Comment Re:did you checked the video? (Score 1) 688
The fact that you can have an addon like this in Firefox, is what makes me stick with Firefox. You can't move the tabs in Chrome at all.
The fact that you can have an addon like this in Firefox, is what makes me stick with Firefox. You can't move the tabs in Chrome at all.
Don't all of the broadcast companies also own cable channels? I'd think they would tell the cable companies "pull an Aereo and you don't get our cable channels anymore (or we'll just raise the price on our cable package to offset the lost broadcast fees".
Never does this interview tell who this guy is! Isn't that one of the basic who what when where why how questions? Like "who"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...
There you go.
I already had an alternative for years: my ISP. It has this free service where you login with your account, and pick [chosenname].go.ro - and that's it. Of course, some might consider it as rather limited but I think its more than fitting for a home user.
This really is the sort of service all ISPs should provide.
There's a difference between giving money to a candidate who opposes same-sex marriage, and supporting a ballot initiative to make it unconstitutional (not just illegal mind, but *unconstitutional*). I'm opposed to people getting drunk, but I wouldn't vote for prohibition.
A rose by a different name... is it really so important how you call something? A name should reflect its content, it's not content by itself.
Are you addressing the commenters who want to keep government "marriage", or the commenters who want to change it to "civil union"? Seems like your comment could go either way.
These are great ideas, and you'd probably get a lot more support for them if you didn't waste time looking for someone to blame, and pointing fingers at the people who may very well support your cause.
Google Chrome has a feature (or used to, I haven't used it for a while) that allows you to selectively block Javascript by domain. I find this to be a better approach -- everything is whitelisted by default and you selectively block the ones you don't like.
Malware writers like this approach, too, as it makes you more vulnerable to drive-bys.
NoScript requires a one-time click to allow a domain. I don't find this to be much of a burden. If it is for you, you can use "Allow all this page", which will permanently allow JavaScript for every domain the current page references.
I also prefer a whitelist to a blacklist. The problem with it, though, is that when you come to a broken website which is calling scripts from a dozen different domains, and you don't know which ones provide functionality and which ones are for tracking. In those cases, when I'm in a hurry, I usually "temporarily allow all" the domains at once (except those which I've already blocked of course)but even then, activating certain domains will then make other domains appear on the list, which I also have to activate and reload the site again. It is a hassle and potentially confusing to new users (or anybody who borrows my computer).
Today, more and more websites are designed in a such a way that disabling Javascript breaks them completely -- you literally get nothing but a blank page.
IMHO these websites are examples of bad design . Good design should fall back to plain html/css with ideally, minimum loss of functionality
Dynamic interactions with scripting languages are here right now and in use almost everywhere except old angelfire/geocities sites with the nice space backgrounds. You might find some hipster trying to make a point by making their site completely in html/css, but that is just a pathetic attempt at holding back innovation and progress.
I don't think the OP was suggesting we give up on dynamic websites; they said that websites should *fall back* to plain html/css with minimum loss of functionality. If your website defaults to a blank page with Javascript turned off, then yes that is bad design.
So what you're saying is, rich people don't want to live anywhere Republicans are in charge? Makes sense to me.
The AC does have a point: "creationism" (and "intelligent design") are potentially ambiguous terms to people who aren't engaged in the evolution debate. To us here (I assume), both terms refer to anti-evolution philosophies. To others, the terms may simply suggest that the universe was "created" and "intelligently designed" by a Creator, a belief which is in no way incompatible with evolution or science in general. It just feeds the false dichotomy of "religion vs science".
And they could host maker events and maker classes too. "Hey kids! Come this Saturday and learn how to build a robot!" How does that not bring in business?
If it's just a link to a website the way tiles normally work? And if the links go to reputable websites? I don't have a problem with Firefox asking Amazon for some money to put them on the front page.
On the other hand, the tiles could be more like banner ads, flashy spammy things, controlled by a 3rd-party network where Mozilla doesn't have much control over what shows up there. That would suck.
The anti-evolution party wants to destroy public education anyway; they want your kids to be educated by corporations. They're glad you're getting the point.
No, but the IOC should, if they want the games to be a thing Americans still watch in 15-20 years. The FCC already failed when they allowed the anti-competitive Comcast/NBC merger in the first place.
This is what I'm wondering: the IOC depends on the goodwill of a watching public: there are people who never watch any type of sporting event except for the Olympics, because they feel like they should, partly because it's tradition, because everyone else is talking about it. If it's too difficult to watch for an increasing number of people, does the Olympics start losing its importance?
Or maybe that's all FUD on my part, I don't know.
Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious animal on earth.
