| great mousetrap or greatest mousetrap? |
[09 Oct 2007|01:27pm] |
From the site:As a rodent passes over a pressure pad in the centre of the passageway, a circuit is activated that releases the trap doors, immediately closing both entrances and trapping the rodent instantly inside a tightly-sealed chamber.
At the same time, the valve on a pressurised cylinder is locked open to fill the unit with carbon dioxide. This ensures that the trapped rodent is rapidly and humanely killed. The trap also sends a text message to a technician to come and empty the thing. "RAT DED KTHXBYE".
|
|
| back |
[06 Oct 2007|09:55pm] |
Sorry about the extended absence - vacation, work and stuff got in the way. I promise new entries will be much swifter from now on. In return, a challenge for you:
1. Turn the volume up on your speakers/headphones.
2. Switch to Full Screen mode.
3. Make a note of the time.
4. Click the following link.
How long did you last?
Also, there's this:
(via exploding aardvark.)
|
|
| complete and utter stupidity |
[22 Aug 2007|12:17pm] |
Alright, this is my second post in a row about Firefox. For the record, I hold Opera 9 and Firefox 2 in equal regard as browsers, but this website just struck me as possibly the most retarded premise ever put on the intarwebz. To quote:
The Mozilla Foundation and its Commercial arm, the Mozilla Corporation, has allowed and endorsed Ad BlockPlus, a plug-in that blocks advertisement on web sites and also prevents site owners from blocking people using it. Software that blocks all advertisement is an infringement of the rights of web site owners and developers. Numerous web sites exist in order to provide quality content in exchange for displaying ads. Accessing the content while blocking the ads, therefore would be no less than stealing.
OK, let's try and follow the logic of this for a second. The concern here is that people with Adblock Plus are "stealing" because they're visiting websites whilst rendering the ads thereon invisible. But the only difference between someone with Adblock Plus and someone who doesn't click on ads is - the person who doesn't click on ads doesn't have Adblock Plus. Why, they're "stealing" too! How about scripting a code that IP bans people who make more than one page view on a site without clicking an ad? We can't have folks browsing at will without clicking on ads, can we?
But wait, there's more:
While blanket ad blocking in general is still theft, the real problem is Ad Block Plus's unwillingness to allow individual site owners the freedom to block people using their plug-in. Blocking FireFox is the only alternative. Demographics have shown that not only are FireFox users a somewhat small percentage of the internet, they actually are even smaller in terms of online spending, therefore blocking FireFox seems to have only minimal financial drawbacks, whereas ending resource theft has tremendous financial rewards for honest, hard-working website owners and developers.
Let's ignore for a moment the glaring contradiction that blocking all Firefox users would have "minimal financial drawbacks", but blocking the percentage of Firefox users with Adblock Plus would reap "tremendous financial rewards". If the concern is truly financial, a blanket ban of Firefox users defeats the purpose. We can fairly assume that not all Firefox users have the Adblock Plus extension - it makes viewing Flash videos difficult, for one, and not all people who install the browser go looking for extensions to add. Therefore a large number of Firefox users don't have Adblock Plus and can still see ads on websites. But - oh no! - they've been blocked from even visiting the site. So there go those potential ad-clickers.
This seems like the one-man crusade of a resentful website owner - probably one whose site is riddled with mosquito ads - who doesn't seem to understand the most basic concepts of economic logic. Like most spammers.
By the by, User Agent Switcher is a great way to mask which browser you're using. I highly recommend it as a companion to Adblock Plus. Heh.
|
|
| proxy through firefox made easy |
[13 Aug 2007|11:47am] |
Firefox has yet to make a quality extension for proxy servers. There are a couple, but for the most part they're buggy and/or difficult to configure. However, one completely unrelated extension makes for an excellent, simple and dependable proxy server client: Add to Search Bar.
This extension works by allowing you to right-click in the search field of any website and then add it to the search bar of your browser. Here's how I turned it into a proxy server client.
1) After installing the Add to Search Bar extension, go to Proxy.org. This well-known site is a repository of thousands of different proxy servers. And fortunately, the default setting for proxying to a website is "random proxy" - the site draws a proxy out of a hat for you. More on why this is advantageous later.
In any event, right-click inside the "Enter a URL to visit" field, and do this.
Once you've done this, you'll should see it appear in your search bar, like so.
2) Now set your search bar to Proxy.org and type in a web address. The result? Bam.
The great thing about this, besides its simplicity of operation, is that Proxy.org's default random proxy setting means that while one might very well be able to Google some of these IPs and see that they come from a proxy server, they won't know that they're all from the same person - if that sort of thing is a concern of yours. The down side, naturally, is that you might "randomly" get a proxy that doesn't work quite as well as you might like. The good news is, all you need to do then is put your cursor in the search bar field and hit "Enter" again. Easy-peasy.
|
|
| spiderman: card-carrying liberal |
[27 Jul 2007|02:05pm] |
|
I'm not a big fan of comics, especially superhero comics, but andrewfarago has posted a scanned copy of a Spiderman comic from the 70s wherein he briefly teamed up with Planned Parenthood. It's the sort of advice I would hope kids get in school - although Spiderman is the last source I would turn to for wanking tips.
|
|
| pwnage |
[25 Jul 2007|04:25pm] |
Being utterly sick and tired of listening to CNN crow about how awesome they are for letting people ask Democratic presidential candidates questions via YouTube, this news was like a breath of fresh air to me.The incident in question came during a question about our nation’s healthcare system. The user who submitted the video was speaking innocuously into the camera when the image of “goatse” was flashed for the briefest moment in 1/24th of a second, ranging just above the framerate treshhold with which television broadcasts. And then it turned out to be a hoax. Damn it all. Still, something like this is bound to happen sooner or later. Have we learned nothing from the Patriotic Nigras vs. John Edwards debacle, or the John McCain MySpace ownage? The internet is a fun place filled with people looking for fun. Politicians and mainstream media outlets are lifeless and boring. When the two are combined, someone gets trolled, and then there's all kinds of drama and lulz. CNN cooked up this pointless stunt in an effort to be appear hip and savvy, but their journalism is still stuck in 1994. And politicians who field questions from animated snowmen and SecondLife characters deserve to be trolled.
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
sixredcities's journal
