I would love to be able to go to MSNBC, Fox, or CNN and get news for free. But what I actually get is propaganda. The quality of reporting is better all around on donation funded media like NPR or Democracy Now! If ads disappeared from the web, I'd expect donation funded sites to pop up that far exceed the quality of ad funded websites for a lower total cost. This is a good thing, even if it personally costs you more.
You make BETTER decisions in the absense of information? How the hell do you know that?
Yes, that's what biased information sources do. Biased information is of negative utility. It makes you more likely to choose the wrong option. This is by definition, if it were unbiased it would make you more likely to choose the correct option.
How do you even know what products are available if you are totally immune to advertising?
Where did I say I was immune to advertising? I mean first you thought I was talking about vendors lowering prices when they don't have to pay for advertising instead of saving money by not purchasing anything in the first place, and now you think I said I was immune to advertising? And you think I'm stupid? Try reading and comprehending.
This is all besides the point anyway, how and whether ads work is irrelevant. Just look at the overall economics of the situation. The money coming from the ad ultimately comes from the users of the site. But those funds have had a big chunk of profit removed. Direct the same amount of money directly towards the website without that profit being removed and the site gets more money per user. Simple math.
This situation is better for everyone, except the purchaser of the ad. But we don't care about him anyway. The best case scenario is that he's encouraging you to spend money with him, instead of a competitor. That's a zero sum game. Either the ad buyer loses, or the competitor loses, there's no reason we should care which happens.
So, propose something better instead of simply removing one of the few ways we have to hold a corporation's feet to the fire. If arbitration was better at punishing corporations when they do wrong, they wouldn't be moving to it in large numbers.
You're right, I don't exhaustively research my purchases. But I will make better decisions in the absence of information than I will in the presence of biased information. So my point that advertising imposes a cost on users still stands.
It should be protected, but it doesn't have to be facilitated. You retain 100% of your natural rights to free speech and assembly even if the government never acknowledges incorporation. Therefore, regulation of corporations can never infringe on your natural rights. This is the fundamental flaw with the Citizens United ruling.
Advertising does not have to make people make excessive purchases to be effective, it only has to persuade someone to choose their product instead of a competitor's.
If it's the right product for me, I would have purchased it after researching non-biased sources. In that case the advertisment serves no purpose at all. So advertising can only be effective in getting me to purchase inferior products, either more expensive or lower quality. This is still a cost to the users of a website.
the second is offensive because it is a pejorative
Which is only offensive if you choose to view it as such. What's the difference between "Fuck Obama" and "Obama is a bad, evil man"? The sentiment is the same, just the word choice is different. So why is the first word unacceptable? Because your mommy told you it was bad? Is that all?
"bad words" aren't bad. It's the people who believe that "bad words" exist who are bad people. We have much more important things to deal with than word choice. Quit being a distraction.
Please tell me you're not naive enough to beleive that money saved by not advertising would be reflected in lower costs to the consumer
Of course not. I'm talking about the money saved by the consumer who makes fewer purchases when not manipulated by advertising.
So I stand by my statement: current free services would no longer exist. If you are 'directly paying' for something it can not possibly be considered free, no matter how you try to twist words around.
Current services are only free to that subset of users who is not manipulated into making excessive purchases by advertising. They're not free, the costs are hidden and unevenly distributed. The people who buy the ads have to make a profit, so that's a large chunk of money that's not going to improving content on the web. Eliminate the advertising and that money can go directly towards content. This is clearly a more efficient allocation of funds.
The problem is, the offensive part of most speech is the content, not the form. Is the statement that "non-violent marijuana users deserve to be sent to prison" really any less offensive than "fuck Obama"? I would argue that the former is absolutely more offensive by any rational criterion. In fact, there is nothing that could be censored that would offend me more than the act of censoring it.
Censorship itself is offensive, and if you use offense to justify censorship you have to take that into account and prohibit censorship on the grounds that it is offensive.
As is going to the bathroom during commercial breaks, showing up late to the theatre to miss previews, failing to read every single ad in the free weekly, etc...
If you don't want the ad don't use the site/service.
If you don't want me to use the service without viewing ads, don't send me the data until I've viewed the ads.
