"The most important part of the experience of a book is knowing that it can be owned" Huh?
I thought that perhaps the story told within said book is slightly more important than the media.
Then again, having bothered to (try to) read some of Doctorow's mystifyingly much-lauded short stories, perhaps I can understand his point of view would be different.
...You're complaining that your CELL PHONE call is insecure? Really? Isn't that like complaining that your neighbor can hear when you're shouting from the rooftop?
If you want a secure conversation, don't use a cellphone. (And hint1: without supplemental hardware, that's not secure either; hint2:even WITH supplemental hardware, its probably not secure anyway.)
"fact: if you comment, emotionally, voluminously, AND WITH ALL CAPS, you obviously fucking care"
You (somehow) have missed the fact that the world is full of people that are screaming incessantly that I *must* care. That my tax dollars *must* be used to combat this heinous, malign AGW. That my business *must* change its ways, I *must* no longer drive an SUV, I *must* spend my money to 'offset' my carbon emissions, etc.
What you apparently missed was that I DON'T CARE about global warming. I don't CARE if it's manmade. I most certainly DO care about the debate, as white-guilt-ridden eco-marxists take another run at dismantling the US economy because of their own liberal-suburban angst.
Perhaps that subtlety was lost on you? What's funny is that you titled your reply 'that type of post always amused me'. Maybe if you comprehended what you were reading a little better, it might make more sense?
So if I need to check train or flight schedules, and would like to use a browser that's easily 2x the speed of the crap default BB one, I should get my own device? If I'd like a USEFUL map application that can tell me where this customer is based on my current interpolated location since I've now managed to get lost on the way to my sales call, I should get my own device?
My point is not that I want to play games or music - fine, blacklist those apps. I'd like to be able to do my WORK better with my WORK OWNED multifunction device. Their retarded lockdown policy makes that harder.
"ok, well what are we supposed to do, just accept rising sea levels, melting glaciers and the sahara desert growing 25%?"
Yep. Like much in real life, you accept it, deal with it, and move on.
How many problems (environmental, for example) have been made WORSE by someone just trying to do "something" (for dogmatic or political reasons) without understanding the how, the why, or the details?
Ultimately, no, I really DON'T care. Oh no, the glaciers are melting...does that affect me? Nope. Oh no, the polar bears have no ice to live on! Do I care? Nope, I'd guess they're going to go back to being, well, plain old bears. Oh no, sea levels are rising! Maybe people shouldn't have gotten terribly comfortable living in marginal habitats (ie below sea level) in the first place? Here's a tip: extend the timeline far enough, and ALL HUMAN CONSTRUCTS (including cities) have a survival chance of zero. Get over it. Oh no it's getting warmer/cooler: First, I'm not going to notice a degree or three in my lifetime. And if the storms get worse or it gets wetter or drier? Meh, I'll deal with it. Humans are THE most adaptable creatures on the planet, we'll get through it.
What I certainly WON'T do is to allow a politically-motivated silver-spoon has-been failed politico to 'motivate' any of my actions whatsoever. I will not listen to the crying whines of 'the sky is falling' from a cadre of hippies, ivory-tower academics, and politicians that have been saying the SAME THING* since 1972. Read the Boy Who Cried Wolf, and get back to me; I'm well aware that eventually, he might be right and there might indeed eventually BE a wolf, but I'm willing to risk it just to be able to tune you out. * replace 'anthropogenic global warming' with other crises as needed: food, land, fresh water, nuclear winter, radiation, overpopulation, extinctions, etc.
The climate changes. If it's anthropogenic, I DON'T CARE. If that's the price we pay to have cell phones, cars, and internet porn, I'm cool with that.
I swear to god that the first time Caveman A invented cooked meat, whiny Cavegirl B said "don't eat that, you'll get carcinogens!"
It's funny; I played RPGs for a couple of decades or more, and until I got to MMO RPGs, had never really heard the terms tank and dps.
The reason that the MMO genre has devolved to these reductionist archetypes is because MMO gameplay is about one thing and one thing only: doing damage to kill monsters before they kill you. That's it. Pen and paper RPGs have many, many alternative ways to tell stories and player choices.
Few MMOs I've ever heard of offer anything in the way of goals that don't boil down to killing some stuff. Sure, you might be reuniting two warring factions...but never through discussion or negotiation, generally it's about rescuing someone from some monster/prison/boss or bringing them 10 worg hearts (involving killing many more than 10 worgs). Is there ever any possibility that you could sneak into the enemy fortress, steal the Big McGuffin, and get away WITHOUT killing anyone?
