Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:You CAN'T have ads without tracking. (Score 4, Insightful) 356

It could very easily happen, by enforcing blocking rules that restrict or eliminate third party content.

Sure, that would break a huge chunk of the internet right now. So what? It's already been broken by content providers who invite advertisers to pollute their content.

Turning blocking rules into legislation would be interesting, because politicians typically don't understand anything more complex than one end of a shoelace.

Comment Re:No such thing (Score 5, Insightful) 356

You basically eliminated everything.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! (Who do you work for?)

- No Tracking (Can't be done otherwise you would get the same ad repeatedly, and is necessary for context-awareness)

Sure it can be done. The visited site hosts the ad and doesn't tattle. Just like print, their connection to the reader is a one-way street. Context awareness is done by the content publisher. They're the ones who want the ads, not me. So it should be on them to make sure they don't send me away with poorly selected advertising.

If a company wants to gauge how effective their advertising campaign is, they can analyse their contact results and how many of those coming from the campaign resulted in a sale. They can analyse sales from other sources. Easy.

- No Animation (Can be done, but I think you meant "no VIDEO" ads on non-video content)

You're new here. No animation. No moving bits at all. No blink, no marquee, no animated gifs, NOTHING.

- No Sound (It violates every legitimate ad network to do this already)

What, even for auto-playing videos?

- No Javascript (Impossible, otherwise you will see the ads burned into the content of the website, which is actually worse, because it's hard to be context-aware this way, do you really want to see ads for condoms on childrens comics?)

Of course it's possible. You don't know your web servers.

You're at it again with your "context-aware". This is done by the agency hosting the content. Why would any publisher of children's comics agree to host condom ads?

See where this is heading? Responsibility lies with the publisher, as well as the advertiser.

Aside from that, Javascript places the burden of processing content on the viewer, where the burden should be with the site depending on advertising.

- No Plugins (Already being done)

I still see Flash ads. Well, I don't, because I block them.

- No third party hosts (Can't be done unless every site direct-sells the ads, which like above with the No Tracking and No Javascript, harms the user experience more than it improves it. Nobody buys directly from content publishers because campaigns have set dates to run, and it's faster for them to buy from an ad exchange and specify the conditions for the ad to be shown. Also many publishers have set it and forget it ad invocation code, so they don't want to manage the ads because it takes time away from producing content.)

Sure it can be done. In fact, expiry, and correct targeting of advertisements can be managed by the host far easier with server-side code than it can with Javascript, if only because you have a choice of languages at the server side.

- No delays (Only bad ad networks are slow, unfortunately you sometimes have to chain up to 10 ad networks to get a paying ad, and that is why some sites have slow ads, because the highest paying ad network has no inventory, so it goes to the next, with Google usually being at the end because Google adsense is not worth using if there is anything else.)

- No Adult content (You do realize that adult content ads only appear on sites that have approved it right? It's otherwise a violation of the ad networks terms and conditions to have ads on adult sites, and only adult sites run garbage ad networks that show adult ads.)

I think when you say "adult content" you're thinking of pornography.

There's other adult advertising content which is inappropriate for children: retirement, cars, guns, drugs, films, books, travel, ... oh wait a second, I meant everything. It is never appropriate to advertise to children.

- No obfuscated links (The entire reason that happens is because of generic ad blocking.)

No question about it. But the way you express it, it seems your sympathies lie with the advertisers?

- No more than 10% of the page area (That is the publisher's fault, many newspaper sites dilute the value of their advertisements by having more than 3 ad units)

No question about it. Publishers are certainly at fault for enabling shoddy advertisers.

But I would refine this demand: no more than 10% of the browser view area, per page. So if a page is ten times the area of the browser view, the total area of any advertising should occupy less than 1% of the total. This is achievable.

- No mixing ads and content (It violates ad networks rules to "not have ads clearly look like ads", and in fact the only sites that suffer from this are sites that offer downloads of something to begin with.)

You misunderstand. Ads should be off to the side, down at the bottom, or (worse) up at the top. Not interspersed with editorial content like in American magazines.

- No Overlays (These are annoying and you'd think that "pop-ups" from the X-10 era would have been a lesson in not doing this)

And yet they happen because we don't have an international advertising standards authority.

- No interstitials (These are really only meant for linear content, eg you visit a site, and on the third page or so, you see this ad. It's not meant to be the first thing you see because it sends the user away from the publisher.)

And yet I only ever see them on a first visit. Calling them "interstitial" is incorrect.

Adblock is pretty much a garbage plugin, everyone knows how to defeat it easily and make users turn it off , and that's by using it's own ad blocking rules against it. Put the entire content in a css container called "ad" and you'll be forced to turn off ad block to view the site.

"Forced". Ha.

Or I hit the "back" button, and perhaps mention the link is broken. Because it is.

If a site doesn't want me to look at it, I'll happily oblige.

I use a combination of HTTPS-Everywhere, Privacy Badger, Stylish, Adblock Edge, Facebook Auto-logout, and I don't have Flash installed so no Flash LSOs. And I still manage to have (what people like you would probably call) a "rich internet experience".

Comment Re:Grease can be used as fuel. Why would you dump (Score 0) 189

It isn't too much of a surprise that the economics of producing biodiesel from used restaurant oil are shaky

My guess is that you haven't even bothered to look at the economics of producing biodiesel from WVO.

For small hobbyist-level winter-safe B100 refinement, the total costs amount to roughly $3/gal. Besides economies of scale, there are multiple ways to subsidize that, not least charging a modest fee for disposal including clean-up, and selling the glycerine to soap-makers and others. If you maintain the fleet which runs on the B100, the savings on maintenance costs also start to reveal themselves.

Basically, you haven't got a clue, and you decided to tell the world.

Comment Re: Obligatory (Score 3, Interesting) 172

So you're claiming the particular arrangement of molecules which propagated this couldn't possibly have occurred by chance?

Considering the space for this to happen, there are around 3 E13 Fe atoms on a pinhead, and the surface area of the Earth is around 2.5 E17 pinheads. That's an awful lot of room for this to happen. And that's just the surface - dem oceans be deep.

Considering the time for this to happen, the Earth had already been in existence for nearly half a billion years before life began, a span equivalent to around 20 million generations of humans, roughly 200 times longer than all of human existence. Even very slow organic chemical reactions take place quicker than human generations, and those necessary for life are obviously very much quicker, culminating in cell division occurring on the day scale, roughly 0.5 days per cell division.

Putting those two enormous, unimaginable scales of space and time together, we're talking about numbers in the 36th to 40th exponent range at a bare minimum.

You are claiming that there is a less than 1 in 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance that life evolved spontaneously. That, my dear, is quite frankly ridiculous.

Slashdot Top Deals

"It says he made us all to be just like him. So if we're dumb, then god is dumb, and maybe even a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa