I'm not sure smart is the word here. Naïve, sold, sheep, lacking wisdom... There's plenty of smart people that succumb to the hype of getting or experiencing "something".
The hype is what motivates people to line up for products and events. It's the price they are willing to pay for a moment of glory or fun.
It is well documented and has been nicely charted by a few (there's a nice TED talk about it too) that increased education and increased economy reduces the birth rate. That may be the best solution for birth control. Educate you damn people and give them a decent world to live in.
Marketing 101 states otherwise. The ones you remember are the ones you lookup when you need something quick. No all users are the same but the strategy works for the masses. The fact that there's a show called "The Kardashian" is living proof that poor quality content and presentation doesn't make it unpopular.
There are 3 real ways to pay for your efforts: - Subscription - Donations - Advertising
Some service don't cater to subscription or donations. That leaves advertising. It's a valid approach to getting paid for the efforts and cost of operations.
and I'm not prepared to put something on my site if I don't know what it is,
That's perfectly reasonable depending on what your objectives and target audience are.
particularly since ads are frequently a vector for malware
Sure it is but so is just going on any web site. As you said, make sure you pick the right ad provider. There are plenty with a solid reputation.
but there don't seem to be many of those that pay well
That is true. The good agencies that keep malware issues under control and content clean don't pay as much. At least it's a good choice for getting some revenue. If the services you provide aren't worth a full time salary, chances are you won't make a full time salary out if it anyway.
I don't think the intent is to motivate full time bug hunting but rather allow those who suspect a bug to have the motivation to dig deeper. This is especially true of those in the enterprise level security consulting where they have a responsibility of testing for vulnerabilities or understanding the source of a security failure at their customer's.
I know people who have monetized exploitation of a bug. The reward is often limited unless you are willing to go the next level of exploitation which has higher rewards but is also riskier and out of range for most (intellectual property theft, email spamming, and general financial theft). Legitimate money for the same findings will deter some from exploiting quietly.
Because apparently most Americans now accept this crap as perfectly normal, and have fully embraced that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.
That's because they either don't care enough or they don't understand the issue. Most tech savvy people understand what power comes with access information. I'm willing to trust the authorities within reason but I will protect my data just in case.
I've said this before and I still stand by this belief that the user should have the right to protect his data. Should this person be in a position where access to the data can prove him innocent OR guilty, he should have to provide access to the data with the risk of being proven guilty should he not. I understand this is tricky but I think the current system would allow for the possibility to discard the request if the defendant has grounds to prove it is not required.
Either that or they're just trying to sell you a new phone
Among the list of items most users seek to get when upgrading their phone, I doubt being "NSA Proof" is in the top 10. After all, these are the same morons that wait for days in line hoping to be first to brag about getting the newest iPhone.
So many people think they should attach ads to websites, sit back and rake in the cash
That isn't your decision to make. If you don't want the ads, pay for the premium service and if it's not available don't use the service. It's really that simple.
Ads are the singlemost easy way to get infected with malware in 2015.
I'm sure you're right (for users with outdated browsers) but you need to back you claims with numbers from a reputable source.
The adverse effect of ad blocking is poor browsing experience for those who have it (when countermeasures are in place) AND the reduced value of ad prints. The results of reduced ad value is that more are published to accomplish the same level of revenue (in some cases sufficient and other cases abundant). At the end of the day, resources and labour for the work done must be paid out and if revenues come from ads, it just means the quality of the services you use will go down as revenues diminish OR you will be forced to pay to gain access to the service. Fortunately people like you will have a harder time making use of these ad blocking tools as many of the ad providers are shifting efforts towards making sure their ads make it to the viewer.
Well you're not listening very hard. The big issue today is that ad networks are spreading malware. It's now necessary to block ads *as a security measure* (my company blocks them at our gateway for precisely that reason). If you want to be part of a botnet that's your choice.
Yes, because that's the reason people use ad blockers... SURE....
Alternatively, they could get a real job, producing real products that real people are really willing to pay for.
Ahhh, so you fall in the category of "sense of entitlement".
And why don't you defined real product for me because last I checked, apps are real products and so are online services.
The fact that you are using the application and are blocking ads is sign that you are interested in the product but aren't willing to pay (sense of entitlement). That's where you way of thinking falls flat on it's face.
I'm a firm believer that advertising should not be blocked or redirected to another advertisement service. I believe this because the application developers depend on this to obtain some reward for an application they developed at no "direct" cost to the users.
The argument I keep hearing is: Well the advertisements are annoying. My answer back is: You don't have to use their application or service. In many cases the ad free apps are available at a small cost.
IMO developers and broadcasters are allowed to monetize their efforts.
I'm happy you mentioned that because that is a very good argument. When I wrote my comment I was well aware there are more variables to the equation. For example the social programs in other countries do a better job at handling mental illness.
You can't solve all the problems with gun control BUT, gun control is part of the equation that will help reduce the number the deaths related to guns. It would be important to determine % of the homicides by guns performed by people with some mental illness and then determine if there is a way to help these people. Better social services may cost less and do a better job than gun control or maybe it's the other way around.
