The site is still here because others are viewing the ads so they are still making enough revenue to keep the site running.
This site is still here even though I HAVE ADBLOCK TURNED ON, as do I imagine a bunch of other people. In fact, I have the little box in the corner that says "turn off ads" available to me. I haven't clicked it, but I could. So, specifically for Slashdot, it doesn't matter whether it have Adblock or not, my experience it the same. And so is Slashdot's. They aren't getting any money from me. They never have. And yet, they still manage to hang around giving me free crap. Imagine that!
If they asked me to pay, I'll consider the request, and maybe will or maybe just go away.
They did ask you, that's why they keep reminding you about the Subscriber benefits. You just choose to ignore their requests because they aren't demanding it.
So the fuck what? They asked me to donate my firstborn for their blood sacrifices as well, and I turned that down too. "But, you're depriving them of a blood sacrifice, how can you do that?" Sheesh.
So why are you here if you're not getting anything in return? You've made over 100 comments, so surely you're getting some benefit from the site? Just because you're not getting a tangible reward (like a wallpaper? That's worth paying for!?) doesn't mean that the site doesn't offer any benefit.
I bet you are just wracked with guilt when you take a free sample of a cookie at the mall and don't run and go buy a cookie, plus a soda. So I get a benefit, so what? If they said, Pay up, or we can't let you read/contribute/mouth off any more, at that point, I'll decide whether it's worth it. Until that day, I'm eating the free cookies.
You have a skewed way of thinking. You actually value the advertisers more than the websites you're visiting. That's just weird.
You have it backwards - I tolerate the ads so I can support the website. I don't visit the website to view the ads, if that's what I wanted I'd just to to the advertiser's site directly.
And I don't tolerate the ads at all. Not one fucking little bit. If the sites can't figure some way to make money and thus fails, fine by me. I'm not insisting they have a paywall or not. I'm not insisting they let me have stuff for free or force me to pay. THEY ARE THE ONES GIVING AWAY FREE SHIT. I did not demand it. But I'll take advantage of it, until such time as I can't anymore. Do you think they are crying in their beer about it? If they were, they WOULDN'T BE GIVING IT AWAY.
There was a site a while back that detected if you had ad blocking software and didn't let you go any further if you did. Fine. I never visited the site. Didn't help him, and didn't hurt me. Don't know if the guy is still around or not. Don't care. If he is, fine, he figured out how to make it work, good on him. If not, well, probably shouldn't have tried to force ads on people. Funny how that just worked out that way.
What kind of crack are you smoking? I've never seen an add on Slashdot, and it's still here. So boo hoo, tomorrow they close up because they can't figure out how to make money other than shoving ads in my face? If they asked me to pay, I'll consider the request, and maybe will or maybe just go away. I actually do support other sites, usually getting something in return, like a book or a wallpaper. So, yeah, I'll pay money. But I rarely ever see ads. None of the sites I've ever been to that have closed down have complained that "ad money was down" so sorry, goodbye.
You have a skewed way of thinking. You actually value the advertisers more than the websites you're visiting. That's just weird.
I should have thought about my response more because, yes, absolutely, these two points are the point. It's like people here think advertising on the internet is magical or something. It's crap here, just as much as it's crap "IRL".
Either way you are talking about someone's business model. A model I don't have to support. They HOPE I'll view the ad, they HOPE I'll click on it, or just glance at it or whatever. So what? I control what my browser displays. I control what gets downloaded to my computer. I control the size of the font, whether pictures are displayed, what color everything is in. I control all of it. And their BUSINESS MODEL is that they HOPE I'll see their shit. That is a piece of shit BUSINESS MODEL that I DON"T HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN. AT ALL. EVER. They don't like it, they are free to try something else to get my attention, or try someone else, or ban me from their website, or whatever they might think of to make money. But they can't force me to download their shit if I don't want to.
Why the fuck do you care about someone else's business model? Isn't this Slashdot? Screw the buggy whip manufacturers, and the RIAA middle men and all that? I do not give a shit about advertisers. If they can't survive, and the website closes down, I AM FINE WITH THAT. I am stealing nothing. Fuck them if they can't take it.
What a bunch of fucking pussies. I don't have to look at the goddamn ads. At all.
Let's reiterate. I DON"T HAVE TO LOOK AT THE GODDAMN ADS.
Newspaper comes, I throw the ads away without reading them. Website comes up, I block the ads. They don't want me there, they can block me. They don't have to give me their content. If they are just going to hope beyond hope that maybe I'll click an ad, well too bad. If I want the content, and the only way to get it is to pay, I want it bad enough I pay. Otherwise, I go elsewhere or just forget it.
