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


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Fuck you. (Score 1) 618 618

by WillyWanker (#49711643) Attached to: Editor-in-Chief of the Next Web: Adblockers Are Immoral

I pretty much agree with your sentiments, and that other people may not think the way I do, and that's cool. Obviously a lot of sites rely on advertising to survive, and since they are surviving *someone* is seeing/watching those ads. It's just not me. And honestly, not to sound like an ass, but as long as I don't need to see them I'm good.

And I'll even admit there are a few (VERY few) sites where I don't block the ads because I want to support the site and the ads are extremely unobtrusive, so I can live with that. I use a lot of ad-supported apps on my phone/tablet, and I'm generally ok with that too so long as the ad is unobtrusive (I remember trying to play Angry Birds and the ads popped up in such a way that made the game impossible to play; deleted that shit real quick and never looked back). I have a buddy who sells a few basic Android apps and originally went with a 99 cent price with no ads. He wasn't getting a lot of purchases and then decided to offer a free version with ads and he makes over 10x the amount of money just from those small little popup ads. So, hey, more power to him.

For now most of the app ads are unobtrusive, but the web was once like that too. When things start to change and get out of control that's when it's going to be time to look into adblockers for my phone and tablet.

Comment: Re:Fuck you. (Score 5, Insightful) 618 618

by WillyWanker (#49710915) Attached to: Editor-in-Chief of the Next Web: Adblockers Are Immoral

This. I don't want to see ads, I'm sick to death of seeing ads, and I'll do everything in my power not to. If that means the end of the web, I don't care. There isn't a single solitary website I can't live without.

The thing that gets me is that even though advertisers know full well we're all sick to death of advertising and don't want to see it they are doing everything they can to shove it down our throats whether we like it or not. And y'know what, If I'm forced to somehow sit thru an ad when I don't want to (I recently tried to watch a video at, and if you block the ads you can't watch the program) I'm either going to a.) mute the sound and switch the tab till the ad is over, or b.) make note of the advertiser and NEVER patronize them simply because they forced me to sit thru an ad I had no interest in seeing. In most cases I will do both.

Fuck them.

Comment: Re:Yawn... Strawmening and elenchiing now? (Score 1) 285 285

Yeah, I stopped after the first paragraph. If you believe that pizza and Big Macs are "meals" and strawberries and almonds are "luxuries" you need medication. I dare say if people ate more of the latter and less of the former we'd have a lot less obesity in this country. Strawberries and almonds certainly are not a luxury. Fruit and nuts are essential parts of a healthy diet whereas pizza and Big Macs are the antithesis of one.

What little of your "argument" I did read is fallacial at best, ridiculous at worst, and sorry, but I don't argue with stupid or crazy. Carry on.

Comment: Re:Nice argumentum ad lapidem there. (Score 1) 285 285

Considering your inane rant was a non sequitur strawman argument I am not required to argue its merits, because by definition is has none. But ok, sure, I'll humor you:

First off, strawberries aren't food? Since when? And pizza and Big Macs are?

Whatever difficulties there are in picking strawberries are irrelevant, as the production of every food substance has it's own set of challenges. Pizza dough has to be used when it's thawed and can't be refrozen. Same with hamburger. Cheese needs to be refrigerated. French fries can only be up to 2 hours old and then need to be pitched. Buns have to be thrown out once they get stale, and so on. None of which are germane to the discussion of wages.

And don't you think, following your trainwreck of thought, that if strawberries aren't priced fairly due to slave wages, that pizza and Big Macs also are not priced fairly due to the slave wages paid to make them? Not to mention the grade-z ingredients used? But again, irrelevant to the discussion of wages as the production of strawberries via slave wages is no different than the production of any other product via slave wages. And none of this has anything to do with almonds.

I laid out very specific economic points, each of which you ignored and then went on a rant about how delicate and luxurious strawberries are. Which not only makes no sense, it's completely irrelevant to the discussion and not even close to being on topic. If anything you actually proved my point -- if strawberries are so difficult to pick, and so delicate, one would think you'd need skilled labor to do it correctly and efficiently. And skilled labor doesn't come cheap. And I'm betting that paying your workers $25/hr + benefits is still cheaper than watching your entire crop shrivel and die because you can't find anyone willing to work for less. Let's also remember we're not talking about a little mom and pop farm here, the farm from the article is one of the biggest producers of strawberries -- most certainly a multi-million dollar enterprise whose top men I'm sure get paid very handsomely.

Any more words from the peanut gallery?

Comment: Re:You're not willing to pay (Score 1) 285 285

There is quite the preponderance of evidence showing that raising salaries, even significantly, does not translate into a significant rise in consumer prices, especially when dealing with bulk items.

When Papa John bitched and moaned about Obamacare it was revealed the extra cost per pizza was 11 cents. The minimum wage in Denmark is $20/hour + a ton of government-mandated perks, yet their Big Macs only cost about 25 cents more than ours.

So this whole "if we force employers to pay their workers $15/hr it will drive up the cost of their products" simply doesn't hold water. And on the flip side, you're giving people more money to spend, meaning more products they're going to buy, so you'll likely to sell MORE of your products, not less.

Economics 101.

Comment: Re:You're not willing to pay (Score 1) 285 285

If you business model requires that you pay slave wages to your employees you need a new business model.

I also love when they say "Americans don't want to do this work", because they always leave off the "for the slave wages I'm willing to pay them".

And as we've seen over and over and over again, increasing the salary you pay to your workers has a negligible effect on the price of your goods that consumers pay.

When I was in high school I used to work on a farm over the summer, picking berries and other fruit. It was absolutely shitty work, but it paid more than McDonalds, which was also shitty work and at least I got to be outside. But to do that as an adult for minimum wage? Oh fuck no. You'd have to pay me upwards of $25 an hour + full health benefits + overtime + minimum 2 weeks vacation to do that kind of shit work. Offer a package like that and see how many American come running for that job they supposedly don't want to do.

The way to make a small fortune in the commodities market is to start with a large fortune.