Re: I'd like to see more
Are they really good at spelling bees?
209 posts • joined 7 Oct 2010
Are they really good at spelling bees?
Wire you even asking? The course will be run in three phases. It'll transform your life.
"Shine, tiny Sun in a bottle, shine!"
The trouble with technology that looks like magic to those who don't understand it, is that these people then go on to imagine that any other problem can be solved by simply doing some more of the same magic.
Unquestioning belief in magic is fine for children who don't know any better, but for supposedly well-informed politicians and people in authority, it's rather pathetic.
Get some advice from experts, and try actually listening to it for once.
Some of these comments are holy inappropriate
“For hundreds of years scientists have been observing, wondering and theorizing about Jupiter’s Great Red Spot,” said Scott Bolton, Juno principal investigator from the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio.
But did he say it in the Carl Sagan voice that I heard in my head when I read that paragraph?
Ok, not the same as bee-vision but worth a look if these things pique your interest...
Jumping spiders have pretty acute vision, but their lenses are fixed to their exoskeletons so if they want to look around they can't just swivel their eyes. Instead they move their retinas behind the lens. If you look a jumping spider in the eye, and the lens turns dark, you know it's looking back at you.
The video on this site shows a jumping spider with a largely transparent exoskeleton, so you can see the retinas moving around - it's amazing. And the page contains a link to another video which uses the spider's lens itself to focus on the retina, showing incredible detail.
Or what if there's some Heisenberg-ish principle at work, so that the more precisely you know Planck's constant, the more vague and fuzzy everything else becomes?
Actually come to think of it, maybe that explains quite a lot...
"Fill holes with a clear plastic of suitable refractive index that it fills the holes but leaves the optical properties intact. Plastic hardens in holes to leave smooth flat surface."
That thought struck me too, but then I realised that you'd end up with a smooth shiny surface facing the viewer, and you'd be back where you started. Only way it'd work would be if the filler plastic had the same refractive index as air, in which case you could just use that to make the screen and it would be reflection-free (and effectively invisible).
The box is bigger on the inside
"People like to remember "1984" - but also, remember "Animal Farm" - and remember it was forbidden in those paradise that was the communist block...."
And speaking of 1984, this gif is worth at least 1000 words:
"...an organisation that has niche rolls to fill..."
Following in the tradition of the "Great Sandy Desert" and the "Snowy Mountains", I suggest naming these eight large aircraft "Large Aircraft 1-8"
Neil: "Crucifixion's like, a really negative way to kill yourself, man. I've tried it hundreds of times, there's just no way you can hammer in the last nail."
I vote for Planet Schmanet Janet
When the earthquakes and volcanic eruptions start, and hot hail falls from the sky, there's only one person who can save us.
Incredible images - and mind-boggling to think that in 10 nanoseconds light travels just 3 metres, so the more distant parts of the fireball images must be significantly earlier in time than the nearer parts. Wow.
I'll double the currant bid
What a load of old blocks.
"I'll just slip in an extra second. What could possibly go wrpossibly go wrpossibly go wrpossibly go wrpossibly go wrpossibly go wrpossibly go wrpossibly go wrpossibly go wrpossibly go wrpossibly go wrpossibly go wrpossibly go wrpossibly go wrpossibly go wrong?
possibly go wr
ERR: 31 Dec 2016 23:59:60 - Temporal buffer underflow - Rebooting Universe...
"The Russian space agency Roscosmos has just confirmed the container and its cargo are toast."
Just add marmite.
This country is being run by a bunch of self-serving arrogant fuckwits. The alternative lot are no better. The Lib-dems seem to speak sense but nobody votes for them.
If I didn't have family here I'd consider jumping ship at this point.
The Speed of Light in a vacuum is generally held to be constant - but what if the early universe was sufficiently dense that the SoL was reduced enough that matter could move faster than the SoL in that medium without violating our current theories?
"It’s a particular concern when company mergers mean that vast amounts of customers’ personal data become an asset to be bought and sold."
Or when an even less savoury government than our current one takes possession of all that juicy info stored up as a result of the snoopers' charter.
