Fair enough but I personally will never give up on "literally". You can have "get sequenced" and "beg the question" and "whom", but I will cling to "literally" until my dying day.
"There is this law in the universe concerning sowing and reaping." No, there isn't.That is called the "Just-world fallacy" and it is a way for people to assume untenable moral superiority over people who are suffering and to dismiss the suffering as deserved.
"In this world, nothing is perfect, including the choices and their results. You can make choices, but after that you can't change the results."
This contradicts your first sentence and sums up why the first sentence is wrong. If choices and knowledge were perfect then there might be some basis for blaming people by pointing to their "choices"; but choices and knowledge are not perfect, so there is no such basis.
Screw socializing, but saving would be a deal breaker for me. If I can't save my SimCity on my hard drive, then I'm not going to buy the game. That is retarded.
"Why wouldn't I just run my web browser and read the entirety of each of those same interesting articles?"
Is this a serious question? Isn't the answer obviously "because I don't have time or desire to read 975 articles a day, but I do have the time and desire to scan past 975 headlines a day then read 22 of them"? That's my answer, anyway.
So, you use bookmarks? Can I ask you why you bother using a bookmark when you could simply memorize each URL you want to visit and manually type each one in? Oh, the answer is obviously "because that would not be as good".
Are you prepared to defend the premise that people are only allowed to be upset by things that are forced upon them? That doesn't seem right to me. Nobody "forces" me to drive my Jeep Liberty but I still fucking hate the god-damned beeping sound it makes all the time. I've never thought "Oh, well you know, I could choose to cartwheel to the store instead of drive, therefore this car, other drivers, traffic, potholes and delays are off limits for annoyance." Nothing else in the world is like that so it seems silly to apply it to computers. Yeah, I could choose to live like the Amish, but I don't think that precludes the legitimacy of negative opinions about aspects of the computer systems I "choose" to use.
What the fuck is it with the Choice Police anyway? What kind of weird ideology is that? Where anything that can be tracked back, no matter how far, to a "choice" suddenly renders the outcome out of bounds for sympathy? It sounds like Republican bullshit to me. "Mmm, you chose to have that second cocktail, therefore you have to carry your rapebaby to term. No complaining! That's what you get for making choices, tsk tsk." Give me a break.
Reader is literally a majority of what I do on the internet. It's the subset of the internet that I choose to follow conveniently laid out on one page with a useful interface. I'll have to move to something else I guess but it sure was convenient. I also used it as the backend to BeyondPod, my podcast manager, which was useful so that I could listen to a podcast either on the web or in BeyondPod and it would all sync up.
I'm not really clear on Google's compulsion with killing projects. Does Reader really cost them so much to run that they need to shut it down? and there is no way to monetize it? Oh well. There are a million feed readers out there, I'll just find another one.
I paraphrase you as saying "You pointed to a company/brand which doesn't advertise but that doesn't count because there is a corporate relationship to some other company/brand which does advertise."
That is moving the goalpost. The question was about is there a company which lasts a long time without advertising. I gave one example, thus answering the question, which was a particularly fitting example because the no-ad aspect is up-front to the product. Other companies in a corporate hierarchy are a separate question.
Also I didn't express 'pride' for supporting the company, I expressed 'preference'. I consider No-Ad to be basically "generic" product and I often like generic products when they are up to quality standards. Some generics are higher quality than name brand; most are equal; some are lower enough to be avoided. All generic products are unadvertised by definition and that is one aspect I like about them, I consider it a pro-consumer way to do business by both refraining from annoying me (with ads) and passing on the savings in the form of a lower price.
Humans on other worlds is the standard by which NASA is and should be judged; otherwise it doesn't count. Rovers are sort of neat but they don't count. Telescopes are worthwhile but we don't need a whole NASA agency for that, and in they end they still don't count. Voyager-type spacecraft are worthwhile but again we don't need a whole NASA to simply sling a robot into space.
Humans on other worlds. Pay for it, or save the money.
That's exactly right and it's NASA's fault. They as an organization should refuse to accept such bullshit coming from Congress. They should strike until they are either adequately funded (approximately double what they get today) or shut down.
"Oh, what did you say Congress? You want us to keep showing up collecting our paychecks but not actually doing anything, year after year, decade after decade? No. Fuck you. We'll find other jobs if you want us to but we're not going to let you waste taxpayer money on programs that never go anywhere. No. Pay up or close us down. Your move. You have four weeks of us on strike, after that we're outie getting new jobs. Maybe the Chinese would be interested in our know-how."
I blame NASA. In my opinion in the mid 1990s the director of NASA should have gone to Congress, then to television shows, saying "Look, either fund us well enough to continue manned space flight, or shut us down. We're not going to do this bullshit half-assed only-send-robots free-market-partnership nonsense. Pay for humans on foreign worlds, or shutter it." Maybe they would have been shuttered, in which case fine, America wouldn't have lost anything and we would have saved a small amount of money. Otherwise we would have a neato space program again. Either way would be okay, but this middle ground of stupid one-rover-after-another thing is not worth the cost.
Humans on other worlds or nothing. My vote is for humans on other worlds, but I'll accept nothing.
1/100th of a penny per page? All the websites. At that rate I'd owe a couple pennies a day, well worth it.
1/10th? 99% of the websites. 1 penny? It would start to matter what a "page" constituted, but still most of the websites, say 95%. At this rate I could owe as much as a dollar or two per day.
I dream of that kind of internet not because I think it would be a higher quality internet but because it would evince a value system amongst internet users which I think is a superior value system to the one we have today. That's the same reason I think it is mostly an impossible hypothetical situation.
That said, I do think it's surprising that nobody has made microtransactions work. Facebook or Google or one of the other single-signon websites have the obvious opportunity to do it. Especially Google which already has the advertising partnerships in place with so many websites, you can easily imagine a Pay For Ad-Free system where websites refuse to load if you block ads (annoying but fair), and you can simply pay to see the site.
When I'm on a website to see a video, and I click on the video to watch it, if anything other than the video starts playing (I mean, if an advert starts playing) I think "Oh, huh, this website has some kind of bug in their system which causes the wrong video to play." I don't use buggy services, so I just go away from that website. Close the browser tab and leave, because the site reneged on the implicit promise of the hyperlink: click here to watch a video, but then the video doesn't play.
This company did it quite explicitly starting fifty-one years ago. There is a good chance you even have their product in your home right now. Is more than half a century long enough for you? Maybe it isn't. I always, always seek out that brand specifically because of their no-ad pledge.
Slashdot Mirror
Fair enough but I personally will never give up on "literally". You can have "get sequenced" and "beg the question" and "whom", but I will cling to "literally" until my dying day.
"There is this law in the universe concerning sowing and reaping."
No, there isn't.That is called the "Just-world fallacy" and it is a way for people to assume untenable moral superiority over people who are suffering and to dismiss the suffering as deserved.
"In this world, nothing is perfect, including the choices and their results. You can make choices, but after that you can't change the results."
This contradicts your first sentence and sums up why the first sentence is wrong. If choices and knowledge were perfect then there might be some basis for blaming people by pointing to their "choices"; but choices and knowledge are not perfect, so there is no such basis.
Screw socializing, but saving would be a deal breaker for me. If I can't save my SimCity on my hard drive, then I'm not going to buy the game. That is retarded.
"Why wouldn't I just run my web browser and read the entirety of each of those same interesting articles?"
Is this a serious question? Isn't the answer obviously "because I don't have time or desire to read 975 articles a day, but I do have the time and desire to scan past 975 headlines a day then read 22 of them"? That's my answer, anyway.
So, you use bookmarks? Can I ask you why you bother using a bookmark when you could simply memorize each URL you want to visit and manually type each one in? Oh, the answer is obviously "because that would not be as good".
Really? What do you mean?!? Is something going to happen to Google Reader?!? How did you find out!?
Fair enough, but a coherent whole that spies on your life is better than the previous incoherent whole that spied on your life.
"but most of the others were pretty good"
This is only true for extremely small values of "pretty good".
Are you prepared to defend the premise that people are only allowed to be upset by things that are forced upon them? That doesn't seem right to me. Nobody "forces" me to drive my Jeep Liberty but I still fucking hate the god-damned beeping sound it makes all the time. I've never thought "Oh, well you know, I could choose to cartwheel to the store instead of drive, therefore this car, other drivers, traffic, potholes and delays are off limits for annoyance." Nothing else in the world is like that so it seems silly to apply it to computers. Yeah, I could choose to live like the Amish, but I don't think that precludes the legitimacy of negative opinions about aspects of the computer systems I "choose" to use.
What the fuck is it with the Choice Police anyway? What kind of weird ideology is that? Where anything that can be tracked back, no matter how far, to a "choice" suddenly renders the outcome out of bounds for sympathy? It sounds like Republican bullshit to me. "Mmm, you chose to have that second cocktail, therefore you have to carry your rapebaby to term. No complaining! That's what you get for making choices, tsk tsk." Give me a break.
Yes. It is taken care of for you. And you can take it with you to a new service easily. What more could you ask?
G+ is awesome. It's a smart way to make a coherent whole out of the Google services. The good old days weren't as good as you remember.
Excellent thinking, anonymous coward. This is the same reason you should never fall in love.