If your gameplay can be boiled down to a function including monster health, monster damage, player health, and player damage, you're going to get players naturally 'gaming' the characters to fit that function as efficiently as possible.
"The problem is that none of these articles have been successful in establishing an alternative model."
Really? That's the standard?
Because, as far as I recall, all the 'standard' and accepted models in the 1990's predicted warming, warming and more warming, yet the last decade hasn't seen it. The models predicted, if not more hurricanes, then at least stronger more devastating hurricanes. That hasn't happened either.
So really, you're asserting that anti-AGW haven't proposed an alternative to a model that DOESN'T WORK?
"Most of the anti-AGW crowd is simply doing armchair, a-priori reasoning behind why AGW is false. "Humans are too puny to have an effect!" they say..."
I'd argue the opposite. Since the beginning of history, mankind has thought he was 'special' or able to control/effect nature. We thought for a long while that we were at the center of the universe.
I'd argue that the pro-AGW crowd is most likely simply continuing this tradition, albeit negatively, and just don't like the idea that humans and their impact are too trivial for the global environment to care.
What you don't apparently understand is that I've made TONS of mistakes, exhibited poor judgement, and failed to plan many times.
The difference between you and me, I'm willing to accept the consequences of those decisions, and not just whinge that "it's not fair!" that they continue to impact me.
I'm fallible. I know that. I accept it. AND I'm willing to live with it.
I appreciate that you're trying really hard, but it still doesn't make sense.
To take your points in order:
- Yes, I linked the graph without context. But in the simplest possible view, doesn't it immediately suggest a question if a data set is being modified in a consistently progressive fashion?
- And yes, I did change topics there from USA to Australia. One might contend that they are topically relevant, as they both point to deliberate skewing of the data, and even reinforce it by showing that it's being done at many places in the discussion, not just for a single region, etc. But I'm sorry about changing topics so (apparently) confusingly; next time I'll wave a FLAG.
- Yes, he mentions that there are 9 stations that cover the whole period. But as you can see he uses their raw data, then he plots the same curve adding in all the stations that come to the present date (regardless of start), and then again adds in ALL the stations, regardless of start/end dates...the (raw) curves ALL LOOK PRETTY NEARLY THE SAME. (And all look strikingly different from the IPCC 'result'.)
- He DID look at the reasons for the homogenization...then again he can only go so far SINCE THE CRU HAS EVADED ATTEMPTS TO DEMAND PUBLICIZATION OF THEIR METHODS. I'll say that again another way: if their methods are so wholesome, why conceal them so aggressively? He looked at (and plotted) both the station count and the specific results for the various (5) Darwin records as a specific example. He found that they disposed of 2 (and explains that fairly acceptably), took the other 3, "adjusted" two of those, averaged with the unadjusted one, and called it good. I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the modification of the two (of three) report lines is statistically justified, why it's in such nice neat nearly integer steps (despite us talking about 26+ stations....simply correcting for various procedural or other trivial changes wouldn't have resulted in nearly as neat 'quantum' steps), and why one would then re-average them back together with a geographically co-located reporting line that wasn't similarly adjusted?
Before you assert he's a liar or politically motivated, sir, you might want to look at the folks who BY THEIR OWN LEAKED WORDS admit to manipulating the data, hiding their methods, lying, attacking critics, gaming the peer-review system, and destroying (whups!) THE ORIGINAL DATA. Yet you straightfacedly declare that their CRITIC must be either very political or a liar? I'm not saying he isn't - he well may be - but that's an amazing cognitive dissonance.
That is staggering hypocrisy, dangerous naivete, or calculated disingenuity. I won't predict which of the three.
When Republicans were kind of the 'permanent minority' in Congress, we remained the party of small, local government (our founding principles).
When the Democrats screwed up so bad that they lost control to the Republicans, there emerged the neo-con - EVANGELICAL (in a jam-it-down-their-throats way, not a religious way, although a large proportion of them ARE religious) conservatism. It's the party of force-your-conservative-viewpoints-on-everyone instead of the mildly Libertarian "just generally leave us alone" original party platform. This was likewise the party that supported the GWBush 'spend like a drunken sailor' plan, and the Bush 'massively broaden the powers and reach of the Federal government plan' that would have had Republicans even from the 70's and 80's going WTF?
Sucks, and I think that's most of what's wrong with the Republican party now, but there it is.
FWIW the Democrats have pretty much also morphed into something unrecognizable by their grandfathers. Can you see a blue-collar steelworker from the 1960s looking at NAMBLA and saying "oh yeah, I'll vote with them!"?
But as the website explains, there were 5 stations at Darwin, which all tracked pretty much directly with each other in terms of the long-term record. Two of the stations were discarded, and of the remaining three, two of those were 'modified' but the third wasn't, and then the three were averaged TOGETHER for a final result.
What?
On what statistical basis would someone adjust two records, while a third record - that tracks with the first two - wasn't adjusted, but then was averaged with the others?
And your ad hominem makes my point perfectly clearly: "I am not accusing you of wearing a mullet. But what you are doing is very close to Creationist fanaticism. It is dishonest, politically motivated, and untrue."
Really? We're not arguing over data and methods, somehow I'm (only nearly - thanks for that...) a Creationist, fanatic, dishonest, politically motivated liar? Might want to check that mote in your own eye first.
You didn't actually read the linked website, did you? Ironic, considering you're complaining that I took the graph out of context.
Actually, it's precisely ON topic.
TLDR on the linked website: a layman goes into the raw data for Northern Australia, and dissects it down to the station level to try to explain why the IPCC report for that region is so different from the raw temp graphs from the GHCN 'homogenized' data - a swing of nearly 2.5 deg C per century, and a complete opposite trend.
I know it would be MUCH more convenient if the world worked the way you suggest, but it doesn't.
See, there are a large number of people who actually TOOK the long view 10 or 15 years ago. "Hm, I'd like to go to that party, but I signed a State High School Non-Alcohol commitment." or "You know, drunken topless table-dancing sounds like a great idea when I'm a smoking-hot hardbody at age 19. But gosh, if someone takes a pic of me, that would really be embarrassing, SO I WON'T DO IT." or "Every one of my friends is toking up, and they're really enjoying it and it doesn't seem to be hurting them, but geez, I might want a job where they're going to drug-test me, so I guess I'll just pass."
As an employer if you a job candidate who was self-indulgent, didn't think through long term consequences, failed to plan for the future, and ended up with embarrassing blemishes on their record.
There's a place for self-indulgence: it's called childhood. Grow up, and quit whinging if people judge you based on actions that you were old enough to know/understand could come back to haunt you.
People aren't doubting SCIENCE. People are understanding that SCIENTISTS are as likely as anyone to be venal, petty, biased, partisan, and above all the previous 8 year administration showed us: political.
When someone shows a graph of temperature data, that's interesting science. When I (thanks to the internet) can pull up the raw paleoclimatological data from NOAA, and ask "hey, Mr. Scientist, why is it that your data doesn't match what I see?" and I get a lot of bullshit, handwaving, and a cavalcade of smoke and mirrors - I become somewhat skeptical.
I promise to let you sell my eyeballs for your income, if you promise to end: - popup ads - odd-shaped flash adds that don't just have a 'close' button - popunder ads - ads with sound - ads grossly inappropriate to the site ("Sasha Grey's new gangbang adventure (with pic)" on a kids site...nice)
Face it, YOUR income depends on your ads being unobtrusive enough to drive away viewers. The current demand for adblocker suggests you've overshot, now pay the consequences.
In Minnesota, the land of 10,000 lakes and long bitter winters, yes. Although there's almost always a case of beer and snowmobile involved in the process.
Slashdot Mirror
Clearly you were driving behind me this morning.
"The most important part of the experience of a book is knowing that it can be owned"
Huh?
I thought that perhaps the story told within said book is slightly more important than the media.
Then again, having bothered to (try to) read some of Doctorow's mystifyingly much-lauded short stories, perhaps I can understand his point of view would be different.
...You're complaining that your CELL PHONE call is insecure? Really? Isn't that like complaining that your neighbor can hear when you're shouting from the rooftop?
If you want a secure conversation, don't use a cellphone. (And hint1: without supplemental hardware, that's not secure either; hint2:even WITH supplemental hardware, its probably not secure anyway.)
"no one is forcing you to do anything"
Really? So increased taxes are optional? Higher power bills for all the nonsense CO2 mitigation technology is optional? What country do you live in?