It was rebooted when it got too near to the monolith.
And in the context of the article (Nexus owners), it should be singular anyway.
Well, I have a Lumia 640XL running WP10, and I've just put it on charge after it dropped to 20% battery - 8 days after its last charge.
It wasn't always like that though - it used to need charging daily until I disabled as much of Cortana as I could, told it to only sync emails every 2 hrs, and use WiFi only (I'm nearly always either at work or at home when I want to use anything internetty).
Does all I need it to do - texts, calls, maps, browsing, email, calculator, alarms, and the odd app or two.
The ship was sunk by a massive explosion caused when the Antikythera Device was brought too close to the (as yet unrecovered) Kythera Device.
Photon Energy Weapon (PEW), surely?
A Fire Balrog?
The name 'So-called Islamic State' has been deprecated.
The organisation formerly known as 'So-called Islamic State' should henceforth be referred to either as TOFKASCIS, or as 'So-called 'So-called Islamic State''.
Is an octocre chip sixteen times better than a mediocre one?
Ah yes, the inevitable scooby-doo unmasking at the end of each episode, where the villain says "And I'd have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you pescetarians"
Their eggs weigh up to 1.4kg, and take up to a month and half to incubate.
Or an hour and a half to hard-boil before encasing in sausage meat and breadcrumbs.
Nasty, stinking mushroomses. We hates them, with their horrid germses and connectionses.
Please, don't use 'Nexii' as the plural of 'Nexus'!
It's a long time since I studied Latin but this construction makes me cringe. Go with 'Nexi' if you must, but 'Nexii' is like Romanised Gollum-speak.
Nexus is to Nexii as Tablet is to Tabletses.
And don't get me started on 'virii' or 'fungii'...
Quite apart from the frustrating and seemingly willful ignorance on the part of the politicians who want to implement this garbage, I am concerned about the cost of it all.
Rather than splurge money - our taxes - on a pointless and futile exercise like this, wouldn't society benefit much more if the cash was given to some more deserving body? The NHS perhaps?
"I've just picked up a fault in the AE35 unit. It's going to go 100% failure in 72 hours."
With something this far-reaching and contentious, and with such an impact on privacy and security (not to mention expense once the ISPs have passed on their costs to the public) - this bill should be put to a public referendum.
They got into the computer room and took their revenge for millions of schoolboy magnifying-glass 'experiments'.
Local hospitals should watch out for swarms of 7-legged spiders infiltrating their operating theatres.
First thing each morning, press Shift+Backspace a couple of hundred times to find out all the pages you're going to read during the day. Then if any of them look dull, you can just skip over them.
No, they don't want us to pay them not to put ads on the site. They want us to pay them to enable content providers to continue providing content, given that the ad-supported development model seems to be failing (due to the excesses of the advertisers, not the content developers themselves)
I really don't understand why people here can't see that adblockers hurt the wrong people. There are typically at least four parties involved: content providers, ad brokers, advertisers and viewers.
Viewers want to see the content (obviously, otherwise they'd visit some other website instead, or abandon the web). Providing the content incurs costs. One way to finance this is to ask an ad-broker (eg Google) to fill some space on the webpage with an ad. Advertisers pay the ad-broker for this space, and the ad-broker pays the content developer a cut.
Viewing the site with an adblocker does not cost the ad-broker or advertiser anything at all. But it does mean that the content provider receives no payment from the ad-broker despite having given you the content you want.
I totally understand that people don't like ads. But I don't understand why that seems to make it ok to expect people to give you great websites for free.
It's not so much the advertising industry that bears the cost of adblockers - they simply pay to have their ads displayed a number of times, and if people run adblockers it just looks to the advertisers as though the internet has gone a little bit quieter. The ads will still be displayed sooner or later, and if not then they won't pay for it.
The people who actually lose out are the content providers who would have been paid by the advertisers. They have invested time and effort into making the content, hosting it, and providing server bandwidth. Their hope/expectation is that those costs will be recouped by serving a few ads. If their outgoings remain but that income stream dries up and nothing replaces it, then the content will go too. Presumably we don't really want that to happen?
