You don't have to have click-through on an ad banner for it to be effective marketing.
There's no reason web advertising should be judged any differently than print advertising -- if people just look at it and end up with an increased awareness of the product or service being advertised, that ad is successful. The reason banner ads were so overvalued during the dot-com boom and subsequently declared a "failure" is that advertisers had dollar signs in their eyes, expecting web marketing to result in immediate sales. People don't normally make purchasing decisions that way.
Well, end-users wouldn't need to do that at all if the content providers were ethical in the first place.
And content providers wouldn't have had to come up with innovations like pop-unders and shoshkeles if end-users viewed regular banner ads instead of blocking them.
You can go in circles forever trying to pin the blame on someone, but in order for everyone to win the attempts to undermine the other side have to stop, on BOTH sides. No popup ads. No ad blockers. We need an arms-reduction treaty, not an arms race.
Just because someone can come up with a way for you to steal content (effectively what this is)
If I connect to port 80 of some server and my HTTP command results in a response code in the 200 range, I'm not "stealing content".
(Provided I use the content in a way consistent with copyright law -- I can't scrape your content and publish it as my own, but I can modify it however I like for my personal use)
If I were a Bastard Web Designer, I would respond to this trend by building my sites in Flash, with HTML used only as a bare-bones wrapper for delivering the Flash files.
Content and advertising would be so deeply integrated that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to view one without the other (or at least much much more difficult).
Take that, Slashjerks! And remember, to the average user, the bells and whistles of Flash are a GOOD thing, not a bad thing.
What companies are failing to realize is that you have NO RIGHTS on the Internet. If users want to block banner ads, there isn't a thing you can do about it.
What users are failing to realize is that you have NO RIGHTS on the Internet. If companies want to block all user agents from their sites except for MSIE 6.x on Windows XP, there isn't a thing you can do about it.
When the shoe is on the other foot, does it still fit?
If you go back to the good old days, for example when Yahoo used to be at yahoo.stanford.edu, there were no banner ads. Guess what, the internet was free then.
Unless you were a student at Stanford, in which case part of the money you were paying to the university went towards subsidizing the hosting, connectivity, and development costs for the young new web portal.
Banner ads are only a 1994 invention, they aren't an intrinsic part of either the internet or the world wide web.
I hope you'll keep this in mind when many info sources that you find useful have to close up their online operations because they're losing too much money.
A free internet can still exist without banner advertisements, but it could end up being no more useful than the web was in 1993. Do you HONESTLY want to return to the days of having to visit your library's reference room to look up a street address or research an obscure bit of trivia?
Then in essence this software is rewritting a copyrighted work without permission of the copyright holder, is it not?
But you're allowed to do that, provided the modified work is for your own private enjoyment. It's not illegal to doodle in the margins of a book you've purchased, is it?
This assumes a willful act on the part of the consumer to enact those modifications, though. If this software is pre-installed and activated, before the consumer ever gets to touch the computer, that could be a gray area.
What makes you think that specific product will revolutionize revenue generation on the net?
I think the author's point is that: - previous ad-stripping download proxy systems did not typically come preinstalled on a new PC, and - previous systems were more forward about explaining to users what they did and how they worked, and gave users more options for how to use it than a polar on/off setting.
I would take the $5.5 million and divide it up into $5000 prizes that are payable to any hacker that demonstrates and documents a hack on the real net.
And then I would sue you because of all the damage done to MY machines on the real Internet as a result of the hacking you encouraged.
Does your company QA test your software by releasing it to the public as soon as you think it mostly works, or is there a process of internal and structured beta testing? (obvious Microsoft joke goes here)
Holy crap, was that article in Syllabus ever a steaming pile of shit. I've never been more glad that I turned down the job offer Princeton University made me four years ago.
In the CD world, 10% ($2) was a good deal for the band because the record companies had to pay for manufacturing, cases, booklets, shipping and publicity, which is quite costly.
Are you sure about this? The screeds against the record industry I've been reading usually say that the labels charge back most of these costs to the artists, further eating away artist profits.
