But as long as we have ridiculous ideas about the sanctity of life and every sperm is sacred in the heads of people you won't see a solution to that problem.
The US is divided like I wasn't since the civil war. Why bother investing any more effort? Every AAA-gunner will tell you, when the enemy plane is already coming down in flames you can stop shooting.
Go a step further. Exchange the information with all the other instances running the ad blocker and have them ALL click the ad. The company paying for the ad gets charged a HUGE bill for all the clicks, notices zero revenue from it and stops advertising.
This is basically why the ad industry is in the huge pit they're in today. You might notice that the amount of sites that beg and whine to turn off the adblocker has increased in the past 1-2 years. Why? Because now even the computer illiterates block ads.
Ads have always been part of the internet. Pretty much since the first time the masses entered with AOL there were banners. And ads got more and more invasive because they could. They'd pop up, over, under, blare from speakers and go fullscreen video. Why? Because advertisers were used to getting away with it from TV. What would you do? Change the channel?
What they didn't take into account was that on a computer, the owner of the computer can easily turn off their obnoxious invasion. But that was ok. The ones that could were few and far between. And the illiterates were plentiful enough to keep the ad industry going.
But apparently not enough people clicked their ads. Even when they tricked people by disguising them as "close" buttons. So ads got more and more invasive, because apparently the ad industry thought that people somehow missed that full screen flashing and honking ad. And at some point the breaking point was reached: The illiterates installed ad blockers.
To give you an idea what we're talking about: We're talking about the user that dutifully closes 20 error messages when he starts his computer from programs that didn't quite uninstall properly. The user that doesn't care that his i7 is slow as molasses when browsing because of the 99 tracking plugins littering his browser, or that he has a browser real estate of a stamp on his 28" screen due to all the plugin bars that somehow got installed. The ad industry managed to piss off THIS user enough to get off his ass and install an ad blocker.
And he's not gonna uninstall it. Can you imagine just HOW much you have to piss off someone like this to block your ads? You could promise him a new car to uninstall that ad blocker and he won't uninstall it. That ship has sailed.
I'd be really interested in hearing a legal definition here that's unambiguous, because that's what you'd need here.
What is acceptable social interaction and what's sexual harassment? Is "that new dress looks great on you" one or the other? And don't say "depends", a legal definition does not "depend". And that's what you're aiming for here since you want to give people legal troubles if they break the rules.
I forgot, the US makes a huge fuss about how something illegal is classified. Let me rephrase this: In what state is sexual harassment something you don't get into trouble with the law for?
At the end of the day, you're in deep shit and very likely out of a job. Whether you go to jail for it doesn't exactly matter that much.
Works just the other way around, too. Do I want to work in an environment where I have to wonder and worry what I can or cannot say, no matter how innocent, because some self proclaimed Cardinal Richelieu made it his or her mission to collect 6 lines from everyone to hang them for?
"Windows 10 will be the last version of Windows. Ever"
Remember that? I was wondering how they want to make it come true, but this is how it's done: By eventually making using it SO uncomfortable that even the most die-hard fan eventually switches to something else.
Hey, it worked for advertisers trying harder and harder to convince everyone to use adblockers, and lo and behold, they succeeded too eventually.
People are not necessarily stupid, but they don't know how to protect themselves better. Worse, some have given up already, thinking that there is no way to be secure anyway, so why bother trying. Those that have not will just buy what's offered and hope for the best.
This is not the worst strategy, as long as they understand that security is a process, not a product. You don't buy "security", put it in the corner and forget about it. Security is something you have to get back to at least from time to time and review and update.
That's basically what you may expect, at the most, from the average person. Not because they're stupid, but simply because that's not their main field of expertise.
Slashdot Mirror
But I alone can only abort so many fetuses and hand out condoms to so many teenagers, it has to be a group effort!
There has always been division before elections. What's "new" is that the country doesn't find a common ground again after.
But as long as we have ridiculous ideas about the sanctity of life and every sperm is sacred in the heads of people you won't see a solution to that problem.
The US has no left.
The US is divided like I wasn't since the civil war. Why bother investing any more effort? Every AAA-gunner will tell you, when the enemy plane is already coming down in flames you can stop shooting.
Funny how things change. In my youth, it was the right that was playing the scary Russian threat card. Remember McCarthy?
