Not only is it a great and convenient service, I'm impressed with the future prospects for wild success after cutting out 90% (or whatever it is) of the portable music player market. What's the stock symbol for this spiralfrog company? DMBF perhaps?
It is not correct to refer to _a_ person as "they" or "their". If a corporation is considered "a" person, then, "their" is just plain wrong. The correct pronoun to refer to one person is "he" or "she". For example, it is incorrect to say "A person should mind their own business." The correct format is "A person should mind his/her/his or her own business" (choose one from the set in italics). It is only correct to use "their" if talking about more than one person: "People should mind their own business" is correct.
The only way "their" can be used to refer to a corporate "person", is if the corporation is actually considered a group. But then we would have to write things like, "The ___ Corporation are evil bastards" -- which should sound funny (unless you are British), because while a corporate entity is made up of many people, the corporation is itself a single entity. Being a non-human despite legal status as a person, a corporation is quite simply an "it" (remember, legal usage is a form of jargon, not standard English).
"Thank you, oh benevolent masters, for supplying the software required to use the hardware that you gave me in exchange for money."
I wish I had mod points -- the question would be funny or insightful though -- it's both.
With respect to your previous comment, I upgraded my system last weekend and I didn't really get $500 worth of improvement. My old motherboard was on the verge of fritzing though so it had to be done (Athlon XP 2200+ system), and even though the various parts are maybe 4 years old, nothing fits in the new motherboards anymore. Thank goodness I had an old PCI IDE card in the closet -- none of my HDs are SATA.
I'm proabably one of the few people who went out specifically looking for a GMA950 motherboard -- I was impressed with how well Fusion ran on my macbook with the open source drivers compared to how it worked on my Desktop/nVidia system. I still am impressed with that on my new Desktop, I'm just dissapointed in the ridiculously long BIOS startup time which negates the quicker boot time (from the grub prompt). If I could have found the GMA950 on an add-in card, I would have bought that and stuck with AMD processors. At least I'll still get to help out AMD and buy a video card once a bit of driver work gets done.
As for the old board, which is basically a complete system sans drive (well, I have a couple unused 40gb drives in the closet), powersupply (one of those in the closet too, though I can't remember if it works), and case (in the closet, no powersupply, small case requires specially sized PS), I decided to try my hand at replacing capacitors -- 3 had leaked and one was bulging. If I get lucky, I'll have that old machine back for other uses.
But with print, you receive it as a whole before doing whatever you want to do.... I think the way I present the page is the way it should be received, then you can cut anything you want away from it.
Actually, I think that position makes sense and as you mention, it fits well with the print metaphor. You get the entire piece and then have the option to read/ignore what you don't want.
Of course anti-adblocking proponents will take take issue with this process because the ads are blocked mechanically rather than by express user action (e.g., grabbing the scissors and cutting out paper articles). I suppose a browser plugin that would allow a user to temporarily block part of the page by clicking on it or selecting areas of it, would be a potential solution -- a virtual pair of scissors if you will. Still, I prefer the mechanical solution and I'd like to see websites who forbid adblocking just come out and say so. But I'm questioning a little now whether I should be as strident in my view that I have a right to block in the absence of a directive not to. I think so... but I can see how I could be wrong about that.
As I mentioned before, hiding the restriction in a vague TOU document is not notice. But aside from that, the provision you cite is exceptionally vague. If I block ads, I am arguably not modifying information, content, or materials. I am making no changes to the pictures or videos which comprise the ads, I am not changing the article text, nor am altering the material in any way.
Your counterargument is that the webpage as a whole, with all its discrete parts, is modified when I block ads. But if that is the case, so too is it true that page as a whole is modified when I change the size of my browser window -- the text breaks at different points and the prominence of ads changes based on the width of the document. This provision you site is overly broad and so vague it does not really put a person on notice that blocking ads without modification of them violates the TOU.
