Let's face it the good ones started out with no ads then decided "well hell, this got popular so let's see if I can't make a little bit of money."
Dunno. I think most sites it may have been more like "Oh shit, this bandwidth costs money."
If most people want to block ads and that destroys a business model who are we to say that is wrong?
I could care less about destroying a business model. However, there's an implicit agreement between the provider and user. The provider will not charge you for content, but the content will include some ads. By removing the ads, you're not holding up your end of the bargain.
And again, even if you destroy the business model, what are you left with? There doesn't currently appear to be a business model that can replace ad-supported websites. Go ahead and block ads if you want, but I don't want to see you crying when more and more sites move to subscription or simply shut down.
I'm against having people forced to view ads, it's their right to block them should they wish
Is it? The content provider is providing free content with a catch: you will view some ads. By removing the ads, you aren't holding up your end of this implicit contract. Don't like ads? Don't view the content.
The Internet (specifically WWW) in its current form did not exist before advertising. To think that the Internet today can continue without ads based on some magical elf business model is simply absurd. Everyone says "Well they'll just have to find a new business model," but no one has any suggestions.
I'm confused. I thought good samaritan laws absolve people who try to do good from liability. For example, you collapse and I give you CPR. In the process, I break your ribs. You cannot sue me for breaking your ribs.
What you describe sounds like the last episode of Seinfeld, and frankly, doesn't sound like it would hold up in court, unless the Berkeley student had prior knowledge of what his friend was going to do.
A misleading term. In New Jersey, the "road" test is essentially done in a parking lot. Also, the written test covers way more about drinking and driving than any of the actual rules of the road.
He ran the CIA during some its most colossal failures. The bombing of the Chinese Embassy (I believe that was CIA.. may have been NRO), 9/11, the failure to capture Osama, and the Iraq mess. I'm not so sure his opinions are worth noting.
That's pretty standard, sadly. Scalia does the same type of thing. He usually only allows one or two local print reporters into his events. And, of course, no recordings of any kind.
Today's one of those days when you can really see the difference between what the rest of the world is talking about and what the US media is covering by looking at google news and comparing it to the US sites.
It doesn't seem like Google News is a very good tool for this comparison, then. As others have mentioned, this story was covered by many US news outlets. I read about it on cnn.com the other day. Was it top story? No, but it was covered.
Yeah, it is his choice. I'm just informing him that he's a fucking idiot if he chooses such a path. I mean that fully. If you willingly choose to accept low compensation for your work, you are a fucking idiot (you are not willing if you cannot find other jobs). I did not advocate a labor monopoly or imply that he does not have a choice. What I did say was that his choice hurts all of us and goes against decades of progress. We finally get some power against the corporations and what do we do with it? Accept 40k/yr for 80 hour work weeks. Fucking brilliant.
That said, I would gladly work 70 hours a week to be in the credits of a video game.
It's people like you who are causing these problems. So many people fought extremely hard for 35-40 hour work weeks, and you're ready to throw it all away so your name is in a list of credits that 3 people will ever read.
Meanwhile Mt. St. Helens is getting ready to produce more CO2 than the US has produced in 100 years.
There seems to be some debate as to the CO2 emissions from volcanoes vis-a-vis human CO2 emissions.
It is already dumping between 50 and 250 tons of Sulfer Dioxide into the air EVERY DAY. (Note a common updated coal fired power plant produces some 20ish tons a day).
Not sure what your point is here.. we shouldn't control SOx emissions? With your figure, it only takes 12 power plants to equal MSH SOx/day. How many coal power plants do you think there are in the US? I couldn't find a solid figure, but it seems to be at least 500. Based on that, we're dwarfing MSH.
1) The US led the world in creating true, workable, enforceable environmental legislation and regulation at every governmental level.
US environmental regulations aren't bad at the goal of pollution reduction (at least before Bush tweaked it), but they are hardly workable. First you have the Federal law, such as the Clean Air Act. However, that really doesn't mean anything until EPA takes the law and puts regulations into the Federal Code. Based on that, states must submit State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for how their DEP will apply and enforce the various regulations specified by EPA (For most programs, the states can choose to allow EPA to run the program. Few states do this because they do not want to give up their power, and because they want to be able to collect fees and penalties). Based partially on the SIPs, the states then create their own environmental laws, and then state DEPs create regulations based on those laws. On top of that, some towns have their own set of regulations or ordinances.
