> to that business move when M$ did it. Now, however, that decision is coming back to bite them on the tender bits: the browser is part of the OS, ergo bugs in the browser count as bugs in the OS.
You are suggesting that they should have sacrifice usability for a meaningless statistic. What a typical dumb PHB statement.
>is already some clown standing ther waiting for it to drop.
There is only one place to get a powerful sword that people want and there is a line-up. Its a problem with the game, not with people selling stuff on ebay.
>Like any game, people should have to earn their rank and position.
No, the main point of games is that the player should have fun.
After a certain point in the game, MMORPG are dependent on how lucky your drops are or how much time you can spend sitting in-front of a keyboard doing the same thing X times. For some people, that isn't fun.
If a person is willing to pay to have more fun playing a game, what is wrong with that?
>I'd like to know if my son was speeding, but I *don't* want some for-profit company having access to that data and (for example) selling it to my insurance company or automatically calling the police.
Why is it ok to track/spy/"correct improper behaviour" of your child yet its not ok for some other group, "your insurance company"/the police, to track/spy/"correct improper behavoiour" you?
>letting people use all the oil they can get their hands on is a good thing, in that it will drive people to use alternatives sooner due to supply/demand curves.
Most people want alternatives not because they hate oil, like someone hates to eat brussel sprouts or their ex-spouse.
They want people to stop because; 1. of the harm its doing to the environment. 2. They don't want some sudden forced change or crash due to everyone being so dependent on a single energy source and then suddenly running out.
Historically, the 14 Amendment applies to citizens of the US. It was created when certain states tried to deny black slaves their rights, even though they were born in the US.
>why save up the pennies you make now when you'll have the cash anyway in 5 years.
Its what the saving teaches you. If you don't learn how to handle money when you are young, its that much harder to learn when you are older. Bad habits are hard to break.
DirectRevenue does have the users authorization. From the user license agreement;
"You further understand and agree, by installing the software, that the software may, without any further prior notice to you, remove, disable or render inoperative other adware programs resident on your computer."
So if a user agrees to this, what is the difference in terms of "user authorization" is this and him running ad-aware?
The idea is to let you go before an extended period of time off (weekend, holidays) so that you can't come back to the office in a huff and had time to reflect.
Rowan: Gareth, quick trust exercise, ultimate fantasy? Gareth Keenan: Hmm? David Brent: We're just doing the ultimate fantasy, we're all doing it. Gareth Keenan: Two lesbians probably, sisters. I'm just watching. Rowan: OK. Erm. Tim? Do you have one? Tim Canterbury: I'd never thought I'd say this, but can I hear more from Gareth please?
>My point, again, is that it is simply not correct to view the content without the ads
I fail to see how the option of selecting "Don't show images" or using the Lynx webbrowser makes things morally "not correct".
Isn't it just like muting the sound or fastforwarding or channel surfing during commericals? How is this morally wrong?
>I'm saying that we should simply be reasonable people.
I think its pretty reasonable and intelligent (pages are faster, avoid alot of distracting/annoying stuff, first step in avoiding malware) to use an adblocker.
>If a content provider puts an ad inline with content, there is no reasonable justification for blocking it.
How about "I don't like ads" as a justification? Its good enough for me and alot of other people.
>If you don't like how they present their content, then stand up for something and don't view their content.
If I don't like how they present their content I also have a choice of altering it to the way I want. It is not a binary choice between with seeing it with ads or not viewing it at all.
>We've gone from having a 2% CTR to less than 0.25. The site costs $168/month to run, and my student loan, and not the advertising revenue, covers the bills.
Seriously, if you are using a loan to support your hobby/business then close up shop or get a new way of pulling in money.
Slashdot Mirror
> to that business move when M$ did it. Now, however, that decision is coming back to bite them on the tender bits: the browser is part of the OS, ergo bugs in the browser count as bugs in the OS.
You are suggesting that they should have sacrifice usability for a meaningless statistic. What a typical dumb PHB statement.
The complexity of the code is the major point.
I could create a million line "Hello world" program and could have less "bugs/lines", but does it really mean anything?
Also, the severity of the bugs would also have to be taken into consideration.
>What would you think about a version of chess or monopoly where players could buy their way into a better position?
Chess and monopoly are zero-sum games. For you to "win", another player has to "lose".
MMORPG are not zero-sum. You can have zero Uber-swords or 10 in the game, but it does not take away from your own advancement.
>is already some clown standing ther waiting for it to drop.
There is only one place to get a powerful sword that people want and there is a line-up. Its a problem with the game, not with people selling stuff on ebay.
Or is part of the gameplay "waiting in line"?
>Like any game, people should have to earn their rank and position.
No, the main point of games is that the player should have fun.
After a certain point in the game, MMORPG are dependent on how lucky your drops are or how much time you can spend sitting in-front of a keyboard doing the same thing X times. For some people, that isn't fun.
If a person is willing to pay to have more fun playing a game, what is wrong with that?
Lots of structures on highways, such as bridge overpasses, are built to be exactly this sort of object.
>I'd like to know if my son was speeding, but I *don't* want some for-profit company having access to that data and (for example) selling it to my insurance company or automatically calling the police.
Why is it ok to track/spy/"correct improper behaviour" of your child yet its not ok for some other group, "your insurance company"/the police, to track/spy/"correct improper behavoiour" you?
Is this a case of "Do as I say, not as I do?"
>One can expect to earn 6-10% a year on investments
How much risk are you talking about? And taxes?
It makes the guy feel good about himself doing it, and that alone would make up for any financial opportunity costs.
>letting people use all the oil they can get their hands on is a good thing, in that it will drive people to use alternatives sooner due to supply/demand curves.
Most people want alternatives not because they hate oil, like someone hates to eat brussel sprouts or their ex-spouse.
They want people to stop because;
1. of the harm its doing to the environment.
2. They don't want some sudden forced change or crash due to everyone being so dependent on a single energy source and then suddenly running out.
Your argument addresses neither of these points.
Which Windows?
95/98? NT? 2000/XP?
Or all of the above?
Not in the definition of the Bill of Rights.
Historically, the 14 Amendment applies to citizens of the US. It was created when certain states tried to deny black slaves their rights, even though they were born in the US.
Hint: If you want your comment to be read by more people, mention the Japanese teenage school girls at the beginning of your post.
>why save up the pennies you make now when you'll have the cash anyway in 5 years.
Its what the saving teaches you. If you don't learn how to handle money when you are young, its that much harder to learn when you are older. Bad habits are hard to break.
"The third-world child who made this shirt are better off than my EA spouse."
>One argument Avenue Media could run is that DirectRevenue is interfering in the contract between the user and Avenue Media.
So does Ad-Aware.
>Whilst it (arguably) has the user's permission to do this, it doesn't have Avenue Media's.
AFAIK, Ad-Aware doesn't have Avenue Media's permission either.
DirectRevenue does have the users authorization. From the user license agreement;
"You further understand and agree, by installing the software, that the software may, without any further prior notice to you, remove, disable or render inoperative other adware programs resident on your computer."
So if a user agrees to this, what is the difference in terms of "user authorization" is this and him running ad-aware?
The idea is to let you go before an extended period of time off (weekend, holidays) so that you can't come back to the office in a huff and had time to reflect.
>And they're well-formed people.
Do they all follow standards of appearance and structure?
>plus asians are usually bad parents.. i swear if i ever brought home a B or a C, i'd have probably lost a few fingers.
Its extreme from the child's point of view. Its being weak from the parent's point of view.
Rowan: Gareth, quick trust exercise, ultimate fantasy?
Gareth Keenan: Hmm?
David Brent: We're just doing the ultimate fantasy, we're all doing it.
Gareth Keenan: Two lesbians probably, sisters. I'm just watching.
Rowan: OK. Erm. Tim? Do you have one?
Tim Canterbury: I'd never thought I'd say this, but can I hear more from Gareth please?
>My point, again, is that it is simply not correct to view the content without the ads
I fail to see how the option of selecting "Don't show images" or using the Lynx webbrowser makes things morally "not correct".
Isn't it just like muting the sound or fastforwarding or channel surfing during commericals? How is this morally wrong?
>I'm saying that we should simply be reasonable people.
I think its pretty reasonable and intelligent (pages are faster, avoid alot of distracting/annoying stuff, first step in avoiding malware) to use an adblocker.
>If a content provider puts an ad inline with content, there is no reasonable justification for blocking it.
How about "I don't like ads" as a justification? Its good enough for me and alot of other people.
>If you don't like how they present their content, then stand up for something and don't view their content.
If I don't like how they present their content I also have a choice of altering it to the way I want. It is not a binary choice between with seeing it with ads or not viewing it at all.
>We've gone from having a 2% CTR to less than 0.25. The site costs $168/month to run, and my student loan, and not the advertising revenue, covers the bills.
Seriously, if you are using a loan to support your hobby/business then close up shop or get a new way of pulling in money.
>To think that the Internet today can continue without ads based on some magical elf business model is simply absurd.
Its not a for-profit business model you need to consider. Its the model where a bunch of people want to communicate with each other.
There is a lot of good information/advice in the slashdot comments and no one is paying posters anything.
There are gigs and gigs of stuff on p2p and binary newsgroups and, again, no commerical benefit to those that post them.
The Internet will change, but it doens't have to be a for-profit model.
>The more you know you're being observed by others, the more you want to make a show of it and be a good person.
No, you learn to hide certain behavour better. Don't change.
>just American jobs should be considered "American first".
Its "American arrogance" that is blinding you to the fact that Americans are the ones outsourcing American jobs.
Americans are screwing Americans. Gee, I suppose its is "American first".