Or, he could just as easily continue blocking ads and visit the site at his leisure, and ignore the arguments and complaints.
I don't know of any person who blocks ads that complains about ads, they just block them and live merrily. The ones complaining are the people depending on the ads for their business model. They are the ones who need to take action.
Except that ad-blocking is more than just not viewing ads; it's thwarting the attempts at invading your privacy by tracking your online behaviour. Thus, blocking the ad by not downloading it is part of the intended effect, much more than to just not "waste bandwidth in something you're not going to use."
But that argument itself is based on a misconception: that advertisers are just nice rich guys that will throw money at you for just displaying ads, and that the mere fact of exposing the ads is value in and of itself.
Advertising is an investment. The expectation of the advertiser is to recoup that investment by increased sales or market share. If site visitors ultimately do not care about the ads and do not click on them, or somehow the impressions are not translated into a return on that investment; then they do nothing for the advertiser. Eventually, the value of those ads will decrease to the advertiser, to the point that it will pay less for them, or it may decide not to advertise at all on your site.
In the end, it is not just merely displaying the ads that makes money, but the complex dynamics of the market, its interaction with potential customers, and the ability to influence their behaviour. Sure, the nice rich guys will throw money at you for the short term, with the promise that all those eyes on your site will eventually turn into gold, but counting on this a priori is a flawed business model.
This is not to say that advertising does not work. Obviously it makes a lot of money to a lot of people. However, it means that a site cannot monetize every single viewer, at least not realistically for the long term. It also means that those who refuse to view your ads will only inflate your page view count artificially, if somehow you manage to force them into exposing them to the ads. And ultimately, this will result in diluting the value of your site to advertisers.
>> "[n]ot only that, but all of the code from other Java programs will run on your Android phone",
he actually meant all of the code from other Java programs that do not use any framework or libraries, just stock built-in stuff; you know, the Language.
I wonder how common those are, and if are interesting enough to want to run on a mobile phone.
And as was mentioned, the bottles were marked. Those who had been drinking drug-store alcohol for ten years should have immediately noticed the skull and bones on the bottle, so it's not as if it was hidden to them by the government.
The real issue was that bootleggers continued using the stuff to re-sell as drinkable alcohol. The article quotes officials of the time making the point that, although intended to scare the masses into not drinking, the actual effect was that people were dying by drinking the doctored liquor sold by bootleggers. Their sentiment was that the government was aware of this unintended consequence, yet continued with the denaturing program.
True to the spirit of Slashdot, the summary is sensationalist (way to go, kdawson!), but the article itself seems to be neutral, merely stating the arguments for and against the program.
No, he did not invent inter-networking, nor is he claiming so. The Gore Bill funded projects of the National Science Foundation, among others, that culminated in the enrichment of the Internet as a medium for economic as well as educational growth, and the mainstream acceptance of the World Wide Web--which eventually turned into the economic engine it is now.
The technical infrastructure and lower level protocols may have remained the same, but the focus and spirit of use has changed considerably.
>> People blame the government bureaucrats, but the failed work is done by the huge consulting companies.
Billions of dollars sunk into failed projects, and yet the government bureaucrats keep hiring these consulting companies for software work. Therefore they share a large part of the blame: at the least it shows incompetence and negligence, at worse it implies collusion and fraud.
Yes, TiVo is much more useful than a VCR, I'll grant that. It is also much more expensive, not to mention that it spies on your viewing habits and sells them to advertisers, injects pop-up ads when you are attempting to skip in-show ads, and requires you to pay a fee every month for a service of dubious necessity.
Guide data isn't free. It probably should be if you have a cable service, but it's not. Even MythTV users (in the US) have to pay for it, albeit for the price of $20/yr. It used to be free, but the company giving it away decide to stop a few years ago.
That's fine if you want the guide data. But what the parent poster (and others) have been arguing is that it appears that using this guide data is required for the machine to function--as opposed to a VCR, where there is no such data, and you just tell it the channel and time you want to record (or just start recording on-demand).
Some of us do not see much value in paying for the guide data service. I respect those that do see value in it, though.
For Apple to have "China like rules" they would be throwing people in jail for writing the apps for android that they don't like. Right now they are no different that a tee shirt shop that doesn't want to carry tee shirts pro KKK shirts.
To which recoiledsnake replied:
Nope... they already ban political apps.
In my opinion LWATCDR is correct. I was "correcting" recoiledsnake comment because the second part of his sentence agreed with the last sentence of LWATCDR: that Apple is not like China, but more like a T-shirt shop that does not carry politically charged shirts. Ergo, Apple bans political apps (which is their prerogative), and so his "Nope..." was misplaced.
>> Don't build a computer that runs a windowed operating system without providing some physical means to point to those windows and move them around.
But the iPhone and the iPad do not run a "windowed operating system". It is an incarnation of the "object-oriented" interface, and some of the mechanisms to control these objects are analogous, but that's where the similarities end. The metaphor is different with regards as to how the user interface works. For one thing, there are no windows, there is no pointer or cursor; it depends on a completely different model of interaction based on finger gestures to control the environment.
Slashdot Mirror
My job does not depend on a precarious business model.
-dZ.
Or, he could just as easily continue blocking ads and visit the site at his leisure, and ignore the arguments and complaints.
I don't know of any person who blocks ads that complains about ads, they just block them and live merrily. The ones complaining are the people depending on the ads for their business model. They are the ones who need to take action.
-dZ.
Except that ad-blocking is more than just not viewing ads; it's thwarting the attempts at invading your privacy by tracking your online behaviour. Thus, blocking the ad by not downloading it is part of the intended effect, much more than to just not "waste bandwidth in something you're not going to use."
-dZ.
Amen. I wish I had mod points for you.
+ 1 Kick-ass Insightful.
But that argument itself is based on a misconception: that advertisers are just nice rich guys that will throw money at you for just displaying ads, and that the mere fact of exposing the ads is value in and of itself.
Advertising is an investment. The expectation of the advertiser is to recoup that investment by increased sales or market share. If site visitors ultimately do not care about the ads and do not click on them, or somehow the impressions are not translated into a return on that investment; then they do nothing for the advertiser. Eventually, the value of those ads will decrease to the advertiser, to the point that it will pay less for them, or it may decide not to advertise at all on your site.
In the end, it is not just merely displaying the ads that makes money, but the complex dynamics of the market, its interaction with potential customers, and the ability to influence their behaviour. Sure, the nice rich guys will throw money at you for the short term, with the promise that all those eyes on your site will eventually turn into gold, but counting on this a priori is a flawed business model.
This is not to say that advertising does not work. Obviously it makes a lot of money to a lot of people. However, it means that a site cannot monetize every single viewer, at least not realistically for the long term. It also means that those who refuse to view your ads will only inflate your page view count artificially, if somehow you manage to force them into exposing them to the ads. And ultimately, this will result in diluting the value of your site to advertisers.
-dZ.
And in E-macs you can do it with a single (shifted) key stroke.
-dZ.
If you make fart noises by hand, you're doing it wrong.
-dZ.
So, when the poster of the article claimed that,
>> "[n]ot only that, but all of the code from other Java programs will run on your Android phone",
he actually meant all of the code from other Java programs that do not use any framework or libraries, just stock built-in stuff; you know, the Language.
I wonder how common those are, and if are interesting enough to want to run on a mobile phone.
-dZ.
Actually, it means that the British dystopian fiction authors were really prescient.
You know what that means? Don't make fun of the four-eyed, unwanted, loser kid in your school, lest he grows up to get hella-wizard on your ass.
-dZ.
You are an idiot.
I'm sorry, but you should know.
-dZ.
>> The C64 was a better value, but it had its own problems (like the glacially slow floppy drive).
And the cheap power supply that had the knack of burning after a few hours of continuous use.
-dZ.
And as was mentioned, the bottles were marked. Those who had been drinking drug-store alcohol for ten years should have immediately noticed the skull and bones on the bottle, so it's not as if it was hidden to them by the government.
