There is no other media in which advertising can uniquely identify me, record that I've seen the ad, and correlate that with other information about me. And I'm not allowing some website to do it to me.
Have you thought about disabling 3rd party cookies (such as cookies from ad networks) in your browser? If your IP address were to change, and since you have disabled ad cookies, there is no way the ad network can obtain an accurate browsing profile.
Oh noes, teh poor website can't show me teh ads. Not my fucking problem. Especially when those ads are being served by entities which collectively are slimy players who consider information about me to be a commodity.
What about the good chunk of websites that care for their users? You wanna stick it them too?
Real estate isn't something that's created by humans. Its part of our planet
So you're arguing that humans should have more ownership rights over something they did not create, land, and less ownership rights over something they did create, copyrighted content? Hmmm.
The creators themselves won't bother whether the copyright becomes public domain 50 years or 70 years after their death.
I'm sure the copyright content creator and his descendents disagree.
I wouldn't want to pay indefinite royalties to the construction company/architect for a cookie cutter house design. Would you ?
You would not be charged indefinitely for the house design in the same way you don't get charged indefinitely for possessing a music album -- i.e., you only pay once in both cases for purchasing copyrighted content. Indefinite payment comes from the middleman (the construction company or the music distributor/retailer), and not the end user.
So if house designs were copyrighted, the construction company would pay a royalty to the copyright owner (say the architect) for each cookie cutter copy of that house design it constructed. The house owner does not have to pay the architect or the construction company after his initial purchase price (just as you only pay once for that copyrighted 99 cent song) and he can modify it however he wants.
I even walk away from the TV during commercials, because I don't care.
Walking away from the TV is not the same as stripping out ads from the video content.
The issue isn't whether you care, because adblock users obviously don't care how the person giving them content gets paid... it's just not their problem... they just don't care. The issue is what's fair. It's fair you make money for the content creators by intentionally/accidentally watching ads in exchange for viewing their content for free.
Sorry, but if you wish to access content on a commercial website, you must at least download their ads so they get paid. If you don't agree to that, you should simply not visit the website.
Tell me how creators are getting screwed out of their rightful income after they've already kicked the bucket?
The same way the children, grandchildren and great grandchildren of real estate owners would get screwed if their million dollar properties were seized by the government and made public domain after about 100 years of ownership by the first owner.
I wouldn't want to pay indefinite royalties to the construction company/architect for a cookie cutter house design. Would you ?
Maybe okay to charge for something spectacular like the the leaning tower of Pisa etc. There's no way you can get recurring royalties for something as ordinary as a minor tweak of existing house designs. That's like an employee wanting a cut of company profits for implementing bubblesort in the company's moneymaker software.
Why not? Artificial/arbitrary copyright duration was created to screw the little guys (artists). What rational argument is there that makes it right to strip ownership from the copyright holder after a few decades? Does real estate become public domain after 100 years of ownership?
If computers and the internet had not been invented, you would need to purchase vinyl or tape to listen to the music giving infinite duration profits to record publishers and only 50 or so years to copyright holders (typically creators). And that's just bullshit.
It's my damned screen, and my damned internet connection.
To rule that I have some legal obligation to load and view your ads would be idiotic.
False argument... That's like saying it's your cable box and your TV and you have every right to control what's on the screen, including stripping ads automatically (without changing channels or muting)
Also, you paid for your computer, and also for your internet connection and you think that's okay. But somehow it's not okay for the vendor providing you web content to charge you money (indirectly through ads)? Are website owners creating websites for charity? Do you belong to the entitlement generation?
It's also a lot cheaper than drones (once the high cost of building the tunnels has been paid). Rail like systems are way more fuel efficient than drones which consume energy proportional to their weight and the weight of their payloads just to stay above ground. That's not feasible in a modern world where there is a constant shortage of energy.
How is scientology any less of a religion than christianity or islam or mormons or any other belief system?
Simple, there are no profound supernatural events or beings involved in the creation of scientology, whereas other religions are based on (real or alleged) supernatural beings/events.
But gee, do coca-cola ads satisfy your thirst by handing you a bottle, like music on radio satisfies your thirst to listen to music? Music on radio is entertainment first, and advertising on a secondary or tertiary level, whereas the coca-cola ads are just... ads.