Go a step further. Exchange the information with all the other instances running the ad blocker and have them ALL click the ad. The company paying for the ad gets charged a HUGE bill for all the clicks, notices zero revenue from it and stops advertising.
Problem solved for good.
Fraud? What fraud? I just do what the advertiser wants, their ad gets clicked, the system works!
This is basically why the ad industry is in the huge pit they're in today. You might notice that the amount of sites that beg and whine to turn off the adblocker has increased in the past 1-2 years. Why? Because now even the computer illiterates block ads.
Ads have always been part of the internet. Pretty much since the first time the masses entered with AOL there were banners. And ads got more and more invasive because they could. They'd pop up, over, under, blare from speakers and go fullscreen video. Why? Because advertisers were used to getting away with it from TV. What would you do? Change the channel?
What they didn't take into account was that on a computer, the owner of the computer can easily turn off their obnoxious invasion. But that was ok. The ones that could were few and far between. And the illiterates were plentiful enough to keep the ad industry going.
But apparently not enough people clicked their ads. Even when they tricked people by disguising them as "close" buttons. So ads got more and more invasive, because apparently the ad industry thought that people somehow missed that full screen flashing and honking ad. And at some point the breaking point was reached: The illiterates installed ad blockers.
To give you an idea what we're talking about: We're talking about the user that dutifully closes 20 error messages when he starts his computer from programs that didn't quite uninstall properly. The user that doesn't care that his i7 is slow as molasses when browsing because of the 99 tracking plugins littering his browser, or that he has a browser real estate of a stamp on his 28" screen due to all the plugin bars that somehow got installed. The ad industry managed to piss off THIS user enough to get off his ass and install an ad blocker.
And he's not gonna uninstall it. Can you imagine just HOW much you have to piss off someone like this to block your ads? You could promise him a new car to uninstall that ad blocker and he won't uninstall it. That ship has sailed.
Most of the annoying ads can be defeated by simply turning javascript off, or selectively on for only the site serving the actual content.
I'd be really interested in hearing a legal definition here that's unambiguous, because that's what you'd need here.
What is acceptable social interaction and what's sexual harassment? Is "that new dress looks great on you" one or the other? And don't say "depends", a legal definition does not "depend". And that's what you're aiming for here since you want to give people legal troubles if they break the rules.
I forgot, the US makes a huge fuss about how something illegal is classified. Let me rephrase this: In what state is sexual harassment something you don't get into trouble with the law for?
At the end of the day, you're in deep shit and very likely out of a job. Whether you go to jail for it doesn't exactly matter that much.
Let's try it again....
Could be worse. It could have been Denholm Reynholm.
We still laugh at Mike Pence. There's plenty of other reason to make fun of him.
Same way it IS abused with all employees that can't afford a 5000 bucks-an-hour lawyer?
Appeasement never worked. Ask Neville Chamberlain.
You might want to switch to a color palette with more depth than one bit per pixel.
What part of "Look but don't touch without permission" do you fail to understand?
The part where looking is today already rape.
Works just the other way around, too. Do I want to work in an environment where I have to wonder and worry what I can or cannot say, no matter how innocent, because some self proclaimed Cardinal Richelieu made it his or her mission to collect 6 lines from everyone to hang them for?
Because trial lawyers and sensitivity trainers need to eat too
Do we get to vote on that, please?
In what state or country is sexual harassment not a crime? D.C. maybe, at least now, but else?
"Windows 10 will be the last version of Windows. Ever"
Remember that? I was wondering how they want to make it come true, but this is how it's done: By eventually making using it SO uncomfortable that even the most die-hard fan eventually switches to something else.
Hey, it worked for advertisers trying harder and harder to convince everyone to use adblockers, and lo and behold, they succeeded too eventually.
Their QA is outsourced to their victi... customers. They're officially producing bananaware now.
People are not necessarily stupid, but they don't know how to protect themselves better. Worse, some have given up already, thinking that there is no way to be secure anyway, so why bother trying. Those that have not will just buy what's offered and hope for the best.
This is not the worst strategy, as long as they understand that security is a process, not a product. You don't buy "security", put it in the corner and forget about it. Security is something you have to get back to at least from time to time and review and update.
That's basically what you may expect, at the most, from the average person. Not because they're stupid, but simply because that's not their main field of expertise.