If the ads are served from the page's domain, it's pretty trivial to know you're blocking ads. The server can plant a cookie when you load an ad, and another cookie when you load a page that should have an ad in it. Make the cookies contain a counter. If the two get way out of balance, they stop feeding you content. I'd allow a little leeway due to aborted loads, bad connections, etc. If you don't allow cookies, don't feed content.
I can't think of a quick-n-easy way to do it with ads served from another domain, without having a backchannel between the two domains, but I'm no expert.
Well, THAT's great until it fails without you knowing it. The biggest problem I have with MiniDV is that it looks like it's working fine, then the next day when you go to play it back, OOP sorry, the heads are dirty/misaligned/etc and your day's shooting is gone.
I'm holding out for a $500 MPG4 camcorder with a 6GB microdrive in it and decent quality image. I bet it's not far away, since Panasonic already does that with SD, though I don't know what the video quality is or the versatility of the lens (IE 20x zoom or whatever).
Tyan? I haven't tried them, but friends swear by them.
I personally use ASUS and ABIT, and have not had any trouble, but I've only built about a dozen systems in the last 10 years. I never overclock, I don't need the fastest machine, I just want stability.
Sure the quality goes down; HP and Lexmark cartridges are designed to wear out fast. But if you buy a printer with a permanent printhead and ink tanks, and buy good ink that's formulated for the printer (not "one-size-fits-all" generic ink) you can get very good quality indeed.
I have a Canon i970 photo printer. I have never bought an OEM cart, when the ones it came with ran out I started refilling. I have refilled each tank about 25 times now, and the quality is still fine.
Wake up people. HP and Lexmark inkjet printers are cheap crap designed to be a continuous source of income for the manufacturers. Pay > $50 for a printer and save $100's later.
Epson also has permanent heads, but they take other steps (bottom loading carts which are messy to fill and cause bubbles, and chipped cartridges) to make refilling a pain.
Thank you for your inquiry. If you wish to deploy this software on uninhabited planets, the fee is discounted by 50%. Craft in space are considered covered by the license for the planet of the port they are registered in in the case of passenger and cargo ships, or the planet they were launched from or most recently made landfall on in the case of research vessels and probes.
License fees: This is not free software, it is licensed per site. In order to use this software, you are required to pay one cent per site. For the purposes of this license, a site is defined as a planet with people on it.
What I THINK is that something like PearPC, which already runs OS X at an almost-usable level (OK, pretty slow, but you can use it to goof around in) will get MIGHTY fast if it doesn't have to translate the machine code. If you choose a video card that's supported under OS X, then a translation layer only needs to hold a pirated ROM and translate minor hardware like USB interfaces and stuff.
Make this layer something that can be loaded from a boot sector, stick itself in memory, make things look like Apple hardware, and then boot the OS.
If Apple doesn't support commodity hardware, I'd be floored if PearPC or someone similar doesn't do this within a year. And people who have to do this kind of stuff will be more likely to use a pirated copy of the OS.
If they DO support commodity hardware, I've got $100+ hanging in front of them RIGHT NOW. I'm in, gimme, here's your money and well done. If they don't, and they make me go through hoops and expect me to be locked into their hardware, then maybe I'll just look for a torrent.
Don'cha mean farewell Microsoft? Crud, I was 95% of the way to buying a Mac, but I'm too cheap. If I just need to buy the OS and not new hardware, I'm there. And I get paid to be a Windows developer.
BTW, does this mean "commodity hardware" or just "intel CPU in an Apple box?"
Yes, some of us do. There's a whole subculture of people who are building things that nobody would ever buy; spending dozens/hundreds of hours building something that you could go out and buy for 5 bucks, because it's FUN. It's just that they don't tend to be the type who spend all their work hours cruising slashdot and posting whatever dribbles down their brainstem into their fingers just to see their name on the board.
We know for a fact that long term, life on Earth is doomed. If 40% believe that Earth is the sole repository of life in the universe, then it's absolutely irresponsible of them to not fully support manned space exploration with a heavy emphasis on planetary and interstellar colonization.
This should be especially true of people who believe that life was put here and the universe was created by God. I mean, we're put here, plopped in the middle of a limitless universe, and given intelligence to understand the universe and build our own means to explore it; if that's not a mandate, I don't know what is. Why would they believe that "go forth and multiply" stops at the atmosphere?
A model T would be a piece of shit compared to today's cars. Most drivers wouldn't even be able to get the damn thing started (you want to explain manually tweaking the spark advance?), and nobody would put up with the insane amount of maintenance, horrible gas mileage, ridiculous amounts of pollution, pathetic horsepower, etc, etc.
