They don't block text only requests, so you don't have a case. Prrrrrrrrr. Next one. Also, who's to say I have to serve all audiences? Some content in some medium may not be suited for every audience, that is not illegal. When was the last time Panthouse got sued for not offering braile versions of the magazine?
I have to pay for bandwidth to see your fucking ad
In the same vein, I have to pay for the same bandwith plus the content I am offering you. And the requests come from your computer, no mine. Just don't look at the site if you don't like the ad policy. That'd be fair for both parties. They save bandwith, as well as you.
The.com bubble is the greatest thing that happened in favour for the web. If it wasn't for it, network bandwith would be several times lower, prices much higher and content scarcer.
The bubble made many companies overinvest in servers, network cards, nocs and fiber all over the world. And they don't vanish when the bubble explodes. When the bubble explodes you just have cheap prices for what you do wanted in the first place.
I do get your point, but if you value what the site is bringing you, why do you want it erradicated? Because you don t like it beign free but with ads but because you would like to support it directly? Or do you expect the site to magically invent a bussiness model where you don't pay and they don't advertize and still get money? Or because you just don't like ANY site that needs a revenue to stay online?
That's the part I don't inderstand, because if you don't value those sites, you'd not be visiting them and blocking their ads. SO there would be no problem and the reson the closed would be nobody found their site usefull enough.
Corporate tool? What's wrong with corporations in general? A competitive corp brings you great products, like food and housing at the cheapest price. They even bring you the work of profesional journalism.
Even non profit organizations need to be funded, and when the goverment does not provide those funds they need to get the money from somewhere else (and even state funded ones are charging you, as a tax payer, and you don't have the vote as to where the money goes).
I am not pro corp, but corps play a role and are not intrisecaly bad.
Some sites have pop-up, and some times they make sense. It's better to block them when they are abusive. You don't lose much time and you never miss a feature (many sites show screenshots in another window or tab).
Well, that's up to the channel owner. You see, some channels require the cable company to pay a high fee or they can't broadcast the content. Some others do not and are always there, but full of ads.
Whcih ones to I watch most? The ones without ads. But not only because of the ads, but mostly because they have the content I like most (Discovery, Animal Planet, Movies).
It's nice to have choice though. Not every show can be financed in the same way. Some are better of showing ads and reaching a higher audience (there are some people that are unwilling to pay, or that couldn't pay if everything was per-view).
Well, you just prove they must enforce a fee if they don't want to place ads. What's your suggestion, that we pay a fixed fee that the ISP must surrender to the BBC so that we have a BBC site with no ads? Who's to say it should go to the BBC and not somewhere else? I don't watch the BBC except some shows in Animal Planet (that are superb, like the new Africa series:).
I mean, I understand your point, but it does in no way invalidate that good content has a price either pay-per-view/suscription, forced-tax (and can't decide where the money goes) or free but ad supported.
You know at the risk of being a Troll here I have to point out that a few years back the web was not commerce driven.
That's fine! Nobody has taken your options away, they have added new ones. If you value some commercial or even non-profit sites (but that need an income to stay online) then at least don't block the ads if they are not abusive.
That's the idea. I still watch a lot of personal, and "for the love of it sites", and still find other non personal sites very usefull.
What happens when people stop looking at adds is the site either closes are tryies to (sorry) f*ck the customers. For example, did you know CNET Downloads now forces you (if you are a publisher) to pay to put your program in there, and they even let you pay to have it as "recomended" and things like that? It's utterly disapointing.
A fair ad is better than the alternatives some times. CNET/ZDNET downloads are only an example.
You are talking about different things here. Ads are a revenue model, that's good when people value the freeness of the product (like TV shows). Mass apeal + very cheap.
A bad business plan has nothing to do with an ad supported (or complemented) website.
As long as you don't request ANY image, they site will still load. The moment you start selectively loading images, they block you.
Hope it clears your concerns (note: I don't like pop-ups, i have a commercial website and refused to sell pop-ups over and over. I'd be very unhappy if everyone just blocked my 1 add per page in selected pages...that helps me pay for the journalists)
Why not, if you don't have a password you may not enter some sites, if you don't load the ads, they can as well negate access to the site. Would you rather have site charge subscriptions than to ask you not to block (fair) ads?
I guess you can consider these other things theft also:
* Using the Lynx web browser Lynx is 100% fine. It works perfectly and is not blocked for a reason.
* Any TV using Tivo or ReplayTV The day everyone has TIVO, you'll see that the advertizements start to get buried INSIDE the show, or that that show you loved in no longer supported. All you can access for free will be propaganda supported stuff or pay-per-views. I'm nt looking worward to that day:)
Going to the bathroom during commercial breaks. Nobody requires you to look at the screen when they display an add last time I checked. Not even to stay on the channel. Most websites are not asking people to click the banners nor asking you to pay carefull attention to all the banners.
* Coming to the movies a bit late for the commercials. They couldn't care less, the fact is some people enjoy those commercials, and for the movie you have already payed a ticket wich is the way you supports the creation of movies.
Great for both, you use your time in a better way, and they don't have to serve you the content for free. All parties are happy. That if, if you don't like their policy, it'd be fair to just not watch the site alltogether.
People suck badwidth of apps but never respond to them (don't see them) => advertizer makes some numbers and notices effectiveness has droped => adverticers lower the price offered per CPM => websites has less income and added expenses (serving the dead-weight banners) => they can now are forcedto use lower quality servers and to cut journalists and webmasters expenses, lowering the offered quality. If (revenue the site closes. Your choices are lowered, and you move to the next site that's still not as bad. Repeat the process and you start seeing while the suscribe model is getting a foot, and you can't see high quality independant sites as before.
Nope, it's more like not paying attention to a banner add. Nobody is asking you to pay attention or to scroll down the page so you see the bottom add (or to not scroll down enough so you don't see the top add...etc).
If I recall, I think I stumped them by asking if Lynx users were thieves since their browser didn't support pop-ups.
Short answer: no.
I think the problem is people using the fully featured website while trying to suvert the very means that makes the website stay online.
If a large percent of the people used Lynx, you could expect websites to start using text ads, as opposed to blocking people that try to block the income source of the publisher.
If there existed a way to automatically reformat a printed newspaper into a non-ads newspaper, they'd have to charge everyone more and due to reduced audience they'd also have to cut jobs and lower the quality of the articles. In the web, thing are the same or worst, because if you try to charge you reduce your audience to a much greater degree, being forced to severily affect the quality of the product.
So, the bottom line is it's ok for you to try to block adds, as long as you can recognize that when your favourite site closes you are part of the reason. And when a site is doing find and provides you of great pleasure or insight, you are not helping and are freeriding everyone elses "hard work".
Of course, it's mandatory that i know there are some limits to what means resonable adverticement. If the site wants to place 25 chained pop-ups and 75 flashing banners then I would disable javascript or avoid the site. The thing is the most usefull sites have decent advertizing schemes.
I was probably me. I remember that I was modded down though I was very polite, and you modded up as very insightfull. I was not even talking about pop-up, i was talking about normal banners. I confronted you with the posibility of supporting the websites you like by contributing a small amount, which you said was stupid since you can just block the adds: "why pay for what I already have!" (the case was the slashdot no adds subscription iirc).
The thing is without watching adds you'll have no websites, no TV shows (except pay per view). So it's kind of ok if they decide to try to block the people not contributing to sustain the website or show.
Amen. I also have a Palm III and don't feel the need to upgrade (except for memory, i could use some extra memory).
The batteries last a month, and I can buy replacements everywhere (no need to hardwire it to the wall ever).
When I am bored i can play some good chess. I'm more akin to my PDA than to my laptop, it has this fixed role, never gets in my way, never fails me, rarely needs an upgrade. I don't miss the colors at all! It's lighweight.
On Windows... I'll be manually save-as'ing or text-select cut-n-pasting.
That gets worst as the number of "repetitions" needed go up, in which case you are forced to learn yet another propietary scripting language with NO long term value (it changes and all the experience with that goes to the sink).
Well, then you know more than me, but it still looks like they need AMD, they just wish they played slower. Killing them should involve losing a lot of profit today (huge R&D so as to completely exhaust AMD's resources) and driving they own prices down.
They would be left out with less money, fear of losing sales against a completely different technology the "can't lead" because of monopoly fears (goverment and other companies).
But of course, they would be glad if AMD just dissapeared. More sales now with no extra R&D = huge profits today. AMD lowers they R&D profits by forcing them to invest more than they would. Investing even more in R&D would be painfull (basically, you will be selling much better chips for the same price, so the extra R&D doesn't pay, and the technology will get to the limit so R&R rises even more, and sooner).
I don't know if this happens in real life, I am not intel, but I'd see it this way if i where them (damnit!:)
Slashdot Mirror
And I wouldn't mind serving them to you from my servers indeed!! Everyone's happy, woooo!
They don't block text only requests, so you don't have a case. Prrrrrrrrr. Next one. Also, who's to say I have to serve all audiences? Some content in some medium may not be suited for every audience, that is not illegal. When was the last time Panthouse got sued for not offering braile versions of the magazine?
I have to pay for bandwidth to see your fucking ad
.com bubble is the greatest thing that happened in favour for the web. If it wasn't for it, network bandwith would be several times lower, prices much higher and content scarcer.
In the same vein, I have to pay for the same bandwith plus the content I am offering you. And the requests come from your computer, no mine. Just don't look at the site if you don't like the ad policy. That'd be fair for both parties. They save bandwith, as well as you.
The
The bubble made many companies overinvest in servers, network cards, nocs and fiber all over the world. And they don't vanish when the bubble explodes. When the bubble explodes you just have cheap prices for what you do wanted in the first place.
Don't be silly
I do get your point, but if you value what the site is bringing you, why do you want it erradicated? Because you don t like it beign free but with ads but because you would like to support it directly? Or do you expect the site to magically invent a bussiness model where you don't pay and they don't advertize and still get money? Or because you just don't like ANY site that needs a revenue to stay online?
That's the part I don't inderstand, because if you don't value those sites, you'd not be visiting them and blocking their ads. SO there would be no problem and the reson the closed would be nobody found their site usefull enough.
Corporate tool? What's wrong with corporations in general? A competitive corp brings you great products, like food and housing at the cheapest price. They even bring you the work of profesional journalism.
Even non profit organizations need to be funded, and when the goverment does not provide those funds they need to get the money from somewhere else (and even state funded ones are charging you, as a tax payer, and you don't have the vote as to where the money goes).
I am not pro corp, but corps play a role and are not intrisecaly bad.
Some sites have pop-up, and some times they make sense. It's better to block them when they are abusive. You don't lose much time and you never miss a feature (many sites show screenshots in another window or tab).
I agree with you on that level. But I don't mind my favourite show beign financed as producers want.
Well, that's up to the channel owner. You see, some channels require the cable company to pay a high fee or they can't broadcast the content. Some others do not and are always there, but full of ads.
Whcih ones to I watch most? The ones without ads. But not only because of the ads, but mostly because they have the content I like most (Discovery, Animal Planet, Movies).
It's nice to have choice though. Not every show can be financed in the same way. Some are better of showing ads and reaching a higher audience (there are some people that are unwilling to pay, or that couldn't pay if everything was per-view).
I agree with you! Let's start paying a tiny bit for content so that they show us ads any more. But...
"Let's form a queue. Those that want to support ad-free sites and shows accomodate to the left. The rest, to the right."
Guess the result. Even worst, they don't want to pay nor see the ads. I said it already, it's their choice, but the consecuences are also inevitable.
Well, you just prove they must enforce a fee if they don't want to place ads. What's your suggestion, that we pay a fixed fee that the ISP must surrender to the BBC so that we have a BBC site with no ads? Who's to say it should go to the BBC and not somewhere else? I don't watch the BBC except some shows in Animal Planet (that are superb, like the new Africa series :).
I mean, I understand your point, but it does in no way invalidate that good content has a price either pay-per-view/suscription, forced-tax (and can't decide where the money goes) or free but ad supported.
You know at the risk of being a Troll here I have to point out that a few years back the web was not commerce driven.
That's fine! Nobody has taken your options away, they have added new ones. If you value some commercial or even non-profit sites (but that need an income to stay online) then at least don't block the ads if they are not abusive.
That's the idea. I still watch a lot of personal, and "for the love of it sites", and still find other non personal sites very usefull.
What happens when people stop looking at adds is the site either closes are tryies to (sorry) f*ck the customers. For example, did you know CNET Downloads now forces you (if you are a publisher) to pay to put your program in there, and they even let you pay to have it as "recomended" and things like that? It's utterly disapointing.
A fair ad is better than the alternatives some times. CNET/ZDNET downloads are only an example.
You are talking about different things here. Ads are a revenue model, that's good when people value the freeness of the product (like TV shows). Mass apeal + very cheap.
A bad business plan has nothing to do with an ad supported (or complemented) website.
As long as you don't request ANY image, they site will still load. The moment you start selectively loading images, they block you.
Hope it clears your concerns (note: I don't like pop-ups, i have a commercial website and refused to sell pop-ups over and over. I'd be very unhappy if everyone just blocked my 1 add per page in selected pages...that helps me pay for the journalists)
Why not, if you don't have a password you may not enter some sites, if you don't load the ads, they can as well negate access to the site. Would you rather have site charge subscriptions than to ask you not to block (fair) ads?
Theft? That is insulting and offensive.
:)
I guess you can consider these other things theft also:
* Using the Lynx web browser
Lynx is 100% fine. It works perfectly and is not blocked for a reason.
* Any TV using Tivo or ReplayTV
The day everyone has TIVO, you'll see that the advertizements start to get buried INSIDE the show, or that that show you loved in no longer supported. All you can access for free will be propaganda supported stuff or pay-per-views. I'm nt looking worward to that day
Going to the bathroom during commercial breaks.
Nobody requires you to look at the screen when they display an add last time I checked. Not even to stay on the channel. Most websites are not asking people to click the banners nor asking you to pay carefull attention to all the banners.
* Coming to the movies a bit late for the commercials.
They couldn't care less, the fact is some people enjoy those commercials, and for the movie you have already payed a ticket wich is the way you supports the creation of movies.
Great for both, you use your time in a better way, and they don't have to serve you the content for free. All parties are happy. That if, if you don't like their policy, it'd be fair to just not watch the site alltogether.
People suck badwidth of apps but never respond to them (don't see them) => advertizer makes some numbers and notices effectiveness has droped => adverticers lower the price offered per CPM => websites has less income and added expenses (serving the dead-weight banners) => they can now are forcedto use lower quality servers and to cut journalists and webmasters expenses, lowering the offered quality. If (revenue the site closes. Your choices are lowered, and you move to the next site that's still not as bad. Repeat the process and you start seeing while the suscribe model is getting a foot, and you can't see high quality independant sites as before.
Thanks!
Who's requesting the connection? Last time I checked it was the client that had to request a website.
Nope, it's more like not paying attention to a banner add. Nobody is asking you to pay attention or to scroll down the page so you see the bottom add (or to not scroll down enough so you don't see the top add...etc).
If I recall, I think I stumped them by asking if Lynx users were thieves since their browser didn't support pop-ups.
Short answer: no.
I think the problem is people using the fully featured website while trying to suvert the very means that makes the website stay online.
If a large percent of the people used Lynx, you could expect websites to start using text ads, as opposed to blocking people that try to block the income source of the publisher.
If there existed a way to automatically reformat a printed newspaper into a non-ads newspaper, they'd have to charge everyone more and due to reduced audience they'd also have to cut jobs and lower the quality of the articles. In the web, thing are the same or worst, because if you try to charge you reduce your audience to a much greater degree, being forced to severily affect the quality of the product.
So, the bottom line is it's ok for you to try to block adds, as long as you can recognize that when your favourite site closes you are part of the reason. And when a site is doing find and provides you of great pleasure or insight, you are not helping and are freeriding everyone elses "hard work".
Of course, it's mandatory that i know there are some limits to what means resonable adverticement. If the site wants to place 25 chained pop-ups and 75 flashing banners then I would disable javascript or avoid the site. The thing is the most usefull sites have decent advertizing schemes.
I was probably me. I remember that I was modded down though I was very polite, and you modded up as very insightfull. I was not even talking about pop-up, i was talking about normal banners. I confronted you with the posibility of supporting the websites you like by contributing a small amount, which you said was stupid since you can just block the adds: "why pay for what I already have!" (the case was the slashdot no adds subscription iirc).
The thing is without watching adds you'll have no websites, no TV shows (except pay per view). So it's kind of ok if they decide to try to block the people not contributing to sustain the website or show.
Amen. I also have a Palm III and don't feel the need to upgrade (except for memory, i could use some extra memory).
The batteries last a month, and I can buy replacements everywhere (no need to hardwire it to the wall ever).
When I am bored i can play some good chess. I'm more akin to my PDA than to my laptop, it has this fixed role, never gets in my way, never fails me, rarely needs an upgrade. I don't miss the colors at all! It's lighweight.
On Windows ... I'll be manually save-as'ing or text-select cut-n-pasting.
That gets worst as the number of "repetitions" needed go up, in which case you are forced to learn yet another propietary scripting language with NO long term value (it changes and all the experience with that goes to the sink).
Well, then you know more than me, but it still looks like they need AMD, they just wish they played slower. Killing them should involve losing a lot of profit today (huge R&D so as to completely exhaust AMD's resources) and driving they own prices down.
:)
They would be left out with less money, fear of losing sales against a completely different technology the "can't lead" because of monopoly fears (goverment and other companies).
But of course, they would be glad if AMD just dissapeared. More sales now with no extra R&D = huge profits today. AMD lowers they R&D profits by forcing them to invest more than they would. Investing even more in R&D would be painfull (basically, you will be selling much better chips for the same price, so the extra R&D doesn't pay, and the technology will get to the limit so R&R rises even more, and sooner).
I don't know if this happens in real life, I am not intel, but I'd see it this way if i where them (damnit!
It's just a remainder what you own something in your PC. Everything not market "My" is either at the control of MS Corp or the script Kiddies :)