Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment The Garbage Compacter Rule (Score 2) 291

He's pointing out that people like security well enough, but they want to get stuff DONE even more, and that most people will take the calculated risk to be less secure if it makes them more productive at lower costs.

Also, too much security can backfire. I call this the Garbage Compacter Rule: In Star Wars it was too difficult to shut down all the garbage compacters on the detention level, so R2-D2 just shut them all down. Similarly, when you run up against a security system that's stopping you doing what you want, but it's hard to poke a hole in it, you sometimes just "shut them all down" to get some work done. You're left with less security than if the original block wasn't there.

Comment Re:It'll be aired in todays conventional methods (Score 1) 438

It'll be on a torrent site 10 min after airing so you can watch it are you leisure.

Have hackers worked out how to rip CBS All Access streams?

I'm surprised that CBS All Access seems to be available here in Australia — the only country besides the US and Canada. But given the reports here that this subscription stream includes ads, I'd be hoping that they also made ad-free episodes available for individual or season purchase, in a timely manor.

Comment Re:Bullshit ... (Score 1) 398

Some ads on most news sites, such as Google ads, would already be matched to the article content. They would be reluctant to get rid of the rest, including direct campaigns by big brands that pay very well. My angle was that, contextual or not, people are less interested in ads when they're absorbed by the content, forcing those ads to be flashy (and Flash-y).

Comment Re:Bullshit ... (Score 1) 398

See, Slashdot doesn't author any new content. Their value, whether they realize it or not, is in the people who comment.

Slashdot without the comments is a rather pathetic news aggregator.

Aggregators still provide value through their summaries and editorial selection, although this value should be shared with the original sources (even if TFA isn't visited). Slashdot also has some original interviews.

There is an ad-free, paywall-free way for Slashdot to get paid for this article value, as well as from the value of user comments (which Slashdot can choose to share with comment authors).

Comment Re:Bullshit ... (Score 1) 398

I remember when Google first came out with their ads and they seemed innovative because they were simple text ads. At the time, the "common knowledge" was that you needed blinking Flash ads that played sound, triggered full screen video if the mouse cursor went anywhere near the ad, and spawed a dozen pop-up ads.

Google is lucky that their ads are nearly as interesting as their content (organic search results), and that their users are often in a buying mode. Contrast this with websites that offer quality content that is much more interesting than the (often irrelevant) ads around it. It's here that ads need to be garish to draw people away from the content. That's why I don't think "acceptable ads" would work for many websites. They have to learn how to earn more from their content rather than the spin around it.

Comment Re:New model (Score 1) 474

Allow customers to make a single monthly payment, which would be distributed among participating websites according to some metric like pageviews or time-on-site.

Would these be voluntary payments like Flattr, or would the site be paywalled to non-payers? If the former, how many will pay just for the good vibes, or pay to remove ads that their ad-blocker is already removing? If the latter, how will they survive initially becoming invisible to most, including social sharers?

Blendle shows that a walled pay-per-article option (with refunds when you don't like what you get) can work for an agglomeration of quality articles. But participants risk losing existing subscribers to a system where they're just one source among many, drastically cutting their revenue.

Comment Re:New generation of adblockers (Score 1) 474

Yes, you can create a browser that uses a shadow-DOM to make JavaScript think that all ads are loaded and not hidden, while some elements are blocked in the DOM seen by the user.

This wouldn't however stop tactics such as obfuscating and randomizing ad URLs and page locations so that pattern-matching block lists won't work.

Comment Re:MTU (Score 1) 72

Packet size is a tradeoff - for high throughput you want big packets, for low latency you want small packets.

There'd be no such trade-off if routers and computers pipelined packets, starting (or queuing) to forward as soon as the destination IP address is read and an interface route determined, possibly also waiting to check the TCP/IP header checksum.

Comment Re:See the end of her blog post.... (Score 1) 928

Yes, I was so on her side (advocating for unrestricted but diplomatic criticism), until I saw she'd done the same thing to her critics that was done to her (disrespecting them by replacing their comments with "fart fart fart fart"). The comments on her post are a love-fest, so as well as harsh criticism, probably some respectful criticism has also been substituted. Power games.

Comment Re:Subject (Score 1) 307

The ads themself are completely static with no sound, no movement, and no tracking. Just static images served from the same server as our other content. From what I've seen a lot of medium size sites are this way. The small ones just slap google adwords on their site and are done. The large ones have all kinds of scary tracking stuff but many of the medium size sites actually have a salesman that sells individual ads, creates the ads, etc.. just like old school dead tree magazines.

Your site's ads may be static, but because you need to divert your user's attention away from your content to the ads, the ads will tend to use colours and layouts that catch the eye, which will annoy those not currently interested in buying the advertised product, those who don't want such desire to be enflamed, or those currently concentrating on your content (which may be about different topic, or may be giving more independent advice about the product category than the ads).

Plus compared to advertising sold by a 3rd-party exchange, selling yourself to advertisers creates a greater potential for advertiser influence over your content.

Comment Re:Subject (Score 1) 307

It kind of freaks me out that anybody actually thinks they should feel guilty for blocking advertising. I know I'm going to be way to the left of the majority here on this, but I see advertising as nothing more or less than corporate propaganda, often designed to make me feel bad about who I am and give me the impression that some companies product will make me feel better about myself.

Unless you're very wealthy or live self-sufficiently, smart shopping can make a non-insignificant contribution to your happiness. Yes, all ads spin, but do you have access to sufficient independent sources of advice to take their place, excluding media that uses ads to charge you for that advice? If not, you may still be relying on less intrusive forms of advertising, such as company websites and their search-engine listings, information placed at point-of-sale (not like your chocolate priming), classified ads (that don't surround media content, and can be easily perused on-demand), and targeted direct marketing (that you can look at and bin at your leisure).

Comment Re:Subject (Score 1) 307

I run a small bookshop. I'm basically forced to pay facebook for advertising, but it works.

What's your strategy to reach those who block ads? SEO? Submission to vendor listings on comic websites? (Paid listings are ads, but as classified content, aren't normally blocked.)

Comment 1st-party ads (Score 1) 307

First party ads where the owners of the sites are held responsible for their content.

Yes, there are advantages to 1st-party ads. But be aware of their downside: The publication then has to have greater contact with advertisers to tout what the site can offer them, and to assure them of value-for-money. This takes resources away from editorial, and creates a greater risk that editorial will be skewed to make the advertisers happy.

Comment Re:The content stupid, not the spin dancing around (Score 1) 307

Slashdot already monetizes the site. People pay to get their articles posted here. Why do you think you see multiple posts from Mojokid (HotHardware), theodp, etc every day? They aren't getting there by merit.

Given that Slashdotters are renowned for not looking at TFA, I'm not sure that such product placement would be good value for money, except perhaps for the Google love the links would bring.

Take your work seriously but never take yourself seriously; and do not take what happens either to yourself or your work seriously. -- Booth Tarkington