SLOW LOADING WEBSITES


Too freaking slow!


Why are so many websites so slow to load? I can't STAND sitting there waiting for a site to load! Waiting for the many ads to load, etc. It seems like it takes forever for some website home pages to load.

Am I crazy? Too impatient? Let's see. According to a new report from Radware, "the time it takes for a retail website to load is getting worse, with load times now 47 percent slower than in 2012". Oh, so it's NOT my imagination! Furthermore, “40% of people leaves a site that takes more than 3 secs to load and 47% of people expect a site to load in 2 secs or less.” – Sean Work

It has been shown that if a site takes more than 7 seconds to load, 80-90% of visitors will leave before giving the website a chance to display its content. I am one of those visitors. Are you? Why do some websites load slow? There are several reasons. One of the main reasons is TOO MANY ADS.

Am I imagining that many of my most often visited sites are slow to load? Let's see. I did a "speed test" i.e. measuring the loading time on various major website home pages, via Google Developers. Here are the results ...

Google.com 74/100
amazon.com 71/100
ebay.com 66/100
cnn.com 62/100
yahoo.com 62/100
aol.com 59/100
foxnews.com 42/100
LA Times 40/100


And, when I inform slow sites that they are slow loading what is their response? Invariably, they say I should use another browser, such as firefox. To which I say I use Internet Explorer. IE is used by 85% of the world's computers. Why should I have to switch??? Shouldn't EVERY website be compatible with 85% of the world's computers? Get real! They are not slow because of my computer or my Internet Explorer browser, they are slow because they are S-L-O-W.

Anything less than 70/100 is too freaking slow!

If you are a major website, and your home page loads slower than 70/100, SPEED IT UP!




vaginas and penises can be addictive



Vaginas and penises can be addictive?

The FDA now has new rules regulating e-cigs. Among the new FDA regulations are "new health warnings will note that the nicotine they contain can be addictive".

Stu Pitt says: as for the warning, "Nicotine can be addictive", name me something that CAN'T be addictive! Breathing can be addictive! Texting can be addictive. Food can be addictive. Money can be addictive. Sugar can be addictive. Drugs can be addictive. Alcohol can be addictive. SEX can be addictive! That being the case, if sex can be addictive (and it can), shouldn't the FDA require warning labels on vaginas and penises?




Penises can also be addictive. (I know mine is)



POWERBALL SUCKS


POWERBALL SUCKS


175,000,000 to 1 odds

I play the Powerball lottery. It's exciting. It's frustrating. It sucks! I never win. OK, occasionally I win like $3. But I spend like $20. Every week. Plus, each ticket is $2, TWICE as much as the other major lottery games in my state!

We Powerball players are getting screwed!

All too often no one wins the Powerball jackpot. The jackpot keeps growing every week ... and NOBODY wins it! $50 million. $100 million. $200 million. $300 million. Why don't you win? Because the winning numbers are chosen from 59 possible numbers. Way too many numbers for players to chose from. The odds of winning the Powerball jackpot are 175,000,000 to 1. One hundred seventy-five million to one. Let's put that into perspective ...

Your odds of becoming a U.S. president are 1 in 10 million.

Your odds of becoming a movie star are 1 in 1.5 million.

The odds of dating a supermodel are 88,000 to 1.


The odds of winning Powerball jackpot? 175,000,000 to 1. One hundred seventy-five million to one. Not good.

What should the state lotteries do?
Powerball (and other state lotteries) should greatly increase the odds of lottery players actually winning some big money. How? By lowering the number of possible numbers and letting more people win more money. How about lowering the odds of winning the jackpot to maybe a million to one? That's ridiculous enough!

Powerball sucks. What am I personally going to do about it?

After giving the California lottery hundreds of dollars a year in Powerball lottery "donations" I have decided not to play Powerball unless the jackpot is over $100 million. That way, if I ever do win the jackpot I will win mega-bucks, not mini-bucks!





L.A. Bans E-cigs



From CBS Los Angeles (CBSLA.com) April 18, 2014

"A ban on e-cigarettes at bars, restaurants and other public areas will go into effect Friday at midnight for the city of Los Angeles.

