Spread that out amongst the desert areas in the US and I don't think it would be so much of a problem. Unless I underestimate the value of that sunlight in the desert. Last I checked, it just tends to make it unbearibly hot! Air conditioning the outside (what mama always said not to do) AND power generation. Win win.:)
Anyway, I doubt we'd ever use this method to produce ALL of our energy (or even most)... even if it were as cheap as coal. For one thing, it just donsn't work well everywhere.
And who knows, taking that much energy from the desert could cause it to rain more too.
Sorry, but of all the possible ways of getting electricity on a large scale... shading the desert is probably the most appealing to me.
It's funny. I don't mind being without net access at our summer cottage, for example. But if my connection is down at home I quickly get frustrated.
Indeed, it is context dependent. If I'm at home, I'd certainly feel strange not getting online for a day or two. If nothing else, I need the internet to inform me about things to do outside the home. But if I'm out of town or camping or something, I don't give the 'net a second thought. Well, I might think about work or something like that, but not the "web."
Half (ok, more than half) of the time I spend on the 'net is just out of boredom. Hard to get addicted to that.
The problem here is that the product itself is desirable, for its features make it competitive, but the company that designed such a fine device is now trying to cripple it. Buy the product and resist the company's attempts to lock the features down. It's a simple philosophy, but it makes me happy.
Agreed. The problem is that the laws are against the consumer. Apple can use legal action to keep their products locked down. And that is just wrong. I believe Apple has the right to do whatever they can to protect/lock... just as the community has the right to hack it. So we need to fight the laws that protect Apple.
on the server even if your clients still have 100Mbit cards?
Yes. Not only can you get multiple clients pulling 100Mbit at a time (assuming you have a switch, but that is pretty much a given these days), but you can much more easily saturate the 100Mbit link to the client. With everything at 100Mbit (including the server), you often see only 60% utilization. Wireless is even worse with regards to efficiency. 802.11n might SAY 300Mbit, but chances are that you'll never see anything like that in practice. And worse, that 300Mbit is shared amonst all the clients. Switched ethernet isolates traffic.
So, what are you saying exactly here. Just a 1Gb nic on the file server is enough to see some improvement or the file server needs a GbE switch as well? I've got three 100Mb switches and they all go to one file server and I have wondered if it would help things out to put a GbE switch on the file server but it sounds like you're saying just a 1GbE nic would be enough.
You'll see an improvement with just the server on GigE. You also probably want GigE uplinks to your oter 3 switches. A lot of switches will have a GigE uplink port (sometimes in the form of GBIC) with 100Mbit client ports.
Wired ethernet isn't just "good enough." It is objectively better/faster. Even good ol' fashioned 100Mbit ethernet. If you have a server on GigE, and all your clients on a 100Mbit switch, you're going to get MUCH better overall throughput. The only reason NOT to go/stay wired is if laying the wire is prohibitively expensive or just plain inconvenient. But if you have a bunch of desktop computers, wired is the way to go.
It's simple. Don't want to watch the ads, don't go to the web site. Just because it's publicly accessible doesn't give you a moral right to take whatever bandwidth you can without honoring the website owners wishes.
As a matter of fact, it does. If a webmaster demanded that all visitors of his site stand up and do a chicken dance before proceeding into the site, would you do it? Probably not. Are you morally obligated to do it? Of course not. The expectation that you will view ads is no less arbitrary (although slightly more reasonable) than doing a chicken dance. If the webmaster wants to be reimbursed for the resources, he/she should just come out and ask for it... whether it be donations or subscriptions.
I'd like to be clear on what we disagree on. You seem to be contradicting yourself. At first you denied saying that we have a moral obligation to look at ads if that is how a publisher makes money (therefore ensuring that their business model is viable). And now you are contradicting yourself by saying exactly that.
I think that's a pretty realistic argument. You say profit is irrelevant - to you, yes...until everyone adopts your attitude, blocks ads, and content not driven by companies obligated by commercial pressures ceases to exist. Professional outlets would just become a PR piece. Don't like that idea very much.
So your argument for morality is based on what would happen if everyone acted like me? You could make the same argument against vegetarianism by saying that if everyone was a vegetarian, that would put meat packers out of business. I don't want to see people lose their jobs any more than you do, but it doesn't make a sound moral argument. Business is business. Consumers are not obligated to ensure that any particular business model is viable. If nobody wants to view ads, nobody will view ads. Tough shit for advertisers. They'll just have to find a different line of work just like the meat packers if nobody wanted to eat meat.
I should have said "consumers should recognize this - that does not, however, mean they should be subjected to obtrusive, flash style ads."
