I Hate Firefox
-
@blakeyrat said:
@boomzilla said:
Good lord, even for an idiot like you, I'd have thought you'd recognize that I meant overkill usability wise.
... what? Who was talking about usability? Certainly not the post you were responding to.
I was talking about the menu, of which I posted a screen shot. I admit that I could have been clearer, but I did not anticipate your blindness due to incoherent rage at ad blocking. I will try to keep that in mind going forward.
@blakeyrat said:
Maybe in the future you should verify you're actually replying to the thread and not just to the hallucinatory dancing gremlins in your brain that whisper dark thoughts while you sleep.
Thanks for another amusing round of blakeyrat projection.
-
@The_Assimilator said:
@boomzilla said:
@The_Assimilator said:
No, he's using Linux, which has notoriously bad font rendering.
So, your theory is that I can't see what dhromed sees in the same image because of your impression of the reputation of the OS I'm using? At least his theory is plausible.
Linux's shitty font rendering is not a myth, it's a fact. My new theory is that you've become so used to said shitty font rendering that you can't tell it's shitty anymore.
So, you can presumably describe the problems in the screen shot I posted? I mean, I understand the appeal of an anti-fanboi argument like yours, but it doesn't do much to convince anyone else that doesn't already agree with you.
Again, dhromed gave an argument that stood on its own, and should make sense even to someone who isn't a font snob (like me). I just can't see the effect he describes, which could be due to our different equipment, both monitor and eyes. Can you show me a similar example from some system not legendary for bad font rendering? Or will you simply continue to beclown yourself with non-arguments?
-
@dhromed said:
Let's push this thread to 4 pages, alright?
Happy now?
-
@boomzilla said:
if one site uses a really annoying ad provider
Hmmm, I thought and I believe that blakeyrat mentioned this that each one provides all kinds of adds, of varying qualities.
My stand on this is simple, if you use annoying adds I won't visit your site anymore, period, you can keep your content because in my book you are a dipshit for providing annoying adds. I don't use any addblock (I do disable some stuff on the browser that I don't care about) but then I only visit like 4 non work related websites on a regular basis.
-
@The_Assimilator said:
No, he's using Linux, which has notoriously bad font rendering.
"Linux" has no font rendering. It's GNOME or KDE or whatever.
Gnome offers the same shitty monochrome antialias as in boomzilla's screenshot, but its subpixel AA can be tuned to be sharp yet smooth. A good accomplishment!
-
@boomzilla said:
So, your theory is that I can't see what dhromed sees in the same image because of your impression of the reputation of the OS I'm using? At least his theory is plausible.
The_AssImmolator is incorrect, but that's neither here nor there.
What matters is that I might train you to observe poor AA and thus ruin personal computing for you forever.
Well, until you hit up the Ubuntu preferences or whatever you use and tweak your font AA.
-
What's the problem of Fx implementing a feature another browser already has? If you're going to go that route, then have a go at all the browsers for implementing Operas tabbed browsing features, or Safari and Chrome for implementing Operas quickdial (or whatever you prefer to call it), or how about the option to switch to using different stylesheets that the user has set up, Opera got there first, you gonna have a go about Fx for that now?
-
@The_Assimilator said:
My new theory is that you've become so used to said shitty font rendering that you can't tell it's shitty anymore.
The word you're looking for is "hypothesis", and I think you're right.
Another option might be that boom's screen has a very small dotpitch on which everything is tiny, and this obviously mitigates the blurry aspect of his curves.
-
@Anketam said:
@dhromed said:
Let's push this thread to 4 pages, alright?
Happy now?Overjoyed. See avatar.
-
@boomzilla said:
Again, dhromed gave an argument that stood on its own, and should make sense even to someone who isn't a font snob (like me). I just can't see the effect he describes, which could be due to our different equipment, both monitor and eyes. Can you show me a similar example from some system not legendary for bad font rendering?
Maybe I'll boot the ol' bucklin' 'Buntu box tonight and screenshoot some succulent samplings of its veritable varieties of both ragingly retarded as well as advanced antialas algorithms.
