 | | Re: Poll Reset (let's try it again)
|
|
(...) Ahhh, much better! :-) Repeating the same test as last time, this time it didn't let me put anything in twice. And since it shows the results right away, it only takes one or two resubmits to see that it can't be easily stuffed. That oughtta (...) (25 years ago, 19-Sep-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
(...) OTOH, what I tried out was probably not something that most people would figure to give a try, so it may not end up being a real issue. If you ask people not to vote more than once (like explicitly state that, and make that a condition of (...) (25 years ago, 19-Sep-00, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
(...) Google (...) Yes, Netscape does think resize == reload which is stupid. However, that is not what the problem was here. Hitting reload does not normally register additional votes. Todd stopped accepting cookies at just the right time and that (...) (25 years ago, 19-Sep-00, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
(...) I've noticed that in plenty of Netscape versions, but I can't say I've ever seen it in MSIE. -Adam 8^D (25 years ago, 19-Sep-00, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
(...) Yea, I noticed Netscape at least does this. I think MSIE does also. It's pretty stupid. Sure, you may have to re-interpret the HTML to do the resize, but there is no good reason to do a re-load. It makes some web sites incredibly painful, get (...) (25 years ago, 19-Sep-00, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
|
"Matthew Miller" <mattdm@mattdm.org> wrote in message news:slrn8sdf01.lvi.....bu.edu... (...) years (...) separate (...) rights. (...) Unfortunately, I don't believe I do. (...) Yeah, not worth it. I noted that before so that I could acknowledge it (...) (25 years ago, 19-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
|
(...) Oops, looks like I misspoke(wrote). I just went back to the USPTO search page (URL) searched again with the "Registered" radio button selected (instead of "Both") and it didn't show up there, but showed up under "Pending." Thus, it appears (...) (25 years ago, 19-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
|
(...) To the extent that that e-mail forms a contract (which is relatively weak), and that e-mail has no specific provisions for review or renewal, I suspect you could continue using "webring" for the site(s)/system(s) described in that e-mail (...) (25 years ago, 19-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
|
(...) Do you still have that e-mail? That would be a good thing. "Web ring" is an extremely descriptive mark, and if you realllly wanted to go to court, you might be able to argue fair use. But I certainly don't think it's worth that! (25 years ago, 19-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
|
"Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:G13t90.194@lugnet.com... (...) servicemark (...) services (...) users (...) contain (...) word (...) This contradicts an email I got from a Webring representative a couple years ago, saying (...) (25 years ago, 18-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.publish)
|
