Please show me one independent outlet that is not publishing satire and not tied to some corporate or political interest. Why do people still believe in these fairy tales?
Oh, and everyone seems to have quickly forgotten all the civilians that died on a passenger jet because of Soviet antiaircraft missiles produced in the Ukraine.
Not really, they just changed their tactics and formed bigger units instead of guerrilla squads.Obviously there's also a ton of mercenaries and volunteers fighting on all sides.
Oh, sure, you keep believing that you have a free press, which is not tied to the military-industrial complex or other interest groups. Or that there's any free media at all. Or that there's a democracy anywhere in the world.
but at least hard facts, like satellite images, or actual footage from reporters could be largely trusted
Following this conflict from the beginning, as I have ties to both countries and the EU, I'm still waiting for any hard evidence. Unfortunately, only thing I see is populism and war rhetoric on all sides and a bit of irony.
What's important is that people are dying there for the profit of a a few people. What's not important is your belief, implanted in you by the mass-media that there's an "invasion" going on, which you so gladly jump on, because of your personal, hostile attitude to Russia. Go eat an Apple, fucker!
Ok, this being offtopic aside, please tell me how long you think Pussy Riot would have been imprisoned, if they'd have "performed" in St. Patrick's cathedral, or, better, in another somewhere in the bible-belt?
No, it can not. I'm specifically talking about the cost to run a website, not a brick and mortar enterprise.
then go there
Don't worry, that's where I spend most of the time dedicated to my information needs. They're also usually much more accurate. Other sites (like slashdot) let me turn off ads without an adblocker (unfortunately not the slashvertisements). Some sites (like duckduckgo) I make an exception. Most of all, I definitely don't use that hardware site that spawned this discussion, or CNET, or other sites like that.
you just described why you don't need an adblocker
No, I described that there's plenty of places that don't use this shitty excuse for putting up ads all over your viewport, I also described that hosting costs are neglectable and stand in absolutely no comparison to the argument that "The internet is no different than any other media, where ads pay the bills to keep the lights on [...]" It's totally different in the sense that running costs are neglectable if done right (e.g. volunteers for editors, lean architecture, etc.).
I get the problem of annoying ads.
I also wonder, if you get the problem of ads that track your surfing behavior?
They make them to they can eat and feed their families.
What a lousy business model. Real money is made by sustainably providing value to the customers/users, not deciding that your hobby of talking about knitting pink socks is going to buy you a house and employing a legion of editors to chase that hallucination.
you still conveniently ignore that people don't make websites for free.
Last time I heard, there's a myriad of FLOSS CMS or web-publishing systems out there, slap a template on 'em or pay other people to do it for you, if you can't be bothered to invest a couple of weeks (hours?) learning how to do so.
supposed commodity hardware
What do you mean? Most of the internet runs on commodity hardware, so obviously, it's you who doesn't have a clue.
Obviously, the example should be translated to the ballpark we're talking about here. I don't think *any* news site is doing 40MB/s. Including CNN/BBC/whatever. But you can get that traffic for 1.5-2k/month. Probably cheaper.
And I forgot to respond to your snarky comment about:
has made fun of the ability to cripple other hosts just by linking to them [emphasis added]
It's been a long time when I remember this happening last time, and back then, many hosts didn't accept more than 256 connections per default. See the apache documentation for info.
Look, man, if you can't come up with an architecture, so that hosting is chump change, and if you don't have a business model that lets you pay your army of editors without ads, (or enough enthusiastic users to pay a small subscription fee instead,) it's your problem. There's plenty of sites, forums, and blogs, which are free and without ads, where I can get my news on any topic. (And there's another place, but rule #1 of that place forbids me from talking about it.) TL;DR: You remember the 90s? I do, that's why I have my adblocker turned on.
If you're running a discussion forum that you share with 50 friends, sure, it can be in the first category and you can do it for peanuts and enjoy all the high quality interaction you like.
I disagree, let's have a look at Disqus, who (according to here) have around 100 servers total for serving (in 2011) "500 000 sites" with "15 millions of registered users" and "17 thousands of requests per second" for "250 million visitors (for August 2010.)".
A later blog-post from Disqus itself puts that in perspective.
[Disqus] Recently hit two million concurrent users with 5 servers. Hit peaks of ~950K subscribers per machine and 40 MBytes/second per machine with the CPU usage under 15%. [source]
Let me re-iterate: they're handling 2M concurrent users with 5 servers!!
