any site you go to that has the Facebook icon? Facebook can see the referrer for the icon image and therefore knows the URL for the site you went to. It's the same for Twitter and all the other similar type things where you see their little icon littered throughout the internet.
There is a list for Ad Block called "antisocial" that is designed specifically to prevent these from showing up and loading.
Note that it does also prevent the Google "+1" button from appearing anywhere as well, even on Google+, so you either have to disable that specifically, or allow an exception for plus.google.com. Or just not +1 anything your freinds post on Google+.
The way facebook is blocking exporting contacts, you know they're scared
I read about the a week or so ago, and someone on slashdot helpfully explained that you could create a new Yahoo! email account by using the 'Sign in with Facebook' option, and allow Yahoo! to have access to your details etc*. Then you could export your entire Facebook friends list (I think only names and email addresses) as a CSV file for example. Is that still possible, or have they stopped that too?
* I made a brief exception for this, I have platform apps turned off entirely (doing this automatically turns them on again), and turned them off again (which removed the Yahoo! apps as well) after I had exported.
There's no real reason for that functionality. It's easier to simply select both circles when you're sharing something. Your previous selection is set as the default for your next post, so you don't get frustrated with having to click the same buttons over and over.
You could also add someone to two different circles
There truly should be a way to restrict search results by country, not just by language. And rebloggers should be scored down, not up.
If I do a search on google.co.uk (I live in the UK) there is an option to filter results to "Pages from the UK" (they've moved the link which does it to the left instead of under the search input box), but its been an option for years, I think its been there since I started using Google when it was gaining popularity.
Is there a google.us site? Have you tried that and then see if you can limit searches to only the US? I tried the.us link but got forwarded to google.co.uk, with only the option to "go to google.com".
It's been available for quite a long time now. There was one when Chrome was first getting popular, but it still downloaded ads and only hid them due to a limitation in the add-on API, so it wasn't as good as the Firefox one (but bearable to use). Now with some updates to the API, I think they do stop them from downloading as well.
In a slightly related topic, I had been browsing without Flashblock on Chromium for a while because I had issues using the add-on, but there is a new one now that is quite decent (I sometimes had issues using the older Flashblock on both Firefox and Chrome, but the new one for Chrome works really well so far, I think it's mainly the option to easily enable and disable on a whole page which I like)
I have heard stories of people having Yahoo or Bing as their default homepage and when they want to search for something, they type "google" into the search bar, go to Google from the results, and then search from there. In that case the "oh that's okay" could imply that it is targeted to users who do that who didn't know they could change their homepage to google.com so they don't have to search from it from their current homepage before actually searching on google.
The summary says "StatCounter tracks total surfing, not the number of users", which could explain why the stats are different, is that what you meant by suspect? (I use both Chromium and Firefox)
Slashdot has completely fucked up its interface to the point where links don't even open when you click on them. Right-clicking a link doesn't open up a menu, either. I had to look at the link through FireBug to grab the URL and paste it into a new window.
If using Firefox, you can drag a link to the tab bar and it opens a new tab using the URL of the dragged link.
I have here a suitcase with, as you can see, a million dollars in it. You have the choice to leave it alone, or to reach in, give me any one of the bills from inside the case, and walk off with the rest of them.
I benefit a little if you choose the suitcase, you benefit a lot. And you still have the choice to walk away. Unethical?
What if the bills in the suitcase were marked and recently stolen and you were trying to get rid of them to frame someone else for the theft? An extreme and unlikely scenario, but you are right that there can be cases where both benefit with no loss for either.
some sort of mandate of financial transparency to the public?
ie: is there a webpage or something where the UK populace can look up to see where there money is going (or went?) for any given year?
At the local level or national level? I recal in the past I recieved a local 'newsletter' that said what proportion of the council (local) tax was being spent on various things. I think it included figures but didn't read it too much. There was a pie chart though.
However, it is hardly an abdication of parental responsibilities to have rating agencies at all; nobody can possibly prescreen everything before showing it to their kids.
