Login with username and password (forgot your password?)

Would it increase your revenue if someone invented an application that would automatically click ads? The app could then discard the results of the click or perhaps place the results (and cookies) in some kind of browser-based sandbox.

They already exist, and I think they violate terms of the ad agreements.

Yes.

Not only are you specifically forbidden from using any kind of auto-click software, you also are forbidden from asking your users to click on them or using software to require them to be clicked on.

Best practice is to not talk about the ads in public at all on a site.

Cause of crash is believed to be its cargo shifting and upsetting the plane's balance, based on communications with air traffic control.

The craft reared up into too steep of a climb, stalled, skidded sideways from lack of airspeed, and then couldn't pull up in time after righting itself.

Wonder how long it's going to take US police agencies to demand a mechanism be inserted that allows the police to shut Google's glasses down in areas where there is an ongoing "police action." Purely for the usual "officer safety and security" concerns, mind you.

Would not be difficult to do either. All it would take is an RFID-type device embedded in the hardware such that upon recieving an easily transmitted signal the recording functions of the device would be disabled. Or even just use effectively a magic packet similar to those transmitted for wake on lan that when recieved by a consumer device has the same effects.

To make sure it gets done, they simply make it so that the device cannot receive a UL or FCC approval to be distributed in American stores unless said feature is included in a way that cannot be disabled by a savvy end user.

And then of course the enforcement layer to go with all this, is you equate the punishment for having a device that doesn't support these controls or has them bypassed to be as severe a crime as owning an AR-16 rifle. Excluding of course research prototypes and museum display models with appropriate permits.

Now for testing types I can see where Google would name their terms like this. The devices are probably protected anyway under a NDA, selling one even after the testing period would be a breach of nondisclosure.

But to do this on a production model? I think Google might be setting themselves up for a marketplace flop, or at least some very interesting court cases.

Yeah. I honestly want to keep NAT in IPv6 purely from a security and privacy standpoint.

Without it you have to get into a rather complex traffic shaping firewall configuration, that will in all probability be full of holes.

But carrier grade NATs just mean one more way that ISPs will be able to control what we do.

Just, the corporate powers that be will do anything to boost their profits. And if carrier-grade NATs are cheaper than backend upgrades, you can bet that's what they'll do.

I say stick it to the man. Besides, what if the antenna is actually the backend of a wireless DRM system. Then it's again not a public performance, the antenna is required to recieve the DRM authorization key to decrypt the recieve data.

So yes, technically inefficient, no not illegal.

Seems these fools finally have exposed enough holes in the web they made that they can be beaten.

The best fix for this is keep a piece of electrical tape covering the camera lens.

Then even if the camera turns on, it can't see anything unless you remove the tape and wipe the goo off the lens.

Alright they got me.

How did they get the efficiency up at that kind of distance without requiring an impractically large recieving coil.

This I must find out.

There won't be any changes in my ad policies as a result of this.

If I see though that a particular ad company has started disturbing my ad layouts or altering the types of ads being used without my consent, they'll find my account closed on the spot and all of the traffic I give them going to their competitors.

And I use firefox over here. So if they try anything, I'll know about it.

When will corporations learn that they can't abuse the public like this? People aren't going to deal with it forever.

All that will do is increase the popularity of adblockers. 

These people need to realize they can't win. The users will have their way.

I usually scan the entire store one row at a time, but only pick up one item.

The scanning order is random depending on my mood.

Also, old fashioned dumb cellphone that is only capable of voice and text.

They might call me a psychopath for it, but I do not appreciate people following me by any method.

Then facilities that want to disallow recording only have to purchase a small transmitter to provide the required disabling signal.

That's a little dicier a proposition if the disabling mechanism isn't built into the device itself. And I can't see Google willingly doing that without legislation forcing it to do so.

The government is paranoid about maintaining control.

Recording devices in large numbers could very easily be pitched as a threat to national security, because lets face it the government won't be able to get away with anything if everyone who sees it can record it and show footage online. That police abuse is just the tip of the iceberg. False flags? Government inside jobs? Top secret technology? Even just possible political scandals. If they can keep it covered up just by pushing a button on the dash of the cop car, why wouldn't they.

Simply mandating that when devices are exposed to a certain transmission pattern on a certain frequency results in disabling their recording capabilities would be an easy way for them to continue to keep people ignorant. Officials then merely need to make sure these signals are being transmitted while on official functions to prevent them from being recorded, except by authorized equipment for government use only that has the option to override the shutdown signal.

It would be no more questionable than gun control, and far less difficult to implement since the consumer hardware industry would happily lobby in favor of a bill that allows them to sell small transmitters styled similar to wifi hotspots intended to provide this signal for facilities that do not allow recording equipment.

To take the devil's advocate stance here- so we're banning things based on what others *might* do with them?  That seems a bit draconian...

It's a privately owned establishment. They are completely within their rights to set what they will and will not allow people to do on their property.

And really it isn't like bans on recording equipment are new. A lot of facilities in nearly every industry also have partial bans on recording equipment, done in order to protect trade secret information.

What will probably happen is the google glass will need to have a provision where a packet can be broadcast on wifi that when recieved disables the device's recording capabilites. Make it similar to the magic packet wakeup that has been present in devices for the better part of a decade- simply a broadcast packet on a designated channel designed to restrict the devices.

Then facilities that want to disallow recording only have to purchase a small transmitter to provide the required disabling signal.

The real hassle with adblocking is when you're counting on ad revenue to run a business.

But honestly, the bottom line is very much there even with adblocking. I know people visiting my client sites adblock at a fairly high rate, and I don't completely blame them.

If everything is being managed correctly, a simple header-footer ad arrangement returns nearly 10:1 over the cost of hard drive space and bandwidth. If a business can't make ends meet on that, they either are too small of a scale, or are wasting large sums of money elsewhere.

I actually show a higher return per unit cost giving away hosting than I do selling it. It's all in what kinds of content you have, and how it is presented.

But once again, because big business can't handle playing by the rules and treating the end user with respect, the little guy gets shafted and has to deal with users conditioned to either ignore or block ads.

What really irks me is I have multiple times told the advertising networks text and images only. No flash, no sound. And every time I turn around I'm seeing one of those stupid blinky noisemaking flash ads in my rotation, irritating my clients as much as it irritates me. A few times as well I've observed malware in ads too, although when I find one of these I usually flag it with the advertiser so it gets pulled down.

Funny that you'd call it terrorism actually. I could see where it would be treated as that. Certainly wouldn't make it any easier to stop- it still is very difficult to figure out who was behind it and bring them to justice unless they are sloppy or confess.

Actual DDoSing is done maliciously, for the sole purpose of disrupting normal services. It usually comes with a high price tag for the victim due to bandwidth overages and lost profits due to the downtime- and having been shot at before there I can honestly say it's a horrible feeling and an unexpectedly large bill that can reach bank breaking levels. Typically DDoSing relies on a botnet, but it has also been possible by distributing malicious software for end users to voluntarily participate by using. A good example of this is the infamous LOIC, which has a long history with Anonymous for making websites dissappear.

Now making hype enough to get a whole bunch of people to visit a site, that's not at all malicious. Such is typical of the so-called slashdot effect, capable of throwing a DDoS-like flood of traffic known to cripple unsuspecting servers. That's completely okay, and only happens when someone ends up unexpectedly popular. Online protesting would fall into this category, as actual people are all actively there visiting a site near-simultaneously to view its content or contribute their opinions. If the server fails under the load, then the operator was unprepared for the public response.

Attacking a site by DDoS also usually affects other sites near it as well. There are far more permanent ways to take down a site than to simply attack it, most of them relying on legal procedures. And I honestly can think of very few reasons where a DDoS might be considered a legitimate course of action. If it's illegal let the lawyers do their thing. If it's legal, sorry they have as much of a right to have it as you have to hate them for it.

Um, this chair is a fire hazard.

Notice the smoke?

Yeah, that nichrome is getting too hot while melting the wax, the chair could ignite the flammable wax and cause a far more serious problem than just a DRM'd chair.

The bureaucratic mentality is the only constant of the Universe. ~Dr McCoy.

