Exactly who do you think is paying for youtube bandwidth? I'll give you a hint. Starts with the letter G.
Sorry, I thought you were talking about a small site linking to a YouTube video. But I guess you were talking about YouTube itself. I'll say this just one more time: I GET THAT SOMEONE HAS TO PAY FOR BANDWIDTH. Do you think I'm an idiot? You really don't have to harp on this.
Easy, just say "hey wow! look at all the money you can make growing this instead of food!" and then once the farmers have ripped out all their food crops to grow this, say "lol! just kidding!" and pay them a tiny fraction of what they were originally promoting. Instant cheap biomass!
And worse, they become less self-sufficient and have to import all their food.
If what you say is true, then I'm happy. The longer advertisers remain blissfully unaware of my ad blocking, the better. Although I still feel a little bad for individuals (particularly children) who don't know or care enough to block out advertising. On one hand I hate advertising for its insideous and malignant effects on society in general. On the other hand I love that I can so easily filter it out (at least electronic forms) and get free content while others pay the price.
Suing my doctor because of the choice of meds he offered me happened to match those in the advertising crapola that he got sent.
I don't think we're talking about mere coincidence here. If you could show that your doctor was taking money to prescribe specific medications (and not using his own medical judgement), I suspect there might be a lawsuit in there somewhere. I know I'd be pretty pissed. As it is, there is only an indirect association between what you are prescribed and the advertising crapola from drug companies. There's no explicit contract that I am aware of.
Sure, but SOMEONE is paying for it. The question is WHO is paying for it? There are sites paid for by "good will", such as a company hosting an open source project, and marketing sites, which is just an advertising expense (the entire site is a giant ad,) but every site costs something, and someone is paying.
When did I suggest otherwise? The point is that ads are not required to have "independent" web sites. Some sites charge for content, some site owners just pay out of their own pocket. Some sites take donations. The idea that we either allow tolerable ads or have no (independent?) sites is blatantly false. Will there be fewer sites if many block all ads? Maybe. Does that bother me? Not really. People will find ways to make money if they need it. How they do so is not my problem as long as it doesn't involve asking me to view content I don't want to view.
Yes, but the number of users is increasing faster than hosting is getting cheaper. It's still fairly expensive to host anything that gets any significant traffic at all. Yes, you can get $5 / month hosting, and no, you can't run YouTube off $5/month hosting.
Not to start quibling or anything, but doesn't one simply link to a YouTube video? You don't have to stream it yourself.
There we go. That IS the ultimate solution - however, we don't have a viable micropayment system right now. Instead, all we have are sites want some sort of monthly / yearly subscription.
What better way to force the ultimate solution than to make a make a statement by blocking all ads?
The situation sucks.
For whom? The situation is working out pretty well for me. "Free" content and no ads. I'm actually hesitant to encourage ad blocking at this point just so it DOESN'T get to the point where I have to pay for content.
Like you however, I found some of the ads out there so intrusive that I now block all ads, and all javascript / cookies by default.
That is just a little too far for my tastes. You're talking about more than just blocking ads. Adblock is nice and passive. It works automatically. The minute I have to start saying "allow cookies" and "allow javascript" on a site by site basis is the day I say "The situation sucks." Fortunately, I have no problem with javavscript or cookies. The ads are gone, and that is what I care about.
What about a plugin that only disables gif/svg animations and flash plugin?
The problem is ads, not svg/gifs/flash. I don't want to have to manually allow things for sites work correctly. Adblock selects exactly what I want to block: ads. And that includes video ads. The issue of Google video ads is solved before it even becomes a problem... for me at least.
If many people block everything they will just add more ads, and more annoying ads. Like ads that refresh every 10 seconds (I encountered that today at www.techarp.com actually.).
How do you figure? What good does it do to repeat ads more often and make them more annoying if fewer people are seeing them? That could only be seen as a desperate and unsustainable reaction. It would just drive more people to block ads. I was pushed to my limit years ago and I just said, "Fuck it. I'm taking control of my browser (and TV). All ads: gone." I'm going to try my damnedest to ignore the ads anyway, why not automate the process? Take some load off my sensory filters.