-
@dhromed said:
"Linux" has no font rendering. It's GNOME or KDE or whatever.
Gnome offers the same shitty monochrome antialias as in boomzilla's screenshot, but its subpixel AA can be tuned to be sharp yet smooth. A good accomplishment!
I'm using KDE. I've never cared enough to dig into any of the settings. I see that my fonts were set to "System Settings" for anti-aliasing, whatever that meant. I changed it to "Enabled", and then turned on "RGB" sub-pixel rendering.
At "normal" viewing distance, the difference is very subtle. I'm not sure I'd notice it if I didn't know it was there. From close up, I can see the difference. Thanks for the hint.
-
I made a pic and tried to fix the e in filter.
Concerning subpixel AA, result may vary form person to person and screen to screen, so be sure to futz about.
-
@dhromed said:
See avatar.
[b]GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH[/b]
Psychological scars-- reopened.
I just realized another use-case for adblock...
-
Also more reasons why Firefox suck:
Firefox is the only reason that HTML5 video is such a gongshow. Chrome, Safari, IE9 all support H.264. Why must Firefox be the black sheep and require us all to encode it to OGG (puke) or WebM (Double Puke).
I know they've finally clued in and said this will change.. which is great because now we only need 1 copy of any video media to serve it to everyone (Flash can serve H.264 fortunately! :D).
Audio is a similar boat. Everyone but Firefox supports MP3 (What.. that audio codec that nobody uses.. lulz). Firefox sucks.
-
@gu3st said:
Also more reasons why Firefox suck:
Firefox is the only reason that HTML5 video is such a gongshow. Chrome, Safari, IE9 all support H.264. Why must Firefox be the black sheep and require us all to encode it to OGG (puke) or WebM (Double Puke).
Have you been living under a rock? Chrome is dropping support for H264 soon (if it hasn't already). What you don't understand is that companies have to pay patent royalties to use these fonts, and some companies don't want to both with that or can't afford to. Why should Firefox (an open source browser) have to pay to support a closed codec when there are open codecs that offer comparable quality? Chrome might be developed by the biggest software company in the world but it's still open source, and can't be released as open source worldwide if it has to rely on a bunch of closed codecs.
-
They've threatened to drop H.264 support for like 2 years now.. yet I can still go into Chrome and load up an H.264 format video without an issue.
And Firefox has recently conceded that they have no chance to exist in the Mobile space without H.264 support, so Firefox is getting that in the near future too.
-
@ASheridan said:
I can tell you it's Flash. I use only Linux at home, and Flash is a pita. It regularly crashes Chrome, and I don't just mean crashes a tab, it crashes the whole bloody browser, which I was under the impression shouldn't happen in Chrome so often. It also crashes in Firefox sometimes, but tends not to take the whole browser with it.
Your machine sounds insane. Flash in Chrome does not stutter for me but Flash in Firefox does. Flash is much more likely to crash in Firefox and when it does it takes down the whole browser. Flash sometimes crashes in Chrome but when it does I just get the little "dead puzzle piece" where the Flash objects were (it does usually affect multiple tabs). For the record, Firefox is 64-bit as is the Flash plugin. Chrome is also 64-bit but uses the built-in Flash plugin.
-
@Cassidy said:
What distro, as a matter of interest? (just curious; looking at dropping Mint onto my new tower)
Ubuntu, but I hate it. I prefer just doing my own builds but I don't have the time any more. My second choice is Gentoo but there's something seriously fucked about how X and the i915 DRM driver interact with my laptop which means it took, like, 40 hours of work to get Gentoo working. Then my SSD died without warning and I lost the partition Gentoo was on so I said "fuck it" and just went back to Ubuntu. What I hate about Ubuntu is how they keep fucking with the core Linux functionality--they replaced Gnome2 with Unity which is a joke. You can easily switch back to Gnome2 for now, but I figure soon Ubuntu will drop it entirely. Also, the networking shit they use is all retarded; it's mostly GUI-based and it likes to randomly decide to not connect to my wifi network. The only way to fix it is a full system reboot. I'm used to configuring networking from the command-line and just having it work.