Also, your analogy is bogus: coke bottles can bought multiple times to the same customer justifying multiple ads to the same person whereas a song can only be sold once to a listener.
And if 5-10% of listeners (like you) haven't heard that song, is it still considered new and therefore advertising? AFAIK, AM/FM stations play the same old songs (top 40 or top 100) for decades on end. If you listen to their stations for even 1-2 hours a day, it's unlikely you'll come upon a new song except the latest hits. Sorry, you can't claim "advertising," while playing some Elvis' song.
That's because radio is free advertising for the artists. Now they want the free advertising and to get paid for it, too?
It's advertising only if the artist is unknown or the song is brand new. When they play an already popular oldie (anything older than 2-3 years), that's for entertainment and (radio station's) profit. In the latter case, the radio station owes the artists for any radio play since they make money off advertisements between the songs.
the QWERTY layout was designed to SLOW down typists of the day,
Just so you know, that's a myth.
I decided to investigate the myth. I created a simple script to output letter frequencies for large pieces of text and this is what I obtained for the book "War and Peace," by Tolstoy: E: 315232, T: 226406, A: 205807, O: 192879 N: 184174, I: 174282, H: 167404, S: 162894 R: 148428, D: 118289, L: 96527, U: 65433 M: 61646, C: 61624, W: 59207, F: 54896 G: 51326, Y: 46266, P: 45533, B: 34659 V: 27086, K: 20431, X: 4384, J: 2574 Z: 2387, Q: 2330
Most high frequency letters: E, T, A, O, N, I, H, S don't fall on the home row of the QWERTY layout. Whereas all these letters belong in the home row of the Dvorak layout.
Is there valid reason why low frequency letters like K and J are in the home row of QWERTY other than to slow down typing?
Parallel processing isn't just dumping cell phones into a big pile and applying some power. Node interconnect matters, cache matters, memory & bus bandwidth matters, etc. and off the shelf ARMs are vastly outmatched in all of these areas.
But isn't the main difference between consumer Core i7 processors and Xeons is that the latter can be connected to other Xeons to provide more processing power? Well you can still get the same effect by connecting thousands of consumer Core i7 PCs via ethernet. It may cost more money, power and space, but you get the same computing power as a Xeon-based supercomputer.
One makes art for the sake of art, and one does not expect to be compensated for it.
That would be true if art were created and hidden from everyone (art for art's sake only). But in reality, art is created for the benefit and enjoyment of others, and often to feed the ego of the creator. So you think the consumers of art should benefit from art, but it's despicable for the creator to benefit from his own work? That's some self-serving, slave-driving bullshit.
Calling the modern content garbage is an insult to garbage everywhere...
And how many times a day do you stop doing everything and stare at garbage for 5-20 minutes?
So is google planning on paying 50-70% of their subscription fee to content creators? After all, without content, YouTube is useless and distributors should not be making all the money, like on rest of the internet. Flickr does not pay its photographers, stackoverflow.com, etc others do not.
Back in the day when I was a pupil I had "library addiction" for several years. I spent most of my free time in the library reading books... Nobody in their right mind would have thought it was a problem. This "Internet addiction" is not different in any way I can see.
Except reading books is much harder (mental energy-wise) compared to browsing internet forums like facebook, slashdot, reddit etc. The latter are like junk food or vegging in front of TV, whereas reading real books is more like eating wholesome food.
And (in that bright, cheery voice) your grade is dependent on their grade.
Nooo. Your grade is dependent on the maximum of either person's grade. Suppose you write version X of the assignment and your partner, version Y. You both decide X is the better version and submit that and get the same grade. But since it's pair programming, you both collaborate in writing the best version X interactively and parallely instead of developing X and Y separately and then choosing or combining both implementations.
My problem with this arrangement is that if a dumb student (F grade) is paired with a smart student (A+ grade), then both students get good grades (A+) compared to two average students (C grade) paired together who only get average grades (C). That's unfair to the average students, both at school and when applying for a job.
here's what you should do: get a medical degree, go into business, charge a fair market value, and advertise the hell out of it.
Given the law of supply and demand, patients should be flocking to you in droves. Other physicians will then be forced to lower their prices to compete. Let the invisible hand of the market take care of it!
That's what many app developers thought about low prices. They priced their apps $1 (instead of $5 to $20) assuming they'd get tons of purchases. But the number of buyers did not increase and now consumers expected every app to be priced $1. Although I agree about unfair prices: getting treated for fever/flu and other simple problems should not cost $750-$1000.
