Telemarketers have overheads too: time spent calling and long-distance bills they have to pay.
What do most people do when a telemarketer calls? They either hang up or cuss them out. Well, not me. What I do is act like I'm interested. Once they see that they start to read from their LOOOOONNNGG premade sales script. I leave the phone on the table. Go do something else, and then come back after 3 minutes. Surprisingly, lots of these guys are still talking!
The point? Waste their damn time and money with long distance calls to you. Works like a charm every single time.
The article brought up Real Player vs. Windows Media Player. I for one HATE Real Player like the black plague. Every time I upgrade it I get ALL of the following added to my system:
- 2 icons in the quick launch area next to the "start" menu
- a folder in the "start -> programs" menu
- a system tray icon that launches every time windows starts
- an icon on my desktop
- 2 links stuck in my "Favorites" folder. One in the main folder and another in my "Links" folder.
- a stupid control panel applet dedicated to real player configuration. why do I even need it there?
- a lame pop-up ad when I close real player
Now is THAT going too far? I really dislike this Real Player. I hope they go to hell with Bin Laden fast.
When I first started using windows back in 96 (win95), I had no idea what it meant when that "what you want to open this file with" dialog popped up. And it's not because I don't have the capacity for understanding it. It's that I've never been exposed to this concept of associating files with programs. Eventually I learned it, but at the time it was about the most frustrating thing for me. And I'm sure for the thousands of people who aren't computer savy, it's even worse.
Good point, but remember, some people aren't interested at all in computer science. They just want to do a report and print it, or look at stocks and what not. They could care less about the M$ monopoly, how to regedit, search using wildcards, etc. Still, that doesn't mean they are not intellegient or that they deserve to be put in some cave with no electricity.
It's like a computer programmer who doesn't know a thing about dancing but goes to a club to have fun anyways. He might look funny there, but so what? He's there for his enjoyment. And why not?
No kidding. This/. moderation system isn't a way to "fairly" rate posts. It's just another method for retaliation, rating purely based on that particular moderator's point of view, etc.
I think a better way should be devised, although I myself am bedazzled as to how to do it effectively.
I've noticed that too. Too many young people with dream-like ideals and socialist tendencies (*cough*mp3s*cough). But nevermind I won't get into that since it would be totally off-topic.
I agree with you, but I also take the point further.
I believe that organized religion (of any faith) has created lots of suffering in this world, and I'm afraid that it will lead to the end of this world one day.
Why? Because the first rule of ANY religion is that you MUST believe everything in BLIND FAITH. They force you to throw away all rational judgement, ignore all your senses, and believe absolutely in everything they say. Religion makes one become super gullible, to believe in things rational human beings would call crazy.
Think for a minute. Remember Heaven's Gate and how we thought they were crazy? Why is it then when someone says Jesus Christ was the savior we keep quiet and believe everything "he" and his bible says? What about David Koresh and the Waco incident? Was he a such a huge nut and yet Jerry Fallwell and his "teletubbies are gay" isn't?
All religions are dangerous. One may think it teaches tolerance and unselfishness, but in actuality, organized religion has encouraged in one way or another gay bashing, KKK killings, abortion clinic bombings, witch burnings, oppression of women (ala Taliban), mass suicide, terrorism, intolerance of differences, and perhaps in the near future, the end of this world.
That is WHY such software is being made!!! Because profit margins are not being fully utilized.
There isn't a moral argument to be made here. None whatsoever. Unless and until a site posts in big bold letters on the front page 'you must view our ads if you want to use our service' no blame can be laid upon those that block the ads.
Really? Restaurants don't put up big signs saying you must pay if you eat. No moral argument there either right? Look, when you go to a site and it's got banners, you KNOW full-well their source of income is from the advertisers paying for eyeballs. Just like someone going into a restaurant. Who really thinks it's going to be free? When you deny them of this advertising you are ripping them off. When companies rip you off don't you get mad? Well don't they have a right to get mad too?
And the surfers come to those sites on their own volition. Nobody shoved it down their throats to visit thse sites.
And as your logic points out, they have a right and the choice to require payment for their services, if they determine that you are not giving anything back (since you're blocking ads). So what are we fighting about?