By the time the X2 comes out, Celeron 733s will probably be cheap enough to put on an add-on card and sell for $49.
Add-on processor cards for home/desktop computers have a tenuous reputation for hardware compatibility, though. Ask any Sun workstation user with a SunPCI card, or any G3 Mac user with the G4 upgrade card.
Don't take the overabundance of Slashdot stories about Diebold to mean that they're the only company selling computerized voting systems in the U.S....
The point here is that we eliminated or reduced the possibility of having holes in the software intended to be in the machine.
Only if the binary that runs on the machine is compiled from the same copy of the source that you've analyzed just before you cast your vote. Oh, and you'll need to analyze the source code for the compiler that the voting machine's binaries is compiled on, to make sure that hasn't been compromised. And then you'll need to check the source of the program used to view the source code of the other programs...
Slashdot Mirror
If a site is worth paying for, I'll pay for it.
Yeah? How many pay sites are you currently subscribed to?
Are you a Slashdot Premium member?
The global click through ratio is under three tenths of a percent.
What's the click-through ration of a full-page magazine ad? Of a billboard? Of a 30-second TV commercial?
Exactly zero-tenths of a percent? No fooling.
If you want me to offset that, then you'll have to find something other than ads, because I refuse to play that game.
Gee, you sound like an asshole.
In fact, I think I'd rather not welcome you to my site anymore. Would you mind giving me your IP address so I can block it at the firewall?
Have you seriously _ever_ clicked on a banner?
You don't have to have click-through on an ad banner for it to be effective marketing.
There's no reason web advertising should be judged any differently than print advertising -- if people just look at it and end up with an increased awareness of the product or service being advertised, that ad is successful. The reason banner ads were so overvalued during the dot-com boom and subsequently declared a "failure" is that advertisers had dollar signs in their eyes, expecting web marketing to result in immediate sales. People don't normally make purchasing decisions that way.
Well, end-users wouldn't need to do that at all if the content providers were ethical in the first place.
And content providers wouldn't have had to come up with innovations like pop-unders and shoshkeles if end-users viewed regular banner ads instead of blocking them.
You can go in circles forever trying to pin the blame on someone, but in order for everyone to win the attempts to undermine the other side have to stop, on BOTH sides. No popup ads. No ad blockers. We need an arms-reduction treaty, not an arms race.
Just because someone can come up with a way for you to steal content (effectively what this is)
If I connect to port 80 of some server and my HTTP command results in a response code in the 200 range, I'm not "stealing content".
(Provided I use the content in a way consistent with copyright law -- I can't scrape your content and publish it as my own, but I can modify it however I like for my personal use)
If the ads are worth seeing people will disable the feature
How will people know if the ads are worth seeing if they never see them?
If I were a Bastard Web Designer, I would respond to this trend by building my sites in Flash, with HTML used only as a bare-bones wrapper for delivering the Flash files.
Content and advertising would be so deeply integrated that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to view one without the other (or at least much much more difficult).
Take that, Slashjerks! And remember, to the average user, the bells and whistles of Flash are a GOOD thing, not a bad thing.
What companies are failing to realize is that you have NO RIGHTS on the Internet. If users want to block banner ads, there isn't a thing you can do about it.
What users are failing to realize is that you have NO RIGHTS on the Internet. If companies want to block all user agents from their sites except for MSIE 6.x on Windows XP, there isn't a thing you can do about it.
When the shoe is on the other foot, does it still fit?
If you go back to the good old days, for example when Yahoo used to be at yahoo.stanford.edu, there were no banner ads. Guess what, the internet was free then.
Unless you were a student at Stanford, in which case part of the money you were paying to the university went towards subsidizing the hosting, connectivity, and development costs for the young new web portal.
Banner ads are only a 1994 invention, they aren't an intrinsic part of either the internet or the world wide web.
I hope you'll keep this in mind when many info sources that you find useful have to close up their online operations because they're losing too much money.