"fact: if you comment, emotionally, voluminously, AND WITH ALL CAPS, you obviously fucking care"
You (somehow) have missed the fact that the world is full of people that are screaming incessantly that I *must* care. That my tax dollars *must* be used to combat this heinous, malign AGW. That my business *must* change its ways, I *must* no longer drive an SUV, I *must* spend my money to 'offset' my carbon emissions, etc.
What you apparently missed was that I DON'T CARE about global warming. I don't CARE if it's manmade. I most certainly DO care about the debate, as white-guilt-ridden eco-marxists take another run at dismantling the US economy because of their own liberal-suburban angst.
Perhaps that subtlety was lost on you? What's funny is that you titled your reply 'that type of post always amused me'. Maybe if you comprehended what you were reading a little better, it might make more sense?
That response is almost cliche by now.
So if I need to check train or flight schedules, and would like to use a browser that's easily 2x the speed of the crap default BB one, I should get my own device?
If I'd like a USEFUL map application that can tell me where this customer is based on my current interpolated location since I've now managed to get lost on the way to my sales call, I should get my own device?
My point is not that I want to play games or music - fine, blacklist those apps. I'd like to be able to do my WORK better with my WORK OWNED multifunction device. Their retarded lockdown policy makes that harder.
...since my corporate masters have completely locked mine down, anyway. No outside apps, no non BB Enterprise server connections, nothing.
It makes it SUCH a useful MULTIFUNCTION device, when you're slaved to the default apps.
"ok, well what are we supposed to do, just accept rising sea levels, melting glaciers and the sahara desert growing 25%?"
Yep. Like much in real life, you accept it, deal with it, and move on.
How many problems (environmental, for example) have been made WORSE by someone just trying to do "something" (for dogmatic or political reasons) without understanding the how, the why, or the details?
Ultimately, no, I really DON'T care.
Oh no, the glaciers are melting...does that affect me? Nope.
Oh no, the polar bears have no ice to live on! Do I care? Nope, I'd guess they're going to go back to being, well, plain old bears.
Oh no, sea levels are rising! Maybe people shouldn't have gotten terribly comfortable living in marginal habitats (ie below sea level) in the first place? Here's a tip: extend the timeline far enough, and ALL HUMAN CONSTRUCTS (including cities) have a survival chance of zero. Get over it.
Oh no it's getting warmer/cooler: First, I'm not going to notice a degree or three in my lifetime. And if the storms get worse or it gets wetter or drier? Meh, I'll deal with it. Humans are THE most adaptable creatures on the planet, we'll get through it.
What I certainly WON'T do is to allow a politically-motivated silver-spoon has-been failed politico to 'motivate' any of my actions whatsoever. I will not listen to the crying whines of 'the sky is falling' from a cadre of hippies, ivory-tower academics, and politicians that have been saying the SAME THING* since 1972. Read the Boy Who Cried Wolf, and get back to me; I'm well aware that eventually, he might be right and there might indeed eventually BE a wolf, but I'm willing to risk it just to be able to tune you out.
* replace 'anthropogenic global warming' with other crises as needed: food, land, fresh water, nuclear winter, radiation, overpopulation, extinctions, etc.
The climate changes. If it's anthropogenic, I DON'T CARE. If that's the price we pay to have cell phones, cars, and internet porn, I'm cool with that.
I swear to god that the first time Caveman A invented cooked meat, whiny Cavegirl B said "don't eat that, you'll get carcinogens!"
It's funny; I played RPGs for a couple of decades or more, and until I got to MMO RPGs, had never really heard the terms tank and dps.
The reason that the MMO genre has devolved to these reductionist archetypes is because MMO gameplay is about one thing and one thing only: doing damage to kill monsters before they kill you. That's it. Pen and paper RPGs have many, many alternative ways to tell stories and player choices.
Few MMOs I've ever heard of offer anything in the way of goals that don't boil down to killing some stuff. Sure, you might be reuniting two warring factions...but never through discussion or negotiation, generally it's about rescuing someone from some monster/prison/boss or bringing them 10 worg hearts (involving killing many more than 10 worgs). Is there ever any possibility that you could sneak into the enemy fortress, steal the Big McGuffin, and get away WITHOUT killing anyone?
If your gameplay can be boiled down to a function including monster health, monster damage, player health, and player damage, you're going to get players naturally 'gaming' the characters to fit that function as efficiently as possible.