That's the wrong way to look at things. Instead of asking "why should I pay to view this interesting site without ads?", try asking "why should this interesting site be offered to me for free?"
There might be little point to you individually in having ads served, but you are not the only person in the system - to the content provider it makes the difference between being paid for their work or going out of business. I don't know if this suggestion is viable, but it's looking at an alternative way to fund the websites which, presumably, you want to see.
Adblockers are not the equivalent of TPS - nuisance phone calls do not offer anything of value to the consumer whereas the websites that contain ads have content which is of interest, and which is supported by the serving of ads. Block the ads, the content will dwindle unless an alternative way is found to finance content developers.
Before internet advertising the internet looked completely bollocks because most of the 'content' was produced by people who just wanted to say 'look at me I'm on the internet', whose only reward was to see their name on a page covered with flashing animated pictures. Remember Geocities?
With advertising came the possibility of making a website pay for itself, so it was more worthwhile investing time and money into making a site with content worth seeing, to keep people coming back.
Now it's swinging back the other way again, and as ad revenue drops off due to adblocking there will be a reduction in the effort people are prepared to put into providing content. Unless some alternative incentive is found, of course.
Do not confuse content providers with advertisers. It is the advertisers who make the jiggly things and the malvertisements. They are just as much a curse to the content providers as they are to the audience.
Content providers just want to get some return on their investment of time and effort creating a webpage which people want to view - and clearly people *do* want to view their content otherwise this whole topic of adblockers would be non-existent because a far simpler solution would be just to turn off the computer and not look at the web at all.
I know. I dislike ads. I detest the fact that malware can be disguised as an ad. But, at the moment, ads are part of an ecosystem which also includes content providers and content consumers. That ecosystem is failing because advertisers have overstepped limits, and because consumers have gained the technical ability to change the balance of the system by cutting the advertisers out of the loop. That's fine for consumers in the short term, but in the longer term this disrupted ecosystem will inevitably cause the smaller content providers, who rely on advertising income, to go out of business. That's what the original article was about. There will then be less content available, apart from that generated by the few people prepared to work for free, or by people whose content is itself advertising or enabling some other form of income.
I'm not blaming people for blocking ads. But you have to see that doing so will have consequences beyond simply making your browsing experience more enjoyable. Adblocking is a very blunt instrument.
Content providers do not generate a site and then rub their hands and decide to insert big bouncy ads all over it, and maybe a bit of malware for good measure. They set aside an area and ask Google or some other service to fill it with an ad, trusting them to provide something appropriate, and receiving a *very* small reward for each ad served (more if it is clicked on, which is more likely to happen if the ad is relevant to the viewer).
Ultimately if the advertising model is to survive (and at present I can't see a viable alternative way to finance small sites) then the Googles of the world need to sort themselves out and vet ads more responsibly. At the very least they should give content providers more control over what style of ads get shown, so they could choose whether or not to allow jiggly-flashy ones, or auto-start videos, or scripts, etc. There is not that level of control at present.
I personally contacted an advertiser whose gaudy flashing ad was disrupting a site I enjoy reading. I told them their ad was annoying, and inappropriate for the site, and likely losing them credibility. They replied that they would think things over, and then a few days later told me they had changed their advertising image as a result. That seems to me a win-win situation - they now present a more appealing ad, the website looks better, and viewers are less likely to adblock it so the site will continue to be supported by advertising revenue.
The whole area of adblock-blockers is another contentious subject. It is not straightforward for a web publisher to implement, and it is met with hostility and suspicion if they do. And sooner or later it will also be met with adblock-blocker-blockers, and so on.
The point is that allowing ads to be served with the content (without them being blocked) is what pays for a lot of sites. Blocking ads removes that income stream from the content provider just as copying an MP3 removes an income stream from an artist. If you want the MP3 enough to listen to it, then pay for it so the artist earns a living. If you want the web content enough to view it as offered, ads and all, then go ahead, so the content provider will get paid. If not, feel free to walk away.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017