Reader is literally a majority of what I do on the internet. It's the subset of the internet that I choose to follow conveniently laid out on one page with a useful interface. I'll have to move to something else I guess but it sure was convenient. I also used it as the backend to BeyondPod, my podcast manager, which was useful so that I could listen to a podcast either on the web or in BeyondPod and it would all sync up.
I'm not really clear on Google's compulsion with killing projects. Does Reader really cost them so much to run that they need to shut it down? and there is no way to monetize it? Oh well. There are a million feed readers out there, I'll just find another one.
I paraphrase you as saying "You pointed to a company/brand which doesn't advertise but that doesn't count because there is a corporate relationship to some other company/brand which does advertise."
That is moving the goalpost. The question was about is there a company which lasts a long time without advertising. I gave one example, thus answering the question, which was a particularly fitting example because the no-ad aspect is up-front to the product. Other companies in a corporate hierarchy are a separate question.
Also I didn't express 'pride' for supporting the company, I expressed 'preference'. I consider No-Ad to be basically "generic" product and I often like generic products when they are up to quality standards. Some generics are higher quality than name brand; most are equal; some are lower enough to be avoided. All generic products are unadvertised by definition and that is one aspect I like about them, I consider it a pro-consumer way to do business by both refraining from annoying me (with ads) and passing on the savings in the form of a lower price.
Dude, you should consider advertising. It can really help get the word out.
It's a website. Websites aren't ads any more than a JCPenny's store is an ad for JCPenny's.
Oh, hey, I can almost see the goalpost you moved from over here where it was when I kicked the field goal.
Good question. No, it isn't.
We can always move to IPv7 fifty million years from now.
Humans on other worlds is the standard by which NASA is and should be judged; otherwise it doesn't count. Rovers are sort of neat but they don't count. Telescopes are worthwhile but we don't need a whole NASA agency for that, and in they end they still don't count. Voyager-type spacecraft are worthwhile but again we don't need a whole NASA to simply sling a robot into space.
Humans on other worlds. Pay for it, or save the money.
That's exactly right and it's NASA's fault. They as an organization should refuse to accept such bullshit coming from Congress. They should strike until they are either adequately funded (approximately double what they get today) or shut down.
"Oh, what did you say Congress? You want us to keep showing up collecting our paychecks but not actually doing anything, year after year, decade after decade? No. Fuck you. We'll find other jobs if you want us to but we're not going to let you waste taxpayer money on programs that never go anywhere. No. Pay up or close us down. Your move. You have four weeks of us on strike, after that we're outie getting new jobs. Maybe the Chinese would be interested in our know-how."
I blame NASA. In my opinion in the mid 1990s the director of NASA should have gone to Congress, then to television shows, saying "Look, either fund us well enough to continue manned space flight, or shut us down. We're not going to do this bullshit half-assed only-send-robots free-market-partnership nonsense. Pay for humans on foreign worlds, or shutter it." Maybe they would have been shuttered, in which case fine, America wouldn't have lost anything and we would have saved a small amount of money. Otherwise we would have a neato space program again. Either way would be okay, but this middle ground of stupid one-rover-after-another thing is not worth the cost.
Humans on other worlds or nothing. My vote is for humans on other worlds, but I'll accept nothing.
Seriously why does Slashdot do that?
1/100th of a penny per page? All the websites. At that rate I'd owe a couple pennies a day, well worth it.
1/10th? 99% of the websites. 1 penny? It would start to matter what a "page" constituted, but still most of the websites, say 95%. At this rate I could owe as much as a dollar or two per day.
I dream of that kind of internet not because I think it would be a higher quality internet but because it would evince a value system amongst internet users which I think is a superior value system to the one we have today. That's the same reason I think it is mostly an impossible hypothetical situation.
That said, I do think it's surprising that nobody has made microtransactions work. Facebook or Google or one of the other single-signon websites have the obvious opportunity to do it. Especially Google which already has the advertising partnerships in place with so many websites, you can easily imagine a Pay For Ad-Free system where websites refuse to load if you block ads (annoying but fair), and you can simply pay to see the site.
When I'm on a website to see a video, and I click on the video to watch it, if anything other than the video starts playing (I mean, if an advert starts playing) I think "Oh, huh, this website has some kind of bug in their system which causes the wrong video to play." I don't use buggy services, so I just go away from that website. Close the browser tab and leave, because the site reneged on the implicit promise of the hyperlink: click here to watch a video, but then the video doesn't play.
This company did it quite explicitly starting fifty-one years ago. There is a good chance you even have their product in your home right now. Is more than half a century long enough for you? Maybe it isn't. I always, always seek out that brand specifically because of their no-ad pledge.