So how do you draw the line, morally? According to you, we are morally obligated to look at (or just not actively ignore? This isn't clear) whatever the publishers wants us to look at if it involves their profit margins. If they want us to look at obnoxious flash ads, then that is what we have to look at, right? Who are you to decide what kind of ads are appropriate? Is there some objective standard? What difference does it make, morally speaking, whether or not the ads are obtrusive or not? What if I think ALL ads are obtrusive by their very nature? Am I exempt?
Just so we're clear. You are saying that I am freeloading simply by ignoring ads? Wouldn't that make a good portion of users freeloaders? Is that really how you want to characterize your users?
If not, I challenge you to draw a real distinction between manually ignoring ads and automating the process with software.
What if they're relevant to content? I run a gaming website, many game publishers have animated ads. Why is this block-worthy?
I don't know about your gaming site in particular, but most gaming sites I've been to tend to be rather "busy." Like magazines (particularly gaming magazines) it can be difficult to find the real content amongst the ads. Or worse, I'll confuse an ad for content. Anything that can clean up the page and distill the content and make things easier to read is worth using. This makes AdBlock Plus a particularly important tool for me. I block all ads. And it makes a HUGE difference in my web experience. If for some reason I have to use a computer without Adblock, I really notice it.
If I could apply such a tool to analog media, I would. I'd blot out all billboards. Distill magazines down to the 3 or 4 pages of actual content. It really isn't anything personal against you or your site. I just dislike advertising in general and find that it gets in the way. Even Google text ads.
Why is it wrong to want to be able to cover costs, and god forbid, be able to pay for other things in life with it?
It isn't wrong. You're free to try to cover costs with ads just as I am free to ignore them.
Not everyone is trying to wade in a pool of money they can't even begin to spend; some of us just want to live a slightly better life by being rewarded for our efforts at entertaining others. My website's not my first job, but I wouldn't be in my current position without it, and I wouldn't have gotten that far without ad revenue paying the bills for the time when it was.
Again, it is nothing personal.
I think what scares me so much is the sheer generalization that people spout around. "ALL ads are bad"
I wouldn't go so far as to say they are "bad." But I can definitely live without them... and prefer to live without them.
"It's not my problem!" It WILL be your problem when half your paycheck goes to viewing the number of sites you probably do now
I hardly think that my two eyeballs are worth that much to you and your advertisers. Maybe a few cents per month?
Maybe things aren't quite that bleak, and I hope they aren't either.. but instead of instinctively fighting 'the man' (without even knowing who that may be), why not adopt an actual ad blocking strategy that others have suggested (i.e. allow ads until they pop up, play sound, overlay, etc)?
It isn't about "fighting the man." It is about optimizing my browser experience. And block all ads is most optimal (not to mention easier). Sorry.
Perhaps there's a way to open dialogue between content provider and end-user to communicate where their expectations are in terms of what ads they feel are appropriate and how they can make the experience better without having to resort to this 'arms race' you speak of.
I'm sure there are people that would like to engage in that discussion. It just isn't me.
That said, for the most part, I don't have any sort of moral objection to blocking ads, although I don't bother to block the Google text ads, and I usually don't start adding things to adblock unless there's something on the site that's making noise or is visually annoying. --In those cases, I pretty much go out of my way to kill every add I can find on the site.
Or you could just subscribe to EasyList and EasyElement in Adblock Plus and not have to bother doing ANYTHING. It is actually easier to just block everything by subscribing to good lists than it is to selectively block. It would actually be a bother for me to NOT block Google ads. It really is kind of beautiful.;-)
Morally, it is different because newspapers still profit, and (potentially, though in most cases not) can continue to function, without ad revenue. Morally, you can rest assured that since you paid for the paper, you shouldn't be forced to view ads imposed on you by the paper.
There you go again... tying morality to profit. Saying that we, as consumers, have some moral obligation to ensure that content providers profit in some way. And that is absolute hogwash.
Is there an implied contract between the publisher and the consumer to view the ads?
No.
Perhaps, but that is irrelevant - profit in this case is made regardless.
Actually, it is the only thing that *is* relevent. Profit is irrelvent.
And yes, profit is important.
Only to the publishers. Not the consumer.
If we're dealing in reality, consumers should recognize this. That does not, however, mean they should view ads. Anyways, this profit is the difference between throwing out the ads in a newspaper and blocking the ads on a website.
Wait a minute, if there is no moral obligation to view ads either way, then what difference does profit make?
That being said, I actually like looking through some of the ads in the Sunday morning papers. I'm generally curious to see what products are going for at places like Best Buy and Circuit City. Do you ever do that?
