This isn't about some desire to repress sexuality. Yes, porn should be sexual. And most adults are sexual beings -- we have sexual desires, we find each other attractive, we enjoy sex. This is good.
This isn't about the role of submission in porn, exactly -- if you're going to create appealing porn, there's a good chance someone is "taking it". It's quite possible to be dominant sexually while respecting your partner, and tending to his or her needs. Egalitarianism in sex doesn't mean nobody's on top (lots of great positions have someone on top!), or that everyone climaxes at the same time.
This is about the promotion of behavior of men in pornography that ranges from selfish to abusive. It's about labeling female participants "sluts". It's about the women in many films begging for and enjoying selfish and abusive treatment. These things aren't really specific to porn, even, porn is just where they're seen most graphically.
And it's not about what's in any one porn film. I think there's room for just about every kind of portrayal of people generally. But in the overall body of work you hear of the same patterns over and over again. It's the same thing in advertising, on TV, in movies. I think that speaks badly for our society, as it's at least as much a symptom as a cause of our attitudes, probably more. A non-porn example: the Beatles. You might hear one song, say, "Run for Your Life" (on Rubber Soul), and note that it's from the perspective of a downright abusive man. So it is; I guess a band might sing a song about anything. Then listen to some of their other songs and records from around the same time. It starts to get really creepy, far beyond the typical casual misogyny of early rock-and-roll.
That's why we need to acknowledge these sorts of portrayals, and what they say to us and others. Banning porn is almost never the answer (maybe never never?), but understanding its meaning, and trying to improve ourselves and our society is.
You don't have to be an anti-porn crusade to recognize that most porn glorifies the objectification and exploitation of women. Really, I'd go beyond what most call porn and include many mainstream sexualized portrayals of women (especially in advertisements). To be sure, it's both a symptom and a cause of our society's ideas about women (and, thus, about men also) -- it's inevitably tied up in those things.
I'm not really sure what "debate" you're talking about. Should portrayals of naked people be banned on the grounds of obscenity? Hell, no. Should exploitative portrayals of people generally be noted and shamed? Hell, yes, wherever they're seen.
Are iPads tied to mobile data plans like iPhones? If so, there's your answer. Makes it somewhat harder to swap in other SIMs, as hacking a SIM down to a MicroSIM is (for most people) a one-way process, and also surely voids the warranty (it might even be a breech of your cell contract).
Many of those that will suffer pain from this spill haven't gained at all, and cannot be reimbursed for their loss. I'm speaking of non-human inhabitants of the ocean and shore.
Many of the rest that suffer pain from this spill have gained rather little, and will not be reimbursed for their loss. I'm speaking of people in the gulf region that haven't seen proportional benefits from cheap petroleum.
And the rest? Those of us that have seen great economic benefit from cheap petroleum? Our gains are only material, and only temporary.
Despite having rather little interest in this whole thing (I don't subscribe to any online music services) this is what I wondered about. Is this killing off a digital music source for Linux users? It appears so. Sadness.
Or, rather, Twitter is much less bad. Twitter isn't nearly so much of a time-suck. Twitter doesn't have boring profile pages. Twitter doesn't broadcast your relationship and friendship statuses to the whole world. Twitter doesn't have Farmville, Mafia Wars, or other sorts of spammy, scammy bullshit. And, most importantly, Twitter doesn't have Mark Zuckerberg, the biggest scumbag ever to start an Internet company (and that's saying something).
Tax cheats still enjoy the benefits paid for by others' taxes; it's usually impossible to individually benefit by paying more taxes. This should be pretty obvious.
People suck, too. In high school one of my teachers accused me of plagiarism because the writing style was "too mature" for me to have done it.
There were contributing factors. My previous work in the class really wasn't very good, for one. Oh, yeah, and a bunch of kids in her honors section had just been caught cheating. They'd copy-pasted from the web and left in the font changes and blue underlined text. Oops.
I'm pretty sure she docked me a few points even though she couldn't prove anything. But that's impossible for me to prove, since there's a large subjective component to grading papers. At least in CS classes there shouldn't be much subjectivity in grading exams, and it's somewhat harder to cheat on exams.
Some other little town in rural Illinois nearly took down a big statue of Abraham Lincoln (probably in the early 'aughties) because they thought it was a terrorist risk. Fortunately cooler heads prevailed.
