There are a lot of posts about bundled software being installed by default (like toolbars), but this is just the example from the article's intro. The article is actually about the "Infinity Popup Toolkit". This is not an application that you install on your PC - it's a bunch of JavaScript and Flash code that runs from a web page. Its purpose is to bypass your popup/ad blocker and security controls so that it can show you popup ads.

The question was whether this should be considered malware, since the definition of malware is somewhat vague. The conclusion was that it clearly is malware and should be blocked. This is seems quite obvious, since the software's intention is to ignore your wishes (blocking popups) in order to show you ads. It's quite clear that no one would WANT to run this software, because if they wanted to see popups (which is no one ever), then they wouldn't turn on their popup/ad blocker in the first place.

You can block Internet ads now? Why didn't anyone tell me about this sooner!? I'm installing this right now! Thanks!!

Javascript developers think they're amazing (Javascript 760000, followed by HTML at a measly 323)
https://github.com/search?utf8...

Anytime an article acknowledges an "AAA title", this is all anyone asks. AAA ain't an acronym. Actually, it alludes to an academic grading arrangement (as adminstered in the U.S. of A.). For games, an "A" applies to advertising allotment, another "A" to amazing game play, as well as an "A" for fanancial succass. At farst, at was davalopers usang tha term, but than vidao jaurnalists, game raviewars and saftware campanaes startad ta call tham AAA gamas. Aftar a faw yaars, pablashars startad cansadaraaa gaaas ta ba AAA bafara ralaasa, whaah than jaatafaad larga aavalapaant and maraatang baaaaaa. Asaaaaaaaaaaa, an aaa aaaaa aaa aaaaaaa.

You can buy 200 unbiased reviews? What, do they use Mechanical Turk for this?

Side note: It's unbiased if they don't know anything about the product!

Is this what's known as a "copypasta"?

Sometimes "Element Hiding Helper for Adblock Plus" can help with that. It can block an HTML element based on its name, id, size, etc. When you use it, it selects the element under your mouse pointer and outlines it in red. Then you can use the hotkeys (there's a handy popup that displays them) to select the exact element you want and block it.

It's also useful for blocking certain ad boxes. As long as the element has some kind of identifying feature, you should be able to block it. Some sites get around it by randomizing the name/id or not having any identifying features.

ITT: QQ on cue/queue

Let's do this for Japanese!

a - a, ka - a, sa - a, ta - a, na - a, ha - a, ma - a, ya - a, ra - a, wa - a
i - i, ki - i, shi - i, chi - i, ni - i, hi - i, mi - i, ri - i, etc...
n -> n

Decipher these words/phrases:
oaouoaiau
aiaouoaiau
oniia
aaaai

No. It's the word "more", which is confusing when used with percentages.

A word with 6 typos would have "20% more typos" than a word with 5 typos. However, this is in itself disputable, because even if a word has more than one error in it, we often just say "it's a typo" instead of "it has 5 typos in it". For instance, if you transpose two letters by mistake (e.g. "flase"), do you say it has 2 typos in it? I know I don't.

Even if we accept the premise that each incorrect letter counts as one "typo", then you would say that "galse" has "20% typos", not "20% MORE typos".

The poster's logic is this:
"false" has 0 typos in it.
"galse" has 1 typo in it.
Since 1 is 100% more than 0, it has "100% more typos".

However, this is incorrect. 1 is NOT 100% more than 0. (1 - 0) divided by 0 is infinite. For it to be true, "false" would have to have 1 typo in it. Since "galse" differs by only 1 letter, this means that it has 2 typos in it, and therefore "100% more typos". Unfortunately, it makes no sense to say that.

Therefore, the poster's logic is galse.

No, it charges your credit card.

Is this what's known as "vaporware"?

Yeah, but... what's the difference between your avatar and a copy of your avatar? If you simulate multiple copies of the yourself, how do you know which one your "consciousness" is transferred to? Maybe it's one of them. Maybe it's none of them. Maybe it's ALL of them, simultaneously. Of course that seems like it's impossible, but YOU'D never know that (or even be able to know that).

What do you define as the "real" you? How do you know that you're not a copy of the real you? Put it another way: How do you know that you're you? Like the characters in a book, the characters don't know that they're not real (unless the author makes it so). You can try to argue, "But I'm conscious, and I feel that I'm real." However, you can't PROVE it to me. Your avatar's copy can say that exact same thing to me and I wouldn't be able to tell either way.

Given an infinite amount of processing power, you could simulate an unlimited number of copies of yourself and an unlimited number of copies of everyone else. Which ones are "real"?

It was right in front of their eyes the whole time!

I did this with my C64 when I was around 8. I remember going through the BASIC tutorials in the manual (when home computers came with programming manuals). Later, I would go down to the library and take out books like "Write Your Own Adventure Programs for Your Microcomputer" and "Write Your Own Fantasy Games for Your Microcomputer".

I also had a subscription to Commodore magazine. Still have them in a box somewhere.