Wouldn't it make more sense just to do it for TWELVE hours and maybe loop it 2x per day?
I staggered at that too, read it a few times before I realized it really DOESN'T make any sense.
Moreover: "scanning the entire sky one-and-a-half times in nine months" wha...? Why not just say "it will scan the sky in 6 months" (per TFA).
"The problem is that none of these articles have been successful in establishing an alternative model."
Really? That's the standard?
Because, as far as I recall, all the 'standard' and accepted models in the 1990's predicted warming, warming and more warming, yet the last decade hasn't seen it.
The models predicted, if not more hurricanes, then at least stronger more devastating hurricanes. That hasn't happened either.
So really, you're asserting that anti-AGW haven't proposed an alternative to a model that DOESN'T WORK?
"Most of the anti-AGW crowd is simply doing armchair, a-priori reasoning behind why AGW is false. "Humans are too puny to have an effect!" they say..."
I'd argue the opposite.
Since the beginning of history, mankind has thought he was 'special' or able to control/effect nature.
We thought for a long while that we were at the center of the universe.
I'd argue that the pro-AGW crowd is most likely simply continuing this tradition, albeit negatively, and just don't like the idea that humans and their impact are too trivial for the global environment to care.
What you don't apparently understand is that I've made TONS of mistakes, exhibited poor judgement, and failed to plan many times.
The difference between you and me, I'm willing to accept the consequences of those decisions, and not just whinge that "it's not fair!" that they continue to impact me.
I'm fallible. I know that. I accept it. AND I'm willing to live with it.
It's now at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
I appreciate that you're trying really hard, but it still doesn't make sense.
To take your points in order:
- Yes, I linked the graph without context. But in the simplest possible view, doesn't it immediately suggest a question if a data set is being modified in a consistently progressive fashion?
- And yes, I did change topics there from USA to Australia. One might contend that they are topically relevant, as they both point to deliberate skewing of the data, and even reinforce it by showing that it's being done at many places in the discussion, not just for a single region, etc. But I'm sorry about changing topics so (apparently) confusingly; next time I'll wave a FLAG.
- Yes, he mentions that there are 9 stations that cover the whole period. But as you can see he uses their raw data, then he plots the same curve adding in all the stations that come to the present date (regardless of start), and then again adds in ALL the stations, regardless of start/end dates...the (raw) curves ALL LOOK PRETTY NEARLY THE SAME. (And all look strikingly different from the IPCC 'result'.)
- He DID look at the reasons for the homogenization...then again he can only go so far SINCE THE CRU HAS EVADED ATTEMPTS TO DEMAND PUBLICIZATION OF THEIR METHODS. I'll say that again another way: if their methods are so wholesome, why conceal them so aggressively? He looked at (and plotted) both the station count and the specific results for the various (5) Darwin records as a specific example. He found that they disposed of 2 (and explains that fairly acceptably), took the other 3, "adjusted" two of those, averaged with the unadjusted one, and called it good. I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the modification of the two (of three) report lines is statistically justified, why it's in such nice neat nearly integer steps (despite us talking about 26+ stations....simply correcting for various procedural or other trivial changes wouldn't have resulted in nearly as neat 'quantum' steps), and why one would then re-average them back together with a geographically co-located reporting line that wasn't similarly adjusted?
Before you assert he's a liar or politically motivated, sir, you might want to look at the folks who BY THEIR OWN LEAKED WORDS admit to manipulating the data, hiding their methods, lying, attacking critics, gaming the peer-review system, and destroying (whups!) THE ORIGINAL DATA. Yet you straightfacedly declare that their CRITIC must be either very political or a liar? I'm not saying he isn't - he well may be - but that's an amazing cognitive dissonance.
That is staggering hypocrisy, dangerous naivete, or calculated disingenuity. I won't predict which of the three.
It's the bifurcation of the right.
When Republicans were kind of the 'permanent minority' in Congress, we remained the party of small, local government (our founding principles).
When the Democrats screwed up so bad that they lost control to the Republicans, there emerged the neo-con - EVANGELICAL (in a jam-it-down-their-throats way, not a religious way, although a large proportion of them ARE religious) conservatism. It's the party of force-your-conservative-viewpoints-on-everyone instead of the mildly Libertarian "just generally leave us alone" original party platform. This was likewise the party that supported the GWBush 'spend like a drunken sailor' plan, and the Bush 'massively broaden the powers and reach of the Federal government plan' that would have had Republicans even from the 70's and 80's going WTF?