As advanced as technology is nowadays, you'd think that there'd be a huge database of potentially questionable content in a film for review and filtering. So a parent can search for a title, see how many swear words there are, how many explosions, etc, and then make a decision based on that information. It's the kind of thing you could set up a predefined personal filter for (2 swear words max, no sex scenes, blood ok for example)
The geotag on those photos puts them in Studio City, California. Somewhere on the Warner Bros. back lot to be exact.
I think the location derived from GPS satalites are only going to be on earth (other possible places that match the distances between satalites are going to be in space). This is done because if you knew both potential locations for the GPS satalite response times given (i.e. the one on earth and the one in space), would would be able to work out exactly where the GPS satalites are orbiting (the percieved risk is that someone could knock them out of orbit or otherwise interfere with them and cause problem with earth devices that rely on GPS).
I'm not sure how I forgot that in less than a week even though I've seen a lot of Tom Baker stuff since then.
It looks like a continuity problem because there was one scene earlier where the doctor passed the screwdriver to his copy (or vice-versa) which looked like it was to establish the point that there was only one. Either that or there was another in the Tardis.
Anyway, the sonic screwdriver magic wand thing and a desire to tone it down or get rid of it came up in an interview last year. I was hoping it was left behind but that was wishful thinking. Like K9 there was probably just another one in storage.
I think at that point they had switched, so the Flesh Doctor was giving the real Doctor (who was pretending to be the Flesh Doctor) his (copy of the) sonic screwdriver, to convince the others that the Doctor passing the screwdriver was the real one (when it actually wasn't). That's my guess anyway.
used it in the last scene of the last episode that was aired
No. His copy who got left behind with the screwdriver used it in the last scene of the last episode that was aired.
[Spoiler warning]
A couple of scenes after the Flesh-Doctor uses the sonic screwdriver, in the TARDIS, the original uses the sonic screwdriver to break the link to the fake-Amy (which collapses just like the Flesh Doctor did).
The Flesh Doctor was an exact copy, down to the clothes and everything. He normally carries his sonic screwdriver in his pocket, so it plausible that the Flesh-Doctor had a copy of the sonic screwdriver, the copy being the one subsequently destroyed.
At the start of Tom Baker's time the sonic screwdriver couldn't even reliably get the Doctor through a locked door, but now it is a magic wand that can do just about anything. Good to see it got written out of the plot recently.
It's been destroyed a couple of times since the reboot, and another one has been made, usually popping out the TARDIS console. He used it in the last scene of the last episode that was aired (unless you're talking about future episodes...). It is a fairly simple to use plot device though (need to move plot forward = use screwdriver to open door, otherwise, need to keep characters where they are = door is deadlocked)
Of course, if you don't know, how do you know about Ryan Giggs in the first place?
He has been a very well know football (soccer) player for well over a decade for one of the most popular football teams in the world. It can be very easy to know who he is without having heard of the super injunction.
Coders? Perhaps not. It is however a must for any kind of graphic design, video editing, 3D modeling, etc. Having your full, finished product up on one monitor while you edit and tool around on the other makes for a more productive experience.
The GUI of a program requires coding too...
Although a second monitor for coding would be most useful for debugging (see what code is executing and what the GUI is currently doing at the same time)
They're just not so keen on it when they need to spend a little in advertising themselves (I haven't even seen Chrome ads on TV), or even invest in hardware (Google Voice).
I've seen the occasional Chrome billboard in the UK.
I know, people should get paid for their work, including the security researcH. But sometimes it feels like racket.
Why should they get paid if they weren't asked to do it? Obviously they don't have to say what they found if they aren't paid, but there shouldn't be a sense of entitlement just becuase the did something (that they weren't asked to do).
Slashdot Mirror
It took years to get Slashdot to add an Ubuntu logo so that stories didn't have to use the Debian one. Why does bitcoin get fast-tracked?
Maybe the icon designer was bribed... with bitcoins.
any site you go to that has the Facebook icon? Facebook can see the referrer for the icon image and therefore knows the URL for the site you went to. It's the same for Twitter and all the other similar type things where you see their little icon littered throughout the internet.
There is a list for Ad Block called "antisocial" that is designed specifically to prevent these from showing up and loading.