... is because of the proxy platform battle. Apple is managing a couple platforms now and doesn't want any of them to depend on Adobe. I'd say that includes the Mac, because so much of the Web needs Flash. If Apple can make the Web less dependent on Flash then it doesn't matter if the Mac version of Flash sucks. The less Apple has to rely on third-party support the better for them, as they have corporate developers and a developer community (including the Open Source community) that can implement standards that are open in practice (Flash is open in theory but Adobe's implementation is the only one that matters).
I'd love to see Flash die on the Web and I think Apple would, too. So our interests are a bit aligned. But I can't say I think this is the right way to go about it.
I think arguments against compatibility layers generally are silly. There's both good and bad software made with compatibility layers; ultimately the responsibility is on developers to make the UI good. Plenty of developers will make really good and useful apps using compatibility layers, and they'll be denied. Meanwhile Apple allows lots of outright crap in their App Store -- as long as it doesn't include things like, oh, political speech. Adobe may have some success striking down the compatibility layer ban -- if there are specific, tangible problems with an app Apple has every reason to keep it out of the store, but there's no reason but spite to ban it on the basis of how it was created.
Holy balls, man! The last thing I did was justify abusing someone's rights! Just being clear about the difference between copyright infringement and stealing. You know, like the Supreme Court does. Maybe the average person doesn't, but the average person isn't trying to have a rational discussion about copyright.
And even when you go to the average person, I think there'd be some nuance. I think an average person might consider downloading a movie on P2P something like stealing; even I think it's somewhat analogous (though there are enough differences that I wouldn't use it as the starting point for a policy discussion). But what about, for example, academics quoting Joyce in the grand academic tradition? Or playing a DVD on Linux using Free Software? I'm doing that right now, and I'm sure the right court would consider it copyright infringement. Anyone that would call it stealing is fucked up in the head.
Something can be wrong and illegal without it being stealing. Copyright infringement is clearly illegal. I think most typical cases of copyright infringement (i.e. P2P piracy) are morally wrong, though I find nothing wrong with some things that people are sued or threatened for (i.e. quoting Joyce), and I think copyright terms should be short and fixed from date of publication. I don't agree with all Slashdotters on these things and that's why we argue.
I wouldn't, of course, "be OK with" someone distributing GPL-licensed code against the terms of its license, but I also wouldn't call it stealing. It's something different.
If you can't make the distinction between one and the other you can't have a rational discussion of copyright.
I'm pretty sure the only place the changes were committed was Debian patch repos. The whole thing is pretty much Debian-specific.
I think you're trying to make a larger point, so I'll make a larger semi-rebuttal. If projects only gave commit access to people that understood the whole code base they'd never get anything done. Developers with the power to commit, whether to Debian's repository or upstream, should be aware of which code they understand. They should ask questions when they don't understand something, and they shouldn't commit it until they understand the consequences.
I have commit access for Audacity and there are many parts of the program I don't know very well. That's how I operate. Anyone committing changes to OpenSSL ought to at least be as careful as I am with Audacity. I'm sure the actual OpenSSL project is a lot less permissive about giving access to their own repositories, and they probably review changes more closely.
Debian seems to carry a lot of patches against a lot of programs and doesn't seem to ensure the same level of quality. At the same time, Debian has more resources for bug tracking and user reporting than many projects, and maintains security backports for projects that are unwilling. It's a bit of a mixed bag.
I, for one, recognize the utility of Facebook. But I think that it's corrupted by its power. It can literally use any business tactic it wants and people won't leave because their friends are on it. And they've come up with some pretty awful ones. Facebook is run by Mark Zuckerberg, a man with fewer scruples than any tech magnate this side of Gates and Jobs.
The only way to influence this sort of company is by breaking the spell. You may personally benefit from Facebook but you give just as much back to the site as a network effect -- and thus give them the power to bully app developers, to invade users' privacy, to create scummy marketing programs, with no plausible repercussions. Facebook engages in many actions against the taste and interests of most of its users and never suffers for it. It's wrong.
Just quit Facebook. I did. Find out your friends' email addresses, tell them all yours, and quit the site. Send a note to all of them that you're quitting the site for ethical reasons.
Facebook's biggest hook to keep people around is their friends. They can get away with any business practice they want because nobody wants to quit on their friends. But you're not quitting on your friends. There are other ways to stay in touch.
