here's a tip: if you are using AdBlock for Firefox (it's an extension for those of you who aren't privvy), try manually entering http://z1.adserver.com/* as a wildcard entry into its blocking settings.
Having long been a loyal Firefox fan, I thought i'd seen the end of pop-ups after I left IE...that bitch.
Turns out not only have they defeated the pop-up blockers, but they have moved on from even java-based ads to weird ones. Check out the example at www.drudgereport.com (that site is notorious for pop-ups).
It's another one of those cat & mouse games. Once they programmers plug a pop-up hole, the advertisers will work harder (afterall, their wallet depends on it) to develop a new means of displayer their content.
This leads me to one conclusion:
Advertisers will become more selective of where to put their ads. On the one hand, it could be profitable to have your ads everywhere if you appeal to every audience... I think several advertisers realized long ago that placing a penis enlargement ad on the weightlifting section of www.sportsauthority.com or on www.gnc.com would prove more profitable than Hello Kitty ads on Slashdot.
Ad space will not become more valuable if there is an arms race between programmers and advertisers. The great and horrible thing about something like Windows is that it's limited in its possibilities. It is what it is, so advertisers have to work with what they have. If the exploits are all gone, there are even fewer possibilities for advertising. In other words, advertising must be legit: no more registry hacks and spyware.
Given this environment of ad-resistant browsers, there's a huge problem: sites like NYTIMES.COM, Yahoo, etc. that have huge amounts of traffic but few forms of revenue other than ads will have to make a choice: do they stop advertising altogether and abandon that model or do they ask all visiting users to respect their ad policy and disable ad-blocking features. This would be monumental because it would depend on the willingness of the consumer to be advertised to. What I suspect would happen after that is NYTIMES (just an example) would offer premium services that they have not yet developed now (image-laden news feeds to next generation cell phones, perhaps).
Once again, competition does force companies to respect the lowest bidder in a way. If google chose to give its new operating system away in 2006, MS would be forced to think about giving a version of Windows away for free. So if a major news outlet chose to do away with the ad-based model, all others would be forced to follow suit to keep their readership. Pretty amazing. I wonder where it will take us. Your thoughts?
you can't compare browsers to search engines because of one simple fact: MS won the browser war by leveraging MS Windows to bundle IE with it. Historically, using search engines as a portal, or start page, has not proved as successful as Microsoft's technique with IE. Look at it this way: if you want to change browsers from IUE, you need to:
a) hear about the new browser and understand its features (ie: what makes it better and different)
b) find these features compelling enough to go to the web-site (e.g.: getfirefox.com) and download and install the browser
c) hate your current browser enough to learn how to use a new browser and make it your default. at work, i find this especially difficult since you must have administrator privileges to associate HTML files with anything other than IE.
Listen, I agree with you that the competitors should be considerably better than Google for Google users to switch away with it, but I don't think comparing browsers to search engines in this instance makes much sense. Google's partnership with Firefox to have the default start page be a variation of Google.com will only bring in a minute number of users as compared to what Microsoft was capable of by whoring IE out on every single version of Windows. Respek.
the coolest thing about firefox is getting it past your company firewall and system administrator. i wish i could do that with counter-strike...but i would settle for a stripper.
people at work come up behind me and they're like "whoa..are you running microsoft plus? your IE icons look sooOooO cool." that's SO Netscape 4.2, though...come on.
Maybe in pointing out Red Hat's version of Linux, he's implying that this version is most popular and hence, the only other competitor Sun and Microsoft have to worry about.
my theory: Schwartz works for Slashdot and is a genius in creating material on days when Amazon.com failures, apple/IBM partnerships, and Google Groups conspiracies are relatively rare. may the Schwartz be with you!
a coworker of mine estimated what the janitorial staff of the deathstar would have to be to keep the thing up and running. see below:"The presently-available evidence indicates that the diameter of the first Death Star is in the range 160 - 165km, although the purely canonical evidence cannot strictly rule out a smaller figure close to the commonly published 120km value. The diameter of the Death Star II is in the range 800km - 960km."
That gives the first (and much smaller Death Star) a volume of 2.143 million cubic kilometers. Our building might have a total volume of 0.0005 (being generous) of a cubic kilometer. We have a cleaning staff of at least 5 people, and no residential area (which would likely impose a lower demand, since people take care of their own area). So lets say that this gives us a number of 200 required cleaning staff per cubic kilometer of building. This means that the janitorial staff of the death star would have to be close to 450 million janitors to maintain the death star, disregarding the admittedly large volume dedicated to spaces like the central core and giant laser of doom power system.
government agencies in the US will hire criminals to help them 'think like criminals.'
some notable ex-felons: la femme nakita, wolverine, spawn...
this is obviously okay!
