Because you can't have advertising without tracking?
Because advertisement even without tracking is psychological warfare on one of your most limited resources: Attention.
We barely notice anymore, the same way that people in Syria go grocery shopping despite a war going on around them - because life has to go on and it becomes normal over time.
When company A makes a product and company B asks for 1,000 of that product, company A goes off and makes 1,000 of the product
Only true in the most simple of circumstances.
Services don't follow that logic, and many companies produce and store. The "product" analogy is not perfect, but the customer as the product and the advertiser as the customer is much, much closer to the truth than the website as product and user as customer.
That's a nice dream and I've pursued it myself for over a decade. However, these days, to give users something like the functionality they've come to expect, you absolutely do need javascript.
Doesn't mean your page should be white without. I agree that is bad design. But "minimum loss of functionalty" for any site more complex and interactive than a blog that's basically "loss of most functionality".
Advertising, be it on television, newspapers, the internet or roadsign billboards, feels like mind rape to me.
It doesn't just feel like it. Advertisement is a bane of our society, and a form of mental abuse. It's basically the same as bullying, just for-profit.
I understand that there's a need to let people know about your product or service - I own a small company, so I'm on that side as well. But I'd much rather have product information than advertisement. Give me a place where people interested in X can learn about X, and people who make X can talk about it. Where "X" can be specific or general - from "computer game" down to "FPS game with cooperative elements".
We have the technology to do that. It could work much like a search engine, or one of the portal sites that went out of fashion when Google took over.
So this is not a solution against ads per se, but at least it will keep advertisers from snooping browsing behavior.
No it won't. The ads served will be served from a small script that collects the stats and sends it to the advertisers anyways. All it would do is make adding ads to your website more troublesome (which is a good thing, but not a solution to the underlying problem).
i love your exaggeration, but am also wondering how a solution could possibly be found.
Not in this culture. We need to get back to a culture where you willingly pay what things are worth. Sadly, as a producer it's hard to get money from people these days because they are so used to everything being "free".
What I'd like to see is a seperation between advertisement and product information. You know, if I make something new, I do have a need to let people know about it. And people want to know about new things.
Can these be brought together with a different model?
I'm sort of playing devil's advocate here because I hate pop-up ads, but you could put up a pretty strong argument that people accessing free (advertising supported) sites with adblock are the parasites.
I would argue they are the victims. Willing victims, mind you. However, economically speaking, they are the product that the producer (the "free" service) sells to its customers (advertisers).
Now if the climate change "conspiracy" isn't a conspiracy, then all your claims about its "true" intentions are available from some public sources. Not conspiracy theorists, but the actual people in charge, just like we have quotes from our former prime minister, for example, about the creation of a new low-income sector.
to try to unravel the issues and see if any solution is possible at all.
Right, because an interview with the wolves on the one hand, and the sheep on the other, is sure to discover some kind of compromise on the topic of what's for dinner.
Advertisers are parasites, and the only reason they will ever give in to anything is if we threaten them with extinction otherwise. AdBlockers and other defenses caused them to cave in a tiny bit and begin talk about "acceptable advertisement". Don't ever get deluded into thinking they'd give even an inch by themselves.
Solution? Yes, shoot them. That's a solution. Everything else is just a delay in their fight to cover every second of your live and every inch of your attention with their shit.
We have real-world "conspiracies", so we know how they work: When interests align, alliances are forged and shit happens. It's not secret because it doesnn't have to be. The raping of the world economy, the financial crisis, the reduction of wages in the western world, the intentional creation of a new lower class of poor people - all of that is out in the open, no conspiracy at all.
This leads to publications that are legal in some parts of the world and not in others:(
Why the:( ?
Drugs are legal in some countries and illegal in others. So is driving on the left side of the road, or carrying a firearm, are calling someone a fucking idiot, or marrying your sister or pretty much everything except a few basics like murder and theft.
This is why in many countries the law says you cannot give up, sell or otherwise lose certain rights. Even if you signed a contract saying you're giving it away, the law trumps the contract and it's still yours, so you can't be pressured into doing it (well you can, but it's meaningless).
Except that they're the ones outspending the evil oil companies propaganda machine.
Every conspiracy theory has to answer these questions:
What is the purpose of the conspiracy?
Who stands to gain from it?
Wouldn't there be a simpler and safer way to reach the same goal?
Every conspiracy I know except secret world governance dies on the 3rd point, because they're basically 300-line scripts to do 1+1 without using the + operator. Or, for those unable to understand metaphors, complicated and risky ways to get lots of money when manipulating the stock market or opening your own bank to essentially print money would be a lot easier, legal and more likely to succeed.
Heck, per the old school definitions, the earth is STILL in an ice age.
Sure, compared to periods in earth history where humans didn't exist.
You probably missed the point where this whole thing is not about the earth, but about us surviving. Earth as a whole will carry on, +1 or +10 degrees. Life will change, mass extinction, nobody cares if homo sapiens is among it this time - except us.
Also, if you are going to ignore the cooling/flattening associated with La Nina, perhaps we should ignore the one single solid burst of global warming in the latter 20th century in association with the 1997-1998
bla bla bla
You are rolling out the standard "look how I can cherry-pick a few data points to show that people who are spending their entire careers doing statistics know nothing about it" strawman.