Granted, they don't use VPS' for 5 bucks (and they use more than those 5 servers), but what they're paying could be considered 5 bucks if they were playing in "our" ballpark here. Another interesting tidbit from there:
5 push stream servers were required because of network memory limitations in the kernel. [...] Otherwise could run on 3 servers, including redundancy. [same source as above]
Ergo, a lot is possible, if the architecture is right. (If you're running slashcode, of course, then... well...)
I also run some commercial sites, aiming at a wider audience, charging real money for signing up. [emphasis added]
Great! So you've got users who pay for the extra effort. My post was referring to that guy who was arguing that the internet needs ads, because everything is so expensive, which I still think is utter BS.
But running a significant news or social networking site with thousands of participants? Not even close.
I don't know about social networking, but news sites can be made static, cached, and hosted cheaply. I don't have metrics here, but I think it's safe to assume that if Disqus can serve 250m visitors on 100 servers, you'll be able to serve a million and more on one; especially for a static site.
Also, I've implied a counter argument to MojoKid's statement that "The internet is no different than any other media," in the sense that you don't need to buy several Heidelberger's for a couple hundred thousand or more to start a news site. The upfront investment is almost totally negligible and a small percentage of subscribers is enough, once you hit the limits of your initial infrastructure. And when you do hit the limits, in most cases [educated guess], you will have some users willing to pay.
If you guys insist that hosting a web-site (!) on commodity servers (!) is expensive, you can continue using bloated scripts or look at ways to optimize your infrastructure: one option (for the larger sites) is to put the DB and backup servers in the same datacenter and then just switch the (dumb) frontends around, once the traffic is gone (internal traffic is free, and if it's not it's time to change providers.), and streamline the dynamic parts of your website by using lightweight services and then including them in the static site with js/SSI/whatever.
On Digitalocean you get a TB for 5 bucks (!) on Linode you get 2 for 10. It's cheap. Of course, if you need several servers, it means you have (a ton of) users, some of which can pay for "premium" features like a supporter-badge, feel good about it and pay for your infrastructure.
Administration, is also (super-) easy with docker, chef and whatnot. Press a button and there's your instance. But I've got no idea, so go burn your money if you want to, and I'll keep my stuff lean and mean.
many quality web sites would likely cease to exist, including Slashdot. Just because you can block, doesn't mean you should. The internet is no different than any other media, where ads pay the bills to keep the lights on and people employed to serve up news, reviews and other content you enjoy every day, essentially for free.
What a load of shit. The internet is different. A lot! A domain is around 5-10 bucks and you can get hosting for less. Even when it was more expensive, sites like slashdot existed, which were run by volunteers and were much better quality.
Slashdot Mirror
Look how long Pussy Riot members were imprisoned.
Ms. Timoshenko, could you please go and get laid?
That reads like Chinese accent to me, Komrad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://warisacrime.org/vips
http://www.sourcewatch.org/wik...
Please show me one independent outlet that is not publishing satire and not tied to some corporate or political interest. Why do people still believe in these fairy tales?
FTFY.
Not really, they just changed their tactics and formed bigger units instead of guerrilla squads.Obviously there's also a ton of mercenaries and volunteers fighting on all sides.
Oh, sure, you keep believing that you have a free press, which is not tied to the military-industrial complex or other interest groups. Or that there's any free media at all. Or that there's a democracy anywhere in the world.
Following this conflict from the beginning, as I have ties to both countries and the EU, I'm still waiting for any hard evidence. Unfortunately, only thing I see is populism and war rhetoric on all sides and a bit of irony.
What's important is that people are dying there for the profit of a a few people. What's not important is your belief, implanted in you by the mass-media that there's an "invasion" going on, which you so gladly jump on, because of your personal, hostile attitude to Russia. Go eat an Apple, fucker!
Ok, this being offtopic aside, please tell me how long you think Pussy Riot would have been imprisoned, if they'd have "performed" in St. Patrick's cathedral, or, better, in another somewhere in the bible-belt?
No, it can not. I'm specifically talking about the cost to run a website, not a brick and mortar enterprise.
Don't worry, that's where I spend most of the time dedicated to my information needs. They're also usually much more accurate. Other sites (like slashdot) let me turn off ads without an adblocker (unfortunately not the slashvertisements). Some sites (like duckduckgo) I make an exception. Most of all, I definitely don't use that hardware site that spawned this discussion, or CNET, or other sites like that.
No, I described that there's plenty of places that don't use this shitty excuse for putting up ads all over your viewport, I also described that hosting costs are neglectable and stand in absolutely no comparison to the argument that "The internet is no different than any other media, where ads pay the bills to keep the lights on [...]" It's totally different in the sense that running costs are neglectable if done right (e.g. volunteers for editors, lean architecture, etc.).
