Train station BSODs



  • Train platform display says "Waiting for server connection", in a place near Rome

    Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us

    Typical Windows BSOD on a touch screen (Roma Termini station):

    Double trouble! Linux kernel panic plus a preview of a Windows BSOD (Roma Termini station):



  • Linux error is not a kernel panic, it's some sort of boot failure. Since the "route" command is showing an error message it's probably something network related.



  • All I get when I click each is an ad



  • No, the upper screen in the bottom image is not a Linux kernel panic.
    It's just some PXE boot messages you get when you boot over the network,
    followed by one error message (by the route command; most likely
    the initrd script tried to modify the routing table incorrectly). The system startup
    is likely stalled because it cannot connect to a file server for actual filesystems,
    possibly due to the routing table problem.

    IOW, it is either a network connection problem, or a badly written initrd script; nothing to do with a kernel panic. But I can see why you'd assume it's a kernel panic.



  • @GettinSadda said:

    All I get when I click each is an ad

     

    Really? It's strange, it works for me... And I assure you that this is not spam.



  •  @GettinSadda said:

    All I get when I click each is an ad

     Are you using NoScript? I had to enable JavaScript on the page for it to work.



  • @PhillS said:

     Are you using NoScript? I had to enable JavaScript on the page for it to work.
     

    Imageschack also has the funny habit of changing it's scripts/links sometimes so that users who use adblock plus will only get the ad and not the image.



  • Considering that's how they make money, I'd say that's fair.  Not viewing ads is essentially stealing the profit of ad-supported sites.  That's like going to the zoo and not donating the 1 dollar they ask for.



  • @nocturnal said:

    Considering that's how they make money, I'd say that's fair.  Not viewing ads is essentially stealing the profit of ad-supported sites.  That's like going to the zoo and not donating the 1 dollar they ask for.

    Yeah, and popup blockers should be banned. They block ads. That's stealing.

    That's like going to the zoo and refusing to get the flyers handed by obnoxious people standing just in front of the zoo.



  • @Kiss me I'm Polish said:

    Yeah, and popup blockers should be banned. They block ads. That's stealing.

    That's like going to the zoo and refusing to get the flyers handed by obnoxious people standing just in front of the zoo.

    Well, it is stealing.  You know that by blocking ads you are taking content and depriving the site of its revenue stream.  You can rationalize it all you want, but Alex made the point before that blocking ads violates the social contract implicit in visiting the site.  His analogy was it is like eating your fill of free samples in a supermarket.  Yes, they are free, but clearly you aren't meant to take a dozen of them and you know you are being a bastard when you do it.  Everyone here knows you are being a bastard when you do it, so why are you trying to rationalize it?  You know you're stealing, we know you're stealing -- maybe the best thing you could do is at least keep your mouth shut about your unethical behavior. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Well, it is stealing.  You know that by blocking ads you are taking content and depriving the site of its revenue stream.  You can rationalize it all you want, but Alex made the point before that blocking ads violates the social contract implicit in visiting the site.  His analogy was it is like eating your fill of free samples in a supermarket.  Yes, they are free, but clearly you aren't meant to take a dozen of them and you know you are being a bastard when you do it.  Everyone here knows you are being a bastard when you do it, so why are you trying to rationalize it?  You know you're stealing, we know you're stealing -- maybe the best thing you could do is at least keep your mouth shut about your unethical behavior. 

    Given the way that many of the ads on the internet are delivered, it's not unethical at all to block them. Web ads are akin to going to the zoo and having someone chase you down and staple a flier to your face (and when you remove it, staple 2 more), then reach into your wallet and look at your ID so they can keep track of who you are and where you go. Ads with audio and animation or position themselves over the content are even worse, because they are designed to interfere with your browsing.



  • @Anon Ymous said:

    Ads with audio and animation or position themselves over the content are even worse, because they are designed to interfere with your browsing.
    Dear God can someone make this illegal? 

    On the other hand, keep it legal, then I know who NOT to buy products from.