Also, insinuating that I must be a dot-bomber shows how laughable your argument is. I've not said a thing about who or what I am, nor have I stated where I've been. To jump to such a conclusion out of the blue is kind of ridiculous don't you think?
Lastly, about your economics 101. Perhaps you should re-take it since it's obvious you didn't pass (hey if you can insult me I can insult you too). This new software is there to "revise" the model so that what doesn't work very well can be made to work better. What is wrong with that? And since when did capitalism not have anything to do with the *consumer*? You must not be a day over 11 to be making such a ludicrous statement.
So, now, according to YOU, the peer-to-peer free flow of information THAT IS THE INTERNET (and had been for 20+ years) is suddenly "leeching" because some loser dot-bomb can't think of a real way to make money? Give me a break.
For-profit sites and non-profit sites can exist simultaneously on this internet can't they? Just because lots of sites are going the ad-revenue direction doesn't mean the pre-94 sites can't exist anymore. Just stick to those and don't visit anything else then if that's how you feel about ads.
Excuse me? I pay for MY end of the pipe. I pay for the packets going in and out of MY end of the internet...are the dot-bombers going to pay ME for their use of my bandwidth to broadcast crap? Oh, didn't think so...the shoe is on the other foot now. Most spammers scuttle away like roaches when you say this to them, too.
Hey first of all YOU requested the damn page from their site. With the usage of their bandwidth, maintenance, content, and hard work don't you think it's fair you view a banner from them? It's not like you turn on your computer and they're there forcing ads down your throat. Damn what are you thinking?
Here's a newsflash: despite the best and worst efforts of dot-bombers, the Internet IS NOT LIKE TELEVISION. This is a peer-to-peer network we all share in. DON'T LIKE IT? THEN CLOSE UP SHOP AND SET UP ON AOL INSTEAD OF GRIPING ABOUT INTERNET "LEECHERS". If you want to force ads down the throats of the clueless in a server-based environment, AOL and MSN are designed for you...but not the Internet.
And with that same logic, why don't you crawl back into your blackhole of pre-'94 and stick to those ascii websites, irc, usenet, and gopher? And while you're at it un-install your netscape/ie and use lynx once more how about that?
* Note I'm not flaming irc/usenet/gopher/lynx. I love many of those. Just telling this guy how senseless his logic is.
Why do so many of you think that it's fair to blocks ads and leech off someone else without compensation to them? Has this become the American way? Would it be fair if I ate at a restaurant and not paid? I mean, if you don't like the ads of a particular site, just DON'T go to there EVER again.
It seems like people these days are so spoiled they think everything should be free, and if not, they're still entitled to rip it off.
Comon people, it's only a minor annoyance. It's not like they're forcing you to click on the banners.
If we all keep this up, pretty soon MOST sites are going to turn to the PAY PER VIEW model. Is this what you all want? Don't spoil the fun man.
Here are a few things to think about when you watch the T-R-A-S-H that is television news:
Peter Jenning's network had to pay Richard Jule millions of dollars for their irresponsible reporting of the 92 Olympics. Remember him?
After the Oklahoma bombing, tv news focused on Middle-Eastern terrorists. Later it was found that Timothy McVeigh was the real culprit.
To me, TV news is there to keep its audience and make money via ads. To make you loyal they must make you happy. So they are often saying and reporting things in such a way as to mislead the American people into believing what the viewers want to believe in, NOT what reality truly might be.
But, they can't lie. So that's why they always use crafty and clever language, such as "alleged" or "might". After using words like to to qualify what they're about to say, they then spend the next hour on these "alleged" theories, until your mind reaches satisfactory orgasm.
Imagine how many superstitious people you can con into giving you money if you can make them believe that your website can read their minds.
Hmmmm... my psychic powers tell me your mouse is clogged with dirt (jerky circular mouse movements) and thus not moving smoothly. I can also tell that you are new to computers (double clicks on links instead of single clicking).
However, I do agree with you, to a point. People who have no idea how to spend money shouldn't be given large sums of money. But it's not just engineers... it's rock stars, actors, directors, and whoever else thinks they know more about economics than the guys who invested in them.