This is not to mention safety issues. I think 50's and 60's cars are pretty sweet looking, but they're death traps. I would love to drive one in a parade but you couldn't pay me to drive one at speed on the interstate.
You'd be willing to buy a car for $3200 that got about 8 MPG, had a top speed of about 40 MPH, miserable handling, was dangerously tippy, had zero safety features including crumple zones, seat belts, safety glass (sword-like glass shards 12" long around your body as you nosedive through the windshield?), reliable door latches, non-telescoping/offset steering columns (being impaled and shoved through the roof in a head-on collision?) steel dashboards to splatter your brains against, and puked out so much pollution that if everyone had them, you wouldn't be able to breathe in a modern city? Have fun but keep the damn thing on your own property.
Take a look at the history of the auto industry. It's arguable that a lot of the safety features don't really cost much to do, but the industry wouldn't do ANY of them except under government pressure. Even seat belts had to be mandated. Detroit just said "nobody buys safety, they buy style."
The only thing they have ever responded to have been government mandates and competition. The only reason modern cars last more than 3 years is because Japan came along and made them stop building crap-boxes that were made out of the cheapest steel and components they could buy. When I was growing up in the 70's, it was a given that cars started showing rust at about 2 years even if well cared for (in Michigan) and you had to get them tuned up about every 15000 miles at best. Nobody would buy such a car now.
BTW, I've never owned a non-US brand car; I believe that CURRENT US cars are pretty good, but they sure built some shit for a while.
Gods, this is old. When did we first see this? Certainly mid-2004, maybe even 2003. I'm too lazy to look, but I bet/. has covered it too. Certainly it's been covered elsewhere.
I've tried a few, and IMHO lowest profile is best. My fav is the mouse that HP used to ship with their servers; it tapered almost to the desk in the back and was pretty low. Unfortunately I haven't seen anything currently on the shelves that matches it.
Currently I use the cheap Logitechs. I had a couple of Microsoft Intellimouse and bigger Logitech mice, but I dumped them and replaced them with $15 Logitech models.
The mice I find the least comfortable to use are the bulbous ones with lots of buttons (like the MS Intellimouse). The ones I find the most comfortable are low profile and simple (and as a happy coincidence, cheap).
Microsoft is saying that tabbed browsing is inconsistent with other parts of the OS. In fact, it's only inconsistent with what Microsoft is saying is proper design this week; they keep changing their minds.
Microsoft itself in the design specs they wrote years ago stated that MDI (multiple document interface) was the way all apps should be designed. Tabbed browsing is just a form of MDI. It's no different than if you had multiple documents open in a word processor; if you want to get to a specific one, you alt-tab to the word processor, and then ctrl-tab to the right document (or use the view or window menu item).
Microsoft has been backpedalling from MDI for a couple of years; the new versions of office open multiple windows when you open multiple documents. I find this quite irritating. I'm sure they did it because of the taskbar's collapse similar items thing, but I'd rather have MDI.
Way longer than that. Our 97 Taurus had a flash upgrade when we brought it in for a checkup at 30K miles. It wasn't major, just a slight decrease in emissions or something. Just a service bulletin, no recall. I would be surprised if there weren't such things going on back to at least the early 90's. Might have required a chip changeout back then rather than just a flash.
Hmm, plenty of people are happy to pay money for sites that feature JPGs. Maybe they should insist on TIF? No, JPG is an acceptable tradeoff for their purposes. MP3 is an acceptable tradeoff for me. I have a $40 MP3 player and $20 headphones, and I'm happy with it. MP3 is more than sufficient for what I want. Yeah, I can hear the difference. But I don't *CARE*. I can see the difference between JPG and TIFF too, and when I take photos, I shoot in RAW mode. And when I'm making final, large prints, I process in lossless mode. But for emailing stuff around and for the web (in my mind, similar to portable audio players), jpg is *GOOD ENOUGH*.
Not at first. Only after looking at the sentence several times, and realizing that as written, it either meant nothing or meant the opposite of what the rest of the article seemed to be saying, did I decide that it was just really bad writing. Actually I knew it was bad writing right away, I just eventually decided that not only was it bad, it was wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, who's going to mirror the site? Then torrent it?
If the ads are served from the page's domain, it's pretty trivial to know you're blocking ads. The server can plant a cookie when you load an ad, and another cookie when you load a page that should have an ad in it. Make the cookies contain a counter. If the two get way out of balance, they stop feeding you content. I'd allow a little leeway due to aborted loads, bad connections, etc.