Maybe doctors don't to be fair, they want to be filthy rich.
There is no ONE answer to the meaning of life. Let's say a computer does compute some answer X as the meaning of life. We can easily find Y, an alternative answer, that is in no way related to X, and another answer Z, that is not related to X or Y and so on. This (pseudo) proof shows that there is no ONE answer to the meaning of life.
Why not? Amazon has been trying to "standardize" ebook pricing to less than $10. They spent $0 creating that book and all they care about is maximizing their profit formula: books sold x commission regardless of how it hurts the creators and the industry. I find it ridiculous that middlemen/distributors have more control and power over a product/service than the creators themselves.
Once you have used the local service once through Amazon, won't you get a business card/address from the service person? Why do you need to use Amazon for the next booking? You can book the service directly the next time around saving you the 10-20% Amazon commission.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you thought about disabling 3rd party cookies (such as cookies from ad networks) in your browser? If your IP address were to change, and since you have disabled ad cookies, there is no way the ad network can obtain an accurate browsing profile.
What about the good chunk of websites that care for their users? You wanna stick it them too?
So you're arguing that humans should have more ownership rights over something they did not create, land, and less ownership rights over something they did create, copyrighted content? Hmmm.
I'm sure the copyright content creator and his descendents disagree.
You would not be charged indefinitely for the house design in the same way you don't get charged indefinitely for possessing a music album -- i.e., you only pay once in both cases for purchasing copyrighted content. Indefinite payment comes from the middleman (the construction company or the music distributor/retailer), and not the end user.
So if house designs were copyrighted, the construction company would pay a royalty to the copyright owner (say the architect) for each cookie cutter copy of that house design it constructed. The house owner does not have to pay the architect or the construction company after his initial purchase price (just as you only pay once for that copyrighted 99 cent song) and he can modify it however he wants.
Walking away from the TV is not the same as stripping out ads from the video content.
The issue isn't whether you care, because adblock users obviously don't care how the person giving them content gets paid... it's just not their problem... they just don't care. The issue is what's fair. It's fair you make money for the content creators by intentionally/accidentally watching ads in exchange for viewing their content for free.
Sorry, but if you wish to access content on a commercial website, you must at least download their ads so they get paid. If you don't agree to that, you should simply not visit the website.
The same way the children, grandchildren and great grandchildren of real estate owners would get screwed if their million dollar properties were seized by the government and made public domain after about 100 years of ownership by the first owner.
Maybe okay to charge for something spectacular like the the leaning tower of Pisa etc. There's no way you can get recurring royalties for something as ordinary as a minor tweak of existing house designs. That's like an employee wanting a cut of company profits for implementing bubblesort in the company's moneymaker software.
Why not? Artificial/arbitrary copyright duration was created to screw the little guys (artists). What rational argument is there that makes it right to strip ownership from the copyright holder after a few decades? Does real estate become public domain after 100 years of ownership?
If computers and the internet had not been invented, you would need to purchase vinyl or tape to listen to the music giving infinite duration profits to record publishers and only 50 or so years to copyright holders (typically creators). And that's just bullshit.
False argument... That's like saying it's your cable box and your TV and you have every right to control what's on the screen, including stripping ads automatically (without changing channels or muting)
Also, you paid for your computer, and also for your internet connection and you think that's okay. But somehow it's not okay for the vendor providing you web content to charge you money (indirectly through ads)? Are website owners creating websites for charity? Do you belong to the entitlement generation?
It's also a lot cheaper than drones (once the high cost of building the tunnels has been paid). Rail like systems are way more fuel efficient than drones which consume energy proportional to their weight and the weight of their payloads just to stay above ground. That's not feasible in a modern world where there is a constant shortage of energy.
Simple, there are no profound supernatural events or beings involved in the creation of scientology, whereas other religions are based on (real or alleged) supernatural beings/events.
Perhaps but Starcraft is older than COD.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
But gee, do coca-cola ads satisfy your thirst by handing you a bottle, like music on radio satisfies your thirst to listen to music? Music on radio is entertainment first, and advertising on a secondary or tertiary level, whereas the coca-cola ads are just... ads.
Also, your analogy is bogus: coke bottles can bought multiple times to the same customer justifying multiple ads to the same person whereas a song can only be sold once to a listener.
