WTF WTF?
-
I was reading the article about agile and why it it doesn't work very well when I noticed the banner ad on the page...
-
The same ad's running on this forum thread, thanks to you...
-
It's times like this when I wish I had ad-block disabled...
but that's pretty much it!
-
It's comments like yours that make me wish I didn't work at a company that considered Firefox an "unapproved application".
/ I can't even download Google Toolbar.....
-
Stop blocking ads. It's not fair to web site operators. If you don't like animated ads, follow my instructions for killing the animation. Then if you allow static, non-moving ads, it's pretty easy to ignore them or maybe even occasionally read them, but they don't interfere with your enjoyment of the site, and everybody wins.
(Note: it's true that if you follow my instructions, Flash ads are effectively blocked, but that's just too bad. I've never seen a Flash ad I could tolerate, but pages are welcome to try to detect the fact that Flash didn't load and put an image or text block in its place.)
-
@Brendan Kidwell said:
Stop blocking ads. It's not fair to web site operators. If you don't like animated ads, follow my instructions for killing the animation. Then if you allow static, non-moving ads, it's pretty easy to ignore them or maybe even occasionally read them, but they don't interfere with your enjoyment of the site, and everybody wins.
(Note: it's true that if you follow my instructions, Flash ads are effectively blocked, but that's just too bad. I've never seen a Flash ad I could tolerate, but pages are welcome to try to detect the fact that Flash didn't load and put an image or text block in its place.)
lol
<sarcasm>yeah, i'll get right on that</sarcasm>
-
Ad blocking
@Brendan Kidwell said:
Stop blocking ads. It's not fair to web site operators.
(Note: it's true that if you follow my instructions, Flash ads are effectively blocked, but that's just too bad.
Oh irony.
In for a penny, in for a pound, I say. Blocking some ads, "the ones I don't like", and trying to hold on to some capitalist moral high ground just makes you look stupid. In the end you are still overriding the site owner's decision.
(I don't block ads either, I just turn off animation, javascript, redirection and image loading. (And pages are welcome to try to detect that and put text links in their place...))
-
I have ad block installed. But I block ad sources selectively. All Google adds are pretty much ok, they are not yelling at me... Anything else... If it placed so that it gets in the way of me seeing what I came to see, it gets the axe, if has sound, is horribly tasteless or blinks, off with it(single ads etc) or the source. A sample of a site where I have never felt the itch for the block button is http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/. There are flash ads but those actually look good and don't yell at me... DeviantArt is another (tho their redirect ads for cookieless visitors piss me off and made me move my artistic activities mostly to other sites - see 1. point, cant link my art for a stranger and make them tolerate an ad). They actually screen for the quality of their ads. I have no problem with that. If site owners don't want to loose revenue on ad blocking they should remove the reasons for doing so.
Two simple things really:
1. make sure adds are not in the way of people getting what they came for.
2. make sure you show QUALITY ads that don't make sounds and throw out pop up windows.
Is that too much to ask?
-
@Brendan Kidwell said:
Practice what you preach huh?Stop blocking ads. [advert for blocking some ad's removed - ed]
-
Generally speaking, I ignore ads, although subliminal messaging may apply.
The ones that bugged me were those flash ones with the fly that buzzed around incredibly noisily. I also had a problem at the time of loading too many youtubes at the same time and they all starting simultaniously, so I installed the flashblock add-on and never looked back.
-
@Brendan Kidwell said:
Stop blocking ads. It's not fair to web site operators. If you don't like animated ads, follow my instructions for killing the animation. Then if you allow static, non-moving ads, it's pretty easy to ignore them or maybe even occasionally read them, but they don't interfere with your enjoyment of the site, and everybody wins.
(Note: it's true that if you follow my instructions, Flash ads are effectively blocked, but that's just too bad. I've never seen a Flash ad I could tolerate, but pages are welcome to try to detect the fact that Flash didn't load and put an image or text block in its place.)
Ads do not magically earn website owners money.
They earn website owners money if I click on them.
Since I have probably not clicked on an internet ad in at least a year, I don't think I'm losing TheDailyWTF any revenue by blocking ads.