If you don't allow cookies, don't feed content.
I can't think of a quick-n-easy way to do it with ads served from another domain, without having a backchannel between the two domains, but I'm no expert.
Well, THAT's great until it fails without you knowing it. The biggest problem I have with MiniDV is that it looks like it's working fine, then the next day when you go to play it back, OOP sorry, the heads are dirty/misaligned/etc and your day's shooting is gone.
I'm holding out for a $500 MPG4 camcorder with a 6GB microdrive in it and decent quality image. I bet it's not far away, since Panasonic already does that with SD, though I don't know what the video quality is or the versatility of the lens (IE 20x zoom or whatever).
Tyan? I haven't tried them, but friends swear by them.
I personally use ASUS and ABIT, and have not had any trouble, but I've only built about a dozen systems in the last 10 years. I never overclock, I don't need the fastest machine, I just want stability.
Obvious exception: legit distributions of OSS from torrents approved on their site, with MD5 validation.
If I downloaded executables from BitTorrent, I'd be surprised not to get hit. I can't imagine anyone with much sense doing that.
Media files only for me thanks.
Sure the quality goes down; HP and Lexmark cartridges are designed to wear out fast. But if you buy a printer with a permanent printhead and ink tanks, and buy good ink that's formulated for the printer (not "one-size-fits-all" generic ink) you can get very good quality indeed.
I have a Canon i970 photo printer. I have never bought an OEM cart, when the ones it came with ran out I started refilling. I have refilled each tank about 25 times now, and the quality is still fine.
Wake up people. HP and Lexmark inkjet printers are cheap crap designed to be a continuous source of income for the manufacturers. Pay > $50 for a printer and save $100's later.
Epson also has permanent heads, but they take other steps (bottom loading carts which are messy to fill and cause bubbles, and chipped cartridges) to make refilling a pain.
It's already in (pseudo) latin. You mean english translation maybe?
Thank you for your inquiry. If you wish to deploy this software on uninhabited planets, the fee is discounted by 50%. Craft in space are considered covered by the license for the planet of the port they are registered in in the case of passenger and cargo ships, or the planet they were launched from or most recently made landfall on in the case of research vessels and probes.
License fees:
This is not free software, it is licensed per site. In order to use this software, you are required to pay one cent per site. For the purposes of this license, a site is defined as a planet with people on it.
Post it on sourceforge and send them a pointer to the site.
What I THINK is that something like PearPC, which already runs OS X at an almost-usable level (OK, pretty slow, but you can use it to goof around in) will get MIGHTY fast if it doesn't have to translate the machine code. If you choose a video card that's supported under OS X, then a translation layer only needs to hold a pirated ROM and translate minor hardware like USB interfaces and stuff.
Make this layer something that can be loaded from a boot sector, stick itself in memory, make things look like Apple hardware, and then boot the OS.
If Apple doesn't support commodity hardware, I'd be floored if PearPC or someone similar doesn't do this within a year. And people who have to do this kind of stuff will be more likely to use a pirated copy of the OS.
If they DO support commodity hardware, I've got $100+ hanging in front of them RIGHT NOW. I'm in, gimme, here's your money and well done. If they don't, and they make me go through hoops and expect me to be locked into their hardware, then maybe I'll just look for a torrent.
Don'cha mean farewell Microsoft? Crud, I was 95% of the way to buying a Mac, but I'm too cheap. If I just need to buy the OS and not new hardware, I'm there. And I get paid to be a Windows developer.
BTW, does this mean "commodity hardware" or just "intel CPU in an Apple box?"
Yes, some of us do. There's a whole subculture of people who are building things that nobody would ever buy; spending dozens/hundreds of hours building something that you could go out and buy for 5 bucks, because it's FUN.
It's just that they don't tend to be the type who spend all their work hours cruising slashdot and posting whatever dribbles down their brainstem into their fingers just to see their name on the board.
We know for a fact that long term, life on Earth is doomed. If 40% believe that Earth is the sole repository of life in the universe, then it's absolutely irresponsible of them to not fully support manned space exploration with a heavy emphasis on planetary and interstellar colonization.
This should be especially true of people who believe that life was put here and the universe was created by God. I mean, we're put here, plopped in the middle of a limitless universe, and given intelligence to understand the universe and build our own means to explore it; if that's not a mandate, I don't know what is. Why would they believe that "go forth and multiply" stops at the atmosphere?