The system of permitting large facilities is so complex that EPA has taken the position of "No one can comply with these permits." Essentially, if you certify that you're in compliance with the permit, they will investigate you because they believe it is not possible to be in full compliance with the permit. The permits I work on have upwards of 1,500 requirements, and the facilities must collect about 15,000-20,000 data points annually to verify compliance. These facilites aren't even subject to the most complex regulations, which target power plants and refineries. I cannot even imagine how complex those permits must be.
At any one time, a facility is subject to a myriad of overlapping federal, state and local regulations. Some of these regulations apply based on the amount or type of contaminants emitted, some due to the amount and type of substances stored at the facility, some due to the type of equipment or operation, and some due to the air quality in the region of the facility. On top of this, the regulations are not evenly applied. Facilites can negotiate with DEPs and EPA to alternate compliance strategies or exemptions from some provisions. It is extremely burdensome to facilities. I suppose I shouldn't complain since these confusing regulations are the reason I have a job.
2) The Kyoto accords don't account for every man made emission. Without that, it doesn't allow for a clear count of total emissions dumped into the atmosphere. For example, what about cooking/heating fires widely used throughout the world? As pointed out elsewhere in this thread what about sloppy mining practices that cause fires? What about garbage plants? etc.
Environmental regulations don't cover some of this stuff to begin with. I don't think it's a good argument to say "it doesn't cover ALL sources, so it's no good." Furthermore, what would you do to control some of these sources? Tell people they can't cook food? Kyoto obviously isn't perfect, but it is a start. I'd like to see it expanded to include all nations, maybe with tiered requirements based on (per capita?) national CO2 emissions (similar to US regulations).
You must not watch much network tv. First-run shows on the broadcast networks are typically rerun once, many weeks after the initial showing (usually during the summer).
Cable channels simply don't have the same amount of programming, so they tend to rerun their first-run shows much more often. Fx is the worst with this, imo. I know for a time they were showing new episodes of The Shield, and running the same exact episode after it. It would also be replayed on the weekend, and the day before the next new show. I suppose the idea is to expose as many people as possible to the show, not just people who happen to be watching at 10pm on a specific night.
Remember the glorious days of manual switchboards? 98% of those jobs disappared. Oddly enough, however, the telephone industry didn't reduce its overall workforce by 98%.
You're right, but only because the telephone industry has more types of jobs than just switchboard operator. Let's say switchboard operator was 50% of the workforce. With 98% of switchboard jobs eliminated, the telephone industry would have reduced the workforce by 49%.
This doesn't invalidate your point, but if you're going to use numbers to try and make an argument, you have to be careful.
It's real easy to blame judges, but they have an extremely difficult job. In general, judges try to rule on matters of law such that there is no confusion. In practice, this doesn't always happen and we end up with things like miranda, terry stops, bush v. gore, etc.
For a situation involving public monitoring, what should the judge's ruling be? That it's acceptable to be watched, but not all the time? Why not? That doesn't make sense under the law. Even if it did, how would you define a level of surveillance that is 'too much'?
Slashdot Mirror
IMHO filtering excessively annoying ads (flash, animated gifs, popups, etc) is fair enough
Why? Do you think that because the ad is annoying to you that you should get the content for free? Why is that fair to the content provider?
Don't like the ads? Don't view the content.
Let's face it the good ones started out with no ads then decided "well hell, this got popular so let's see if I can't make a little bit of money."
Dunno. I think most sites it may have been more like "Oh shit, this bandwidth costs money."
If most people want to block ads and that destroys a business model who are we to say that is wrong?
I could care less about destroying a business model. However, there's an implicit agreement between the provider and user. The provider will not charge you for content, but the content will include some ads. By removing the ads, you're not holding up your end of the bargain.
And again, even if you destroy the business model, what are you left with? There doesn't currently appear to be a business model that can replace ad-supported websites. Go ahead and block ads if you want, but I don't want to see you crying when more and more sites move to subscription or simply shut down.
I'm against having people forced to view ads, it's their right to block them should they wish
Is it? The content provider is providing free content with a catch: you will view some ads. By removing the ads, you aren't holding up your end of this implicit contract. Don't like ads? Don't view the content.
Also if I don't like the site I'm on, I will typically block as many ads as I can
If you don't like the site you're on, don't go to it. It's that simple.
simple non-intrusive methods like Google will make money out of ads
And this comes 4 days after a piece that outlined how Google is having problems with making money off its ads.
The Internet (specifically WWW) in its current form did not exist before advertising. To think that the Internet today can continue without ads based on some magical elf business model is simply absurd. Everyone says "Well they'll just have to find a new business model," but no one has any suggestions.
AFAIK, absolutely not. Perhaps a proposed law somewhere, but such a law would never have been proposed by Giuliani, imo.
I'm confused. I thought good samaritan laws absolve people who try to do good from liability. For example, you collapse and I give you CPR. In the process, I break your ribs. You cannot sue me for breaking your ribs.
What you describe sounds like the last episode of Seinfeld, and frankly, doesn't sound like it would hold up in court, unless the Berkeley student had prior knowledge of what his friend was going to do.
If you go to a doctor telling him "it hurts when I do this," and he says to stop doing that, you went to a sucky doctor.
I'd say it depends on what you were doing. If you were jabbing your eye with an ice pick, I think the doctor is spot on.
Or the road test if you prefer the term.
A misleading term. In New Jersey, the "road" test is essentially done in a parking lot. Also, the written test covers way more about drinking and driving than any of the actual rules of the road.
He ran the CIA during some its most colossal failures. The bombing of the Chinese Embassy (I believe that was CIA.. may have been NRO), 9/11, the failure to capture Osama, and the Iraq mess. I'm not so sure his opinions are worth noting.
That's pretty standard, sadly. Scalia does the same type of thing. He usually only allows one or two local print reporters into his events. And, of course, no recordings of any kind.
Today's one of those days when you can really see the difference between what the rest of the world is talking about and what the US media is covering by looking at google news and comparing it to the US sites.
It doesn't seem like Google News is a very good tool for this comparison, then. As others have mentioned, this story was covered by many US news outlets. I read about it on cnn.com the other day. Was it top story? No, but it was covered.
Yeah, it is his choice. I'm just informing him that he's a fucking idiot if he chooses such a path. I mean that fully. If you willingly choose to accept low compensation for your work, you are a fucking idiot (you are not willing if you cannot find other jobs). I did not advocate a labor monopoly or imply that he does not have a choice. What I did say was that his choice hurts all of us and goes against decades of progress. We finally get some power against the corporations and what do we do with it? Accept 40k/yr for 80 hour work weeks. Fucking brilliant.
That said, I would gladly work 70 hours a week to be in the credits of a video game.
It's people like you who are causing these problems. So many people fought extremely hard for 35-40 hour work weeks, and you're ready to throw it all away so your name is in a list of credits that 3 people will ever read.
Yes this is called salary-plus. It is not at all uncommon. EA has no excuse.
Wow, your comment is completely unbiased!
Meanwhile Mt. St. Helens is getting ready to produce more CO2 than the US has produced in 100 years.
There seems to be some debate as to the CO2 emissions from volcanoes vis-a-vis human CO2 emissions.
It is already dumping between 50 and 250 tons of Sulfer Dioxide into the air EVERY DAY. (Note a common updated coal fired power plant produces some 20ish tons a day).
Not sure what your point is here.. we shouldn't control SOx emissions? With your figure, it only takes 12 power plants to equal MSH SOx/day. How many coal power plants do you think there are in the US? I couldn't find a solid figure, but it seems to be at least 500. Based on that, we're dwarfing MSH.
If you don't say anything, your opinion will never be known. The discussion will always be 'stupid' until you input.
I'm confused how the link supports the conclusion that "hydrocarbons come more from transportation."
I know that the conclusion is true, but your link is to a graph of historical CO2 emissions.
1) The US led the world in creating true, workable, enforceable environmental legislation and regulation at every governmental level.
US environmental regulations aren't bad at the goal of pollution reduction (at least before Bush tweaked it), but they are hardly workable. First you have the Federal law, such as the Clean Air Act. However, that really doesn't mean anything until EPA takes the law and puts regulations into the Federal Code. Based on that, states must submit State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for how their DEP will apply and enforce the various regulations specified by EPA (For most programs, the states can choose to allow EPA to run the program. Few states do this because they do not want to give up their power, and because they want to be able to collect fees and penalties). Based partially on the SIPs, the states then create their own environmental laws, and then state DEPs create regulations based on those laws. On top of that, some towns have their own set of regulations or ordinances.
The system of permitting large facilities is so complex that EPA has taken the position of "No one can comply with these permits." Essentially, if you certify that you're in compliance with the permit, they will investigate you because they believe it is not possible to be in full compliance with the permit. The permits I work on have upwards of 1,500 requirements, and the facilities must collect about 15,000-20,000 data points annually to verify compliance. These facilites aren't even subject to the most complex regulations, which target power plants and refineries. I cannot even imagine how complex those permits must be.
At any one time, a facility is subject to a myriad of overlapping federal, state and local regulations. Some of these regulations apply based on the amount or type of contaminants emitted, some due to the amount and type of substances stored at the facility, some due to the type of equipment or operation, and some due to the air quality in the region of the facility. On top of this, the regulations are not evenly applied. Facilites can negotiate with DEPs and EPA to alternate compliance strategies or exemptions from some provisions. It is extremely burdensome to facilities. I suppose I shouldn't complain since these confusing regulations are the reason I have a job.
2) The Kyoto accords don't account for every man made emission. Without that, it doesn't allow for a clear count of total emissions dumped into the atmosphere. For example, what about cooking/heating fires widely used throughout the world? As pointed out elsewhere in this thread what about sloppy mining practices that cause fires? What about garbage plants? etc.
Environmental regulations don't cover some of this stuff to begin with. I don't think it's a good argument to say "it doesn't cover ALL sources, so it's no good." Furthermore, what would you do to control some of these sources? Tell people they can't cook food? Kyoto obviously isn't perfect, but it is a start. I'd like to see it expanded to include all nations, maybe with tiered requirements based on (per capita?) national CO2 emissions (similar to US regulations).
You must not watch much network tv. First-run shows on the broadcast networks are typically rerun once, many weeks after the initial showing (usually during the summer).
Cable channels simply don't have the same amount of programming, so they tend to rerun their first-run shows much more often. Fx is the worst with this, imo. I know for a time they were showing new episodes of The Shield, and running the same exact episode after it. It would also be replayed on the weekend, and the day before the next new show. I suppose the idea is to expose as many people as possible to the show, not just people who happen to be watching at 10pm on a specific night.
Why can't a company just keep doing what it does well, and be satisfied with that?
Because MBAs are taught that if you're not growing, you're shrinking.
Fully patched systems are easy to infect with spyware. The user need only click "Yes".
Remember the glorious days of manual switchboards? 98% of those jobs disappared. Oddly enough, however, the telephone industry didn't reduce its overall workforce by 98%.
You're right, but only because the telephone industry has more types of jobs than just switchboard operator. Let's say switchboard operator was 50% of the workforce. With 98% of switchboard jobs eliminated, the telephone industry would have reduced the workforce by 49%.
This doesn't invalidate your point, but if you're going to use numbers to try and make an argument, you have to be careful.
It's real easy to blame judges, but they have an extremely difficult job. In general, judges try to rule on matters of law such that there is no confusion. In practice, this doesn't always happen and we end up with things like miranda, terry stops, bush v. gore, etc.
For a situation involving public monitoring, what should the judge's ruling be? That it's acceptable to be watched, but not all the time? Why not? That doesn't make sense under the law. Even if it did, how would you define a level of surveillance that is 'too much'?