-
@Cassidy said:
Then many academic institutions began using Opera, and couldn't use our website. Then IE7 and IE8 emerged, and it seems that our site ONLY worked in IE6. Then along came the iPhone and iPad, and none would show our site properly.
And then the realisation: "hardly anyone uses it TODAY, but tomorrow could be a different matter".
I support all of those, just not Opera. I also don't specifically support Konqueror or whatever the hell it is. If Opera starts gaining traction I suppose it will have to be supported but I won't be the one doing it because I'll have already swallowed the business-end of a shotgun. I do not want to live in a world where Opera is used.
-
@The_Assimilator said:
Linux's shitty font rendering is not a myth, it's a fact.
I'm hardly a Linux defender, but it looks good to me. I really can't imagine how it would look any better; I've used Windows and OSX plenty and I never thought their fonts looked better. I think Windows does most things better than Linux but font rendering isn't on that list.
-
@ASheridan said:
@gu3st said:
Also more reasons why Firefox suck:
Firefox is the only reason that HTML5 video is such a gongshow. Chrome, Safari, IE9 all support H.264. Why must Firefox be the black sheep and require us all to encode it to OGG (puke) or WebM (Double Puke).
Have you been living under a rock? Chrome is dropping support for H264 soon (if it hasn't already). What you don't understand is that companies have to pay patent royalties to use these fonts, and some companies don't want to both with that or can't afford to. Why should Firefox (an open source browser) have to pay to support a closed codec when there are open codecs that offer comparable quality? Chrome might be developed by the biggest software company in the world but it's still open source, and can't be released as open source worldwide if it has to rely on a bunch of closed codecs.
OGG is shit and hopefully will die soon. My solution: HTML5 video should only be H.264. The browser should not have its own codec but just use the H.264 codec installed on the system. Don't have the codec? Can't play video. Linux users can opt to install a licensed codec or live without video; I really don't care either way.
-
@roelforg said:
My parents' XP box does have some probs though. When it exits there's an nullpointer exception. And some sites crash the thing for no reason at all while when i visit them on my pc it hums along just fine.
The only comments/inconviniences i have with ff is that it takes 1 minute to start,
it's my fault though: slow hd and i set it to save my session, i keep 10-15 tabs open at any given time; when i launch ff it loads them all and that takes a lot of time because we don't have much interweb bandwith and speed.
I am probably the worst user when it comes to tabs opened. I currently have 79, and FF almost never crash on me. It becomes reeeaaalllly slow, but doesnt't crash.
I also have 2 Chrome opened with about 25 tabs each.
And all this is not even on a real OS :c)
-
@TimeBandit said:
I am probably the worst user when it comes to tabs opened. I currently have 79, and FF almost never crash on me. It becomes reeeaaalllly slow, but doesnt't crash.
I also have 2 Chrome opened with about 25 tabs each.
So, I'm genuinely curious. What do you guys have open in so many tabs?
-
I think sometime in the last 5 years, people forgot what bookmarks were.
-
@boomzilla said:
@TimeBandit said:
I am probably the worst user when it comes to tabs opened. I currently have 79, and FF almost never crash on me. It becomes reeeaaalllly slow, but doesnt't crash.
I also have 2 Chrome opened with about 25 tabs each.
So, I'm genuinely curious. What do you guys have open in so many tabs?
Gmail (one for work, one personnal), my gmail calendar, a couple phpMyAdmin pages on different servers (dev, staging, prod), various documentation on QT's site, slashdot, TDWTF (obviously), our project management (web based),couple pages on LibUSB docs, example codes for LibUSB, web-admin console four our kiosks, RaspberryPi page (I need to keep up on the news, I am waiting for my device to be shipped), etc
I could probably close a lot of tabs I have opened, and I usually do it when I see my machine getting too slow.
-
@blakeyrat said:
I think sometime in the last 5 years, people forgot what bookmarks were.