Undermining companies like this will only end badly.
Moving away from the inefficient and perversely incentivized ad supported model and towards a user supported model can only end well.
When ads no longer pay the bills (because everyone uses some method to avoid them) those 'free' services will no longer exist
Nonsense. When ads no longer pay the bills, people will pay for the services they find useful directly. If they don't, and the service goes away, it must not have been that useful.
This will actually be cheaper than ad funding, because ad funding has to make people buy things they wouldn't, and the ad accounts for a very small proportion of those purchases. Suppose I see an ad on slashdot, buy a widget I don't really need for $100, and $1 comes back to slashdot. Wouldn't I be better off economically if I had just paid $10 to slashdot directly and avoided the ad?
Ad funded websites are not free by any stretch of the imagination.
People are afraid of getting into airplanes because they perceive that they lack any control of the situation and they subconsciously think that the pilots are as poorly equipped to deal with flying
When I flew* I was never bothered by the skill level of the pilots. It's the age of the planes and the fact that for profit corporations will skimp on maintenance whenever possible.
*I no longer fly due to the TSA. If you value your job, do whatever you can to oppose the TSA at every opportunity.
Exactly. The article asks if this mistake is forgivable. The mistake isn't even the problem, that the app asks for permissions that it doesn't need is already a deal breaker.
All that considered the punishment is still overly severe. 15 years for non-violently misappropriating a couple thousand dollars? The amount that this person "stole" wouldn't even pay for one year of his imprisonment.
Slashdot Mirror
I would love to be able to go to MSNBC, Fox, or CNN and get news for free. But what I actually get is propaganda. The quality of reporting is better all around on donation funded media like NPR or Democracy Now! If ads disappeared from the web, I'd expect donation funded sites to pop up that far exceed the quality of ad funded websites for a lower total cost. This is a good thing, even if it personally costs you more.
You make BETTER decisions in the absense of information? How the hell do you know that?
Yes, that's what biased information sources do. Biased information is of negative utility. It makes you more likely to choose the wrong option. This is by definition, if it were unbiased it would make you more likely to choose the correct option.
How do you even know what products are available if you are totally immune to advertising?
Where did I say I was immune to advertising? I mean first you thought I was talking about vendors lowering prices when they don't have to pay for advertising instead of saving money by not purchasing anything in the first place, and now you think I said I was immune to advertising? And you think I'm stupid? Try reading and comprehending.
This is all besides the point anyway, how and whether ads work is irrelevant. Just look at the overall economics of the situation. The money coming from the ad ultimately comes from the users of the site. But those funds have had a big chunk of profit removed. Direct the same amount of money directly towards the website without that profit being removed and the site gets more money per user. Simple math.
This situation is better for everyone, except the purchaser of the ad. But we don't care about him anyway. The best case scenario is that he's encouraging you to spend money with him, instead of a competitor. That's a zero sum game. Either the ad buyer loses, or the competitor loses, there's no reason we should care which happens.
So, propose something better instead of simply removing one of the few ways we have to hold a corporation's feet to the fire. If arbitration was better at punishing corporations when they do wrong, they wouldn't be moving to it in large numbers.
Software doesn't need free speech. Authors of software need free speech.
You're right, I don't exhaustively research my purchases. But I will make better decisions in the absence of information than I will in the presence of biased information. So my point that advertising imposes a cost on users still stands.
It should be protected, but it doesn't have to be facilitated. You retain 100% of your natural rights to free speech and assembly even if the government never acknowledges incorporation. Therefore, regulation of corporations can never infringe on your natural rights. This is the fundamental flaw with the Citizens United ruling.
Advertising does not have to make people make excessive purchases to be effective, it only has to persuade someone to choose their product instead of a competitor's.
If it's the right product for me, I would have purchased it after researching non-biased sources. In that case the advertisment serves no purpose at all. So advertising can only be effective in getting me to purchase inferior products, either more expensive or lower quality. This is still a cost to the users of a website.
the second is offensive because it is a pejorative
Which is only offensive if you choose to view it as such. What's the difference between "Fuck Obama" and "Obama is a bad, evil man"? The sentiment is the same, just the word choice is different. So why is the first word unacceptable? Because your mommy told you it was bad? Is that all?
"bad words" aren't bad. It's the people who believe that "bad words" exist who are bad people. We have much more important things to deal with than word choice. Quit being a distraction.
You're taking a bigger risk not subjecting them to this contraption.
Please tell me you're not naive enough to beleive that money saved by not advertising would be reflected in lower costs to the consumer
Of course not. I'm talking about the money saved by the consumer who makes fewer purchases when not manipulated by advertising.
So I stand by my statement: current free services would no longer exist. If you are 'directly paying' for something it can not possibly be considered free, no matter how you try to twist words around.
Current services are only free to that subset of users who is not manipulated into making excessive purchases by advertising. They're not free, the costs are hidden and unevenly distributed. The people who buy the ads have to make a profit, so that's a large chunk of money that's not going to improving content on the web. Eliminate the advertising and that money can go directly towards content. This is clearly a more efficient allocation of funds.
The problem is, the offensive part of most speech is the content, not the form. Is the statement that "non-violent marijuana users deserve to be sent to prison" really any less offensive than "fuck Obama"? I would argue that the former is absolutely more offensive by any rational criterion. In fact, there is nothing that could be censored that would offend me more than the act of censoring it.
Censorship itself is offensive, and if you use offense to justify censorship you have to take that into account and prohibit censorship on the grounds that it is offensive.
then free speech is not about permitting anyone to say purposely offensive things
"If you can't say Fuck you can't say, Fuck the government."
Lenny Bruce
For me, the ads aren't really the problem on webpages any longer.
Ads aren't the problem for me either. I use Adblock Plus and NoScript.
Blocking ads seriously seems like stealing to me.
As is going to the bathroom during commercial breaks, showing up late to the theatre to miss previews, failing to read every single ad in the free weekly, etc...
If you don't want the ad don't use the site/service.
If you don't want me to use the service without viewing ads, don't send me the data until I've viewed the ads.
Undermining companies like this will only end badly.
Moving away from the inefficient and perversely incentivized ad supported model and towards a user supported model can only end well.
When ads no longer pay the bills (because everyone uses some method to avoid them) those 'free' services will no longer exist
Nonsense. When ads no longer pay the bills, people will pay for the services they find useful directly. If they don't, and the service goes away, it must not have been that useful.
This will actually be cheaper than ad funding, because ad funding has to make people buy things they wouldn't, and the ad accounts for a very small proportion of those purchases. Suppose I see an ad on slashdot, buy a widget I don't really need for $100, and $1 comes back to slashdot. Wouldn't I be better off economically if I had just paid $10 to slashdot directly and avoided the ad?
Ad funded websites are not free by any stretch of the imagination.
Do they really expect delivery drivers to check ID? Half the time you can't even get them to knock on your door.
Forget the artificial womb, who's working on an artificial vagina?
Does this mean I will finally be able to download that car?
The only way to get a Mali-400 functional device is to run android and use that driver.
Why can't that driver be ported to vanilla Linux?
I was excited to read about the board, but then my heart sank.
Me too. No native XBMC means no sale. I will keep my x86 HTPC with open source ATI video drivers in service then.
People are afraid of getting into airplanes because they perceive that they lack any control of the situation and they subconsciously think that the pilots are as poorly equipped to deal with flying
When I flew* I was never bothered by the skill level of the pilots. It's the age of the planes and the fact that for profit corporations will skimp on maintenance whenever possible.
*I no longer fly due to the TSA. If you value your job, do whatever you can to oppose the TSA at every opportunity.
How is that abuse? If they can do that, good for them.
Does that mean Allwinner finally opened the code to the Mali 400 GPU?
Exactly. The article asks if this mistake is forgivable. The mistake isn't even the problem, that the app asks for permissions that it doesn't need is already a deal breaker.
These are people who have already opted in to receive messages from you.
Then it should be even easier to recoup your costs than if you were cold-mailing.
All that considered the punishment is still overly severe. 15 years for non-violently misappropriating a couple thousand dollars? The amount that this person "stole" wouldn't even pay for one year of his imprisonment.