This also completely misses the point that at least in theory each U.S. state is an independently sovereign entity in control of its own territory and subject to independent bodies of law.
Sorry, can I just check you think the idea of having an elected President of the United States is a good idea? Because I would of thought that either having a President misses the point or it doesn't regardless of how they are elected.
A state choosing to give its votes for President to the most popular candidate across the nation does not directly effect state independence. Texas could vote 100% Republican and the US could still end up with a Democratic president, NY could vote 100% Democrat and still get a Republican president.
Personally I think the idea that some votes are less equal than others is completely incompatible with the concept of a democratic republic, but this could be fixed without going with a national popular vote system.
I'm not a big TV viewer, and the majority of what I do watch is actually TV series bought on DVD as I don't have a license (required in UK to legally watch broadcast TV) but then I am not as bothered about the cause of media 'freedom' as the poster I was responding to.
I have watched some decent Video content that is distributed using YouTube, but I tend to find it at random. Rhett and Link is an example that comes to mind. I also have paid membership to a couple of podCasts that distribute for free with the option of joining, and they produce video content from time to time (podHammer and 40K radio).
Finally, being in the UK I also watch some BBC content over iPlayer which strangely is legal without a TV license. But I haven't done this in weeks.
I'm not well informed enough regarding alternative video media to offer any real advice on best sources (if any), but I have my doubts that much exists. The majority of the market that is tech-savvy enough is simply using torrents to download the same big studio content without having to pay, which means any small studio is basically competing against 'free' big studio content.
It isn't something the child has to do.
It is something the owner of her system, the head of her household, the principal of her school needs to do.
Which applies to GPL'd software as well.
Unless the FOSS developer is prepared to allow a minor - of any age - to drive a train through the licenses that protect his own work.
All good points, but they only flip the original premise around. Surely then it is irresponsible to show a child using any software under license without the person legally responsible being present to ensure they follow the terms?
The madmen would rather sit at home in comfort with their HDTV's and get a better quality image close up! What are they thinking?!
Although HDTV is still a niche market at the moment, I am sure the fact people have better home entertainment systems is making it less attractive for many people to go to the Cinema.
I think there is still a sizable market for Cinemas, but they need to start evaluating what the market wants rather than continuing blindly on their current path. I would like to see Cinemas trying out the following business plan:
1/ Include some smaller screens, perhaps as little as 15' in smaller rooms.
2/ Provide a broader range of content. Things like showing certain TV shows (24 / BSG / Lost), older films.
3/ Allow people to hire the smaller screens, perhaps working with distributors to license shows they wish to watch. These screens could also be used by gaming tournaments etc.
Currently cinemas only pander to the blockbuster market, but this ignores a lot of potential.
Why can't you see that when you purchase one of these boxes, you're fighting for freedom? If you buy a cable box, you're voluntarily submitting yourself to oppression. It is really that simple.
Get a sense of perspective. Someone choosing to pay a monthly subscription for television is so completely different from just about anything that could legitimately be called oppression that it makes the whole notion laughable.
There are no 'enormous' implications in buying a set top box, there are a few ones that might constitute definition as minor. If you're really out to support media 'freedom' then stop watching the fucking TV, watching TV content on official portals and/or using Bittorrent to download TV content, then go support material produced and distributed in another way.
Give up, because you're too stupid to use a computer.
If only you would apply an alternative branch of this advice to your attempts at online communication. Congratulations you managed to flame someone. For the record, you could of gotten the same satisfaction thinking the thought and then you wouldn't have announce that you're a social pariah.
I'm normally the one complaining about the manic MS bashing on/. but I think the summary makes an important point. Even MS advertising completely gloss over the need for users to agree to a set of extensive contracts to use the system, something that a small child certainly isn't able to do.
It seems somehow wrong to me that it is just accepted that people ignore online contracts, and yet the consequences of breaking those can be severe like with Lori Drew. Although different, it is not altogether unlike using a child in an advert for loans secured on your property "look how easy it is to get that new car, even a kid can manage it".
Microsoft will be out of the software business, and into the investments business, according to those people.
