I'm baffled too. Phone calls (the voice kind) are extremely reliable. I've also never had a connection dropped. Maybe they are talking about foreign calls where you have to switch between several disparate systems, cross a couple third world countries who are at war, and ending up at a mobile phone powered by hand crank?
They're typically advertising elsewhere. The internet is cheap but the response tends to be low. The only ones really relying on internet advertising are internet only companies.
Retailers are tracking you. Some of them. Not with chips, but they manage it. I went to store once and they kept asking my name at check out, and I said I wasn't in the system (I was), then they asked for a phone number and said maybe it was in the system, and I said no, and so on. Finally they gave up and I handed them the credit card and then they said "oh, this is in the system."
On the other hand my local drug and grocery stores have tracking cards, but they also have sales that only apply if you have the card so at least there's a benefit to me. On the internet though the tracking is of no benefit to the person browsing the web, it's only there to try and extract more money.
Nope, this is AT&T using Yahoo email web browser. Ads are inherent there. It's not just AT&T either, a lot of major ISPs do the same thing, in the same way that pay cable channels will show ads.
If the content providers don't care enough about their viewers to stop using aggressive advertisers and continue to use advertising networks instead of curating their own ads, then I don't care about those content providers. If they respect their viewers fairly and treat them as something other than revenue sources then their viewers will respect them in return.
Right now there are so many abusive ad networks that it's impossible to separate the millions of bad actors from the two or three good guys. It's sad that a few content providers lose out but there's a war going on.
Not true. If the creator of the web site does not want to me watch with adblock on then they can say so and I will never go back to their site. I don't need to see them, they are not vital to my life. But their third party advertising partner is slowing down my internet and slowing down my computer if I turn off adblock. The content creator needs to find a better way to make a living than to associate with scum advertisers.
Who are these content creators? Why is AT&T showing me ads when I use AT&T's web mail when I pay then $50 a month? Why would you defend such actions? Are the bloggers? Screw them, they should get a job instead of relying on me; and I don't read blogs anyway.
I am not using adblock because I want to be a freeloader. I am using adblock because ads are actively hostile to me and my computer, they introduce malware and slow down my computer. Too many ads on TV and I cut the cord; no ads, less cost, more actual paid content.
Why should a newly established web site do this? I'm serious. Is there some sort of inherent concept that a new web site must be profitable and that profit must come from ads?
What sort of new web site is this? If it's a blog then screw it, if they won't post their stupid ideas without being paid for it, then they can just not have a blog. If they blog could be better with donations then ask for donations instead of screwing the viewers with ads. Oh, but donations are rare and don't cover all the costs of the goodies the blogger wants; in that case, shut down the blog. If you must have an ad, then consider having ads which are respectful of your viewers, which means you can not go to a third party ad network (spammer). Treat the blog like a radio station - do you want to be a skummy Clear Channel affiliate that goes with an ad server, or do you want to be a cool college station that curates the ads in house?
What if it's a commercial web site? Then presumably they're getting money from other sources and don't need to abuse their viewers with ads. Don't be like ISPs who charge you for their service and then dump a ton of ads on you. Ad revenue is tiny, but a lot of companies don't care because they think their viewers don't care. These ads are a lot like the license plate holders from car dealerships, annoying and ugly and the first thing I remove when I get a new car. Give me the product for free then I'll watch and share all the ads you want (and I've done it) but make me pay for the product then get rid of that ad crap.
If it's in email then it's spam and most people agree it's spam. Spammers got such a bad reputation that even advertisers distance themselves from it. People hated them because it was lots of extra work to clean out the spam to get to the real mail But the ads on web sites are essentially the same thing. But instead of annoying people who have to slow down and clean out the inbox, it slows down the computer and internet instead and annoys people indirectly. The end user sees the page loading in ten seconds and learns to live with it without knowing the cause. Maybe they think they need a new computer instead of focusing their rage on the advertisers.
But it's all essentially spam. Like the difference between bombs and smart bombs, we have spam and smart spam.
This is sort of what baffles me. The math doesn't seem to hold up. I'm just not worth that much money per view of an ad. I don't spend enough to justify it. The only reason it's working so far is that advertising is ridiculously cheap on the internet. It can be just a fraction of the total marketing costs, you can even put your marketing interns on the internet project. I think companies are either losing money on it or barely breaking even, but it's so small a cost that they either don't realize it or don't care.
The ad industry doesn't even care of advertising is effective or not. The people buying the ads are going to wake up and realize it's not worth the cost. Then the people trying to make a living with cheap ass youtube videos are going to have to update their resumes.
I have no problem if sites block me from viewing them when they detect adblock. It's only fair. If they depend upon ads to make a living then I can go elsewhere. I'd much prefer this model in fact as I can more easily avoid any site that treats me as a wallet with eyeballs.
"If you keep putting up your No Solicitors sign then you will hurt the door-to-door shake-down industry. We need your dollars because we we like money, so won't you please take down your No Solicitors sign before we resort to harsher measures?"
I don't want to see them in the margins either - that is MY bandwidth that is being stolen. If they refuse to show the content if I don't view the ads, then that is ok with me and it is easy enough to do. But to passively suck up my bandwidth is unacceptable, no matter how desparate the site owners are to make a few bucks so that they can quit their day job.
So many industries are this way. They assume that there is a captive audience with only a few malcontents, but over time it starts slipping away and they don't know how to cope. Like television, they decide to save money by having crappier unscripted content or hire only interns as script writers, then are baffled that people are cutting the cord.
I look over coworkers shoulders sometimes when we're working on something, and I'm always surprised to see so many ads. Ie, someone has the same email provider I do from our ISP and it's chock full of ads I never see. From an ISP service we *PAY* for. That's ridiculous; I'm paying $50/month so why should they be subsidizing themselves with ridiculous randomized ads?
Yup, the internet was paid for by paying for the internet itself; subscriptions to ISPs, building out infrastructure, etc. Today coporations want you to pay for the internet AND pay for the crappy content too, and they want to have you pay in order to receive the ads since they're not reimbursing you for all those unnecessary downloads. Even worse on a mobile phone as you can incur big penalties if you use more data than your plan allows, so the ads slow the network and drain your wallet.
At which point someone on slashdot pops in and says "you're all a bunch of worthless freeloaders, if you want to look at my glorious blog about hamster farming then you have to look at these ads about Buicks so that I can buy a better microphone for my hamster podcast."
The basic reason they work is probably that current face recognition programs are confused by them. The light being shined back is a minor influence at best, it does not blind the cameras. A few tweaks and the system will recognize faces again.
Criminals have rights because much of society has decided that it is a worthwhile tradeoff to have a society that is more free even though sometimes the criminal is not caught. Law enforcement has never liked this concept and have always fought against it.
Such evidence is inadmissible in some locales, but such evidence can be used to locate other evidence. As long as they leave out the inconvenient fact of how they got their "leads" when it gets to court. *IF* it gets to court, and it's not just some witch hunt to find a suspected terrorist who's going to disappear without a trial. Or a political dissident, or member of the opposition political party, or with proof on the phone of being a member of a suppressed religion/ethnicity/sexuality. These are not hypothetical situtations. Phone makers and companies have been asked or ordered to provide information in such cases, which is why they want the encryption without a back door so that they can not be compelled to comply with evil regimes or misguided prosecutors.
Slashdot Mirror
They're not blueprints either, they're prints of color.
I'm baffled too. Phone calls (the voice kind) are extremely reliable. I've also never had a connection dropped. Maybe they are talking about foreign calls where you have to switch between several disparate systems, cross a couple third world countries who are at war, and ending up at a mobile phone powered by hand crank?
And this comment is pseudo-criticism.
To be fair, Fossil watches are a fad too.
They're typically advertising elsewhere. The internet is cheap but the response tends to be low. The only ones really relying on internet advertising are internet only companies.
Retailers are tracking you. Some of them. Not with chips, but they manage it. I went to store once and they kept asking my name at check out, and I said I wasn't in the system (I was), then they asked for a phone number and said maybe it was in the system, and I said no, and so on. Finally they gave up and I handed them the credit card and then they said "oh, this is in the system."
On the other hand my local drug and grocery stores have tracking cards, but they also have sales that only apply if you have the card so at least there's a benefit to me. On the internet though the tracking is of no benefit to the person browsing the web, it's only there to try and extract more money.
Nope, this is AT&T using Yahoo email web browser. Ads are inherent there. It's not just AT&T either, a lot of major ISPs do the same thing, in the same way that pay cable channels will show ads.
Once money entered the picture all hope of a community vanished.
If the content providers don't care enough about their viewers to stop using aggressive advertisers and continue to use advertising networks instead of curating their own ads, then I don't care about those content providers. If they respect their viewers fairly and treat them as something other than revenue sources then their viewers will respect them in return.
Right now there are so many abusive ad networks that it's impossible to separate the millions of bad actors from the two or three good guys. It's sad that a few content providers lose out but there's a war going on.
Not true. If the creator of the web site does not want to me watch with adblock on then they can say so and I will never go back to their site. I don't need to see them, they are not vital to my life. But their third party advertising partner is slowing down my internet and slowing down my computer if I turn off adblock. The content creator needs to find a better way to make a living than to associate with scum advertisers.
Who are these content creators? Why is AT&T showing me ads when I use AT&T's web mail when I pay then $50 a month? Why would you defend such actions? Are the bloggers? Screw them, they should get a job instead of relying on me; and I don't read blogs anyway.
I am not using adblock because I want to be a freeloader. I am using adblock because ads are actively hostile to me and my computer, they introduce malware and slow down my computer. Too many ads on TV and I cut the cord; no ads, less cost, more actual paid content.
Why should a newly established web site do this? I'm serious. Is there some sort of inherent concept that a new web site must be profitable and that profit must come from ads?
