If you are single, the "correct" answer is mu which means "not applicable."
As in, the question _presupposes_ conditions which are not true. If you are single, you are not married by definition.
Truth is not a mutually exclusive binary state of True / False.
> One can stop before performing the action.
No, one never started
100% agree!
Sometimes information is incorrect, or out-of-date.
Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away.
> This is the deal that they offer. If you use AdBlock, you drop your part,
Read what you wrote again.
You keep assuming there is an obligation, namely, an ethical obligation.
You are begging the question.
There is no ethical obligation because there never was an agreement in the first place.
Your ethical claim is meritless.
Already got it.
* https://pragprog.com/book/ahmi... [pragprog.com]
* http://codecombat.com/ [codecombat.com]
Thanks for the suggestion though!
Can we get a FAQ please? Here are the common answers:
* Visually with Angry Birds characters: http://learn.code.org/hoc/1
* Scratch
* http://coderdojo.com/
* Minecraft mods
* http://www.learntomod.com./
* https://pragprog.com/book/ahmi...
* http://codecombat.com/
* http://boardgamegeek.com/board...
* http://boardgamegeek.com/board...
* http://www.gamebooks.org/show_...
* http://venturebeat.com/2014/06...
* http://meetedison.com/
* BASIC
* Vic-20 C64 Compute! magazine
* Raspberry Pi
* Arduino
* Logo
> YouTube allows you to watch videos in exchange of seeing some advertisements.
First, allows, as in "not required."
> This is the deal that they offer. If you use AdBlock, you drop your part,
Second: You are failing to understand what a contract is. There is no obligation to something that was never agreed upon in the first place.
You keep assuming that a user gave their tacit consent to this behavior. That is a fallacy.
When a user watches a video there is no checkbox to agree to their obnoxious Terms of Service. Ergo, there is no "ethical choice" to be made, because there never was one in the first place.
> you are being unfair towards the other party.
Quick, somebody call the wambulance.
Are you next going to arguing the stupidity of "someone closing their eyes for a youtube ad" is "being "unfair" and unethical" ??
That horse has already left the barn. Closing the barn doors aren't going to work, no matter how hard they try. Trying to force users to watch ads they don't want is only idiotic and damages the YouTube brand. If their business model is broken and archaic they are being unfair to all their shareholders.
When YouTube beings to pay my internet bill for _my bandwidth_ for their shitty ads THEN, maybe, they can talk. Until then, they are just wasting my time AND bandwidth.
Is it open source?
Quit being a shill of ignoring the actual problem.
Half-assed "solutions" are still "half-assed"
> The only way they can win is to render the ads into the video itself.
The technical term is "Dynamic (content) Ingestion"
That's what the cable industry does. Want to watch something on demand? Be prepared for a 30 second ad every 20 minutes.
Fortunately Google hasn't figured this out, yet. They are still probably weighing the pro's and con's.
That's the funny thing about the internet. Piss the mass community off too much and they will abandon ship for yet-another-site that offers the same functionality without the hassles.
> Aren't you worried about the ethical choices you are making there?
[Citation]
You're begging the question.
You haven't defined ethical choices, and you are implying / assuming there are some when you haven't even proved there are.
Why is YouTube not being respectful of my time?
> YouTube lets you watch videos for free, provided that you watch these small advertisements every now and then.
You keep using this word "Free." It doesn't mean what you think it means.
Free means: "No Strings Attached"
Not "First you need to fulfill this requirement."
Quite hijacking "free" and perverting its definition.
To the systems programmer, users and applications serve only to provide a test load.