Except Yahoo isn't the one that altered the deal.
"Free" email paid through ads was always the case
It is the people using Ad-Blockers that are altering the deal.
What exactly is the business model for "gimme gimme gimme"? Adblockers have existed before all the JavaScript tracking. Even if it were a simple static image you'd bitch that it was take bandwidth, and even if it were just text you'd bitch it was taking up space on your monitor.
Tracking is just a scape-goat, the real issue is people are self-entitled and too used to getting things 'for free'.
GP's point still stands
A browser for iOS must use Apple's WebKit. The only exception being if you use a remote server like Opera Mini does.
Mozilla cannot create a version of Firefox that uses Gecko
Opera cannot create a version of Opera that uses Presto (granted that engine is deprecated)
Google cannot create a version of Chrome that uses Blink
Microsoft cannot create a version of Edge that uses EdgeHTML (nor of Internet Explorer that uses Trident)
If your browser's performance advantage is through its rendering engine, you're SOL.
Yeah, because there's only one version of Windows.
Nope.
Just an example, when Windows XP Service Pack 2 was released, Ahead Nero had to release an emergency update because their CD burning software simply stopped working on XPSP2, which worked just fine on XPSP1.
Developing for Android is as easy as developing for Windows. Maybe even easier for Android.
Which would be no different from an app needing to be updated for Android 6.0
The point was that a large variance in hardware is not an excuse.
Mark Shuttleworth has said that Mir and Unity8 won't arrive until Ubuntu 16.04 "Xenial Xerus."
Just like 6 months ago we heard it wouldn't be in 15.04, but would be in 15.10 and 6 months before that we heard it wouldn't be in 14.10 but would be in 15.04 and 6 months before that... Wager on hearing the same thing 6 months from now? "Well 16.04 is an LTS, it's all about stability, so no risk taking with another version of Unity. It will be available in 16.10".
Because the only reason you all block ads is security, right? With this model, you'll totally pay the subscription so as to not have ads, right? You wouldn't continue to keep blocking ads because the real reason you do it is because you all feel self entitled to free content and just use the security/privacy of ads as a scapegoat for your behavior, right?
That's 10 cents per video, this is $10 for "unlimited" a month. Unless you want to deal with the CC charges of a micropayment of.10 for every single video you play, it's not really comparable.
Maybe instead of (or as an option to) subscribe. You'd have a credit of $X and every video you watch would chip away $.X. Run out/low and refill.
How does capitalism feel if you're at the receiving end for a change, hmm?
Fine really.
My comment was about the sort of people that want to get the content, but don't want to pay for it in any way (ads, subscription, etc). If the publisher doesn't get the income and the visitor doesn't get the content, I see no issue.
Ugh, ads are so bad. I only block them for security reasons...honest.
Oh, what's that? Some sites are using paywalls instead of ads? Hmm.. well those need to be easy to get around too..because of...reasons. Not because I'm self-entitled and gimme gimme gimme.
I mean, sites should just go under if I deem they aren't "worth" it, yet somehow they do have some worth since I'm visiting them in the first place. Don't point that out though, I don't want the cognitive dissonance.
Slashdot Mirror
Except Yahoo isn't the one that altered the deal.
"Free" email paid through ads was always the case
It is the people using Ad-Blockers that are altering the deal.
Sounds more like an issue with a security vulnerability with Flash than with the concept of advertising.
When does that actually, and more importantly, deliberately by the web site, happen?
What exactly do you mean by 'hijacking' then?
He did evolve the business model. He offered the option to remove ads for a monthly fee.
What exactly is the business model for "gimme gimme gimme"? Adblockers have existed before all the JavaScript tracking. Even if it were a simple static image you'd bitch that it was take bandwidth, and even if it were just text you'd bitch it was taking up space on your monitor.
Tracking is just a scape-goat, the real issue is people are self-entitled and too used to getting things 'for free'.
Beauty, by your own admission, is subjective. Therefore it is impossible for something to be "'beautiful' by default".
Also, so called intelligence didn't stop France attacks ... so the value of monitoring the sources is even more dubious.
That's armchair quarterbacking, 20/20 hindsight is always easy. What you do with what you know can be more important than the knowledge itself.
While I understand the false assumption GP is making, what attacks have the monitoring prevented? I'm honestly asking.
Making us change what we do (use a certain website) because of a terrorist? Isn't that exactly their end game? To change our behavior?
Just like Linux on the desktop! They should just both die already since no one uses them.
I wasn't aware that TV ads could track you and be used as an attack vector.
Add feature few use to Firefox:
UGH! This is why Firefox is bad!!!
Keep feature few use in Firefox:
UGH! This is why Firefox is bad!!!
Remove feature few use from Firefox:
UGH! This is why Firefox is bad!!!
GP's point still stands
A browser for iOS must use Apple's WebKit. The only exception being if you use a remote server like Opera Mini does.
Mozilla cannot create a version of Firefox that uses Gecko
Opera cannot create a version of Opera that uses Presto (granted that engine is deprecated)
Google cannot create a version of Chrome that uses Blink
Microsoft cannot create a version of Edge that uses EdgeHTML (nor of Internet Explorer that uses Trident)
If your browser's performance advantage is through its rendering engine, you're SOL.
Guess we'll just have to wait for a Linux convertible tabl----HAHAHAHA
Yeah, because there's only one version of Windows. Nope. Just an example, when Windows XP Service Pack 2 was released, Ahead Nero had to release an emergency update because their CD burning software simply stopped working on XPSP2, which worked just fine on XPSP1. Developing for Android is as easy as developing for Windows. Maybe even easier for Android.
Which would be no different from an app needing to be updated for Android 6.0
The point was that a large variance in hardware is not an excuse.
Mark Shuttleworth has said that Mir and Unity8 won't arrive until Ubuntu 16.04 "Xenial Xerus."
Just like 6 months ago we heard it wouldn't be in 15.04, but would be in 15.10 and 6 months before that we heard it wouldn't be in 14.10 but would be in 15.04 and 6 months before that...
Wager on hearing the same thing 6 months from now? "Well 16.04 is an LTS, it's all about stability, so no risk taking with another version of Unity. It will be available in 16.10".
Where did you get the "$0.10/month" figure?
Because the only reason you all block ads is security, right? With this model, you'll totally pay the subscription so as to not have ads, right? You wouldn't continue to keep blocking ads because the real reason you do it is because you all feel self entitled to free content and just use the security/privacy of ads as a scapegoat for your behavior, right?
That's 10 cents per video, this is $10 for "unlimited" a month. Unless you want to deal with the CC charges of a micropayment of .10 for every single video you play, it's not really comparable.
Maybe instead of (or as an option to) subscribe. You'd have a credit of $X and every video you watch would chip away $.X. Run out/low and refill.
October 12th? Did you use a time traveling DeLorean to post?
"Unlimited" refers to the amount of data, not the rate
So a subscription or pay-per-use then?
How does capitalism feel if you're at the receiving end for a change, hmm?
Fine really.
My comment was about the sort of people that want to get the content, but don't want to pay for it in any way (ads, subscription, etc). If the publisher doesn't get the income and the visitor doesn't get the content, I see no issue.
How about pay-per-article, think that would work?
Ugh, ads are so bad. I only block them for security reasons...honest.
Oh, what's that? Some sites are using paywalls instead of ads? Hmm.. well those need to be easy to get around too..because of...reasons. Not because I'm self-entitled and gimme gimme gimme. I mean, sites should just go under if I deem they aren't "worth" it, yet somehow they do have some worth since I'm visiting them in the first place. Don't point that out though, I don't want the cognitive dissonance.