Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:What do you propose that they do? (Score 1) 667

That's actually not Banksy's quote, it's heavily lifted from another dude, Sean Tejaratchi:

Nonetheless it's an excellent quote and I support your ideal, but I still think static images and links is a good starting point for all sides.

For the websites that want to display ads, it still allows them to make money and shows respect for those visiting the site by showing that the site is willing to take responsibility for the content of the ads they are selling, eliminates malware vectors, etc. Plus they get something almost uncircumventable by modern ad blockers.

For the people who just don't want to be tracked or annoyed by blinking/audio/animation/video it eliminates that as well.

For people like you, me, Banksy and Sean Tejaratchi, we can use Element Hiding Helper or similar tools to "take, re-arrange and re-use" the static ads we come across, as is our right on our local machines.

Comment Re:What do you propose that they do? (Score 1) 667

There are large technical problems with that.

The ad providers don't trust the content producers not to fleece them. How are they going to know? And how are they going go back to the widget seller and prove the ad was seen and worked?

The same way the local top-40 radio station sells its ads, I imagine. They don't have exact statistics on everyone who is tuned to their radio station, but advertisers are still interested in it. And guess what, sometimes I turn down the volume during a block of ads in my car, look at the clock, and turn it back up in 3-4 minutes. And they can't do a damn thing about it. And the world keeps turning.

Comment Re: Ok. (Score 5, Insightful) 667

Oh bullshit, they didn't sell any ads, they signed up to an abusive tracking filled ad network that did all of the work for them.

If I start a convenience store and can figure out a way to stay afloat selling Snickers and M&Ms, then hooray for me, but please don't call me a confectioner.

If they want to sell ads, actually sell the space like they did in their print version 20 years ago, and host them first party, and we'd have a hell of a time blocking them in the first place.

Comment Re:update - there were other tosses which Sanders (Score 4, Interesting) 634

The coins could all have been heads OR they could all have been tails. There are 64 possible outcomes, but 2 are sufficient. 1/32 is correct.

I still don't see it. There is a 1/32 chance that *either* of the two candidates would have won all of the coin flips, but only a 1/64 chance for 'only Clinton' or 'only Sanders'

Comment Re:update - there were other tosses which Sanders (Score 3, Informative) 634

Actually, one in 32 odds. The chance that a coin tossed one time lands with the same face up is 1 in 1. The chance that a coin tossed two times lands with the same face up is 1 in 2, etc.

I'd check your math, it's 1 in 64.

If a coin is tossed once, you can have 2 results

If a coin is tossed twice, you have 4 potential results:


Comment Re:Why is this company not dead yet? (Score 1) 28

Because Television executives are largely old boomers coasting on inertia and they really have no interest in tackling this difficult problem at age 67 in between rounds of golf and trips to Palm Springs.

Give them 5-10 more years and they'll retire or croak and the industry will be in for a shakeup.

Comment Re:There is a reason (Score 1) 442

They had no way to prove this either when they spent thousands to take out an ad in the Chicago Tribune in 1985, yet they happily purchased such ads and the newspaper flourished. What has changed?

The newspaper/billboard/TV/radio advertiser has no idea whether they got an 'impression' on me, why does the web advertiser feel entitled to this?

Slashdot Top Deals

The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -- Sagan