They may be right, but I don't think it's the only possible outcome. There is currently a market for companies to be profitable making Operating Systems and Productivity Software and unless this market goes Microsoft is the best placed company to control a Lion's share.
Microsoft does need to improve, for too long it has relied on its dominant position to bring success, and now it has real competition from a broader range of companies. What's more the tactic of the past, bundling, is something it must be cautious of using because of the limitations placed on it due to market share. I would expect Microsoft to see real trouble around 2015 unless it can transform a couple of its core products back into the most competitive offerings before then.
Don't even bother talking about Windows and Windows software security. If your customers are caught by some FUD being spread trying to sell them a product and you start flinging mud against Windows you are pitting yourself against MS, which might be ok for a knowledgeable audience, but a lot of people will think MS is a good software provider because of its size.
I'd try and keep your case very simple.
Various government agencies use Linux, including Intelligence.
Open Source means that people who follow the law can see how something works under the hood, allowing more people to work to protect it. If someone is attempting to attack a program they could decompile it anyway so closed source provides very little protection.
And if the OEM's handle the install process and all the consumer has to do is make a choice from the top 5 (opera, safari, firefox, chrome and IE) then you have covered 99.99% of the market. Others can easily uninstall and reinstall their browser of choice.
But why is 99.99% of the market ok, but 70+% (IE in various forms) isn't. Six years ago MS could have argued they were already distributing the browser used by 95% of the market (IE) does the fact that IE back then was the only big choice justification for bundling?
Personally I think every suggestion I have heard so far to the current situation causes as many or more issues than doing nothing. Bundling a select group of browsers makes it even harder for new players to enter the market than only having IE installed to begin with.
At the same time I would very much like to see MS forced to make Windows and IE function separately so that if I choose to remove IE it is fully removed, and my chosen browser works as default for everything.
All your points are valid, and I agree that it is possible for someone to dethrone WoW, although how and if it is worth trying I'm not sure.
Even briefer: we're talking about a game, not about Windows. Windows is something that just runs your programs, so if you already have it, might as well keep it. A game is something you have to actively play, and people get bored eventually of doing the same thing. Same as in any other game.
We are not talking about a 'game' at least in the traditional sense. WoW is something people have sunk hundreds or thousands of hours into, in which they have developed large social groups and amassed hard to acquire items. The reason I used Windows as an example if because it fits much better than other games. People stick with Windows because they know it, it works how they expect and moving to another OS means starting from scratch.
aiming to actively suck for the millions of ex-WoW-ers around, seems pretty stupid to me.
Do you really think the Vanguard Devs make their design decisions to intentionally annoy typical WoW players? If you don't then it's a pointless argument, if you do then I don't think you are right.
The cost of developing a product that could usurp WoW as the biggest MMORPG combined with the likeliness you will succeed in making a better product and the difficulty in moving players already entrenched in WoW makes me believe that the majority of Devs would be making a financial mistake to even try. On the other hand, spotting that there is a segment of the WoW player base dissatisfied with a specific aspect of the product and designed a product that fulfills this niche could well be a financially viable option.
I don't develop games, and I don't play and MMORPGs as I have tried around a dozen and never liked them enough, so I can't judge Vanguard's quality accurately compared to WoW and I don't intend to. I merely disagree with the OPs premise that because WoW has been doing certain things that are popular with most of its market other developers should always follow.
As an alternative do you prefer the idea that everyone may openly and freely carry weapons with no caveats? Or that no police officer regardless of training or position be allowed to carry a firearm? If the latter do you suggest that the police call for army support when dealing with an armed criminal or that we also remove the right of the armed forces to be armed?
The police can break the laws of road safety, speeding, over taking.
Again, do you propose that we remove these rules? Or remove the ability of any and all police (and also Ambulance and Firebrigade?) to use exceptions to these laws? Again if the latter do you propose that we have laws against speeding, but no method of catching the people that do it? Especially considering I doubt you would be in favour of mass CCTV, police using devices like Stingers that aren't publicly available or the mandatory numbering and insurance of vehicles.
nobody voted the "one eyed Scottish idiot" as prime minister.
The Prime Minister isn't a job for which a public election is held, he is chosen by the political party found to be dominant in a public election.
There are a multitude of issues with most facets of the United Kingdon, your post simply shows your inability to comprehend the complexity of the issues about which you blindly swing accusations. Sadly it is exactly this kind of display that leads many of the 'sheeple' (A phrase I am sure you enjoy) to think that those protesting against government or police action are all a bunch of idiots and loons.
Tell me when the British people sit by when it is discovered that our government has been illegally and secretly spying on its own citizens. Right about then you'll have shown us to be just as spineless in the face of the police state as you are.
You can keep polishing your rifle while dreaming about storming the capital building, but frankly with their 3 million military personnel I doubt you'll have them quaking in their boots.
So, let me get this straight, at a time when WoW has got another couple of million players by going less specialized, so healers or tanks can still kill stuff when soloing and damage dealers don't get two-shot... Vanguard actually plans to make people _more_ specialized?
So your suggestion is that they instead copy WoW as closely as possible and hope that players spontaneously jump ship because...?
WoW is the Windows of the MMORPG world, and by that I simply mean it is the one that everyone, even those with no interest in the subject is aware of. WoW may even be fantastically good at what it does, but it seems like a lot of people pick it because they are already invested in it or it's the most widely known option.
If WoW is actually so fantastically good at what it does that most players are choosing it because it does what they want perfectly, then this gives other developers even less reason to chase the mass market. Much better to make a game that beats WoW's experience for 'hardcore' players, because at least that gives it an edge with a certain market segment.
Also chaos theory applies, which can amplify some errors over time as the values propagate. This greatly complicates the problems in real world examples.
If the article is correct that this change can lead to a 21,000% increase in computer speed / power consumption then don't consider what we can already do perfectly well with the resources we have, instead consider what we would like to do with a with resources well outside current limitations and decide what level of accuracy is acceptable.
I imagine many stock traders would be perfectly happy to introduce limited error if it allowed them to process information in a way they are currently unable to do. If the issue of aggregated errors is important it may be possible to regularly run the data through a error free system to counter this (although this would depend on many things).
Their calculations are meaningless, because they don't take into account Linux or OSX users using the windows client inside a virtual machine. Not because we want to, but because the official client is always somewhere between working like shit and not working at all.
Of course they took the people who were already playing EVE on Linux via Wine into account. The thing you're missing is what they used it to determine. If 10% of your market is a on platform that you didn't support, and 90% of users on that platform are willing (if not happy) to run it using Wine then why develop and support a new client for the 1% of your total available market.
OS X with its bigger market share and a user base likely to be less able or happy to use a solution requiring an independently developed Windows API is likely to provide a much more sizable benefit in creating a decent native client (and it surprises me they didn't focus all attention here first, and I'm not a Mac user).
No thanks. I'll stick with BitTorrent, if only because I live outside the US, and it won't be available outside the US, for some reason. They don't want me to watch their ads, and it's a good thing because I don't want to watch them either.
What always amuses me about posts like this, and especially the fact they so often get modded insightful (this one is correctly marked Interesting at this time), is that it ignores the side effects of this view.
Big companies are more capable of managing a global product launch than small companies. A group like EA games has no issue running support lines for a global release because it already has such a massive infrastructure to support it. A smaller developer who cannot manage to promote (get into shops), support (help people with issues) and produce sufficient volumes (for potential global sales).
Now film and TV isn't the same, but most shows are licensed to different groups for distribution outside the US and even if they weren't, advertisers will only want relevant customers. This means that the agency would either have to wait until it has advertisers across the globe before allowing anyone to use the service, or offer the service without adverts in many countries and bleed cash.
I'm glad no one modded you flame bait for this, as it's a contentious yet valid question.
Personally I think this point is important enough that 'fighting' spam shouldn't outright over-rule it. There are already many ways of fighting spam that don't require limiting peoples ability to 'speak':
1/ Using someone's computer without their permission is a criminal act (thus covering the use of Zombie networks).
2/ Using your own computers to serve spam email is costly due to the rate at which you'll have your nodes detected and blocked.
3/ Sites that offer referral payments can start requiring more identification when setting up accounts, leading to more chance people breaking the conditions not to use spam email could be caught.
Ultimately spam can be dealt with perfectly well without having to ban any form of message. Computers generating spam can have internet access limited to just anti-virus sites until they stop sending, the people controlling zombie boxes can be prosecuted for computer misuse and sites offering referrals to spammers can be blocked by an ISP controlled organisation.
Don't get me wrong I'd love to see large multi-continent projects for this kind of this, but we just aren't going to see a country set up a power supply in another country which needs routing through a couple more.
If on the other hand someone was willing to finance one of the African nations with an appropriate site to do this, and then wire them in to Europe who could use it as part of their electricity solution it might get somewhere.
The only issue with internet service in America is that lots swathes of your country have no real competition in the ISP market.
Here in the UK at least Net Neutrality just doesn't seem like an issue because I can name off the top of my head over a dozen ISPs I could choose to use.
I'm not saying I like the idea of ISPs dealing with content providers, I just don't think it needs legislating when any time the government spends looking at internet service in America should be spent on ensuring more ISPs can compete.
If you're too egregious they'll (they==makers of AB+) just add a whitelist for whichever fake ad you're using as a test. (or they'll (they==users) just disable JScript if you're testing the ads themselves;)
Well I doubt I get enough visitors for AB+ to start an arms race over my methods, however I'm wise enough to know that ultimately the party with complete control of the system has the advantage.
read:AB+ costs less in terms of bandwidth, so the bandwidth argument is just plain cheap
I've got the logs for the sites. I have over the last couple of years spent a sizeable amount of time analysing those logs, coding detection systems, compared them with views/clickthroughs etc. When I say that I decide if AdBlocking users are worthwhile or not, I don't mean I guess. I have the information and experience with which to make an informed decision. You might not think AdBlocking users are worth blocking on your site, in which case you are welcome to let them view your content freely.
Finally, what do you do for people using lynx or something?
Nothing. Which is a shame as I used to zealously code sites to be compatible, and then it became a trend to use the accessible version as an exploit.
Sorry for the delay in responding. I actually use a number of different methods, but that's just down to curiosity and because it gives me an excuse to code something different.
I am going to keep the amount of technical detail low for brevity and because bluntly many of the methods could easily be avoided by someone who thought about it:
1/ Providing articles as PDFs which include adverts (obvious issues integrating with most ad services).
2/ Producing sites in Flash (and Silverlight)
3/ Designing sites that are intentionally unusable without jscript, and where the jscript verifies content.
4/ Including invisible images designed to appear as adverts and checking with script that they are present.
5/ Include Jscript within your page that appears to be from an advertising service and detect when it is blocked.
Well this certainly made a change from the normal posts saying that/. is dumbing down to popular news even though its readers want "nfnstm".
I think you may have a point though, as there is more negative response to articles within geeky/scientific niches than in earlier days. It's a shame because personally I see/. as a source of alternative news to that found on Digg and the BBC etc, which is why a lot of semi-recent content which is very much mass market disappoints me. The fact that I can actually see some Tech stories on the BBC before a/. thread starts on it shows just how far behind the curve it has gotten.
Although the current government is massively behind the Conservatives in the polls, the date for the election hasn't even been set yet. It is likely that we will have a change of government at the next election but stating it as fact in a summary is still a mistake at this time.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, can I just check you think the idea of having an elected President of the United States is a good idea? Because I would of thought that either having a President misses the point or it doesn't regardless of how they are elected.
A state choosing to give its votes for President to the most popular candidate across the nation does not directly effect state independence. Texas could vote 100% Republican and the US could still end up with a Democratic president, NY could vote 100% Democrat and still get a Republican president.
Personally I think the idea that some votes are less equal than others is completely incompatible with the concept of a democratic republic, but this could be fixed without going with a national popular vote system.
I'm not a big TV viewer, and the majority of what I do watch is actually TV series bought on DVD as I don't have a license (required in UK to legally watch broadcast TV) but then I am not as bothered about the cause of media 'freedom' as the poster I was responding to.
I have watched some decent Video content that is distributed using YouTube, but I tend to find it at random. Rhett and Link is an example that comes to mind. I also have paid membership to a couple of podCasts that distribute for free with the option of joining, and they produce video content from time to time (podHammer and 40K radio).
