Historically underlines were standardized upon as a way of adding emphasis or setting somethign apart only after the typewriter made it impractical to italicize the things you ought. Now that this is no longer the case, I think that that convention is slowly evaporating, and both underlines and italics are considered appropriate.
No. Being marketing driven is not the answer. That will cause them to wind up doing all kinds of dumb shit like Intel has lately. The answer is to produce superior technology for a year or two and build up a well-deserved good reputation.
At a certain point this will no longer be possible. Not because of an end to Moore's law or anything, but eventually (soon?) things will be pretty much as ugly as they can get!
It's competely unreasonable to say that each instance of piracy that is prevented leads to a sale. Given how widespread piracy is, that money that Microsoft and the RIAA claim as 'losses' simply does not exist.
But, and this is a big but, what would happen when the proffesional AD guys saw this method was an effective way to do buisiness?
Okay, what happens then?
To get people to donate money to your site, you have to a) convince them that they want your site to keep existing, and b) that they need the money to continue existing.
A) happening is good for me, no matter why they're making the site, since the only real reason they can do it is by making a site that's useful or entertaining.
B) is a deterrant to coprorations who need to seem professional and want to keep their stock price high.
I see banner ads as an assault on my psyche, trying to extract from me things ($$$) which I want to keep.
IF banner ads work, then I am paying to look at free sites one way or another (TANSTAAFL, and all that). I would rather be subjected to an earnest plea to support the site than I would subject myself to the creations of people whose very job is to subtly manipulate my psyche in the favor of their company.
A number of the onlinecomics I frequently read have shifted in the direction of a PBS model - if you like it, send us a few bucks. If we get enough bucks we'll run some kind of special feature (not too unlike the Street Performer Protocol). It is not anywhere near as obtrusive as your example - one of the reasons at least Penny-Arcade shifted to this model is that ad banners were too obtrusive and disruped their site. (their network kept sneaking popups in, plus just vibrating windows and stuff)
Web Standards are for content creators to adhere to, not for browsers to enforce. Browsers should show standard compliant HTML according to the standard, and everything else, they should make their best guess on. Because when it comes right down to it, Joe User (such as, oh, for instance, me) just wants to read the page. They don't want to hear "We could render this page, but won't because there's no tag." Not that many people complain "I hate this product. It doesn't break when it's supposed to."
I agree that web tools should output standards copliant HTML, for precisely the same reason - people don't want to fuck around with this shit, they just want it to work. The best way to do this is to only output well-formed files, but load and display any mess of angle brackets that you can figure out.
A lot of these scams are pretty scary. One moment you're reading an email a friend sent you (well it started "Dear friend" anyways) and the next you're flat-on-your-ass broke. What can you do? Sure, you could educate yourself about these scams, by paying $99, but that won't stop all of them!
[gesticulates wildly] Yessir, what you need is Stan's Scam Insurance! For the low low price of only $65 a month we will insure you and your holdings against any internet scam! Cash only, please. Offer not valid on Scabb, Blood, or Phatt island.
Either advertisers pay for it, or you pay for it directly. Personally, I would rather have advertisers pay for it.
Perhaps you are misunderstanding the economics behind this. A sustainable system would be: Advertisers pay for a site, sales pay for advertisments and you pay for sales.
A non-sustainable system would be.: Advertisers pay for a site, venture capital pays for advertisements. But THIS is a pyramid scam, and only works so long as there is rapid exponential growth in the market, and there isn't anymore, so it's falling apart.
In the long run, if the advertisments you look at don't one way or another manage to extract their cost from you (plus the cost of running a company like doubleclick, plus N%) they will cease to exist, or decrease in value to match what value they CAN bring in, in terms of increase sales or whatever.
A site successfully and sustainably supported by ads is not free, but the costs are hidden, because you don't pay (say,) Slashdot directly for their services, and not everyone pays.
we should just accept advertising on the internet, not try to block it, and just tune ourselves out. It worked for me! (buy Jolt) That way we can avoid this micropayment issue altogether.
This doesn't avoid the payment issue at all. If banner ads are ineffective, reliance on them is not sustainable. Indeed costs for banner ads have dropped tremendously already, as a result of them really not being very effective.
The fact is if you don't, on average, pay more than the advertiser paid for the banner ad (in unwanted sales or something), then it doesn't make sense for the advertiser to advertise on a given site.
All banner ads are is a way of hiding the cost of a free site from the user. And never mind the psychological toll of being constantly inundated by ads which try to trick you into clicking on them.
What? Wolfenstiein3d had zombies! Those were those guys that waved their arms around while the shotguns in their chest fired. Dr. Schabb would turn you into one if you weren't careful! (I believe that was Episode 2).
Did you play beyond the free downloads ever?
Re:I see a noticable lack of the one true comic(tm
on
Web-Based Comics
·
· Score: 1
I hadn't seen the bitter films web comics, but they did a short animation for the most recent Spike & Mike's Sick & Twisted animiation festival called Rejected. It was in a similar style, but, IMO, a good 20% funnier still than the web comic!
Yes, and if Willy Wonka were a law-enforcement officer, the courts would basically have to throw out the case. But he's not. He's a scoundrel and a madman. More like a lawmaker than a cop.
Yeah, good thinking. Except to send a packet to a peer you need to know their IP address. Peer to peer means you know the IPs of your peers. Client-server based means there's a central server to sue out of existence.
Freenet seems like it might be close - mostly because you can't tell who POSTED something (and everyone running freenet is helping to distribute it)
Slashdot Mirror
And shouldn't a book title be underlined?
Historically underlines were standardized upon as a way of adding emphasis or setting somethign apart only after the typewriter made it impractical to italicize the things you ought. Now that this is no longer the case, I think that that convention is slowly evaporating, and both underlines and italics are considered appropriate.
No. Being marketing driven is not the answer. That will cause them to wind up doing all kinds of dumb shit like Intel has lately. The answer is to produce superior technology for a year or two and build up a well-deserved good reputation.
At a certain point this will no longer be possible. Not because of an end to Moore's law or anything, but eventually (soon?) things will be pretty much as ugly as they can get!
1's not prime.
They also make cardreaders.
This is not a distribution. This is a fork of the kernel.
Small transistors -> on-dye RAM -> really fast
It's competely unreasonable to say that each instance of piracy that is prevented leads to a sale. Given how widespread piracy is, that money that Microsoft and the RIAA claim as 'losses' simply does not exist.
But, and this is a big but, what would happen when the proffesional AD guys saw this method was an effective way to do buisiness?
Okay, what happens then?
To get people to donate money to your site, you have to a) convince them that they want your site to keep existing, and b) that they need the money to continue existing.
A) happening is good for me, no matter why they're making the site, since the only real reason they can do it is by making a site that's useful or entertaining.
B) is a deterrant to coprorations who need to seem professional and want to keep their stock price high.
I disagree completely and wholeheartedly.
I see banner ads as an assault on my psyche, trying to extract from me things ($$$) which I want to keep.
IF banner ads work, then I am paying to look at free sites one way or another (TANSTAAFL, and all that). I would rather be subjected to an earnest plea to support the site than I would subject myself to the creations of people whose very job is to subtly manipulate my psyche in the favor of their company.
A number of the online comics I frequently read have shifted in the direction of a PBS model - if you like it, send us a few bucks. If we get enough bucks we'll run some kind of special feature (not too unlike the Street Performer Protocol). It is not anywhere near as obtrusive as your example - one of the reasons at least Penny-Arcade shifted to this model is that ad banners were too obtrusive and disruped their site. (their network kept sneaking popups in, plus just vibrating windows and stuff)
Yeah, a Pedantic checkbox in the browser would be better than having to run a separate HTML Lint program on it.
Web Standards are for content creators to adhere to, not for browsers to enforce. Browsers should show standard compliant HTML according to the standard, and everything else, they should make their best guess on. Because when it comes right down to it, Joe User (such as, oh, for instance, me) just wants to read the page. They don't want to hear "We could render this page, but won't because there's no tag." Not that many people complain "I hate this product. It doesn't break when it's supposed to."
I agree that web tools should output standards copliant HTML, for precisely the same reason - people don't want to fuck around with this shit, they just want it to work. The best way to do this is to only output well-formed files, but load and display any mess of angle brackets that you can figure out.
Me too!
SOMEWHERE it has to say what courses are required for which major, otherwise nobody would be able to graduate.
A lot of these scams are pretty scary. One moment you're reading an email a friend sent you (well it started "Dear friend" anyways) and the next you're flat-on-your-ass broke. What can you do? Sure, you could educate yourself about these scams, by paying $99, but that won't stop all of them!
[gesticulates wildly] Yessir, what you need is Stan's Scam Insurance! For the low low price of only $65 a month we will insure you and your holdings against any internet scam! Cash only, please. Offer not valid on Scabb, Blood, or Phatt island.
I can pass through matter, such as: smoke
And looking round is different from BEING round.
Either advertisers pay for it, or you pay for it directly. Personally, I would rather have advertisers pay for it.
Perhaps you are misunderstanding the economics behind this. A sustainable system would be: Advertisers pay for a site, sales pay for advertisments and you pay for sales.
A non-sustainable system would be.: Advertisers pay for a site, venture capital pays for advertisements. But THIS is a pyramid scam, and only works so long as there is rapid exponential growth in the market, and there isn't anymore, so it's falling apart.
In the long run, if the advertisments you look at don't one way or another manage to extract their cost from you (plus the cost of running a company like doubleclick, plus N%) they will cease to exist, or decrease in value to match what value they CAN bring in, in terms of increase sales or whatever.
A site successfully and sustainably supported by ads is not free, but the costs are hidden, because you don't pay (say,) Slashdot directly for their services, and not everyone pays.
we should just accept advertising on the internet, not try to block it, and just tune ourselves out. It worked for me! (buy Jolt) That way we can avoid this micropayment issue altogether.
This doesn't avoid the payment issue at all. If banner ads are ineffective, reliance on them is not sustainable. Indeed costs for banner ads have dropped tremendously already, as a result of them really not being very effective.
The fact is if you don't, on average, pay more than the advertiser paid for the banner ad (in unwanted sales or something), then it doesn't make sense for the advertiser to advertise on a given site.
All banner ads are is a way of hiding the cost of a free site from the user. And never mind the psychological toll of being constantly inundated by ads which try to trick you into clicking on them.
Then you're paying for content. You can not watch ads for free. Just close your browser!
round, fuzzy, far, near
These are not sight based.
What? Wolfenstiein3d had zombies! Those were those guys that waved their arms around while the shotguns in their chest fired. Dr. Schabb would turn you into one if you weren't careful! (I believe that was Episode 2).
Did you play beyond the free downloads ever?
I hadn't seen the bitter films web comics, but they did a short animation for the most recent Spike & Mike's Sick & Twisted animiation festival called Rejected. It was in a similar style, but, IMO, a good 20% funnier still than the web comic!
Isn't that entrapment?
Yes, and if Willy Wonka were a law-enforcement officer, the courts would basically have to throw out the case. But he's not. He's a scoundrel and a madman. More like a lawmaker than a cop.
Yeah, good thinking. Except to send a packet to a peer you need to know their IP address. Peer to peer means you know the IPs of your peers. Client-server based means there's a central server to sue out of existence.
Freenet seems like it might be close - mostly because you can't tell who POSTED something (and everyone running freenet is helping to distribute it)
fold4,wrap5