On an average day, more than 20 percent of the traffic to WIRED.com comes from a reader who is blocking our ads. So they've decided that that no longer want 20 percent of their audience? That's kind-of a slap in the face.
Let me give you a better example: "Diablo" by Blizzard.
I purchased the first Diablo when it came out years and years ago and every so often I load it up and play it again. The point is that I can still do this after 10 or 15 years.
Diablo III uses an always-on Internet connection to validate your license, to connect to the auction house, and any number of other reasons. What happens in 10 or 15 years when Diablo V is released and Blizzard decides they don't want to support Diablo III? Sorry, you can't play your $50 game any more because the company shut down the servers.
Or a better example: Photoshop. I bought a copy of Photoshop on a CD and installed it on my laptop. I can use it wherever I take my laptop: the house, the garage, even the beach. If I subscribe to Adobe's monthly cloud service, I can only use it over an Internet connection. And when the service goes down (as it did a few years ago), I'm ****ed and I can't do the work my clients are counting on. Why? Because the company owns the software, not me, so I'm at their mercy.
block off access to anyone using adblocker software, apparently so that it could successfully allow malicious "ads" to infect its readers' machines I love this sentence and I think it needs to be said more often simply because the argument over using adblockers is usually worded as "you're stealing content by blocking ads". Yet not many people talk about the malware that gets served as ads.
How much do you want to bet these "morality" laws were passed by conservatives, who also preach about smaller government? How is it a good use of government resources (and the goal to have small government) to send police to movie theaters on a raid to see who's drinking while watching a movie? Don't we have much better things to do with the police force?
Look, I understand that every version of the OS adds security features and what not, but if my phone is running fine for me, why do I need to upgrade? And why does Apple need to nag me every single day? Where's the "stop nagging me" button?!
I still don't understand why companies are so quick to sue over issues like this. Why doesn't the race track offer to sponsor the betting game and include a statement that says "If you liked betting on this historical game, come see the real thing. In fact, here's a $10 coupon for your first bet."
This is a double-edged sword: on the one hand, 30% less ad content sounds good, but on the other hand, the show now has to fill that time. Does this mean an extra sketch on SNL? How will this affect the writers and staff? Will they have to put in more work to come up with extra sketches? Or will the time be filled by lengthening the opening or closing credits?
Sorry, but the name "Isis" is no longer allowed, just like the name "Al" won't be allowed any more because it could be short for "al-Queda".
But, yes, everyone needs to keep up pressure on the government and Venmo. Common sense should tell people that terrorists: 1) Probably aren't buying each other beers using an app since (like many people are saying), this leaves an electronic trail linking the Payment From person to the Payment To person. 2) Aren't using an app with geo-location that can give away their location when they send the payment. 3) Aren't going to sign a comment field saying it's a payment for anything related to terrorism.
But, congrats, the government found the world's dumbest terrorist... who happens to be a regular citizen with a poor sense of humor!
the bill would direct the IRS to develop a free, online preparation and filing service that would allow everyone to file directly with the government, After the mess that was HealthCare.gov, why would anyone trust the government with creating a website again, especially one that calculates taxes and payments? What's the saying, "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me"?
This is a good point. Is there any kind of statute of limitations for filing a case like this? Or is there no limit and it's basically a case of someone filing because they finally came across the other site while doing a Google search?
Let's get into more math... If the TSA wants a random number generator that's statistically more accurate than a regular computer's random number generator, then what is the probability this system will catch a terrorist, based on all the past evidence of catching any terrorist at the TSA line? If the number of terrorists to be caught is statistically 0, then there's no need for a random number generator with a higher level of precision.
Or Occam's razor: What are the chances that a terrorist will take the time to determine that the TSA is using RNG-1 Alpha 3 and that the randomization pattern is 0-1-1-1-0-0 and he's able to slip into the wrong line? Compare that to a terrorist who just says "f this- I'm in the wrong line so I'll blow up the airport"?
In other words, this is another $47,000 spent to make it look like the TSA is "doing something".
While this kind of labeling is a good idea in theory, what does it accomplish other than make people mad? Like we've said over and over and over again, most ISP's have a monopoly in their area. If a customer doesn't agree with the information on these labels, what's the choice? They might be able to complaint to the FCC, but then what? Large companies like Verizon and Comcast will pay a penalty fee to the FCC, call it a "cost of doing business", and nothing will really change.
Well, obviously removing the index removes the content
Why are we surprised that British politicians think Google is the Internet? After all, this is the country that created the "right to be forgotten" by getting Google to remove a link. So what if the original story is still on the original website and so what if every other search engine can find it- if it's not listed on Google, then it must be gone from the Internet.
What makes people think this way? Why do they not realize that Google is like the card catalog in the library and removing the card from the catalog doesn't mean the content is removed from the library shelves.
I never understood the purpose of pop-under ads. I can understand pop-up ads since they block the browser window to get the user's attention, but pop-under windows are (by design) under the current window. So how exactly does this help advertisers if people aren't seeing the ads?
Does anyone know if there were any studies that looked at the display rate of pop-under windows versus the number of clicks? Or do advertisers only care about their "unique impressions" and "number of eyeballs" rather than actually getting people to buy the product?
Not necessarily- people could be arrested for something minor, such as being drunk in public. The police will arrest them, hold them overnight until they sober up, and release them the next morning. The DA probably won't file charges unless it's worth prosecuting over.