Sorry, but I think your problem is another if you have to buy the game again to get the achievement of friendship. I advise you to leave home and seek friends of flesh and bone. I speak Spanish, sorry for the grammar
Those friends of flesh and bone, they come over and play video games. It's this fun thing called LAN parties or just co-op gaming... heck even solo gaming on different systems is fun. It's also how I keep in touch with family who live in different provinces/countries. I wouldn't know my nephews at all if I couldn't game with them on XBL.
If you're an Xbox gamer it gives you your Xbox friends/chat/achievements. It's not actively updated but it's still supported by phone support and all the services are still active. It's a piece of crap software but I've got Xbox copies of a lot of the games, the duplicate purchases were entirely motivated by the xbox achievements which I can no longer get.
GFWL still works. If a game developer decides they don't want to use it, and don't want to maintain the services with Microsoft in order to allow the acheivements to continue to work, that's their decision. Steam has nothing to do with it
Steam is the only problem in the situation. I don't care if developers patch out GFWL so long as [b]I[/b] am not [i]forced[/i] to install their patch. Steam is the party that forces patches on its users. Several of the games I have been able to unpatch because I had recorded the keys but the majority I am unable to. Once unpatched the GFWL functionality is still there and works perfectly, including multiplayer.
My personal issue is with removing GFWL when that was the specific reason I bought them. My hobby is getting Xbox live achievements and ~30 of the 44 GFWL games I purchased were through Steam. Everything would have been fine if I had the choice of when to apply patches but Steam forces them on you either through auto-updates or on launch. GFWL has been stripped out of a half dozen of them and another half dozen are "update pending" so that if I ever launch them again they get patched too. This is compounded by the fact that Steam, along with these patches, included a patch of their own which removes the product key from your system. This prevents you from using your key to activate a pirated copy to restore what you'd originally purchased.
That specific scenario aside, the bigger picture is that any update can remove/change any feature at any time. Something you love about a product can simply vanish and you have no recourse. I was reading about an early access game (Starforge) that did just that and had the balls to try and sell some of it as DLC. The early access factor meant they couldn't really complain but there's nothing stopping any developer from doing that sort of thing at any time with any content.
The industry has had numerous attempts at self-regulation and failed. AdBlock may not be the 'right' ones to determine what is acceptable but they've taken up the responsibility and have done it in a way that seems acceptable to consumers. So while they may not be 'right' in the long run, they're 'right for right now'.
The larger point about the second one was that sacrifices can be made to make things affordable. Not every site needs every feature or the ability to do what the big boys do. Or identifying the level of interaction you can support and limiting users to that amount of interaction (ie: only so many comments per month or whatever)... there's a lot of solutions to resource issues but most people just see the basic in/out calculation and none of the possibilities in between.
I don't think they understand that they are free to publish whatever they want... but we are also free to ignore/cut up/block the stuff we don't want. I call that a win. If it means a bunch of publishers go out of business and the internet gets less commercial, I'm fine with that too.
And the ones that don't go out of business are behind a paywall. I welcome that endgame because then self-entitled millennials can no longer hide behind the veil of "ads are bad for privacy/performance" as an excuse to get content for free.
I can walk across the street to get content for free. It's called a library and it's wonderful. They even give passes to the science centre, museums, zoos, etc. for free. None of it is free and we pay with taxes/donations/etc but it gives free distribution of information to all. It's existed far longer than your so called "self-entitled millennials" and is still packed despite the internet.
That's why I chose those words actually. I'm not ignorant of the economics and I know nothing is free. Freely distributed, to me, means the same as talking to someone, a library, a public domain film, etc. They take resources in terms of time, money, effort, etc. but they result in free distribution. In terms of the problem you're referring to P2P browsers will have a part to play and new solutions need to arise (P2P obviously doesn't solve dynamic content/database interaction/etc) but I think it's really important to keep the distribution of information free. If it means ads, that's fine too but "Acceptable Ads" is a very reasonable program that allows you to advertise without compromising & pissing off the people you're advertising to.
To be clear, I'm also not saying that free distribution is the only way. There is room for it all, just not at the scale that everyone would like. It may mean that if you want a free encyclopedia you go entirely P2P and limit the number of editors. It may mean your business will be limited to the 2/3rds of people who don't use an ad blocker. Like your site, instead of going to a $1k/month solution you couldn't afford, did you consider going to a solution you could afford but may not have served as many people? ie: limit it to your state, country, hemisphere or merely the number of users at a time? It's not ideal, but if it meant you could keep the lights on while you grew it to serve more?
