tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post6723598911342065694..comments2024-03-17T05:03:46.056-07:00Comments on xkcd sucks: Comic 624: Should Be BlockedCarlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comBlogger105125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-33737216659251777822010-01-12T15:07:50.898-08:002010-01-12T15:07:50.898-08:00The answer's still the same!The answer's still the same!rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-46944171725547456172010-01-12T15:02:04.012-08:002010-01-12T15:02:04.012-08:00you should discern that anon was kidding. I think?...you should discern that anon was kidding. I think?Carlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-77743407744757867802010-01-12T14:25:40.458-08:002010-01-12T14:25:40.458-08:00People with discernment and taste.People with discernment and taste.rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-83856501684615349212010-01-12T09:38:01.902-08:002010-01-12T09:38:01.902-08:00this comic is funny and i love xkcd..
where am i? ...this comic is funny and i love xkcd..<br />where am i? a xkcdsucks blog? wtf? who doesnt like xkcd?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-91141798827292087152009-09-01T20:39:06.267-07:002009-09-01T20:39:06.267-07:00Can we make a category for every time Randy squeez...Can we make a category for every time Randy squeezes in that little sitcom-style "wait, what?" after the alleged punchline? It could be the largest category made to date.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-69823115958150970922009-08-22T07:45:47.741-07:002009-08-22T07:45:47.741-07:00"facebook of sex" is a real ad, it shows..."facebook of sex" is a real ad, it shows up on 4chan all the timeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-77219509540043313442009-08-20T13:47:45.770-07:002009-08-20T13:47:45.770-07:00So can we stop with the guest posts already? Almo...So can we stop with the guest posts already? Almost all of them sucked, people don't write well (save for Hatebottles and his post). Please?concerned.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-48816216949835499522009-08-20T11:12:16.848-07:002009-08-20T11:12:16.848-07:00But you are basing this on the assumption that it ...But you are basing this on the assumption that it is a business model. What about private sites that just can't afford to keep the site open without ads covering a part/all of it?Person #1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-41330547467175313502009-08-19T18:07:39.006-07:002009-08-19T18:07:39.006-07:00damn, well put.
and from an anon no less. nice.damn, well put.<br /><br />and from an anon no less. nice.Carlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-89481438777296605212009-08-19T13:07:22.881-07:002009-08-19T13:07:22.881-07:00an author doesnt have the right to decide how some...an author doesnt have the right to decide how someone reads her work. where'd you get a silly idea like that? I can skip chapters of a book, I can read it backwards, I can ignore any illustrations, the way the book was printed, I can scribble in curse words if I want to.<br /><br />when you visit a web page you're not looking at some etheral thing floating out in the internet, you're looking at a document that has been downloaded to your computer. by posting to the internet, the author has given anybody who wants to the ability to download that document and read it. what the reader decides to do with that document, short of violating copyright, and even what portions of that document the reader decides to download, are completely up to that reader. if the author (or media corp, as the case may be) has built a business model around giving away free content in exchange for ad revenue, and for some reason the majority of its readers decide not to view their advertisements, it is not a failing on the morality of consumers, it is a failing of the business model of the website. there is no unspoken contract, no moral imparitive that demands that readers of a website view that website exactly as the creators intend. If a website, intending to exploit the large number of people who view its *free* content, does not succeed in making money becuase the readers find it easier to seek out and install an app and deal with the occasions when it makes certain sites work poorly, then advertising (or at least their approach to it) is not a working business model.<br /><br />Just because they (or "we" as it may be) believe that the product they produce for free is deserving of financial restitution, does not morally demand that we should comply with any attempt on their part to achieve that goal.<br /><br />In any case I don't use adblock because, as I mentioned before, it breaks some of my favorite websites and simply adding those sites to its ignore list isnt enough to fix the problem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-47085841393761205992009-08-18T17:07:34.858-07:002009-08-18T17:07:34.858-07:00Cost per impression vs cost per click is an intere...Cost per impression vs cost per click is an interesting concept. I haven't looked too deeply into it--except that CPC is probably more cost-effective for people who are not very good at advertising.