Indeed, many people have similar problems, myself included. For this reason, I don't wear any jewelry, and even my gold wedding band (not 24k) caused occasional problems. (Divorced now, so problem resolved.)
More significantly, I do need to wear glasses, and contacts don't agree with me. As was mentioned in another comment, many people have bad reactions to even hypoallergenic frames. After going a month or two constantly coating my frames with clear nail polish to avoid the blistering rash I got everywhere metal touched, I spent the money for a titanium frame. No more problems.
For many, it isn't a matter of "bling," as the GP mentioned.
Of course, all of us in IT know that to many people, accuracy in statements about computers has long ago gone bye bye.
"My {computer | hard drive | motherboard | Windows} is dead."
"I've got {a virus | spyware}."
All of these statements from most operators imply a 95% probability that the operator has saved his Excel file someplace and they can no longer find it, or some other such PEBKAC.
Yes, but he was the first to die, being crushed by a large chunk of stone.
It was like a single voice cried out in terror, and then millions of voices cried out in glee.
If you know what you're doing, you can always win tic-tac-toe, provided you go first.
Really? Unless you're playing the Hollywood Squares variation, where the player with the most squares marked wins in the event neither forms a string of three, I'm not sure I'd agree with this one. Maybe we should play for money - you go first, I win the bet in the event of a draw.
If I had a nickel for every time I clicked into experts exchange looking for the answer to some technical problem, only to curse myself for failing to look at the site I was being steered to by my Google search, I'd have, like, $2.55.
Ok, so I wouldn't retire rich. But still, that site is damned annoying, and any search engine that gives links to ExEx pages without charging them for it has been hoodwinked into giving away free advertising.
"One of the major problems encountered in time travel is not that of accidentally becoming your own father or mother. There is no problem involved in becoming your own father or mother that a broadminded and well-adjusted family can't cope with.... The major problem is quite simply one of grammar, and the main work to consult in this matter is Dr Dan Streetmentioner's Time Traveller's Handbook of 1001 Tense Formations."
Complaining about this is like trying to stop people from talking about the words I painted on the outside of my house. I'd argue against the opposite, in fact. What right do I have to stop Google, you, the press, or anyone else from reiterating what I've already made free* to the public?
* free as in speech
Many have pointed out the financial justification and need for ads, but I agree.
My time, my network, and my computer are not the property of the web host I visit, and I do not give a web site any rights to them by visiting their page. There are plenty of sites that require users to register, and in those cases, assuming there was some sort of terms for use, then fine - require me to at least display ads. But if your site is "free as in speech," is available on the web for all potential visitors without a disclaimer requiring the user to view the site purely as the publisher wishes, then the publisher has no right to make such requirements.
The best analogy I can think of would be if I had a secretary going on line to look up information for me. This secretary has no authority to purchase anything on my company's dime, so whatever ads she comes across are essentially ignored. The ads are filtered out before being able to have any effect because the person viewing them would have zero chance of being influenced by them. Would she be required to pass along the ads she saw when she compiles her report for me? Or wouldn't it be stealing if she didn't, under the argument put forward by web sites who think ads must be seen and cannot legally be filtered? Surely one cannot suggest that just because you offer free information and ads, and I chose to download them both from you, that I have to give equal treatment to both.
There is also absolutely nothing wrong with a web site doing this kind of blocking, either. I cannot tell the web host to stop sending me the ads when I request a page from them any more than they can require me to listen to both. Hosts are not required to meet my desires any more than I am to meet theirs, short of discriminating in their distribution of otherwise free services as described by law. And if I am frustrated by a site that makes my life difficult, I'm free to walk and they are powerless to require me to come back.
However, I do object to the idea of being called a thief for choosing to set my computer - or ask my secretary, at least in my dreams - to automatically ignore parts of a free broadcast. Until I agree to an EULA stating I cannot re-work the content for my own viewing, whatever is freely offered to me is free, both in terms of cost and restrictions.
I'm sure it won't take very long for the open source community to create plug-ins to overcome whatever hurdles they put up, assuming the sites stay in business long enough to keep the devlopement of such plug-ins necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
More significantly, I do need to wear glasses, and contacts don't agree with me. As was mentioned in another comment, many people have bad reactions to even hypoallergenic frames. After going a month or two constantly coating my frames with clear nail polish to avoid the blistering rash I got everywhere metal touched, I spent the money for a titanium frame. No more problems.