As I said before, a simple clear statement prominently displayed is all it will take to keep me away. If you don't want me to view the site without ads, let me suggest this language with a prominently displayed warning:
By visiting ______.com, you hereby expressly agree that it is a violation these terms of use to employ adblocking software which in any way obscures, hides, or fails to display ads which accompany any content served by _____.com, and that such use of adblocking software subjects you to the following liability: a: ____, b: ____, c: ____.
Nice simple plain language. Even in "real" contracts BTW, there are times when prominence is important. For example, when disclaiming liability, it is wise to make sure there is a notice that the contract disclaims certain liabilities right above the signature line. There are times when courts will be loathe to enforce liability disclaimers in situations where the parties were in unequal bargaining positions and the disclaimers are buried. I would think a website could face similar issues with its terms of use if the information is so difficult to find, that people would unknowingly violate the provisions. Like a sign in the back of the store pasted up inside a rarely traveled hallway that said "by merely entering this store, you agree to pay to the owner $100" -- something like that simply would never get enforced.
My apologies - I didn't mean to make it sound like you had called adblocking theft -- you clearly did not. My intent was a statement that largely agreed with your original post.
I think where we differ is the part where you suggest the requirement to view the ads is implicit in serving the content. I would argue that the right to block the ads is implicit because it is widely known the technology exists and is frequently used. Secondly, I can think of no precedent in the regular print world that restricts the manner in which content is displayed to the extent some sites wish. For example, if I'm featured in a newspaper article, I don't think it would be a violation of copyright or any other duty, for me to cut out that article and put it in a scrapbook. Obviously I don't have a right to redistribute and so forth, but I can certainly cut the article out from its original presentation and read it that way anytime I wish. Newspapers could expressly forbid this behavior of course, but they don't. Thus, sites that want to prevent people from cutting out content and viewing it, should take steps to make it clear that such behavior violates their terms of service.
Your original suggestion of technological means to block adblocking users, is something I think is perfectly appropriate for sites to take if they so desire. If sites wish to simply include an adblocking ban in their terms of use, I feel they have a duty draw users' attention to that provision. Either way, the site does have a right to control how it distributes content. However, I feel no qualms about adblocking if a site does not take any such steps because its owners are presumably aware of the technological ways in which users can manipulate received content to fit their preferences, e.g., changing font sizes, default colors, or heaven forbid, blocking ads. If a site is dead set against any of these activities, they should make that clear and I will simply avoid them if I feel those terms violate my personal sensibilities.
While I don't believe I have carte blanche to other's content, I do feel I have the right to use the content in all ways not forbidden.
So, if ESPN.com put it in their terms of use that adblocking is prohibited, would you quit visiting the site?
Yes. With one caveat. The notice must be prominent. Do not make me go search out a tiny hidden TOU link, and then bury the provision in a stack of text. Make it noticeable to me and I will avoid the page. Fair is fair. If a site really doesn't want me to visit if I block ads, then I won't visit. I completely understand that content is time consuming to make and the owner has a right to share or not as he wishes.
This is sort of interesting though, because a website's worth is related to the amount of traffic it gets. Thus, by virtue of my visit, I have contributed to the value of the site whether I block ads or not. I can understand why a site would not want to encourage me to discontinue my patronage, but if they are not going to make my visit contingent on ad viewing, they have no right to complain when I take them up on their implicit offer to view the site without ads. After all, the site does actually benefit from my visit.
Ads, like it or not, go into paying for what we don't want to pay. If an ad blocker was the default, you might start seeing site that just won't render if it senses that the ads aren't being displayed.
If a website wants to ensure that only those who view the ads see the content, well, that's perfectly fair as it is their content. However, when they give the content and ads to everyone, with no contractual restriction on how you display the content+ads, a user is completely in their rights to display only the content and round file the ads. So no, it isn't anywhere near theft of resources in the absence of an agreement otherwise. For those sites who really want to make sure ads and content go together and both are viewed, they need to prominently notify the user that viewing the site with adblocking turned on is a violation of the terms of use. This way, those who don't want to see the ads can go away unmolested (without viewing the content) and the company will get its way with its content. Only in that situation would an adblocker who then views the content in violation of the TOU be acting improperly in any fashion.
