An unsolicited ad is theft of your time and attention. It's based on the bogus premise that's okay to steal the time and attention of a thousand people to make a sale to one person.
And your blocking of that ad is theft of the website's resources. You can't have it both ways.
I was especially annoyed by some movie ads not so long ago, a site i visited to view some video clips made me watch an unskippable 30 second movie trailer before every single video... It was always the same trailer, and the movie it was advertising was not even released where i am so i couldn't have gone to see it legally even if i had wanted to.
This is the biggest problem with early-adopter online content with adds. I remember seeing this while watching something on oh, was it Zazzle? Two or three years ago... they were providing full episodes of Married with Children (guilty pleasure) on either Youtube or Hulu. The ads were entirely unskippable, and every commercial break it was the exact same ad. Over and over again. Completely annoying your watchers is not the way to build long-term viewership, so the early days can be rocky.
In the US, the Republican line is that climate change is a liberal conspiracy to destroy the capitalism and America, and any candidate that thinks differently (John Huntsman) is basically booed off stage.
Probably one of the many reasons why Arnold Schwarzenegger will never get anywhere in Republican presidential politics.
A country could game the system by encouraging rapid population increase, which would, at least in the near term, lower their per-capita emissions, and really that's the exact opposite of what we'd want.
To create a global currency - based on trading securitized CO2.
There are no technical or behavioral measures in any proposed treaty. Only carbon trading. How is this accomplished? Always by establishing derivatives. You know, like they did for real estate.
The whole scam is a part of the war for dominance between financial capitalists and energy capitalists.
Enlightened, educated and well-intentioned folk are the useful idiots of speculative, financial capital oligarchy on this one - just as the backwards fundies are the human tools of conservative thuggery.
This is a conspiracy theory. And like just about any fun but bullshit conspiracy theory (the moon landing was a fake, the twin towers were taken down by bombs not planes, etc) you have to ask the question "how many people would have to remain silent or be in on the plan in order to pull this off?" In the case of the above, nearly all the climate researchers world-wide would have to be paid off by Goldman Sachs, and that's something that doesn't even pass the Laugh Test. Otherwise, another implication would be that somehow Goldman Sachs knows more about climate than actual researchers, but really, that's as credible as believing that climate researchers know more about financial markets than Goldman Sachs. Neither is believable.
Not to say that climate derivatives aren't bullshit, and I have my doubts that they would actually have much effect upon climate change, but "Global Warming" is not a Goldman Sachs scam.
I guess thats why all open source software, websites like wikipedia, are ad supported. Oh wait, they are not.
If you want to force all websites into that model, then we'll have a hell of a lot fewer websites. Most of them will be gone in fact. It'd be easy to be facetious say "lol no big loss" but the truth is a lot of sites with good content would be gone too. Would I support wikipedia? Sure. (I already do) Would I support a more niche website that I'd visit maybe once a month? Doubtful.
The majority of websites would die out or put up paywalls.
I and a bunch of others received emails today claiming to be from Adobe (it wasn't, as mail headers showed) that included an attachment, an.exe in a zip file.
Of course, you should never run attachments sent via email, even if the source appears trusted.
That's the problem, when discussing global warming people 'believe'. This is something you do when discussing faith, not science. The big red flag for me is when I was told "The science is settled". Sorry, but I just read a challenge to Einstein's theory of relativity yesterday. Although I think that the challenge will be disproved, scientists can discuss these matters, perform experiments, repeat those experiments independently and discuss the results reasonably. When it comes to climate 'science', none of that is true. After nearly 100 years, special relativity is still called a theory. Gravity is called a theory. Evolution is called a theory. But global warming? It's a fact- you're not allowed to disagree.
I don't believe that's the case. But here's the problem with that idea -- once Newton put down those theories, once Einstein published his theories, they were tested, and incorporated, and used. The population at large did not say that they were only theories and thus until they were 100% proven beyond any ability to be challenged that they be just ignored. But the more conservative side that disbelieves in climate change or whatever say that, regardless of the theories being accepted by the scientific establishment, by reputable scientists worldwide, etcetc, none of that matters unless you can 100% prove beyond any challenge that those theories are true. And that without those proofs they are unwilling to do a single damned thing, because the implications of those theories would require them to make some pretty major changes.
No shit? It costs money to do stuff? Know what else it does? Creates jobs. Expands economies.
Sure, it can create jobs. But does it create more jobs than are lost through overall increased costs? It's like the broken window fallacy, with a window replacer breaking the windows along Main Street so he can go through the next day and replace the broken windows. It's great for the window installer, but society as a whole is poorer for him having done that.
