Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Fuck you. (Score 1) 616

by PsychoSlashDot (#49714617) Attached to: Editor-in-Chief of the Next Web: Adblockers Are Immoral

Seriously? It's actually that easy to part you from your money? It's pretty clear the problem here is you, not the people trying to sell stuff. You make the decision, if what you really want is your money then why are you trading it? You already have what you want.

What are some actual examples of when this has happened to you?

Seriously.

It is exactly as easy to part me from my money as it is. No more, no less. When advertising doesn't work, there's no issue. It's when it does - and you KNOW it does, else it wouldn't exist - that something has gone wrong.

Are you trying to pretend that (all) the debt-load people in developed nations have is because they've just fallen behind temporarily? Or do you actually get it that people buy crap they don't need? Specific itemized examples from my life aren't useful... they're just anecdotal evidence. That advertising exists, and has existed for a long time, is empirical evidence that the practice is profitable on average. And that's not acceptable to me.

It doesn't matter who is, or is not "too weak-willed to spend wisely". What does matter is that active advertising is an inherently predatory act. You know it, I know it, and the rest of the people asking "really? WTF's wrong with you. I just save my money, you sub-human schlup!" know it.

Finally, yes, I get it that there are shades of grey here and that we're not talking about human sacrifice or something 10/10 for evil. But some guy with a vested interest in advertising has decided to spout off on the morality of ad-blocking, which makes looking at the morality of advertising itself fair game. So while this isn't a huge deal, it's on-topic.

Comment: Re:Fuck you. (Score 1) 616

by PsychoSlashDot (#49712203) Attached to: Editor-in-Chief of the Next Web: Adblockers Are Immoral

You read something, then you decide to buy something. "In some circles, that's theft." Umm, no, it's not. You made a choice to spend money. That's not "theft" by any stretch of the imagination.

Did I? Did I make the choice or was that choice made for me? You know why you see signs saying "limit 10 per customer" over a stack of crap? Because the way the human mind works, you deviate off the most recent number you've seen to make estimates. So, if you see a stack of crap at a "good" price, you'll start asking yourself "how many do I want", and you'll get the answer right. But if you see that sign, you'll start at 10 and work your way down to a number you can settle for, which is almost always higher than the number you actually want. That's how marketing and advertisement works. Massive studies have been undertaken to figure out how to manipulate buyers. This is not news. The choice is not mine.

See, all of those words mean different things. "Coercion" is generally immoral and often illegal. "Enticing" or "encouraging" are not. "Manipulating" is usually immoral, but whether it's illegal depends on context.

Difference without a distinction. When your target goal in coercion, enticement, or manipulation is to cause a person to act against their benefit, it's wrong. Enticing a suicide off a ledge isn't because it's in their best interest to be convinced not to jump. Encouraging a person to spend more than they want to is wrong. That's my premise.

I hate advertising probably as much as you do. And I agree with you that it sometimes exploits people psychologically in unfair ways. I wish there were less of it. But as long as you don't have a significant mental deficit and the advertising is basically true (not false or misleading), I cannot possibly see how you say that someone choosing to spend money is "theft."

One: hyperbole makes a point.
Two: as you mentioned in your post, there's significant grey-area in what "theft" means. If it's applied to copyright infringement (and it is, linguistic purist desires be damned), then it can be applied to purchases influenced by active advertising. While yes, I get something for my money, it's not what I really want, which is my money, which I would still have were I not advertised to. You can steal a house out from under the nose of an unwary elderly person, yes? Just because someone agrees to a purchase/sale contract doesn't preclude it being theft.

Comment: Re:Fuck you. (Score 4, Insightful) 616

by PsychoSlashDot (#49710819) Attached to: Editor-in-Chief of the Next Web: Adblockers Are Immoral
I'm of the opinion that advertising is immoral.

To be clear, I mean active advertising, in the sense of placing product information out of context. That includes billboards, products in movies, commercials between songs or before movies, and most of the crap that shows up in the mail. I don't have an issue with passive advertising, for instance having "the special of the day" on an e-commerce site, or related product information such as offering me different vehicles if I am visiting a vehicle sales site.

Active advertising is literally coercion, enticing, manipulating, and encouraging a viewer to make purchases that they otherwise do not wish to make. "If only you knew about our great product" does not justify the psychological arm-twisting advertisers undertake. Yes, by the end of your advert I might "want" your product that I'd never heard of, but as the OP says, "fuck you". You are taking money out of my pocket that I did not plan to allow its removal. In some circles, that's theft.

Comment: Re:Yep, they were... (Score 5, Insightful) 369

by PsychoSlashDot (#49643031) Attached to: Keurig Stock Drops, Says It Was Wrong About DRM Coffee Pods

I will never buy a DRM coffee machine...

Unless you're a prostitute, don't fuck your customer.

You can get away with DRM on DVDs because consumers don't understand the tech. The phallus is invisible.

You can't get away with DRM on a plastic cup with coffee grounds in it. The consumers UNDERSTAND that product, and KNOW you're fucking them. The phallus is very much visible.

Comment: Re:Battery life non-issue (Score 1) 113

Used to be that you had to wind watches every night, I don't recall people complaining.

Seriously? Ten seconds of twisting a knob is the same as taking the watch off and leaving it plugged in for the couple hours it takes to fully charge, during which you can't use it?

Also, people used to not complain that you couldn't tell time on cloudy days because the sundial didn't work. Progress is progressive. The Apple Watch's battery lifespan isn't impressive which is what the person I replied to was pretty bombastically disputing. I reiterate: it's acceptable. But you already knew that.