So who am I hurting by doing this? People who's business model is to HOPE I click on a particular area of the web page. And that's a good business model?
I was going to say I shouldn't have to point out how stupid your argument is, but considering how stupid it is I guess I must. Point it out. The stupidity, that is. What you suggest is stealing. What I am doing is merely averting my eyes. I don't have to look at the goddamn ads. Fuck 'em if they can't come up with some other way to make money. To belabor the point, what am I stealing by not looking at ads? Should the police come to my house and arrest me if I throw the ads from the newspaper away without reading them all first? Fuck that.
Yeah, I was going to say something similar, but also, don't even worry about it. The question is dumb. If I can block the ads, then there is no moral problem with it. If a site wants to figure out a way to force them on me I'll either accept it or move on. It's evolution in action. Sites with less obtrusive or blatant ads will be more likely to get my business. If sites don't want me to visit with Adblock turned on, I won't visit. They either figure some other way to make money off me or they die.
People seem to think ads are some official or holy thing. It's just another useless business model that will eventually have to figure out another way to work. If the internet can't work without ads, the screw it, it can't work.
You should never talk to the police, for any reason, other than to identify yourself. If something happens and you are a witness, or worse, involved in a crime, wait for the trial. Never tell the police anything. It NEVER benefits you.
This does NOT stop people from beating you with a rubber hose. Instead of "Give me your password!" it would be "Play this game til you get it right!" So what? Face it, there is no good way to have a perfect system that only you can get into when you want but no one else can. If you can get in, then someone else can force you to open it, regardless of how. This has the advantage of making it harder for even you to do it if you don't keep up practicing. Sounds like a silly solution to me.
So imagine the exact same art project, only someone at Apple had come up with it and decided to do it. The only difference would be that instead of some random artist installing software on computers in the store (the only part of this that might conceivably be a slight bit hinky), Apple employees install the same software. They don't have to change anything in their stores, or ask permission (there are already security cameras in the store). They have an artist go through and make a show in the same manner this fellow did. What then? Is it "Cool idea, Apple" or "Ah, ah! Privacy violation! Just because I'm in your store!"
Alternately, the guy could have gone through a bit more effort and used a telephoto lens to get essentially the same photos through the window, or even wandered around inside the store with a camera; we already know that that's legal.
So is the only thing that's wrong is that he used the computer's camera's? Didn't warn people? Is Apple out any money due to this? If they'd contacted the guy and said "Cool, but ask us next time", we wouldn't even be reading about this. What if it had happened in a Best Buy instead - better or worse than this?
Interestingly enough, this (wiping the drives) happened automatically every night. Apparently they do this and start fresh with a new install every day. So, yeah, no (extra) costs to Apple.
It's apparent that you cant when you cant, so I can't think of a good reason to use apostrophes. I mean, what is apostrophe's use anyway? It's its main weakness.
I second most of your choices here. At that age and a bit older I'd read Asimov, Clarke, Bradbury, Heinlein. Wrinkle in Time is good. But that has been 40 years or more since I read it (and 50 since it was published), and I'm sure there have been other books written since. Asimov had a series originally written as Paul French for "teens". I read a bit more fantasy then than I do now. I also read Van Vogt, but I'm not sure that, or say, P K Dick would be easy for an 8 year old. I'd say pick out short story collections for ease of reading. Bradbury's Martian Chronicles come to mind in that regard. Niven would be okay, but the older he got the more sex he put in, so in general his earlier stuff might be more appropriate. I read 2001 before the movie came out, and I was 10 or 11 when that happened.
You could also take him to the library and let him pick out his own books. I rode my bike to the library probably every other day or so when I was a kid, and soon found the books in the "normal" section were more interesting than those in the kids section.
Wish I had mod points, you'd get them (well one at least). I read the whole article and Lowery makes almost 100% sense. People that think "teh internets, they can do it so it's okay" just don't get that they are actively killing the very thing they like. And as he points out, it doesn't really cost that much to actually BUY the friggin' music. Other than free samples or loss-leaders, I've bought every song I have, some a couple times (in LP form and then again in CD or download). There were a few times that I was tempted to illegally download something because I couldn't otherwise even find it for sale, but I resisted and either did without, or got it when it did eventually come out legally. None of this has hurt me at all, financially or otherwise. I've got over 60+ gigs of music, more than I can listen to in any reasonable amount of time. I keep buying music, too. It's not that fucking hard, and it always (barring artists that made bad deals, but that's on them not me) sends some money back to the artist. If I can, I buy it directly from the artists website. Again, not that hard.
