about it until they have problems, it will be normal for them to become angry.
Lack of commercial accounts is a big reason for failure. An example, some of my sites have a huge work behind in creating a facebook group of followers. If a user has facebook, I can communicate with them. If they have G+, I cant do so as easily without risking having the account deleted. So I promote facebook to my users, not google+ (share buttons and I like it buttons). It's not just me, website owners don't want to lose track of their users, and Google+ right now is not helping at all.
In other news... Age verification is known to be overwritten by using one of these, giving the you full access: http://www.deal-cool.com/CustomerImgList/4544.htm
That doesn't change anything. You could do the same in facebook, it's just that it's not called "circles".
To me it's like: The iphone and other mobile devices shouldn't have browsers, since they would be fundamentally flawed: "sites are developed for bigger screens, with a larger resolution, it would be troublesome for users to see those sites in a mobile device, so it's better to not support browsers and html at all".
Just because some flash sites are not developing flash taking into account touchscreen devices (it's a new thing!) does not mean it cant be done. The whole thing seems stupid to me. It really scares me to think this person makes money developing flash sites. It seems he is totally unable to adapt, change his methods or do things better than he does. Come on! Sure there are flash files that would create problems and would need to be further developed, but to say it's fundamentally flawed because of that is bullshit.
I'd guess incoming email also counts, so that figure even looks low to me when I personally might be getting half a million spam messages per day. I guess at least they did have some spam filter or the number would be much higher.
my schlong is long ha ha ha ha *boiiiiiinnnnngggg*
Welcome Digg user. At this site you are invited to use the rest of your brain.
I think people should read this article, by Asa Dotzler, a coordinator for several Mozilla projects.
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2007/10/firefox_finance.html
Wow, that's interesting...
IE7 is on linux even before it is on Win2000.
Actually, they say it will never come out for win 2000.
Now... can I run a windows simulator inside my windows in order to run these programs MS is specifically blocking from win2000? Such as IE7, windows live writer (a blog editing program), windows live messenger, etc.
I'm just guessing, no expert at this, but...
Maybe a workaround would be to not provide the link itself, but only the url.
That is... no using of the a href tag.
Then, it could be considered as citing, just as books cite authors... you see the name, book, editorial, etc... and you have to manually search for it to buy it. In this case, you'd have to copy the url and enter it in the address bar.
The best antivirus is already integrated in every operating system available...
It's called "turn off computer".
- Places is still in the roadmap, just not for v2.0. (maybe 3.0 if not earlier)
- Places was too buggy to work with. Nightly testers report far "too many" bugs with it... even if they were fixed, imagine all those bugs that would be uncovered if used by the masses (nightly tester build bugs are a good indication of how many bugs will be found if open , it's somewhat proportional).
More to read at MozillaZine
This is sort of what happened with my favorite game: Continuum / Subspace.
= Downloads&
:-)
Subspace was one of the first massive multiplayer games for the internet... I played it first in 1995 with a 24k modem... and I continue playing it year after year, still my favorite game.
Virgen Interactive released the game after it gave up on selling it (I guess it was too much ahead of times). The most popular client for it is Continuum.
Download Continuum / Subspace clients at:
http://www.subspacedownloads.com/
http://www.trenchwars.org/Trench/index.php?action
Give it a try & join the hundres of players online!
I hope other abandoned games can find such a future as this Virgen abandoned product.
I was kidding, that's the reason I put "lol" at the bottom of the post. :-)
I thought it would be pretty funny.
Ugh, I had to turn off my Norton firewall & antivirus to be able to read Slashdot...
Some mean editor decided to place the trigger words in the article text!!!
( lol )
Also, do this.
Firefox > Help > Inform about an incompatible website...
Fill the details, send.
I accidentally used the mouse wheel, and was surprised by it zooming in and out, actually that is quite nice. Try it ;-)
:-)
s .htm
Actually, I wouldnt call Netscape as the "fist prophet"
I'd say Mosaic was it.
(though technically there were some even before that, but at least if I recall correctly, it was the first to introduce images in the pages)
History of browsers:
http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/history/browser
http://www.livinginternet.com/w/wi_browse.htm
That's because "Release Candidates" are just that: Release Candidates.
RC3 was a candidate to be the Final 1.5 version, not a beta.
Changes are expected within beta versions, but not within Release Candidates.
RC3 convinced... it was fine, no bugs needed to be fixed for it... so it was confirmed from a candidate to the actual final product.