When you can point to a company that satisfies your "don't be a dick" arguement (which I agree is ideal) then I will agree with you. By definition, a company is an amoral fake entity with the sole purpose of making money at any cost. I (and I suspect most others) feel no particular moral obligation to help them in this goal. I am not a dick to other people, and I will gladly help out another in need, either monatarily or by my actions. This does not translate over to aiding a company in making money because they choose a weak, poorly thought out business model. No other industry works this way or even has the expectation of working this way.
Like it or not, every economic model on Earth involves one person trading something he places less value on for something he places more value on. Often this works out that someone is getting screwed in some way. Someone who seeks out the best deals or finds ways to cut costs (be they fiscal costs, opportunity costs, or what have you) is not a dick, they are a smart consumer. It shouldn't be a newsflash that if you base your business model on the idea that people will gladly do something they do not want to do or have to do for any reason other than moral (and I still say that is sketchy at best) and give them the content either way, you are making a bad business decision. The web does not work like this, why are people trying to force it to then complaining when everyone does not play along?
Usable? We're using the same site right now. You're somehow getting more out of it by blocking the ads? Interesting concept.
It loads quicker for him, less distraction from the actual content, and less resources being used inside his computer. I'd say he is getting more utility out of it than you are. Unless of course you find the ads on a particular site to be relevent, tasteful, and a compliment to the content. I have found sites like this and I DO load and sometimes click on those ads. What a concept:)
Yes because the RFC type discussion does not support your views.
Sure it does, the rendering and presentation is completely left up to the browser. The formatting tags are suggestions, nothing more. Different browsers have always interpreted them differently.
why shouldn't the content provider reasonably expect the viewer to view the content in the way it's provided?
It is a reasonable expectation, but certainly not something I would try to build a business model on. Especially since it is only a reasonable expectation based on common usage, not a legal, moral, or technical one. Asking the question a different way, why should the content provider expect me to load and display everything they provide when I certainly have the option of only loading and displaying what I want?
The ads are part of the content. If you don't like the content, don't view it.
Again I disagree (and I think that is where this is going to have to resolve). My options are not just "view it all in a specific browser or do not view it at all". My options include using a text based browser (or just turning off images), using a browser that does not support swf or javascript, using a browser that selectivly loads images, using a browser that supplies its own stylesheet, or using a browser that reads content out loud to me. This is reality, this is how the web works.
Content providers really need to accept reality when planning a business model and not expect reality to conform to their wishes.
It sounds like you shouldn't be going to these sites, then.
Sorry, wasn't targeting you specifically, just being hypothetical.
in 2004 lots of people out there are throwing lots of money at trying to make it do things it was never intended to do.
And I feel sorry for them. Because not only are they doing what you said, they are spending lots of money trying to get their users to do things they do not want to do, and technically (and legally) do not have to do. Morals can play into this but given the fact that companies are by definition amoralistic fake entities with the sole purpose of making money at any cost, I don't know too many people who feel moral obligations toward them.
They're the content provider, why shouldn't they have that right?
I hate to bring this back into the technical, RFC type discussion, but the reason they do not have that right is because they made a poor decision on the medium. If they wanted that right than what they want is physical publishing, or at least PDF file, not html.
I don't actually feel that they should have the 'right'. I think that's too strong because if we get into rights then we would get into a position where things that block ads are illegal, etc.
Blocking ads is not an action, it is the absence of an action. I think people forget that. I am not blocking anything, I am just not taking an additional step that is has never been expected of me to take anyway. Am I immoral for using a text based browser if I want to read content without being distracted by images (which might include ads?)
It sounds like you shouldn't be going to these sites, then.
Catch 22, I want to block the ads that annoy me so that I do not run across them again on another site. But then I do not know if new sites I visit are using ads that would annoy me. And besides, I do not object to the content, I object to the extra files referenced with the content that I just choose not to request and display. I is not my responsibility to ensure that the content providers make money. No other business model on Earth works that way, and for good reason.
How do you make money selling intangible resources that do not obey the historic "scarce resource" economic rules?
And I have no idea what the answer is to that. The migration to an information based economy will be a bitch. Imagine how painful it will be if we ever design sci-fi like replicators and remove all classic economic constraints?
My point, again, is that it is simply not correct to view the content without the ads. I'm not saying it's illegal, I'm saying it's wrong.
And I am saying it is not wrong. Not through some misguided "everything I want should be given to me for free" attitude, more of a "you have no more right to tell me how to view something you give me than you do to tell me what os to run, what browser to run, what media player to use, etc".
I'm saying that we should simply be reasonable people. If a content provider puts an ad inline with content, there is no reasonable justification for blocking it.
Have you SEE online ads lately? CPU sucking swf files (and even some really poorly animated gifs), annoying flashing ads, misleading ads for the purpose of tricking the user, etc. I cannot think of a good reason NOT to block them. This discussion would never be happening if the ad people were no so greedy as to attempt to out do each other to the point of annoying the user to action. Most people are ok with tasteful, non invasive ads, but those are rare anymore.
If you don't like how they present their content, then stand up for something and don't view their content.
Because most people do not associate the presentation of the content with some implied social contract. I do not know where that idea came from but just because someone thought it up does not mean I agreed to it. I can come up with all kinds of wacky ways in which people should give me money for things I provide ( perhaps everyone who reads my/. posings needs to send me paypal money:P ), but who is to say everyone suddenly has a moral obligation to do what I say or no longer read my postings?
It's sad that your view appears to be "Gimme gimme gimme!" It's this attitude that is killing our society.
Ironically it is that very attitude that is killing the ad industry by turning the population against it. A business model only works if your customers believe in it and agree to it. As a result of some of the more obnoxous actions of the ad industry lately, it is becoming increasing clear that the customers are rebelling against this (weak) business model. So you either try to piss off the customers more by confounding their efforts to not be exposed to that crap while calling them criminals. Guess where that will eventually lead?
The answer to that is simple. Should you continue to meddle in the way people choose to view data that you freely give them for the sole purpose of forcing them to do something they do not want to do, they will stop visiting your site.
The arms race will end when content providers understand they have no control how a user chooses to interpret the html they are given (this is how it was intended to work, and how it DOES work). There is no "ad blocking", just a user who chooses not to burden their net connection and computer resources by not requesting additional support files referenced in the html that they do not want.
It really amazes me that there are some people running websites that are misquided and technically illiterate enough to imagine they are in control of how a user interprets the html they are given. Browsers can change stylesheets, fonts, colors, backgrounds, or choose to ignore all of these things. In fact they have to for for many special need browsers.
The only reason that a small 'elite' percentage of net users are able to surf Ad-free is that they're not yet a statistically significant group.
They are becoming statistically significant, I think that is the point of the article.
Enjoy the Ad-free content while you can!
Enjoy the ad revenue while you can. I think you will find that treating your users like criminals who must be punished for requesting your freely available html files but choosing not to request additional images will significantly lower your eyeball count. It sounds to me like web publishing is not what you really want, since you insist on trying to make it do things it was never intended to do and that your users do not want.
I'm not talking about legal agreements here. I'm talking about not being a dick. You don't own the content. If you don't like how the content is presented (including ads), don't use it. It's that simple!
How sad is it that this is the misguided view people have?
Let me fill you in on how the web works. You put a process on a machine that responds to requests on port 80 (or 443, whatever). A client sends one such request and if you respond with a document, than the transaction is finished. No more obligations, nobody is being a dick, and nothing else has to happen.
I am under no obligation to request images referenced in the returned document, or swf files, or even view the entire document. You gave it to me freely as outlined in the various RFCs that document this process.
Just because one day someone decided that they could make money by putting ads on a site does change the fundamental architecture and process flow of an http transaction. The understanding was always that the end user controlled what and how they interpret this data.
Nowhere did the contract (implied or otherwise) change to dictate that the user WILL view the site with IE and have all possible plugins installed, furthermore they will view all images. Text based browsers still exist, special need browsers exist (for the blind for example), browsers that let you turn off images, browsers that download just the html for offline viewing. This is all perfectly acceptable but it does not support the (poorly thought out) business model that involved ads. There is no "ad blocking" going on here, all that happens is a client chooses not to burden their net connection and computer resources by not requesting additional files that they do not want.
And you are right, the client does not own the content, but nobody ever said they did. Conversely if you are giving me data just because I ask for it, you do not have any control or say in how I use the data. Within legal boundaries, obviously I cannot violate your copyright.
How the content is presented is completely irrelevant, since I control that, not the webserver. This is ALWAYS how it has been. Browsers can change stylesheets, background colors, fonts, choose not to display images, etc. This is how the web works. Trying to pretend it is a print media and that the layout and presentation is decided by the provider is just an exercise in self delusion.
The problem is if ads keep getting more misleading, annoying, and invasive, more and more people will take steps to block them. I'm not saying this is good or bad, I'm just saying that is how it is. You or I cannot change that.
However, there's an implicit agreement between the provider and user. The provider will not charge you for content, but the content will include some ads. By removing the ads, you're not holding up your end of the bargain.
There is no such agreement, as much as some content providers would like to believe so. Furthermore there is no agreement that my browser will accept cookies, or display images, or interpret javascript, or even render as the author intended.
And if you want to get technical, shouldn't the "agreement" be that the user will click on ads? Simply looking at them does not help the provider one bit.
And again, even if you destroy the business model, what are you left with? There doesn't currently appear to be a business model that can replace ad-supported websites.
No, there doesn't. But realiscally they have nobody to blame but themselves. Most people are not offended by text ads or even non intrusive graphical ads (read: no animated gif, no flash, no monkey punching, etc). By flooding the market with annoying, intrusive, and increasing misleading ads, they have drummed up quite a bit of hatred for the whole concept. Witness the results of this. There is nothing anyone can do about it if the population decides that enough is enough.
Go ahead and block ads if you want, but I don't want to see you crying when more and more sites move to subscription or simply shut down.
I won't. Subscription only sites will only survive if people consider the site to be worth it. For example why would I ever subscribe to NYT when I can get the same news from news.google.com and get multiple sources to boot? Google doesn't seem to be in any trouble these days, and they found a clever and agreeable way to handle ads (text based). So either content providers will innovate like this (funny that a text ad can be considered innovation these days, but it is), of they will die. Just like every other industry when change comes their way. Well, either that or they will try to get ad viewing/clicking enforced by legislation I suppose.
The Internet (specifically WWW) in its current form did not exist before advertising.
True, the s/n ratio was much more reasonable:)
Commercial sites that sell stuff will continue to exist. Research sites will continue to exist. I'll bet most ad supported sites will continue to find a way to exist also. Let's face it the good ones started out with no ads then decided "well hell, this got popular so let's see if I can't make a little bit of money". If they go away, oh well.
If most people want to block ads and that destroys a business model who are we to say that is wrong? There is certainly nothing illegal about and no realistic way to stop them.
However trivia is knowing alot of little bits about different things. None of those bits are necessarily useful by themselves unless you're in a trivia competition.
Wow, I totally disagree with that. I have found that having some working knowledge in a wide range of topics is better (overall) than knowing everything about one small topic. Most of the people I know who focus with laser like intensity on one small field are complete failures at every other aspect of their life. And I work at a University, I know a lot of these people;)
Personally, I am first and formost a middleware/security/cryptography geek, but I also get into history (specifically wars), economics (my major in college), music, biology, and other various topics that strike my fancy.
I certainly am no expert on these topics, I probably do not pass the level you would consider trivia. I do, however, consider my life greatly enriched by learning all of these little factiods and trivia. At the very least I do not feel lost if conversation turns to something other than middleware/security/cryptography. Which (suprisingly) happens a lot, people just don't seem as excited about that stuff as I am in normal social situations:)
Possibly, but he went on a much more comprehensive power grab than she did. And he did some nutball ultra religious things that threw off even right wing conservatives (spending thousands of dollars to cover the breasts on a statue at the DoJ)
Especially where there's so much else about Gore worthy of being mocked.
Someone forgot who was the most stringent supporter of the Clipper chip and the plan to outlaw any private research or developement into cryptography. Someone who supported a plan that would have made it illegal for US citizens to take steps to keep communication private if the US government couldn't read it. Someone who by supporting this could have destroyed the computer industry in the US completely.
Gore was no friend of the tech industry, he was nearly the worst enemy it ever had. And for a real slice of irony, guess which congressmen opposed the clipper initiative on the grounds that US citisens must be free from government intrusion and should have privacy? John fucking Ashcroft. How screwed up is that? What a massive change he went though.
Hang on, I seem to remember using HTML before "open source apple" was even invented
HTML is a markup language, I'm assuming you mean the khtml rendering engine and I never said that Apple invented it.
According to Apple, they received 140,000 lines of code, which COCOMO says is worth $5 million.
This is relevent exactly how? Is apple under some obligation to pay someone 5 million? Or contribute 5 million worth of code back into the community? This is not how I understood open source to work...
In return for that, Wikipedia reports that their patches have been very difficult to integrate with the main project.
I wasn't aware that when you forked something you were supposed to bend over backwards to accomadate the project you forked it from.
Look, all I said was that Apple is contributing back to the community. Nit pick all you want but they are also contributing a lot of things they do not have to, such as zeroconf (could have been propritary, they saw fit to make it open source and release a reference implementation). They also released the compatibility layer between QT and Aqua. These are positive steps in my opinion.
Sure it would be great if everything they did was GPL and all their software (and OS X) were free, but that is not the case. As it stands I'd glad to see them make the moves they have made and hope to see more of it in the future. Open source acceptance in the corporate world is a long road, and Apple has been on of the few major players pushing it along.
Ok, since the image is stuck in my head I might as well comment on it.
Those "retirement homes" are dens of filth and deprevity. AIDS rates among seniors have also been steadily rising.
It is probably difficult to tell a group of people who know they only have a few years left to be responsible and think of the future rather than enjoy their remaining time by engaging in a whirlwind of hot, dry, sex. Plus I'm sure viagra has a LOT to do with this.
For right now, ignore legal definitions and concepts.
Companies are abstract concepts, not physical beings. They cannot break laws, dump chemicals, engage in questionable accounting, or write buggy software, only people can do these things.
Now, legally, a corporation can break laws and be punished for it (like you say, this happens). My point was that this is not how is should be. A non-real, imaginary being should not be able to break laws and be punished, that makes no sense. I agree with the concept of corporations and limited liability as it pertains to financial issues (specifically shareholders should be able to shield their personal assets from being tied to a corporation they own part of), but that is it. Allowing a real live person (or more likely, many people) to hide behind an imaginary, fake conceptual entity is silly. It is almost the same as if I built a robot that I controlled and had kill people, and the only recourse the law had was to punish the robot by dismantling it or something.
Do not misconstrue this as me thinking the owners should be the only ones bearing the legal burden. It should be treated as anything else in the law. If they had something to do with it, then they should be heald legally accountable. If they didn't (say a disgruntled employee acting alone does something illegal) then they shouldn't be held accountable.
But if an individual does not profit from his corporate criminal action (i.e. not illegal for him, but illegal for corporation. i.e. an accountant does not fusge his taxes, but his corporation's taxes) done under the corporation, then he can not be charged with breaking a law.
This is my primary problem. Clearly any reasonable person would look at this and agree that the accountant did something illegal. Why shouldn't he be charged with breaking the law?
I'll bet there would be a lot less corruption and a lot more whistleblowers if people knew their own asses were on the line if they break the law. After seeing what unchecked corporate shenanigans can do like with Enron, WorldCom, etc, I think we can all agree this would be a good thing.
Is this so in the US military? Even for illegal orders? If true, I'm not surprised anymore.
It is true in every military on Earth. Refusing a direct order, especially in a combat situation can get you killed. Certainly not under military law, it will make you unpopular with your CO and possibly peers.
In practice, US servicement are prohibited from following illegal orders. In real life there is not a lawyer with every platoon ready to advise you and represent you to your commander. Such is war.
The people who commit crimes are guilty of committing crimes, this is really easy to understand. Ordering someone to dump toxic waste is illegal. Dumping toxic waste is illegal. Both can be guilty. A whole bunch of people up the chain of command can be guilty. Why is personal responsibility suddenly a really bad thing when talking about it in a corporate sense?
Slashdot Mirror
When you can point to a company that satisfies your "don't be a dick" arguement (which I agree is ideal) then I will agree with you. By definition, a company is an amoral fake entity with the sole purpose of making money at any cost. I (and I suspect most others) feel no particular moral obligation to help them in this goal. I am not a dick to other people, and I will gladly help out another in need, either monatarily or by my actions. This does not translate over to aiding a company in making money because they choose a weak, poorly thought out business model. No other industry works this way or even has the expectation of working this way.
