the content is free (no money payments) regardless, so your first argument doesn't particularly hold up.
The content is free (no mony payments) because you're (supposed to be) viewing ads. Take away that source of revenue, and the argument very much holds up.
It's a problem of perspective (again the BSD's freedom vs. GPL's freedom debate all over...)
For ME AS A USER/READ:
- I just click on a link, I don't pay, I get content, It's free (for me as a end-user, reader).
- If I don't use adblock : it's the same (from my point of view).
- If I do use adblock : it's also the same (minus all the flashing/blking/noisy/fullscreen annoyance)
- If I do use uBlock AND privacy badger : it's also the same (though my identity doesn't get stolen).
- If I do use uBlock AND privacy badger AND NoScript : it's still the same (though It's much harder to drive-by corrupt/infect my browser, at the cost of slightly broken UX)
No matter what, I still get my content simply with clicking, no payment required. It's free (as in beer. Gratis).
It's for the publisher that things change:
- if readers don't use anything : the publisher seemingly handed content for free, put actually get money back by selling the crap out of its users.
- if readers uses AdBlock / uBlock, etc: the publisher handed something out for free, and doesn't get much back, beyond some marketing analysis of readership, that can still be sold for money to sponsors
- if readers use uBlock, PrivacyBAdger, NoScript, Tor, etc. : publisher is screwed. They did hand content for free as usual, but this time they can't sell anything about the user to make some buck.
But from the users' point of view, nothing change the price paid for the content. It was 0$ before ad blocking, its still 0$ after.
So the argument that "suddenly the users discovers they can haz something for free" that was mentioned above is invalid.
They already got it for free (i.e.: gratis, without needing to pay any dollars) before.
Your whole argument is based on the notion that a direct payment of money is the only way to pay for content. This is inherently not the case with ads (you view the ads, the advertisers pay for the content). If someone gives you a choice between A or B you can't say "Well, I'm going to do neither since you technically offer notB and notA and I'm opting for both of those."
What change is their experience of the web :
- before, it was an awful place with marketeer trying to push obnoxious ads as hard as possible. Making the result, distracting, ugly, noisy, not user friendly, slowing down loading time, and costing a fucking lot more on bandwidth. (actually costing more than what the publisher makes up, but that's another debate).
- after : web is finally a bit saner place, where you can actually get the content you want and nothing useless more.
and the time and money spent to create that content is funded by...?
the content is free (no money payments) regardless, so your first argument doesn't particularly hold up.
The content is free (no mony payments) because you're (supposed to be) viewing ads. Take away that source of revenue, and the argument very much holds up.
i think it's fair to want to block components of websites that can inject viruses into your computers, make the page load slower, and are generally annoying. it's also fair for a site like forbes to block access when an adblocker is present, which I'm fine with. i'm not going to try to find a way around that.
You can have security vulnerabilities by visiting an ad-free page that uses JavaScript. Hell there are exploits in CSS.
Well, yeah, assuming of course that for some reason an increasing majority of users have decided to use the product that blocks TVs (fantastic analogy, BTW). This is what is happening in online advertising: users have decided they are better off without it.
No, what has happened, is people have found a way to get a thing for free. This is not a novel idea. If you can get $thing or $thing for free (and the exact same $thing), which one do you think people will choose? Of course, the free $thing isn't sustainable in the long run, but users don't care. Companies have to 'adapt', which is just some hand-wavy word users come up with to say "give me a situation I like, but I won't actually help you find, because it's most likely non-existent".
Of course, that is their choice to make. If that means they can't access forbes.com, then people will keep things like that in mind.
No, they'll go.. hmm how can I still block ads and get around whatever forbes.com has so I can get that for free too?
Surely there is hope yet for technological solutionism! Maybe they need VR goggles? Wearables? IoT devices?...Teledildonics? There must be some gadget that can magically allow people to pull themselves up by the bootstraps!
