The lack of change logs is why I never update the firmware on my Blu-Ray players unless something is obviously broken, and even then, only if I can find anecdotal evidence to suggest that the update will fix that problem. I've had way, way too many theoretically minor updates that break things in horrible ways, so unless an update adds some major feature that I care about, I try to avoid updating software unless A. I'm aware that it is broken in a way that affects me, and B. I have reason to believe that the update will fix it. In all other circumstances, installing an update to a working system just creates the risk of breakage without providing any obvious gain.
I have ads turned off on
If I read correctly, this is per ad, not per page. So on your average online magazine, that's 5-10 per page. So that's 1000 page views. Your average article is split up over 2-3 pages these days, in order to generate more ad impressions. It also includes every article you click on, load the page, realize it's not interesting to you and leave again with a second or two.
Not sure how much you read, but for me, that would last me maybe a week, and if it includes sites I frequent a lot, less.
It's come to the point where I honestly believe we need to outlaw all advertisement. Yes, I mean that. Make it illegal, absolutely all of it. Posters, mailings, newsletters, TV and radio, web, banners - the whole lot.
Make all of it illegal and then apply the same principle to it that we know works whenever something is dangerous and easily abused: Whitelisting. After pulling the plug, have a serious conversation about where, what kind and how much advertisement we as a society are willing to accept, and then make limited excemptions.
We know for a fact that blacklisting doesn't work. Nobody sane configures a firewall with allow-all and then block lists. You always start with deny-all and then open up services selectively.
Same approach. Outlaw it all, and then decide what is acceptable.
Advertisement poisons everything. It's time to put a stop to it and this is the only way we can do it without fighting over the topic for the next century.
The detail given seems to try to obscure instead of clarify, in my opinion
Having skimmed the patent, I agree. I do not regularly read patents, but it is my understanding that software and process patents like this regularly suffer from this problem - they attempt to obfuscate as much of the details as possible in order to make the claims as broad as possible and to make it as difficult as possible for anyone to do anything useful with the information in the patent.
Nevermind the question of whether software patents are valid or not, this obfuscation is in direct contradiction with the intent of the patent system - to trade a monopoly in the technology for the publication of the information necessary to reproduce the technology.
As someone's tagline hereabouts says, "I don't have a problem with God; it's his cheerleaders I can't stand."
And technically, aren't the Ten Commandments a Hebrew/Jewish thing, not of Christian origin?
In the mean time they have made it substantially more difficult to configure the rejection of cookies.
Their intention is to outsource fine-grain cookie control to extensions. I think it is a good idea, but only half-baked. I would like to see them come up with a list of recommended privacy extensions (including cookie handlers), a sort of "Mozilla Recommended" list to make it easier for newbies who care about privacy but don't know enough to necessarily ask the right questions.
Since in 2003, the Mint’s Artistic Infusion Program (AIP) has brought in new artists into exciting and surprisingly un-lucrative practice of molding America’s dough. The designers of the backs of contemporary nickels and pennies came up through the program, as well as the designers of some of the 50 States quarters, the America the Beautiful series and the ever-unpopular $1 coins. This year the Mint is expecting to bring up to 20 artists into its stable.
Once under contract, artists can be paid for each demonstrations of design they submit, depending on how long they’ve been under contract. It’s, uh, not a ton of money:"
Link to Original Source
People also make meth in the privacy of their own homes... So do laws banning meth only exist to make people feel good?
Actually the answer is still yes, as it is with most casual drug use of ANY kind of drug. Some countries have legalized all drugs, understanding that then they can help the small number of people who get addicted instead of being able to use drugs responsibly.
However meth is a bit of a special case, because the making of it basically renders a home unlivable, and poisons the other people living there or even nearby. But you still shouldn't ban meth or meth ingredients, just require it be made in proper facilities.
The question to ask the people pushing for this policy change is - do they have any examples of the same thing happening to some other company? If not, why do they think they would be the first to suffer this indignity? If they do have examples, how did it work out? Did it really make a difference in actual sales?
You could, just as easily, pulled into the parking lot at the local police station.
Would that be after the teens had beat and robbed them? Why would they not do so long before they reached the police station?
Nothing like advising a losing course of action that will get someone hurt.
vs. someone else using the available gun in your home to cause harm to yourself and your family.
Very high because I know how to get to the guns (or even that hey are there), an intruder does not.
or some sneaky kids in your home causing an accident with a deadly weapon.
Same thing, not going to happen.
or some otherwise harmless burglar/intruder killing you out of fear of the gun in your hand.
Well then he was probably going to shoot me anyway if he was so freaked out, at least I had a chance of scaring him off before I was shot.
In your last scenario without a gun my wife was probably raped while I was forced to watch at gunpoint, whereas if I had a gun and *if* I was shot instead of the burglar (despite knowing my own home better than him) at least the guy probably would have run off after shooting me, and my wife is safe.
That's what I never did understand about gun control nuts, just why they were so adamant in the protection of rapists from harm.
So you readily admit getting rid of guns does nothing to reduce crime.
Therefore getting rid of guns only hurts lawful citizens who simply want to be able to protect themselves as needed.
You don't appear to understand humor or how to post just once.