The ban, approved by the Los Angeles City Council 14-0 in March, prohibits “vaping” at farmers’ markets, parks, recreational areas, beaches, indoor workplaces such as bars and nightclubs, outdoor dining areas and any other location where tobacco smoking is restricted.
"


The author of this blog (me) is a vaper, an e-cig user, who has lived in Los Angeles for 26 years. Thanks to e-cigs I have not had a cigarette since December 2011. What's my reaction to the Los Angeles e-cig ban? "Well, then, screw you Los Angeles! I guess I will not spend my money at farmers’ markets, parks, recreational areas, beaches, indoor workplaces such as bars and nightclubs, outdoor dining areas and any other location where tobacco smoking is restricted". BOYCOTT!!!!!



E-cigs save lives!
Don't ban them.




The Donkey and the Elephant


A donkey and an elephant stood at the top of a hill overlooking the jungle below. They observed the animal activity down in the jungle. After observing for a little while, the donkey turned to the elephant and said, "I think the lion has too much power, too much roar. The chipmunk has neither. They should be more equal". The elephant looked sideways at the donkey and responded, "What? What are you talking about? The lion is the king of the jungle. HE is SUPPOSED to be stronger and louder than the chipmunk." "Yeah", said the donkey. "But that's not fair. The lion has too much and the chipmunk has too little. A chipmunk should be equal to a lion. EVERY animal should be equal to every other animal." The elephant shook it's huge head, looked over at the donkey and said, "Huh? Since when is the chipmunk the same as the king of the jungle?" The donkey responded, "Since now. The jungle should be more humane, more gentle, more ... nice." The elephant trumpeted, "What on earth are you talking about? It's a JUNGLE, for God's sake!" The donkey stubbornly replied, "Well, it doesn't HAVE to be a jungle. We could change it. We could change it to a place where every animal is treated the same." The elephant, now becoming concerned for the sanity of the donkey, said, "What about the animals who naturally kill and eat other animals, you know, for food? What about Darwin's Law, you know, biological and physical survival of the fittest?" The donkey sadly replied, "We need to stop that. We need to change biology. Pass some laws or something. It's not fair that some eat and some get eaten." "So, what do you propose as a way to change that?" the elephant responded. The donkey replied, "We donkeys should band together, and change the jungle." The elephant, who never forgot, replied, "Lest you forget, that would go against the nature of things. Go against nature's way, the way things work, and have worked, since Adam was a baby. I don't think you can just turn a jungle into a paradise". "What's wrong with living in a paradise?" asked the donkey. The elephant, now growing tired of the stubborn donkey, responded heatedly, "It's not reality. And we live in reality. We live in a jungle."

"And you, an elephant, are really a lumbering beast who embraces the past, and remembers it too fondly" said the donkey.

"And, you, a donkey," said the elephant, "are really an ass."

The moral of the story: despite all the well-intentioned wishes and efforts of the donkeys it is the nature of the jungle to be, essentially, a jungle.




an original fable by Andrew Lawrence copyright 2014
Andrew-Lawrence.blogspot.com



Older posts may be found at the bottom of this page.


video ads on websites

I don't know about you but I am immensely ANNOYED by those videos on websites that start playing automatically and you can't stop them ... no matter what you do! They are INTRUSIVE!


I wake up early and check my emails and the news online. I go to read a news story only to find that there is a video ad that starts playing automatically and cannot be stopped. This is annoying! It's annoying for two reasons. One, I do NOT want to be FORCED to watch, or listen to, an advertisement an advertisement that plays automatically, with no way to stop it. Two, I have someone s-l-e-e-p-i-n-g in the same room and the forced ad WAKES THEM UP ... before I can close the browser and stop the intrusive ad by leaving the offending site.

According to an article by John Miller in Scribewise ...

"Far worse are the auto-play and pop-up ads that interrupt and inhibit the online experience. It has become an art for the makers of pop-up ads to “hide the X” so that it becomes difficult for the consumer to actually see the information they’ve sought out – how is that drawing the consumer closer to the brand? (Hint: It’s not; it’s pushing them away). And while online video can work, pre-roll ads are generally seen as torturous by most of the online public – I know that whenever I am stuck watching a pre-roll ad, I spend the entire time watching the clock in the upper right ticking down the seconds before I can see my story."