What kind of place do you work where the whole office is supposed to keep kosher? Unless you work for a religious Jewish organization that's kind of insane.
The disclosure laws are there for a reason. If you can't satisfy their requirements in a tweet then you can't advertise pharmaceuticals on Twitter. If you can't satisfy them in a Google ad then you can't advertise pharmaceuticals in a Google ad.
This isn't affecting any one company over another or anything like that. It's just following the laws to their conclusion -- and, really, going right along with their intention. Putting a drug in your body is of much greater consequence than what company you buy your mass-produced junk from, and these laws make sure drug companies can't just do snappy, feel-good 10-second spots with no substance whatsoever like beer companies and cola companies.
A big part of advertising is repeating a brand name over and over. There's an impression made by hearing a brand name in association with positive images or text, even if you aren't very involved with the ad. The disclosure laws try to prevent companies from just spamming you with impressions and making sure there is substantial information right up front. If it's behind a link, as many of these companies propose, that's all lost. The casual eye skips over, gets the positive impression and none of the disclosure.
So... within our current framework if there's no room to disclose right up front there should be no ad at all. Maybe the disclosure laws suck, maybe the fact that drugs are advertised at all sucks... those are separate points. As the law stands now, no Twitter ads for Viagra. Yay!
Whatever the merits of the legal argument, I can only chuckle at what sort of clients this LAW FIRM is trying to attract by suggesting that Montana is likely to secede from the US on a public document on his web site.
With a web app more info is kept on the server, so there are more opportunities for network errors. A desktop mail client works great when the network goes down. It stores the emails you wanted to send and then sends them when the network comes back up. You can still search through whatever data you have on your drive. With webmail the inbox is a different page that requires server interaction to display at all.
Duplicating an error in a web app can be easy if the error took place on the server. If it's a client error you're back to trying to replicate their environment. Recall the recent Microsoft browser order randomization thing -- they wrote some Javascript that ran completely differently on each of the major browsers. That's still very possible.
And you're not even addressing the limitations of the browser in terms of UI. The clash between the page-based model where the URL points to something specific and the new model where lots of state is kept in session variables. The fact that you don't know which keybindings are available and which ones will mess with users' browsing setups. If you're writing something that works well with page-based navigation it doesn't matter, but once you start trying to replace desktop apps you ignore these sorts of issues at your peril.
A couple other people have pointed out niche business uses for the iPad. The general market may not be the/. crowd, but it's not your niche, either.
And if the iPad browser doesn't support your web app just the way you want it you can't install a browser that does. Which kinda sucks. Apple's control over the device, to me, makes it poorly suited to any business use.
As I understand DNS, any site could create a subdomain that resolves to their ad provider. I think the ad provider would have to configure its server correctly to handle that, but it's not hard.
Alternately sites could begin hosting useful content off-domain. That's why ads in Flash and images are effective, because sites do useful things with them. You'd be stuck with IP blocking.
At any rate, to me the issue isn't that I'm seeing some ads. They're basically necessary for the Internet as it is today. The issue is that I have so little control of the code that runs on my computer. Whether it's an ad or it's supposed to be part of the content, whether it comes from off domain or not, it's nice to have some control.
I think that varies person to person. My QWERTY skills have been getting progressively weaker since I've been using Dvorak, to the point that I am considering using QWERTY one day a week or something to make sure I don't lose my qwertability completely.
I agree on Flash. I've long found it worthwhile to control which sites use Flash applets. Web designers shouldn't cry over it. They've never truly been able to count on Flash working universally anyway. Especially now with the rise of mobile browsing.
HTML5 and the improvement of Javascript engines' performance will just make things worse. Currently much of the annoying, processor-sucking crap on the web has one easy-to-block point of entry: the Flash plugin. When it's all done with JS and HTML5 the document will be unified with the ads (as on a newspaper page). There will be heuristic techniques to block annoying ads but it will just become an arms war, and I'm not really interested in participating. We'll essentially be at the mercy of web designers again. Web designers seem to want the web to be an application platform where users have no control over the code that runs on their own computers.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't about some desire to repress sexuality. Yes, porn should be sexual. And most adults are sexual beings -- we have sexual desires, we find each other attractive, we enjoy sex. This is good.
This isn't about the role of submission in porn, exactly -- if you're going to create appealing porn, there's a good chance someone is "taking it". It's quite possible to be dominant sexually while respecting your partner, and tending to his or her needs. Egalitarianism in sex doesn't mean nobody's on top (lots of great positions have someone on top!), or that everyone climaxes at the same time.
This is about the promotion of behavior of men in pornography that ranges from selfish to abusive. It's about labeling female participants "sluts". It's about the women in many films begging for and enjoying selfish and abusive treatment. These things aren't really specific to porn, even, porn is just where they're seen most graphically.
And it's not about what's in any one porn film. I think there's room for just about every kind of portrayal of people generally. But in the overall body of work you hear of the same patterns over and over again. It's the same thing in advertising, on TV, in movies. I think that speaks badly for our society, as it's at least as much a symptom as a cause of our attitudes, probably more. A non-porn example: the Beatles. You might hear one song, say, "Run for Your Life" (on Rubber Soul), and note that it's from the perspective of a downright abusive man. So it is; I guess a band might sing a song about anything. Then listen to some of their other songs and records from around the same time. It starts to get really creepy, far beyond the typical casual misogyny of early rock-and-roll.
That's why we need to acknowledge these sorts of portrayals, and what they say to us and others. Banning porn is almost never the answer (maybe never never?), but understanding its meaning, and trying to improve ourselves and our society is.
You don't have to be an anti-porn crusade to recognize that most porn glorifies the objectification and exploitation of women. Really, I'd go beyond what most call porn and include many mainstream sexualized portrayals of women (especially in advertisements). To be sure, it's both a symptom and a cause of our society's ideas about women (and, thus, about men also) -- it's inevitably tied up in those things.
I'm not really sure what "debate" you're talking about. Should portrayals of naked people be banned on the grounds of obscenity? Hell, no. Should exploitative portrayals of people generally be noted and shamed? Hell, yes, wherever they're seen.
Are iPads tied to mobile data plans like iPhones? If so, there's your answer. Makes it somewhat harder to swap in other SIMs, as hacking a SIM down to a MicroSIM is (for most people) a one-way process, and also surely voids the warranty (it might even be a breech of your cell contract).
Many of those that will suffer pain from this spill haven't gained at all, and cannot be reimbursed for their loss. I'm speaking of non-human inhabitants of the ocean and shore.
Many of the rest that suffer pain from this spill have gained rather little, and will not be reimbursed for their loss. I'm speaking of people in the gulf region that haven't seen proportional benefits from cheap petroleum.
And the rest? Those of us that have seen great economic benefit from cheap petroleum? Our gains are only material, and only temporary.
Despite having rather little interest in this whole thing (I don't subscribe to any online music services) this is what I wondered about. Is this killing off a digital music source for Linux users? It appears so. Sadness.
Twitter isn't Facebook. It's much better.
Or, rather, Twitter is much less bad. Twitter isn't nearly so much of a time-suck. Twitter doesn't have boring profile pages. Twitter doesn't broadcast your relationship and friendship statuses to the whole world. Twitter doesn't have Farmville, Mafia Wars, or other sorts of spammy, scammy bullshit. And, most importantly, Twitter doesn't have Mark Zuckerberg, the biggest scumbag ever to start an Internet company (and that's saying something).
It's all addition by subtraction.
- An ex-Facebook user.
Tax cheats still enjoy the benefits paid for by others' taxes; it's usually impossible to individually benefit by paying more taxes. This should be pretty obvious.
People suck, too. In high school one of my teachers accused me of plagiarism because the writing style was "too mature" for me to have done it.
There were contributing factors. My previous work in the class really wasn't very good, for one. Oh, yeah, and a bunch of kids in her honors section had just been caught cheating. They'd copy-pasted from the web and left in the font changes and blue underlined text. Oops.
I'm pretty sure she docked me a few points even though she couldn't prove anything. But that's impossible for me to prove, since there's a large subjective component to grading papers. At least in CS classes there shouldn't be much subjectivity in grading exams, and it's somewhat harder to cheat on exams.
Some other little town in rural Illinois nearly took down a big statue of Abraham Lincoln (probably in the early 'aughties) because they thought it was a terrorist risk. Fortunately cooler heads prevailed.
