It's because I see too many of these hobbyist people who use sites that do serve up tons of ads and which will not run without letting loose 10 or more scripts, and then there's this annoying pleading on the site when it detects adblock saying that it needs the revenue to keep the site up. So then I actually have disabled adblock for some of these and I see the annoying junk that results, and I know that the content creator has not vetted even one of these ads. So I turn back on adblock and stop going to that web site ever again.

I rarely see sites with one or two small, innocuous ads that aren't animated. All of those who have pleaded to turn off adblock or noscript inevitably turn out to be those who don't vet their own ads.

I have found this too, where really stupid people will pretend to be smart and say things like "your cost of ownership over the life will be higher with a hybrid". Well, for many people the point of a hybrid is not to save money in the first place. But it's also wrong, because because a small economic hybrid will save a ton of money over a giant luxury SUV designed for people with gigantic kids.

Look, petroleum is not an infinite resource. Anyone with even a fragment of brain still getting a blood supply should be wanting to use less petroleum. For angry ultra conservative Glenn Becks of the world, just tell them that this takes money away from muslimic terrists. If that doesn't work tell them that big SUVs are the vehicle of choice for gay honeymoons.

You can't fix stupid, but you can occasionally dope slap it.

What is a "yoot"?

No, I don't. Windows will already routinely install all sorts of crap merely because it's been signed, without ever asking the user for permission. Including drivers from USB devices and smart phones. I would personally prefer an option to turn this feature off so that it must ask me always before it installs anything.

Then the web sites should serve up their own advertisements, not rely upon a third party that just shoves out ads and malware indiscriminately. If web sites had responsible and reasonable ads then there would never have been the need for things like adblock.

Adblock is a self defense mechanism. The purpose of adblock is not to piss off the hypothetical innocent content creators, but to protect the viewers from malware, to protect their bandwidth, to stop popups, to double or triple the speed of using the web (just try going to one of these sites on dialup and see how happy you are while yet another cialis picture downloads), and so forth.

The people who complain that web sites need this for revenue should understand that we're not intentionally against them making money for nothing, but we're stick and tired of being abused by those web sites. If I go into a store and they shout abuse at me then I will take my business elsewhere, no matter how much that abuser claims he needs the money for his starving kids. It would be better for that store to go out of business; and likewise if a web site can't operate without abusive ads then it also deserves to go out of business forever.

If you want to have viewers to your web site then stop screwing with them.

If a small open source project can't get funding for their website and they can't pay for it out of pocket, then they should get off of the web! No matter how good the product it in no way justifies abusive ads, annoying their viewers, or serving up malware.

Seriously, if someone has an open source product for email reading, do they really want their hosting company to be popping up "Please Use Outlook!" ads on their page, or paid advertisements for "Open Source Sux!"? That would be really stupid. And yet that's what these sites are doing, they content creators are sticking their heads in the sand.

I had a presentation from a local high school that did robotics competitions. They involved all sorts of students in the club, not just the nerds who did hardware and software. They had students who were responsible for PR, media, fund raising, outreach, and so forth. So maybe this model can work with open source. If someone feels like they must resort to abusive third party ads just to stay afloat, then they should consider adding someone to their team that can manage advertisements so that they are all vetted and approved by a team member, or maybe add people to the team who want to do some fund raising.

But sheesh, if you keep pissing of your viewers then you won't have any viewers at all, no matter how much you whine about needing revenue.

I want the owner of the web site to KNOW what ads are being served. I don't want the loser bloggers to whine about losing their precious revenue when they don't even know the crap that their viewers have to put up with. Do they even know about the abusive ads we see, did they personally approve the condom ads on their family friendly site, did they ask the advertiser to put in the malware? They did not. Instead they are lazy people who find a third party advertising service and ask "please screw over my readers at your convenience so that I can get $10 a month from you!". If they can not monitor their own site then they are responsible for all the malware and annoyance that their site serves up.

There is no radio or television station that willingly accepts randomized advertisements, so why should web sites continue being conduits for this crap?

For sites like that I will just go visit a different site instead. No one is forcing me to visit them. If they act irresponsibly, or whine about ad revenue when they're just a hobbyist with a crappy blog, I can go elsewhere.

If it gets worse I could see some groups advertising their boycott of the bad actors, which is going to make a bigger effect than just a few individuals staying away.

Remember, Jenny McCarthy's science is being a mother. That trumps all other lesser forms of science.

The guy was clearly driving while hispanic, with another count of driving while poor, so that's clearly suspicious cause for a search.

Because if we put everyone who uses drugs in jail then we can finally live in a crime free utopia. Hurray for cops who break the law in order to catch low level infractions. Then the only degenerates we'll have left are those who vote to have a police state in order to get rid of other degenerates.

In the US it's been a long standing principle upheld by the courts that "fishing expeditions" are not allowed. That is, a traffic stop is for a traffic stop only, unless there is clear evidence of other illegal activity (the driver appears intoxicated, a dead body is in the back seat, etc). Warrants explicitly list what can and can not be searched.

So there's nothing really new here except the old story of law enforcement attempting to expand their powers and the courts pushing back again.

The summary makes the assumption that we weathered through the industrial revolution all right, and that things are all right now. I don't think that's true. It may be true for the educated classes but for the uneducated worker things have been rough for quite a long time now. Often these workers rely on industries that have been on shaky grounds or which move around a lot. Ie, mining, which leaves whole communities in an economic disaster if the mine dries out or China can sell the materials more cheaply. The industry's assembly line model has been replacing handcrafted goods by commodity labor, and then the labor squeezed as much as possible with fewer overall jobs, union power has been decimated. In the UK, the heart of the industrial revolution, labor is in a very uncertain position.

C was so new anyway at the time, about ten years old, that the real old timers were probably bitching about wanting to use PL/1.