EVERY time I am subject to intrusive auto-playing videos and ads on any website I immediately close my browser and immediately leave the "offending" site and NEVER watch or hear the ad or stay on that website. Having to suffer annoying intrusive ads on websites is bad enough. Having to suffer annoying ads on websites that FORCE you to watch or listen to ads is intrusive and anti-consumer. To all the websites and advertisers that use forced auto-play video ads ... STOP IT! They cause visitors/consumers to leave your site and thus never see the ad that the advertisers are paying you to show.






Free Lunch


More than 520,000 students out of 600,000+ students in the Los Angeles school district qualify for free or reduced-price meals during the school year. Over 80% qualify for free or reduced price meals, breakfast AND lunch, while attending school.

In my day, kids brought their lunch to school, every day, usually a peanut butter and jelly sandwich or two, in a brown paper bag. We ate breakfast at home, BEFORE we went to school.

Now they can get two free meals just by going to school? I guess there IS such a thing as a free lunch! (and we taxpayers have to pay for it)






POISON?

From the CDC ...

"Phone calls to poison centers related to liquid nicotine poisoning rose from one per month in September 2010 to 215 a month by February of this year, according to the report."

Stu Pitt says ...

215 people a month got sick by stupidly drinking e-liquid? 215 a month out of a population of 316 MILLION? The 215 did not all die, they just got sick. Let's put that into perspective. According to the CDC there were " ... 42,917 total poisoning deaths in 2010 (the latest stats I could find).

42,000+ versus 200 a month. 42,000+ poisoning DEATHS vs 200 people a month getting sick and there's a irrational political panic to regulate and/or ban e-cigs? Hmm. Sounds like a conspiracy to me. Ban e-cigs? "Overdose deaths involving prescription painkillers rose to 16,651 in 2010, the CDC researchers found". 16,000+ deaths a year from prescription painkillers. Here's an idea: if local, state and federal governments are so worried about toxic chemicals and death and public health why don't they ban those first?!

As of this writing, as far as I can tell from all the news sources I can find, NOT ONE person has died from e-liquid poisoning!

215 people per month (out of 316 million) are stupidly drinking e-liquid and DON'T die ... and for THAT the government wants to ban e-cigs?

Irrational. Irresponsible. Insane.

Where's my America? Give it back!






BANNED FROM THE U.S.

More Stu Pitt Stuff ...

"Celebrity chef Nigella Lawson was last in headlines during her court appearance, and now she's making them again, but this time outside of the courtroom.

"The TV cook admitted taking cocaine during the trial of her former personal assistants for theft. Authorities in the U.S. say people who have admitted drug taking can be deemed inadmissible."

The Daily Mail reports the 54-year-old was boarding a flight from Heathrow to Los Angeles when she learned she couldn't board.

Metro reports she even went past security and checked in before being told she couldn't board. Which is a big problem - if she can't get to the States, her job could be in trouble.

Lawson's a judge on the American cooking talent show "The Taste." It begins with sixteen competitors all vying for the approval of the four of the world's notable chefs.

It's been a rough time for Lawson, first with her headlines about abuse by her ex husband, a divorce and then the trial against her former personal assistants.

But NBC points out Lawson isn't alone. Other celebrities have been barred from flying to the U.S. too.

"Other celebrities have been convicted of drug offenses have been barred from travel to the U.S. Boy George and the late Amy Winehouse among them. Lawson has not been convicted of her admitted drug use ..."

NBC got confirmation from homeland security that Lawson had been barred because of "admissibility standards."


Wait a minute. Is this the same U.S. that allows millions of immigrants into the country illegally and whose states pass laws legalizing marijuana, while banning cigarette smoking? What do you mean, Nigella Lawson has been banned from entering the U.S.? She hasn't even been convicted of drug use! Or has Homeland Security deemed the Celebrity Chef a terrorist threat?