Finally, being in the UK I also watch some BBC content over iPlayer which strangely is legal without a TV license. But I haven't done this in weeks.
I'm not well informed enough regarding alternative video media to offer any real advice on best sources (if any), but I have my doubts that much exists. The majority of the market that is tech-savvy enough is simply using torrents to download the same big studio content without having to pay, which means any small studio is basically competing against 'free' big studio content.
All good points, but they only flip the original premise around. Surely then it is irresponsible to show a child using any software under license without the person legally responsible being present to ensure they follow the terms?
Although HDTV is still a niche market at the moment, I am sure the fact people have better home entertainment systems is making it less attractive for many people to go to the Cinema.
I think there is still a sizable market for Cinemas, but they need to start evaluating what the market wants rather than continuing blindly on their current path. I would like to see Cinemas trying out the following business plan:
1/ Include some smaller screens, perhaps as little as 15' in smaller rooms.
2/ Provide a broader range of content. Things like showing certain TV shows (24 / BSG / Lost), older films.
3/ Allow people to hire the smaller screens, perhaps working with distributors to license shows they wish to watch. These screens could also be used by gaming tournaments etc.
Currently cinemas only pander to the blockbuster market, but this ignores a lot of potential.
I can think of two examples of exactly that. But then maybe banks where you live are perfect...
His point was exactly that the 'bank' would catch you and get its money back anyway.
Get a sense of perspective. Someone choosing to pay a monthly subscription for television is so completely different from just about anything that could legitimately be called oppression that it makes the whole notion laughable.
There are no 'enormous' implications in buying a set top box, there are a few ones that might constitute definition as minor. If you're really out to support media 'freedom' then stop watching the fucking TV, watching TV content on official portals and/or using Bittorrent to download TV content, then go support material produced and distributed in another way.
If only you would apply an alternative branch of this advice to your attempts at online communication. Congratulations you managed to flame someone. For the record, you could of gotten the same satisfaction thinking the thought and then you wouldn't have announce that you're a social pariah.
I'm normally the one complaining about the manic MS bashing on /. but I think the summary makes an important point. Even MS advertising completely gloss over the need for users to agree to a set of extensive contracts to use the system, something that a small child certainly isn't able to do.
It seems somehow wrong to me that it is just accepted that people ignore online contracts, and yet the consequences of breaking those can be severe like with Lori Drew. Although different, it is not altogether unlike using a child in an advert for loans secured on your property "look how easy it is to get that new car, even a kid can manage it".
They may be right, but I don't think it's the only possible outcome. There is currently a market for companies to be profitable making Operating Systems and Productivity Software and unless this market goes Microsoft is the best placed company to control a Lion's share.
Microsoft does need to improve, for too long it has relied on its dominant position to bring success, and now it has real competition from a broader range of companies. What's more the tactic of the past, bundling, is something it must be cautious of using because of the limitations placed on it due to market share. I would expect Microsoft to see real trouble around 2015 unless it can transform a couple of its core products back into the most competitive offerings before then.
Don't even bother talking about Windows and Windows software security. If your customers are caught by some FUD being spread trying to sell them a product and you start flinging mud against Windows you are pitting yourself against MS, which might be ok for a knowledgeable audience, but a lot of people will think MS is a good software provider because of its size.
I'd try and keep your case very simple.
Various government agencies use Linux, including Intelligence.
Open Source means that people who follow the law can see how something works under the hood, allowing more people to work to protect it. If someone is attempting to attack a program they could decompile it anyway so closed source provides very little protection.
But why is 99.99% of the market ok, but 70+% (IE in various forms) isn't. Six years ago MS could have argued they were already distributing the browser used by 95% of the market (IE) does the fact that IE back then was the only big choice justification for bundling?
Personally I think every suggestion I have heard so far to the current situation causes as many or more issues than doing nothing. Bundling a select group of browsers makes it even harder for new players to enter the market than only having IE installed to begin with.
At the same time I would very much like to see MS forced to make Windows and IE function separately so that if I choose to remove IE it is fully removed, and my chosen browser works as default for everything.