I have so many bookmarks I am really happy there is a search function in it !
-
@boomzilla said:
So, I'm genuinely curious. What do you guys have open in so many tabs?
- 5 TDWTF forums
- company documentation I'm reviewing
- a bunch of articles on various NoSQL databases
- several pages of various DNS hosting companies, looking for one that is cheap, supports DNSSEC and will slave off my server
- documentation on booting Linux from a LUKS-encrypted drive; right now my data partition in encrypted but I want the whole thing encrypted just to be safe
- several pages of 2010-2011 BMW M6 convertibles for sale, looking to have one shipped to Hawaii
-
@blakeyrat said:
I think sometime in the last 5 years, people forgot what bookmarks were.
I don't use bookmarks for stuff I'm coming back to in the next day or so.
-
@TimeBandit said:
It becomes reeeaaalllly slow, but doesnt't crash.
I should also point out that Chrome doesn't get slow for me, even with hundreds of tabs open.
-
BlakeyRant MadLibs?
I'd click allow for ads on that site.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Cassidy said:
@morbiuswilters said:
If Flash ads are such a problem
install FlashblockErm.. how is this different? You're
ranting against people that block ads, then advocate installing
something that... blocks ads. Of the flash variety, admittedly, but
doesn't this feature on your DNU list? (not wanting to stir things up,
just interested in your POV that switches fence sides)Flashblock doesn't block ads. It blocks Flash.
In the context of this question, Morbs is talking about Flash ads. Context matters.
I asked how blocking adverts using an advert blocker is immoral but blocking an advert using flashblock doesn't. One may be flash and the other non-flash, but they're both adverts. Context matters.
So perhaps I should have written "advocate installing
something that... blocks flash ads that a normal immoral adblocker may not block". Right?Now stop being a pedantic dickweed.
-
@dhromed said:
What matters is that I might train you to observe poor AA and thus ruin personal computing for you forever.
There's a stick-figure webcomic about that. Hang on, and I'll post it here for you, if nobody minds...
-
@Cassidy said:
In the context of this question, Morbs is talking about Flash ads. Context matters.
I asked how blocking adverts using an advert blocker is immoral but blocking an advert using flashblock doesn't. One may be flash and the other non-flash, but they're both adverts. Context matters.
Because Flash ads (if they were set up correctly) have a static image alternative that is served to computers that aren't accepting Flash. And considering how many "computers" are iPads and iPhones and iSuckApplesCock, it's pretty rare to see a Flash ad without a static image alternate. (Although admittedly 3-4 years ago it was more common to see "download Flash player" in a placement.)
This is one of those cases, BTW, where if you knew ANYTHING AT ALL about the industry or technology it uses, you'd instantly realize HOW FUCKING STUPID your STUPID ASS QUESTION IS. Idiot.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
.. random linux stuff that's fairly irrelevent to this convo...
I upgraded 10.04 to 10.10 and that was okay, as soon as I tried an upgrade to 11.04 all sorts of shit crawled out so I left the missus' box on 10.10.
Intel H/W ain't particularly well-supported in Linux world, AFAIK. (I recall a time when WinNT had issues with them due to wrong detection also)
Unity sucks the fat wongo. Brave move, but I couldn't get on with it. They should have left it as an option and not forced it by default.
Mint: surprised at how well it worked with most shite on this X100e netbook, complete with codecs/flash/etc - even when running off a SD card. Ubuntu that works.
-
@Cassidy said:
In the context of this question, Morbs is talking about Flash ads. Context matters.
I asked how blocking adverts using an advert blocker is immoral but blocking an advert using flashblock doesn't. One may be flash and the other non-flash, but they're both adverts. Context matters.
So perhaps I should have written "advocate installing
something that... blocks flash ads that a normal immoral adblocker may not block". Right?Now stop being a pedantic dickweed.
I never said "You absolutely can never block an ad under any circumstances". Look, you're smart, so stop pretending that you aren't aware of nuance. If I said "Shooting somebody in the face is wrong"* and then you were all like "But what if they were raping your dog?" you would look like a dick because, obviously, someone who is raping your dog should be shot in the face. QED.