I disagree. People who have no idea how to spend OTHER people's money to MAKE MORE MONEY shouldn't be given large sums of money.
But then one can also look at it another way. Those who can't manage other people's money wisely shouldn't be given large sums of money, UNLESS a FOOL equally incompetent GIVES his money for this moron to invest.
In the end you'll find these 2 idiots deserved what they both got from each other (unless there was fraud of some sort). Survival of the fittest my friend. Let Darwin into your home too.;)
I've never had to deal with VCs so I can't comment on most of it, but there is one part I have trouble with:
Look, for example, at hard disks and floppy disks. In the hard-disk business, there have been as many as 41 rivals fighting for market share. Only three major manufacturers competed in floppy disks. The hard disk has improved much faster technically; the floppy disk is stagnant by comparison. I'm not talking about market size or market opportunity (the hard-disk business versus the floppy-disk business); I'm talking about rates of innovation.
Although his thoughts are noble, in the real world, who is going to willingly do something to help kill their own company? Will the engineers do that? If say I started a video game company, why would I HELP someone else start a competing video game company? Same with investors. Why would an investor put money in one video game company, and then fund a competing one? The conflict of interest alone could get him in serious legal trouble.
Really, we all want our society to compete and innovate. But that should be done on a legal level (anti-trust laws, for instance). To expect it from people on a personal level or a corporate level is totally ridiculous and will never work simply because humans are selfish creatures. We will always serve ourselves before serving others. To think that human nature can change without force is a bit naive.
Just think, if you had tomorrow's lottery number, would you tell the whole world about it or would you buy the ticket all for yourself? Now be totally honest.
This article is blatantly filled with the author's one-sided point of view. It's either that or he's just trying to kiss up to the anti-business-everything people.
So the net is much more corporate than it was in 1993, but that doesn't mean you or I have to be FORCED to visit ONLY those sites? What are commercial-free sites completely extinct? The net is a proactive medium. You choose what, where, when, and how. It's not like TV where you only have 15 stations and that's pretty much it.
And about the search engine listings. He's trying to make it sound like paid-for-listing engines like Goto are filled with nonsense. Well I beg to differ. Why would anyone want to pay $0.80 per click on a "cell phone" listing if their site is about porn? The person who pays for this is a true moron, like the writer of that article.
And as for his simple-minded annoyance at other people trying to make a buck on the net... Well why don't he think for a moment about who's paying for all the routers, load-balancers, programmers, administrators, designers, rent, bandwidth, etc... ?? Back in 93 there were probably a total of 10,000 people on the net combined. Such a small audience is easy to take care of. But what about Yahoo and their 100 million + daily page views? Who's pocket should their costs come out of?
Next time you hear idiots like this Norman Solomon write junk like this, THINK about the other side. Don't be like the leechers who care about no one but themselves. Think if YOU were Yahoo. What would you do differently?
This is how we can KILL this type of scumware marketing. Some porno guys create one called PornText and gorilla market it everywhere. Soon MSNBC,/., Yahoo will turn in to virtual pornsites. This will piss off everybody and the courts will slap this trespassing crap all the way down to scum hell where it belongs.
This is the ultimate insult to legitimate businesses trying to make a honest buck on the internet. When people download Gator, do you think they're trying to download a password manager, or a banner ad replacement program? And why does Gator have to HIDE this program deep within it's TOS? And when the user un-installs its software why do they have to do it TWICE? Once for Gator and once for the adware program?
And as a legitimate website owner, how would you like to have to spend time, money, bandwidth, hardware, just so gator can STEAL all of your ad spaces? This is trespassing of the worst kind. You don't even know about it!
It's guys like Gator that give business and capitalism a bad name. What they're doing might be legally ok, but it's MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE.
Slashdot Mirror
For a minute there I thought Bill Gates died of Anthrax! That damn lucky bastard.
As the wise man once said:
I'll Believe It When I See It.
It does this because the system needs time to get their telemarketers to answer back to you in person.
Telemarketers have overheads too: time spent calling and long-distance bills they have to pay.
What do most people do when a telemarketer calls? They either hang up or cuss them out. Well, not me. What I do is act like I'm interested. Once they see that they start to read from their LOOOOONNNGG premade sales script. I leave the phone on the table. Go do something else, and then come back after 3 minutes. Surprisingly, lots of these guys are still talking!
The point? Waste their damn time and money with long distance calls to you. Works like a charm every single time.
The article brought up Real Player vs. Windows Media Player. I for one HATE Real Player like the black plague. Every time I upgrade it I get ALL of the following added to my system:
- 2 icons in the quick launch area next to the "start" menu
- a folder in the "start -> programs" menu
- a system tray icon that launches every time windows starts
- an icon on my desktop
- 2 links stuck in my "Favorites" folder. One in the main folder and another in my "Links" folder.
- a stupid control panel applet dedicated to real player configuration. why do I even need it there?
- a lame pop-up ad when I close real player
Now is THAT going too far? I really dislike this Real Player. I hope they go to hell with Bin Laden fast.
That's going a bit too far.
When I first started using windows back in 96 (win95), I had no idea what it meant when that "what you want to open this file with" dialog popped up. And it's not because I don't have the capacity for understanding it. It's that I've never been exposed to this concept of associating files with programs. Eventually I learned it, but at the time it was about the most frustrating thing for me. And I'm sure for the thousands of people who aren't computer savy, it's even worse.
Good point, but remember, some people aren't interested at all in computer science. They just want to do a report and print it, or look at stocks and what not. They could care less about the M$ monopoly, how to regedit, search using wildcards, etc. Still, that doesn't mean they are not intellegient or that they deserve to be put in some cave with no electricity.
It's like a computer programmer who doesn't know a thing about dancing but goes to a club to have fun anyways. He might look funny there, but so what? He's there for his enjoyment. And why not?
After doing a little more research, it's clear that China hates the Taliban as much as we do (well maybe not as much). That report is obviously wrong.
Do some research on Xingiang and you shall find more info.
No kidding. This /. moderation system isn't a way to "fairly" rate posts. It's just another method for retaliation, rating purely based on that particular moderator's point of view, etc.
I think a better way should be devised, although I myself am bedazzled as to how to do it effectively.
I've noticed that too. Too many young people with dream-like ideals and socialist tendencies (*cough*mp3s*cough). But nevermind I won't get into that since it would be totally off-topic.
I agree with you, but I also take the point further.
I believe that organized religion (of any faith) has created lots of suffering in this world, and I'm afraid that it will lead to the end of this world one day.
Why? Because the first rule of ANY religion is that you MUST believe everything in BLIND FAITH. They force you to throw away all rational judgement, ignore all your senses, and believe absolutely in everything they say. Religion makes one become super gullible, to believe in things rational human beings would call crazy.
Think for a minute. Remember Heaven's Gate and how we thought they were crazy? Why is it then when someone says Jesus Christ was the savior we keep quiet and believe everything "he" and his bible says? What about David Koresh and the Waco incident? Was he a such a huge nut and yet Jerry Fallwell and his "teletubbies are gay" isn't?
All religions are dangerous. One may think it teaches tolerance and unselfishness, but in actuality, organized religion has encouraged in one way or another gay bashing, KKK killings, abortion clinic bombings, witch burnings, oppression of women (ala Taliban), mass suicide, terrorism, intolerance of differences, and perhaps in the near future, the end of this world.
That is WHY such software is being made!!! Because profit margins are not being fully utilized.
There isn't a moral argument to be made here. None whatsoever. Unless and until a site posts in big bold letters on the front page 'you must view our ads if you want to use our service' no blame can be laid upon those that block the ads.
Really? Restaurants don't put up big signs saying you must pay if you eat. No moral argument there either right? Look, when you go to a site and it's got banners, you KNOW full-well their source of income is from the advertisers paying for eyeballs. Just like someone going into a restaurant. Who really thinks it's going to be free? When you deny them of this advertising you are ripping them off. When companies rip you off don't you get mad? Well don't they have a right to get mad too?
Talk about narcisism.
And the surfers come to those sites on their own volition. Nobody shoved it down their throats to visit thse sites.
And as your logic points out, they have a right and the choice to require payment for their services, if they determine that you are not giving anything back (since you're blocking ads). So what are we fighting about?
Also, insinuating that I must be a dot-bomber shows how laughable your argument is. I've not said a thing about who or what I am, nor have I stated where I've been. To jump to such a conclusion out of the blue is kind of ridiculous don't you think?
Lastly, about your economics 101. Perhaps you should re-take it since it's obvious you didn't pass (hey if you can insult me I can insult you too). This new software is there to "revise" the model so that what doesn't work very well can be made to work better. What is wrong with that? And since when did capitalism not have anything to do with the *consumer*? You must not be a day over 11 to be making such a ludicrous statement.
So, now, according to YOU, the peer-to-peer free flow of information THAT IS THE INTERNET (and had been for 20+ years) is suddenly "leeching" because some loser dot-bomb can't think of a real way to make money? Give me a break.
For-profit sites and non-profit sites can exist simultaneously on this internet can't they? Just because lots of sites are going the ad-revenue direction doesn't mean the pre-94 sites can't exist anymore. Just stick to those and don't visit anything else then if that's how you feel about ads.
Excuse me? I pay for MY end of the pipe. I pay for the packets going in and out of MY end of the internet...are the dot-bombers going to pay ME for their use of my bandwidth to broadcast crap? Oh, didn't think so...the shoe is on the other foot now. Most spammers scuttle away like roaches when you say this to them, too.
Hey first of all YOU requested the damn page from their site. With the usage of their bandwidth, maintenance, content, and hard work don't you think it's fair you view a banner from them? It's not like you turn on your computer and they're there forcing ads down your throat. Damn what are you thinking?
Here's a newsflash: despite the best and worst efforts of dot-bombers, the Internet IS NOT LIKE TELEVISION. This is a peer-to-peer network we all share in. DON'T LIKE IT? THEN CLOSE UP SHOP AND SET UP ON AOL INSTEAD OF GRIPING ABOUT INTERNET "LEECHERS". If you want to force ads down the throats of the clueless in a server-based environment, AOL and MSN are designed for you...but not the Internet.
And with that same logic, why don't you crawl back into your blackhole of pre-'94 and stick to those ascii websites, irc, usenet, and gopher? And while you're at it un-install your netscape/ie and use lynx once more how about that? * Note I'm not flaming irc/usenet/gopher/lynx. I love many of those. Just telling this guy how senseless his logic is.
Why do so many of you think that it's fair to blocks ads and leech off someone else without compensation to them? Has this become the American way? Would it be fair if I ate at a restaurant and not paid? I mean, if you don't like the ads of a particular site, just DON'T go to there EVER again.
It seems like people these days are so spoiled they think everything should be free, and if not, they're still entitled to rip it off.
Comon people, it's only a minor annoyance. It's not like they're forcing you to click on the banners.
If we all keep this up, pretty soon MOST sites are going to turn to the PAY PER VIEW model. Is this what you all want? Don't spoil the fun man.
Is that what nerds do all day long? Can't believe we're talking about grief from the loss of heat sinks/fans. WOW!
Here are a few things to think about when you watch the T-R-A-S-H that is television news:
Peter Jenning's network had to pay Richard Jule millions of dollars for their irresponsible reporting of the 92 Olympics. Remember him?
After the Oklahoma bombing, tv news focused on Middle-Eastern terrorists. Later it was found that Timothy McVeigh was the real culprit.
To me, TV news is there to keep its audience and make money via ads. To make you loyal they must make you happy. So they are often saying and reporting things in such a way as to mislead the American people into believing what the viewers want to believe in, NOT what reality truly might be.
But, they can't lie. So that's why they always use crafty and clever language, such as "alleged" or "might". After using words like to to qualify what they're about to say, they then spend the next hour on these "alleged" theories, until your mind reaches satisfactory orgasm.
Imagine how many superstitious people you can con into giving you money if you can make them believe that your website can read their minds.
Hmmmm... my psychic powers tell me your mouse is clogged with dirt (jerky circular mouse movements) and thus not moving smoothly. I can also tell that you are new to computers (double clicks on links instead of single clicking).
However, I do agree with you, to a point. People who have no idea how to spend money shouldn't be given large sums of money. But it's not just engineers... it's rock stars, actors, directors, and whoever else thinks they know more about economics than the guys who invested in them.
;)
I disagree. People who have no idea how to spend OTHER people's money to MAKE MORE MONEY shouldn't be given large sums of money.
But then one can also look at it another way. Those who can't manage other people's money wisely shouldn't be given large sums of money, UNLESS a FOOL equally incompetent GIVES his money for this moron to invest.
In the end you'll find these 2 idiots deserved what they both got from each other (unless there was fraud of some sort). Survival of the fittest my friend. Let Darwin into your home too.
I've never had to deal with VCs so I can't comment on most of it, but there is one part I have trouble with:
Look, for example, at hard disks and floppy disks. In the hard-disk business, there have been as many as 41 rivals fighting for market share. Only three major manufacturers competed in floppy disks. The hard disk has improved much faster technically; the floppy disk is stagnant by comparison. I'm not talking about market size or market opportunity (the hard-disk business versus the floppy-disk business); I'm talking about rates of innovation.
Although his thoughts are noble, in the real world, who is going to willingly do something to help kill their own company? Will the engineers do that? If say I started a video game company, why would I HELP someone else start a competing video game company? Same with investors. Why would an investor put money in one video game company, and then fund a competing one? The conflict of interest alone could get him in serious legal trouble.
Really, we all want our society to compete and innovate. But that should be done on a legal level (anti-trust laws, for instance). To expect it from people on a personal level or a corporate level is totally ridiculous and will never work simply because humans are selfish creatures. We will always serve ourselves before serving others. To think that human nature can change without force is a bit naive.
Just think, if you had tomorrow's lottery number, would you tell the whole world about it or would you buy the ticket all for yourself? Now be totally honest.
This article is blatantly filled with the author's one-sided point of view. It's either that or he's just trying to kiss up to the anti-business-everything people.
So the net is much more corporate than it was in 1993, but that doesn't mean you or I have to be FORCED to visit ONLY those sites? What are commercial-free sites completely extinct? The net is a proactive medium. You choose what, where, when, and how. It's not like TV where you only have 15 stations and that's pretty much it.
And about the search engine listings. He's trying to make it sound like paid-for-listing engines like Goto are filled with nonsense. Well I beg to differ. Why would anyone want to pay $0.80 per click on a "cell phone" listing if their site is about porn? The person who pays for this is a true moron, like the writer of that article.
And as for his simple-minded annoyance at other people trying to make a buck on the net... Well why don't he think for a moment about who's paying for all the routers, load-balancers, programmers, administrators, designers, rent, bandwidth, etc... ?? Back in 93 there were probably a total of 10,000 people on the net combined. Such a small audience is easy to take care of. But what about Yahoo and their 100 million + daily page views? Who's pocket should their costs come out of?
Next time you hear idiots like this Norman Solomon write junk like this, THINK about the other side. Don't be like the leechers who care about no one but themselves. Think if YOU were Yahoo. What would you do differently?
This is how we can KILL this type of scumware marketing. Some porno guys create one called PornText and gorilla market it everywhere. Soon MSNBC, /., Yahoo will turn in to virtual pornsites. This will piss off everybody and the courts will slap this trespassing crap all the way down to scum hell where it belongs.
If the RIAA thinks cd-r's are bad for their business, just wait till dvd-r's come out. HP is already coming out with a $599 model in September.
Sorry RIAA, but there's no way in hell you're gonna take away my cd-r burner.
In the article a rep from Gator said users INVITED them to install this adware crap??!!! How dare these people spin the truth like this?
How do you like it when you invite a someone over for dinner and he brings along a 600 pound sumo wrestler?
This is the ultimate insult to legitimate businesses trying to make a honest buck on the internet. When people download Gator, do you think they're trying to download a password manager, or a banner ad replacement program? And why does Gator have to HIDE this program deep within it's TOS? And when the user un-installs its software why do they have to do it TWICE? Once for Gator and once for the adware program?
And as a legitimate website owner, how would you like to have to spend time, money, bandwidth, hardware, just so gator can STEAL all of your ad spaces? This is trespassing of the worst kind. You don't even know about it!
It's guys like Gator that give business and capitalism a bad name. What they're doing might be legally ok, but it's MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE.