Are you aware there are more types of websites than the random rants of someone on a Wordpress blog? Right now, as you read this, there are hundreds of thousands of websites out there that are neither backed by corporate interests (who can write off their expenses as a cost of doing business), nor small enough to be hosted within the confines of "$5" platforms.
It's a big world out there. One size does not fit all.
The focus of the discussion is on the website/content provider you're visiting. From that point of view, the difference between you not allowing the Pepsi ad (via adblock) and you allowing it and not responding to it is HUGE.
Pepsi - and the vast majority of advertisers -are simply paying to get their message out. By allowing the ad, you allow the website to count that as an ad impression, which collectively fulfills whatever business agreement they have with Pepsi (or their ad broker).
Since your responses seem to favor the small picture: Once the ad impression happens, your 'obligations' (for lack of a better term) as the visitor to the website are done. Whether you care about Pepsi's side of things is completely up to you. Most website owners would, to a small degree (ensuring that the ads are effective enough for them to keep paying out), but anyone that requires resources beyond a simple shared-hosting Wordpress blog just want to ensure their monthly hosting bills can be paid (not to mention any contributors, depending on the nature of the website).
The concept is really, really easy to understand once you let go of the notion that you're the center of the universe.
And you think that's going to get by undetected?
It's definitely excessive. Just like the actual NOTAM that this is supposedly based off of is actually 30 miles (which extends just shy of the Baltimore city border).
One of DJI's own dealers is within this 15 mi radius, too. Will definitely be interested in seeing if it affects that side of the business, and/or how much they promote DJI's products.
How big is your brick? While there are hexa- and octocopters that can carry a couple of pounds (which are big and conspicuous spider-looking things), the payload of the DJI Phantom line is measured in low-double-digit grams.
Maybe it can deliver a targeted chemical payload (so can RC planes), but I think explosives would be a little difficult.
"Drones are better than high power telescopes because you don't need line of sight"
I think you're severely overestimating the capabilities of these commercial, civilian quads. The camera in the Phantom 2 Vision+ is a 12MP, 1080p fisheye lens, very similar to a GoPro 3. You're not getting the optics of a high-power telescope.
DJI's new line, the Inspire One, has a 4K camera, which I guess allows for better quality, but you're still not zooming in. These things are loud, you're not using them for invading someone's privacy without them knowing.
If you try to fly within an NFZ, it will prevent takeoff. There's a companion app that works on your smartphone as you're flying, and it will alert you that you're in a no-fly zone.
If you're already in the air, and bump against the NFZ, it will simply stop and refuse to continue in that direction.
Nobody's talking about these being 'rights'. There are existing laws for privacy violations and 'peeping toms', there's absolutely no reason or need for heavy-handed over-regulation just because it's new technology. Everything in life can be used for good or for ill, they need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, not just blanket-banning the entire industry just because of some politician's twisted mind.
Were the lawmakers in bed with big pharma or something?
Not just 'were', and not just 'in bed', but wild kinky shit. This is pretty much how the US legal system's relationship with big business has operated for years.
if you just buy through an ad network, how are you going to know? you're not. and the newspaper or whatever you're buying direct from the site publisher to put the ads on has less incentive to run bots to steal your ad money than an ad network has.
What? Of course the advertiser knows. Most decent ad networks do work with the site and the advertiser, who shapes the ad buy. I guess there are 'throw whatever on the page' ad networks, but I've never worked with them. I honestly don't know which one is more common....
But Alexa and Quantcast both require third-party cookies to be effective or accurate, which most people in this thread are advocating blocking wholesale.
Are you talking a pure content/journo site that's barely more than Wordpress? Then yes, costs are cheap.
There's more than one type of website/idea out there, though. Some exist to store, manipulate, and sort through large amounts of data for a large niche (sounds like an oxymoron, but in my personal case, I ran a site for a gaming community (niche part), but had 5 million users (large part, relatively speaking)).
Heavily CPU-bound and applications that transfer a lot of data (TB/mo) are going to cost money no matter if you're co-lo'ing or using some cloud service provider. According to their calculator, AWS costs ~$120/mo just for 1 TB of client-side output alone, nevermind the instances.
There's this weird assumption in these threads that the only sites ever created are cat blogs or political rants. I don't know if it's just general lack of experience with the web, or what. I can name several properties that can't operate on your assumed 'cable TV' budget.
And you don't think that presents a risk to those that are paying out the CPM? At least with an established, third-party network, their reputation stands on accurate reporting. If you're paying someone to share your message, are you just going to blindly trust that they started having a million uniques per day?
I guess if you're content with refusing to at least consider both sides of the discussion and thinking only your version of advertising is 'correct', then sure.... no hypocrisy.
Since you responded to literally nothing else from my post, I can only assume you aren't interested in actual discussion or debate on the topic, or simply cannot physically comprehend creating something that requires anything more than a static page or two (which would be ironic, given where we're communicating).
> I want to block their cookies. I want to deny them the analytics or even know that I visited the page. I want the advertisers to piss off and die.
> save your damned bandwidth, and leave the parasites out of the equation entirely.
This is extremely easy to do, and I'm not sure why you or others haven't suggested it:
You could not visit the site/page. The 100% bandwidth savings is worth it, wouldn't you say?
Work without a vision is slavery, Vision without work is a pipe dream, But vision with work is the hope of the world.
