Maybe it's a dedicated Dwarf Fortress machine.
Maybe it's a dedicated Dwarf Fortress machine.
It could very easily happen, by enforcing blocking rules that restrict or eliminate third party content.
That won't work. Even if you don't communicate directly with the third party, you don't have any way to prevent the content provider (who is also the ad provider from your point of view) from passing the information along.
We seem to have latched onto this "third party content" as The Problem, where it's really just a hack du jour for easily spotting a problem. But the only reason a content provider is putting <script src="somewhere else"> into their pages is because it still gets them paid by the "somewhere else." If you hit their own server instead of the third party, they can still forward any requests behind the scenes to anyone, and you won't even know it's happening, but all the same information will be there.
If you eliminate "third party content" you're just going to turn second parties into proxies. And they'll really do it, too. Why wouldn't they?
That's never going to happen, so people who think that a compromise might some day be reached, need to let go of that.
But tracking isn't going to go away. Your computer is initiating a conversation with someone else's computer, and there's only one thing you can do to prevent someone else's computer from remembering that it happened: have there be nothing to remember, because nothing happened. i.e. don't request the ad.
If you get the ad, then you get tracking, period. There is no possible compromise between the two sides on this, and everyone who thinks they can have ads but no tracking, is kidding themselves.
Either the ad industry is going to persuade us that tracking isn't all that bad, or the users are going to persuade the media that ads aren't all that necessary. No middle ground exists on this.
I like the idea of a browser for the front end, only because browsers are omnipresent and does not require installing potentially harmful code. However, apps are completely different, if only in that the code would require downloading, regardless.
I suspect there's a line of code in the "assignModPoints" function that says something like
if(freaks.contains("pudge")) return 0;
I haven't gotten mod points in a long time either, though I suspect in my case that I had turned off the "willing to moderate" option when it existed in the user options, and unrelated to that pudge foed me at a later time.
I hate Java, i hate Android development, but i repeat myself. And that's exactly what i hate about them.
In Android, objects have their own namespaces, under R. There's R.class, R.mipmap, R.layout, R.color, R.integer, and many more. So, the namespace of the layout (where you usually add objects) is under R.layout, the image on a button can be under R.mipmap. Nice.
IMHO you're wrong. Battery failure is the biggest reason to "upgrade." Availability of software updates is a close second. CPU, screen res etc are already overkill even on a 4 year old phone. Many phone lives have been extended by replacing the battery, though the industry is "on" that "problem" now.
Cacheable pages might have ads, but they're not The Right ads.
It has indeed been around for a long time. Some years much, much better than others. Unfortunately, over time, things got much less subtle, and far too repetitive.
OIC. Nah, java is just a redundant language which promotes this form of idiocy.
Anyway, in this case, it's not the value of the checkbox. It's a method that accepts true or false as its argument. Hence, my argument.
The expression must evaluate to true or false, and those are both valid values for the checkbox's method, regardless of if there are also others.
If an If()'s true block set something to true, and it's false block set's it to false (or vice-versa) and nothing else, there's absolutely no reason to use an if().
Here's the latest example of something i have seen way too often:
if(getListView().getCount()==checkedItemCount) chk.setChecked(true); else chk.setChecked(false);
What's the point of obfuscating your code with an if()? This isn't conditional. You want to set it to the same boolean value as the evaluated expression. Obviously, the clearest way to write this (without changing names) is:
When did they do that?
Humanities students aren't necessarily computer stupid. A true liberal arts education includes study of the humanities...
There are lots of people in those fields who have good analytical minds.
Found the Hydrogen Hydroxide industry shill.
Mathematics is the only science where one never knows what one is talking about nor whether what is said is true. -- Russell