  • @Anon Ymous said:

    Given the way that many of the ads on the internet are delivered, it's not unethical at all to block them. Web ads are akin to going to the zoo and having someone chase you down and staple a flier to your face (and when you remove it, staple 2 more), then reach into your wallet and look at your ID so they can keep track of who you are and where you go. Ads with audio and animation or position themselves over the content are even worse, because they are designed to interfere with your browsing.
    That's part of the deal in visiting that zoo.  Stop visiting if you don't like it.  Call the zoo and complain.  But shooting the guys with the fliers isn't a valid solution, it's murder.



  • @bstorer said:

    @Anon Ymous said:

    Given the way that many of the ads on the internet are delivered, it's not unethical at all to block them. Web ads are akin to going to the zoo and having someone chase you down and staple a flier to your face (and when you remove it, staple 2 more), then reach into your wallet and look at your ID so they can keep track of who you are and where you go. Ads with audio and animation or position themselves over the content are even worse, because they are designed to interfere with your browsing.
    That's part of the deal in visiting that zoo.  Stop visiting if you don't like it.  Call the zoo and complain.  But shooting the guys with the fliers isn't a valid solution, it's murder.

    Wow, when you go for false analogies, you sure go for them big time!  So how exactly did we leap from politely declining to accept a leaflet to "shooting the guys" then?

    Anyway, the whole discussion is hypothecated on a false premise: that ad-blocking is an active, positive act, rather than what it actually is: a passive lack of action.  See, I don't block ads: I simple don't actively go out and fetch them.  HTTP, everyone seems to forget in the way they use language in this debate, is a pull medium, not a push medium.  The implications and associative meanings of the terms chosen colour the emotional tone of the debate in a way that pre-judges a certain desired conclusion.

    So, I go to a website, I issue a request, I get back a page full of HTML.  Much of that HTML consists of references to other HTML, some for display inline, some for display as external links.  Some of these references I follow, some I don't.

    So in the terms of the zoo analogy, there aren't any "guys giving out leaflets".  There's a bulletin board, full of leaflets and fliers and notices and business cards for local taxi firms and stuff, and when I take one of the leaflets, it says on it "Please see also this, that, and the other leaflet", referring to some of the other leaflets on the rack.  And I don't pick them up, because I'm not obliged to.  I'm not going to agree, sight unseen, to do whatever a leaflet tells me as a precondition of reading it - and there was no sign that said I was agreeing to do so before I picked the leaflet up.



  • @DaveK said:



    Anyway, the whole discussion is hypothecated on a false premise: that ad-blocking is an active, positive act, rather than what it actually is: a passive lack of action.  See, I don't block ads: I simple don't actively go out and fetch them.  HTTP, everyone seems to forget in the way they use language in this debate, is a pull medium, not a push medium.  The implications and associative meanings of the terms chosen colour the emotional tone of the debate in a way that pre-judges a certain desired conclusion.

    Congratulations, this is the weakest attempt to justify theft I think I've ever seen.  The fact is you are violating the social contract by taking content without upholding your end of the bargain.  That makes you a thieving bastard.  If you can live with that, fine, but stop spewing bullshit in an attempt to rationalize your choice.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Well, it is stealing.  You know that by blocking ads you are taking content and depriving the site of its revenue stream.  You can rationalize it all you want, but Alex made the point before that blocking ads violates the social contract implicit in visiting the site.  His analogy was it is like eating your fill of free samples in a supermarket.  Yes, they are free, but clearly you aren't meant to take a dozen of them and you know you are being a bastard when you do it.  Everyone here knows you are being a bastard when you do it, so why are you trying to rationalize it?  You know you're stealing, we know you're stealing -- maybe the best thing you could do is at least keep your mouth shut about your unethical behavior.