If we're talking about The Internet, then clearly it's Bootstrap
Returning to a simpler less federalistic system as the founders had and intended, need not be chaotic as you suggest. What becomes chaotic is trying to obey the volumes and volumes of laws passed on a daily basis. That is true chaos. You are erecting a straw man, in that most people who want more limited government
are not in favor of no government, nor do they want chaos.
Where do you, and/or others that feel that way, draw the line? Do you all agree where that line should be drawn?
Updating Windows is too hard for some people (when they could just check 'install recommended updates'), so the suggestion is to have them download and install and update three separate things?
I made no comment about it being good or bad (which is subjective).
However, looking at sales, and mostcritics, it's not a failure. Though again that's subjective.
Are you implying Lucas would have done better? The prequels and updated original trilogy is, for the most part, disliked in favor of the originals (where Lucas did not have as much involvement). Also the notion that "X doing thing is bad, therefore Y would have been better" is the same fallacy thought that happens in the US every time $president does something ("oh if only $otherCandidate won! everything would be better!")
starts with bad guys attacking...
droid is given information and leaves the scene...
ends up in a desert...
where the lead happens upon it...
which carries something important for the rebellion...
while evading the main bad guy...
who is dressed in black...
and related to a good guy...
"we must destroy the giant planet destroyer thing" ...but first we need to go inside to disable the shields ...where an older character dies
UI/UX often is done by getting information about how users use the current version. Then one or more redesigns are done with that in mind. They are then tested by asking the users to go through the redesign (wireframe/paper) and/or giving one group of users a new design and one group of users the existing (control).
You know, the same thing as the Scientific Method
Just because you personaly don't like the results, doesn't mean the process was flawed.
Considering that Vista is 9 years old now, it's not that surprising that the remaining 8% of users aren't well supported. But in any case, IE8 supports XP and HTML 5 video.
Please note, I do COMPLETELY realise that running in excess of 30 to 50 tabs is ridiculous, but back 6 years ago, I could do this under FF32 and while it was unstable, the performance of the primary UI for FF was fine.
It doesn't solve 100% of the uses cases for 100% of people, therefore it is shit. I, of course, know what makes the perfect browser, but will not do anything to make it happen lest I be shown to be unsuccessful.
It's know as "Metro" or "Modern". Until MS kills it and goes back to the UI people WANT, without additional spyware, forced installs and all the rest, they will continue to see people migrate away from their software and services.
Which UI is that? The one in Windows 7? The one people coming from XP also bitched about?
Dumb asses think banking guns is the solution. Chicago has strict gun control. I assume you're unaware of how many died there Thanksgiving weekend. Criminals don't obey laws shit head! They'll have guns while your dumb ass is unarmed!
Support capital punishment, prisons that punish, and remove the psycho drugs from society! Problem solved!
Often times these are done by people who aren't on any 'psycho drugs' and who die immediately after the event, sometimes by their own hand. So much for "problem solved".
The URL back/forward etc doesn't reflect all of the tabs below it, so no. Also, having the tabs at the very top makes them more accessible as they have 'infinite height'
Hierarchy. The URL, Back/Forward etc are related to the particular tab you're on. So by changing the topmost thing (the active tab), you're affecting everything below it.
So because there is a non-zero chance of a third party maliciously infecting a website, you block all ads everywhere?
Why not just not use the Internet at all since any website can be compromised in ways other than ads?
Slashdot Mirror
the content is free (no money payments) regardless, so your first argument doesn't particularly hold up.
The content is free (no mony payments) because you're (supposed to be) viewing ads. Take away that source of revenue, and the argument very much holds up.
It's a problem of perspective (again the BSD's freedom vs. GPL's freedom debate all over...)