People who block ads block all ads (or at least the vast majority). Their attitude is pure entitlement: "I deserve this content and nobody can expect me to contribute anything back." Flash ads cause problems, though: they can crash my browser, cause my CPU to spike (which causes my thighs to get burned) and randomly play audio. What's worse, they can do this even when the ad is in the background, when I'm not consuming the content. This is a nuanced position: I believe I have an obligation to permit ads but that obligation does not extend to burning my thighs or having one of my 100 open tabs randomly blare some shit at me that I then have to hunt down and mute. Saying "OMG i dont like ads and i aint gonna allow them cuz its my computer and my electricity and anyway the content creators dont make money."
On paywalls: for most content it's simply not worth my effort to login. I prefer ads. Besides, most of the assholes blocking ads are the same assholes who pirate everything because they feel they are entitled to it or that information should be free or whatever, so they're just going to steal it anyway.
On micropayments: if there was a way to effortlessly do micropayments, that would be great. But those same assholes who block ads are just going to pirate your shit, too.
- This is a bad example. I would never say shooting someone in the face is wrong. Shooting people in the face is always 100% awesome.
-
@boomzilla said:
@TimeBandit said:
I am probably the worst user when it comes to tabs opened. I currently have 79, and FF almost never crash on me. It becomes reeeaaalllly slow, but doesnt't crash.
I also have 2 Chrome opened with about 25 tabs each.
So, I'm genuinely curious. What do you guys have open in so many tabs?
Researching new network features. I read one document, which leads me to another document, which links to another document, etc. Or I start looking for other related documents -- sample configurations, etc.
Bug scrubs. I get a list of bugs, then open a bug in another tab, then another bug, etc. I leave them open because then I can compare how one bug may affect another. Then there are release notes. I prefer being able to swap through all of the tabs that I have open instead of closing a tab, then having to go back through history, or bookmark something, etc.
I use IE for our monitoring systems so that it's a separate browser with a predetermined configuration that automatically starts up when I log in. Then Firefox is my general purpose browser.
And with the power of today's Web browsers and the memory available, there's really no good reason that I shouldn't be able to do that.
-
@Cassidy said:
Intel H/W ain't particularly well-supported in Linux world, AFAIK.
I would say the opposite: usually Intel H/W is excellently supported. Intel provides high-quality Linux drivers for most of their gear. I always use Intel graphics and Intel wifi. I've had nothing but pain with ATI and nVidia. Broadcom now has good support, I think, but several years ago it wasn't so hot. The problem was that the CPU I had was brand new and the i915 driver + DRM + kernel framebuffer had some wonkiness with a particular version of the kernel. The solution in Gentoo was to use a newer, masked kernel version and to compile the kernel framebuffer as a module instead of a built-in. (I never use modules, always do built-in.)
@Cassidy said:
Mint: surprised at how well it worked with most shite on this X100e netbook, complete with codecs/flash/etc - even when running off a SD card. Ubuntu that works.
I've heard good things about Mint but frankly I hate binary distros. I usually have to compile a bunch of stuff anyway and it's just easier to have the whole system source-based. Also, it's much easier to have multiple versions of the same binary in a source system, for example.
-
@boomzilla said:
So, I'm genuinely curious. What do you guys have open in so many tabs?
Currently:
- intranet page to my home server (shows various cacti graphs)
- placeholder for a vhost I'm working on (showing success/failure of an apache configuration currently open in an SSH session)
- 6 DailyWTF tabs (easier to drag "reply" into an existing tab)
- 2 stylesheet tests I'm working on
- results of a web search thatis showing me where I'm going wrong with my CSS
- 2 Wiki pages charting the X-Men timeline (trying to figure out where the titles changed along the way)
- 2 pages showing channel logs for an IRC network I run
- a web comic - Name Shall Not Be Mentioned For Fear Of Causing Upset
- theregister.co.uk - 3 of those to compare articles
- XBMC control page
No, I don't need them all open. Yes, I have another FFox session open with even more tabs (I drag between windows).
I know I did desktop sharing with someone at one time and his first expression was "Woah! WINDOWS!" - he didn't mean I was running Windows at the time, just that I had so many open due to the stuff I was working on. I still work this way.
- intranet page to my home server (shows various cacti graphs)
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I would say the opposite: usually Intel H/W is excellently supported. Intel provides high-quality Linux drivers for most of their gear. I always use Intel graphics and Intel wifi. I've had nothing but pain with ATI and nVidia.
Okay.. I had the reverse situation with graphics cards - nVidia worked well, I don't use ATI but struggled to get some Intel stuf working. Was some time back, not tried newer Intel stuff.
@morbiuswilters said:
Broadcom now has good support, I think, but several years ago it wasn't so hot.
Was my experience: I had an issue with Fedora7 which required recompiling the broadcom module and slapping it in place yet for the past 5 years before it 3Com and Netgear stuff "just worked" natively. I also cringe when I see a RealTek onboard card, although I understand they're well-supported now.
@morbiuswilters said:
I've heard good things about Mint but frankly I hate binary distros. I usually have to compile a bunch of stuff anyway and it's just easier to have the whole system source-based. Also, it's much easier to have multiple versions of the same binary in a source system, for example.
Emerge is ur friend. (One of the Gentoo developers was my IRC server admin for some time.)
-
@boomzilla said:
So, I'm genuinely curious. What do you guys have open in so many tabs?
Wow...so many replies. I guess I should talk about what I have open...
At work, I tend to have betwenn 7-10 tabs at a time, including google (for searching), a couple for my local testing reports, integration server, a tab or two of documentation, plus one or more tabs with our issue tracker.
At home, I tend to have at least 2 tabs. One with google (I use iGoogle to aggregate rss feeds) plus gmail. Other tabs vary, but it's rarely more than three or four more at a time, just because having too many open bugs me, which is maybe kinda odd, since I'm perfectly happy with a messy desk.
-
Fuck bookmarks. That's where I put links that I don't want to forget about, but will never use for 2 years at which point I'll have to go to archive.org anyways.
Currently:
Gmail
Hotmail
a white noise generator
a blog and Not Always Right (quick reads, easy to switch to for a couple minutes)
IMDB as a reminder to watch a movie
Internet radio station
Slashdot, plus 5-6 unread stories in tabs
Life insurance page
Daily contest page
A couple comics I'll IM my wife when she's online
Episode guide to This American Life
Some link I opened from someone's post that I've been meaning to read
This forum
A tech article
A troubleshooting page
JQuery reference pageAnd a couple tabs dedicated to useless shit-- aka, work.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
"I deserve this content and nobody can expect me to contribute anything back."
Serious question (unless you're trolling, in which case the reply should at least be entertaining)
From what I understand, there's two ways the content owner gets paid: by showing the ad, and by the ad being clicked on.
Assuming that you a) want to support the content owner via ads and b) will never actually follow or purchase from an Internet ad, are any of these approaches ethical enough:
1) Allow the ads to be downloaded, but hide them. (The mechanism doesn't matter. AdBlock, yellow sticky tape, averting eyes, whatever). Owner still gets paid for an ad view
2) Allow the ads to be downloaded, and ignore them, but use an automated mechanism to click on them (hiding resulting pops, etc).
The owner gets paid, and the user handles the ads however they wish. In the first case, the ad network sees the same amount of views as they always did. The second case is click fraud, even if you throttle it to a "reasonable" level-- but is no different than you manually clicking on an ad with no intention on following up.
I ask because I truly want to know how somone should act who is pro-pay-content-owner, but anti-ad companies-- excluding paywalls and mail-a-check.
Edit: This is also assuming that "don't use the website" is not a desirable option for either the web user, or the website owner.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
b) will never actually follow or purchase from an Internet ad
I don't think I've ever seen an ad and said "I need this", clicked through and bought something right away. Often ads work on me more indirectly: I see an ad and it reminds me of something I was considering buying or informs me about something I didn't know existed. Later I may or may not make a purchase. So for people like me it makes sense to get paid per impression, not per click. But ads do impact my buying decisions. And I'm, like, the least buy-y person I know. I own very little, just a few very nice things.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Your machine sounds insane. Flash in Chrome does not stutter for me but Flash in Firefox does. Flash is much more likely to crash in Firefox and when it does it takes down the whole browser. Flash sometimes crashes in Chrome but when it does I just get the little "dead puzzle piece" where the Flash objects were (it does usually affect multiple tabs). For the record, Firefox is 64-bit as is the Flash plugin. Chrome is also 64-bit but uses the built-in Flash plugin.
Very strange, because Flash has been running out-of-process (using the plugin container process) since Firefox 3.x. You should only be getting crashes if you've installed the debug version of Flash Player. The popup dialog that the debug version displays for uncaught errors may cause the entire plugin container and everything connected to it (including screen redraws in Firefox itself) to stall until a timeout is detected by the main Firefox process. Iirc the root cause there is bad coding practices on the part of Adobe. The Firefox end of things finds itself having to jump through all manner of awkward hoops to try to cover up and/or smooth out a lot of Adobe's crap...
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Lorne Kates said:
b) will never actually follow or purchase from an Internet ad
I don't think I've ever seen an ad and said "I need this", clicked through and bought something right away. Often ads work on me more indirectly: I see an ad and it reminds me of something I was considering buying or informs me about something I didn't know existed. Later I may or may not make a purchase. So for people like me it makes sense to get paid per impression, not per click. But ads do impact my buying decisions. And I'm, like, the least buy-y person I know. I own very little, just a few very nice things.
Which still leaves the question open-- how does viewing that ad directly benefit the content owner?
It indirectly benefits the product owner, who may eventually sell their product to you. But unless you followed that ad, or used some sort of promo code directly from that ad, or explicitly told them "I saw your ad on TheDailyWtf.com on [datetime]", there's no way they can connect your sale to the website's display of the ad.
And without that connection, they can't directly reward the site owner for the referal. Sure, sales will keep them in business which will keep them pumping money into the ad networks which will eventually trickle down to the site owner-- but there's a nigh infinite supply of companies willing to pump money into the ad networks anyways.
Again, not arguing or anything-- truly want to know if there's a way to support a content owner with ad revenue while still blocking ads.
(Note: The answer may be "it isn't possible, pick one side", which is a cromulent if unsatisfying answer)
-
@Lorne Kates said:
And without that connection, they can't directly reward the site owner for the referal. Sure, sales will keep them in business which will keep them pumping money into the ad networks which will eventually trickle down to the site owner-- but there's a nigh infinite supply of companies willing to pump money into the ad networks anyways.
That's pretty much how most advertising works. You aren't rewarded for sales, you just get paid for impressions and clicks. Apparently that works better for retailers than paying a sales commission.. shrug
@Lorne Kates said:
Again, not arguing or anything-- truly want to know if there's a way to support a content owner with ad revenue while still blocking ads.
You could download-but-hide the ads and probably nobody would be the wiser, but it's one of those "only I can do it" things. I can take a piss in the city's water supply and it won't hurt anybody and nobody will ever know. If we all piss in the water supply we're only going to have piss to drink from now on.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Flash is much more likely to crash in Firefox and when it does it takes down the whole browser.
Not always.
-
-
@morbiuswilters said:
obviously, someone who is raping your dog should be shot in the face. QED.
My next invention is a gun that shoots crowbars.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I always use Intel graphics and Intel wifi. I've had nothing but pain with ATI and nVidia. Broadcom now has good support, I think, but several years ago it wasn't so hot. The problem was that the CPU I had was brand new and the i915 driver + DRM + kernel framebuffer had some wonkiness with a particular version of the kernel. The solution in Gentoo was to use a newer, masked kernel version and to compile the kernel framebuffer as a module instead of a built-in. (I never use modules, always do built-in.)
Jesus.