<br /><br />However, this doesn't change the fact that CARL=RANDALLrshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-28817701277438715182009-08-18T16:17:28.680-07:002009-08-18T16:17:28.680-07:00Anon 11:32: You are wrong. Some ads work on how ma...Anon 11:32: You are wrong. Some ads work on how many people see them, some work on how many people click them. It depends. I know this because when I considered putting ads on this blog, google offered me both choiced. Obviously, if you are paid per view, it's a much much lower rate than if you are paid per click.Carlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-75070725205380466512009-08-18T14:23:16.760-07:002009-08-18T14:23:16.760-07:00I'm moving to Massachusetts.I'm moving to Massachusetts.Fredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05717170141815160544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-5548587157255986942009-08-18T12:33:46.088-07:002009-08-18T12:33:46.088-07:00in Massachusetts it is actually illegal to agree w...in Massachusetts it is actually illegal to agree with Richard Stallman, ever.rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-64020911698109015132009-08-18T12:17:34.010-07:002009-08-18T12:17:34.010-07:00Bleh. Something went wrong with my comment submiss...Bleh. Something went wrong with my comment submission and 5 posts appeared.<br /><br />Yes, I know about copyright. And I know it's a bit of a mess. I've read Richard Stallman on the subject and I think I kind-of-sort-of agree with him.<br /><br />TRiG.TRiGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12252536592916793907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-14831761155411637272009-08-18T12:14:00.685-07:002009-08-18T12:14:00.685-07:00Anon: I hadn't thought of that. It's certa...Anon: I hadn't thought of that. It's certainly an interesting question. I must consider it.<br /><br />I don't watch the telly much. And I'd never flick channels during ad breaks, because I find that annoying. I'd be more likely to leave the room and get myself a sandwich. My housemates channel-hop, though.<br /><br />TRiG.TRiGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12252536592916793907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-13177273205544739132009-08-18T12:09:12.524-07:002009-08-18T12:09:12.524-07:00The thought that struck me the most whilst reading...The thought that struck me the most whilst reading this comic was exactly what sort of sites Randall is on when he receives ads like this... Where might someone see them?Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-19345657152716993782009-08-18T11:32:19.892-07:002009-08-18T11:32:19.892-07:00@Anonymous 2:36
The internet doesn't run on a...@Anonymous 2:36<br /><br />The internet doesn't run on ads. The internet might run on ad *clicks*. Watching ads earns site owners no revenue, clicking does. I can't remember when was the last time I clicked on an ad (and not because of ad blockers), so using an ad blocker does no damage because I wasn't going to click the ads in the first place.<br /><br />That's the enthical part. The legal part is there is squat a page owner can do to legally force you to watch ads. They can try hard to make it hard for you to get rid of them, but they can't force you. That's like forcing you to look at all the ads you see down the street. You're free to buy a book and only read the parts you like. You're free to fetch a webpage and discard the parts you don't want. Copyright has no notion of a whole, legally indivisible work, as far as the end user goes. The only loophole that copyright owners have so far is DRM (they can DRM something and make the DRM force you to do something, and removing the DRM would be illegal in the US thanks to the DMCA), but web pages do not (yet) come with DRM.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-54565066186270643052009-08-18T10:55:47.906-07:002009-08-18T10:55:47.906-07:00oh hey trig you spelled author wrongoh hey trig you spelled author wrongrshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-21482864013446120962009-08-18T10:52:53.910-07:002009-08-18T10:52:53.910-07:00TRiG oh man copyright don't get me started ok ...TRiG oh man copyright don't get me started ok here I go<br /><br />Copyright gives the author of an original work exclusive right for a certain time period in relation to that work, including its publication, distribution and adaptation, after which time the work is said to enter the public domain. Copyright applies to any expressible form of an idea or information that is substantive and discrete and fixed in a medium. Some jurisdictions also recognize "moral rights" of the creator of a work, such as the right to be credited for the work. Copyright is described under the umbrella term intellectual property along with patents and trademarks.<br /><br />An example of the intent of copyright, as expressed in the United States Constitution, is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".[1]<br /><br />Copyright has been internationally standardized, lasting between fifty to a hundred years from the author's death, or a shorter period for anonymous or corporate authorship. Some jurisdictions have required formalities to establishing copyright, but most recognize copyright in any completed work, without formal registration. Generally, copyright is enforced as a civil matter, though some jurisdictions do apply criminal sanctions.<br /><br />History<br />Main article: History of copyright law<br /><br />The concept of copyright originates with the Statute of Anne (1710) in Britain. It established the author of a work as the owner of the right to copy that work and the concept of a fixed term for that copyright. It was created as an act "for the encouragement of learning", as it had been noted at the time that publishers were reprinting the works of authors without their consent "to their very great detriment, and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families". As such, copyright was first created with the intention that authors might have some control over the printing of their work and to receive some financial recompense, so that this would encourage them to write more books and thus to aid the flow of ideas and learning. As the act itself says: "for the encouragement of learned men to compose and write useful books".[2]<br /><br />The Statute of Anne was the first real copyright act, and gave the authors rights for a fixed period, a fourteen year term for all works published the Statute, after which the copyright expired. Copyright has grown from a legal concept regulating copying rights in the publishing of books and maps to one with a significant effect on nearly every modern industry, covering such items as sound recordings, films, photographs, software, and architectural works. Subsequently the Copyright Clause of the United States Constitution (1787) authorized copyright legislation: "To promote the Progress of Science..., by securing for limited Times to Authors.... the exclusive Right to their... Writings."<br /><br /> Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works<br />Main article: Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works<br /><br />The 1886 Berne Convention first established recognition of copyrights among sovereign nations, rather than merely bilaterally. Under the Berne Convention, copyrights for creative works do not have to be asserted or declared, as they are automatically in force at creation. In these countries, there is no requirement for an author to "register" or "apply for" a copyright, or to mark his or her works with a copyright symbol or other legend. As soon as a work is "fixed", that is, written or recorded on some physical medium, its author is automatically entitled to all copyrights in the work, and to any derivative works unless and until the author explicitly disclaims them, or until the copyright expires. The Berne Convention also resulted in foreign authors being treated equivalently to domestic authors, in any country signed onto the Convention.Person #1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-78165783319962581612009-08-18T10:23:19.468-07:002009-08-18T10:23:19.468-07:00just going to throw out there that I would not pay...just going to throw out there that I would not pay for the NYT under any circumstances because it is fucking horriblershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-35974246448224768792009-08-18T09:59:46.192-07:002009-08-18T09:59:46.192-07:00@TRiG
Without reading the whole discussion... doe...@TRiG<br /><br />Without reading the whole discussion... does that mean that you find it immoral to switch channels during breaks in tv-shows?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-31319127091310713362009-08-18T09:53:33.676-07:002009-08-18T09:53:33.676-07:00If an author has moral rights to his/her work, tha...If an author has moral rights to his/her work, that means the auther has the right to decide in what manner the work will be published. If the auther chooses to publish his/her work alongside advertisements, you do not have the right to override the author's wishes, anymore than you'd have the right to redisribute the content elsewhere by, say, copying the entire article into a post on a messageboard (and it still astounds me that many people don't think that's wrong).<br /><br />TRiG.TRiGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12252536592916793907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-35135256518497528682009-08-18T07:51:29.847-07:002009-08-18T07:51:29.847-07:00I see what you're saying, but I think you miss...I see what you're saying, but I think you miss the greater moral point that this isn't a vigilante justice situation - it's not up to the consumer to pick and choose. I think that's a fundamental ethical thing akin to stealing, maybe you don't. The movie theater example is still apt; is it okay to sneak in only because the price is too high, if you might pay if the price were lower?<br /><br />I think the thing with "ethical" ads is that you approach it as if you have the right to visit the site, and therefore any ads that don't meet your threshold of subtlety are bad. But it's just the opposite. They can put any ads up they want, and you are free not to visit the site. Once again with the books, you can't steal them until the prices go down. You just either buy them or don't. Watching the ads is the price you pay for visiting a website.<br /><br />And further, websites use those intrusive ads (and lord knows I hate them too - Salon has terrible ones) because they are better revenue generators. There is so much advertising that prices are rock bottom, so it takes a lot to break even. It's not that they're greedy bastards (well, they may be, I don't know), but that they need to pay their staffs. <br /><br />And last but not least, if some shmoe wants to earn a couple bucks for his work (good or bad), it's his right. Anyone can make a product, and anyone can sell it (via ads in this case). If you don't think you come out on top for the transaction, don't read it.Asherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09980842100786408132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-18510724565493884692009-08-18T06:03:47.981-07:002009-08-18T06:03:47.981-07:00@Ar-Pharazôn (with names like that I really miss c...@Ar-Pharazôn (with names like that I really miss copying and pasting)<br /><br />Some people are bad<br /><br />Let's kill all people<br /><br /><br />That is basically what you are saying. There are reasonable ad services out there (google adsense, project wonderful), and you are punishing those webmasters who put up reasonable ads for those who don't. But hey. Since you are blocking all ads because of some people anyway, they might as well put up annoying ads to earn more money, right? Cause you know, that you are blocking their reasonable ads is out of their control, and since they lose revenue on you, they have to make it up somehow.Person #1noreply@blogger.com