I got something like this in the E-mail just the other day! It said all I had to do was reply with a list of all my contacts and I'd get $1,000 from Bill Gates. Stupid me, I deleted it.
that should be no problem for any competant built-in popup blocking, which would act on the final generated page, not the source. But then, maybe not, since checking every document.write request to see if it creates a popup may add too much overhead.. dont really know. Doesnt sound at all hard to get around and it's a trick that has been used for years.
not at the moment, I think it's been happening at sites which only show an ad once a day or every couple of days. I'll post a link when I see it again, though.
I never said illegal. And there is a huge difference between too much of an asshole to shift your vision five pixels to the left vs not wanting your computer to be hijacked in an endless swarm of popups which prevent the actual content from being viewed. If there were a plugin to redirect popups to the page they were launched from, I would use it. Demand for ways of making ads more friendly, as opposed to blocking them completely, seems to be non-existent. Of course, I may some day make such an extension myself, but based on public interest in my first attempt at an extension, I apparently suck at writing those:)
I use Only tabs, and think "new window"s are an absolutely horrible bug which should never have been included. I loath new windows. I think it's sickening that you need to install a seperate extension in order to hack on a way to use only tabs. I _NEVER_ use new windows. And I've been getting popups for the past couple of weeks. Like, one or two. (they open in new tabs, not windows, but they still pop up)
"I didnt know what this meant, so I looked it up in wikipedia and found an unrelated acronym which didnt seem to make sense based on the context of the original post so rather than looking it up on google I assumed that the original post didnt know what it was talking about"
well, I was trying to give you the benifit of the doubt, but perhaps you are just a fucking moron? You try to access a website through a means which bypasses the intended business model, then complain that you need to disable your method of stealing content in order to view that content.
I guess I just have too much faith in humanity, thinking that no one could possibly be so completely stupid as to not see what I'm talking about. Whether or not you agree is a seperate issue, I understand that many people disagree, but could it really be that you didnt or dont know what I'm talking about? I really can't fathom such idiocy.
Prove me wrong. I would absolutely love to be proven wrong.
How to describe...
Pages with only one peice of truly dynamic content?
I really dont know how to describe what I'm talking about. I think the burden of proof against the claim "CSS is not definatly superior to other methods which IE has chosen to impliment instead in order to create a page which looks the way the designer wants, instead of the way CSS forces them to make their pages" is on CSS. There are some gimicky things you can do with CSS eisier than IE can do with what it has chosen to impliment. There are Many basic concepts of layout which I would love to see CSS do- but as of yet I have not seen. (And yes, I really do look for these things).
IE tries to make it possible for people to make pages that look however they want them to look. The trade-off is that they can only make them look that way on IE. It is perfectly reasonable to do this- none of this would happen if they had to ask permission before trying it.
The final and original point is undeniable: Nobody gets to complain about IE not implimenting CSS or HTML "correctly" until the "correct" version can do all that IE does now. "Correct" means displaying the page the way the page designer intended. I believe that users should be able to choose themselves how they see pages, without regard to what the designer had in mind. But I also think the designer should allow a user to view their page flexibly without manually defining every aspect repeatedly, hoping he chooses one which suits the user's preference. CSS has the potential to allow this where IE fails. This is the potential I expect to be realized in future versions. I fully expect future versions of CSS to do what I am saying it doesnt do now- a better job.
Once CSS does a better job, you may complain about IE not implimenting it correctly. But I expect by then either IE will of course impliment it correctly- it does a better job- or will have already developed independently a "Microsoft Style Sheets" specification which does everything right the first time.
Microsoft has marketing people. Marketing people found out that people care more about things looking right than things being coded elegantly.
And yes, I use firefox and write my pages with CSS. Firefox is ugly too. That's a seperate issue, though.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I got something like this in the E-mail just the other day! It said all I had to do was reply with a list of all my contacts and I'd get $1,000 from Bill Gates. Stupid me, I deleted it.
you didnt think that through too much, did you?
Fuck you. There are entirely unrelated reasoons why he should be belittled: He didnt even phrase it correctly.
overlay a washu-term onto my reality and you can take 50% of my paycheck for life. There's your killer app.
that should be no problem for any competant built-in popup blocking, which would act on the final generated page, not the source.