Except those defined by Adblock as being "acceptable" (ie, they get paid).
I don't see a problem with Adblock getting paid to be a part of their "acceptable ads" program. The rules are clear & open to all, Adblock has to pay people to administer the program & enforce compliance with those rules. The larger the site, the more staff they need to ensure compliance/handle complaints/etc so larger sites pay more than smaller ones. And in the end, it's still up to the user whether they participate or not.
According to that article, it does not come pre-installed. It still requires a user do something to get the ability to block ads.
I re-read the article and I'm not seeing what you're seeing (unless you're referring to the browser itself not being pre-installed?)
What I am seeing is:
Adblock Plus says its app is the first mobile browser to offer users ad blocking as an integrated, out-of-the-box feature. More people are using ad blockers, according to the company, and so moving to the mobile space automatic ad blocking at the browser level is a natural extension.
I agree with a lot of what you said, but these two are pretty lame:
Who do you think puts the work in?
Did no one teach you about volunteerism? Sharing? Community? Donation? Betterment of humanity?
The context is business. None of your counter examples were.
The internet is not a guarantee of being able to operate a business. Sure, some have figured out how to make a business out of it, but many are simply getting information out there. Be it for their business, politics, religion, science, history, etc. the internet's primary function is communication & the dissemination of information to anyone who wishes to access it. If your business model doesn't work unless you obstruct that access, either by ads/malware/paywall or some other form, then you can expect to lose audience to someone who finds a way to provide it with less/no obstruction. If you don't lose that audience, you can expect them to attempt to remove/mitigate the obstructions.
All that said, how many internet "businesses" are simply users doing the heavy lifting while the business merely provides the forum to do so. Facebook is nothing without users giving up their information. Google is nothing without something to search. Youtube is nothing without people uploading their (cat) videos.
Do you get paid for doing YOUR job?
Out of university, 2 1/2 years of unpaid internships. Nuff said.
You either considered those internships worthwhile for that foot in the door (making them a transaction not altruistic) or you were an idiot to work for free for 2.5 years. Pray tell, which?
Internships are not a transaction because it's not A for B. A "foot in the door" is worthless when there's no job at the end of it. It's A (work) for the possibility of B (a job), which amounts to gambling. One could easily make the argument that gambling is an idiot's pursuit. That said, the last stat I read was that 55% of university grads were doing at least 1 unpaid internship after they finished their education.
I'm going to feed the troll. Seems like he's starving
Those of you who block ads but still consume the services of sites that run them without paying into any subscription fee, why do you freeload?
Because information ought to be freely distributed. Just because you have the possibility of making money one something does not mean you have the guarantee of it.
If you like something you support it, right?
No, no I don't. As much as I would like to murder all the stupid people in the world, it's just not something I'd support. I like going to the movies, but I don't support them in their attempts to gouge me on ticket/concession prices. I like seeing dolphins & whales doing tricks but I don't support Seaworld. etc.
I still have not figured out the bizarre-o world of the internet where some people want something for free, block any attempt to pay for it via ads, refuse to pay subscriptions, won't buy the T-shirt, etc., but still want it to be there tomorrow for them when they wake up.
I'm addressing now folks who do that - who do you think pays the bills on sites?
Nope, I could not care at all if some of the sites I visit were there tomorrow. In fact I would probably have a more productive day if they were not. There's very little on the internet that I need, some that I may want, but mostly it's stuff that I don't need or want, like ads for stuff I'm not going to buy. If they can't find an honest/reasonable/unobtrusive business model it's not up to me to make sure their bills get paid.
Who do you think puts the work in?
Did no one teach you about volunteerism? Sharing? Community? Donation? Betterment of humanity?
Do you get paid for doing YOUR job?
Out of university, 2 1/2 years of unpaid internships. Nuff said.
Questions ever unanswered..
Not unanswered, just that you don't like the answers because you've got a myopic view of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Any recommended settings? It's not exactly intuitive for a non-audio guy.
What's it called? I want to install it! :)
Touche.
You mean someone uses Windows built-in DVD playback? The first thing I've done on a new computer for the last five or six years is install VLC.
First thing is install a new browser, second thing is install adblock plus, the third is to install VLC.
Sorry, but I think your problem is another if you have to buy the game again to get the achievement of friendship. I advise you to leave home and seek friends of flesh and bone.
I speak Spanish, sorry for the grammar
Those friends of flesh and bone, they come over and play video games. It's this fun thing called LAN parties or just co-op gaming... heck even solo gaming on different systems is fun. It's also how I keep in touch with family who live in different provinces/countries. I wouldn't know my nephews at all if I couldn't game with them on XBL.
Who knew it wasn't 1960s anymore?
If you're an Xbox gamer it gives you your Xbox friends/chat/achievements. It's not actively updated but it's still supported by phone support and all the services are still active. It's a piece of crap software but I've got Xbox copies of a lot of the games, the duplicate purchases were entirely motivated by the xbox achievements which I can no longer get.
Its like people don't even know how to use Steam.
Looks like you're one of them. It hasn't been that way for some time. The "Do not update" option was changed to "Only update this game when I play".
GFWL still works. If a game developer decides they don't want to use it, and don't want to maintain the services with Microsoft in order to allow the acheivements to continue to work, that's their decision. Steam has nothing to do with it
Steam is the only problem in the situation. I don't care if developers patch out GFWL so long as [b]I[/b] am not [i]forced[/i] to install their patch. Steam is the party that forces patches on its users. Several of the games I have been able to unpatch because I had recorded the keys but the majority I am unable to. Once unpatched the GFWL functionality is still there and works perfectly, including multiplayer.
Hilarious!
I wouldn't include any new tech in my home... the tech I'd include is like that system was. It doesn't exist yet and I'd have to create it myself.
My personal issue is with removing GFWL when that was the specific reason I bought them. My hobby is getting Xbox live achievements and ~30 of the 44 GFWL games I purchased were through Steam. Everything would have been fine if I had the choice of when to apply patches but Steam forces them on you either through auto-updates or on launch. GFWL has been stripped out of a half dozen of them and another half dozen are "update pending" so that if I ever launch them again they get patched too. This is compounded by the fact that Steam, along with these patches, included a patch of their own which removes the product key from your system. This prevents you from using your key to activate a pirated copy to restore what you'd originally purchased.
That specific scenario aside, the bigger picture is that any update can remove/change any feature at any time. Something you love about a product can simply vanish and you have no recourse. I was reading about an early access game (Starforge) that did just that and had the balls to try and sell some of it as DLC. The early access factor meant they couldn't really complain but there's nothing stopping any developer from doing that sort of thing at any time with any content.
They refuse to refund after forcing patches on users which remove functionality from them.
I'd be up for it if they cut the price by 50% for those that are willing to see them, otherwise they can take their ads and shove them up their ass.
That's the slippery slope that led to Cable TV.
In other words, I'll be moving to the next service that does not advertise. Or just torrent/stream (with adblock of course).
The industry has had numerous attempts at self-regulation and failed. AdBlock may not be the 'right' ones to determine what is acceptable but they've taken up the responsibility and have done it in a way that seems acceptable to consumers. So while they may not be 'right' in the long run, they're 'right for right now'.
The larger point about the second one was that sacrifices can be made to make things affordable. Not every site needs every feature or the ability to do what the big boys do. Or identifying the level of interaction you can support and limiting users to that amount of interaction (ie: only so many comments per month or whatever)... there's a lot of solutions to resource issues but most people just see the basic in/out calculation and none of the possibilities in between.
I don't think they understand that they are free to publish whatever they want... but we are also free to ignore/cut up/block the stuff we don't want. I call that a win. If it means a bunch of publishers go out of business and the internet gets less commercial, I'm fine with that too.
And the ones that don't go out of business are behind a paywall.
I welcome that endgame because then self-entitled millennials can no longer hide behind the veil of "ads are bad for privacy/performance" as an excuse to get content for free.
I can walk across the street to get content for free. It's called a library and it's wonderful. They even give passes to the science centre, museums, zoos, etc. for free. None of it is free and we pay with taxes/donations/etc but it gives free distribution of information to all. It's existed far longer than your so called "self-entitled millennials" and is still packed despite the internet.
That's why I chose those words actually. I'm not ignorant of the economics and I know nothing is free. Freely distributed, to me, means the same as talking to someone, a library, a public domain film, etc. They take resources in terms of time, money, effort, etc. but they result in free distribution. In terms of the problem you're referring to P2P browsers will have a part to play and new solutions need to arise (P2P obviously doesn't solve dynamic content/database interaction/etc) but I think it's really important to keep the distribution of information free. If it means ads, that's fine too but "Acceptable Ads" is a very reasonable program that allows you to advertise without compromising & pissing off the people you're advertising to.
To be clear, I'm also not saying that free distribution is the only way. There is room for it all, just not at the scale that everyone would like. It may mean that if you want a free encyclopedia you go entirely P2P and limit the number of editors. It may mean your business will be limited to the 2/3rds of people who don't use an ad blocker. Like your site, instead of going to a $1k/month solution you couldn't afford, did you consider going to a solution you could afford but may not have served as many people? ie: limit it to your state, country, hemisphere or merely the number of users at a time? It's not ideal, but if it meant you could keep the lights on while you grew it to serve more?
Except those defined by Adblock as being "acceptable" (ie, they get paid).
I don't see a problem with Adblock getting paid to be a part of their "acceptable ads" program. The rules are clear & open to all, Adblock has to pay people to administer the program & enforce compliance with those rules. The larger the site, the more staff they need to ensure compliance/handle complaints/etc so larger sites pay more than smaller ones. And in the end, it's still up to the user whether they participate or not.
Save the image link posts for reddit. That's idiotic here.
It summed up the concept far better than I could with words.
According to that article, it does not come pre-installed. It still requires a user do something to get the ability to block ads.
I re-read the article and I'm not seeing what you're seeing (unless you're referring to the browser itself not being pre-installed?)
What I am seeing is:
Adblock Plus says its app is the first mobile browser to offer users ad blocking as an integrated, out-of-the-box feature. More people are using ad blockers, according to the company, and so moving to the mobile space automatic ad blocking at the browser level is a natural extension.
I don't have an Android, so correct me if I'm wrong.. The 'AdBlock Plus Browser' does not come pre-installed does it?
It was on the front page last week... http://news.slashdot.org/story...
I agree with a lot of what you said, but these two are pretty lame:
The context is business. None of your counter examples were.
The internet is not a guarantee of being able to operate a business. Sure, some have figured out how to make a business out of it, but many are simply getting information out there. Be it for their business, politics, religion, science, history, etc. the internet's primary function is communication & the dissemination of information to anyone who wishes to access it. If your business model doesn't work unless you obstruct that access, either by ads/malware/paywall or some other form, then you can expect to lose audience to someone who finds a way to provide it with less/no obstruction. If you don't lose that audience, you can expect them to attempt to remove/mitigate the obstructions.
All that said, how many internet "businesses" are simply users doing the heavy lifting while the business merely provides the forum to do so. Facebook is nothing without users giving up their information. Google is nothing without something to search. Youtube is nothing without people uploading their (cat) videos.
Out of university, 2 1/2 years of unpaid internships. Nuff said.
You either considered those internships worthwhile for that foot in the door (making them a transaction not altruistic) or you were an idiot to work for free for 2.5 years. Pray tell, which?
Internships are not a transaction because it's not A for B. A "foot in the door" is worthless when there's no job at the end of it. It's A (work) for the possibility of B (a job), which amounts to gambling. One could easily make the argument that gambling is an idiot's pursuit. That said, the last stat I read was that 55% of university grads were doing at least 1 unpaid internship after they finished their education.
Yup. Android & the "Adblock Plus Browser" is about the only example I can think of that is sort of pre-installed... in the browser anyway.
As this is the forth lawsuit, it may just be Eyeo that goes out of business due to the lawyer fees.
https://i.imgur.com/3RFSB27.jp...
Patents & copyrights are some of the most idiotic guarantees of our time.
I'm going to feed the troll. Seems like he's starving
Those of you who block ads but still consume the services of sites that run them without paying into any subscription fee, why do you freeload?
Because information ought to be freely distributed. Just because you have the possibility of making money one something does not mean you have the guarantee of it.
If you like something you support it, right?
No, no I don't. As much as I would like to murder all the stupid people in the world, it's just not something I'd support. I like going to the movies, but I don't support them in their attempts to gouge me on ticket/concession prices. I like seeing dolphins & whales doing tricks but I don't support Seaworld. etc.
I still have not figured out the bizarre-o world of the internet where some people want something for free, block any attempt to pay for it via ads, refuse to pay subscriptions, won't buy the T-shirt, etc., but still want it to be there tomorrow for them when they wake up.
I'm addressing now folks who do that - who do you think pays the bills on sites?
Nope, I could not care at all if some of the sites I visit were there tomorrow. In fact I would probably have a more productive day if they were not. There's very little on the internet that I need, some that I may want, but mostly it's stuff that I don't need or want, like ads for stuff I'm not going to buy. If they can't find an honest/reasonable/unobtrusive business model it's not up to me to make sure their bills get paid.
Who do you think puts the work in?
Did no one teach you about volunteerism? Sharing? Community? Donation? Betterment of humanity?
Do you get paid for doing YOUR job?
Out of university, 2 1/2 years of unpaid internships. Nuff said.
Questions ever unanswered..
Not unanswered, just that you don't like the answers because you've got a myopic view of the world.