A model T would be a piece of shit compared to today's cars. Most drivers wouldn't even be able to get the damn thing started (you want to explain manually tweaking the spark advance?), and nobody would put up with the insane amount of maintenance, horrible gas mileage, ridiculous amounts of pollution, pathetic horsepower, etc, etc.
This is not to mention safety issues. I think 50's and 60's cars are pretty sweet looking, but they're death traps. I would love to drive one in a parade but you couldn't pay me to drive one at speed on the interstate.
You'd be willing to buy a car for $3200 that got about 8 MPG, had a top speed of about 40 MPH, miserable handling, was dangerously tippy, had zero safety features including crumple zones, seat belts, safety glass (sword-like glass shards 12" long around your body as you nosedive through the windshield?), reliable door latches, non-telescoping/offset steering columns (being impaled and shoved through the roof in a head-on collision?) steel dashboards to splatter your brains against, and puked out so much pollution that if everyone had them, you wouldn't be able to breathe in a modern city? Have fun but keep the damn thing on your own property.
Take a look at the history of the auto industry. It's arguable that a lot of the safety features don't really cost much to do, but the industry wouldn't do ANY of them except under government pressure. Even seat belts had to be mandated. Detroit just said "nobody buys safety, they buy style."
The only thing they have ever responded to have been government mandates and competition. The only reason modern cars last more than 3 years is because Japan came along and made them stop building crap-boxes that were made out of the cheapest steel and components they could buy. When I was growing up in the 70's, it was a given that cars started showing rust at about 2 years even if well cared for (in Michigan) and you had to get them tuned up about every 15000 miles at best. Nobody would buy such a car now.
BTW, I've never owned a non-US brand car; I believe that CURRENT US cars are pretty good, but they sure built some shit for a while.
Gods, this is old. When did we first see this? Certainly mid-2004, maybe even 2003. I'm too lazy to look, but I bet /. has covered it too. Certainly it's been covered elsewhere.
I've tried a few, and IMHO lowest profile is best. My fav is the mouse that HP used to ship with their servers; it tapered almost to the desk in the back and was pretty low. Unfortunately I haven't seen anything currently on the shelves that matches it.
Currently I use the cheap Logitechs. I had a couple of Microsoft Intellimouse and bigger Logitech mice, but I dumped them and replaced them with $15 Logitech models.
The mice I find the least comfortable to use are the bulbous ones with lots of buttons (like the MS Intellimouse). The ones I find the most comfortable are low profile and simple (and as a happy coincidence, cheap).
Where's the palm version?
Microsoft is saying that tabbed browsing is inconsistent with other parts of the OS. In fact, it's only inconsistent with what Microsoft is saying is proper design this week; they keep changing their minds.
Microsoft itself in the design specs they wrote years ago stated that MDI (multiple document interface) was the way all apps should be designed. Tabbed browsing is just a form of MDI. It's no different than if you had multiple documents open in a word processor; if you want to get to a specific one, you alt-tab to the word processor, and then ctrl-tab to the right document (or use the view or window menu item).
Microsoft has been backpedalling from MDI for a couple of years; the new versions of office open multiple windows when you open multiple documents. I find this quite irritating. I'm sure they did it because of the taskbar's collapse similar items thing, but I'd rather have MDI.
Way longer than that. Our 97 Taurus had a flash upgrade when we brought it in for a checkup at 30K miles. It wasn't major, just a slight decrease in emissions or something. Just a service bulletin, no recall. I would be surprised if there weren't such things going on back to at least the early 90's. Might have required a chip changeout back then rather than just a flash.
From the article
open source software is a low cost alternative to proprietary software
How about from now on, proprietary software is a higher cost, less customizable alternative to open source software.
I think you mean newly discovered moon. I don't think moons are currently being manufactured.
Hmm, plenty of people are happy to pay money for sites that feature JPGs. Maybe they should insist on TIF? No, JPG is an acceptable tradeoff for their purposes. MP3 is an acceptable tradeoff for me. I have a $40 MP3 player and $20 headphones, and I'm happy with it. MP3 is more than sufficient for what I want. Yeah, I can hear the difference. But I don't *CARE*. I can see the difference between JPG and TIFF too, and when I take photos, I shoot in RAW mode. And when I'm making final, large prints, I process in lossless mode. But for emailing stuff around and for the web (in my mind, similar to portable audio players), jpg is *GOOD ENOUGH*.
Not at first. Only after looking at the sentence several times, and realizing that as written, it either meant nothing or meant the opposite of what the rest of the article seemed to be saying, did I decide that it was just really bad writing. Actually I knew it was bad writing right away, I just eventually decided that not only was it bad, it was wrong.