-
@Dark Shikari said:
Ads do not magically earn website owners money.
They earn website owners money if I click on them.
Since I have probably not clicked on an internet ad in at least a year, I don't think I'm losing TheDailyWTF any revenue by blocking ads.
To be fair, even viewing ads will sometimes help the site owner. There are plenty of ad networks that will only deal with you if you have a certain number of page views per month.
-
@Brendan Kidwell said:
Stop blocking ads. It's not fair to web site operators. If you don't like animated ads, follow my instructions for killing the animation. Then if you allow static, non-moving ads, it's pretty easy to ignore them or maybe even occasionally read them, but they don't interfere with your enjoyment of the site, and everybody wins.
(Note: it's true that if you follow my instructions, Flash ads are effectively blocked, but that's just too bad. I've never seen a Flash ad I could tolerate, but pages are welcome to try to detect the fact that Flash didn't load and put an image or text block in its place.)
I find that most people who block ads (including me) wouldn't click the ads anyway.
And what if I don't stop the ads loading, I have them covered up by a script?
-
It's sad but by clicking an ad a day on your favorite website, your helping it.
I prefer clicking on ads to sending money directly.
-
@magetoo said:
@Brendan Kidwell said:
Stop blocking ads. It's not fair to web site operators.
(Note: it's true that if you follow my instructions, Flash ads are effectively blocked, but that's just too bad.
Oh irony.
In for a penny, in for a pound, I say. Blocking some ads, "the ones I don't like", and trying to hold on to some capitalist moral high ground just makes you look stupid. In the end you are still overriding the site owner's decision.
Well, that's the thing, isn't it. I sure am 'overriding the site owner's decision. Because I'm not a slave, and the site owner doesn't have the right to determine what I must do. It's my decision what I do with my computer resources and my electicity and phone bill, not theirs. Call yourself a capitalist, well you'd damn well better respect my private property rights. Otherwise you're just engaged in special pleading.
Let me spell it out as plainly as I can to website owners everywhere: If I connect to your webserver, and send an HTTP GET request, and in return your webserver sends me an HTML page, that does not somehow magically create some kind of binding and completely one-sided contractual obligation on me to also go and fetch a bunch of graphics, animations, even other html files to fill out iframes, from the same and/or other servers, or anything else at all. You're not the king of the world and we aren't all your servants. Sorry if you somehow got the idea into your head that you could put up a website and then just sit on your fat arse for the rest of your life while free money rolls in without you having to work for it, but it's your own fault for deluding yourself you'd hit upon a golden goose. TANSTAAFL.
-
Yes! Stop blocking adverts...
So you don't miss out on the next IFrame attack from a compromised server.
-
@DaveK said:
Well, that's the thing, isn't it. I sure am 'overriding the site owner's decision. Because I'm not a slave, and the site owner doesn't have the right to determine what I must do. It's my decision what I do with my computer resources and my electicity and phone bill, not theirs. Call yourself a capitalist, well you'd damn well better respect my private property rights. Otherwise you're just engaged in special pleading.
Wow! In a couple of quick paragraphs you not only proved that you're an idiot, you also proved that you're an asshole as well! I'm impressed!
The site owner certainly has every right to decide what's on their own site. Your rights are to either accept that or stay the f**k away from the site. Any other lordly impressions you have of your God-given right to control the universe are simply your own inflated sense of ego. You're an idiot. Accept it. It's your fate.
I repeat this at least a dozen times to people here: If you don't like this site, don't come here. If you don't like the forum software, don't use it; either stay away altogether, or don't make any comments. If you don't like the subject of the posts or the style in which they are written, stop reading them. If you choose to continue visiting and reading the posts, STFU with your useless complaining.
-
@KenW said:
@DaveK said:
The site owner doesn't have the right to
determine what I must do. It's my decision what I do with
my computer resources and my electicity and phone bill, not theirs.The site owner certainly has every right to decide what's on their own site.