Let's see. We raised the levees here by two feet over the last five years. That's enough to give us a 200 year grace period at the current rate of sea-level rise.
Ugh. I think New Orleans is an excellent example of why it's such a horribly stupid idea to build below water level. Your levees will fail, and your town WILL flood. I have no faith anymore in humanity's collective ability to maintain and protect itself.
What you are doing IS black and white thinking. The profit motive is must be better because the ONLY alternative is X, that is black and white thinking.
What he's responding to is black and white thinking. "Nonsense, things like oil spills happen because companies are only spend the minimum they can on safety. This is a result of the PROFIT MOTIVE and hence capitalism..."
How is that NOT black and white thinking? When the original poster flat out states that pollution is the fault of capitalism, and someone responds that non-capitalistic societies pollute also, how is that "black and white" thinking? It introduces more grey areas. A capitalism vs socialism debate might be quite constructive, but it doesn't contribute that much to the pollution problem.
Whoops, one continued thought from the above: "no one wants to be the one sacrificed to make the long term successful." And people think they have time. They think, hey, if we get ourselves out of the mess we're in, maybe after that we can make some real long-term changes. But there are always messes to get out of.
I don't understand why the environmentally-minded folks don't try to talk more about the costs.
For a not-that-dissimilar reason to that I hear so often for why it's important that we vote for one of the major two parties and not a third party candidate.
Confused? Every single election people from both parties say something along the lines of "I know you don't want to vote for Major_Candidate_X. But if you vote for that third party, all it will do is make sure Major_Candidate_Y gets elected instead. And this is the most important election in history. If the wrong guy gets elected, the consequences will be far worse than ever before for your side. Maybe next time you can vote for a third party, but this election is just -too important- to do that this time." And this happens every single election. We live under the constant assumption that the current time is the most unstable, dangerous moment in our era, and that we have to compromise our morals, swallow our pride, and pick a short term solution we don't particularly like to avoid the short term solution we -really- won't like. Rarely do we think about the long term, because no one wants to be the one sacrificed to make the long term successful.
I say the environment actions should be applied to companies instead of countries.
Then companies will just go out of business and be able to wash their hands of the costs, possibly leading to more gigantic government bailouts or takeovers. The economic environment would be tremendously chaotic.
The United Nations was clearly a reaction to the two World Wars, but European states individually were doing ok separately for a good 40 years before the modern EU came around. I think the current EU has a lot more to do with consolidating economic (and sometimes political) power to compete with the US, Russia, China, etc.
So you're saying Lincoln only indirectly caused the War of Northern Aggression? Fucking apologists.
I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not, but of the US Presidents leading up to the war, I'd probably pin a large portion of the blame on James Buchanan.
Yes, but JFK is the guy who started them as a royal family. I do not fault you for leaving Kennedy off of your list, I was just pointing out that when JFK was elected he did not qualify as "old family" by the standards of the day. Of course, his presidency made the Kennedys into a sort of royal family.
Eh, I would say Joe Kennedy was the one who really got them going. JFK was the pinnacle. Rose Fitzgerald (later married Joe) was also the daughter of a Congressman. Joe brought his son to work for him while ambassador in London and send JFK as his representative to help rescue Americans survivors of the first British ship sunk by the Germans after Britain declared war on Germany. Joe knew the director of the Office of Naval Intelligence and got JFK an ensign position to the Secretary of the Navy when he couldn't qualify for the Army. I would say Joseph Kennedy really established the family, building up the privileges and connections that JFK would be able to make great use of!
Yes. All four of those (plus Obama) were consistently and repeatedly derided and/or hamstrung by their respective oppositions, whether said derision was deserved or not, and far, FAR more than "old family" politicians or their direct friends/associates.
Yes, plus Obama. And plus Bush too. That situation, as depressing as it is, seems to be the new normal.
And in a way, it has been a way for the country to stay rather balanced. I don't want either Democrats or Republicans in charge of both Congress and the Presidency at the same time.
Slashdot Mirror
An unsolicited ad is theft of your time and attention. It's based on the bogus premise that's okay to steal the time and attention of a thousand people to make a sale to one person.
And your blocking of that ad is theft of the website's resources. You can't have it both ways.
I was especially annoyed by some movie ads not so long ago, a site i visited to view some video clips made me watch an unskippable 30 second movie trailer before every single video... It was always the same trailer, and the movie it was advertising was not even released where i am so i couldn't have gone to see it legally even if i had wanted to.