... is because of the proxy platform battle. Apple is managing a couple platforms now and doesn't want any of them to depend on Adobe. I'd say that includes the Mac, because so much of the Web needs Flash. If Apple can make the Web less dependent on Flash then it doesn't matter if the Mac version of Flash sucks. The less Apple has to rely on third-party support the better for them, as they have corporate developers and a developer community (including the Open Source community) that can implement standards that are open in practice (Flash is open in theory but Adobe's implementation is the only one that matters).
I'd love to see Flash die on the Web and I think Apple would, too. So our interests are a bit aligned. But I can't say I think this is the right way to go about it.
I think arguments against compatibility layers generally are silly. There's both good and bad software made with compatibility layers; ultimately the responsibility is on developers to make the UI good. Plenty of developers will make really good and useful apps using compatibility layers, and they'll be denied. Meanwhile Apple allows lots of outright crap in their App Store -- as long as it doesn't include things like, oh, political speech. Adobe may have some success striking down the compatibility layer ban -- if there are specific, tangible problems with an app Apple has every reason to keep it out of the store, but there's no reason but spite to ban it on the basis of how it was created.
Yeah, lots of engineers want to make the world a better place in some way.
They are paid by people with money in order to make them more of it. The "bonus" for the workers is that they keep their jobs.
Holy balls, man! The last thing I did was justify abusing someone's rights! Just being clear about the difference between copyright infringement and stealing. You know, like the Supreme Court does. Maybe the average person doesn't, but the average person isn't trying to have a rational discussion about copyright.
And even when you go to the average person, I think there'd be some nuance. I think an average person might consider downloading a movie on P2P something like stealing; even I think it's somewhat analogous (though there are enough differences that I wouldn't use it as the starting point for a policy discussion). But what about, for example, academics quoting Joyce in the grand academic tradition? Or playing a DVD on Linux using Free Software? I'm doing that right now, and I'm sure the right court would consider it copyright infringement. Anyone that would call it stealing is fucked up in the head.
Please stop being obtuse.
Something can be wrong and illegal without it being stealing. Copyright infringement is clearly illegal. I think most typical cases of copyright infringement (i.e. P2P piracy) are morally wrong, though I find nothing wrong with some things that people are sued or threatened for (i.e. quoting Joyce), and I think copyright terms should be short and fixed from date of publication. I don't agree with all Slashdotters on these things and that's why we argue.
I wouldn't, of course, "be OK with" someone distributing GPL-licensed code against the terms of its license, but I also wouldn't call it stealing. It's something different.
If you can't make the distinction between one and the other you can't have a rational discussion of copyright.
I'm pretty sure the only place the changes were committed was Debian patch repos. The whole thing is pretty much Debian-specific.
I think you're trying to make a larger point, so I'll make a larger semi-rebuttal. If projects only gave commit access to people that understood the whole code base they'd never get anything done. Developers with the power to commit, whether to Debian's repository or upstream, should be aware of which code they understand. They should ask questions when they don't understand something, and they shouldn't commit it until they understand the consequences.
I have commit access for Audacity and there are many parts of the program I don't know very well. That's how I operate. Anyone committing changes to OpenSSL ought to at least be as careful as I am with Audacity. I'm sure the actual OpenSSL project is a lot less permissive about giving access to their own repositories, and they probably review changes more closely.
Debian seems to carry a lot of patches against a lot of programs and doesn't seem to ensure the same level of quality. At the same time, Debian has more resources for bug tracking and user reporting than many projects, and maintains security backports for projects that are unwilling. It's a bit of a mixed bag.
I, for one, recognize the utility of Facebook. But I think that it's corrupted by its power. It can literally use any business tactic it wants and people won't leave because their friends are on it. And they've come up with some pretty awful ones. Facebook is run by Mark Zuckerberg, a man with fewer scruples than any tech magnate this side of Gates and Jobs.
The only way to influence this sort of company is by breaking the spell. You may personally benefit from Facebook but you give just as much back to the site as a network effect -- and thus give them the power to bully app developers, to invade users' privacy, to create scummy marketing programs, with no plausible repercussions. Facebook engages in many actions against the taste and interests of most of its users and never suffers for it. It's wrong.
Just quit Facebook. I did. Find out your friends' email addresses, tell them all yours, and quit the site. Send a note to all of them that you're quitting the site for ethical reasons.