For many, it isn't a matter of "bling," as the GP mentioned.
Of course, all of us in IT know that to many people, accuracy in statements about computers has long ago gone bye bye.
"My {computer | hard drive | motherboard | Windows} is dead."
"I've got {a virus | spyware}."
All of these statements from most operators imply a 95% probability that the operator has saved his Excel file someplace and they can no longer find it, or some other such PEBKAC.
Now that's news.
Yes, but he was the first to die, being crushed by a large chunk of stone.
It was like a single voice cried out in terror, and then millions of voices cried out in glee.
There, I fixed that for you.
And yes, I'm from Mass. GO PATS!
The government actually does keep a list of all citizens it considers suspect.
No, you're absolutely right about WinME - that was the double meaning I hoped to imply in the post!
The dating industries I'm familiar with charge a hell of a lot less than a grand per DNA sample.
Really? Unless you're playing the Hollywood Squares variation, where the player with the most squares marked wins in the event neither forms a string of three, I'm not sure I'd agree with this one. Maybe we should play for money - you go first, I win the bet in the event of a draw.
The only winning move is not to play.
If I had a nickel for every time I clicked into experts exchange looking for the answer to some technical problem, only to curse myself for failing to look at the site I was being steered to by my Google search, I'd have, like, $2.55.
Ok, so I wouldn't retire rich. But still, that site is damned annoying, and any search engine that gives links to ExEx pages without charging them for it has been hoodwinked into giving away free advertising.
"God doesn't play dice with kitties,"
said you, Einstein, so I ask thee:
We put the cat in
the box rife with toxin...
Is God rolling dice, or are we?
Besides, it's Friday now. You've got at least 6 days left.
Assuming the technique also leaves shark tissue undamaged, I got the perfect delivery mechanism in mind.
They're doing a Heck of a Job.
Well, I for one welcome our new multi-meme-karma whores.
I think the GP already covered this...
GP: Thus, that the stars exceed Man's grasp is a profane fact; that Man should reach them is a sacred opinion,
Douglas Adams
That's just abserd.
Complaining about this is like trying to stop people from talking about the words I painted on the outside of my house. I'd argue against the opposite, in fact. What right do I have to stop Google, you, the press, or anyone else from reiterating what I've already made free* to the public?
* free as in speech
My time, my network, and my computer are not the property of the web host I visit, and I do not give a web site any rights to them by visiting their page. There are plenty of sites that require users to register, and in those cases, assuming there was some sort of terms for use, then fine - require me to at least display ads. But if your site is "free as in speech," is available on the web for all potential visitors without a disclaimer requiring the user to view the site purely as the publisher wishes, then the publisher has no right to make such requirements.
The best analogy I can think of would be if I had a secretary going on line to look up information for me. This secretary has no authority to purchase anything on my company's dime, so whatever ads she comes across are essentially ignored. The ads are filtered out before being able to have any effect because the person viewing them would have zero chance of being influenced by them. Would she be required to pass along the ads she saw when she compiles her report for me? Or wouldn't it be stealing if she didn't, under the argument put forward by web sites who think ads must be seen and cannot legally be filtered? Surely one cannot suggest that just because you offer free information and ads, and I chose to download them both from you, that I have to give equal treatment to both.
There is also absolutely nothing wrong with a web site doing this kind of blocking, either. I cannot tell the web host to stop sending me the ads when I request a page from them any more than they can require me to listen to both. Hosts are not required to meet my desires any more than I am to meet theirs, short of discriminating in their distribution of otherwise free services as described by law. And if I am frustrated by a site that makes my life difficult, I'm free to walk and they are powerless to require me to come back.
However, I do object to the idea of being called a thief for choosing to set my computer - or ask my secretary, at least in my dreams - to automatically ignore parts of a free broadcast. Until I agree to an EULA stating I cannot re-work the content for my own viewing, whatever is freely offered to me is free, both in terms of cost and restrictions.
I'm sure it won't take very long for the open source community to create plug-ins to overcome whatever hurdles they put up, assuming the sites stay in business long enough to keep the devlopement of such plug-ins necessary.
Grabs a tabloid
JAY: These are the hot sheets?
KAY:Best damn investigative reporting on the planet.
you said "comes up limp."