This is the biggest problem with early-adopter online content with adds. I remember seeing this while watching something on oh, was it Zazzle? Two or three years ago... they were providing full episodes of Married with Children (guilty pleasure) on either Youtube or Hulu. The ads were entirely unskippable, and every commercial break it was the exact same ad. Over and over again. Completely annoying your watchers is not the way to build long-term viewership, so the early days can be rocky.
When the food supply drops so that the planet can only support one billion, the population will fall to one billion. The question is, which billion?
I doubt the sifting process will be pleasant.
The billion who can grow AND protect the food, of course.
"reduce growth" = people freezing to death under highway overpasses
Because the cause of homelessness is that there aren't enough houses?
Any sort of restrictions on CO2 emissions will make oil less attractive. Tar sands needs oil prices high to be profitable so ...
Really, no one on any side has proposed anything that will drive oil prices down..
In the US, the Republican line is that climate change is a liberal conspiracy to destroy the capitalism and America, and any candidate that thinks differently (John Huntsman) is basically booed off stage.
Probably one of the many reasons why Arnold Schwarzenegger will never get anywhere in Republican presidential politics.
But surface area stays relatively constant.
A country could game the system by encouraging rapid population increase, which would, at least in the near term, lower their per-capita emissions, and really that's the exact opposite of what we'd want.
To create a global currency - based on trading securitized CO2.
There are no technical or behavioral measures in any proposed treaty. Only carbon trading. How is this accomplished? Always by establishing derivatives. You know, like they did for real estate.
The whole scam is a part of the war for dominance between financial capitalists and energy capitalists.
Enlightened, educated and well-intentioned folk are the useful idiots of speculative, financial capital oligarchy on this one - just as the backwards fundies are the human tools of conservative thuggery.
This is a conspiracy theory. And like just about any fun but bullshit conspiracy theory (the moon landing was a fake, the twin towers were taken down by bombs not planes, etc) you have to ask the question "how many people would have to remain silent or be in on the plan in order to pull this off?" In the case of the above, nearly all the climate researchers world-wide would have to be paid off by Goldman Sachs, and that's something that doesn't even pass the Laugh Test. Otherwise, another implication would be that somehow Goldman Sachs knows more about climate than actual researchers, but really, that's as credible as believing that climate researchers know more about financial markets than Goldman Sachs. Neither is believable.
Not to say that climate derivatives aren't bullshit, and I have my doubts that they would actually have much effect upon climate change, but "Global Warming" is not a Goldman Sachs scam.
I guess thats why all open source software, websites like wikipedia, are ad supported. Oh wait, they are not.
If you want to force all websites into that model, then we'll have a hell of a lot fewer websites. Most of them will be gone in fact. It'd be easy to be facetious say "lol no big loss" but the truth is a lot of sites with good content would be gone too. Would I support wikipedia? Sure. (I already do) Would I support a more niche website that I'd visit maybe once a month? Doubtful.
The majority of websites would die out or put up paywalls.
Yeah, so now the blackhats can send exe's in emails
They did it exactly as the other poster suggested -- by keeping the exe in a zip file.
I and a bunch of others received emails today claiming to be from Adobe (it wasn't, as mail headers showed) that included an attachment, an .exe in a zip file.
Of course, you should never run attachments sent via email, even if the source appears trusted.
That's the problem, when discussing global warming people 'believe'. This is something you do when discussing faith, not science.
The big red flag for me is when I was told "The science is settled". Sorry, but I just read a challenge to Einstein's theory of relativity yesterday. Although I think that the challenge will be disproved, scientists can discuss these matters, perform experiments, repeat those experiments independently and discuss the results reasonably. When it comes to climate 'science', none of that is true. After nearly 100 years, special relativity is still called a theory. Gravity is called a theory. Evolution is called a theory. But global warming? It's a fact- you're not allowed to disagree.
I don't believe that's the case. But here's the problem with that idea -- once Newton put down those theories, once Einstein published his theories, they were tested, and incorporated, and used. The population at large did not say that they were only theories and thus until they were 100% proven beyond any ability to be challenged that they be just ignored. But the more conservative side that disbelieves in climate change or whatever say that, regardless of the theories being accepted by the scientific establishment, by reputable scientists worldwide, etcetc, none of that matters unless you can 100% prove beyond any challenge that those theories are true. And that without those proofs they are unwilling to do a single damned thing, because the implications of those theories would require them to make some pretty major changes.
No shit? It costs money to do stuff? Know what else it does? Creates jobs. Expands economies.