I agree with you and like your comments, but people are missing an important event that explains why we have so many "reality" TV shows, and that is the 2007-2008 writer's strike. With no new scripts for their TV shows for 14 weeks, TV execs needed to replace the shows with something. It turned out that pointing a camera at a bunch of jerks and then slapping a title on it was cheap, easy, and didn't require an expensive writer. Just people that in many cases were happy to be stupid on TV for free if they got their "15 minutes of fame". That's why we have "Dancing with the Czars" and crap like that, just need a camera man, man.
About goddamn time we get a voice of reason and someone "higher up" on our side. Not that it'll make a damn bit of difference. "Protect and Serve" is a joke. Cops don't care and won't care. I imagine the mantra from cops now will be "What photos? I never saw any."
Their chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Their two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Their *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Their *four*...no... *Amongst* their weapons.... Amongst their weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.
"Take the next exit, please, car."
"I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave."
"Why not?"
"We both know that you only want to stop to get a cheeseburger, and your home health system tells me your cholesterol is too high."
It was for a few short stories on Kindle. They cost me $1.07, instead of the $0.99 that was listed. I just assumed they were already charging tax. I haven't gotten charged tax on physical items yet, though.
The folks (I was going to say idiots, but perhaps they just don't understand science) commenting a few levels up and down around here that worry about safety need to read about this - LFTR reactors. From Wikipedia and memory, they can be made inherently safe. That is, they can't melt down. No China syndrome. It's not that they have absolutely no safety measures, it's that you need fewer of them, and don't have to worry about the reactor like those in Fukushima. If something happens to the cooling, the reactor automatically shuts down. Not "the sensors pick up a rise in temperature so the blast doors start to automatically close" kind of shut down, but "the thing doesn't work if the cooling isn't in place, so no reaction".
Anyway, yeah, I'm just a shill for the nuclear industry. Caught me. Dang.
Slashdot Mirror
The site is still here because others are viewing the ads so they are still making enough revenue to keep the site running.
This site is still here even though I HAVE ADBLOCK TURNED ON, as do I imagine a bunch of other people. In fact, I have the little box in the corner that says "turn off ads" available to me. I haven't clicked it, but I could. So, specifically for Slashdot, it doesn't matter whether it have Adblock or not, my experience it the same. And so is Slashdot's. They aren't getting any money from me. They never have. And yet, they still manage to hang around giving me free crap. Imagine that!
If they asked me to pay, I'll consider the request, and maybe will or maybe just go away.
They did ask you, that's why they keep reminding you about the Subscriber benefits. You just choose to ignore their requests because they aren't demanding it.
So the fuck what? They asked me to donate my firstborn for their blood sacrifices as well, and I turned that down too. "But, you're depriving them of a blood sacrifice, how can you do that?" Sheesh.
So why are you here if you're not getting anything in return? You've made over 100 comments, so surely you're getting some benefit from the site? Just because you're not getting a tangible reward (like a wallpaper? That's worth paying for!?) doesn't mean that the site doesn't offer any benefit.
I bet you are just wracked with guilt when you take a free sample of a cookie at the mall and don't run and go buy a cookie, plus a soda. So I get a benefit, so what? If they said, Pay up, or we can't let you read/contribute/mouth off any more, at that point, I'll decide whether it's worth it. Until that day, I'm eating the free cookies.
You have a skewed way of thinking. You actually value the advertisers more than the websites you're visiting. That's just weird.
You have it backwards - I tolerate the ads so I can support the website. I don't visit the website to view the ads, if that's what I wanted I'd just to to the advertiser's site directly.
And I don't tolerate the ads at all. Not one fucking little bit. If the sites can't figure some way to make money and thus fails, fine by me. I'm not insisting they have a paywall or not. I'm not insisting they let me have stuff for free or force me to pay. THEY ARE THE ONES GIVING AWAY FREE SHIT. I did not demand it. But I'll take advantage of it, until such time as I can't anymore. Do you think they are crying in their beer about it? If they were, they WOULDN'T BE GIVING IT AWAY.
There was a site a while back that detected if you had ad blocking software and didn't let you go any further if you did. Fine. I never visited the site. Didn't help him, and didn't hurt me. Don't know if the guy is still around or not. Don't care. If he is, fine, he figured out how to make it work, good on him. If not, well, probably shouldn't have tried to force ads on people. Funny how that just worked out that way.
