uuoc

What was "nefast" supposed to have been?

Which "them"? 1) The developers of this app; 2) Those who use Noscript?

Noscript (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/noscript/). That page claims 2,159,875 users and is probably an undercounting.

The whole point of noscript is to have javascript off by default (to avoid a whole host of possible security exploit situations and an enormous amount of web tracking) and only white-list it when necessary.

Going to a landing page, to view the advertisement for the app., is not a reason to need to turn on javascript.. If the landing page advertisement is provides enough info, then one can decide to turn on javascript to try out the app.

The application != the landing page.

The landing page is to attract and interest new users who are not yet using the application.

Therefore the landing page should be accessible to the widest variety of users, with the widest variety of setups.

The landing page can also indicate somewhere that the app itself requires javascript, such that users are warned they need to turn javascript on if they choose to use the application.

But the landing page should never, itself, require javascript to be readable/useful as an advertisement for the application.

How your landing page looks with javascript turned off: http://picpaste.com/pics/pknoa-nojs.1405592840.png

Note, no scroll-bar, content sitting on top of itself, no way to navigate around the page without javascript.

Therefore - no thanks.

Sad but true. Those who became "deer in the headlights" watching the ambiguous words "hope" and "change" float before their eyes in 2008 will likely be just as easily duped in 2012.

This is because all those who voted "for change" in 2008 all collectively forgot to ask the proper question: "just what is it specifically you want to change?"

Now you start to see the changes....

> I believe the original poster's comment, "physician, heal thyself" is a reference to a person (in this case, the author), and not to a position.

That would therefore be an incorrect assumption:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physician,_heal_thyself

"The moral of the proverb is counsel to attend to one's own defects rather than criticizing defects in others, ..."

Or, in other words, before criticizing movie color defects, attend to his own web color defects.

> I am personally a web designer, and I have no basis or knowledge to comment on color grading in films.

Granted. But, would you say that your experience in web design and color selection would allow you sufficient knowledge to identify an absolutely awful movie color scheme? I would posit yes. The converse would also be true. Someone with movie color grading expertise should have sufficient knowledge of colors to at least make a reasonably passing effort at reasonable web color selection. I.e., the underlying basics apply and carry through in both arenas, even if the particular technical specifics differ.

> Dismissing a point of view based on the party, rather than on the position, is the definition of a tu quoque fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Except that the original poster's comment was not a tu quoque fallacy. Note from your source:

   This form of the argument is as follows:

       A makes criticism P.
       A is also guilty of P.
       Therefore, P is dismissed. 

In this instance "P" is "Hollywood color choices". The original poster did not dismiss P (i.e., a dismissal of P would be that Hollywood color choices are perfectly fine). The original poster dismissed the blog authors reputation to assert an opinion regarding Hollywood color choices because the blog author, by virtue of having made awful color choices in his blog, had presented evidence of lack of knowledgeable sufficient to assert an educated opinion about P (Hollywood color choices). Whether Hollywood color choices (P) are bad or good remains an open question, P was not dismissed.

Note further in your own citation:

   Legitimate use

   The legitimate form of the argument is as follows:

       A makes criticism P.
       A is also guilty of P.
       Therefore, A is dismissed (from his/her role as a model of the principle that motivates criticism P).

   The difference from the illegitimate form is that the latter would try to dismiss P along with A. It is illegitimate to conflate the logically separate questions of whether P is a valid criticism and whether A is a good role model.

Which is exactly the use made by the original ironic/priceless comment. "A" (blog author) criticized "P" (poor color choices). "A" is also guilty of "P" (poor color choices). "A" was dismissed.

If you are willing to turn away interested customers, then feel free to require JS.

But, myself, I browse with NoScript turned on at all times, and if I come to your site and it does not work because JS is required, then I will simply leave and go to the guy next door who does not require JS just to use his site.

Note, Torx screws are not "anti-tamper" screws.

If all you have used so far is Ubuntu, then what you have learned is "how Ubuntu works", not necessarily how a Linux system in general works.

As another commenter pointed out, given the zero cost (other than your time) nature of trying something out, why ponder? If your pondering is that you don't want to mess up your current system, then install Virtual Box and run whatever else you want to learn from in a virtual machine inside VB.

The problem you may encounter, given that you say you've been only using Ubuntu, is that LFS may be taking a dive from the high platform into the deep end of the pool when you are not ready yet for that experience. You may want to ease into that just a little bit more.

My suggestion for you is to go download yourself a copy of the latest Slackware distribution, and start there. You'll learn 95% of what LFS will teach you just from Slackware alone, without also taking that high dive before you are ready.

And, again, if you don't want to kill your current system, then just install Virtual Box and then install as many distro's as you please (including LFS) as VM's. You get the same experience, without breaking your current working system.

This bill is also an example why come election day in November, every single sitting member of Congress (all 435) and every senator up for reelection, needs to __lose their seat__.

The only thing that politicians in today's world actually understand is "loosing my seat". That is the one and only thing they hear louder than their big-business supporters.

Unemploying every single member of both houses up for reelection would send a strong message to both the newly unemployed as well as the new members that the voters have woken up to the fact that they are no longer representing us, the voters, but are in fact representing the special interests of big business. And it would firmly point out to them that it is us, the voters, who truly control their destiny, not big business, and that they better start listening to us.

And that is why, come November, my choice of who to vote for is easy. If you are an incumbent, you will be voted against.

To be truly comparative, the chart also needs to include, for each year, the median and average household incomes for each tax year as well.

Knowing that in 1917 those making over $2million were taxed at 67% is fine, but without converting $2million into todays dollar value, it is hard to compare the relative effect.

Do as I say, not as I do..... No privacy for you when "the man" wants to track you, but all the privacy in the world for "the man" when he finally comes after you: "Are Cameras the New Guns?" http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

And this is an excellent example of why I have NoScript installed.

Except that I also don't allow google to set cookies either.

Google instant is the reason why my NoScript whitelist no longer contains an allow javascript rule for google. No javascript, no instant. No instant, no distractions while I'm typing in my search string.

The single most important factor Google should be concentrating upon is the quality of the search. If the search returns exactly what I'm looking for at the top of the first page, then I'm happy. I don't care if it took Google 3 seconds longer to produce that quality result. In fact, if by taking 3 seconds longer, the search result quality were to jump by 2x or 3x, that would be much better than trying to flash results in front of me as I type.

The Cory Doctorow info-graphic is quite appropriate here:

http://boingboing.net/2010/02/18/infographic-buying-d.html

Please do not post links to the NYT paywall.

Please don't post links to the NY Times paywall, such as this link.

> I voted for Obama. I am a calm and objective rational person, who feels that this issue must be discussed.

Then you are receiving exactly what you asked for, "hope" and "change". Next time, consider the lack of material behind the mesmerizing rhetoric for the weak minded before casting your vote.

That is not a patent at all. That is simply a WIPO publication of a PCT filing. No patent rights at all anywhere are granted apple by that document. Please be precise in your description of these things, the meanings are subtle, but extremely important.

You ask the impossible. Why do you ask the impossible? Because you assume that the user has web based email. In my case, my email is mutt in a text mode xterm. A browser based mailto link will be useless.

Listed midway down the page is a "Serial Number" field. In the case of this application, it is 741429. At the top of the page is a "home" button. Click the home button and then select "Advanced search" underneath "PATFT: Issued Patents". In the "query" box, enter "apn/" and the serial number, i.e., "apn/741429". Click search. Five titles appear, none of which is anything close to this patent, so it looks to not have been granted.

If you really want to be sure, go to the main homepage: "www.uspto.gov", and pick "2 search" under "Patents". Then pick "Patent application information retreiveal (PAIR)". Then pick "Public PAIR". Answer the capacha, and then put the series and serial numbers into the lookup box (i.e. 11741429), leaving the radio button set for "application number". Click search. If it had issued, on the next screen under "Patent number" and "Issue Date of Patent" you would find both the number and issue date. In this case, no values, so not issued. If you want to know more you can pick the "Image file wrapper" tab and look through the documents that make up the patent application. This one is still being prosecuted, but has not issued as a patent.

That is a patent __application__, not a patent. The distinction is quite critical.

Please do not post links to the NYTimes paywall.

Please do not post links to the NY Times paywall.

Try noscript as well as adblock.

Please don't post NYTimes links that hit the paywall.

And you also gain a useless use of cat award: http://partmaps.org/era/unix/award.html

The above can be written: awk -F(dataseperator) "{print $(number of seperation to print)}" FILE | sort -g | uniq | sort -g

You also gain a "Useless use of cat" award for both of your examples: http://partmaps.org/era/unix/award.html

Both can be rewritten as "sort FILE | uniq" and "time wc -l FILE".

And given the data size, both non-cat uses would likely be faster as well.