Comment: Re:Battery life non-issue (Score 0) 113

"Apple Watch's battery-life isn't what most people would consider impressive"

This is yet another bullshit clickbait statement. Never gotten below 30% on mine, even when my phone has run dry.

If the battery lasted until the heat-death of the universe, most people would consider it impressive.
If the battery lasted until the sun dies, most people would consider it impressive.
If the battery lasted until the year 2050, most people would consider it impressive.
If the battery lasted 12 months, most people would consider it impressive.
If the battery lasted a month, most people would consider it impressive.
If the battery lasted a week, most people would consider it acceptable.

At a week's battery life, the Pebble is acceptable. Not impressive. Acceptable.

That your watch battery's lifespan is "until lunch time tomorrow" isn't impressive. It's somewhere on the border of "good enough" and "requires too much maintenance".

Having to charge something daily that you wear isn't convenient. Yeah, it's definitely a 1st-world problem, but it's nowhere near as reasonable as charging your phone daily, where it's not strapped to your body all the time.

Comment: Re:Whitelisting executables... (Score 1) 190

by PsychoSlashDot (#49529099) Attached to: Microsoft Announces Device Guard For Windows 10

This actually sounds like a great idea. Whitelist all the executables on your system.

If this were done well, it could be useful (if occasionally annoying).

That said, I suspect the definition of "executables" is what's going to cause the biggest headache. Sure, an EXE file is an executable. Sure, so is an SCR. But these days there's so much interpreted code that it's not clear what is a .NET app or Java app and what isn't. How about Flash content? It's sort of executable in that a runtime will process it and DO something. But wait, there's more. PDFs have macros, as do most document types, which are sort of executable too.

It'd be nice to fix this all so nothing ever runs without your explicit permission.

Comment: Re:So? (Score 1) 138

Pedantic. And it's five to seven days, which in my case is six and a half days.

The Pebble really is a good product. It doesn't try to be something that makes no sense at the size of a watch. It's not a data input device, or even a substitute for a phone. It's just a nice notification device so your phone can stay in its sheath or pocket or wherever you'd like to keep it.

Comment: Re:Paper trail (Score 1) 105

by PsychoSlashDot (#49486827) Attached to: The Voting Machine Anyone Can Hack

What are the politicians doing if the people have to vote on everything anyway? Isn't the whole point of electing a representative so that they can represent you.

Can't be done. You won't find an electable candidate who shares my views on important topics.

Representative government is a necessity, but it's still important to give them explicit and clear mandates on especially important topics. I trust politicians to decide day-to-day topics, but when it's big things like anti-terrorism-snooping laws, or going to war with another country, or human rights issues like gay marriage, there should be a mechanism for the public to be heard. "I don't care what party you represent, I don't care what colour your campaign sign was, I don't care what general ideology you follow, X% of the population has spoken on this topic... hear, obey, and implement our will."

That would be representative democracy done right(ish).

Comment: Re:NIMBY strikes again (Score 1) 228

by PsychoSlashDot (#49434885) Attached to: Amid Controversy, Construction of Telescope In Hawaii Halted

You obviously didn't bother to look up Mauna Kea or why it is sacred. It's more about it being sacred for the gifts it gave the early Hawaiians in the form of food, water and other resources than of it being because of ghosts.

That's irrelevant. The reason or history behind why a place is sacred is utterly uninteresting. It's a hyperspace bypass. You've got to build bypasses. But seriously, everywhere is sacred in some way, to someone, or has remains from some group or ancients. The point remains that it's high time to start phasing out these concerns. Where two sites are of equal applicability, utility, and cost, sure you can pick the one that respects tradition. But otherwise... move on*.

It's not like there's more land each year that can be used without offending someone.

*Note: I'm not advocating destroying unique historical monuments like pyramids, stone circles, Easter Island heads, or lunar rover landing sites on a whim. But places with random bones or places with nothing but tradition... yeah.

Comment: Re:Please God no. (Score 2) 34

Because the UI (in 2012 R2) is spastic and inconsistent. The different UI elements involved with say... creating and connecting to a VPN is stupid. Starting at a normal desktop UI, you get the Start Screen, then you manually type "control panel" because it may or may not be visible, then go to Network and Whatever Else, then you click to add a network connection and go through the normal UI to add the VPN. Then you have to actually open network adapters to see the connection you just added. Then when you double-click on the VPN's icon, a moronic blue bar (part of the charms idiocy) comes up on the entire right side of the screen, showing you your connections, and you get to click on your VPN connection AGAIN to select it, then you get a connect button that you an click, and finally feed in credentials. The blue bar vanishes. Because... reasons.

Look, we get it. Microsoft things it's a tablet with a touch interface. It's not. It's a server. With - most likely - an RDP, VNC, or out-of-band interface. But no.

Having to memorize and use Powershell syntax to launch a VPN is stupid, especially when the previous Server 2008 UI was usable.

Comment: Re:How many sites actually honor DNT? (Score 2) 64

by PsychoSlashDot (#49399509) Attached to: Microsoft To Stop Enabling 'Do Not Track' By Default

My understanding was that DNT has mostly been a failure, though I don't know how much of that has to do with IE's default behavior. Am I wrong about that? Are there lots of sites out there honoring the DNT setting?

Agreed. Besides, it turns out that the default for web servers for their DNGAF option (Do Not Give A Fuck) is also enabled.

fortune: cannot execute. Out of cookies.

Working...