The real issue was that bootleggers continued using the stuff to re-sell as drinkable alcohol. The article quotes officials of the time making the point that, although intended to scare the masses into not drinking, the actual effect was that people were dying by drinking the doctored liquor sold by bootleggers. Their sentiment was that the government was aware of this unintended consequence, yet continued with the denaturing program.
True to the spirit of Slashdot, the summary is sensationalist (way to go, kdawson!), but the article itself seems to be neutral, merely stating the arguments for and against the program.
-dZ.
No, he did not invent inter-networking, nor is he claiming so. The Gore Bill funded projects of the National Science Foundation, among others, that culminated in the enrichment of the Internet as a medium for economic as well as educational growth, and the mainstream acceptance of the World Wide Web--which eventually turned into the economic engine it is now.
The technical infrastructure and lower level protocols may have remained the same, but the focus and spirit of use has changed considerably.
-dZ.
By the way, you meant to say to wit, not to whit. The former is a verb meaning "that is to say"; the latter is a noun meaning "a very small amount."
This is not meant as a personal slight, just a correction in case you weren't aware of the proper spelling of the word.
-dZ.
Wow, you turned a comment on the proper use of grammar into a religious argument.
Isn't the Internet a great place?
-dZ.
First, you establish your agreement with the philosophy of keeping a large cash reserve in order to facilitate taking risks.
>> he argued--convincingly, IMO--that a company like Apple that takes risks needs the safety net of cash in the bank.
Then you assert that the investors would prefer draining the cash reserve for the sake of an immediate distribution.
>> Given his two hypothetical choices, if the stock price isn't going to change, any investor would prefer the one with a cash distribution.
Are you arguing your own point, or are you claiming that the investors are idiots?
-dZ.
>> People blame the government bureaucrats, but the failed work is done by the huge consulting companies.
Billions of dollars sunk into failed projects, and yet the government bureaucrats keep hiring these consulting companies for software work. Therefore they share a large part of the blame: at the least it shows incompetence and negligence, at worse it implies collusion and fraud.
-dZ.
Yes, TiVo is much more useful than a VCR, I'll grant that. It is also much more expensive, not to mention that it spies on your viewing habits and sells them to advertisers, injects pop-up ads when you are attempting to skip in-show ads, and requires you to pay a fee every month for a service of dubious necessity.
I'm sold!
-dZ.
>> The old or non-techy unit was razors and razor blades. It's a measuring stick they can compare against.
Dude, if you use razor blades as a measuring stick, be careful what you measure. Ouch!
-dZ.
That's fine if you want the guide data. But what the parent poster (and others) have been arguing is that it appears that using this guide data is required for the machine to function--as opposed to a VCR, where there is no such data, and you just tell it the channel and time you want to record (or just start recording on-demand).
Some of us do not see much value in paying for the guide data service. I respect those that do see value in it, though.
-dZ.
I don't know... to me a "no brainer" is not to pay for the extraneous subscription to an unnecessary service. But that's just me.
-dZ.
>> Now, only if she we're here to keep me off of internet discussion sites. I'd have all that time back.
Your creative and seemingly random use of apostrophes intrigues me.
-dZ.
WTF?!
LWATCDR said:
To which recoiledsnake replied:
In my opinion LWATCDR is correct. I was "correcting" recoiledsnake comment because the second part of his sentence agreed with the last sentence of LWATCDR: that Apple is not like China, but more like a T-shirt shop that does not carry politically charged shirts. Ergo, Apple bans political apps (which is their prerogative), and so his "Nope..." was misplaced.
-dZ.
>> Yes... they already ban political apps, which proves your point.
There, fixed it for you.
-dZ.
>> Don't build a computer that runs a windowed operating system without providing some physical means to point to those windows and move them around.
But the iPhone and the iPad do not run a "windowed operating system". It is an incarnation of the "object-oriented" interface, and some of the mechanisms to control these objects are analogous, but that's where the similarities end. The metaphor is different with regards as to how the user interface works. For one thing, there are no windows, there is no pointer or cursor; it depends on a completely different model of interaction based on finger gestures to control the environment.
-dZ.