Better to have tolerant ads than no independent websites.
False dichotomy. Maybe you're too young to remember, but there was a time when most sites didn't have ads. Heck, there are still many sites that don't rely on ad revenue. Also, web hosting is getting cheaper and cheaper every day. If a site is really that valuable to me, I'll pay (micropayments?) for the content.
I think that Rails actually has a fairly steep learning curve. It has *very* specific ways of handling most things, and trying to fight against these things will only come back to hurt you in the end.
Rails only has a steep learning curve because most people learning Rails are also learning Ruby for the first time. Learning a language and a framework simultaneously is hard. Ruby, by itself, is actually very easy to learn... principle of least surprise and all that. And if you're already know Ruby, are comfortable with MVC, unit testing, ORM, etc, Rails should be a breeze to learn.
At the end of the day, it all comes down to need and experience. If you know how to use PHP, why not use it?
Because if all you've known is PHP, learning a language like Ruby can be a revelation. I, for one, didn't want to so much as *look* at another line of PHP, much less write one, after learning Ruby and Rails.
Rails for Ajax stuff? There are WAY better reasons for going with Rails than to get Ajax. A proper MVC framework, for starters. Rails is really meant for building *applications,* not necessarily "sites." If you can frame your site as an application, great, but don't expect Rails to power (well) just any old site.
And, yeah, comparing Rails to PHP5 is kinda dumb because Rails is a framework and PHP5 is a language. The problem with using "PHP5" in any non-trivial application is that you invariably end up building your own framework(s) which can be a huge time sink. Now, comparing Rails and CakePHP would make much more sense. I haven't used CakePHP, but it looks like it has all the major framework features that Rails has. Though being based on PHP is a huge handicap, IMO. PHP is just kind of a dumb language... at least compared to Ruby. Ruby is just an awesome little language. If only it were faster.:-/
I have found absense to be a pain as by far the majority of the time when it comes to doing searches I am not looking to buy something
Two words: "Firefox" and "Adblock"
Google's spreading of adds deeper and deeper and tacking up more and more screen space and bandwidth, smells of diminishing market share,and not being able to justify their current market value. As they become more desperate and start showing more and more adds so they will lose more and more market share, and as a result need to show more and more adds, which of course leads to...., a real problem going forward.
Seems to me that the people who really care (me, for example) will just block all the ads, everywhere.
We can drive the nukes across the country, we can throw them on a train, or we can fly them. Personally, I'm much happier knowing they are being flown places then being sent via ground. I don't care how many safe guards are in place to prevent the weapons going off accidentally, there is always the risk of a crash sending radioactive material all over the place (not an explosion, but a leak).
If that is all you are worried about, then what about when enriched uranium is transported.. or plutonium? Or nuclear waste? Why worry about a relatively small amount of material locked up inside a warhead?
If it doesn't matter what I say as long as I don't guarantee it's true, would you not hold me responsible for anything? What if I put up a billboard near your local school with your photo and "PEDOPHILE". In small print it will say "we don't know, but he might be". When people smash your windows at night will you still be quite so at ease with libel?
Is it libel we're talking about here? Is that what the spamhaus vs. e360 case is about? If it isn't then your points are moot.
There are already "lists" for that sort of thing. It would be somewhat redundant for you to create one yourself. So it is kind of a bad example. If you mean to start a background checking service and decide to report me as a murderer, go ahead. Just beware that if you keep producing inaccurate results like that, nobody is going to want to use your services.
You can, as long as that database doesn't infringe on the rights of other companies to do their business. If you listed Microsoft, SCO, and Apple all in a database of "douchebag companies", posted that on your site, and then told everyone to block them for being douchebags, I have a feeling you would get sued (and rightfully so).
Oh please, how many sites out there list "douchebag companies" and tell people not to buy from them? It is called free speech.
Right, but isn't it up to the users of Spamhaus to determine the accuracy for their purposes? I'm sure if the *users* of Spamhaus really cared about getting mail from e360 they'd let Spamhaus know about it. Sounds like the only people who care that Spamhaus lists e360 is e360.
I think "not unexpected" is valid and meaningful statement. It doesn't quite mean the same as "expected." Though perhaps "unsurprising" would be a better way of expressing the meaning.
No, what you would see is very specific resources being exploited, such as communication satellites, with very little exploration. Something like NASA is necessary to push the boundaries and do the things have no immediate (or even foreseeable) ROI, which is pretty much most of what NASA does.
What do you think is stopping businesses from doing what NASA does? I mean, besides the lack of economic incentive...
While agree that we won't have colonies in the next 50 years, you really shouldn't say "never." Assuming humans are still around hundreds of years from now and haven't suffered some major setback/die-off, we could be doing some amazing things.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I thought you were talking about a small site linking to a YouTube video. But I guess you were talking about YouTube itself. I'll say this just one more time: I GET THAT SOMEONE HAS TO PAY FOR BANDWIDTH. Do you think I'm an idiot? You really don't have to harp on this.
-matthew
And worse, they become less self-sufficient and have to import all their food.
If what you say is true, then I'm happy. The longer advertisers remain blissfully unaware of my ad blocking, the better. Although I still feel a little bad for individuals (particularly children) who don't know or care enough to block out advertising. On one hand I hate advertising for its insideous and malignant effects on society in general. On the other hand I love that I can so easily filter it out (at least electronic forms) and get free content while others pay the price.
I wouldn't know. I block all ads which includes Google sponsored links, you insensitive clod!
They're just trying to get on the Google-bashing train early so they can say "we were doing it before it was popular."
Honestly, I kinda like it. It sure beats the Google dick sucking that we get every time they announce some new desktop-app-in-the-browser crap.
-matthew
I don't think we're talking about mere coincidence here. If you could show that your doctor was taking money to prescribe specific medications (and not using his own medical judgement), I suspect there might be a lawsuit in there somewhere. I know I'd be pretty pissed. As it is, there is only an indirect association between what you are prescribed and the advertising crapola from drug companies. There's no explicit contract that I am aware of.
-matthew
Sure, but if that "other route" becomes unprofitable because many people block ads, then they won't really have much choice but to charge for content.
When did I suggest otherwise? The point is that ads are not required to have "independent" web sites. Some sites charge for content, some site owners just pay out of their own pocket. Some sites take donations. The idea that we either allow tolerable ads or have no (independent?) sites is blatantly false. Will there be fewer sites if many block all ads? Maybe. Does that bother me? Not really. People will find ways to make money if they need it. How they do so is not my problem as long as it doesn't involve asking me to view content I don't want to view.
Not to start quibling or anything, but doesn't one simply link to a YouTube video? You don't have to stream it yourself.
What better way to force the ultimate solution than to make a make a statement by blocking all ads?
For whom? The situation is working out pretty well for me. "Free" content and no ads. I'm actually hesitant to encourage ad blocking at this point just so it DOESN'T get to the point where I have to pay for content.
That is just a little too far for my tastes. You're talking about more than just blocking ads. Adblock is nice and passive. It works automatically. The minute I have to start saying "allow cookies" and "allow javascript" on a site by site basis is the day I say "The situation sucks." Fortunately, I have no problem with javavscript or cookies. The ads are gone, and that is what I care about.
-matthew
The problem is ads, not svg/gifs/flash. I don't want to have to manually allow things for sites work correctly. Adblock selects exactly what I want to block: ads. And that includes video ads. The issue of Google video ads is solved before it even becomes a problem... for me at least.
How do you figure? What good does it do to repeat ads more often and make them more annoying if fewer people are seeing them? That could only be seen as a desperate and unsustainable reaction. It would just drive more people to block ads. I was pushed to my limit years ago and I just said, "Fuck it. I'm taking control of my browser (and TV). All ads: gone." I'm going to try my damnedest to ignore the ads anyway, why not automate the process? Take some load off my sensory filters.
False dichotomy. Maybe you're too young to remember, but there was a time when most sites didn't have ads. Heck, there are still many sites that don't rely on ad revenue. Also, web hosting is getting cheaper and cheaper every day. If a site is really that valuable to me, I'll pay (micropayments?) for the content.
-matthew
Huh? Maybe I've been using Adblock for so long that I just don't know that I'm missing something, but I don't have any problems with internet video.
Rails only has a steep learning curve because most people learning Rails are also learning Ruby for the first time. Learning a language and a framework simultaneously is hard. Ruby, by itself, is actually very easy to learn... principle of least surprise and all that. And if you're already know Ruby, are comfortable with MVC, unit testing, ORM, etc, Rails should be a breeze to learn.
Because if all you've known is PHP, learning a language like Ruby can be a revelation. I, for one, didn't want to so much as *look* at another line of PHP, much less write one, after learning Ruby and Rails.
-matthew
Rails for Ajax stuff? There are WAY better reasons for going with Rails than to get Ajax. A proper MVC framework, for starters. Rails is really meant for building *applications,* not necessarily "sites." If you can frame your site as an application, great, but don't expect Rails to power (well) just any old site.
:-/
And, yeah, comparing Rails to PHP5 is kinda dumb because Rails is a framework and PHP5 is a language. The problem with using "PHP5" in any non-trivial application is that you invariably end up building your own framework(s) which can be a huge time sink. Now, comparing Rails and CakePHP would make much more sense. I haven't used CakePHP, but it looks like it has all the major framework features that Rails has. Though being based on PHP is a huge handicap, IMO. PHP is just kind of a dumb language... at least compared to Ruby. Ruby is just an awesome little language. If only it were faster.
Two words: "Firefox" and "Adblock"
Seems to me that the people who really care (me, for example) will just block all the ads, everywhere.
-matthew
How about "insidious?"
Whaaaa?? Rebates are supported by greedy politicians? That's a new one.
Not easily. He'd have to try really hard, but it is possible, I imagine. :-)
It is Gulliani that I would fear with the Patriot Act available to him. He's got "fascist wannabe" written all over him.
If that is all you are worried about, then what about when enriched uranium is transported.. or plutonium? Or nuclear waste? Why worry about a relatively small amount of material locked up inside a warhead?
Is it libel we're talking about here? Is that what the spamhaus vs. e360 case is about? If it isn't then your points are moot.
-matthew
There are already "lists" for that sort of thing. It would be somewhat redundant for you to create one yourself. So it is kind of a bad example. If you mean to start a background checking service and decide to report me as a murderer, go ahead. Just beware that if you keep producing inaccurate results like that, nobody is going to want to use your services.
-matthew
Oh please, how many sites out there list "douchebag companies" and tell people not to buy from them? It is called free speech.
-matthew
Right, but isn't it up to the users of Spamhaus to determine the accuracy for their purposes? I'm sure if the *users* of Spamhaus really cared about getting mail from e360 they'd let Spamhaus know about it. Sounds like the only people who care that Spamhaus lists e360 is e360.
-matthew
I think "not unexpected" is valid and meaningful statement. It doesn't quite mean the same as "expected." Though perhaps "unsurprising" would be a better way of expressing the meaning.
-matthew
No, what you would see is very specific resources being exploited, such as communication satellites, with very little exploration. Something like NASA is necessary to push the boundaries and do the things have no immediate (or even foreseeable) ROI, which is pretty much most of what NASA does.
What do you think is stopping businesses from doing what NASA does? I mean, besides the lack of economic incentive...
-matthew
While agree that we won't have colonies in the next 50 years, you really shouldn't say "never." Assuming humans are still around hundreds of years from now and haven't suffered some major setback/die-off, we could be doing some amazing things.
-matthew