We are not talking about a 'game' at least in the traditional sense. WoW is something people have sunk hundreds or thousands of hours into, in which they have developed large social groups and amassed hard to acquire items. The reason I used Windows as an example if because it fits much better than other games. People stick with Windows because they know it, it works how they expect and moving to another OS means starting from scratch.
Do you really think the Vanguard Devs make their design decisions to intentionally annoy typical WoW players? If you don't then it's a pointless argument, if you do then I don't think you are right.
The cost of developing a product that could usurp WoW as the biggest MMORPG combined with the likeliness you will succeed in making a better product and the difficulty in moving players already entrenched in WoW makes me believe that the majority of Devs would be making a financial mistake to even try. On the other hand, spotting that there is a segment of the WoW player base dissatisfied with a specific aspect of the product and designed a product that fulfills this niche could well be a financially viable option.
I don't develop games, and I don't play and MMORPGs as I have tried around a dozen and never liked them enough, so I can't judge Vanguard's quality accurately compared to WoW and I don't intend to. I merely disagree with the OPs premise that because WoW has been doing certain things that are popular with most of its market other developers should always follow.
As an alternative do you prefer the idea that everyone may openly and freely carry weapons with no caveats? Or that no police officer regardless of training or position be allowed to carry a firearm? If the latter do you suggest that the police call for army support when dealing with an armed criminal or that we also remove the right of the armed forces to be armed?
Again, do you propose that we remove these rules? Or remove the ability of any and all police (and also Ambulance and Firebrigade?) to use exceptions to these laws? Again if the latter do you propose that we have laws against speeding, but no method of catching the people that do it? Especially considering I doubt you would be in favour of mass CCTV, police using devices like Stingers that aren't publicly available or the mandatory numbering and insurance of vehicles.
The Prime Minister isn't a job for which a public election is held, he is chosen by the political party found to be dominant in a public election.
There are a multitude of issues with most facets of the United Kingdon, your post simply shows your inability to comprehend the complexity of the issues about which you blindly swing accusations. Sadly it is exactly this kind of display that leads many of the 'sheeple' (A phrase I am sure you enjoy) to think that those protesting against government or police action are all a bunch of idiots and loons.
Tell me when the British people sit by when it is discovered that our government has been illegally and secretly spying on its own citizens. Right about then you'll have shown us to be just as spineless in the face of the police state as you are.
You can keep polishing your rifle while dreaming about storming the capital building, but frankly with their 3 million military personnel I doubt you'll have them quaking in their boots.
So your suggestion is that they instead copy WoW as closely as possible and hope that players spontaneously jump ship because...?
WoW is the Windows of the MMORPG world, and by that I simply mean it is the one that everyone, even those with no interest in the subject is aware of. WoW may even be fantastically good at what it does, but it seems like a lot of people pick it because they are already invested in it or it's the most widely known option.
If WoW is actually so fantastically good at what it does that most players are choosing it because it does what they want perfectly, then this gives other developers even less reason to chase the mass market. Much better to make a game that beats WoW's experience for 'hardcore' players, because at least that gives it an edge with a certain market segment.
If the article is correct that this change can lead to a 21,000% increase in computer speed / power consumption then don't consider what we can already do perfectly well with the resources we have, instead consider what we would like to do with a with resources well outside current limitations and decide what level of accuracy is acceptable.
I imagine many stock traders would be perfectly happy to introduce limited error if it allowed them to process information in a way they are currently unable to do. If the issue of aggregated errors is important it may be possible to regularly run the data through a error free system to counter this (although this would depend on many things).
Of course they took the people who were already playing EVE on Linux via Wine into account. The thing you're missing is what they used it to determine. If 10% of your market is a on platform that you didn't support, and 90% of users on that platform are willing (if not happy) to run it using Wine then why develop and support a new client for the 1% of your total available market.
OS X with its bigger market share and a user base likely to be less able or happy to use a solution requiring an independently developed Windows API is likely to provide a much more sizable benefit in creating a decent native client (and it surprises me they didn't focus all attention here first, and I'm not a Mac user).
What always amuses me about posts like this, and especially the fact they so often get modded insightful (this one is correctly marked Interesting at this time), is that it ignores the side effects of this view.