    @morbiuswilters said:

    @DaveK said:



    Anyway, the whole discussion is
    hypothecated on a false premise: that ad-blocking is an active,
    positive act, rather than what it actually is: a passive lack of
    action.  See, I don't block ads: I simple don't actively go out and fetch
    them.  HTTP, everyone seems to forget in the way they use language in
    this debate, is a pull medium, not a push medium.  The implications and
    associative meanings of the terms chosen colour the emotional tone of
    the debate in a way that pre-judges a certain desired conclusion.

    Congratulations,
    this is the weakest attempt to justify theft I think I've ever seen.
     
    The fact is you are violating the social contract by taking content
    without upholding your end of the bargain.  That makes you a thieving
    bastard.  If you can live with that, fine, but stop spewing bullshit in
    an attempt to rationalize your choice.




    Legend: Content, that actually has something to do with DaveK's post; Content that you pretty much just copy-pasted from your previous rant.

    Please, you don't win a debate by simply repeating the same arguments over and over with increasingly violent personal assaults. We can read, you know. So, care to elaborate why this would be "the weakest attempt you ever saw" instead of just going on babbling?

    That out of the way, I actually agree that Dave's argument doesn't really work. HTTP works like this on a technical layer, but that has not much to do with how web sites work on the publisher/user layer. Ads are no friendly oh-by-the-way-did-you-knows, they are there to make money, plain and simple. Maybe in the time of ARPANet the web was supposed to work how Dave describes, and maybe it will actually work that way some time if we should ever get the Semantic Web up and running, but it very certainly doesn't work like this as of now.

    Still, what kind of "social contract" are you talking about? Where can I look up such a contract, when should I have signed it and who wants to arrest me for breaking it? It's certainly true that ads are one of the most important revenue sources for web authors. But they are far from the being the only one. Also, should I give up my free will of what I want to watch and what I won't, only because it could damage economy? By the same logic, you wouldn't be allowed to skip the commercials on your VCR recordings or even just to mute the sound. That would break this oh-so-holy social contract the same way.



  • @PSWorx said:

    Still, what kind of "social contract" are you talking about? Where can I look up such a contract, when should I have signed it and who wants to arrest me for breaking it?
    If you're asking these questions, you've missed the definition of social contract.

    There's nothing illegal about blocking ads, no more than it's illegal to put ads on your website.  Think of it kind of like the fashion police (assuming that's not just an American term).

    Personally, however, I think that this whole discussion amounts to nothing more than what ends up on morbs' mom's face every night.  Block them if you want, noone's stopping you.  Just don't feel self-righteous and don't cry if your favorite site goes down because everybody's blocked the ads.  Leave them up if you want, but don't cry about how the ads are annoying.



  • @PSWorx said:

    Still, what kind of "social contract" are you talking about? Where can I look up such a contract, when should I have signed it and who wants to arrest me for breaking it? It's certainly true that ads are one of the most important revenue sources for web authors. But they are far from the being the only one. Also, should I give up my free will of what I want to watch and what I won't, only because it could damage economy? By the same logic, you wouldn't be allowed to skip the commercials on your VCR recordings or even just to mute the sound. That would break this oh-so-holy social contract the same way.

    As usual for you, most of your post is complete retardation, but I will try to explain what a social contract is since you evidently flunked out of elementary school.  In this case, the social contract is implicit: you get free content in exchange for viewing ads.  It's clearly how ad-supported sites work and nobody who consumes the content can reasonably argue ignorance on this point.  The example that I provided above (courtesy of Alex) is the free samples in a supermarket.  Clearly taking the entire tray of samples is anti-social behavior and just makes you a selfish prick, but I suppose you can do it if you want.

     

    Look, you're not (that much of) an idiot -- you know content on sites like TDWTF doesn't have ads for no fucking reason.  The ad revenue supports the site which permits the content you are consuming to be created.  If you don't care for the ads, don't consume the content.  No, nobody is going to call the police, but taking the content anyway is unethical, rude, anti-social and akin to theft.  Bitching when a content creator/provider tries to employ technological solutions to stop you from grabbing the whole tray of samples and shoving them in your fat, repulsive maw is the epitome of self-entitled whininess.  Instead of trying to make lame justifications for theft, ad blockers should just save their breath and go back to cutting in line at the movies and taking all the pennies out of the "take a penny, leave a penny" tray next to registers and whatever other asshole-ish behaviors fill their greedy, selfish lives.



  •  @belgariontheking said:

    @PSWorx said:

    Still, what kind of "social contract" are you talking about? Where can I look up such a contract, when should I have signed it and who wants to arrest me for breaking it?
    If you're asking these questions, you've missed the definition of social contract.

    Alright, I looked it up it's meaning and I was wrong indeed. Point taken.

    @belgariontheking said:

    There's nothing illegal about blocking ads, no more than it's illegal to put ads on your website.  Think of it kind of like the fashion police (assuming that's not just an American term).

    Personally, however, I think that this whole discussion amounts to nothing more than what ends up on morbs' mom's face every night.  Block them if you want, noone's stopping you.  Just don't feel self-righteous and don't cry if your favorite site goes down because everybody's blocked the ads.  Leave them up if you want, but don't cry about how the ads are annoying.

    Fully agreed. If I could choose between a site that needs paid access and an ad-supported site, I'd gladly choose the latter. Same with TV. Channels with commercials still beat Pay TV by lengths.

    What I'm against is saying the mere existence and use of ad blockers is an immoral thing, as morbs apparently wants to point out. If I like a site and want it to continue (as TDWTF), of course I'll support it and enable ads.  I just don't see why I should give this support blindly to any site I encounter, even if I have no idea what it's about (because I'm visiting it the first time). I don't think blocking ads equals stealing, because no one sells you anything in the first place. A web author puts up his content in the full knowledge that you will consume it without paying first. Of course he wants to make money with the ads he puts on the site, but the content and the ads have no real relationship. If he really wants to be sure and wants to sell his content to you in the traditional sense, he should put up a pay site. Or offer "premium services" or something like that. As many people do, by the way. But with ads, I think the relationship is more similar to the one of a busker: He might make good music (if you're lucky) and of course he doesn't stand there to make the world a happier place. Still, it's your decision if you donate or not. No one would say you "stole your music" if you just walked past without donating. Of course, what you said applies as well: If that busker is gone some day because no one donated, you certainly can't whine and cry if you didn't donate yourself.



  • PSWorx,

    I think I'm mostly in agreeance, except that buskers don't have to pay money to stand on the street corner, except maybe in countries that are so devoid of actual jobs that the city has to step in and charge license fees to stand on street corners.  Alex and co have to pay money (likely a hefty sum) to keep this site up every month.



  • So, for the person who is 'socially contractual aware,' who won't click on ads (assuming revenue is generated through click-throughs rather than per view) is there any difference between displaying the ads or not displaying them?



  • @PJH said:

    So, for the person who is 'socially contractual aware,' who won't click on ads (assuming revenue is generated through click-throughs rather than per view) is there any difference between displaying the ads or not displaying them?

    That's a fairly big assumption on your part.  However, even if you are sure you won't click the ads by not viewing them you are eliminating even the slightest possibility.  Everybody is influenced by ads to some degree and by refusing to even look at them you are lowering the value of advertising for the advertiser and hence for the content provider. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @DaveK said:



    Anyway, the whole discussion is hypothecated on a false premise: that ad-blocking is an active, positive act, rather than what it actually is: a passive lack of action.  See, I don't block ads: I simple don't actively go out and fetch them.  HTTP, everyone seems to forget in the way they use language in this debate, is a pull medium, not a push medium.  The implications and associative meanings of the terms chosen colour the emotional tone of the debate in a way that pre-judges a certain desired conclusion.

    Congratulations, this is the weakest attempt to justify theft I think I've ever seen.  The fact is you are violating the social contract by taking content without upholding your end of the bargain.  That makes you a thieving bastard.  If you can live with that, fine, but stop spewing bullshit in an attempt to rationalize your choice.