:)
Like it or not, every economic model on Earth involves one person trading something he places less value on for something he places more value on. Often this works out that someone is getting screwed in some way. Someone who seeks out the best deals or finds ways to cut costs (be they fiscal costs, opportunity costs, or what have you) is not a dick, they are a smart consumer. It shouldn't be a newsflash that if you base your business model on the idea that people will gladly do something they do not want to do or have to do for any reason other than moral (and I still say that is sketchy at best) and give them the content either way, you are making a bad business decision. The web does not work like this, why are people trying to force it to then complaining when everyone does not play along?
Usable? We're using the same site right now. You're somehow getting more out of it by blocking the ads? Interesting concept.
It loads quicker for him, less distraction from the actual content, and less resources being used inside his computer. I'd say he is getting more utility out of it than you are. Unless of course you find the ads on a particular site to be relevent, tasteful, and a compliment to the content. I have found sites like this and I DO load and sometimes click on those ads. What a concept
Finkployd
Yes because the RFC type discussion does not support your views.
Sure it does, the rendering and presentation is completely left up to the browser. The formatting tags are suggestions, nothing more. Different browsers have always interpreted them differently.
why shouldn't the content provider reasonably expect the viewer to view the content in the way it's provided?
It is a reasonable expectation, but certainly not something I would try to build a business model on. Especially since it is only a reasonable expectation based on common usage, not a legal, moral, or technical one. Asking the question a different way, why should the content provider expect me to load and display everything they provide when I certainly have the option of only loading and displaying what I want?
The ads are part of the content. If you don't like the content, don't view it.
Again I disagree (and I think that is where this is going to have to resolve). My options are not just "view it all in a specific browser or do not view it at all". My options include using a text based browser (or just turning off images), using a browser that does not support swf or javascript, using a browser that selectivly loads images, using a browser that supplies its own stylesheet, or using a browser that reads content out loud to me. This is reality, this is how the web works.
Content providers really need to accept reality when planning a business model and not expect reality to conform to their wishes.
It sounds like you shouldn't be going to these sites, then.
Sorry, wasn't targeting you specifically, just being hypothetical.
in 2004 lots of people out there are throwing lots of money at trying to make it do things it was never intended to do.
And I feel sorry for them. Because not only are they doing what you said, they are spending lots of money trying to get their users to do things they do not want to do, and technically (and legally) do not have to do. Morals can play into this but given the fact that companies are by definition amoralistic fake entities with the sole purpose of making money at any cost, I don't know too many people who feel moral obligations toward them.
Finkployd
They're the content provider, why shouldn't they have that right?
I hate to bring this back into the technical, RFC type discussion, but the reason they do not have that right is because they made a poor decision on the medium. If they wanted that right than what they want is physical publishing, or at least PDF file, not html.
I don't actually feel that they should have the 'right'. I think that's too strong because if we get into rights then we would get into a position where things that block ads are illegal, etc.
Blocking ads is not an action, it is the absence of an action. I think people forget that. I am not blocking anything, I am just not taking an additional step that is has never been expected of me to take anyway. Am I immoral for using a text based browser if I want to read content without being distracted by images (which might include ads?)
It sounds like you shouldn't be going to these sites, then.
Catch 22, I want to block the ads that annoy me so that I do not run across them again on another site. But then I do not know if new sites I visit are using ads that would annoy me.
And besides, I do not object to the content, I object to the extra files referenced with the content that I just choose not to request and display. I is not my responsibility to ensure that the content providers make money. No other business model on Earth works that way, and for good reason.
Finkployd
I can boil this all down to one simple question:
How do you make money selling intangible resources that do not obey the historic "scarce resource" economic rules?
And I have no idea what the answer is to that. The migration to an information based economy will be a bitch. Imagine how painful it will be if we ever design sci-fi like replicators and remove all classic economic constraints?
Finkployd
My point, again, is that it is simply not correct to view the content without the ads. I'm not saying it's illegal, I'm saying it's wrong.
/. posings needs to send me paypal money :P ), but who is to say everyone suddenly has a moral obligation to do what I say or no longer read my postings?
And I am saying it is not wrong. Not through some misguided "everything I want should be given to me for free" attitude, more of a "you have no more right to tell me how to view something you give me than you do to tell me what os to run, what browser to run, what media player to use, etc".
