I was about six years old when I received a t-shirt with a logo on it (a Nike swoosh, I think, or something similar). I don't know where it came from but somehow I had the maturity to ask whether I would get paid to advertise for that company.
I still feel the same way. If Tiger woods can get ten million dollars for wearing a Nike swoosh, then I can get paid ten dollars for wearing a Nike swoosh. Otherwise I'm not going to wear a logo unless I personally already love the logo for some reason.
"If the entity serving the content does not refrain from allowing advertisers to annoy users then they are unlikely to have either users or revenue."
This is a cute thing to write in a theory textbook, but it's demonstrably false because here in the real world we see that annoying sites are sometimes quite popular. It is simply false that low-quality products don't succeed in markets. It is simply false that harmful or undesirable products don't succeed in markets. The only way to argue otherwise is to employ circular reasoning: "it's high quality if people choose it, and people choose it because it's high quality".
"Advertisers, you stupid greedy pieces of shit, you brought this on yourself and deserve your slow death as does anybody on the net who bases their business model around you"
Shut down the thread, hairyfeet has made the only statement that needs to be made. Ads suck. Advertisers are to blame. If something is bad for advertisers then it is good for the world. If they complain, fuck them.
Read it again, it's right there in the first sentence of the summary:
The AdNauseam browser extension claims to click on each ad you have blocked with AdBlock
This software employs Artificial Intelligence to determine which ads would be annoying by recognizing that it doesn't take Artificial Intelligence to know that all ads are annoying. All ads are annoying, this clicks on all ads, therefore it clicks on all annoying ads.
Markets are good; free markets are bad. Free markets have never provided any consumer with any benefit that couldn't be enjoyed tenfold with regulation. Predatory pricing is a great example of this. Wow, is it possible to have an economy without price gouging AND without scarcity? Maybe not in your textbook, but look around, we have it today.
That isn't true. Slashdot doesn't have advertisements, just like the rest of the web doesn't have advertisement....right? I mean, I almost never see any ads.
Completely agreed. I don't watch any* commercial television or listen to any commercial radio because of the ads. The internet is a refuge with its ability to filter content. If it weren't for ad blockers, the internet would be similarly useless. Since the Clinton era I've had a personal policy that if I find myself using a browser without AdBlock, I install AdBlock (or ABP, whatever, any of them are okay) before doing anything else.
* except football which is hard to get any other way
All I know about this story is "blah blah blah Sony blah blah something bad happened to Sony" and my reaction is, good, fuck Sony, anything bad that happens to Sony is good for the world. I won't be paying attention any more. Call me back when a person or company who isn't evil has something bad happen to them.
No answer? You don't want to bet? Do you actually mean what you said in your prediction? Well, if you really meant it and weren't just trolling let me know I'd love to have a little bet on that.
Maybe I'm not clear on his alleged crimes. He is accused of commercial copyright infringement right? If so then being a douche is irrelevant; he's simply an accused criminal living in a country with an extradition treaty to the country who wants to prosecute him. He is deprived of his assets not because America says so but because New Zealand says so in the form of their treaty with America.
"Reasonable and prudent" is technically the primary standard in every state* but with a subclause stipulating that traveling faster than a certain speed is sufficient to demonstrate unreasonableness. That's why (again technically but not commonly) you can get ticketed for traveling at or below the speed limit if the cop feels that your speed is imprudent or unreasonable given the local conditions (such as weather).
* except maybe Louisiana, who the heck knows what the law is there
Seriously. While we're at it can we please ticket more people for obstructing traffic? If you aren't traveling faster than the cars in the lane to your right, then MERGE RIGHT. I mean, for goodness sake, we built an ENTIRE EXTRA LANE at great expense just for you slow movers and we even named it THE SLOW LANE so you'd know what it's for.
"EPA will get it re-instated via CO2 reduction policy."
That's interesting. Want to bet on that? I don't think that will happen. I'll bet you $20 that the EPA does not get a national speed limit reinstated (for any reason, including for CO2 reasons) in the next, say, three Presidents (so, 12 to 24 years).
Prosecutors decide what crime you violated, and then after that their hands are tied. If they can't nail you for that then their options are exhausted. This would have good and bad effects but maybe the good would be the greater portion. I'd have to think about it but it's at least a pretty good idea.
Yeah, or this entire announcement is just cover for a program like the fake vaccines in Abottabad.
Also, this: "the only sure way to prevent governments surveillance of huge dragnets of individuals is legislation".