This? Is quite possibly the biggest waste of tax dollars I've seen in a good long while.

Almost as much as all the construction materials thrown away or sold at auction that were ordered for building military bases that didn't get built.

Adsense cannot be displayed on sites that contain adult or fetish content.

Likewise, adsense ads cannot contain similar ads being displayed on other sites.


Last I checked google does not exclude such sites from search results, but they definately do not have any advertising connection.

It sounds like what you need though is something to the tune of MTG's Gatherer.

Gatherer in action

Only real change would be deleting the card rulings field and adding qty in stock and price fields.

I'd have to re-examine the searchable image gallery solution I wrote some time ago. It used PHP and MySQL to display an image with some corresponding descriptive text, and had a (rather incomplete) search capability that was workable enough to let you search by artist or description.

This sets a really bad precident I think.

At the same time, it's going to do far more damage to larger sites that have millions of outgoing links on them than it will to smaller sites like what I usually deal with.

The internet is going to be dramatically reshaped if other interests adopt this concept.

Eew. If they're in that bad of a shape that someone feels the need to remotely monitor all that, then Give Someone a "Jerb" (HomeStarRunner) and hire an Assistant Home Health Care Aide to live in the house. Because someone who needs to be monitored if they left the house needs someone to wipe up the spilled cereal that will sit there for weeks because the Schmancy monitoring system doesn't have a setting for "cat puke" after the cat decided to scavenge it.

I get where you're coming from but I think there is plenty of room between the extremes for this type of solution. Remember just because the folks aren't that agile anymore - Help I've Fallen... - Doesn't mean that they're automatically daffy as well.

This is an ideal solution for the folks that need help standing up to use the restroom that are still sensible enough to drive an assistant into medical leave on suspicion of mental instability.

These are people who still know what they need to do, just they are physically incapable of reliably doing it by themselves. The device would let them call someone when they need assistance, but spares the expense and stress of having assistants on site 24/7.

I see that you have entered an in depth article.

Would you like me to break it down into an easy to understand format?



I was looking up Jurassic Park quotes the other day because I had a situation that really needed one, and I came across this:

In the information society, nobody thinks. We expected to banish paper, but we actually banished thought.

And who are they to tell me what I can and cannot do with my property?

Mind you most phones the terms of service clearly states that they at all times own the phone and all associated hardware and are just letting you use it, so it isn't really ever your phone.

But for my next phone I'm looking at outright buying my own hardware, because then they cannot stick their little worms into my stuff legally.

Of course a lot of carriers will say they don't allow that, they require you to use their provided hardware models.

My response will be to go find a lawyer for some antitrust action, because this is getting seriously out of hand.

Most of the debris will return to earth on their own. Although they are in stable orbits, they still do get some drag from the uppermost extents of the atmosphere and their orbits wobble slightly from the earth moon and sun gravitational system.

Just it can take anywhere from a few months to a few thousand years for this to happen, depending entirely on the exact path of the object in question.

Also that's odd. Because the tiles on the bottom of the shuttle are clearly black in color in photographs, although that may just be their surface color and the ceramic they are made from is white inside.

But that image is tagged as STS-61-C. STS-61 itself replaced portions of the Hubble Telescope, and we may be looking at pieces of that which were discarded.

Alternately, STS-61-C was just a routine deploy satellites and do experiments flight.

Either one could easily have photographed a passing piece of debris. Large chunks like this are relatively rare still, but do from time to time pass near active structures.

I could see it being that.

Thermal tiles are black in color, and one that cracked could produce a triangular piece that in zero-G would simply float away slowly enough to be photographed.

But how could it get cracked in the first place and then manage to hang-on during all the vibration and flexing of blast-off; only to tear away in zero-G?   

Micrometeorite impact. All objects in space are exposed to them at someodd long odds that do happen regularly.

I could see it being that.

Thermal tiles are black in color, and one that cracked could produce a triangular piece that in zero-G would simply float away slowly enough to be photographed.

Some theories advanced earlier by a community of spacefans is that it was part of the Hubble telescope that had been discarded, but although there was a STS-61 mission with that task it was not marked as STS-61C.