I also wonder, if you get the problem of ads that track your surfing behavior?
What a lousy business model.
Real money is made by sustainably providing value to the customers/users, not deciding that your hobby of talking about knitting pink socks is going to buy you a house and employing a legion of editors to chase that hallucination.
Last time I heard, there's a myriad of FLOSS CMS or web-publishing systems out there, slap a template on 'em or pay other people to do it for you, if you can't be bothered to invest a couple of weeks (hours?) learning how to do so.
What do you mean? Most of the internet runs on commodity hardware, so obviously, it's you who doesn't have a clue.
Obviously, the example should be translated to the ballpark we're talking about here. I don't think *any* news site is doing 40MB/s. Including CNN/BBC/whatever. But you can get that traffic for 1.5-2k/month. Probably cheaper.
It's been a long time when I remember this happening last time, and back then, many hosts didn't accept more than 256 connections per default. See the apache documentation for info.
FTFY.
Look, man, if you can't come up with an architecture, so that hosting is chump change, and if you don't have a business model that lets you pay your army of editors without ads, (or enough enthusiastic users to pay a small subscription fee instead,) it's your problem.
There's plenty of sites, forums, and blogs, which are free and without ads, where I can get my news on any topic. (And there's another place, but rule #1 of that place forbids me from talking about it.)
TL;DR: You remember the 90s? I do, that's why I have my adblocker turned on.
I disagree, let's have a look at Disqus, who (according to here) have around 100 servers total for serving (in 2011) "500 000 sites" with "15 millions of registered users" and "17 thousands of requests per second" for "250 million visitors (for August 2010.)". A later blog-post from Disqus itself puts that in perspective.
Let me re-iterate: they're handling 2M concurrent users with 5 servers!!
Granted, they don't use VPS' for 5 bucks (and they use more than those 5 servers), but what they're paying could be considered 5 bucks if they were playing in "our" ballpark here. Another interesting tidbit from there:
Ergo, a lot is possible, if the architecture is right. (If you're running slashcode, of course, then... well...)
Great! So you've got users who pay for the extra effort. My post was referring to that guy who was arguing that the internet needs ads, because everything is so expensive, which I still think is utter BS.
I don't know about social networking, but news sites can be made static, cached, and hosted cheaply. I don't have metrics here, but I think it's safe to assume that if Disqus can serve 250m visitors on 100 servers, you'll be able to serve a million and more on one; especially for a static site.
Also, I've implied a counter argument to MojoKid's statement that "The internet is no different than any other media," in the sense that you don't need to buy several Heidelberger's for a couple hundred thousand or more to start a news site. The upfront investment is almost totally negligible and a small percentage of subscribers is enough, once you hit the limits of your initial infrastructure. And when you do hit the limits, in most cases [educated guess], you will have some users willing to pay.
Oh, I do. Quite a good one, actually.
If you guys insist that hosting a web-site (!) on commodity servers (!) is expensive, you can continue using bloated scripts or look at ways to optimize your infrastructure:
one option (for the larger sites) is to put the DB and backup servers in the same datacenter and then just switch the (dumb) frontends around, once the traffic is gone (internal traffic is free, and if it's not it's time to change providers.), and streamline the dynamic parts of your website by using lightweight services and then including them in the static site with js/SSI/whatever.
On Digitalocean you get a TB for 5 bucks (!) on Linode you get 2 for 10. It's cheap.
Of course, if you need several servers, it means you have (a ton of) users, some of which can pay for "premium" features like a supporter-badge, feel good about it and pay for your infrastructure.
Administration, is also (super-) easy with docker, chef and whatnot. Press a button and there's your instance.
But I've got no idea, so go burn your money if you want to, and I'll keep my stuff lean and mean.
What a load of shit.
The internet is different. A lot! A domain is around 5-10 bucks and you can get hosting for less. Even when it was more expensive, sites like slashdot existed, which were run by volunteers and were much better quality.
In contrast to /. beta, which was designed in the current web 2.0 hype, without them knowing what web 2.0 really means.
- "Are you really sure you want to trash those two satellites?"
<click>
- "Did you get your boss's approval?"
<click>
You forgot the sarcasm tags, but don't worry, everyone got the joke anyway. ; )
I see what you did there.
There's also DuckDuckGo.com. Despite the name, it's actually quite decent, and the "related" non-boolean search lands on top.