I don't, personally. But my wife does. The difference there is that a choice is made to look at the ads. And it is all about choice. I can choose to look at ads and I can choose not to. 99.9% of the time, I choose not to. So I block them all. And there is nothing wrong with that.
We, as consumers, are not responsible for ensuring that a particular business model is viable or profitable. Whether or not someone is garnering some revenue is completely irrelevent to this discussion.
Please feel free to point out where, exactly, I made such a claim.
You said "At the very least, the newspaper is garnering some revenue by you buying it." That suggest that you feel it is important, or at least relevant, that someone garner some revenue. Why else would you mention it?
I think you'll have trouble arguing I said the consumer has any responsibility to ensure financial success. And I made no reference to an "implied contract". Simply pointing to the direct correlation between profit and buying a newspaper, and the discrepancy in that regard to online media.
Ok, so what is the significance of this correlation and discrepancy?
What if I paid to access a website and it STILL had ads? Would that change anything? Would it be OK to block ads then because, at the very least, the website is garnering some revenue?
That only detects if you are running/allowing flash. Not to mention that it is an expensive test. You'd have to do it for each and every HTTP request or keep some database IPs (not very reliable). That would totally degrade the site and cause much more traffic than necessary... all to stop the 1% of users who block ads from viewing your site. You're better off just letting everyone in.
Ok, then the question stands with modification: Am I stealing/freeloading by ignoring non-Google ads? I say, "no." That would be ridiculous. There is no contract either explicit or implied that obligates me to click *or* view ads on the web. Blocking ads is nothing more than an automated system for ignoring ads. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
That said, websites are free to block users of adblocking software. In fact, I'd like to see them try. I'm up for a good arms race now that I have the spammers mostly kept at bay. Bring on the pissed off advertisers.
Did you purchase the newspaper? Because chances are you didn't purchase the right to view the website. At the very least, the newspaper is garnering some revenue by you buying it...most websites cannot make the same claim.
One important lesson that everyone should learn: We, as consumers, are not responsible for ensuring that a particular business model is viable or profitable. Whether or not someone is garnering some revenue is completely irrelevent to this discussion. As long as a site is open to the public, I have every right to view it however I please. I can block the ads, I can block the images. I can just read the raw HTML. There are no contracts implied.
How often? I thought that was the old, dead advertising model. Google, for example, requires that you click on ads to generate revenue. Therefore, there is no difference between ignoring ads on the web and blocking them. ANd better, if you can avoid downloading the ads completely, you can save bandwidth so nobody even has to pay to send you an ad you'd just ignore anyway.
Seconding that: "Theft?" While you never pay attention to the ads and if you ever did, you never click on them anyway, blocking should not make a difference on the website owners(not designers really) expected revenue.
If you can avoid downloading the ad completely (which AdBlock Plus can do, AFAIK), you are actually helping a site's clickthrough ratio. That is assuming that you are like me and almost NEVER click on ads anyway.
The argument that blocking ads is theft *might* have been valid back in the days when advertisers didn't require that users click on an ad. But now that you have have to actually click on it to generate revenue, the whole issue is moot. Blocking ads is no more immoral than ignoring them.
What difference does it make whether I block ads or ignore them? Don't most sites these days require that you CLICK on the ads to make money? Am a "freeloading" if I ignore the ads?
What you are entitled to is control over your browsing experience and freedom to view the web however you damn well please. Websites are also free to seek profit. They just shouldn't expect users to just passively accept whatever crap they want to throw at users.
What are you, like little mommy's boy waiting for the world to dance for you,
If someone is actively implementing ad blocking, clearly they are not "waiting" for anything. They're taking control of their browser back. Nothing wrong with that.
The vast majority of Linux users simply don't give a crap about the license beyond the question of whether or not it is free for them to download and install. And why would anyone move to FreeBSD to get away from the GPL license anyway? Probably about 80% of your average FreeBSD desktop is GPL'd or some other non-BSD license. FreeBSD itself is actually a relatively small core of software. Almost everything of use to a user on a *BSD system comes from ports... not the FreeBSD installation.
Slashdot Mirror
Run the system backwards!
Spread that out amongst the desert areas in the US and I don't think it would be so much of a problem. Unless I underestimate the value of that sunlight in the desert. Last I checked, it just tends to make it unbearibly hot! Air conditioning the outside (what mama always said not to do) AND power generation. Win win. :)
Anyway, I doubt we'd ever use this method to produce ALL of our energy (or even most)... even if it were as cheap as coal. For one thing, it just donsn't work well everywhere.
And who knows, taking that much energy from the desert could cause it to rain more too.