And if 5-10% of listeners (like you) haven't heard that song, is it still considered new and therefore advertising? AFAIK, AM/FM stations play the same old songs (top 40 or top 100) for decades on end. If you listen to their stations for even 1-2 hours a day, it's unlikely you'll come upon a new song except the latest hits. Sorry, you can't claim "advertising," while playing some Elvis' song.
Also, if your radio station is making $1 million in yearly revenue, how is paying $500 for the content (songs) considered fair?
It's advertising only if the artist is unknown or the song is brand new. When they play an already popular oldie (anything older than 2-3 years), that's for entertainment and (radio station's) profit. In the latter case, the radio station owes the artists for any radio play since they make money off advertisements between the songs.
I decided to investigate the myth. I created a simple script to output letter frequencies for large pieces of text and this is what I obtained for the book "War and Peace," by Tolstoy:
E: 315232, T: 226406, A: 205807, O: 192879
N: 184174, I: 174282, H: 167404, S: 162894
R: 148428, D: 118289, L: 96527, U: 65433
M: 61646, C: 61624, W: 59207, F: 54896
G: 51326, Y: 46266, P: 45533, B: 34659
V: 27086, K: 20431, X: 4384, J: 2574
Z: 2387, Q: 2330
Most high frequency letters: E, T, A, O, N, I, H, S don't fall on the home row of the QWERTY layout. Whereas all these letters belong in the home row of the Dvorak layout.
Is there valid reason why low frequency letters like K and J are in the home row of QWERTY other than to slow down typing?
But isn't the main difference between consumer Core i7 processors and Xeons is that the latter can be connected to other Xeons to provide more processing power? Well you can still get the same effect by connecting thousands of consumer Core i7 PCs via ethernet. It may cost more money, power and space, but you get the same computing power as a Xeon-based supercomputer.
That would be true if art were created and hidden from everyone (art for art's sake only). But in reality, art is created for the benefit and enjoyment of others, and often to feed the ego of the creator. So you think the consumers of art should benefit from art, but it's despicable for the creator to benefit from his own work? That's some self-serving, slave-driving bullshit.
And how many times a day do you stop doing everything and stare at garbage for 5-20 minutes?
So is google planning on paying 50-70% of their subscription fee to content creators? After all, without content, YouTube is useless and distributors should not be making all the money, like on rest of the internet. Flickr does not pay its photographers, stackoverflow.com, etc others do not.
Except reading books is much harder (mental energy-wise) compared to browsing internet forums like facebook, slashdot, reddit etc. The latter are like junk food or vegging in front of TV, whereas reading real books is more like eating wholesome food.
Nooo. Your grade is dependent on the maximum of either person's grade. Suppose you write version X of the assignment and your partner, version Y. You both decide X is the better version and submit that and get the same grade. But since it's pair programming, you both collaborate in writing the best version X interactively and parallely instead of developing X and Y separately and then choosing or combining both implementations.
My problem with this arrangement is that if a dumb student (F grade) is paired with a smart student (A+ grade), then both students get good grades (A+) compared to two average students (C grade) paired together who only get average grades (C). That's unfair to the average students, both at school and when applying for a job.
That's what many app developers thought about low prices. They priced their apps $1 (instead of $5 to $20) assuming they'd get tons of purchases. But the number of buyers did not increase and now consumers expected every app to be priced $1. Although I agree about unfair prices: getting treated for fever/flu and other simple problems should not cost $750-$1000.
Maybe doctors don't to be fair, they want to be filthy rich.
There is no ONE answer to the meaning of life. Let's say a computer does compute some answer X as the meaning of life. We can easily find Y, an alternative answer, that is in no way related to X, and another answer Z, that is not related to X or Y and so on. This (pseudo) proof shows that there is no ONE answer to the meaning of life.
Why not? Amazon has been trying to "standardize" ebook pricing to less than $10. They spent $0 creating that book and all they care about is maximizing their profit formula: books sold x commission regardless of how it hurts the creators and the industry. I find it ridiculous that middlemen/distributors have more control and power over a product/service than the creators themselves.
Once you have used the local service once through Amazon, won't you get a business card/address from the service person? Why do you need to use Amazon for the next booking? You can book the service directly the next time around saving you the 10-20% Amazon commission.