Big companies are more capable of managing a global product launch than small companies. A group like EA games has no issue running support lines for a global release because it already has such a massive infrastructure to support it. A smaller developer who cannot manage to promote (get into shops), support (help people with issues) and produce sufficient volumes (for potential global sales).
Now film and TV isn't the same, but most shows are licensed to different groups for distribution outside the US and even if they weren't, advertisers will only want relevant customers. This means that the agency would either have to wait until it has advertisers across the globe before allowing anyone to use the service, or offer the service without adverts in many countries and bleed cash.
I'm glad no one modded you flame bait for this, as it's a contentious yet valid question.
Personally I think this point is important enough that 'fighting' spam shouldn't outright over-rule it. There are already many ways of fighting spam that don't require limiting peoples ability to 'speak':
1/ Using someone's computer without their permission is a criminal act (thus covering the use of Zombie networks).
2/ Using your own computers to serve spam email is costly due to the rate at which you'll have your nodes detected and blocked.
3/ Sites that offer referral payments can start requiring more identification when setting up accounts, leading to more chance people breaking the conditions not to use spam email could be caught.
Ultimately spam can be dealt with perfectly well without having to ban any form of message. Computers generating spam can have internet access limited to just anti-virus sites until they stop sending, the people controlling zombie boxes can be prosecuted for computer misuse and sites offering referrals to spammers can be blocked by an ISP controlled organisation.
Don't get me wrong I'd love to see large multi-continent projects for this kind of this, but we just aren't going to see a country set up a power supply in another country which needs routing through a couple more.
If on the other hand someone was willing to finance one of the African nations with an appropriate site to do this, and then wire them in to Europe who could use it as part of their electricity solution it might get somewhere.
The only issue with internet service in America is that lots swathes of your country have no real competition in the ISP market.
Here in the UK at least Net Neutrality just doesn't seem like an issue because I can name off the top of my head over a dozen ISPs I could choose to use.
I'm not saying I like the idea of ISPs dealing with content providers, I just don't think it needs legislating when any time the government spends looking at internet service in America should be spent on ensuring more ISPs can compete.
Well I doubt I get enough visitors for AB+ to start an arms race over my methods, however I'm wise enough to know that ultimately the party with complete control of the system has the advantage.
I've got the logs for the sites. I have over the last couple of years spent a sizeable amount of time analysing those logs, coding detection systems, compared them with views/clickthroughs etc. When I say that I decide if AdBlocking users are worthwhile or not, I don't mean I guess. I have the information and experience with which to make an informed decision. You might not think AdBlocking users are worth blocking on your site, in which case you are welcome to let them view your content freely.
Nothing. Which is a shame as I used to zealously code sites to be compatible, and then it became a trend to use the accessible version as an exploit.
Sorry for the delay in responding. I actually use a number of different methods, but that's just down to curiosity and because it gives me an excuse to code something different.
I am going to keep the amount of technical detail low for brevity and because bluntly many of the methods could easily be avoided by someone who thought about it:
1/ Providing articles as PDFs which include adverts (obvious issues integrating with most ad services).
2/ Producing sites in Flash (and Silverlight)
3/ Designing sites that are intentionally unusable without jscript, and where the jscript verifies content.
4/ Including invisible images designed to appear as adverts and checking with script that they are present.
5/ Include Jscript within your page that appears to be from an advertising service and detect when it is blocked.
Well this certainly made a change from the normal posts saying that /. is dumbing down to popular news even though its readers want "nfnstm".
/. as a source of alternative news to that found on Digg and the BBC etc, which is why a lot of semi-recent content which is very much mass market disappoints me. The fact that I can actually see some Tech stories on the BBC before a /. thread starts on it shows just how far behind the curve it has gotten.
I think you may have a point though, as there is more negative response to articles within geeky/scientific niches than in earlier days. It's a shame because personally I see
I don't see why this hasn't been modded up.
Although the current government is massively behind the Conservatives in the polls, the date for the election hasn't even been set yet. It is likely that we will have a change of government at the next election but stating it as fact in a summary is still a mistake at this time.