You will find all of your arguments are addressed in about a hundred reports. You're just dragging the dead horse through the street again and again and again, hoping this time you'll find a fool who buys it.
The arguments against which are that 1. the evidence in support of it is flawed; 2. the scientists who argue for it may have or likely have been influenced by the incentive inherent in their own need to collect a paycheck; 3. That political persons and entities most definitely have been corrupted by said incentives.
There have been several meta-studies on these questions, and they all say that it's total bullshit, just in nicer words and with graphs and statistics. Google is your friend, I'm not doing the legwork for a denialist.
As soon as this name calling "denialist" bullshit started, you signed the check for your own demise.
There's a time for being nice and understanding and there's a time to call the sky blue and the liar a liar.
Unfortunately, most arguments are lost by the reasonable and rational persons, because they say "probably" and "I think" and "the data indicates, that", while the fanatic says "certainly", "I know" and "(whatever) proves". Thus the fanatic sounds more convincing, irrespective of facts.
They seem resistant to finding out if iron fertilization in the oceans could solve it.
That's because you only get to try this (or anything like it) once. And if it doesn't work, and has side-effects you didn't anticipate, you're seriously fucked. We don't get have the technology to do terraforming, our global effects so far have all been unintentional.
I don't think yours or any simple solution will work. The reason is that the markets are largely controlled by people who are interested mostly in exploiting the rules, so they will find ways to do it, because it's a multi-billion dollar industry.
Basically, the casino is being controlled by the cheaters, not the honest gamblers.
Maybe some are, most probably aren't. I have two friends from Russia who didn't speak a word of german when they moved here. One of them has been in Germany for five years now (I've known her for three) and her german is flawless with just a tiny hint of accent when she's agitated, and I'm very proud of her and enjoyed helping her a little early on when she occasionally didn't know a word or mixed up some of the more uncommon grammar rules. The other has been here for half a year, and I'm currently helping her in learning german (and getting a few free russian lessons in return).
Most germans speak at least some english, though. And if you speak english well and I speak english well, it's much easier and less awkward to speak good english than bad german.
No, but if you complain about not being able to understand german, that's something that can be changed, you know? Maybe too late for this argument, but then you can do it next time.
Slashdot Mirror
Because you can't have advertising without tracking?
Because advertisement even without tracking is psychological warfare on one of your most limited resources: Attention.
We barely notice anymore, the same way that people in Syria go grocery shopping despite a war going on around them - because life has to go on and it becomes normal over time.
When company A makes a product and company B asks for 1,000 of that product, company A goes off and makes 1,000 of the product
Only true in the most simple of circumstances.
Services don't follow that logic, and many companies produce and store. The "product" analogy is not perfect, but the customer as the product and the advertiser as the customer is much, much closer to the truth than the website as product and user as customer.
That's a nice dream and I've pursued it myself for over a decade. However, these days, to give users something like the functionality they've come to expect, you absolutely do need javascript.
Doesn't mean your page should be white without. I agree that is bad design. But "minimum loss of functionalty" for any site more complex and interactive than a blog that's basically "loss of most functionality".
Advertising, be it on television, newspapers, the internet or roadsign billboards, feels like mind rape to me.
It doesn't just feel like it. Advertisement is a bane of our society, and a form of mental abuse. It's basically the same as bullying, just for-profit.
I understand that there's a need to let people know about your product or service - I own a small company, so I'm on that side as well. But I'd much rather have product information than advertisement. Give me a place where people interested in X can learn about X, and people who make X can talk about it. Where "X" can be specific or general - from "computer game" down to "FPS game with cooperative elements".
We have the technology to do that. It could work much like a search engine, or one of the portal sites that went out of fashion when Google took over.
This is a fantastic plugin, but it needs subscribable lists like AdBlock Edge has.
So this is not a solution against ads per se, but at least it will keep advertisers from snooping browsing behavior.
No it won't. The ads served will be served from a small script that collects the stats and sends it to the advertisers anyways. All it would do is make adding ads to your website more troublesome (which is a good thing, but not a solution to the underlying problem).
i love your exaggeration, but am also wondering how a solution could possibly be found.
Not in this culture. We need to get back to a culture where you willingly pay what things are worth. Sadly, as a producer it's hard to get money from people these days because they are so used to everything being "free".
What I'd like to see is a seperation between advertisement and product information. You know, if I make something new, I do have a need to let people know about it. And people want to know about new things.
Can these be brought together with a different model?
I'm sort of playing devil's advocate here because I hate pop-up ads, but you could put up a pretty strong argument that people accessing free (advertising supported) sites with adblock are the parasites.
I would argue they are the victims. Willing victims, mind you. However, economically speaking, they are the product that the producer (the "free" service) sells to its customers (advertisers).
By definition, conspiracy includes secrecy:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Now if the climate change "conspiracy" isn't a conspiracy, then all your claims about its "true" intentions are available from some public sources. Not conspiracy theorists, but the actual people in charge, just like we have quotes from our former prime minister, for example, about the creation of a new low-income sector.
So post those sources, then.
to try to unravel the issues and see if any solution is possible at all.
Right, because an interview with the wolves on the one hand, and the sheep on the other, is sure to discover some kind of compromise on the topic of what's for dinner.
Advertisers are parasites, and the only reason they will ever give in to anything is if we threaten them with extinction otherwise. AdBlockers and other defenses caused them to cave in a tiny bit and begin talk about "acceptable advertisement". Don't ever get deluded into thinking they'd give even an inch by themselves.
Solution? Yes, shoot them. That's a solution. Everything else is just a delay in their fight to cover every second of your live and every inch of your attention with their shit.
Conspiracies of this size are unlikely to work.
We have real-world "conspiracies", so we know how they work: When interests align, alliances are forged and shit happens. It's not secret because it doesnn't have to be. The raping of the world economy, the financial crisis, the reduction of wages in the western world, the intentional creation of a new lower class of poor people - all of that is out in the open, no conspiracy at all.
This leads to publications that are legal in some parts of the world and not in others :(
Why the :( ?
Drugs are legal in some countries and illegal in others. So is driving on the left side of the road, or carrying a firearm, are calling someone a fucking idiot, or marrying your sister or pretty much everything except a few basics like murder and theft.
Variety is good.
So you are assuming multiple conspiracies that align by coincidence? That's even more unlikely.
This is why in many countries the law says you cannot give up, sell or otherwise lose certain rights. Even if you signed a contract saying you're giving it away, the law trumps the contract and it's still yours, so you can't be pressured into doing it (well you can, but it's meaningless).
Since you are assuming a global conspiracy, you think every government in the world attempts to scare its people in the same way at the same time.
Sorry, doesn't pass the giggle test.
Except that they're the ones outspending the evil oil companies propaganda machine.
Every conspiracy theory has to answer these questions:
Every conspiracy I know except secret world governance dies on the 3rd point, because they're basically 300-line scripts to do 1+1 without using the + operator. Or, for those unable to understand metaphors, complicated and risky ways to get lots of money when manipulating the stock market or opening your own bank to essentially print money would be a lot easier, legal and more likely to succeed.
Heck, per the old school definitions, the earth is STILL in an ice age.
Sure, compared to periods in earth history where humans didn't exist.
You probably missed the point where this whole thing is not about the earth, but about us surviving. Earth as a whole will carry on, +1 or +10 degrees. Life will change, mass extinction, nobody cares if homo sapiens is among it this time - except us.
Also, if you are going to ignore the cooling/flattening associated with La Nina, perhaps we should ignore the one single solid burst of global warming in the latter 20th century in association with the 1997-1998
bla bla bla
You are rolling out the standard "look how I can cherry-pick a few data points to show that people who are spending their entire careers doing statistics know nothing about it" strawman.
You will find all of your arguments are addressed in about a hundred reports. You're just dragging the dead horse through the street again and again and again, hoping this time you'll find a fool who buys it.
The arguments against which are that 1. the evidence in support of it is flawed; 2. the scientists who argue for it may have or likely have been influenced by the incentive inherent in their own need to collect a paycheck; 3. That political persons and entities most definitely have been corrupted by said incentives.
There have been several meta-studies on these questions, and they all say that it's total bullshit, just in nicer words and with graphs and statistics. Google is your friend, I'm not doing the legwork for a denialist.
As soon as this name calling "denialist" bullshit started, you signed the check for your own demise.
There's a time for being nice and understanding and there's a time to call the sky blue and the liar a liar.
Unfortunately, most arguments are lost by the reasonable and rational persons, because they say "probably" and "I think" and "the data indicates, that", while the fanatic says "certainly", "I know" and "(whatever) proves". Thus the fanatic sounds more convincing, irrespective of facts.
They seem resistant to finding out if iron fertilization in the oceans could solve it.
That's because you only get to try this (or anything like it) once. And if it doesn't work, and has side-effects you didn't anticipate, you're seriously fucked. We don't get have the technology to do terraforming, our global effects so far have all been unintentional.
I'm with you on the basic principle.
I don't think yours or any simple solution will work. The reason is that the markets are largely controlled by people who are interested mostly in exploiting the rules, so they will find ways to do it, because it's a multi-billion dollar industry.
Basically, the casino is being controlled by the cheaters, not the honest gamblers.
Maybe some are, most probably aren't. I have two friends from Russia who didn't speak a word of german when they moved here. One of them has been in Germany for five years now (I've known her for three) and her german is flawless with just a tiny hint of accent when she's agitated, and I'm very proud of her and enjoyed helping her a little early on when she occasionally didn't know a word or mixed up some of the more uncommon grammar rules. The other has been here for half a year, and I'm currently helping her in learning german (and getting a few free russian lessons in return).
Most germans speak at least some english, though. And if you speak english well and I speak english well, it's much easier and less awkward to speak good english than bad german.
No, but if you complain about not being able to understand german, that's something that can be changed, you know? Maybe too late for this argument, but then you can do it next time.
https://ankiweb.net/shared/dec...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
There's a lot more from him on YouTube. This here summons up some of it, including the copyright situation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...