Sure, it can create jobs. But does it create more jobs than are lost through overall increased costs? It's like the broken window fallacy, with a window replacer breaking the windows along Main Street so he can go through the next day and replace the broken windows. It's great for the window installer, but society as a whole is poorer for him having done that.
Let's see. We raised the levees here by two feet over the last five years. That's enough to give us a 200 year grace period at the current rate of sea-level rise.
Ugh. I think New Orleans is an excellent example of why it's such a horribly stupid idea to build below water level. Your levees will fail, and your town WILL flood. I have no faith anymore in humanity's collective ability to maintain and protect itself.
Ireland went from 11.3 to 9.8 (yeah, like that is major cut).
It might be, considering the economic chaos in Ireland of late. Greece made everyone forget about their troubles.
What you are doing IS black and white thinking. The profit motive is must be better because the ONLY alternative is X, that is black and white thinking.
What he's responding to is black and white thinking. "Nonsense, things like oil spills happen because companies are only spend the minimum they can on safety. This is a result of the PROFIT MOTIVE and hence capitalism..."
How is that NOT black and white thinking? When the original poster flat out states that pollution is the fault of capitalism, and someone responds that non-capitalistic societies pollute also, how is that "black and white" thinking? It introduces more grey areas. A capitalism vs socialism debate might be quite constructive, but it doesn't contribute that much to the pollution problem.
Ah, the reasoned, sensible debate we have come to expect from the socialists.
The socialist "added" about the same amount of value to the debate as the original poster.
Whoops, one continued thought from the above: "no one wants to be the one sacrificed to make the long term successful." And people think they have time. They think, hey, if we get ourselves out of the mess we're in, maybe after that we can make some real long-term changes. But there are always messes to get out of.
I don't understand why the environmentally-minded folks don't try to talk more about the costs.
For a not-that-dissimilar reason to that I hear so often for why it's important that we vote for one of the major two parties and not a third party candidate.
Confused? Every single election people from both parties say something along the lines of "I know you don't want to vote for Major_Candidate_X. But if you vote for that third party, all it will do is make sure Major_Candidate_Y gets elected instead. And this is the most important election in history. If the wrong guy gets elected, the consequences will be far worse than ever before for your side. Maybe next time you can vote for a third party, but this election is just -too important- to do that this time." And this happens every single election. We live under the constant assumption that the current time is the most unstable, dangerous moment in our era, and that we have to compromise our morals, swallow our pride, and pick a short term solution we don't particularly like to avoid the short term solution we -really- won't like. Rarely do we think about the long term, because no one wants to be the one sacrificed to make the long term successful.
I say the environment actions should be applied to companies instead of countries.
Then companies will just go out of business and be able to wash their hands of the costs, possibly leading to more gigantic government bailouts or takeovers. The economic environment would be tremendously chaotic.
The United Nations was clearly a reaction to the two World Wars, but European states individually were doing ok separately for a good 40 years before the modern EU came around. I think the current EU has a lot more to do with consolidating economic (and sometimes political) power to compete with the US, Russia, China, etc.
So you're saying Lincoln only indirectly caused the War of Northern Aggression?
Fucking apologists.
I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not, but of the US Presidents leading up to the war, I'd probably pin a large portion of the blame on James Buchanan.
Yes, but JFK is the guy who started them as a royal family. I do not fault you for leaving Kennedy off of your list, I was just pointing out that when JFK was elected he did not qualify as "old family" by the standards of the day. Of course, his presidency made the Kennedys into a sort of royal family.
Eh, I would say Joe Kennedy was the one who really got them going. JFK was the pinnacle. Rose Fitzgerald (later married Joe) was also the daughter of a Congressman. Joe brought his son to work for him while ambassador in London and send JFK as his representative to help rescue Americans survivors of the first British ship sunk by the Germans after Britain declared war on Germany. Joe knew the director of the Office of Naval Intelligence and got JFK an ensign position to the Secretary of the Navy when he couldn't qualify for the Army. I would say Joseph Kennedy really established the family, building up the privileges and connections that JFK would be able to make great use of!
Yes. All four of those (plus Obama) were consistently and repeatedly derided and/or hamstrung by their respective oppositions, whether said derision was deserved or not, and far, FAR more than "old family" politicians or their direct friends/associates.
Yes, plus Obama. And plus Bush too. That situation, as depressing as it is, seems to be the new normal.
And in a way, it has been a way for the country to stay rather balanced. I don't want either Democrats or Republicans in charge of both Congress and the Presidency at the same time.
Are you with Fox News?
He was originally saying that corporate overlords suck, Fox News doesn't even pretend to give lip service to that notion anymore.