If a website wants you to view ads, they should make viewing their website contingent on not blocking ads. They should display this notice prominently, perhaps at an intermediary page before the content and make it part of their terms of use.
In this situation, I would know that I have no interest in visiting the site. However, until the terms of use expressly state I cannot block ads, it is quite a piece of "political speak" to say that viewing the site with an adblocker is "stealing". It's only stealing if the site says I can't block. Barring any statement to the contrary, I've done nothing wrong. BTW, hiding a no-blocking clause in a 20 page document of boilerplate terms of use isn't notice. Prominent display please so I can know to go away and never return. That way we are both happy.
It seems to me that websites can be broken down into several large categories, such as:
Stores: online shops -- earn money via retail model.
Vanity: random people posting random stuff, the owner covers hosting charges (my site for example). Sometimes the info is entertaining or informative but YMMV. Often covers niche material.
"Newspaper/Magazine" model: people trying to shoehorn the dead tree newspaper/magazine advertising model into a digital era.
The profit avenue for stores is obvious -- sell stuff at a profit. For the vanity sites, it's a non-issue. As for the "advertising" sites trying to be digital newspapers/magazines or whatever, I feel absolutely no sympathy whatsoever. Think about it, when you buy a magazine, or pick up the paper left by the previous customer at your favorite lunch counter, do you actually read the ads? If yes, don't install blocking software. If you have trained yourself to be blind to the ads, then so be it -- nobody would accuse you of "stealing" when you automatically bypass the chaff.
Personally, I think the "ad blocking" has always gone on in people's minds. The difference in the internet world is that it is more obvious that people are blocking out ads. Just like when people surf the internet at work, it is easy to see that the worker is wasting time. Pre-internet, that worker was just daydreaming while staring at something on his desk. The time was just as wasted back then, but tracking was hard. Ads in papers/magazines are similarly blocked in the mind, but tracking that data is impossible. Tracking it on the net though, that gives companies stats and something to whine about.
They can bite my flash blocking ad blocking popup blocking script blocking fat hiney.
The other half may not have it so good, but we do have rsync over ssh and cron. Couple that with tar on the local machine and a script to rotate the archives, and the headaches experienced by all these people become a mere annoyance and a day or two of downtime while setting up a new host (unless their host is also their registrar). Everyone should know, since their first document went the way of Ellen Fleiss, that you always make a backup.
At the moment, if you're not doing gaming, the best video card on Linux is actually an Intel one.
Ain't that the truth. My macbook running fusion wipes the floor with an ATI based system that by all accounts ought to be able kick the macbook to the moon. The ATI output is glitchy and choppy while the Intel chipset w/ its under-awesome shared memory set up totally rocks.
The only reason I have that ATI card is because I needed a low profile card quickly and it was my only option locally. I avoid ATI like botulism if I can. But if AMD really follows through with this, I'd become an ATI fanboi.
I'm with you, though I go for the convenience of netflix. I quite watching broadcast/cable TV in 1993. On the once every other year chance I watch a show at a friend's place, I'm constantly annoyed at the breaks in the story. Aside from years of training, I don't see how people can tolerate it.
What I prefer is to have a whole season on DVD -- the story becomes a video-novel that way. Even feature films start to feel like short stories when compared to the pleasure of a commercial free movie about 20+ hours long per season.
lame reply to self, but getting caught up in the heat there neglected to say that direct democracy would be the people voting on issues directly -- like the initiative processes some states have. Obviously, even if we have a one person one vote situation for our representatives, it is still a republican form of gov't. The reliance on direct democracy = bad + tyranny of the masses, still doesn't explain why every person in America should not have an equal say in who gets to be president.
So tyranny of the masses is OK for every office but the presidency? If voters can't be trusted with their full vote for the presidency, what qualifies them for having a full vote for every other office? The system is inherently contradictory.
Besides all that, individual votes hardly count for a flea bite when all of us little people can't drop some large cash, directly or indirectly, to most elected officials -- at least those in higher office where it really counts. That's the point I was making earlier -- like it or not, the fact remains that government has its ear pointed toward those whose interests run counter to the majority of voters. That is the problem the colonists faced, and it is the problem Americans presently face. The difference is that we can say we have the rudimentary appearance of representation, though the veil to reality is rather thin.
Yes, we don't live in a direct democracy, but in a republic with a representative democracy. I'm not sure how the electoral college is an example of that.
Well, if we lived in a direct democracy, it would be 1 person, 1 vote. With our current system, it's 1 person 1.00003 votes if you live in S. Dakota, and 1 person, 0.99997 votes if you live in a populous state. It works out like this because of the inclusion of Senators in calculating the size of the college. BTW, the numbers I used are completely made up, but the principle applies because all states, regardless of size, get 2 members in the college for their 2 senators.
As for "get out the vote" drives, or worse, the 100% mail in ballot states like mine (WA), I totally agree with you. If people can't be bothered to vote unless someone is cracking the whip on them, or they are too lazy to (a) got to the polls or (b) request a mail in ballot by themselves, they really shouldn't be voting. I'd gamble those types of voters are more likely to be affected by emotion and advertising or worse, will treat most of the ballot like a "multiple guess" exam.
We happen to live in something other than a democracy -- electoral college being a case in point. The little people, like me, really have no say in how we get taxed, how that money is spent, or what laws get made.
Don't get me wrong, I am not one of the "corps are evil" trendy people, nor am I some rampant IP violator (check my old posts, e.g., this response to the "I'll pirate because cds are cheap to build" argument). By the same token, the greed and short-sightedness some companies display is shocking. Do you think there were no recriminations after the American Revolution back home in England? Perhaps not, but at least two or three people should have thought, "gee, if we hadn't been so greedy, we'd still have those colonies".
Personally, I haven't watched cable or broadcast TV since 1993. That meant I had a great time around 2002 or so, catching up on a decade's worth of Trek, commercial free, via DVD (as well as Farscape, Firefly et al.). I came to love watching decent shows without commercials. I spent some real money on things too (boxed sets of Firefly, Buffy, and Angel). Recently, I've enjoyed watching BSG through iTunes -- I've paid for each season so far.
Now, perhaps some will say I'm one of those whiny arrogant "I don't watch TV" people, and dismiss my views, but the fact is that I've personally spent five to six hundred bucks on TV shows. Without either DVDs or iTunes, the television industry wouldn't have had that money, and although it seems like a lot of money to me, what I hear from NBC is that it's too insignificant to matter. Honestly, that doesn't make me feel good about paying NBC for their content.
So just as NBC says "screw 'em" to those who don't follow the broadcast model, NBC just might find people telling it "well screw you too". As I said before, there are some lessons to be learned with the Boston Tea Party, but the analogy is not perfect. The main lesson is that if you squeeze too hard, you might just lose everything. That's the history lesson NBC needs to hear, and it needs to understand that despite its power to influence the government and get favorable laws, if people get fed up enough, its business may suffer anyway.
Sons of Liberty: Groups identifying themselves as Sons of Liberty existed in almost every colony. Members were drawn from across class distinctions, although these borders were less well-defined in colonial America. Prominent members included Paul Revere, Thomas Young, Joseph Warren, Alexander McDougall, Patrick Henry, John Hancock, Isaac Sears, John Lamb, James Otis, Thomas Crafts, Jr., John Adams, and his cousin, Samuel Adams, who was a leader of the New England resistance. Silas Downer, a so-called "Forgotten Patriot", spoke as a Sons of Liberty member at one of the famed Liberty Trees in 1766.
Don't forget that the Bost Tea Party was about special tax breaks afforded a large corporation and the consequential undercutting of the tea price American smugglers (many of whom became "founding fathers") could charge. The American smugglers did not have the same access to the halls of power that the British East India Co. had, and decided to take matters into their own hands. In essence, America was built by smugglers who were fed up with being affected by laws but cut out of the process which created those laws.
The analogy to NBC is not perfect, but the people of America do labor under a system in which we are cut off from the halls of power, large corps have excellent access to the government, and the government's actions arbitrarily increase our costs.
I can understand people's frustration with feeling like their freedom to express themselves is at risk, even if only from a company rather than the government, so I won't criticize the people who are upset about Live Journal's policy change. By the same token, if they are paying customers, why not say "forget that", get a $5/month hosting plan, install wordpress with a couple button clicks in Fantastico, and call it good. Then they can say whatever the hell they want (till they run into host trouble and have to go offshore).
Slashdot Mirror
Shooting someone violates old deep seated morality. Moving data does not. Check out the portion on the inner chimp.
What will it be like when you're cast in jail despite your non-resistance? The constitution is on the outs so your lawyer might not be of much help.
Not only is it a great and convenient service, I'm impressed with the future prospects for wild success after cutting out 90% (or whatever it is) of the portable music player market. What's the stock symbol for this spiralfrog company? DMBF perhaps?
Re misconception about the usage of "their":
It is not correct to refer to _a_ person as "they" or "their". If a corporation is considered "a" person, then, "their" is just plain wrong. The correct pronoun to refer to one person is "he" or "she". For example, it is incorrect to say "A person should mind their own business." The correct format is "A person should mind his/her/his or her own business" (choose one from the set in italics). It is only correct to use "their" if talking about more than one person: "People should mind their own business" is correct.
The only way "their" can be used to refer to a corporate "person", is if the corporation is actually considered a group. But then we would have to write things like, "The ___ Corporation are evil bastards" -- which should sound funny (unless you are British), because while a corporate entity is made up of many people, the corporation is itself a single entity. Being a non-human despite legal status as a person, a corporation is quite simply an "it" (remember, legal usage is a form of jargon, not standard English).
You forgot "patented".
I wish I had mod points -- the question would be funny or insightful though -- it's both.
With respect to your previous comment, I upgraded my system last weekend and I didn't really get $500 worth of improvement. My old motherboard was on the verge of fritzing though so it had to be done (Athlon XP 2200+ system), and even though the various parts are maybe 4 years old, nothing fits in the new motherboards anymore. Thank goodness I had an old PCI IDE card in the closet -- none of my HDs are SATA.
I'm proabably one of the few people who went out specifically looking for a GMA950 motherboard -- I was impressed with how well Fusion ran on my macbook with the open source drivers compared to how it worked on my Desktop/nVidia system. I still am impressed with that on my new Desktop, I'm just dissapointed in the ridiculously long BIOS startup time which negates the quicker boot time (from the grub prompt). If I could have found the GMA950 on an add-in card, I would have bought that and stuck with AMD processors. At least I'll still get to help out AMD and buy a video card once a bit of driver work gets done.
As for the old board, which is basically a complete system sans drive (well, I have a couple unused 40gb drives in the closet), powersupply (one of those in the closet too, though I can't remember if it works), and case (in the closet, no powersupply, small case requires specially sized PS), I decided to try my hand at replacing capacitors -- 3 had leaked and one was bulging. If I get lucky, I'll have that old machine back for other uses.
Lawyers love your type.
Actually, I think that position makes sense and as you mention, it fits well with the print metaphor. You get the entire piece and then have the option to read/ignore what you don't want.
Of course anti-adblocking proponents will take take issue with this process because the ads are blocked mechanically rather than by express user action (e.g., grabbing the scissors and cutting out paper articles). I suppose a browser plugin that would allow a user to temporarily block part of the page by clicking on it or selecting areas of it, would be a potential solution -- a virtual pair of scissors if you will. Still, I prefer the mechanical solution and I'd like to see websites who forbid adblocking just come out and say so. But I'm questioning a little now whether I should be as strident in my view that I have a right to block in the absence of a directive not to. I think so
Your counterargument is that the webpage as a whole, with all its discrete parts, is modified when I block ads. But if that is the case, so too is it true that page as a whole is modified when I change the size of my browser window -- the text breaks at different points and the prominence of ads changes based on the width of the document. This provision you site is overly broad and so vague it does not really put a person on notice that blocking ads without modification of them violates the TOU.
As I said before, a simple clear statement prominently displayed is all it will take to keep me away. If you don't want me to view the site without ads, let me suggest this language with a prominently displayed warning:
Nice simple plain language. Even in "real" contracts BTW, there are times when prominence is important. For example, when disclaiming liability, it is wise to make sure there is a notice that the contract disclaims certain liabilities right above the signature line. There are times when courts will be loathe to enforce liability disclaimers in situations where the parties were in unequal bargaining positions and the disclaimers are buried. I would think a website could face similar issues with its terms of use if the information is so difficult to find, that people would unknowingly violate the provisions. Like a sign in the back of the store pasted up inside a rarely traveled hallway that said "by merely entering this store, you agree to pay to the owner $100" -- something like that simply would never get enforced.
My apologies - I didn't mean to make it sound like you had called adblocking theft -- you clearly did not. My intent was a statement that largely agreed with your original post.
I think where we differ is the part where you suggest the requirement to view the ads is implicit in serving the content. I would argue that the right to block the ads is implicit because it is widely known the technology exists and is frequently used. Secondly, I can think of no precedent in the regular print world that restricts the manner in which content is displayed to the extent some sites wish. For example, if I'm featured in a newspaper article, I don't think it would be a violation of copyright or any other duty, for me to cut out that article and put it in a scrapbook. Obviously I don't have a right to redistribute and so forth, but I can certainly cut the article out from its original presentation and read it that way anytime I wish. Newspapers could expressly forbid this behavior of course, but they don't. Thus, sites that want to prevent people from cutting out content and viewing it, should take steps to make it clear that such behavior violates their terms of service.
Your original suggestion of technological means to block adblocking users, is something I think is perfectly appropriate for sites to take if they so desire. If sites wish to simply include an adblocking ban in their terms of use, I feel they have a duty draw users' attention to that provision. Either way, the site does have a right to control how it distributes content. However, I feel no qualms about adblocking if a site does not take any such steps because its owners are presumably aware of the technological ways in which users can manipulate received content to fit their preferences, e.g., changing font sizes, default colors, or heaven forbid, blocking ads. If a site is dead set against any of these activities, they should make that clear and I will simply avoid them if I feel those terms violate my personal sensibilities.
While I don't believe I have carte blanche to other's content, I do feel I have the right to use the content in all ways not forbidden.
Yes. With one caveat. The notice must be prominent. Do not make me go search out a tiny hidden TOU link, and then bury the provision in a stack of text. Make it noticeable to me and I will avoid the page. Fair is fair. If a site really doesn't want me to visit if I block ads, then I won't visit. I completely understand that content is time consuming to make and the owner has a right to share or not as he wishes.
This is sort of interesting though, because a website's worth is related to the amount of traffic it gets. Thus, by virtue of my visit, I have contributed to the value of the site whether I block ads or not. I can understand why a site would not want to encourage me to discontinue my patronage, but if they are not going to make my visit contingent on ad viewing, they have no right to complain when I take them up on their implicit offer to view the site without ads. After all, the site does actually benefit from my visit.
If a website wants to ensure that only those who view the ads see the content, well, that's perfectly fair as it is their content. However, when they give the content and ads to everyone, with no contractual restriction on how you display the content+ads, a user is completely in their rights to display only the content and round file the ads. So no, it isn't anywhere near theft of resources in the absence of an agreement otherwise. For those sites who really want to make sure ads and content go together and both are viewed, they need to prominently notify the user that viewing the site with adblocking turned on is a violation of the terms of use. This way, those who don't want to see the ads can go away unmolested (without viewing the content) and the company will get its way with its content. Only in that situation would an adblocker who then views the content in violation of the TOU be acting improperly in any fashion.
If a website wants you to view ads, they should make viewing their website contingent on not blocking ads. They should display this notice prominently, perhaps at an intermediary page before the content and make it part of their terms of use.
In this situation, I would know that I have no interest in visiting the site. However, until the terms of use expressly state I cannot block ads, it is quite a piece of "political speak" to say that viewing the site with an adblocker is "stealing". It's only stealing if the site says I can't block. Barring any statement to the contrary, I've done nothing wrong. BTW, hiding a no-blocking clause in a 20 page document of boilerplate terms of use isn't notice. Prominent display please so I can know to go away and never return. That way we are both happy.
- Stores: online shops -- earn money via retail model.
- Vanity: random people posting random stuff, the owner covers hosting charges (my site for example). Sometimes the info is entertaining or informative but YMMV. Often covers niche material.
- "Newspaper/Magazine" model: people trying to shoehorn the dead tree newspaper/magazine advertising model into a digital era.
The profit avenue for stores is obvious -- sell stuff at a profit. For the vanity sites, it's a non-issue. As for the "advertising" sites trying to be digital newspapers/magazines or whatever, I feel absolutely no sympathy whatsoever. Think about it, when you buy a magazine, or pick up the paper left by the previous customer at your favorite lunch counter, do you actually read the ads? If yes, don't install blocking software. If you have trained yourself to be blind to the ads, then so be it -- nobody would accuse you of "stealing" when you automatically bypass the chaff.Personally, I think the "ad blocking" has always gone on in people's minds. The difference in the internet world is that it is more obvious that people are blocking out ads. Just like when people surf the internet at work, it is easy to see that the worker is wasting time. Pre-internet, that worker was just daydreaming while staring at something on his desk. The time was just as wasted back then, but tracking was hard. Ads in papers/magazines are similarly blocked in the mind, but tracking that data is impossible. Tracking it on the net though, that gives companies stats and something to whine about.
They can bite my flash blocking ad blocking popup blocking script blocking fat hiney.
That's really smart. I should go that route.
The other half may not have it so good, but we do have rsync over ssh and cron. Couple that with tar on the local machine and a script to rotate the archives, and the headaches experienced by all these people become a mere annoyance and a day or two of downtime while setting up a new host (unless their host is also their registrar). Everyone should know, since their first document went the way of Ellen Fleiss, that you always make a backup.
Read Ian M. Banks' "Culture" series for an alternative possible outcome.
Ain't that the truth. My macbook running fusion wipes the floor with an ATI based system that by all accounts ought to be able kick the macbook to the moon. The ATI output is glitchy and choppy while the Intel chipset w/ its under-awesome shared memory set up totally rocks.
The only reason I have that ATI card is because I needed a low profile card quickly and it was my only option locally. I avoid ATI like botulism if I can. But if AMD really follows through with this, I'd become an ATI fanboi.
I'm with you, though I go for the convenience of netflix. I quite watching broadcast/cable TV in 1993. On the once every other year chance I watch a show at a friend's place, I'm constantly annoyed at the breaks in the story. Aside from years of training, I don't see how people can tolerate it.
What I prefer is to have a whole season on DVD -- the story becomes a video-novel that way. Even feature films start to feel like short stories when compared to the pleasure of a commercial free movie about 20+ hours long per season.
lame reply to self, but getting caught up in the heat there neglected to say that direct democracy would be the people voting on issues directly -- like the initiative processes some states have. Obviously, even if we have a one person one vote situation for our representatives, it is still a republican form of gov't. The reliance on direct democracy = bad + tyranny of the masses, still doesn't explain why every person in America should not have an equal say in who gets to be president.
So tyranny of the masses is OK for every office but the presidency? If voters can't be trusted with their full vote for the presidency, what qualifies them for having a full vote for every other office? The system is inherently contradictory.
Besides all that, individual votes hardly count for a flea bite when all of us little people can't drop some large cash, directly or indirectly, to most elected officials -- at least those in higher office where it really counts. That's the point I was making earlier -- like it or not, the fact remains that government has its ear pointed toward those whose interests run counter to the majority of voters. That is the problem the colonists faced, and it is the problem Americans presently face. The difference is that we can say we have the rudimentary appearance of representation, though the veil to reality is rather thin.
As for "get out the vote" drives, or worse, the 100% mail in ballot states like mine (WA), I totally agree with you. If people can't be bothered to vote unless someone is cracking the whip on them, or they are too lazy to (a) got to the polls or (b) request a mail in ballot by themselves, they really shouldn't be voting. I'd gamble those types of voters are more likely to be affected by emotion and advertising or worse, will treat most of the ballot like a "multiple guess" exam.
We happen to live in something other than a democracy -- electoral college being a case in point. The little people, like me, really have no say in how we get taxed, how that money is spent, or what laws get made.
Don't get me wrong, I am not one of the "corps are evil" trendy people, nor am I some rampant IP violator (check my old posts, e.g., this response to the "I'll pirate because cds are cheap to build" argument). By the same token, the greed and short-sightedness some companies display is shocking. Do you think there were no recriminations after the American Revolution back home in England? Perhaps not, but at least two or three people should have thought, "gee, if we hadn't been so greedy, we'd still have those colonies".
Personally, I haven't watched cable or broadcast TV since 1993. That meant I had a great time around 2002 or so, catching up on a decade's worth of Trek, commercial free, via DVD (as well as Farscape, Firefly et al.). I came to love watching decent shows without commercials. I spent some real money on things too (boxed sets of Firefly, Buffy, and Angel). Recently, I've enjoyed watching BSG through iTunes -- I've paid for each season so far.
Now, perhaps some will say I'm one of those whiny arrogant "I don't watch TV" people, and dismiss my views, but the fact is that I've personally spent five to six hundred bucks on TV shows. Without either DVDs or iTunes, the television industry wouldn't have had that money, and although it seems like a lot of money to me, what I hear from NBC is that it's too insignificant to matter. Honestly, that doesn't make me feel good about paying NBC for their content.
So just as NBC says "screw 'em" to those who don't follow the broadcast model, NBC just might find people telling it "well screw you too". As I said before, there are some lessons to be learned with the Boston Tea Party, but the analogy is not perfect. The main lesson is that if you squeeze too hard, you might just lose everything. That's the history lesson NBC needs to hear, and it needs to understand that despite its power to influence the government and get favorable laws, if people get fed up enough, its business may suffer anyway.
Re your suggestion to follow stupid laws:
Sons of Liberty: Groups identifying themselves as Sons of Liberty existed in almost every colony. Members were drawn from across class distinctions, although these borders were less well-defined in colonial America. Prominent members included Paul Revere, Thomas Young, Joseph Warren, Alexander McDougall, Patrick Henry, John Hancock, Isaac Sears, John Lamb, James Otis, Thomas Crafts, Jr., John Adams, and his cousin, Samuel Adams, who was a leader of the New England resistance. Silas Downer, a so-called "Forgotten Patriot", spoke as a Sons of Liberty member at one of the famed Liberty Trees in 1766.
Don't forget that the Bost Tea Party was about special tax breaks afforded a large corporation and the consequential undercutting of the tea price American smugglers (many of whom became "founding fathers") could charge. The American smugglers did not have the same access to the halls of power that the British East India Co. had, and decided to take matters into their own hands. In essence, America was built by smugglers who were fed up with being affected by laws but cut out of the process which created those laws.
The analogy to NBC is not perfect, but the people of America do labor under a system in which we are cut off from the halls of power, large corps have excellent access to the government, and the government's actions arbitrarily increase our costs.
I can understand people's frustration with feeling like their freedom to express themselves is at risk, even if only from a company rather than the government, so I won't criticize the people who are upset about Live Journal's policy change. By the same token, if they are paying customers, why not say "forget that", get a $5/month hosting plan, install wordpress with a couple button clicks in Fantastico, and call it good. Then they can say whatever the hell they want (till they run into host trouble and have to go offshore).