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot should just set up an RSS feed from boingboing and rebroadcast it in the Slashdot template.
respek!
here's a tip: if you are using AdBlock for Firefox (it's an extension for those of you who aren't privvy), try manually entering http://z1.adserver.com /* as a wildcard entry into its blocking settings.
respek
Having long been a loyal Firefox fan, I thought i'd seen the end of pop-ups after I left IE...that bitch. Turns out not only have they defeated the pop-up blockers, but they have moved on from even java-based ads to weird ones. Check out the example at www.drudgereport.com (that site is notorious for pop-ups). It's another one of those cat & mouse games. Once they programmers plug a pop-up hole, the advertisers will work harder (afterall, their wallet depends on it) to develop a new means of displayer their content. This leads me to one conclusion: Advertisers will become more selective of where to put their ads. On the one hand, it could be profitable to have your ads everywhere if you appeal to every audience... I think several advertisers realized long ago that placing a penis enlargement ad on the weightlifting section of www.sportsauthority.com or on www.gnc.com would prove more profitable than Hello Kitty ads on Slashdot. Ad space will not become more valuable if there is an arms race between programmers and advertisers. The great and horrible thing about something like Windows is that it's limited in its possibilities. It is what it is, so advertisers have to work with what they have. If the exploits are all gone, there are even fewer possibilities for advertising. In other words, advertising must be legit: no more registry hacks and spyware. Given this environment of ad-resistant browsers, there's a huge problem: sites like NYTIMES.COM, Yahoo, etc. that have huge amounts of traffic but few forms of revenue other than ads will have to make a choice: do they stop advertising altogether and abandon that model or do they ask all visiting users to respect their ad policy and disable ad-blocking features. This would be monumental because it would depend on the willingness of the consumer to be advertised to. What I suspect would happen after that is NYTIMES (just an example) would offer premium services that they have not yet developed now (image-laden news feeds to next generation cell phones, perhaps). Once again, competition does force companies to respect the lowest bidder in a way. If google chose to give its new operating system away in 2006, MS would be forced to think about giving a version of Windows away for free. So if a major news outlet chose to do away with the ad-based model, all others would be forced to follow suit to keep their readership. Pretty amazing. I wonder where it will take us. Your thoughts?
you can't compare browsers to search engines because of one simple fact: MS won the browser war by leveraging MS Windows to bundle IE with it. Historically, using search engines as a portal, or start page, has not proved as successful as Microsoft's technique with IE. Look at it this way: if you want to change browsers from IUE, you need to: a) hear about the new browser and understand its features (ie: what makes it better and different) b) find these features compelling enough to go to the web-site (e.g.: getfirefox.com) and download and install the browser c) hate your current browser enough to learn how to use a new browser and make it your default. at work, i find this especially difficult since you must have administrator privileges to associate HTML files with anything other than IE. Listen, I agree with you that the competitors should be considerably better than Google for Google users to switch away with it, but I don't think comparing browsers to search engines in this instance makes much sense. Google's partnership with Firefox to have the default start page be a variation of Google.com will only bring in a minute number of users as compared to what Microsoft was capable of by whoring IE out on every single version of Windows. Respek.
i ran it and it restarted and said 'operating system not found' [snicker]
lame
the coolest thing about firefox is getting it past your company firewall and system administrator. i wish i could do that with counter-strike...but i would settle for a stripper. people at work come up behind me and they're like "whoa..are you running microsoft plus? your IE icons look sooOooO cool." that's SO Netscape 4.2, though...come on.
my theory: Schwartz works for Slashdot and is a genius in creating material on days when Amazon.com failures, apple/IBM partnerships, and Google Groups conspiracies are relatively rare. may the Schwartz be with you!
respek. http://www.ubersite.com/m/19993/
a coworker of mine estimated what the janitorial staff of the deathstar would have to be to keep the thing up and running. see below: "The presently-available evidence indicates that the diameter of the first Death Star is in the range 160 - 165km, although the purely canonical evidence cannot strictly rule out a smaller figure close to the commonly published 120km value. The diameter of the Death Star II is in the range 800km - 960km." That gives the first (and much smaller Death Star) a volume of 2.143 million cubic kilometers. Our building might have a total volume of 0.0005 (being generous) of a cubic kilometer. We have a cleaning staff of at least 5 people, and no residential area (which would likely impose a lower demand, since people take care of their own area). So lets say that this gives us a number of 200 required cleaning staff per cubic kilometer of building. This means that the janitorial staff of the death star would have to be close to 450 million janitors to maintain the death star, disregarding the admittedly large volume dedicated to spaces like the central core and giant laser of doom power system.
government agencies in the US will hire criminals to help them 'think like criminals.' some notable ex-felons: la femme nakita, wolverine, spawn... this is obviously okay!