(bolded for emphasis)
What a user wants to see is not the same as what an author puts on a site.Which you understand, because you point out, partially correctly:
@KenW said:
I repeat this at least a dozen times to people here: If you don't like this site, don't come here.
Black & white reasoning does not apply in the real world, which the internet, sadly, is part of.
Things in this world are not wholly unwanted or wholly desirable. I like the forum. The ads are junk, even in the rare cases when I am the target audience. I ignore them.
-
@dhromed said:
Black & white reasoning does not apply in the real world, which the internet, sadly, is part of.
Things in this world are not wholly unwanted or wholly desirable. I like the forum. The ads are junk, even in the rare cases when I am the target audience. I ignore them.
You don't own the Internet. It is a privilege to use it and you must view anything that any website operator places on their site, including advertising. By using ad-block, no-script, disabling javascript, or even turning your head away from the computer when ads are on-screen, you are violating the Internet's EULA. I hope you are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and deported for not being a True Patriot™. If you don't like America, then please leave. Now.
-
-
@purge said:
If you don't like America, then please leave. Now.
But I amn't in America!
I'm on a remote connection with your all-American servers (made in Korea).
-
@KenW said:
@DaveK said:
Well, that's the thing,
isn't it. I sure am 'overriding the site owner's decision.
Because I'm not a slave, and the site owner doesn't have the right to
determine what I must do. It's my decision what I do with
my computer resources and my electicity and phone bill, not theirs.
Call yourself a capitalist, well you'd damn well better respect my
private property rights. Otherwise you're just engaged in special
pleading.Wow!
In a couple of quick paragraphs you not only proved that you're an
idiot, you also proved that you're an asshole as well! I'm impressed!That,
sir, remains to be seen. Certainly one of us is an idiot.
Let us see who. My money is on the first to have to resort to ad
hominem argument. That would be you.@KenW said:
The site owner certainly has every right to decide what's on their own site.
Now, my definition of an idiot is one who, Humpty-Dumpty like, believes that words mean whatever they want them to mean. You claim that the owner has every right to decide what is "on" their site. They certainly do, but I'm not interfering with that right one little bit. Whatever they have put "on" their site remains "on" their site, wherever that may be. I have not tampered with their site in any way; it remains exactly what it was before I looked at it.
For your sentence to be true, you would have to invent some new definition for the words "on" and "site", such that my looking or not looking - without touching - can somehow be said to alter what is "on" their "site".
@KenW said:
Your rights are to either accept that or stay the f**k away from the site.
Humpty-dumpty again. My rights are defined by the law and constitution, not by what you wish was the case. Anything that is not explicitly forbidden is permitted. There is no law that says "If you download an html page you must also download all external files referenced in that page". You are suffering from the solipsistic delusion that how things seem to you must be the one and only truth of the matter. I insist that the world does not exist solely to be as you wish it, even if you reckon you could make some easy money were it so.
@KenW said:
Any other lordly impressions you have of your God-given right to control the universe are simply your own inflated sense of ego. You're an idiot. Accept it. It's your fate.
I made no such claim, and the fact that you have to blatantly lie and misrepresent what I said demonstrates that you have such a massive chip on your shoulder that it is actually impairing your ability to read and comprehend the plain English that is right in front of your face. The only thing I claimed rights over is my personal property; re-read the bit beginning with "Its' my decision" if you have forgotten already. You are claiming there is some obligation on me, having downloaded one file from a server, to be compelled to download a bunch of other files. If you think that is the case, you must be able to quote contract or criminal law to that effect. Otherwise, as I am convinced, you are merely saying what you wish and claiming it to be true regardless of the social, legal and physical realities of the universe.
@KenW said:
You're an idiot. Accept it. It's your fate.
This is a PKB of the highest order. I said no such thing, but you invented a new meaning to attribute to my words and then proceed to judge me an idiot on the basis of your falsified interpretation of what I said. You're batting nought for ten here, Humpty.
@KenW said:
I repeat this at least a dozen times to people here: If you don't like this site, don't come here. If you don't like the forum software, don't use it; either stay away altogether, or don't make any comments. If you don't like the subject of the posts or the style in which they are written, stop reading them. If you choose to continue visiting and reading the posts, STFU with your useless complaining.