But then, maybe not, since checking every document.write request to see if it creates a popup may add too much overhead..
dont really know. Doesnt sound at all hard to get around and it's a trick that has been used for years.
snopes, for one. It's not the only place I've seen it, though.
not at the moment, I think it's been happening at sites which only show an ad once a day or every couple of days. I'll post a link when I see it again, though.
I never said illegal. And there is a huge difference between too much of an asshole to shift your vision five pixels to the left vs not wanting your computer to be hijacked in an endless swarm of popups which prevent the actual content from being viewed. :)
If there were a plugin to redirect popups to the page they were launched from, I would use it. Demand for ways of making ads more friendly, as opposed to blocking them completely, seems to be non-existent.
Of course, I may some day make such an extension myself, but based on public interest in my first attempt at an extension, I apparently suck at writing those
I use Only tabs, and think "new window"s are an absolutely horrible bug which should never have been included. I loath new windows. I think it's sickening that you need to install a seperate extension in order to hack on a way to use only tabs. I _NEVER_ use new windows.
And I've been getting popups for the past couple of weeks. Like, one or two. (they open in new tabs, not windows, but they still pop up)
So, no, it's not that.
Does anyone else remember when Telegraphs were just telegraphs...?
"I didnt know what this meant, so I looked it up in wikipedia and found an unrelated acronym which didnt seem to make sense based on the context of the original post so rather than looking it up on google I assumed that the original post didnt know what it was talking about"
feel like you're always on by having your computer connect as you enter the room ;)
"Anyone who thinks I'm a moron is a troll", good logic.
humans tend to populate around areas with specific geographic features which allow human population.
against bill names that form acronyms. Of course the penalty woulf be death, since it is a blatant attempt to destroy the democratic proccess.
who the fuck said illegal? God damn I guess you really are an idiot.
take five minutes and code something? :)
well, I was trying to give you the benifit of the doubt, but perhaps you are just a fucking moron? You try to access a website through a means which bypasses the intended business model, then complain that you need to disable your method of stealing content in order to view that content.
I guess I just have too much faith in humanity, thinking that no one could possibly be so completely stupid as to not see what I'm talking about. Whether or not you agree is a seperate issue, I understand that many people disagree, but could it really be that you didnt or dont know what I'm talking about? I really can't fathom such idiocy.
This game has been Rated i and as such should not be sold to complete fucking idiots.
Well, from your reaction I'm guessing you actually know what you are doing is wrong, and you don't like being called on it.
when will technology get to the point when we can see "New breaktrhough in x! This can make cooler stuff by next week."
oh yes, Nanotechnology is well known for being completely safe and non-toxic. Go right ahead.
"I can't view the content I'm trying to steal, WAAAAaaa!!!"
oh yes, because the book specifically says he's a white human, not a black betlguisian
Prove me wrong. I would absolutely love to be proven wrong.
:)
How to describe...
Pages with only one peice of truly dynamic content?
I really dont know how to describe what I'm talking about. I think the burden of proof against the claim "CSS is not definatly superior to other methods which IE has chosen to impliment instead in order to create a page which looks the way the designer wants, instead of the way CSS forces them to make their pages" is on CSS.
There are some gimicky things you can do with CSS eisier than IE can do with what it has chosen to impliment. There are Many basic concepts of layout which I would love to see CSS do- but as of yet I have not seen. (And yes, I really do look for these things).
IE tries to make it possible for people to make pages that look however they want them to look. The trade-off is that they can only make them look that way on IE. It is perfectly reasonable to do this- none of this would happen if they had to ask permission before trying it.
The final and original point is undeniable: Nobody gets to complain about IE not implimenting CSS or HTML "correctly" until the "correct" version can do all that IE does now. "Correct" means displaying the page the way the page designer intended.
I believe that users should be able to choose themselves how they see pages, without regard to what the designer had in mind. But I also think the designer should allow a user to view their page flexibly without manually defining every aspect repeatedly, hoping he chooses one which suits the user's preference. CSS has the potential to allow this where IE fails. This is the potential I expect to be realized in future versions. I fully expect future versions of CSS to do what I am saying it doesnt do now- a better job.
Once CSS does a better job, you may complain about IE not implimenting it correctly. But I expect by then either IE will of course impliment it correctly- it does a better job- or will have already developed independently a "Microsoft Style Sheets" specification which does everything right the first time.
Microsoft has marketing people. Marketing people found out that people care more about things looking right than things being coded elegantly.
And yes, I use firefox and write my pages with CSS. Firefox is ugly too. That's a seperate issue, though.