What kind of crack are you smoking? I've never seen an add on Slashdot, and it's still here. So boo hoo, tomorrow they close up because they can't figure out how to make money other than shoving ads in my face? If they asked me to pay, I'll consider the request, and maybe will or maybe just go away. I actually do support other sites, usually getting something in return, like a book or a wallpaper. So, yeah, I'll pay money. But I rarely ever see ads. None of the sites I've ever been to that have closed down have complained that "ad money was down" so sorry, goodbye.
You have a skewed way of thinking. You actually value the advertisers more than the websites you're visiting. That's just weird.
I should have thought about my response more because, yes, absolutely, these two points are the point. It's like people here think advertising on the internet is magical or something. It's crap here, just as much as it's crap "IRL".
Either way you are talking about someone's business model. A model I don't have to support. They HOPE I'll view the ad, they HOPE I'll click on it, or just glance at it or whatever. So what? I control what my browser displays. I control what gets downloaded to my computer. I control the size of the font, whether pictures are displayed, what color everything is in. I control all of it. And their BUSINESS MODEL is that they HOPE I'll see their shit. That is a piece of shit BUSINESS MODEL that I DON"T HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN. AT ALL. EVER. They don't like it, they are free to try something else to get my attention, or try someone else, or ban me from their website, or whatever they might think of to make money. But they can't force me to download their shit if I don't want to.
Why the fuck do you care about someone else's business model? Isn't this Slashdot? Screw the buggy whip manufacturers, and the RIAA middle men and all that? I do not give a shit about advertisers. If they can't survive, and the website closes down, I AM FINE WITH THAT. I am stealing nothing. Fuck them if they can't take it.
What a bunch of fucking pussies. I don't have to look at the goddamn ads. At all.
Let's reiterate. I DON"T HAVE TO LOOK AT THE GODDAMN ADS.
Newspaper comes, I throw the ads away without reading them. Website comes up, I block the ads. They don't want me there, they can block me. They don't have to give me their content. If they are just going to hope beyond hope that maybe I'll click an ad, well too bad. If I want the content, and the only way to get it is to pay, I want it bad enough I pay. Otherwise, I go elsewhere or just forget it.
So who am I hurting by doing this? People who's business model is to HOPE I click on a particular area of the web page. And that's a good business model?
I was going to say I shouldn't have to point out how stupid your argument is, but considering how stupid it is I guess I must. Point it out. The stupidity, that is. What you suggest is stealing. What I am doing is merely averting my eyes. I don't have to look at the goddamn ads. Fuck 'em if they can't come up with some other way to make money. To belabor the point, what am I stealing by not looking at ads? Should the police come to my house and arrest me if I throw the ads from the newspaper away without reading them all first? Fuck that.
Yeah, I was going to say something similar, but also, don't even worry about it. The question is dumb. If I can block the ads, then there is no moral problem with it. If a site wants to figure out a way to force them on me I'll either accept it or move on. It's evolution in action. Sites with less obtrusive or blatant ads will be more likely to get my business. If sites don't want me to visit with Adblock turned on, I won't visit. They either figure some other way to make money off me or they die.
People seem to think ads are some official or holy thing. It's just another useless business model that will eventually have to figure out another way to work. If the internet can't work without ads, the screw it, it can't work.
But, I do think profanity is o----(*#^%%)(&^ no carrier
Don't know if you noticed this:
We kept our system flags in an area of very low memory reserved for the system globals, starting at address 256 ($100 in hexadecimal)
100 bucks for an address?
Cool story, though.
I believe that this is what the person above was referring to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
You should never talk to the police, for any reason, other than to identify yourself. If something happens and you are a witness, or worse, involved in a crime, wait for the trial. Never tell the police anything. It NEVER benefits you.
This does NOT stop people from beating you with a rubber hose. Instead of "Give me your password!" it would be "Play this game til you get it right!" So what? Face it, there is no good way to have a perfect system that only you can get into when you want but no one else can. If you can get in, then someone else can force you to open it, regardless of how. This has the advantage of making it harder for even you to do it if you don't keep up practicing. Sounds like a silly solution to me.
So imagine the exact same art project, only someone at Apple had come up with it and decided to do it. The only difference would be that instead of some random artist installing software on computers in the store (the only part of this that might conceivably be a slight bit hinky), Apple employees install the same software. They don't have to change anything in their stores, or ask permission (there are already security cameras in the store). They have an artist go through and make a show in the same manner this fellow did. What then? Is it "Cool idea, Apple" or "Ah, ah! Privacy violation! Just because I'm in your store!"
