Mine switched to the other side when I picked a different theme. Not that I cared much about which side the buttons were on. I just tested it now, still works - go to the default theme, buttons on the left, pick "Clearlooks" (or something like that) and they're on the right.
Thank you! I'm very glad to hear not only that you as a developer won't be doing this, but also that I'm not the only one left who hates adware. I've lately feeling like I'm the only one around who learned anything from the days of Aureate/Radiate, Gator, and similar slimy companies. And now Apple wants to be the new Aureate!
Can you link some evidence of this? I've looked around and haven't found anything other than Apple (I think it was Steve Jobs, but can't remember clearly enough to say for sure) claiming it's OS X.
(Of course, it is usually blocked by noscript and flashblock.) A few years ago that might have been difficult to get running, but now it is just ports
I've never understood why anyone would use both Noscript and Flashblock. I stopped using Flashblock years ago when Noscript added support for blacking Flash content. Is there some advantage to running them together, or is it just a belt & suspenders thing?
This appears to be a SWF file being run by Adobe Reader or Acrobat. Browser based plugins aren't going to help when it's opened by a desktop application.
Which bring us to the question I've been unable to find the answer to: Are you still vulnerable if you don't use Reader or Acrobat? Very few Mac or Linux users use either of those.
Also, what is the OS X/Linux equivalent of authplay.dll? I couldn't find anything called authplay on my Linux box.
I've searched for anything called authplay on my linux box and found nothing. I do have Flash installed, but not Acrobat or Reader. Keeping Flash use to a minimum via Noscript anyway until further notice.
Got a friend who might take credit for something if you ghost wrote it for him/her? (or better yet, collaborate on it and let them take the credit, if you've got someone with similar enough views who is separate enough to safely take the credit) Just an idea - I'm sure there are other possibilities.
There's nothing wrong about "embrace & extend". It's the "extinguish" part, when it happens, that is undesirable.
Actually, there is. What "embrace & extend" generally refers to is (usually Microsoft) pretending to follow a standard, but extending it in order to create incompatibilities with software made to work with the standard (e.g. Frontpage made web pages that only worked properly in IE).
But why are you posting this as an AC in the comments to some other article? If you were to clean this rant up a bit and write it up a bit more thoroughly, you could submit it to any of a dozen techie and/or FOSS oriented websites/blogs and probably get it published. You might even get paid for it, but that's beside the point. Even if you didn't find a blog willing to print your article, you could put it on your own site. Next, submit a link to it as a story here on Slashdot, which would get your ideas a lot more attention than your AC comment is likely to (I just checked and the poll you linked is still at 15 votes). It is entirely possible to get Slashdotters to make a difference, but it takes a bit more work than just ranting in the comments of random articles.
Don't just complain about lack of mobilization, make it happen!
You've never been a role player, have you? I don't play Eve (never tried it), but taking on a different character is a major factor in any real role playing game. And not always some idealized "better person that I wish I could be", though that is occasionally an option that some may choose to play.
Much of the fun in these games comes from exploring the way this character that isn't you would behave in a given situation. It does not reflect upon the character of the player if the player is actually a roleplayer. Once, when playing GURPS many years ago I was stabbed in the back by a character that was played by someone whom I would entrust my life to. Betrayed and killed. It royally pissed me off, but didn't change the fact that the player was and is an extremely honorable person. It just happens that he's also imaginative enough to play a very tricky bastard in a game setting.
Hi, I've worked in two restaurants that have been extorted by yelp salespeople. Also, I'm friends with managers of other restaurants and bars that have had similar experience. Your salespeople consistently claim to be able to get rid of unwanted reviews. They tend to call with a pitch that starts with something like "So I see you got a 2 star review on your page, wouldn't you rather that wasn't the first thing your potential customers saw when they research your business?"
Well when talking about DRM the user is not the person playing the game. The user in this case is the person who wants the most money they can squeeze out of product X.
I don't believe that DRM has ever increased the revenue of a product. Do you know of any examples where it has been shown to do this?
There's at least one model that you didn't mention: sites that sell something that is relevant to the content on their site. An example is http://www.breadtopia.com/ a site about breadmaking that also sells breadmaking supplies. Given time, other business models would appear as well.
To answer your first question, yes I do think it would be a positive thing if we had an ad-free internet.
(Sorry, there is more to this thought that I should flesh out here, but I'm having trouble putting it together in a way that communicates it properly and I have to go out right now).
For people who use these plug-ins, do you ever whitelist ads for sites you use a lot for free, or do you block everything? If the latter, can you give me the dime tour of your justification for doing so? I'm not trying to start a flame-war; I'm really trying to understand the motivation.
No, I don't whitelist sites. One reason I don't is that I find the ads distracting, and even if I didn't, I have no desire to increase the amount of advertising I'm exposed to every day. It has an effect. If it didn't, companies wouldn't bother doing it. Another reason is that I don't want the big web ad companies to track my browsing habits. What I look at is my business, not theirs.
That said, some sites host their own ads. If those ads don't blink or move (and my settings in FF don't allow GIFs to animate) then I don't bother blocking them, and my ABP settings have nothing in there by default block them either.
I'll agree with all your requirements and add this: No ads served by advertising companies. I have no desire to allow companies like Doubleclick or Yahoo to track my movements across the web.
If a site hosts their own ads and they don't blink or move, then I will consider turning ads on on their site.
Also, the ad should be text or a simple image, no scripts. unnecessary scripts slow the browser down too much
I don't know where you got the idea that Noscript is adware. Where exactly do you see these T&Cs that describe the ads that NoScript will show? As far as I know, they don't exist, as NoScript is not adware.
Slashdot Mirror
Mine switched to the other side when I picked a different theme. Not that I cared much about which side the buttons were on. I just tested it now, still works - go to the default theme, buttons on the left, pick "Clearlooks" (or something like that) and they're on the right.
I'm running 10.4, BTW.
Ads are only annoying when they're disruptive.
Says you. I say ads are always annoying.
If it's clearly labeled as adware I never download it. If it is adware and is not clearly labeled that way, I delete it and rate it one star.
Thank you! I'm very glad to hear not only that you as a developer won't be doing this, but also that I'm not the only one left who hates adware. I've lately feeling like I'm the only one around who learned anything from the days of Aureate/Radiate, Gator, and similar slimy companies. And now Apple wants to be the new Aureate!
That may be true, but I've never heard of anyone's Android device getting bricked after changing that option and then installing an official update.
Nice, thanks. Dunno why I didn't think to look there.
Can you link some evidence of this? I've looked around and haven't found anything other than Apple (I think it was Steve Jobs, but can't remember clearly enough to say for sure) claiming it's OS X.
(Of course, it is usually blocked by noscript and flashblock.) A few years ago that might have been difficult to get running, but now it is just ports
I've never understood why anyone would use both Noscript and Flashblock. I stopped using Flashblock years ago when Noscript added support for blacking Flash content. Is there some advantage to running them together, or is it just a belt & suspenders thing?
This appears to be a SWF file being run by Adobe Reader or Acrobat. Browser based plugins aren't going to help when it's opened by a desktop application.
Which bring us to the question I've been unable to find the answer to: Are you still vulnerable if you don't use Reader or Acrobat? Very few Mac or Linux users use either of those.
Also, what is the OS X/Linux equivalent of authplay.dll? I couldn't find anything called authplay on my Linux box.
I've searched for anything called authplay on my linux box and found nothing. I do have Flash installed, but not Acrobat or Reader. Keeping Flash use to a minimum via Noscript anyway until further notice.
Got a friend who might take credit for something if you ghost wrote it for him/her? (or better yet, collaborate on it and let them take the credit, if you've got someone with similar enough views who is separate enough to safely take the credit) Just an idea - I'm sure there are other possibilities.
There's nothing wrong about "embrace & extend". It's the "extinguish" part, when it happens, that is undesirable.
Actually, there is. What "embrace & extend" generally refers to is (usually Microsoft) pretending to follow a standard, but extending it in order to create incompatibilities with software made to work with the standard (e.g. Frontpage made web pages that only worked properly in IE).
In this case, though, I don't see how it applies.
Neither do I.
Very insightful and well articulated.
But why are you posting this as an AC in the comments to some other article? If you were to clean this rant up a bit and write it up a bit more thoroughly, you could submit it to any of a dozen techie and/or FOSS oriented websites/blogs and probably get it published. You might even get paid for it, but that's beside the point. Even if you didn't find a blog willing to print your article, you could put it on your own site. Next, submit a link to it as a story here on Slashdot, which would get your ideas a lot more attention than your AC comment is likely to (I just checked and the poll you linked is still at 15 votes). It is entirely possible to get Slashdotters to make a difference, but it takes a bit more work than just ranting in the comments of random articles.
Don't just complain about lack of mobilization, make it happen!
You've never been a role player, have you? I don't play Eve (never tried it), but taking on a different character is a major factor in any real role playing game. And not always some idealized "better person that I wish I could be", though that is occasionally an option that some may choose to play.
Much of the fun in these games comes from exploring the way this character that isn't you would behave in a given situation. It does not reflect upon the character of the player if the player is actually a roleplayer. Once, when playing GURPS many years ago I was stabbed in the back by a character that was played by someone whom I would entrust my life to. Betrayed and killed. It royally pissed me off, but didn't change the fact that the player was and is an extremely honorable person. It just happens that he's also imaginative enough to play a very tricky bastard in a game setting.
No, Netbooks sales have continued to grow. They're just growing at a slower rate than they did before. There's a large difference.
See here for a more thorough explanation.
Hi, I've worked in two restaurants that have been extorted by yelp salespeople. Also, I'm friends with managers of other restaurants and bars that have had similar experience. Your salespeople consistently claim to be able to get rid of unwanted reviews. They tend to call with a pitch that starts with something like "So I see you got a 2 star review on your page, wouldn't you rather that wasn't the first thing your potential customers saw when they research your business?"
Well when talking about DRM the user is not the person playing the game. The user in this case is the person who wants the most money they can squeeze out of product X.
I don't believe that DRM has ever increased the revenue of a product. Do you know of any examples where it has been shown to do this?
Well said! Why do I never find posts like this when I have mod points?
The greedy corporations don't sound forgotten to me. Are you somehow excluding them from the group of liars, cheats and grifters?
I think the AC was saying that the easy access would have been created one way or another, and I agree on the point.
Nice sig, BTW.
Doctorow's argument can be easily countered by pointing out the fact that he sells an order of magnitude less books than LeGuin.
Do you his argument that his problem is obscurity rather than piracy? How exactly do his smaller sales figures counter that?
There's at least one model that you didn't mention: sites that sell something that is relevant to the content on their site. An example is http://www.breadtopia.com/ a site about breadmaking that also sells breadmaking supplies. Given time, other business models would appear as well.
To answer your first question, yes I do think it would be a positive thing if we had an ad-free internet.
(Sorry, there is more to this thought that I should flesh out here, but I'm having trouble putting it together in a way that communicates it properly and I have to go out right now).
For people who use these plug-ins, do you ever whitelist ads for sites you use a lot for free, or do you block everything? If the latter, can you give me the dime tour of your justification for doing so? I'm not trying to start a flame-war; I'm really trying to understand the motivation.
No, I don't whitelist sites. One reason I don't is that I find the ads distracting, and even if I didn't, I have no desire to increase the amount of advertising I'm exposed to every day. It has an effect. If it didn't, companies wouldn't bother doing it. Another reason is that I don't want the big web ad companies to track my browsing habits. What I look at is my business, not theirs.
That said, some sites host their own ads. If those ads don't blink or move (and my settings in FF don't allow GIFs to animate) then I don't bother blocking them, and my ABP settings have nothing in there by default block them either.
I'll agree with all your requirements and add this: No ads served by advertising companies. I have no desire to allow companies like Doubleclick or Yahoo to track my movements across the web.
If a site hosts their own ads and they don't blink or move, then I will consider turning ads on on their site.
Also, the ad should be text or a simple image, no scripts. unnecessary scripts slow the browser down too much
I don't know where you got the idea that Noscript is adware. Where exactly do you see these T&Cs that describe the ads that NoScript will show? As far as I know, they don't exist, as NoScript is not adware.