Sorry, but of all the possible ways of getting electricity on a large scale... shading the desert is probably the most appealing to me.
-matthew
Indeed, it is context dependent. If I'm at home, I'd certainly feel strange not getting online for a day or two. If nothing else, I need the internet to inform me about things to do outside the home. But if I'm out of town or camping or something, I don't give the 'net a second thought. Well, I might think about work or something like that, but not the "web."
Half (ok, more than half) of the time I spend on the 'net is just out of boredom. Hard to get addicted to that.
-matthew
Agreed. The problem is that the laws are against the consumer. Apple can use legal action to keep their products locked down. And that is just wrong. I believe Apple has the right to do whatever they can to protect/lock... just as the community has the right to hack it. So we need to fight the laws that protect Apple.
-matthew
Yes. Not only can you get multiple clients pulling 100Mbit at a time (assuming you have a switch, but that is pretty much a given these days), but you can much more easily saturate the 100Mbit link to the client. With everything at 100Mbit (including the server), you often see only 60% utilization. Wireless is even worse with regards to efficiency. 802.11n might SAY 300Mbit, but chances are that you'll never see anything like that in practice. And worse, that 300Mbit is shared amonst all the clients. Switched ethernet isolates traffic.
You'll see an improvement with just the server on GigE. You also probably want GigE uplinks to your oter 3 switches. A lot of switches will have a GigE uplink port (sometimes in the form of GBIC) with 100Mbit client ports.
-matthew
Wired ethernet isn't just "good enough." It is objectively better/faster. Even good ol' fashioned 100Mbit ethernet. If you have a server on GigE, and all your clients on a 100Mbit switch, you're going to get MUCH better overall throughput. The only reason NOT to go/stay wired is if laying the wire is prohibitively expensive or just plain inconvenient. But if you have a bunch of desktop computers, wired is the way to go.
-matthew
But according to you, if I don't look at it, I am morally corrupt.
Don't you see how stupid that is?
As a matter of fact, it does. If a webmaster demanded that all visitors of his site stand up and do a chicken dance before proceeding into the site, would you do it? Probably not. Are you morally obligated to do it? Of course not. The expectation that you will view ads is no less arbitrary (although slightly more reasonable) than doing a chicken dance. If the webmaster wants to be reimbursed for the resources, he/she should just come out and ask for it... whether it be donations or subscriptions.
-matthew
I'd like to be clear on what we disagree on. You seem to be contradicting yourself. At first you denied saying that we have a moral obligation to look at ads if that is how a publisher makes money (therefore ensuring that their business model is viable). And now you are contradicting yourself by saying exactly that.
So your argument for morality is based on what would happen if everyone acted like me? You could make the same argument against vegetarianism by saying that if everyone was a vegetarian, that would put meat packers out of business. I don't want to see people lose their jobs any more than you do, but it doesn't make a sound moral argument. Business is business. Consumers are not obligated to ensure that any particular business model is viable. If nobody wants to view ads, nobody will view ads. Tough shit for advertisers. They'll just have to find a different line of work just like the meat packers if nobody wanted to eat meat.
So how do you draw the line, morally? According to you, we are morally obligated to look at (or just not actively ignore? This isn't clear) whatever the publishers wants us to look at if it involves their profit margins. If they want us to look at obnoxious flash ads, then that is what we have to look at, right? Who are you to decide what kind of ads are appropriate? Is there some objective standard? What difference does it make, morally speaking, whether or not the ads are obtrusive or not? What if I think ALL ads are obtrusive by their very nature? Am I exempt?
-matthew
Just so we're clear. You are saying that I am freeloading simply by ignoring ads? Wouldn't that make a good portion of users freeloaders? Is that really how you want to characterize your users?
If not, I challenge you to draw a real distinction between manually ignoring ads and automating the process with software.
I don't know about your gaming site in particular, but most gaming sites I've been to tend to be rather "busy." Like magazines (particularly gaming magazines) it can be difficult to find the real content amongst the ads. Or worse, I'll confuse an ad for content. Anything that can clean up the page and distill the content and make things easier to read is worth using. This makes AdBlock Plus a particularly important tool for me. I block all ads. And it makes a HUGE difference in my web experience. If for some reason I have to use a computer without Adblock, I really notice it.
If I could apply such a tool to analog media, I would. I'd blot out all billboards. Distill magazines down to the 3 or 4 pages of actual content. It really isn't anything personal against you or your site. I just dislike advertising in general and find that it gets in the way. Even Google text ads.
It isn't wrong. You're free to try to cover costs with ads just as I am free to ignore them.
Again, it is nothing personal.