No matter how many times you repeat your completely unproven assertion, it doesn't become any truer. You appear to be of the persuasion that believes that, for example, skipping the adverts during a television program is 'stealing'; presumably that also applies to closing your eyes, or talking to someone else, or just not paying any attention while they're on. In other words, you believe you have the right to demand that we all sit there, restrained in a straitjacket, with our head clamped facing forwards and our eyeballs wired open, like at the end of Clockwork Orange. Clearly, you have no such right. If you feel that I have misapplied reductio ad absurdum, please explain how and where you would draw a line between the two extremes, one that denies adblocking but permits you to close your eyes, leave the room or ignore the advert. Please try and base it on a qualitative rather than quantitative discrimination if you possibly can.
Not only do you believe you have the right to control other people's actions, but also their thoughts. Your repeated cries of "You don't have the right to hold and express an opinion about something unless the owner of that something agrees" demonstrates your utter hostility to any concept of democracy, free speech, freedom of conscience, or indeed freedom of anyone else except yourself. How can I interpret "STFU with your useless complaining", at the end of a post that consists of nothing but you complaining about my post, as anything but the grossest hypocrisy?
By the way, who gave you the right to make decisions about who can and can't come here and what they can or can't say, think or do? As far as I'm aware, this is Alex P's website, not yours. You feel that you have the right to make decisions about this site? You are doing exactly what you accuse me of! You are a hypocrite operating a double standard to which you hold yourself exempt. You have absolutely no argument other than "It must be so because I say it is so"; or at any rate, if you do, you have singularly failed to mention it.
-
@purge said:
@dhromed said:
Black & white reasoning does not apply in the real world, which the internet, sadly, is part of.
Things
in this world are not wholly unwanted or wholly desirable. I like the
forum. The ads are junk, even in the rare cases when I am the target audience. I ignore them.You don't own the Internet. It is a privilege to use it and you must view anything
that any website operator places on their site, including
advertising. By using ad-block, no-script, disabling javascript,
or even turning your head away from the computer when ads are
on-screen, you are violating the Internet's EULA. I hope you are
prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and deported for not being
a True Patriot™. If you don't like America, then please leave. Now.;-) Well played, sir! <standing ovation>
-
-
@dhromed said:
@DaveK said:
[large reply to Ken]
He was just a-flamin.
I know, but that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy tearing him a new asshole! There's a lot of stuff in there about the rights of users and the ongoing efforts of content providers to assert their rights by stealing ours that I've wanted to put in writing for some time, not just as it relates to adblocking, but also to things like DRM and freedom to link or to express criticism in product reviews; all things which are our rights and which the rich and privileged believe they can take from us. KenW just happened to be the right stooge at the right time.
He's a-flamin', I'm a-playin'-to-the-peanut-gallery.
@dhromed said:
Let me buy you a dragon.
Yow, sounds nice! Cheers, that's darn civil of you sir! <hic> :-)
-
It's the kind of beer you drink in between one's broadband connection to Guinness.
-
@DaveK said:
@purge said:
@dhromed said:
Black & white reasoning does not apply in the real world, which the internet, sadly, is part of.
Things
in this world are not wholly unwanted or wholly desirable. I like the
forum. The ads are junk, even in the rare cases when I am the target audience. I ignore them.You don't own the Internet. It is a privilege to use it and you must view anything
that any website operator places on their site, including
advertising. By using ad-block, no-script, disabling javascript,
or even turning your head away from the computer when ads are
on-screen, you are violating the Internet's EULA. I hope you are
prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and deported for not being
a True Patriot™. If you don't like America, then please leave. Now.;-) Well played, sir! <standing ovation>
Bravo, sir. What is a website but files and code uploaded to a server. I retain ownership of my computer hardware and do not relinquish control of it to this code. Full rights to modify this code prior to execution remain with me.
-
@RoadGrader said:
I retain ownership of my computer hardware and do not relinquish control of it to this code. Full rights to modify this code prior to execution remain with me.
Heh, except for your Clipboard.
