I stand corrected.

But I have to wonder, how does that method generate any money? It doesn't really matter if I see the ad or not, I will still not buy the product, click the ad or ever talk about it. I block ads because they are irrelevant and annoying. Same as I don't watch ads on TV and focus on other things while those annoying, (muted) internet video ads play.

Why would you ask your users to intentionally worsen their viewing experience of your website, to put it bluntly they don't care about you, if the ads aren't gaining enough suckers and you think your content is an unrivalled, top quality jewel of the internet then make it subscription based.

NoScript technically isn't an ad blocker, but it does block a lot of ads. Is there less of an ethical quandary to blocking scripts as opposed to directly targeting advertisements?

I thought one of the things that came out in the debate was that there was a federal law prohibiting discounts to cash customers, so the poorest, uninsured *has* to pay the full price. The doctor cannot discount unless it's an insurance company.

Depends on who your doctors are, I guess. My grandfather just died last Valentines day. Almost a year ago he had a heart attack that put him into the hospital and they said he needed a quadruple bypass, but that he lungs were too damaged (from emphysema) and he would be on life support the rest of his life (if he even survived at all). They said they'd do it if he wanted, but they recommended against it. So he went home and prepared to die. A few more heart attacks and months later, he seemed to be doing a bit better (he was able to walk around the block occasionally), and then about a week before Valentine's Day he suddenly got much worse and died.