    My web browser does not support Flash, so I see very few ads. Does this make me a thieving bastard?



  • @Carnildo said:

    My web browser does not support Flash, so I see very few ads. Does this make me a thieving bastard?

    If you have to ask...  </joking>

     

    Seriously, I'm not Mr. Manners here.  I think there is a pretty clear difference between simply not being able to see the ads and actively avoiding them.  Hell, I frequently use NoScript and FlashBlock to prevent the browser from spewing pop-ups or video at me.  However, I would never go so far as to block reasonable ads that are attached to content.  The difference, in my mind, is that pop-ups and videos that play automatically interrupt what I am doing which may not be viewing the associated content.  For Flash it's not so much the videos themselves as the audio: there's nothing more irritating than having loud audio blaring from some unseen tab and then having to look through 60 Firefox tabs just to find it.  Also, the Flash plugin on Linux has a tendency to crash Firefox randomly (but infrequently) so I try to avoid having the plugin load unless I really want to see the Flash content.  To me, that's still a clear dividing line between "ads viewed as part of consuming content" and "ads that interrupt other activities and may actually distract from other legitimate ads that are not so intrusive".  Maybe you feel otherwise, but I'm hoping you can see the difference between not being able to see (or not wanting other activities interrupted by) Flash ads and completely blocking all ads.



  • Theft... haha... oh that's a good one.



    Some of you were comparing web browsing to a walk in the park where some guy is handing out flyers. That's partially accurate. Except sometimes, you go out and all you see is a billboard. Sometimes it's a guy with flyers. Often, it's a guy with flyers and a megaphone. Sometimes this jerk just jumps in front of you and refuses to get the fuck out of the way so you can continue walking. Sometimes there are several of these jerks. And some of them will knock you down, grab your wallet, take a look at your ID, and implant a tracking device in you. A few will even go to your house and hide in it, coming out every now and then to steal your food and staple ads to everything, breaking a lot of your stuff in the process and maybe fucking your dog just for fun.



    There's no way to know when you go somewhere you haven't been before what sort of advertising you'll find there. You can either live with it or install an ad blocker. If not wanting to have jerks jumping in front of me screaming and waving their flyers in my face and refusing to get out of the way makes me a thief, then I guess I'm a thief. I don't care whether they're selling things to raise money to pay for the cost of running the park. They're ruining it. If a site annoys me enough I simply won't visit it. Ad blockers remove the things that make those sites annoying so that I can use them.



    If you're only concerned about making money and don't care how much you annoy your users, you may as well go all the way and charge for registrations instead.



  •  That all matches quite nicely with the reasons that I run an automated process that chooses in a programmatic way which http refferences to follow - i.e. ad block plus.

      1. I am often using my mobile phone to retrieve pages when away from the office, and BogPuddle charges me $500/GB for excess data - Images i do not need to see could cost me big.

      2. Whenever I do not have an ad blocker in place, I continue to see ads that break the 'social contract' by being misleading or otherwise dishonest: i.e. the "I know your IP address" scareware stuff or ads shaped to look like error dialogs.

    So, I keep ABP in place deciding what I need to see.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @PJH said:

    So, for the person who is 'socially contractual aware,' who won't click on ads (assuming revenue is generated through click-throughs rather than per view) is there any difference between displaying the ads or not displaying them?

    That's a fairly big assumption on your part. 

    um, no it isn't.



  • @lolwtf said:

    Some of you were comparing web browsing to a walk in the park where some guy is handing out flyers. That's partially accurate. Except sometimes, you go out and all you see is a billboard. Sometimes it's a guy with flyers. Often, it's a guy with flyers and a megaphone. Sometimes this jerk just jumps in front of you and refuses to get the fuck out of the way so you can continue walking. Sometimes there are several of these jerks. And some of them will knock you down, grab your wallet, take a look at your ID, and implant a tracking device in you. A few will even go to your house and hide in it, coming out every now and then to steal your food and staple ads to everything, breaking a lot of your stuff in the process and maybe fucking your dog just for fun.
    Except that if you want to use this "park" analogy then this park is privately owned by the guy with the megaphone and the flyers, who is trying to raise money so he can generously keep his park open to the public.

    I have blocked ads from this site until I decided to become a active member and register. I even clicked an ad on purpose once because I thought their tools could be useful for me. But even if I generally don't click through, I would never have heard of SlickEdit if it weren't for the ads. Brand awareness is very important



  • @PJH said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @PJH said:

    So, for the person who is 'socially contractual aware,' who won't click on ads (assuming revenue is generated through click-throughs rather than per view) is there any difference between displaying the ads or not displaying them?

    That's a fairly big assumption on your part. 

    um, no it isn't.
     

    Exactly. I can absolutely guarantee that I will never click on a link or buy from an ad that was shoved in my face. I don't click on sponsored links in google either. That's because I dislike having to see adverts and I dislike the fact that they have become more and more intrusive because we have become better at blocking them out.

    That said, I completely appreciate that someone has to pay for the site and that I get enjoyment from visiting the site for free. Therefore, I think a donation button is the best solution. I'll happily stick a euro or two in the tip jar every so often to support a site but don't force me to look at ads that I'm not interested in.



  • @bjolling said:

    @lolwtf said:

    Some of you were comparing web browsing to a walk in the park where some guy is handing out flyers. That's partially accurate. Except sometimes, you go out and all you see is a billboard. Sometimes it's a guy with flyers. Often, it's a guy with flyers and a megaphone. Sometimes this jerk just jumps in front of you and refuses to get the fuck out of the way so you can continue walking. Sometimes there are several of these jerks. And some of them will knock you down, grab your wallet, take a look at your ID, and implant a tracking device in you. A few will even go to your house and hide in it, coming out every now and then to steal your food and staple ads to everything, breaking a lot of your stuff in the process and maybe fucking your dog just for fun.
    Except that if you want to use this "park" analogy then this park is privately owned by the guy with the megaphone and the flyers, who is trying to raise money so he can generously keep his park open to the public.

    Except that a lot of parks are not owned by those guys.  They are owned by well-meaning fellows who rent out spots to advertising companies.  However, the advertising companies have a sort of all-or-nothing deal, so sometimes (or quite often, depending on company) they send out those aggressive guys with megaphones. 

    @bjolling said:

    I have blocked ads from this site until I decided to become a active member and register. I even clicked an ad on purpose once because I thought their tools could be useful for me. But even if I generally don't click through, I would never have heard of SlickEdit if it weren't for the ads. Brand awareness is very important

    I reloaded TDWTF homepage a few page to see the selection of ads and spent a moment to consider each one.  Here are the results:

    Mosso: hosting for people who build websites - not interested, I host my own site myself

    Softlayer: big time server savings - not interested, I'm not in need of any servers 

    Software verification: software solutions for software problems (cross-language development tools) - not interested, I don't need to use a dozen different languages, and I prefer free software anyway 

    Sane approach to database design - the "examples of people that did it wrong" might provide some entertainment, but there's plenty of those on TDWTF.  Also, I prefer digital content over paper books.

    SlickEdit: if you code it, they will come - not interested, vim is good enough for me.

    SlickEdit: SlkEdit iz lik cheatin! - still not interested, I seriously doubt that piece of software is going to design better software than me.

    resolverone: a python spreadsheet for developers - not interested, my use of spreadsheets is limited to tracking my personal expenses, and I don't need any scripting for that.  If I want to do any math stuff, I don't need a spreadsheet for it.

    MindFusion: Advanced UI components for .NET and Java - not interested, I don't program in either

    ImageUploader: all-platform all-browser component for mass file uploads - not interested, I'm not developing any websites that need mass file uploads

    FusionCharts: Impress your PHB - not interested, fortunately my position does not require me to craft any graphs

    I think that's about it, couldn't get any new ones with a few reloads.  So out of 11 ads, only one is even remotely interesting, and not event enough to click it, since I know I'm not going to pay for the book.  On other sites and other times, I've seen ads that are distinctly targeted at US citizens.  I am not one and not interested in becoming one ("You could miss the opportunity of your life!  Get your green card and start working in the US today!"), so why should I be forced to watch such ads?  Not to speak of all those flashing, shaking ads that try to prevent me from reading the main content.

    There's this internet radio channel I listen that also plays very US-centric ads every now and then.  Most of them are sort of tolerable, but one of them has sounds I just can't stand (it sells electronic car insurance - for the US.  I don't have a car and I don't live in the US).  Thus I've devised a small script that watches for title changes of the radio station (provided by xmms2) and mutes sound whenever it detects the ad.

    In general, I'm very unlikely to buy anything based on an ad.  I might do it in the grocery store to see if a new candy is any good, but if I need something like computer equipment, I'll go on the web, find out about the alternatives and make an informed choice based on features, performance and price.

    Now that I got started on the topic "what's wrong on the internet", there are a couple categories of sites that provide annoying search results in Google.  First, other search sites.  Nothing is more annoying than getting search results that point to other search engines - that didn't find anything on the keyword.  Second, and somewhat related, acronym sites.  I get results like: IBTK - Definition by AcronymFinder (Acronym Finder: Definition of IBTK. What does IBTK stand for?) and when I click on the link, I discover that the site didn't actually know the meaning of the acronym and just wasted my time.



  • @robbak said:

     That all matches quite nicely with the reasons that I run an automated process that chooses in a programmatic way which http refferences to follow - i.e. ad block plus.

      1. I am often using my mobile phone to retrieve pages when away from the office, and BogPuddle charges me $500/GB for excess data - Images i do not need to see could cost me big.

      2. Whenever I do not have an ad blocker in place, I continue to see ads that break the 'social contract' by being misleading or otherwise dishonest: i.e. the "I know your IP address" scareware stuff or ads shaped to look like error dialogs.

    So, I keep ABP in place deciding what I need to see.

    That seems reasonable in your case. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Seriously, I'm not Mr. Manners here.  I think there is a pretty clear difference between simply not being able to see the ads and actively avoiding them.  Hell, I frequently use NoScript and FlashBlock to prevent the browser from spewing pop-ups or video at me.  However, I would never go so far as to block reasonable ads that are attached to content.  The difference, in my mind, is that pop-ups and videos that play automatically interrupt what I am doing which may not be viewing the associated content.  For Flash it's not so much the videos themselves as the audio: there's nothing more irritating than having loud audio blaring from some unseen tab and then having to look through 60 Firefox tabs just to find it.  Also, the Flash plugin on Linux has a tendency to crash Firefox randomly (but infrequently) so I try to avoid having the plugin load unless I really want to see the Flash content.  To me, that's still a clear dividing line between "ads viewed as part of consuming content" and "ads that interrupt other activities and may actually distract from other legitimate ads that are not so intrusive".  Maybe you feel otherwise, but I'm hoping you can see the difference between not being able to see (or not wanting other activities interrupted by) Flash ads and completely blocking all ads.

    You really undermine your whole argument here.  So NoScript and FlashBlock are ok, but AdBlock is not?  You're finnicking between one plugin and another, you use the undefined and vague concepts of "clear", a "reasonable" ad versus one that is "irritating" (clear is often clear to someone yet simultaneously not so clear to someone else, irritating is always irritating to someone, reasonable is always reasonable in someone's point of view), legitimate and illegitimate ads...  You remind me of those medieval philosophers arguing tiny points of increasingly meaningless detail in debates about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  Originally you had a straightforward simple moral argument with some force behind it; after this it's hard not to see your argument as now deeply contaminated by "When I do it, it's ok, when you do it, it's bad" reasoning.



  • @DaveK said:

    You really undermine your whole argument here.  So NoScript and FlashBlock are ok, but AdBlock is not?  You're finnicking between one plugin and another, you use the undefined and vague concepts of "clear", a "reasonable" ad versus one that is "irritating" (clear is often clear to someone yet simultaneously not so clear to someone else, irritating is always irritating to someone, reasonable is always reasonable in someone's point of view), legitimate and illegitimate ads...  You remind me of those medieval philosophers arguing tiny points of increasingly meaningless detail in debates about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  Originally you had a straightforward simple moral argument with some force behind it; after this it's hard not to see your argument as now deeply contaminated by "When I do it, it's ok, when you do it, it's bad" reasoning.

    What part did you not understand?  A legitimate ad is one that is only present when I am actively consuming content.  A pop-up or audio track that interrupts my browsing of other sites or what-have-you is not legitimate.  I don't block ads that are purely annoying so long as they don't interfere with other tasks.  I thought I explained that simply enough for most people to comprehend.  The point is I am not blocking ads just because I don't want to see them (and I don't but until all the sites I frequent have a subscription option I have no choice because I do not want to undermine the revenue stream of the content providers), I'm only blocking Flash and pop-ups that take control of my browser and prevent me from doing other things.



  • @Phill said:

    Exactly. I can absolutely guarantee that I will never click on a link or buy from an ad that was shoved in my face. I don't click on sponsored links in google either. That's because I dislike having to see adverts and I dislike the fact that they have become more and more intrusive because we have become better at blocking them out.

    This is the same argument people who pirate content make.  "I wasn't going to buy it anyway so I'm not really depriving them of revenue."  The point is you are violating the social contract, period.

     

    @Phill said:

    That said, I completely appreciate that someone has to pay for the site and that I get enjoyment from visiting the site for free. Therefore, I think a donation button is the best solution. I'll happily stick a euro or two in the tip jar every so often to support a site but don't force me to look at ads that I'm not interested in.

    I prefer subscription setups myself.  The "tip jar" model sounds nice, but people who are so selfish they block ads are not going to "leave a tip" and most other surfers won't either.  I'll take you at your word that you would contribute something.  However, it's hard for you to know if you are even contributing the right amount: you may be giving less than what you consume which means you are still going to put the site out of business.  I've seen too many "donation only" sites go under or resort to ads and that's because people will not contribute enough to keep the site going.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    This is the same argument people who pirate content make.  "I wasn't going to buy it anyway so I'm not really depriving them of revenue."  The point is you are violating the social contract, period.

     

    Do you record TV shows? Do you fast-forward through the ads or does your social conscience come knocking? It's very easy to get on the high moral ground on an issue but I'd question whether you actually stick to your principals. You've already admitted that when the ads get too annoying for you, then you block them. Perhaps our levels of tolerance for what is annoying are set differently.

    @morbiuswilters said:


    I prefer subscription setups myself.  The "tip jar" model sounds nice, but people who are so selfish they block ads are not going to "leave a tip" and most other surfers won't either.  I'll take you at your word that you would contribute something.  However, it's hard for you to know if you are even contributing the right amount: you may be giving less than what you consume which means you are still going to put the site out of business.  I've seen too many "donation only" sites go under or resort to ads and that's because people will not contribute enough to keep the site going.



    Plenty of sites, such as Wikipedia, do well under this model, though I will admit that Wikipedians tend to be a bit more fanatical that your average web user.



  • @Phill said:

    Do you record TV shows?
    You're making a pretty big assumption here, and that's that morb owns a television.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    @Phill said:

    Do you record TV shows?
    You're making a pretty big assumption here, and that's that morb owns a television.

     

    If he doesn't then the answer to the question is no and the next question becomes non-applicable.



  • @Anon Ymous said:

    Web ads are akin to going to the zoo and having someone chase you down and staple a flier to your face
    I've never seen anyone with flyers at any of the zoos I've visited.  Australia must have a builtin adblocker.  Nifty.

    Whenever I travel away from Canberra I have to get used to the sudden barage of billboards that the rest of the country is allowed to stick everywhere.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.