Can anyone explain to me how legislation would prevent government surveillance? I don't get it. If the Constitution isn't enough, why would a law be? Maybe because laws are how dollars get spent?
Completely agreed. I can think of a couple nice things to say about WalMart, but I can think of thousands of horrible things to say about WalMart, and I can think of even more to say about the Walton family. Fuck the lot of them.
"Then explain why every apartment complex will refuse cash and tell you to go get a money order to pay your rent?"
Basically because rent isn't a debt. It's a transaction. My local grocer doesn't accept credit cards (debut or cash or check only) and that is fine because shoppers aren't in debt to the grocery store.
Did they threaten her livelihood because she is a feminist or was it because she was corrupt?
That might sound like trolling but I actually didn't follow gamergate closely so I really don't know the answer. To me it seemed like "A person cheated at business, and the community around that business called out the cheater". Does the community call out all feminist game developers, or only the cheaters? If it's the former, then why did I only hear about it when the cheater cheated?
What do you mean by "acceptable", mister thought-policeman?
To me it means that you don't dislike the thing. You are either neutral towards it or you like it. Let's check the dictionary to see how that comports with the official definition. Let's see, the first definition is "able to be agreed on; suitable". Hmm, this book isn't something people are "agreeing" to. Let's look at the examples:
adequate, satisfactory, pleasing, welcome
Okay, yeah, that's what it means to me: pleasing, welcome. Is this book pleasing and welcome? Not to me, that's why it isn't acceptable.
The second definition is weaker, relating "acceptable" to "tolerable". Tolerance is something you give to a thing that specifically when you DON'T like it. By that secondary definition, I find this book acceptable, because I tolerate it. I do not wish to imprison the author of the book nor deny the author civil rights. That's not normally how I use the word "acceptable" though.
What does "acceptable" mean to you? Does it mean the primary #1 definition, or more like the secondary #2 definition?
What's sexist and racist? The post makes a statement of fact that Mattell is lead by exclusively white people and 11 out of 12 are men. The way I use that word, statements of fact cannot be racist, only opinions can be racist.
Slashdot Mirror
I was about six years old when I received a t-shirt with a logo on it (a Nike swoosh, I think, or something similar). I don't know where it came from but somehow I had the maturity to ask whether I would get paid to advertise for that company.
I still feel the same way. If Tiger woods can get ten million dollars for wearing a Nike swoosh, then I can get paid ten dollars for wearing a Nike swoosh. Otherwise I'm not going to wear a logo unless I personally already love the logo for some reason.
Fuck you, advertisers. Fuck you.
"If the entity serving the content does not refrain from allowing advertisers to annoy users then they are unlikely to have either users or revenue."
This is a cute thing to write in a theory textbook, but it's demonstrably false because here in the real world we see that annoying sites are sometimes quite popular. It is simply false that low-quality products don't succeed in markets. It is simply false that harmful or undesirable products don't succeed in markets. The only way to argue otherwise is to employ circular reasoning: "it's high quality if people choose it, and people choose it because it's high quality".
"Advertisers, you stupid greedy pieces of shit, you brought this on yourself and deserve your slow death as does anybody on the net who bases their business model around you"
Shut down the thread, hairyfeet has made the only statement that needs to be made. Ads suck. Advertisers are to blame. If something is bad for advertisers then it is good for the world. If they complain, fuck them.
Read it again, it's right there in the first sentence of the summary:
The AdNauseam browser extension claims to click on each ad you have blocked with AdBlock
This software employs Artificial Intelligence to determine which ads would be annoying by recognizing that it doesn't take Artificial Intelligence to know that all ads are annoying. All ads are annoying, this clicks on all ads, therefore it clicks on all annoying ads.
Markets are good; free markets are bad. Free markets have never provided any consumer with any benefit that couldn't be enjoyed tenfold with regulation. Predatory pricing is a great example of this. Wow, is it possible to have an economy without price gouging AND without scarcity? Maybe not in your textbook, but look around, we have it today.
That isn't true. Slashdot doesn't have advertisements, just like the rest of the web doesn't have advertisement. ...right? I mean, I almost never see any ads.
Completely agreed. I don't watch any* commercial television or listen to any commercial radio because of the ads. The internet is a refuge with its ability to filter content. If it weren't for ad blockers, the internet would be similarly useless. Since the Clinton era I've had a personal policy that if I find myself using a browser without AdBlock, I install AdBlock (or ABP, whatever, any of them are okay) before doing anything else.
* except football which is hard to get any other way
Fuck you.
No ads.
Sell your product.
All I know about this story is "blah blah blah Sony blah blah something bad happened to Sony" and my reaction is, good, fuck Sony, anything bad that happens to Sony is good for the world. I won't be paying attention any more. Call me back when a person or company who isn't evil has something bad happen to them.
No answer? You don't want to bet? Do you actually mean what you said in your prediction? Well, if you really meant it and weren't just trolling let me know I'd love to have a little bet on that.
Maybe I'm not clear on his alleged crimes. He is accused of commercial copyright infringement right? If so then being a douche is irrelevant; he's simply an accused criminal living in a country with an extradition treaty to the country who wants to prosecute him. He is deprived of his assets not because America says so but because New Zealand says so in the form of their treaty with America.
The allure of the "high" from "getting into the zone" and doing awesome stuff in marathon coding sessions isn't as attractive as it used to be anyway.
Try weed. The high is better.
"Reasonable and prudent" is technically the primary standard in every state* but with a subclause stipulating that traveling faster than a certain speed is sufficient to demonstrate unreasonableness. That's why (again technically but not commonly) you can get ticketed for traveling at or below the speed limit if the cop feels that your speed is imprudent or unreasonable given the local conditions (such as weather).
* except maybe Louisiana, who the heck knows what the law is there
Seriously. While we're at it can we please ticket more people for obstructing traffic? If you aren't traveling faster than the cars in the lane to your right, then MERGE RIGHT. I mean, for goodness sake, we built an ENTIRE EXTRA LANE at great expense just for you slow movers and we even named it THE SLOW LANE so you'd know what it's for.
"EPA will get it re-instated via CO2 reduction policy."
That's interesting. Want to bet on that? I don't think that will happen. I'll bet you $20 that the EPA does not get a national speed limit reinstated (for any reason, including for CO2 reasons) in the next, say, three Presidents (so, 12 to 24 years).
We do call it the adversarial system for a reason. It's not only the defendant who is adversarial; it's also the prosecution.
Yo that's a pretty solid idea.
Prosecutors decide what crime you violated, and then after that their hands are tied. If they can't nail you for that then their options are exhausted. This would have good and bad effects but maybe the good would be the greater portion. I'd have to think about it but it's at least a pretty good idea.
Yeah, or this entire announcement is just cover for a program like the fake vaccines in Abottabad.
Also, this: "the only sure way to prevent governments surveillance of huge dragnets of individuals is legislation".
Can anyone explain to me how legislation would prevent government surveillance? I don't get it. If the Constitution isn't enough, why would a law be? Maybe because laws are how dollars get spent?
Completely agreed. I can think of a couple nice things to say about WalMart, but I can think of thousands of horrible things to say about WalMart, and I can think of even more to say about the Walton family. Fuck the lot of them.
"Then explain why every apartment complex will refuse cash and tell you to go get a money order to pay your rent?"
Basically because rent isn't a debt. It's a transaction. My local grocer doesn't accept credit cards (debut or cash or check only) and that is fine because shoppers aren't in debt to the grocery store.
Yeah but dinnertime would be a drag.
Did they threaten her livelihood because she is a feminist or was it because she was corrupt?
That might sound like trolling but I actually didn't follow gamergate closely so I really don't know the answer. To me it seemed like "A person cheated at business, and the community around that business called out the cheater". Does the community call out all feminist game developers, or only the cheaters? If it's the former, then why did I only hear about it when the cheater cheated?
What do you mean by "acceptable", mister thought-policeman?
To me it means that you don't dislike the thing. You are either neutral towards it or you like it. Let's check the dictionary to see how that comports with the official definition. Let's see, the first definition is "able to be agreed on; suitable". Hmm, this book isn't something people are "agreeing" to. Let's look at the examples:
adequate, satisfactory, pleasing, welcome
Okay, yeah, that's what it means to me: pleasing, welcome. Is this book pleasing and welcome? Not to me, that's why it isn't acceptable.
The second definition is weaker, relating "acceptable" to "tolerable". Tolerance is something you give to a thing that specifically when you DON'T like it. By that secondary definition, I find this book acceptable, because I tolerate it. I do not wish to imprison the author of the book nor deny the author civil rights. That's not normally how I use the word "acceptable" though.
What does "acceptable" mean to you? Does it mean the primary #1 definition, or more like the secondary #2 definition?
Yeah sure, but the book isn't called Barbie Is A Manager.
What's sexist and racist? The post makes a statement of fact that Mattell is lead by exclusively white people and 11 out of 12 are men. The way I use that word, statements of fact cannot be racist, only opinions can be racist.