Facebook's biggest hook to keep people around is their friends. They can get away with any business practice they want because nobody wants to quit on their friends. But you're not quitting on your friends. There are other ways to stay in touch.
What kind of place do you work where the whole office is supposed to keep kosher? Unless you work for a religious Jewish organization that's kind of insane.
The disclosure laws are there for a reason. If you can't satisfy their requirements in a tweet then you can't advertise pharmaceuticals on Twitter. If you can't satisfy them in a Google ad then you can't advertise pharmaceuticals in a Google ad.
This isn't affecting any one company over another or anything like that. It's just following the laws to their conclusion -- and, really, going right along with their intention. Putting a drug in your body is of much greater consequence than what company you buy your mass-produced junk from, and these laws make sure drug companies can't just do snappy, feel-good 10-second spots with no substance whatsoever like beer companies and cola companies.
A big part of advertising is repeating a brand name over and over. There's an impression made by hearing a brand name in association with positive images or text, even if you aren't very involved with the ad. The disclosure laws try to prevent companies from just spamming you with impressions and making sure there is substantial information right up front. If it's behind a link, as many of these companies propose, that's all lost. The casual eye skips over, gets the positive impression and none of the disclosure.
So... within our current framework if there's no room to disclose right up front there should be no ad at all. Maybe the disclosure laws suck, maybe the fact that drugs are advertised at all sucks... those are separate points. As the law stands now, no Twitter ads for Viagra. Yay!
Whatever the merits of the legal argument, I can only chuckle at what sort of clients this LAW FIRM is trying to attract by suggesting that Montana is likely to secede from the US on a public document on his web site.
With a web app more info is kept on the server, so there are more opportunities for network errors. A desktop mail client works great when the network goes down. It stores the emails you wanted to send and then sends them when the network comes back up. You can still search through whatever data you have on your drive. With webmail the inbox is a different page that requires server interaction to display at all.
Duplicating an error in a web app can be easy if the error took place on the server. If it's a client error you're back to trying to replicate their environment. Recall the recent Microsoft browser order randomization thing -- they wrote some Javascript that ran completely differently on each of the major browsers. That's still very possible.
And you're not even addressing the limitations of the browser in terms of UI. The clash between the page-based model where the URL points to something specific and the new model where lots of state is kept in session variables. The fact that you don't know which keybindings are available and which ones will mess with users' browsing setups. If you're writing something that works well with page-based navigation it doesn't matter, but once you start trying to replace desktop apps you ignore these sorts of issues at your peril.
A couple other people have pointed out niche business uses for the iPad. The general market may not be the /. crowd, but it's not your niche, either.
And if the iPad browser doesn't support your web app just the way you want it you can't install a browser that does. Which kinda sucks. Apple's control over the device, to me, makes it poorly suited to any business use.
As I understand DNS, any site could create a subdomain that resolves to their ad provider. I think the ad provider would have to configure its server correctly to handle that, but it's not hard.
Alternately sites could begin hosting useful content off-domain. That's why ads in Flash and images are effective, because sites do useful things with them. You'd be stuck with IP blocking.
At any rate, to me the issue isn't that I'm seeing some ads. They're basically necessary for the Internet as it is today. The issue is that I have so little control of the code that runs on my computer. Whether it's an ad or it's supposed to be part of the content, whether it comes from off domain or not, it's nice to have some control.
I think that varies person to person. My QWERTY skills have been getting progressively weaker since I've been using Dvorak, to the point that I am considering using QWERTY one day a week or something to make sure I don't lose my qwertability completely.
I agree on Flash. I've long found it worthwhile to control which sites use Flash applets. Web designers shouldn't cry over it. They've never truly been able to count on Flash working universally anyway. Especially now with the rise of mobile browsing.
HTML5 and the improvement of Javascript engines' performance will just make things worse. Currently much of the annoying, processor-sucking crap on the web has one easy-to-block point of entry: the Flash plugin. When it's all done with JS and HTML5 the document will be unified with the ads (as on a newspaper page). There will be heuristic techniques to block annoying ads but it will just become an arms war, and I'm not really interested in participating. We'll essentially be at the mercy of web designers again. Web designers seem to want the web to be an application platform where users have no control over the code that runs on their own computers.
Slashdot rewards some people with the ability to disable ads personally. But ultimately all the cash that comes in is from showing somebody ads.