Alternately, the guy could have gone through a bit more effort and used a telephoto lens to get essentially the same photos through the window, or even wandered around inside the store with a camera; we already know that that's legal.
So is the only thing that's wrong is that he used the computer's camera's? Didn't warn people? Is Apple out any money due to this? If they'd contacted the guy and said "Cool, but ask us next time", we wouldn't even be reading about this. What if it had happened in a Best Buy instead - better or worse than this?
Interestingly enough, this (wiping the drives) happened automatically every night. Apparently they do this and start fresh with a new install every day. So, yeah, no (extra) costs to Apple.
It's apparent that you cant when you cant, so I can't think of a good reason to use apostrophes. I mean, what is apostrophe's use anyway? It's its main weakness.
http://chainsawsuit.com/2012/07/04/a-matter-of-grave-con-cern/
I second most of your choices here. At that age and a bit older I'd read Asimov, Clarke, Bradbury, Heinlein. Wrinkle in Time is good. But that has been 40 years or more since I read it (and 50 since it was published), and I'm sure there have been other books written since. Asimov had a series originally written as Paul French for "teens". I read a bit more fantasy then than I do now. I also read Van Vogt, but I'm not sure that, or say, P K Dick would be easy for an 8 year old. I'd say pick out short story collections for ease of reading. Bradbury's Martian Chronicles come to mind in that regard. Niven would be okay, but the older he got the more sex he put in, so in general his earlier stuff might be more appropriate. I read 2001 before the movie came out, and I was 10 or 11 when that happened.
You could also take him to the library and let him pick out his own books. I rode my bike to the library probably every other day or so when I was a kid, and soon found the books in the "normal" section were more interesting than those in the kids section.
Wish I had mod points, you'd get them (well one at least). I read the whole article and Lowery makes almost 100% sense. People that think "teh internets, they can do it so it's okay" just don't get that they are actively killing the very thing they like. And as he points out, it doesn't really cost that much to actually BUY the friggin' music. Other than free samples or loss-leaders, I've bought every song I have, some a couple times (in LP form and then again in CD or download). There were a few times that I was tempted to illegally download something because I couldn't otherwise even find it for sale, but I resisted and either did without, or got it when it did eventually come out legally. None of this has hurt me at all, financially or otherwise. I've got over 60+ gigs of music, more than I can listen to in any reasonable amount of time. I keep buying music, too. It's not that fucking hard, and it always (barring artists that made bad deals, but that's on them not me) sends some money back to the artist. If I can, I buy it directly from the artists website. Again, not that hard.
I agree with you and like your comments, but people are missing an important event that explains why we have so many "reality" TV shows, and that is the 2007-2008 writer's strike. With no new scripts for their TV shows for 14 weeks, TV execs needed to replace the shows with something. It turned out that pointing a camera at a bunch of jerks and then slapping a title on it was cheap, easy, and didn't require an expensive writer. Just people that in many cases were happy to be stupid on TV for free if they got their "15 minutes of fame". That's why we have "Dancing with the Czars" and crap like that, just need a camera man, man.
About goddamn time we get a voice of reason and someone "higher up" on our side. Not that it'll make a damn bit of difference. "Protect and Serve" is a joke. Cops don't care and won't care. I imagine the mantra from cops now will be "What photos? I never saw any."
Their chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Their two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Their *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Their *four*...no... *Amongst* their weapons.... Amongst their weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.
"Take the next exit, please, car."
"I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave."
"Why not?"
"We both know that you only want to stop to get a cheeseburger, and your home health system tells me your cholesterol is too high."
I was going to suggest this one as well. Great book.
Online, you can show him "Zip and Lil' Bit" (zipandbit.com), among others.
It was for a few short stories on Kindle. They cost me $1.07, instead of the $0.99 that was listed. I just assumed they were already charging tax. I haven't gotten charged tax on physical items yet, though.
"Fouled" is the PG version.
The folks (I was going to say idiots, but perhaps they just don't understand science) commenting a few levels up and down around here that worry about safety need to read about this - LFTR reactors. From Wikipedia and memory, they can be made inherently safe. That is, they can't melt down. No China syndrome. It's not that they have absolutely no safety measures, it's that you need fewer of them, and don't have to worry about the reactor like those in Fukushima. If something happens to the cooling, the reactor automatically shuts down. Not "the sensors pick up a rise in temperature so the blast doors start to automatically close" kind of shut down, but "the thing doesn't work if the cooling isn't in place, so no reaction".
Anyway, yeah, I'm just a shill for the nuclear industry. Caught me. Dang.