Note that it does also prevent the Google "+1" button from appearing anywhere as well, even on Google+, so you either have to disable that specifically, or allow an exception for plus.google.com. Or just not +1 anything your freinds post on Google+.
The way facebook is blocking exporting contacts, you know they're scared
I read about the a week or so ago, and someone on slashdot helpfully explained that you could create a new Yahoo! email account by using the 'Sign in with Facebook' option, and allow Yahoo! to have access to your details etc*. Then you could export your entire Facebook friends list (I think only names and email addresses) as a CSV file for example. Is that still possible, or have they stopped that too?
* I made a brief exception for this, I have platform apps turned off entirely (doing this automatically turns them on again), and turned them off again (which removed the Yahoo! apps as well) after I had exported.
There's no real reason for that functionality. It's easier to simply select both circles when you're sharing something. Your previous selection is set as the default for your next post, so you don't get frustrated with having to click the same buttons over and over.
You could also add someone to two different circles
There truly should be a way to restrict search results by country, not just by language. And rebloggers should be scored down, not up.
If I do a search on google.co.uk (I live in the UK) there is an option to filter results to "Pages from the UK" (they've moved the link which does it to the left instead of under the search input box), but its been an option for years, I think its been there since I started using Google when it was gaining popularity.
Is there a google.us site? Have you tried that and then see if you can limit searches to only the US? I tried the .us link but got forwarded to google.co.uk, with only the option to "go to google.com".
It's been available for quite a long time now. There was one when Chrome was first getting popular, but it still downloaded ads and only hid them due to a limitation in the add-on API, so it wasn't as good as the Firefox one (but bearable to use). Now with some updates to the API, I think they do stop them from downloading as well.
In a slightly related topic, I had been browsing without Flashblock on Chromium for a while because I had issues using the add-on, but there is a new one now that is quite decent (I sometimes had issues using the older Flashblock on both Firefox and Chrome, but the new one for Chrome works really well so far, I think it's mainly the option to easily enable and disable on a whole page which I like)
I have heard stories of people having Yahoo or Bing as their default homepage and when they want to search for something, they type "google" into the search bar, go to Google from the results, and then search from there. In that case the "oh that's okay" could imply that it is targeted to users who do that who didn't know they could change their homepage to google.com so they don't have to search from it from their current homepage before actually searching on google.
The summary says "StatCounter tracks total surfing, not the number of users", which could explain why the stats are different, is that what you meant by suspect? (I use both Chromium and Firefox)
Slashdot has completely fucked up its interface to the point where links don't even open when you click on them. Right-clicking a link doesn't open up a menu, either. I had to look at the link through FireBug to grab the URL and paste it into a new window.
If using Firefox, you can drag a link to the tab bar and it opens a new tab using the URL of the dragged link.
Hey, homeopathy totally works. You really can make something more powerful by diluting and ensuring you have less of it. Less is more!
I should know, because I'm a world-leading expert in homeopathy. Well, I skimmed the first chapter of a book on it, anyway. Less is more, right?
Exactly. And if fewer people practice homeopathy, the more powerful its effect will become ;)
I think some ppl should make a mimic my doom virus that simple informs the ppl they need to patch and until then their tcp/ip files have been removed.
Gets them off the network and educates them.
I think most users would find it hard to patch their system if they no longer have network access to do it.
I have here a suitcase with, as you can see, a million dollars in it. You have the choice to leave it alone, or to reach in, give me any one of the bills from inside the case, and walk off with the rest of them.
I benefit a little if you choose the suitcase, you benefit a lot. And you still have the choice to walk away. Unethical?
What if the bills in the suitcase were marked and recently stolen and you were trying to get rid of them to frame someone else for the theft? An extreme and unlikely scenario, but you are right that there can be cases where both benefit with no loss for either.
some sort of mandate of financial transparency to the public? ie: is there a webpage or something where the UK populace can look up to see where there money is going (or went?) for any given year?
At the local level or national level? I recal in the past I recieved a local 'newsletter' that said what proportion of the council (local) tax was being spent on various things. I think it included figures but didn't read it too much. There was a pie chart though.
Oh, by the way: Whooooooooooosh !!
You're right, a good "whoosh" will clear out any digital dust, how kind of you :)
However, it is hardly an abdication of parental responsibilities to have rating agencies at all; nobody can possibly prescreen everything before showing it to their kids.
As advanced as technology is nowadays, you'd think that there'd be a huge database of potentially questionable content in a film for review and filtering. So a parent can search for a title, see how many swear words there are, how many explosions, etc, and then make a decision based on that information. It's the kind of thing you could set up a predefined personal filter for (2 swear words max, no sex scenes, blood ok for example)
Do they not realise that Apple own the letter 'i'?
They do? Someone had better tell the BBC the bad news...
The geotag on those photos puts them in Studio City, California. Somewhere on the Warner Bros. back lot to be exact.
I think the location derived from GPS satalites are only going to be on earth (other possible places that match the distances between satalites are going to be in space). This is done because if you knew both potential locations for the GPS satalite response times given (i.e. the one on earth and the one in space), would would be able to work out exactly where the GPS satalites are orbiting (the percieved risk is that someone could knock them out of orbit or otherwise interfere with them and cause problem with earth devices that rely on GPS).
You can get a tiny open source violin on the Android market
I'm not sure how I forgot that in less than a week even though I've seen a lot of Tom Baker stuff since then. It looks like a continuity problem because there was one scene earlier where the doctor passed the screwdriver to his copy (or vice-versa) which looked like it was to establish the point that there was only one. Either that or there was another in the Tardis. Anyway, the sonic screwdriver magic wand thing and a desire to tone it down or get rid of it came up in an interview last year. I was hoping it was left behind but that was wishful thinking. Like K9 there was probably just another one in storage.
I think at that point they had switched, so the Flesh Doctor was giving the real Doctor (who was pretending to be the Flesh Doctor) his (copy of the) sonic screwdriver, to convince the others that the Doctor passing the screwdriver was the real one (when it actually wasn't). That's my guess anyway.
No. His copy who got left behind with the screwdriver used it in the last scene of the last episode that was aired.
[Spoiler warning]
A couple of scenes after the Flesh-Doctor uses the sonic screwdriver, in the TARDIS, the original uses the sonic screwdriver to break the link to the fake-Amy (which collapses just like the Flesh Doctor did).
The Flesh Doctor was an exact copy, down to the clothes and everything. He normally carries his sonic screwdriver in his pocket, so it plausible that the Flesh-Doctor had a copy of the sonic screwdriver, the copy being the one subsequently destroyed.
At the start of Tom Baker's time the sonic screwdriver couldn't even reliably get the Doctor through a locked door, but now it is a magic wand that can do just about anything. Good to see it got written out of the plot recently.
It's been destroyed a couple of times since the reboot, and another one has been made, usually popping out the TARDIS console. He used it in the last scene of the last episode that was aired (unless you're talking about future episodes...). It is a fairly simple to use plot device though (need to move plot forward = use screwdriver to open door, otherwise, need to keep characters where they are = door is deadlocked)
Of course, if you don't know, how do you know about Ryan Giggs in the first place?
He has been a very well know football (soccer) player for well over a decade for one of the most popular football teams in the world. It can be very easy to know who he is without having heard of the super injunction.
Coders? Perhaps not. It is however a must for any kind of graphic design, video editing, 3D modeling, etc. Having your full, finished product up on one monitor while you edit and tool around on the other makes for a more productive experience.
The GUI of a program requires coding too...
Although a second monitor for coding would be most useful for debugging (see what code is executing and what the GUI is currently doing at the same time)
Nuke it from Orbit. It's the only way to be sure!
In Soviet orbit, you nuke you!
They're just not so keen on it when they need to spend a little in advertising themselves (I haven't even seen Chrome ads on TV), or even invest in hardware (Google Voice).
I've seen the occasional Chrome billboard in the UK.
I know, people should get paid for their work, including the security researcH. But sometimes it feels like racket.
Why should they get paid if they weren't asked to do it? Obviously they don't have to say what they found if they aren't paid, but there shouldn't be a sense of entitlement just becuase the did something (that they weren't asked to do).