For ME AS A USER/READ: - I just click on a link, I don't pay, I get content, It's free (for me as a end-user, reader). - If I don't use adblock : it's the same (from my point of view). - If I do use adblock : it's also the same (minus all the flashing/blking/noisy/fullscreen annoyance) - If I do use uBlock AND privacy badger : it's also the same (though my identity doesn't get stolen). - If I do use uBlock AND privacy badger AND NoScript : it's still the same (though It's much harder to drive-by corrupt/infect my browser, at the cost of slightly broken UX)
No matter what, I still get my content simply with clicking, no payment required. It's free (as in beer. Gratis).
It's for the publisher that things change: - if readers don't use anything : the publisher seemingly handed content for free, put actually get money back by selling the crap out of its users. - if readers uses AdBlock / uBlock, etc: the publisher handed something out for free, and doesn't get much back, beyond some marketing analysis of readership, that can still be sold for money to sponsors - if readers use uBlock, PrivacyBAdger, NoScript, Tor, etc. : publisher is screwed. They did hand content for free as usual, but this time they can't sell anything about the user to make some buck.
But from the users' point of view, nothing change the price paid for the content. It was 0$ before ad blocking, its still 0$ after.
So the argument that "suddenly the users discovers they can haz something for free" that was mentioned above is invalid. They already got it for free (i.e.: gratis, without needing to pay any dollars) before.
Your whole argument is based on the notion that a direct payment of money is the only way to pay for content. This is inherently not the case with ads (you view the ads, the advertisers pay for the content). If someone gives you a choice between A or B you can't say "Well, I'm going to do neither since you technically offer notB and notA and I'm opting for both of those."
What change is their experience of the web : - before, it was an awful place with marketeer trying to push obnoxious ads as hard as possible. Making the result, distracting, ugly, noisy, not user friendly, slowing down loading time, and costing a fucking lot more on bandwidth. (actually costing more than what the publisher makes up, but that's another debate). - after : web is finally a bit saner place, where you can actually get the content you want and nothing useless more.
and the time and money spent to create that content is funded by...?
The only reason people like you like to claim that people are freeloading is because there isn't an alternative.
So, you're paying for YouTube Red, right?
the content is free (no money payments) regardless, so your first argument doesn't particularly hold up.
The content is free (no mony payments) because you're (supposed to be) viewing ads. Take away that source of revenue, and the argument very much holds up.
i think it's fair to want to block components of websites that can inject viruses into your computers, make the page load slower, and are generally annoying. it's also fair for a site like forbes to block access when an adblocker is present, which I'm fine with. i'm not going to try to find a way around that.
You can have security vulnerabilities by visiting an ad-free page that uses JavaScript. Hell there are exploits in CSS.
Well, yeah, assuming of course that for some reason an increasing majority of users have decided to use the product that blocks TVs (fantastic analogy, BTW). This is what is happening in online advertising: users have decided they are better off without it.
No, what has happened, is people have found a way to get a thing for free. This is not a novel idea. If you can get $thing or $thing for free (and the exact same $thing), which one do you think people will choose? Of course, the free $thing isn't sustainable in the long run, but users don't care. Companies have to 'adapt', which is just some hand-wavy word users come up with to say "give me a situation I like, but I won't actually help you find, because it's most likely non-existent".
Of course, that is their choice to make. If that means they can't access forbes.com, then people will keep things like that in mind.
No, they'll go.. hmm how can I still block ads and get around whatever forbes.com has so I can get that for free too?
Surely there is hope yet for technological solutionism! Maybe they need VR goggles? Wearables? IoT devices?...Teledildonics? There must be some gadget that can magically allow people to pull themselves up by the bootstraps!
If we're talking about The Internet, then clearly it's Bootstrap
It all comes down to the maketshare, not of the world, but of your userbase.
Returning to a simpler less federalistic system as the founders had and intended, need not be chaotic as you suggest. What becomes chaotic is trying to obey the volumes and volumes of laws passed on a daily basis. That is true chaos. You are erecting a straw man, in that most people who want more limited government are not in favor of no government, nor do they want chaos.