What sort of new web site is this? If it's a blog then screw it, if they won't post their stupid ideas without being paid for it, then they can just not have a blog. If they blog could be better with donations then ask for donations instead of screwing the viewers with ads. Oh, but donations are rare and don't cover all the costs of the goodies the blogger wants; in that case, shut down the blog. If you must have an ad, then consider having ads which are respectful of your viewers, which means you can not go to a third party ad network (spammer). Treat the blog like a radio station - do you want to be a skummy Clear Channel affiliate that goes with an ad server, or do you want to be a cool college station that curates the ads in house?
What if it's a commercial web site? Then presumably they're getting money from other sources and don't need to abuse their viewers with ads. Don't be like ISPs who charge you for their service and then dump a ton of ads on you. Ad revenue is tiny, but a lot of companies don't care because they think their viewers don't care. These ads are a lot like the license plate holders from car dealerships, annoying and ugly and the first thing I remove when I get a new car. Give me the product for free then I'll watch and share all the ads you want (and I've done it) but make me pay for the product then get rid of that ad crap.
If it's in email then it's spam and most people agree it's spam. Spammers got such a bad reputation that even advertisers distance themselves from it. People hated them because it was lots of extra work to clean out the spam to get to the real mail But the ads on web sites are essentially the same thing. But instead of annoying people who have to slow down and clean out the inbox, it slows down the computer and internet instead and annoys people indirectly. The end user sees the page loading in ten seconds and learns to live with it without knowing the cause. Maybe they think they need a new computer instead of focusing their rage on the advertisers.
But it's all essentially spam. Like the difference between bombs and smart bombs, we have spam and smart spam.
I go with the generic brand name.
This is sort of what baffles me. The math doesn't seem to hold up. I'm just not worth that much money per view of an ad. I don't spend enough to justify it. The only reason it's working so far is that advertising is ridiculously cheap on the internet. It can be just a fraction of the total marketing costs, you can even put your marketing interns on the internet project. I think companies are either losing money on it or barely breaking even, but it's so small a cost that they either don't realize it or don't care.
The ad industry doesn't even care of advertising is effective or not. The people buying the ads are going to wake up and realize it's not worth the cost. Then the people trying to make a living with cheap ass youtube videos are going to have to update their resumes.
I have no problem if sites block me from viewing them when they detect adblock. It's only fair. If they depend upon ads to make a living then I can go elsewhere. I'd much prefer this model in fact as I can more easily avoid any site that treats me as a wallet with eyeballs.
"If you keep putting up your No Solicitors sign then you will hurt the door-to-door shake-down industry. We need your dollars because we we like money, so won't you please take down your No Solicitors sign before we resort to harsher measures?"
I don't want to see them in the margins either - that is MY bandwidth that is being stolen. If they refuse to show the content if I don't view the ads, then that is ok with me and it is easy enough to do. But to passively suck up my bandwidth is unacceptable, no matter how desparate the site owners are to make a few bucks so that they can quit their day job.
So many industries are this way. They assume that there is a captive audience with only a few malcontents, but over time it starts slipping away and they don't know how to cope. Like television, they decide to save money by having crappier unscripted content or hire only interns as script writers, then are baffled that people are cutting the cord.
I look over coworkers shoulders sometimes when we're working on something, and I'm always surprised to see so many ads. Ie, someone has the same email provider I do from our ISP and it's chock full of ads I never see. From an ISP service we *PAY* for. That's ridiculous; I'm paying $50/month so why should they be subsidizing themselves with ridiculous randomized ads?
Yup, the internet was paid for by paying for the internet itself; subscriptions to ISPs, building out infrastructure, etc. Today coporations want you to pay for the internet AND pay for the crappy content too, and they want to have you pay in order to receive the ads since they're not reimbursing you for all those unnecessary downloads. Even worse on a mobile phone as you can incur big penalties if you use more data than your plan allows, so the ads slow the network and drain your wallet.
At which point someone on slashdot pops in and says "you're all a bunch of worthless freeloaders, if you want to look at my glorious blog about hamster farming then you have to look at these ads about Buicks so that I can buy a better microphone for my hamster podcast."
Which means that people will instead stop visiting the primary content altogether. Treat your visitors as scum and they'll treat you as scum.
The basic reason they work is probably that current face recognition programs are confused by them. The light being shined back is a minor influence at best, it does not blind the cameras. A few tweaks and the system will recognize faces again.
Prosecutors are also politicians, which means they are automatically tainted.
Criminals have rights because much of society has decided that it is a worthwhile tradeoff to have a society that is more free even though sometimes the criminal is not caught. Law enforcement has never liked this concept and have always fought against it.
Such evidence is inadmissible in some locales, but such evidence can be used to locate other evidence. As long as they leave out the inconvenient fact of how they got their "leads" when it gets to court. *IF* it gets to court, and it's not just some witch hunt to find a suspected terrorist who's going to disappear without a trial. Or a political dissident, or member of the opposition political party, or with proof on the phone of being a member of a suppressed religion/ethnicity/sexuality. These are not hypothetical situtations. Phone makers and companies have been asked or ordered to provide information in such cases, which is why they want the encryption without a back door so that they can not be compelled to comply with evil regimes or misguided prosecutors.