Are you really going to compare 2nd and 3rd world countries with a 1st world country? If you take the drug countries and war thorn countries out you're left with the US being in 1st place.
So in the US you have a 0.003% chance of being killed in your lifetime (based on average age of 82) Compare with Canada (a direct neighbor with similar lifestyle BUT with gun control). You have a 0.0004% chance of being killed in your lifetime.
This means you are 7 times more likely to die from homicide in the US than in Canada. Now go ahead and explain how gun control doesn't minimize the problem.
A company can certainly contractually bind someone
Not all contracts can be enforced. The court system can deem a contract or portions of a contract as invalid or unreasonable.
iFixIt didn't buy an Apple TV off the shelf
I didn't catch that part so that's my bad. If they did purchase it off the shelf they would be allowed to take it apart and show the world how it works.
Funny thing is that I think that Apple may be breaking the law by banning their app over this (freedom of speech). Last I checked it's perfectly legal to reverse engineer something as long as you don't copy their product and start selling it. I think both parties are walking a fine line. Guess we have to tune in to figure out what happens next.
You can do fraud on much larger scales if you're a corporation and have made the right campaign donations. And you'll be hailed as a fucking hero.
You catch the ones you can. The corporate bastards that steal often do it within the limitations of our legal system. It takes a collective effort to punish those corporations. People would rather write a blog about it and stop there instead trying to influence people into taking action such as boycotting. Proof of this is Apple. They used kids to build their products and they managed to escape the tax man yet they are the number 1 brand in the world and continue to make money like it grows on trees.
It is possible that I'm guilty of that from time to time, words on a web forum don't convey context or tone, what one person takes harshly was intended lightheartly, and so on.
The two things that bother me the most on/. are: - People who insult you because you don't agree with them. I simply shut them down at that point - People who put words in your mouth or take a sentence out of content to either nullify your argument to create a tangent in the discussion
I'm sure you've met those people. I could probably name a few off top my head.:)
Agreed, but his statement was broad and assuming open source automatically equals better which we both know is not true. In this case it may be but lets not make it a rule of thumb.
Slashdot Mirror
If those people were smart,
I'm not sure smart is the word here. Naïve, sold, sheep, lacking wisdom...
There's plenty of smart people that succumb to the hype of getting or experiencing "something".
The hype is what motivates people to line up for products and events. It's the price they are willing to pay for a moment of glory or fun.
It is well documented and has been nicely charted by a few (there's a nice TED talk about it too) that increased education and increased economy reduces the birth rate. That may be the best solution for birth control. Educate you damn people and give them a decent world to live in.
That's not true. Politicians are quick to do the right thing if they have support to do it.
Whatever happened to refusing to use a product?
Why not look for an alternative?
If you didn't have an Ad blocker option would you just keep going to the web site anyway?
Marketing 101 states otherwise. The ones you remember are the ones you lookup when you need something quick. No all users are the same but the strategy works for the masses. The fact that there's a show called "The Kardashian" is living proof that poor quality content and presentation doesn't make it unpopular.
There are 3 real ways to pay for your efforts:
- Subscription
- Donations
- Advertising
Some service don't cater to subscription or donations. That leaves advertising. It's a valid approach to getting paid for the efforts and cost of operations.
and I'm not prepared to put something on my site if I don't know what it is,
That's perfectly reasonable depending on what your objectives and target audience are.
particularly since ads are frequently a vector for malware
Sure it is but so is just going on any web site. As you said, make sure you pick the right ad provider. There are plenty with a solid reputation.
but there don't seem to be many of those that pay well
That is true. The good agencies that keep malware issues under control and content clean don't pay as much. At least it's a good choice for getting some revenue. If the services you provide aren't worth a full time salary, chances are you won't make a full time salary out if it anyway.
I don't think the intent is to motivate full time bug hunting but rather allow those who suspect a bug to have the motivation to dig deeper. This is especially true of those in the enterprise level security consulting where they have a responsibility of testing for vulnerabilities or understanding the source of a security failure at their customer's.
I know people who have monetized exploitation of a bug. The reward is often limited unless you are willing to go the next level of exploitation which has higher rewards but is also riskier and out of range for most (intellectual property theft, email spamming, and general financial theft). Legitimate money for the same findings will deter some from exploiting quietly.
Because apparently most Americans now accept this crap as perfectly normal, and have fully embraced that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.
That's because they either don't care enough or they don't understand the issue. Most tech savvy people understand what power comes with access information. I'm willing to trust the authorities within reason but I will protect my data just in case.
I've said this before and I still stand by this belief that the user should have the right to protect his data. Should this person be in a position where access to the data can prove him innocent OR guilty, he should have to provide access to the data with the risk of being proven guilty should he not. I understand this is tricky but I think the current system would allow for the possibility to discard the request if the defendant has grounds to prove it is not required.
My 2 cents.
Either that or they're just trying to sell you a new phone
Among the list of items most users seek to get when upgrading their phone, I doubt being "NSA Proof" is in the top 10. After all, these are the same morons that wait for days in line hoping to be first to brag about getting the newest iPhone.
So many people think they should attach ads to websites, sit back and rake in the cash
That isn't your decision to make. If you don't want the ads, pay for the premium service and if it's not available don't use the service. It's really that simple.
Ads are the singlemost easy way to get infected with malware in 2015.
I'm sure you're right (for users with outdated browsers) but you need to back you claims with numbers from a reputable source.
The adverse effect of ad blocking is poor browsing experience for those who have it (when countermeasures are in place) AND the reduced value of ad prints. The results of reduced ad value is that more are published to accomplish the same level of revenue (in some cases sufficient and other cases abundant). At the end of the day, resources and labour for the work done must be paid out and if revenues come from ads, it just means the quality of the services you use will go down as revenues diminish OR you will be forced to pay to gain access to the service.
Fortunately people like you will have a harder time making use of these ad blocking tools as many of the ad providers are shifting efforts towards making sure their ads make it to the viewer.
Well you're not listening very hard. The big issue today is that ad networks are spreading malware. It's now necessary to block ads *as a security measure* (my company blocks them at our gateway for precisely that reason). If you want to be part of a botnet that's your choice.
Yes, because that's the reason people use ad blockers... SURE....
Whatever floats you boat!
Alternatively, they could get a real job, producing real products that real people are really willing to pay for.
Ahhh, so you fall in the category of "sense of entitlement".
And why don't you defined real product for me because last I checked, apps are real products and so are online services.
The fact that you are using the application and are blocking ads is sign that you are interested in the product but aren't willing to pay (sense of entitlement). That's where you way of thinking falls flat on it's face.
I'm a firm believer that advertising should not be blocked or redirected to another advertisement service. I believe this because the application developers depend on this to obtain some reward for an application they developed at no "direct" cost to the users.
The argument I keep hearing is: Well the advertisements are annoying.
My answer back is: You don't have to use their application or service. In many cases the ad free apps are available at a small cost.
IMO developers and broadcasters are allowed to monetize their efforts.
I'm happy you mentioned that because that is a very good argument. When I wrote my comment I was well aware there are more variables to the equation. For example the social programs in other countries do a better job at handling mental illness.
You can't solve all the problems with gun control BUT, gun control is part of the equation that will help reduce the number the deaths related to guns. It would be important to determine % of the homicides by guns performed by people with some mental illness and then determine if there is a way to help these people. Better social services may cost less and do a better job than gun control or maybe it's the other way around.
Just to clarify. My arguments were based on firearm homicides which was references in the link from the parent comment.
I was referencing the data in the link which is firearm related homicides.
:(
Are you really going to compare 2nd and 3rd world countries with a 1st world country? If you take the drug countries and war thorn countries out you're left with the US being in 1st place.
So in the US you have a 0.003% chance of being killed in your lifetime (based on average age of 82)
Compare with Canada (a direct neighbor with similar lifestyle BUT with gun control). You have a 0.0004% chance of being killed in your lifetime.
This means you are 7 times more likely to die from homicide in the US than in Canada. Now go ahead and explain how gun control doesn't minimize the problem.
A company can certainly contractually bind someone
Not all contracts can be enforced. The court system can deem a contract or portions of a contract as invalid or unreasonable.
iFixIt didn't buy an Apple TV off the shelf
I didn't catch that part so that's my bad. If they did purchase it off the shelf they would be allowed to take it apart and show the world how it works.
Funny thing is that I think that Apple may be breaking the law by banning their app over this (freedom of speech). Last I checked it's perfectly legal to reverse engineer something as long as you don't copy their product and start selling it. I think both parties are walking a fine line. Guess we have to tune in to figure out what happens next.
You can do fraud on much larger scales if you're a corporation and have made the right campaign donations. And you'll be hailed as a fucking hero.
You catch the ones you can. The corporate bastards that steal often do it within the limitations of our legal system. It takes a collective effort to punish those corporations. People would rather write a blog about it and stop there instead trying to influence people into taking action such as boycotting. Proof of this is Apple. They used kids to build their products and they managed to escape the tax man yet they are the number 1 brand in the world and continue to make money like it grows on trees.
It is possible that I'm guilty of that from time to time, words on a web forum don't convey context or tone, what one person takes harshly was intended lightheartly, and so on.
The two things that bother me the most on /. are:
- People who insult you because you don't agree with them. I simply shut them down at that point
- People who put words in your mouth or take a sentence out of content to either nullify your argument to create a tangent in the discussion
I'm sure you've met those people. I could probably name a few off top my head. :)
Agreed, but his statement was broad and assuming open source automatically equals better which we both know is not true. In this case it may be but lets not make it a rule of thumb.
Thanks to those who corrected me on the self extracting feature. I didn't know it was available.
Yes. That's what I'm saying. Unfortunately some believe it's a job killer and killer of riches. That's usually a right wing way of thinking.