Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:ad blocker? (Score 1) 358

Why is the ethical responsibility on the end user? Does YouTube not benefit from the hard work of "content creators?" Keep in mind, there are plenty who YouTube doesn't compensate at all, who don't even have the option to display ads. There are a few ways they could level the playing field.

  1. Display ads on every video and give every channel the option to collect a portion of the total revenue based on how many views they generate. This way, YouTube partners who call their ad-blocking viewers "unethical, freeloading scumbags" won't feel like hypocritical assholes when they enjoy non-partner content on YouTube.
  2. Make the site paid-only and give every channel the option to collect a portion of the total revenue based on how many views they generate. This also eliminates the "unethical freeloading scumbag" problem. Of course, YouTube wouldn't do this because it would interfere with their oh-so-ethical data-mining operation.

It appears that YouTube has chosen a combination of these options with ad-free subscriptions. So now, they get my money, partners get a portion, and the non-partners I watch with my paid subscription continue to get absolutely nothing. Now that's what I call ethical!

Comment Re:Thats Fair (Score 0) 158

Let me get this straight.

Backbone providers want to be paid for proper peering arrangements to allow for the heavy bandwidth time-sensitive transmission of video data for Netflix (let's be honest, this is all anyone on the internet cares about) and everyone loses their fucking minds and wants the FCC to take control of the internet.

Netflix wants to be paid more for giving you much higher quality video at much higher data rates to go over those lines and "aw, gosh guys, that's totally reasonable".

Comment Re:Perspective (Score 1, Interesting) 135

Personally, I like how everyone has completely lost their shit over Ebola overseas and oh my god we have to do something about it and blah blah blah blah.

But as soon as there's a case of it state-side, these same people are all "oh, this could never become an issue here and more people die from sneezing themselves to death each year in this country than have died of Ebola blah blah blah".

I mean, pick your concern and try to be consistent about it.

Besides, the same could be said about all of these global cooling^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hwarming^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hclimate change idiots. I mean, not idiots on the face of it, but just idiots because they spread idiotic bullshit like "it's too late, nothing we can do now will help because we're doomed to die by 2030 because of global-whatever-the-fuck-we're-calling-it-today!".

As for why Ebola is so newsworthy and strikes such fear in people -- is it really a mystery to you? Where have you been the last thirty years, when it was portrayed as a catalyst for the potential end to all of humanity in hundreds of films? It is terrifying in the same way that plane crashes are terrifying. Statistically, people should be more afraid of crossing the street or the prostate cancer 100% of men will eventually get, but the idea of contracting something from beyond your own control (especially when hearing reports of system failures across the board that seem not to take things seriously where Ebola is concerned) that will basically liquefy you into blood "overnight" is far more /terrifying/.

Kind of the same way everyone has been able to capitalize on terrorism. A couple buildings got knocked down and for the next hundred year's, we're afraid of people boarding airplanes with tennis shoes, underwear, and smarmy slogans on tee-shirts. Logic has little to do with it.

Slashdot Top Deals

CChheecckk yyoouurr dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh..