Please don't let your desire for ad revenue force you to speak unfactually about issues.
So why don't people like you spend 5 hours a week maintaining, as you claim, cheap hosted, ad-free websites?
You can get a package from literally hundreds hosting providers offering unlimited space and bandwidth for less than $10 month.
10 bucks gives a you really crappy hosting for small sites few people visit. You can get decent hosting starting at $50 and going to hundreds of $$$ per month. Unlimited bandwidth for $10? you're full of BS.
It's easy to distinguish between crap and good apps: the star ratings, number of downloads and user review comments. It doesn't take a lot of time to filter and get the good apps.
The big issue today is that ad networks are spreading malware. It's now necessary to block ads *as a security measure*
Then spend a dollar or some minor amount in-app purchase and the ads are gone. But I bet most iphone users won't spend a cent. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
By all means, keep coming up with more BS to justify your piracy.
Are people really this stupid? You pay a lot of money for the iphone. But who pays the developers who develop these millions of useless to useful apps? Not Apple and not the consumers either (the vast majority refuse to spend even 99 cents on apps). Therefore, the developer has a better chance to make money via ads.
There are an infinite number of hobbyists willing to replace your content-farm bullshit with higher quality information for free anyway.
Fine, why don't you pay hundreds/thousands of $$$ for hosting/month and spent 20-40 hours a week running a website for free? Let's see some passion from the hobbyist freeloaders!
To begin training, a candidate must be 18 to 34 years old, be a U.S. citizen and have a bachelor's degree...
They must weigh 160 to 231 pounds, depending on height. Depending on age, men cannot have more than 20 to 24 percent body fat, while women cannot have more than 28 to 32 percent body fat. Pilots also must be able to complete a minimum number of push-ups and sit-ups and finish a timed 1.5-mile run.
You mean El Cap is faster than the brand new core unoptimized "Yosemite" OS? Is El Cap faster than mountain lion or snow leopard? I doubt it. It's so easy to optimize a new code base.
The purpose of updates is to slow your machine down, so you that you will buy a brand new one. If the OS is eating a good amount of CPU processing power and RAM for every update, without any perceivable benefits, what's the point of hardware upgrades with their miniscule increase in app performance?
OSes are a very mature technology... stop releasing new versions every year or so.
Even if you place them right back? I don't think so. Next you're going to argue placing cans of tomatoes on your cart at the supermarket and then placing them back on the shelf is theft. Try again. BTW, when you pick your copy of the newspaper, you often pick a couple other copies and place them back. Is that theft too?
Cutting out all the Ads in all the newspapers is Vandalism- defacing of Property that is not yours.
If you equate removing ads to defacing, then adblocker is also defacing websites on every browser it is installed. And how the hell is it vandalism if you can do the same thing on a website legally? Is there a huge difference in a free newspaper article that's printed on a newspaper vs shown in a browser? I don't think so.
If it's Legal, it's not Stealing. Blocking Ads is _Legal_.
So then blocking all the ads on free newspapers is not stealing. You must agree to this. It can't be both legal on websites but illegal concerning free newspapers.
-Ad Blocking has already been deemed Legal twice now in Germany,
On what basis? Consumers can read content for free without any profit to the site owners? Who's gonna feed them? Freeloaders like yourself? The world does not owe you free stuff... don't like ads, then don't visit ad-based websites.
"...Then pull out all the newspapers and cut out or block all the ads on those free newspapers and put them back in the newsstand...." This is both Vandalism and Theft. This is not what we have here in Ad Blocking.
Theft of what exactly? The ads were removed/blocked, that's all. You're doing with scissors the exact same thing adblocker does with code.
It's also My Computer. You have zero rights, or even a say, in what I do with it, as long as it is Legal.
That's like saying, "Blah, blah, blah, it's my computer, I'll steal if I want to and you can't do a damn thing about it."
Ad Blocking has already been deemed Legal twice now in Germany,
In which case it should be legal to cut out/block ads from free newspapers. It's the same thing, only different format (web vs paper).
Look at the industries without IP like restaurants and fashion. Lots of innovation and competition.
If I give you a dish, can you replicate it exactly? Even with tons of reverse engineering, it's tough.
As for fashion, clones of designer stuff appear everywhere, so IP protection is needed and provided by the govt. You can't have innovation without some form of IP protection. Otherwise, one company will design the clothes and another will sell cheap knockoffs made using slave-labor in China.
What will happen is instead of taking a long time and lots of resources to get a patent companies will push every upgrade to market as fast as possible to get the first movers advantage.
The time and process are usually handled by the patent attorney, the inventor only gives them the ideas behind the invention. It is the patent attorney's job to file, and handle getting the patent. And the cost is usually $10k to $50, not impossible to fund, for a small company.
First mover's advantage of a couple of years isn't good enough if a larger company with bigger advertising budget starts cloning your work.
Neither Microsoft,... made their way into big companies thanks to strong patent protection for their innovations, but by being innovative, fast to implement and with good business acumen
Microsoft has tons of patents. Excel would not have existed if Microsoft had not cloned it from Lotus 1-2-3. Visual Studio was largely copied from the Turbo Pascal IDE, IE killing Netscape Navigator, etc. These are prime examples of innovators getting stomped by predatory, copycat companies.
What they expect is irrelevant. The world does _not_ owe them a Living. What are you, a Communist?
The world does not owe you free stuff. Don't want ads? Well then, don't visit the site. You're the freeloading commie here, but nice projection.
Since it is clear that I am Legally _not_ a Thief, you accuse me of being a Moron.
No, it's not clear at all. You're simply skipping the part of paying (watching/downloading ads) for the service (viewing the website). Are you 10 years old that you don't understand you have to pay for some commercial product?
There is no Contract that prevents me from Blocking Ads.
This is utterly false. A website is a service. The service is funded/supported by ads -- i.e., ads pay the bills for the server, the salaries etc. You actively disabling ads is guaranteeing no income from you to the website. That's stealing. It's the same as taking a train ride (a service) without purchasing a ticket -- you're using a service without payment == theft. There's no reason to create new laws every time some new product comes out because the existing laws already handle these cases.
If it's legal to block ads, go to those free newspaper stands present on many sidewalks in the city. Then pull out all the newspapers and cut out or block all the ads on those free newspapers and put them back in the newsstand. Let's see how long you get away without getting a visit from the police or the lawyers of the newspaper. Ad-based websites have the same exact business model as free newspapers -- they both make money from ads.
Yes, terrible! 1) The large, non-innovative company simply steals the work of another company expending neither effort, nor time, nor money, nor creativity. 2) Other startups refuse wasting time and money building new products. 3) Customer lives with the same crap product for decades.
What you did was Libel. You called me a Thief, in print.
Wow, you know a lot about the law, but it's difficult for you to comprehend that people who do work for strangers expect to get paid (with ads in this case). You're either a moron or a thief.
Show me just _One_ Law that says it is.
Oh, the laws will be coming soon. No one expected something like adblockers to exist when websites were initially created. Music piracy was ok when it was done via complicated means such as IRC because few people knew the secret. But when Napster automated all the stuff you entered in IRC to download music, and dumbed it down, it became mainstream and that, pretty soon started hurting the bottom line of the music industry. There are plenty of laws against pirating free music today and it won't be long before the same thing will happen to adblockers.
We _are_ paying for it. A Couple of Kilobytes of text, accompanied by even 500KB of Advertising, is too damn much Advertising that I don't want, won't watch, and resent paying for.
But don't you pay a fixed amount per month? Whether the ad exists or not, you pay the same phone+internet monthly bill unless you're a heavy user who uses up every last byte of monthly capacity. But you're right, there should be a balance of how much bandwidth is used for ads and how much for content. Make ads text-based or vector-graphics based or something else that uses less bandwidth.
I don't Steal. Advertisers Steal.
It is stealing if you block ads (consume content without any profit to the service provider). And advertisers are causing you unnecessary harm by uploading video ads, but it's not stealing.
But in general, an electric car that has 3 or 4 main components should be cheaper compared to a several dozen component IC car, correct? An IC car sells for $15k to $20k even after factories, R&D, QA etc all those things you mention. So why can't they sell an electric car in the same price range given it doesn't have any radically new technology (motors have been around for ages)?
But since the existing taxi companies and governments have zero interest in improving taxi services, doesn't that mean we'll have no innovation in transportation for hundreds of years? What procedure does the govt offer for new companies to test and sell their services. They should create a quota to allow new, innovative transportation services to come into existence.
Read my post again... that's before expenses. He still has to pay for gas, for car maintenance, for his medallion, for time and fuel wasted finding customers etc.
If you still don't believe me, here's the US per mile taxi rates and they range from roughly $2 to $3 per mile. That's $60 to $150 per hour for a distance of 30 miles to 50 miles. Yup, if you can cut expenses, and limit time wasted on finding customers, a taxi driver can make more than any engineer.
I was watching a video about model S manufacturing. The Telsa's power train consists of a small cylinder connected to the rear axle. The cylinder consists mainly of an inverter (to convert DC to 3-phase AC), a 3-phase AC induction motor and a single speed transmission. The battery is 1200 pounds and a couple of inches thick under the car cabin.
Given such a simple design, can't an electric car be sold for $10,000-$15,000 (plus whatever the battery costs)?
Or I buy a burgerbot and just compete with McDonalds, along with the other 499,999 people that thought this was a good idea?
Not a bad idea, except the others won't have a burgerbot, they'll have a burrito bot. Then you can exchange goods barter style and settle the difference in goods value with cash. TL;DR it will be like mom 'n pop stores, only miniaturized.
Slashdot Mirror
So why don't people like you spend 5 hours a week maintaining, as you claim, cheap hosted, ad-free websites?
10 bucks gives a you really crappy hosting for small sites few people visit. You can get decent hosting starting at $50 and going to hundreds of $$$ per month. Unlimited bandwidth for $10? you're full of BS.
It's easy to distinguish between crap and good apps: the star ratings, number of downloads and user review comments. It doesn't take a lot of time to filter and get the good apps.
Then spend a dollar or some minor amount in-app purchase and the ads are gone. But I bet most iphone users won't spend a cent. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
By all means, keep coming up with more BS to justify your piracy.
Are people really this stupid? You pay a lot of money for the iphone. But who pays the developers who develop these millions of useless to useful apps? Not Apple and not the consumers either (the vast majority refuse to spend even 99 cents on apps). Therefore, the developer has a better chance to make money via ads.
... just like the unethical, adblocking parasites many consumers are.
They should pay us, but many businesses are unethical parasites.
Fine, why don't you pay hundreds/thousands of $$$ for hosting/month and spent 20-40 hours a week running a website for free? Let's see some passion from the hobbyist freeloaders!
To begin training, a candidate must be 18 to 34 years old, be a U.S. citizen and have a bachelor's degree...
They must weigh 160 to 231 pounds, depending on height. Depending on age, men cannot have more than 20 to 24 percent body fat, while women cannot have more than 28 to 32 percent body fat. Pilots also must be able to complete a minimum number of push-ups and sit-ups and finish a timed 1.5-mile run.
http://work.chron.com/air-forc...
You mean El Cap is faster than the brand new core unoptimized "Yosemite" OS? Is El Cap faster than mountain lion or snow leopard? I doubt it. It's so easy to optimize a new code base.
The purpose of updates is to slow your machine down, so you that you will buy a brand new one. If the OS is eating a good amount of CPU processing power and RAM for every update, without any perceivable benefits, what's the point of hardware upgrades with their miniscule increase in app performance?
OSes are a very mature technology... stop releasing new versions every year or so.
Even if you place them right back? I don't think so. Next you're going to argue placing cans of tomatoes on your cart at the supermarket and then placing them back on the shelf is theft. Try again. BTW, when you pick your copy of the newspaper, you often pick a couple other copies and place them back. Is that theft too?
If you equate removing ads to defacing, then adblocker is also defacing websites on every browser it is installed. And how the hell is it vandalism if you can do the same thing on a website legally? Is there a huge difference in a free newspaper article that's printed on a newspaper vs shown in a browser? I don't think so.
So then blocking all the ads on free newspapers is not stealing. You must agree to this. It can't be both legal on websites but illegal concerning free newspapers.
On what basis? Consumers can read content for free without any profit to the site owners? Who's gonna feed them? Freeloaders like yourself? The world does not owe you free stuff... don't like ads, then don't visit ad-based websites.
Theft of what exactly? The ads were removed/blocked, that's all. You're doing with scissors the exact same thing adblocker does with code.
That's like saying, "Blah, blah, blah, it's my computer, I'll steal if I want to and you can't do a damn thing about it."
In which case it should be legal to cut out/block ads from free newspapers. It's the same thing, only different format (web vs paper).
If I give you a dish, can you replicate it exactly? Even with tons of reverse engineering, it's tough.
As for fashion, clones of designer stuff appear everywhere, so IP protection is needed and provided by the govt. You can't have innovation without some form of IP protection. Otherwise, one company will design the clothes and another will sell cheap knockoffs made using slave-labor in China.
The time and process are usually handled by the patent attorney, the inventor only gives them the ideas behind the invention. It is the patent attorney's job to file, and handle getting the patent. And the cost is usually $10k to $50, not impossible to fund, for a small company.
First mover's advantage of a couple of years isn't good enough if a larger company with bigger advertising budget starts cloning your work.
Microsoft has tons of patents. Excel would not have existed if Microsoft had not cloned it from Lotus 1-2-3. Visual Studio was largely copied from the Turbo Pascal IDE, IE killing Netscape Navigator, etc. These are prime examples of innovators getting stomped by predatory, copycat companies.
The world does not owe you free stuff. Don't want ads? Well then, don't visit the site. You're the freeloading commie here, but nice projection.
No, it's not clear at all. You're simply skipping the part of paying (watching/downloading ads) for the service (viewing the website). Are you 10 years old that you don't understand you have to pay for some commercial product?
This is utterly false. A website is a service. The service is funded/supported by ads -- i.e., ads pay the bills for the server, the salaries etc. You actively disabling ads is guaranteeing no income from you to the website. That's stealing. It's the same as taking a train ride (a service) without purchasing a ticket -- you're using a service without payment == theft. There's no reason to create new laws every time some new product comes out because the existing laws already handle these cases.
If it's legal to block ads, go to those free newspaper stands present on many sidewalks in the city. Then pull out all the newspapers and cut out or block all the ads on those free newspapers and put them back in the newsstand. Let's see how long you get away without getting a visit from the police or the lawyers of the newspaper. Ad-based websites have the same exact business model as free newspapers -- they both make money from ads.
Yes, terrible!
1) The large, non-innovative company simply steals the work of another company expending neither effort, nor time, nor money, nor creativity.
2) Other startups refuse wasting time and money building new products.
3) Customer lives with the same crap product for decades.
Wow, you know a lot about the law, but it's difficult for you to comprehend that people who do work for strangers expect to get paid (with ads in this case). You're either a moron or a thief.
Oh, the laws will be coming soon. No one expected something like adblockers to exist when websites were initially created. Music piracy was ok when it was done via complicated means such as IRC because few people knew the secret. But when Napster automated all the stuff you entered in IRC to download music, and dumbed it down, it became mainstream and that, pretty soon started hurting the bottom line of the music industry. There are plenty of laws against pirating free music today and it won't be long before the same thing will happen to adblockers.
But don't you pay a fixed amount per month? Whether the ad exists or not, you pay the same phone+internet monthly bill unless you're a heavy user who uses up every last byte of monthly capacity. But you're right, there should be a balance of how much bandwidth is used for ads and how much for content. Make ads text-based or vector-graphics based or something else that uses less bandwidth.
It is stealing if you block ads (consume content without any profit to the service provider). And advertisers are causing you unnecessary harm by uploading video ads, but it's not stealing.
You can block cookies from other sites yourself:
Firefox -> Settings -> Privacy -> uncheck "Accept third-party cookies"
But in general, an electric car that has 3 or 4 main components should be cheaper compared to a several dozen component IC car, correct? An IC car sells for $15k to $20k even after factories, R&D, QA etc all those things you mention. So why can't they sell an electric car in the same price range given it doesn't have any radically new technology (motors have been around for ages)?
But since the existing taxi companies and governments have zero interest in improving taxi services, doesn't that mean we'll have no innovation in transportation for hundreds of years? What procedure does the govt offer for new companies to test and sell their services. They should create a quota to allow new, innovative transportation services to come into existence.
Read my post again... that's before expenses. He still has to pay for gas, for car maintenance, for his medallion, for time and fuel wasted finding customers etc.
If you still don't believe me, here's the US per mile taxi rates and they range from roughly $2 to $3 per mile. That's $60 to $150 per hour for a distance of 30 miles to 50 miles. Yup, if you can cut expenses, and limit time wasted on finding customers, a taxi driver can make more than any engineer.
I was watching a video about model S manufacturing. The Telsa's power train consists of a small cylinder connected to the rear axle. The cylinder consists mainly of an inverter (to convert DC to 3-phase AC), a 3-phase AC induction motor and a single speed transmission. The battery is 1200 pounds and a couple of inches thick under the car cabin.
Given such a simple design, can't an electric car be sold for $10,000-$15,000 (plus whatever the battery costs)?
Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
What a ripoff! A taxi driver easily makes $60-100/hr, before his expenses (assuming around $2/mile and 30-50 miles traveled).
So you get minimum wage for doing delivery work + using your car for Amazon's benefit.
Not a bad idea, except the others won't have a burgerbot, they'll have a burrito bot. Then you can exchange goods barter style and settle the difference in goods value with cash. TL;DR it will be like mom 'n pop stores, only miniaturized.