A free internet can still exist without banner advertisements, but it could end up being no more useful than the web was in 1993. Do you HONESTLY want to return to the days of having to visit your library's reference room to look up a street address or research an obscure bit of trivia?
Then in essence this software is rewritting a copyrighted work without permission of the copyright holder, is it not?
But you're allowed to do that, provided the modified work is for your own private enjoyment. It's not illegal to doodle in the margins of a book you've purchased, is it?
This assumes a willful act on the part of the consumer to enact those modifications, though. If this software is pre-installed and activated, before the consumer ever gets to touch the computer, that could be a gray area.
It do pattern matching and image size matching then remove those elements from webpages before your browser get them.
Is there a similar product that strip out verb conjugation? It look like my machine might have such a system installed.
What makes you think that specific product will revolutionize revenue generation on the net?
I think the author's point is that:
- previous ad-stripping download proxy systems did not typically come preinstalled on a new PC, and
- previous systems were more forward about explaining to users what they did and how they worked, and gave users more options for how to use it than a polar on/off setting.
they're really "squeezing every dollar out of the franchise" by making the third movie in a story designed to be a trilogy.
The first movie can stand alone as an self-contained story arc quite nicely. Can the same be said about the second or the third?
IMO neither Reloaded or Revolutions ought have been made.
I would take the $5.5 million and divide it up into $5000 prizes that are payable to any hacker that demonstrates and documents a hack on the real net.
And then I would sue you because of all the damage done to MY machines on the real Internet as a result of the hacking you encouraged.
Does your company QA test your software by releasing it to the public as soon as you think it mostly works, or is there a process of internal and structured beta testing? (obvious Microsoft joke goes here)
its not legal to decode the broadcasts that were in the clear without locking them down
Did you read the article?
Did you even read the Slashdot abstract about the article?
Are you even familiar with the issues at hand?
Broadcast Flags have nothing to do with locking anything down, or any type of encoding or decoding.
In the CD world, 10% ($2) was a good deal for the band because the record companies had to pay for manufacturing, cases, booklets, shipping and publicity, which is quite costly.
Are you sure about this? The screeds against the record industry I've been reading usually say that the labels charge back most of these costs to the artists, further eating away artist profits.
4. Where does the reovirus come from? Reovirus is found naturally in shallow pools of water, lakes or streams or in the sewage system.
And people used to LAUGH at me when I would swim around in raw sewage!!! Who's laughing now, huh?!?
If you want to cause trouble for them, just demand a recount. When it is found to be impossible, people will notice.
SELECT count(*) FROM votes WHERE candidate = 'Joe Politician';
86,905
Want a recount? Okay, sure, here you go:
SELECT count(*) FROM votes WHERE candidate = 'Joe Politician';
86,905
if Microsoft uses the G5 (PPC970) chip, as everyone is speculating, they'll have to tweak the Virtual PC code base to run on the G5.
They're going to have to do this anyway, to get VirtualPC to run on the Apple G5s.
By the time the X2 comes out, Celeron 733s will probably be cheap enough to put on an add-on card and sell for $49.
Add-on processor cards for home/desktop computers have a tenuous reputation for hardware compatibility, though. Ask any Sun workstation user with a SunPCI card, or any G3 Mac user with the G4 upgrade card.
I think thermal printers are under fifty bucks (probably well under) and I don't see why this couldn't be added to any voting system.
In fact, it has.
Don't take the overabundance of Slashdot stories about Diebold to mean that they're the only company selling computerized voting systems in the U.S....
The point here is that we eliminated or reduced the possibility of having holes in the software intended to be in the machine.
Only if the binary that runs on the machine is compiled from the same copy of the source that you've analyzed just before you cast your vote. Oh, and you'll need to analyze the source code for the compiler that the voting machine's binaries is compiled on, to make sure that hasn't been compromised. And then you'll need to check the source of the program used to view the source code of the other programs...
I haven't tried it yet - still using the iTunes store.
Thanks for sharing, Hemos. Could you please STFU?