I wouldn't go so far as to say they are "bad." But I can definitely live without them... and prefer to live without them.
I hardly think that my two eyeballs are worth that much to you and your advertisers. Maybe a few cents per month?
It isn't about "fighting the man." It is about optimizing my browser experience. And block all ads is most optimal (not to mention easier). Sorry.
I'm sure there are people that would like to engage in that discussion. It just isn't me.
-matthew
Or you could just subscribe to EasyList and EasyElement in Adblock Plus and not have to bother doing ANYTHING. It is actually easier to just block everything by subscribing to good lists than it is to selectively block. It would actually be a bother for me to NOT block Google ads. It really is kind of beautiful.
-matthew
There you go again... tying morality to profit. Saying that we, as consumers, have some moral obligation to ensure that content providers profit in some way. And that is absolute hogwash.
No.
Actually, it is the only thing that *is* relevent. Profit is irrelvent.
Only to the publishers. Not the consumer.
Wait a minute, if there is no moral obligation to view ads either way, then what difference does profit make?
I don't, personally. But my wife does. The difference there is that a choice is made to look at the ads. And it is all about choice. I can choose to look at ads and I can choose not to. 99.9% of the time, I choose not to. So I block them all. And there is nothing wrong with that.
-matthew
What a great new denial of service attack. Get hold of a corporate Vista key, get it blacklisted, sit back and watch the fun. Virtually untraceable.
-matthew
It would be an unfair and inaccurate test.
You said "At the very least, the newspaper is garnering some revenue by you buying it." That suggest that you feel it is important, or at least relevant, that someone garner some revenue. Why else would you mention it?
Ok, so what is the significance of this correlation and discrepancy?
What if I paid to access a website and it STILL had ads? Would that change anything? Would it be OK to block ads then because, at the very least, the website is garnering some revenue?
-matthew
That only detects if you are running/allowing flash. Not to mention that it is an expensive test. You'd have to do it for each and every HTTP request or keep some database IPs (not very reliable). That would totally degrade the site and cause much more traffic than necessary... all to stop the 1% of users who block ads from viewing your site. You're better off just letting everyone in.
Ok, then the question stands with modification: Am I stealing/freeloading by ignoring non-Google ads? I say, "no." That would be ridiculous. There is no contract either explicit or implied that obligates me to click *or* view ads on the web. Blocking ads is nothing more than an automated system for ignoring ads. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
That said, websites are free to block users of adblocking software. In fact, I'd like to see them try. I'm up for a good arms race now that I have the spammers mostly kept at bay. Bring on the pissed off advertisers.
-matthew
One important lesson that everyone should learn: We, as consumers, are not responsible for ensuring that a particular business model is viable or profitable. Whether or not someone is garnering some revenue is completely irrelevent to this discussion. As long as a site is open to the public, I have every right to view it however I please. I can block the ads, I can block the images. I can just read the raw HTML. There are no contracts implied.
-matthew
How often? I thought that was the old, dead advertising model. Google, for example, requires that you click on ads to generate revenue. Therefore, there is no difference between ignoring ads on the web and blocking them. ANd better, if you can avoid downloading the ads completely, you can save bandwidth so nobody even has to pay to send you an ad you'd just ignore anyway.
-matthew
Bad example. If you ripped out all the ads in your average magazine, you wouldn't have anything left!
If you can avoid downloading the ad completely (which AdBlock Plus can do, AFAIK), you are actually helping a site's clickthrough ratio. That is assuming that you are like me and almost NEVER click on ads anyway.
The argument that blocking ads is theft *might* have been valid back in the days when advertisers didn't require that users click on an ad. But now that you have have to actually click on it to generate revenue, the whole issue is moot. Blocking ads is no more immoral than ignoring them.
-matthew
I'd like to see them try.
What difference does it make whether I block ads or ignore them? Don't most sites these days require that you CLICK on the ads to make money? Am a "freeloading" if I ignore the ads?
What you are entitled to is control over your browsing experience and freedom to view the web however you damn well please. Websites are also free to seek profit. They just shouldn't expect users to just passively accept whatever crap they want to throw at users.
If someone is actively implementing ad blocking, clearly they are not "waiting" for anything. They're taking control of their browser back. Nothing wrong with that.
-matthew
The vast majority of Linux users simply don't give a crap about the license beyond the question of whether or not it is free for them to download and install. And why would anyone move to FreeBSD to get away from the GPL license anyway? Probably about 80% of your average FreeBSD desktop is GPL'd or some other non-BSD license. FreeBSD itself is actually a relatively small core of software. Almost everything of use to a user on a *BSD system comes from ports... not the FreeBSD installation.