Where do you, and/or others that feel that way, draw the line? Do you all agree where that line should be drawn?
Updating Windows is too hard for some people (when they could just check 'install recommended updates'), so the suggestion is to have them download and install and update three separate things?
but, but, higher numbers = better than!
Look! Look! I can still see the pixels on my crummy 4K phone! *mashes screen against face*.
I made no comment about it being good or bad (which is subjective).
However, looking at sales, and most critics, it's not a failure. Though again that's subjective.
Are you implying Lucas would have done better? The prequels and updated original trilogy is, for the most part, disliked in favor of the originals (where Lucas did not have as much involvement).
Also the notion that "X doing thing is bad, therefore Y would have been better" is the same fallacy thought that happens in the US every time $president does something ("oh if only $otherCandidate won! everything would be better!")
More than that:
...but first we need to go inside to disable the shields
...where an older character dies
starts with bad guys attacking...
droid is given information and leaves the scene...
ends up in a desert...
where the lead happens upon it...
which carries something important for the rebellion...
while evading the main bad guy...
who is dressed in black...
and related to a good guy...
"we must destroy the giant planet destroyer thing"
UI/UX often is done by getting information about how users use the current version.
Then one or more redesigns are done with that in mind.
They are then tested by asking the users to go through the redesign (wireframe/paper) and/or giving one group of users a new design and one group of users the existing (control).
You know, the same thing as the Scientific Method
Just because you personaly don't like the results, doesn't mean the process was flawed.
Considering that Vista is 9 years old now, it's not that surprising that the remaining 8% of users aren't well supported. But in any case, IE8 supports XP and HTML 5 video.
XP does (if using Firefox/Chrome), IE8 does not
...it will be the regular drivers fault because the autonomous vehicle wasn't breaking the law in what it was doing.
Yes, if there is a collision between two vechicles and one is breaking the law, it's generally the fault of the one breaking the law.
This is literally about a charity and you still complain. The level of fanboy M$ hate in here has always been funny, but this just takes the cake.
Please note, I do COMPLETELY realise that running in excess of 30 to 50 tabs is ridiculous, but back 6 years ago, I could do this under FF32 and while it was unstable, the performance of the primary UI for FF was fine.
Whoa. FF32 had a time travel feature?
What actually is wrong with Firefox then?
It doesn't solve 100% of the uses cases for 100% of people, therefore it is shit. I, of course, know what makes the perfect browser, but will not do anything to make it happen lest I be shown to be unsuccessful.
Only from the government preventing you from saying it, not from the government doing what it can to 'hear' it.
Wouldn't the first amendment just be that they couldn't stop you from posting shit about the government?
If anything, you mean Fourth amendment.
It's know as "Metro" or "Modern". Until MS kills it and goes back to the UI people WANT, without additional spyware, forced installs and all the rest, they will continue to see people migrate away from their software and services.
Which UI is that? The one in Windows 7? The one people coming from XP also bitched about?
Could part of it also be that there are more devices online now that 2.5 years ago? Most of those running Chrome (because, Android).
Dumb asses think banking guns is the solution. Chicago has strict gun control. I assume you're unaware of how many died there Thanksgiving weekend. Criminals don't obey laws shit head! They'll have guns while your dumb ass is unarmed!
Support capital punishment, prisons that punish, and remove the psycho drugs from society! Problem solved!
Often times these are done by people who aren't on any 'psycho drugs' and who die immediately after the event, sometimes by their own hand.
So much for "problem solved".
The URL back/forward etc doesn't reflect all of the tabs below it, so no.
Also, having the tabs at the very top makes them more accessible as they have 'infinite height'
Hierarchy.
The URL, Back/Forward etc are related to the particular tab you're on. So by changing the topmost thing (the active tab), you're affecting everything below it.
So because there is a non-zero chance of a third party maliciously infecting a website, you block all ads everywhere?
Why not just not use the Internet at all since any website can be compromised in ways other than ads?