Sucks, and I think that's most of what's wrong with the Republican party now, but there it is.
FWIW the Democrats have pretty much also morphed into something unrecognizable by their grandfathers. Can you see a blue-collar steelworker from the 1960s looking at NAMBLA and saying "oh yeah, I'll vote with them!"?
But as the website explains, there were 5 stations at Darwin, which all tracked pretty much directly with each other in terms of the long-term record. Two of the stations were discarded, and of the remaining three, two of those were 'modified' but the third wasn't, and then the three were averaged TOGETHER for a final result.
What?
On what statistical basis would someone adjust two records, while a third record - that tracks with the first two - wasn't adjusted, but then was averaged with the others?
And your ad hominem makes my point perfectly clearly: "I am not accusing you of wearing a mullet. But what you are doing is very close to Creationist fanaticism. It is dishonest, politically motivated, and untrue."
Really? We're not arguing over data and methods, somehow I'm (only nearly - thanks for that...) a Creationist, fanatic, dishonest, politically motivated liar? Might want to check that mote in your own eye first.
You didn't actually read the linked website, did you?
Ironic, considering you're complaining that I took the graph out of context.
Actually, it's precisely ON topic.
TLDR on the linked website: a layman goes into the raw data for Northern Australia, and dissects it down to the station level to try to explain why the IPCC report for that region is so different from the raw temp graphs from the GHCN 'homogenized' data - a swing of nearly 2.5 deg C per century, and a complete opposite trend.
Too bad.
I know it would be MUCH more convenient if the world worked the way you suggest, but it doesn't.
See, there are a large number of people who actually TOOK the long view 10 or 15 years ago. "Hm, I'd like to go to that party, but I signed a State High School Non-Alcohol commitment." or "You know, drunken topless table-dancing sounds like a great idea when I'm a smoking-hot hardbody at age 19. But gosh, if someone takes a pic of me, that would really be embarrassing, SO I WON'T DO IT." or "Every one of my friends is toking up, and they're really enjoying it and it doesn't seem to be hurting them, but geez, I might want a job where they're going to drug-test me, so I guess I'll just pass."
As an employer if you a job candidate who was self-indulgent, didn't think through long term consequences, failed to plan for the future, and ended up with embarrassing blemishes on their record.
There's a place for self-indulgence: it's called childhood. Grow up, and quit whinging if people judge you based on actions that you were old enough to know/understand could come back to haunt you.
Life has consequences, get over it.
One picture tells it all:
(graph of the difference in degrees between raw and "final" data sets)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif
People aren't doubting SCIENCE.
People are understanding that SCIENTISTS are as likely as anyone to be venal, petty, biased, partisan, and above all the previous 8 year administration showed us: political.
When someone shows a graph of temperature data, that's interesting science.
When I (thanks to the internet) can pull up the raw paleoclimatological data from NOAA, and ask "hey, Mr. Scientist, why is it that your data doesn't match what I see?" and I get a lot of bullshit, handwaving, and a cavalcade of smoke and mirrors - I become somewhat skeptical.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ ... and then don't you DARE call my questioning of your methods "doubts about science" - that's just you building a strawman to try to paint me as some mullet-wearing, Creationism-believing rube.
I understand, it's much easier to just call your critics "stupid" than to acknowledge that the dogma you've been parroting is falling apart.
Aha, I used to tell everyone I was underheight for my weight.
Now I can point out that I'm ALSO undermuscled for my nutritional intake.
It seems the deck is stacked against me.
I promise to let you sell my eyeballs for your income, if you promise to end:
- popup ads
- odd-shaped flash adds that don't just have a 'close' button
- popunder ads
- ads with sound
- ads grossly inappropriate to the site ("Sasha Grey's new gangbang adventure (with pic)" on a kids site...nice)
Face it, YOUR income depends on your ads being unobtrusive enough to drive away viewers. The current demand for adblocker suggests you've overshot, now pay the consequences.
In Minnesota, the land of 10,000 lakes and long bitter winters, yes. Although there's almost always a case of beer and snowmobile involved in the process.
Capitalism-wise, it's genius. Nearly as smart as prostitution.
"Let me perform a service, charging you by the hour, but the longer I go the happier you are."