Interesting to see a Metal Gear Solid title back in something like the original Metal Gear jungle setting. Playing the old NES titles will probably give a loose indication of what MGSIII gameplay would be like. Except that I hated the old NES Metal Gears. Ah, well, that's just my problem. I've faith in Kojima now; he hasn't led me wrong in years.
Third Panel: One of the characters "u r ghay."
You're thinking of whatever the hell that stupid movies comic is, not PA. That or you haven't actually read PA. You can not like the comic, but you can't be a dumbass in the process.
Take a look at the charon_on_acheron sub-thread...
on
Patent Nonsense
·
· Score: 1
... I think we're discussing all your points there. If you think what you're saying is something new and I missed that, I sorry - post what you think is new and I'll try to address it.
I'm trying not to make a knee-jerk criticism of some sort of "Big Pharm." (That's the first time I've heard the term used, actually.) Charon makes your point very well in his first and second posts, I think you might like his articulation. (Yeah, my response is there too. Another is forthcoming, it's quite an interesting discussion, so far. Well, to me anyway.)
Again, read paragraph 8 of the article. I'm not talking about Commu-Facist rhetoric, I'm talking about paragraph 8 of the article - examples of people innovating without the patent "carrot." In the real world.
Also, if you would have read the rest of the thread, you would see the manufacturing sector as an area where innovation occurs and would occur independantly of everlasting patents. Also in the thread is the idea of patents as they were originally created - temporary patents. The real question now, as brought up in the thread, is how do we deal with categories that are typically standardized - areas where those doing the standardization (MS in this case, read the thread) prevent innovation (software, read the thread).
What's really amazing is how fast people post - how fast they start talking with authority about things they haven't even read yet.
I don't want you to think I'm ignoring this post, but it's very well written, well argued, and long - it will take me awhile to give every point due consideration. It deserves a response, and it will eventually have one.
(Damn philosophers taking so damn long in everything they do... )You obviously have thought about this topic before . . . (Are we still on Slashdot here?) Yeah, it's kind my job. I'm a logician, so I'm a bit OCD about this kind of thing.
Thanks for the discussion, friend. We'll talk again.
Hmm... Good point. Even if public/private funding is used to take care of R&D, it would likely be more expensive. The only way to minimize costs would be through public development or Non-Gov't. Org.'s. Public development is notoriously ineffecient and expensive, and NGO's don't exist in this area (to my knowledge).
a) and d) only really apply if somebody gets around to producing the drug, which is the problem as you said. But, they assume the product gets produced in which case I don't have a huge problem with d) if the company refuses to distribute the product, or distribute it at-cost paid publicly or privately. a) would be somewhat better, although I would prefer the innovator be involved and have a chance at compensation or even reward for the R&D.
Best case scenario would be a philanthropic pharm. company paired with a philanthropic NGO and provate donations to defer costs. Pretty utopian, I admit. So . . . what to do about a drug only the poor need? . ..
The story is different, though, for drugs that both the rich and poor alike would need to survive.
Not to portray myself as a "bleeding-heart" liberal per-se (I have been advocating IP as a tertiary right), but I think "poor man's diseases" might be eliminated if we really applied the health and food, survival rights standard. Who knows details about sleeping sickness to flesh the example out?
I don't know if OS/2 Warp is the best example. I was not particularily technically adept or aware in the early-to-mid 90's - too young - but I had heard of Windows and not of OS/2 (until the very late 90's, when I heard of it as a moot point).
But, you're probably right - competition in platforms may be neigh impossible in the real world.
Again, they would not need to lose a dime, and the denial of positive rights justifies theft of intellectual property - since rights theory (especially of positive rights) is intrinsic to the idea of property. I cover this in more detail in response to other posts, and don't want to post redundantly. You will also find many very articulate posts that support your position.
Also, I don't advocate "thinking less" of those who do not. People can be mistaken without being wrong, especially on such a difficult topic as ethics.
If you want the drug companies to stop investing in new research, keep saying they don't deserve to profit from human misery.
This is addressed here. The pharm. companies would not lose a dime.
Then you will know you're responsible for all the third-world deaths.
Don't be an ass. The arguments I'll listen to, the jokes I'll just laugh at. Let's stick to the former.
By the way, if my message isn't clear, medicine is not a 'right'. 'Human rights' aren't even well standardized to begin with.
A fair philosphical point, but I would argue first that what is 'standard' has nothing to do with objective truth. I would also argue that survival is indeed a right, and if medicine = survival, then medicine = a right, or at least a right that trumps other rights (like additional profit). But, let us assume you are correct. Would you then be discussing the finer points of the right to survival to soemone trying to kill you? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying you're on very shaky philosophical ground. OK, so if pressed I guess I am saying you are wrong.
Also, if survival is not a right, how does intellectual property qualify? To deny rights undermines the very basis of your main point, of capitalism, and of any reason for people to NOT steal and profit from other's innovations. Neither of us want that.
For you to tell a company they "do not deserve" their profit because someone's poor, but it's ok if someone else is rich, is such a crock.
Why? They deserve their profit, clearly. Read the link above, I shouldn't be redundant in posts.
Do you freely give your time and possessions to the poor people in your city? Every month, week, day? Do you offer to pay for someone's lunch if they are hungrier than you? Do you even put a penny in the dish beside the cash-register at the gas station?
Yeah, although some of the examples do not pertain. If the hungry person can afford food themselves, then I'm not advocating they mooch, nor that you let them. If they can't afford food, yes. And, yes - week, month, day - because I can. Hopefully, if you can, you do too.
I just do the cash-register pennies because I'm a nice guy. I use them sometimes too.
But you expect companies to be forced to.
Yup, given the conditions described above and in the linked post.
Maybe we should just have higher taxes so we can all pay for medicine for the whole world.
See linked post.
Or force McDonald's to have to feed the third world, since they are one of those "highly profitable companies" you talk about.
I wouldn't wish McDonalds on anyone, Third or First World. But, if you like it and are hungry, I've listed nothing above that would give me reason to want to prevent you.
Arguments talk, rhetoric walks. Just for future reference.
Hm... well, this is the fourth time I've tried to write this post. I'm not sure how to deal with proprietary changes, which I take to mean changes that are like innovation but not quite, but that constitute a standard. That way people developing software know what they are dealing with.
If Win2k were open source now, do you think a product that competes with XP would result?
But, I can easily see pharm. companies using public subsidy as a way to keep prices inflated. Public expense could bevome very expensive. I have no problem with them reaping rewards from their innovation, I'm just wondering when their rights to reward need to make way for people's rights to not die.
I'm not suggesting we legalize burglary - the company that developed the product should recieve the benefits (for a period of time anyway, before a decent patent phase out period). I'm thinking price and ability to pay should be related to one another when it comes to basic human survival needs. I have no problem paying $20 to XYZ Corp. for my inhaler medication, I can afford it easily. People who can't cover their dietary needs probably don't have that luxury, and today they would just die. XYZ should charge me $20 - or $30 if it must to cover legitimate non-profit expenses - and give them the inhaler. They would not have to lose a dime. ABC Corp. should not make a dime from stealing XYZ's innovation.
A corrolary consideration of rights: If XYZ Corp. refuses to help those who need but cannot afford the inhaler, they trample on the primary rights of others and thus forefit their tertiary rights. ABC Corp. should then gain the benefit of selling and giving to those specific "consumers" that XYZ forefit.
Perhaps patents as they were originally intended (at least as far as I am aware) might be the answer. Those would phase out after a period of time, allowing new innovators to build on the progress of past innovators. This is what we do anyway as virtually EVERY innovation depends on a previous innovation. Language itself counts as an innovation, and look at how it develops (almost patent-free).
In the case of manufacturing, the phase out period should be far enough out that manufacturers would not be hurt by it unless they decided to cling to outdated propriatery technology. They would have to innovate to compete as they do now, but after a time their innovaion would become available to tohers to learn from and build off of.
This would also prevent platform owners from pushing aside innovators forever - there would essentially be a time limit before their technology becomes public domain.
The question may be not whether or not to have patents, but how long they should last. Too short does not give enough time to reap the rewards of an innovation, too long (as we can see today) can promote stagnation. (Or am I missing something?)
The corporation bashing isn't COMPLETE nonsense
on
Patent Nonsense
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Don't skip those first few paragraphs. While there is a bit of a bias, the article talks about the sale of cheap medicines to third world countries. It's true that large, highly profitable companies are outpricing these nations on things they need.
When will some people recognize that some rights - like food and medicine, i.e., basic health and survival - trump capitalism, intellectual property, and other protections which are fine to call "rights" in prosperous nations but do not deserve that designation in the Third World?
But what human? A human decision based model would only make abuse easier and cheaper. Look at the criticisms of the Open Directory Project linked to at this post. The Church of Scientology easily abuses that human based system, while abuse of Google is more difficult and especially costly. Check the other posts on that thread too.
Not to mention the added cost of hiring Google editors.
So the federal government scales back, the US moves toward industury self-regulation (or lack thereof), and the RIAA and MPAA fill in the power vaccum.
Yeah, because "the masses" have been so receptive to education about fossil fuels, drug use, etc.
If eductaion was sufficient for solving problems, we wouldn't need laws, or a government for that matter. But, because most people choose to be ignorant of at least a few important topics, those in the know need to wield the law to protect everyone else.
Um... so how do y'all know what code to check?
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 1
So I get that that it would probably be a violation of the GPL, and that dedicated and angry people have a number of ways to strike back. But, the post does not mention the company or project or lawyer involved. How would anyone know which project out there to investigate for the obfuscation?
(I'm ignorant here, not being a programmer myself, so perhaps the answer is obvious to you all. Fill me in.)
Actually, the people who have/use Linux/GIMP/etc. probably ALSO have, and perhaps use, Windows/Photoshop/etc. Those are the tech savvy people, not the average (and majority) user. The majority of users are still in the Windows/Office/"usual-software" loop.
The ownership of student academic work, or of academic work in general, usually varies by discilpine. For example, in Philosophy MOST academics will allow others to reprint their works gratis - it's often considered "bad form" not to, because everyone expects reciprocity in this regard. In other disciplines, such a system would be treated as absurd. In some sciences, people who help with papers are given co-authorship for minimal involvement. In other disciplines a "thanks for the help" is considered sufficient.
For the most part, academic works act as though they are open source. Certianly people are given credit for their ideas (through notation and citation), and they must be referenced in a bibliography or works cited if their ideas are used, but anything published is considered fair game for adaption, criticism, and use as support for someone else's ideas. Without such permissions, academic development could not occur because students would not be permitted to make use of the ideas they learned.
I think these freedoms come from the way academic work values the work itself, rather than money. If I write open source software that is virtually the same as another program, with no valuable modifications, then the community would not give a damn. The same is true of academic work - I could rewrite Plato's Republic and nobody would see it as valuable. But, if I rewrote it with interesting new insights and modifications, that is valued. In software development, the focus is (usually) on profit and commercialism rather than on superior products. Listen to the economists - better software comes from competition that stems from the desire to accumulate money. In academic disciplines, wealth is defined by contributions to the community, to the discipline. Much like open source software.
All flash content, well designed or not, looks very much the same in many respects. Flash animations pretty much look and act the same, and there is not much that a developer can do about it (so far as I am aware). Granted, if I want my animations to match the artistic style of, say, The Powerpuff Girls, then Flash is ideal. I know it is possible to break away from that style, but I don't think you can pull it off in Flash itself - and not everyone will have access or $$ for alternitive art programs.
Even though you can break away from the art style , I'm not sure you can break away from animation objects moving "the Flash way." I don't know why, but every movement of an object in a Flash animation moves in a way that clearly looks "like Flash." I'm not sure how else to put it.
Asking developers to desing everything in Flash is like limiting all painters to acrylic paint or all sculptors to bronze. Sometimes it needs to be done in marble, dammit. At least having the option between HTML / XML / Flash / Whatever gives designers more options to get to exactly what they want aesthetically.
Also, standardized UI stuff is only good so long as it can be modified. People who work on making an interface easier to use should be rewarded with the ability to do so, people who don't or who don't care about usability deserve their self-inflicted punisment of a crappy site, and people who have different intentions for the interface (such as a *purposefully* confusing one, for hwatever reason) should be free to pursue this. Again, more options means more flexibility (so long as the user has the appropriate software). Besides, if I had to pick ONE standard, I would go with W3C stuff because it gives me more control over content and presentation that Flash does.
What if I liked the idea of only having to see or sit through ads for things I would actually be interested in? I don't want to be tracked either, but is anyone aware of a company working on tracking where I submit what I want tracked (I don't give a damn if everybody know how many times I've seen Star Wars) and can keep the rest of my privacy? Would such submission be more hassle than it was worth, or would the advantages (to me) outweigh the effort?
That said, I also have no problem with word of mouth ads that are one-off. I'm interested when someone tells me something they like even I it's new to me. Otherwise, how would I be made aware of new things to try or look into (like how I found out about Slashdot)?
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting to see a Metal Gear Solid title back in something like the original Metal Gear jungle setting. Playing the old NES titles will probably give a loose indication of what MGSIII gameplay would be like. Except that I hated the old NES Metal Gears. Ah, well, that's just my problem. I've faith in Kojima now; he hasn't led me wrong in years.
I think it's a joke--a little something for those of us playing games when Sam and Max Hit the Road came out and "PC CD" actually meant something.
http://www.m-w.com should help you out.
Third Panel: One of the characters "u r ghay." You're thinking of whatever the hell that stupid movies comic is, not PA. That or you haven't actually read PA. You can not like the comic, but you can't be a dumbass in the process.
... I think we're discussing all your points there. If you think what you're saying is something new and I missed that, I sorry - post what you think is new and I'll try to address it.
I'm trying not to make a knee-jerk criticism of some sort of "Big Pharm." (That's the first time I've heard the term used, actually.) Charon makes your point very well in his first and second posts, I think you might like his articulation. (Yeah, my response is there too. Another is forthcoming, it's quite an interesting discussion, so far. Well, to me anyway.)
Again, read paragraph 8 of the article. I'm not talking about Commu-Facist rhetoric, I'm talking about paragraph 8 of the article - examples of people innovating without the patent "carrot." In the real world.
Also, if you would have read the rest of the thread, you would see the manufacturing sector as an area where innovation occurs and would occur independantly of everlasting patents. Also in the thread is the idea of patents as they were originally created - temporary patents. The real question now, as brought up in the thread, is how do we deal with categories that are typically standardized - areas where those doing the standardization (MS in this case, read the thread) prevent innovation (software, read the thread).
What's really amazing is how fast people post - how fast they start talking with authority about things they haven't even read yet.
I don't want you to think I'm ignoring this post, but it's very well written, well argued, and long - it will take me awhile to give every point due consideration. It deserves a response, and it will eventually have one.
(Damn philosophers taking so damn long in everything they do... )You obviously have thought about this topic before . . . (Are we still on Slashdot here?) Yeah, it's kind my job. I'm a logician, so I'm a bit OCD about this kind of thing.
Thanks for the discussion, friend. We'll talk again.
Hmm... Good point. Even if public/private funding is used to take care of R&D, it would likely be more expensive. The only way to minimize costs would be through public development or Non-Gov't. Org.'s. Public development is notoriously ineffecient and expensive, and NGO's don't exist in this area (to my knowledge).
.
a) and d) only really apply if somebody gets around to producing the drug, which is the problem as you said. But, they assume the product gets produced in which case I don't have a huge problem with d) if the company refuses to distribute the product, or distribute it at-cost paid publicly or privately. a) would be somewhat better, although I would prefer the innovator be involved and have a chance at compensation or even reward for the R&D.
Best case scenario would be a philanthropic pharm. company paired with a philanthropic NGO and provate donations to defer costs. Pretty utopian, I admit. So . . . what to do about a drug only the poor need? . .
The story is different, though, for drugs that both the rich and poor alike would need to survive.
Not to portray myself as a "bleeding-heart" liberal per-se (I have been advocating IP as a tertiary right), but I think "poor man's diseases" might be eliminated if we really applied the health and food, survival rights standard. Who knows details about sleeping sickness to flesh the example out?
I don't know if OS/2 Warp is the best example. I was not particularily technically adept or aware in the early-to-mid 90's - too young - but I had heard of Windows and not of OS/2 (until the very late 90's, when I heard of it as a moot point).
But, you're probably right - competition in platforms may be neigh impossible in the real world.
Again, they would not need to lose a dime, and the denial of positive rights justifies theft of intellectual property - since rights theory (especially of positive rights) is intrinsic to the idea of property. I cover this in more detail in response to other posts, and don't want to post redundantly. You will also find many very articulate posts that support your position.
Also, I don't advocate "thinking less" of those who do not. People can be mistaken without being wrong, especially on such a difficult topic as ethics.
If you want the drug companies to stop investing in new research, keep saying they don't deserve to profit from human misery.
This is addressed here. The pharm. companies would not lose a dime.
Then you will know you're responsible for all the third-world deaths.
Don't be an ass. The arguments I'll listen to, the jokes I'll just laugh at. Let's stick to the former.
By the way, if my message isn't clear, medicine is not a 'right'. 'Human rights' aren't even well standardized to begin with.
A fair philosphical point, but I would argue first that what is 'standard' has nothing to do with objective truth. I would also argue that survival is indeed a right, and if medicine = survival, then medicine = a right, or at least a right that trumps other rights (like additional profit). But, let us assume you are correct. Would you then be discussing the finer points of the right to survival to soemone trying to kill you? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying you're on very shaky philosophical ground. OK, so if pressed I guess I am saying you are wrong.
Also, if survival is not a right, how does intellectual property qualify? To deny rights undermines the very basis of your main point, of capitalism, and of any reason for people to NOT steal and profit from other's innovations. Neither of us want that.
For you to tell a company they "do not deserve" their profit because someone's poor, but it's ok if someone else is rich, is such a crock.
Why? They deserve their profit, clearly. Read the link above, I shouldn't be redundant in posts.
Do you freely give your time and possessions to the poor people in your city? Every month, week, day? Do you offer to pay for someone's lunch if they are hungrier than you? Do you even put a penny in the dish beside the cash-register at the gas station?
Yeah, although some of the examples do not pertain. If the hungry person can afford food themselves, then I'm not advocating they mooch, nor that you let them. If they can't afford food, yes. And, yes - week, month, day - because I can. Hopefully, if you can, you do too.
I just do the cash-register pennies because I'm a nice guy. I use them sometimes too.
But you expect companies to be forced to.
Yup, given the conditions described above and in the linked post.
Maybe we should just have higher taxes so we can all pay for medicine for the whole world.
See linked post.
Or force McDonald's to have to feed the third world, since they are one of those "highly profitable companies" you talk about.
I wouldn't wish McDonalds on anyone, Third or First World. But, if you like it and are hungry, I've listed nothing above that would give me reason to want to prevent you.
Arguments talk, rhetoric walks. Just for future reference.
Hm... well, this is the fourth time I've tried to write this post. I'm not sure how to deal with proprietary changes, which I take to mean changes that are like innovation but not quite, but that constitute a standard. That way people developing software know what they are dealing with.
If Win2k were open source now, do you think a product that competes with XP would result?
Granted.
But, I can easily see pharm. companies using public subsidy as a way to keep prices inflated. Public expense could bevome very expensive. I have no problem with them reaping rewards from their innovation, I'm just wondering when their rights to reward need to make way for people's rights to not die.
I'm not suggesting we legalize burglary - the company that developed the product should recieve the benefits (for a period of time anyway, before a decent patent phase out period). I'm thinking price and ability to pay should be related to one another when it comes to basic human survival needs. I have no problem paying $20 to XYZ Corp. for my inhaler medication, I can afford it easily. People who can't cover their dietary needs probably don't have that luxury, and today they would just die. XYZ should charge me $20 - or $30 if it must to cover legitimate non-profit expenses - and give them the inhaler. They would not have to lose a dime. ABC Corp. should not make a dime from stealing XYZ's innovation.
A corrolary consideration of rights: If XYZ Corp. refuses to help those who need but cannot afford the inhaler, they trample on the primary rights of others and thus forefit their tertiary rights. ABC Corp. should then gain the benefit of selling and giving to those specific "consumers" that XYZ forefit.
Perhaps patents as they were originally intended (at least as far as I am aware) might be the answer. Those would phase out after a period of time, allowing new innovators to build on the progress of past innovators. This is what we do anyway as virtually EVERY innovation depends on a previous innovation. Language itself counts as an innovation, and look at how it develops (almost patent-free).
In the case of manufacturing, the phase out period should be far enough out that manufacturers would not be hurt by it unless they decided to cling to outdated propriatery technology. They would have to innovate to compete as they do now, but after a time their innovaion would become available to tohers to learn from and build off of.
This would also prevent platform owners from pushing aside innovators forever - there would essentially be a time limit before their technology becomes public domain.
The question may be not whether or not to have patents, but how long they should last. Too short does not give enough time to reap the rewards of an innovation, too long (as we can see today) can promote stagnation. (Or am I missing something?)
Don't skip those first few paragraphs. While there is a bit of a bias, the article talks about the sale of cheap medicines to third world countries. It's true that large, highly profitable companies are outpricing these nations on things they need.
When will some people recognize that some rights - like food and medicine, i.e., basic health and survival - trump capitalism, intellectual property, and other protections which are fine to call "rights" in prosperous nations but do not deserve that designation in the Third World?
Whoever feels like innovating will innovate. Read paragraph 8 of the article.
But what human? A human decision based model would only make abuse easier and cheaper. Look at the criticisms of the Open Directory Project linked to at this post. The Church of Scientology easily abuses that human based system, while abuse of Google is more difficult and especially costly. Check the other posts on that thread too.
Not to mention the added cost of hiring Google editors.
So the federal government scales back, the US moves toward industury self-regulation (or lack thereof), and the RIAA and MPAA fill in the power vaccum.
In the meantime, we can take razor blades to our CD's. That way we'll be ahead of our time.
It's as simple as educating the masses
Yeah, because "the masses" have been so receptive to education about fossil fuels, drug use, etc.
If eductaion was sufficient for solving problems, we wouldn't need laws, or a government for that matter. But, because most people choose to be ignorant of at least a few important topics, those in the know need to wield the law to protect everyone else.
So I get that that it would probably be a violation of the GPL, and that dedicated and angry people have a number of ways to strike back. But, the post does not mention the company or project or lawyer involved. How would anyone know which project out there to investigate for the obfuscation?
(I'm ignorant here, not being a programmer myself, so perhaps the answer is obvious to you all. Fill me in.)
No, no, it's a CD. It's audio. You have to hold it up to your ear.
Actually, the people who have/use Linux/GIMP/etc. probably ALSO have, and perhaps use, Windows/Photoshop/etc. Those are the tech savvy people, not the average (and majority) user. The majority of users are still in the Windows/Office/"usual-software" loop.
The ownership of student academic work, or of academic work in general, usually varies by discilpine. For example, in Philosophy MOST academics will allow others to reprint their works gratis - it's often considered "bad form" not to, because everyone expects reciprocity in this regard. In other disciplines, such a system would be treated as absurd. In some sciences, people who help with papers are given co-authorship for minimal involvement. In other disciplines a "thanks for the help" is considered sufficient.
For the most part, academic works act as though they are open source. Certianly people are given credit for their ideas (through notation and citation), and they must be referenced in a bibliography or works cited if their ideas are used, but anything published is considered fair game for adaption, criticism, and use as support for someone else's ideas. Without such permissions, academic development could not occur because students would not be permitted to make use of the ideas they learned.
I think these freedoms come from the way academic work values the work itself, rather than money. If I write open source software that is virtually the same as another program, with no valuable modifications, then the community would not give a damn. The same is true of academic work - I could rewrite Plato's Republic and nobody would see it as valuable. But, if I rewrote it with interesting new insights and modifications, that is valued. In software development, the focus is (usually) on profit and commercialism rather than on superior products. Listen to the economists - better software comes from competition that stems from the desire to accumulate money. In academic disciplines, wealth is defined by contributions to the community, to the discipline. Much like open source software.
*Insert splash page here*
/. post*
All flash content, well designed or not, looks very much the same in many respects. Flash animations pretty much look and act the same, and there is not much that a developer can do about it (so far as I am aware). Granted, if I want my animations to match the artistic style of, say, The Powerpuff Girls, then Flash is ideal. I know it is possible to break away from that style, but I don't think you can pull it off in Flash itself - and not everyone will have access or $$ for alternitive art programs.
Even though you can break away from the art style , I'm not sure you can break away from animation objects moving "the Flash way." I don't know why, but every movement of an object in a Flash animation moves in a way that clearly looks "like Flash." I'm not sure how else to put it.
Asking developers to desing everything in Flash is like limiting all painters to acrylic paint or all sculptors to bronze. Sometimes it needs to be done in marble, dammit. At least having the option between HTML / XML / Flash / Whatever gives designers more options to get to exactly what they want aesthetically.
Also, standardized UI stuff is only good so long as it can be modified. People who work on making an interface easier to use should be rewarded with the ability to do so, people who don't or who don't care about usability deserve their self-inflicted punisment of a crappy site, and people who have different intentions for the interface (such as a *purposefully* confusing one, for hwatever reason) should be free to pursue this. Again, more options means more flexibility (so long as the user has the appropriate software). Besides, if I had to pick ONE standard, I would go with W3C stuff because it gives me more control over content and presentation that Flash does.
*Fade into next
What if I liked the idea of only having to see or sit through ads for things I would actually be interested in? I don't want to be tracked either, but is anyone aware of a company working on tracking where I submit what I want tracked (I don't give a damn if everybody know how many times I've seen Star Wars) and can keep the rest of my privacy? Would such submission be more hassle than it was worth, or would the advantages (to me) outweigh the effort?
That said, I also have no problem with word of mouth ads that are one-off. I'm interested when someone tells me something they like even I it's new to me. Otherwise, how would I be made aware of new things to try or look into (like how I found out about Slashdot)?