I'm saying that we should simply be reasonable people. If a content provider puts an ad inline with content, there is no reasonable justification for blocking it.
Have you SEE online ads lately? CPU sucking swf files (and even some really poorly animated gifs), annoying flashing ads, misleading ads for the purpose of tricking the user, etc. I cannot think of a good reason NOT to block them. This discussion would never be happening if the ad people were no so greedy as to attempt to out do each other to the point of annoying the user to action. Most people are ok with tasteful, non invasive ads, but those are rare anymore.
If you don't like how they present their content, then stand up for something and don't view their content.
Because most people do not associate the presentation of the content with some implied social contract. I do not know where that idea came from but just because someone thought it up does not mean I agreed to it. I can come up with all kinds of wacky ways in which people should give me money for things I provide ( perhaps everyone who reads my
It's sad that your view appears to be "Gimme gimme gimme!" It's this attitude that is killing our society.
Ironically it is that very attitude that is killing the ad industry by turning the population against it. A business model only works if your customers believe in it and agree to it. As a result of some of the more obnoxous actions of the ad industry lately, it is becoming increasing clear that the customers are rebelling against this (weak) business model. So you either try to piss off the customers more by confounding their efforts to not be exposed to that crap while calling them criminals. Guess where that will eventually lead?
Finkployd
The answer to that is simple. Should you continue to meddle in the way people choose to view data that you freely give them for the sole purpose of forcing them to do something they do not want to do, they will stop visiting your site.
The arms race will end when content providers understand they have no control how a user chooses to interpret the html they are given (this is how it was intended to work, and how it DOES work). There is no "ad blocking", just a user who chooses not to burden their net connection and computer resources by not requesting additional support files referenced in the html that they do not want.
It really amazes me that there are some people running websites that are misquided and technically illiterate enough to imagine they are in control of how a user interprets the html they are given. Browsers can change stylesheets, fonts, colors, backgrounds, or choose to ignore all of these things. In fact they have to for for many special need browsers.
The only reason that a small 'elite' percentage of net users are able to surf Ad-free is that they're not yet a statistically significant group.
They are becoming statistically significant, I think that is the point of the article.
Enjoy the Ad-free content while you can!
Enjoy the ad revenue while you can. I think you will find that treating your users like criminals who must be punished for requesting your freely available html files but choosing not to request additional images will significantly lower your eyeball count. It sounds to me like web publishing is not what you really want, since you insist on trying to make it do things it was never intended to do and that your users do not want.
Finkployd
I'm not talking about legal agreements here. I'm talking about not being a dick. You don't own the content. If you don't like how the content is presented (including ads), don't use it. It's that simple!
How sad is it that this is the misguided view people have?
Let me fill you in on how the web works. You put a process on a machine that responds to requests on port 80 (or 443, whatever). A client sends one such request and if you respond with a document, than the transaction is finished. No more obligations, nobody is being a dick, and nothing else has to happen.
I am under no obligation to request images referenced in the returned document, or swf files, or even view the entire document. You gave it to me freely as outlined in the various RFCs that document this process.
Just because one day someone decided that they could make money by putting ads on a site does change the fundamental architecture and process flow of an http transaction. The understanding was always that the end user controlled what and how they interpret this data.
Nowhere did the contract (implied or otherwise) change to dictate that the user WILL view the site with IE and have all possible plugins installed, furthermore they will view all images. Text based browsers still exist, special need browsers exist (for the blind for example), browsers that let you turn off images, browsers that download just the html for offline viewing. This is all perfectly acceptable but it does not support the (poorly thought out) business model that involved ads. There is no "ad blocking" going on here, all that happens is a client chooses not to burden their net connection and computer resources by not requesting additional files that they do not want.
And you are right, the client does not own the content, but nobody ever said they did. Conversely if you are giving me data just because I ask for it, you do not have any control or say in how I use the data. Within legal boundaries, obviously I cannot violate your copyright.
How the content is presented is completely irrelevant, since I control that, not the webserver. This is ALWAYS how it has been. Browsers can change stylesheets, background colors, fonts, choose not to display images, etc. This is how the web works. Trying to pretend it is a print media and that the layout and presentation is decided by the provider is just an exercise in self delusion.
Finkployd
Why not export to pdf?
Finkployd
The problem is if ads keep getting more misleading, annoying, and invasive, more and more people will take steps to block them. I'm not saying this is good or bad, I'm just saying that is how it is. You or I cannot change that.
Finkployd
However, there's an implicit agreement between the provider and user. The provider will not charge you for content, but the content will include some ads. By removing the ads, you're not holding up your end of the bargain.
There is no such agreement, as much as some content providers would like to believe so. Furthermore there is no agreement that my browser will accept cookies, or display images, or interpret javascript, or even render as the author intended.
And if you want to get technical, shouldn't the "agreement" be that the user will click on ads? Simply looking at them does not help the provider one bit.
And again, even if you destroy the business model, what are you left with? There doesn't currently appear to be a business model that can replace ad-supported websites.
No, there doesn't. But realiscally they have nobody to blame but themselves. Most people are not offended by text ads or even non intrusive graphical ads (read: no animated gif, no flash, no monkey punching, etc). By flooding the market with annoying, intrusive, and increasing misleading ads, they have drummed up quite a bit of hatred for the whole concept. Witness the results of this. There is nothing anyone can do about it if the population decides that enough is enough.
Go ahead and block ads if you want, but I don't want to see you crying when more and more sites move to subscription or simply shut down.
I won't. Subscription only sites will only survive if people consider the site to be worth it. For example why would I ever subscribe to NYT when I can get the same news from news.google.com and get multiple sources to boot? Google doesn't seem to be in any trouble these days, and they found a clever and agreeable way to handle ads (text based). So either content providers will innovate like this (funny that a text ad can be considered innovation these days, but it is), of they will die. Just like every other industry when change comes their way. Well, either that or they will try to get ad viewing/clicking enforced by legislation I suppose.
Finkployd
The Internet (specifically WWW) in its current form did not exist before advertising.
:)
True, the s/n ratio was much more reasonable
Commercial sites that sell stuff will continue to exist. Research sites will continue to exist. I'll bet most ad supported sites will continue to find a way to exist also. Let's face it the good ones started out with no ads then decided "well hell, this got popular so let's see if I can't make a little bit of money". If they go away, oh well.
If most people want to block ads and that destroys a business model who are we to say that is wrong? There is certainly nothing illegal about and no realistic way to stop them.
Finkployd
I do not block, in fact sometimes I click on text ads. Anything else is blocked or ignored. Google certainly got that one right.
Finkployd
How do we know this isn't Karl Rove setting us up, the way he set up Dan Rather?
I hadn't heard this one before... Rove forced Rather to not check sources or even get competent document experts to validate the memos?
Finkployd
However trivia is knowing alot of little bits about different things. None of those bits are necessarily useful by themselves unless you're in a trivia competition.
;)
:)
Wow, I totally disagree with that. I have found that having some working knowledge in a wide range of topics is better (overall) than knowing everything about one small topic. Most of the people I know who focus with laser like intensity on one small field are complete failures at every other aspect of their life. And I work at a University, I know a lot of these people
Personally, I am first and formost a middleware/security/cryptography geek, but I also get into history (specifically wars), economics (my major in college), music, biology, and other various topics that strike my fancy.
I certainly am no expert on these topics, I probably do not pass the level you would consider trivia. I do, however, consider my life greatly enriched by learning all of these little factiods and trivia. At the very least I do not feel lost if conversation turns to something other than middleware/security/cryptography. Which (suprisingly) happens a lot, people just don't seem as excited about that stuff as I am in normal social situations
Finkployd
Possibly, but he went on a much more comprehensive power grab than she did. And he did some nutball ultra religious things that threw off even right wing conservatives (spending thousands of dollars to cover the breasts on a statue at the DoJ)
Finkployd
Especially where there's so much else about Gore worthy of being mocked.
Someone forgot who was the most stringent supporter of the Clipper chip and the plan to outlaw any private research or developement into cryptography. Someone who supported a plan that would have made it illegal for US citizens to take steps to keep communication private if the US government couldn't read it. Someone who by supporting this could have destroyed the computer industry in the US completely.
Gore was no friend of the tech industry, he was nearly the worst enemy it ever had. And for a real slice of irony, guess which congressmen opposed the clipper initiative on the grounds that US citisens must be free from government intrusion and should have privacy? John fucking Ashcroft. How screwed up is that? What a massive change he went though.
Finkployd
I consider zeroconf to be a pretty damn big gift from apple.
Finkployd
Hang on, I seem to remember using HTML before "open source apple" was even invented
HTML is a markup language, I'm assuming you mean the khtml rendering engine and I never said that Apple invented it.
According to Apple, they received 140,000 lines of code, which COCOMO says is worth $5 million.
This is relevent exactly how? Is apple under some obligation to pay someone 5 million? Or contribute 5 million worth of code back into the community? This is not how I understood open source to work...
In return for that, Wikipedia reports that their patches have been very difficult to integrate with the main project.
I wasn't aware that when you forked something you were supposed to bend over backwards to accomadate the project you forked it from.
Look, all I said was that Apple is contributing back to the community. Nit pick all you want but they are also contributing a lot of things they do not have to, such as zeroconf (could have been propritary, they saw fit to make it open source and release a reference implementation). They also released the compatibility layer between QT and Aqua. These are positive steps in my opinion.
Sure it would be great if everything they did was GPL and all their software (and OS X) were free, but that is not the case. As it stands I'd glad to see them make the moves they have made and hope to see more of it in the future. Open source acceptance in the corporate world is a long road, and Apple has been on of the few major players pushing it along.
In fairness, apple contributes quite a bit back into the open source community. khtml is a good example, darwin is another.
Finkployd
VerizonWireless will purchase a law in PA making this illegal, so it wouldn't help me any.
Finkployd
Ok, since the image is stuck in my head I might as well comment on it.
Those "retirement homes" are dens of filth and deprevity. AIDS rates among seniors have also been steadily rising.
It is probably difficult to tell a group of people who know they only have a few years left to be responsible and think of the future rather than enjoy their remaining time by engaging in a whirlwind of hot, dry, sex. Plus I'm sure viagra has a LOT to do with this.
Finkployd
Companies break pollution laws all the time
For right now, ignore legal definitions and concepts.
Companies are abstract concepts, not physical beings. They cannot break laws, dump chemicals, engage in questionable accounting, or write buggy software, only people can do these things.
Now, legally, a corporation can break laws and be punished for it (like you say, this happens). My point was that this is not how is should be. A non-real, imaginary being should not be able to break laws and be punished, that makes no sense. I agree with the concept of corporations and limited liability as it pertains to financial issues (specifically shareholders should be able to shield their personal assets from being tied to a corporation they own part of), but that is it. Allowing a real live person (or more likely, many people) to hide behind an imaginary, fake conceptual entity is silly. It is almost the same as if I built a robot that I controlled and had kill people, and the only recourse the law had was to punish the robot by dismantling it or something.
Do not misconstrue this as me thinking the owners should be the only ones bearing the legal burden. It should be treated as anything else in the law. If they had something to do with it, then they should be heald legally accountable. If they didn't (say a disgruntled employee acting alone does something illegal) then they shouldn't be held accountable.
But if an individual does not profit from his corporate criminal action (i.e. not illegal for him, but illegal for corporation. i.e. an accountant does not fusge his taxes, but his corporation's taxes) done under the corporation, then he can not be charged with breaking a law.
This is my primary problem. Clearly any reasonable person would look at this and agree that the accountant did something illegal. Why shouldn't he be charged with breaking the law?
I'll bet there would be a lot less corruption and a lot more whistleblowers if people knew their own asses were on the line if they break the law. After seeing what unchecked corporate shenanigans can do like with Enron, WorldCom, etc, I think we can all agree this would be a good thing.
Finkployd
Is this so in the US military? Even for illegal orders? If true, I'm not surprised anymore.
It is true in every military on Earth. Refusing a direct order, especially in a combat situation can get you killed. Certainly not under military law, it will make you unpopular with your CO and possibly peers.
In practice, US servicement are prohibited from following illegal orders. In real life there is not a lawyer with every platoon ready to advise you and represent you to your commander. Such is war.
Finkployd
Right, so please actually read what I post.
The people who commit crimes are guilty of committing crimes, this is really easy to understand. Ordering someone to dump toxic waste is illegal. Dumping toxic waste is illegal. Both can be guilty. A whole bunch of people up the chain of command can be guilty. Why is personal responsibility suddenly a really bad thing when talking about it in a corporate sense?
Finkployd