Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Used to mail a long time ago (Score 2) 14

...looks like not much has changed. Scamming was constant there, so you stuck with the people you knew.
The very first thing you do is exchange a small list of well known people you've done business with - your references. When one matches up between your list and their list you contact them and ask how the experience went. If it was good, you move forward and don't change until you have a damn good reason to.

It's not like there's a Yelp for spammer services, or even a normal review site. Everything is word of mouth.

Comment Re:Dear Timothy (Score 1) 76

The drivers are vetted by positive reviews and insanely difficult minimums...and it works fantastically. I'm aware there's theoretically an introductory period where bad people can slip through(not sure what Uber does on their own) but I've never met a bad one...while I've rarely met a traditional cab driver I'd put against an average Uber.

Comment Re:Said it before and I'll say it again ... (Score 1) 282

What users don't get is that the more people use adblock, the more marketers will have to extract every last penny they can out of the users they can. That means dirtier, high ROI ads, pop-ups, etc. Most users aren't going to install adblock no matter what they do.

First of all, ad views don't make money; clickthroughs make money.

I'm well aware. Though it's worth noting what you say is mostly true for text ads/hybrid ads, and some banner companies like Google, while others(pop-ups), most other large display ad networks stay with CPMs and media buys.

That said: "Dirtier" ads also make more money for the advertiser. Animated weight loss, pop-ups, biz-opp, etc. That's what I meant and that's what will become more common if adblock ever becomes the norm. The methods they use are dirtier as well, but that's more a symptom of less scrupulous companies advertising. Right now many ad networks restrict these niches and products from advertising.

And I may be in a minority (though probably not), but I'm usually not interested in any of the products or services advertised and don't trust the sales pitch of an online ad regardless.

Second, if advertisers create more intrusive ads (which didn't work so well when they did), that's just too bad. I will either avoid the ad, or else avoid the site promoting the ad. The only thing that forcing an ad on my display would accomplish is to make me not want to look at your site, and therefore be extremely unlikely to recommend your site to someone else who might actually click on an ad. If I want to learn about a product or service, I'll do the research on my own, and ads will never be a factor. I am not an early adopter, I do not make impulse purchases, and I am not your target demographic.

People who either don't know how or choose not to block ads will have to decide for themselves whether they want to patronize a site that tolerates or facilitates intrusive advertisements.

It's not about you. It's about math and the thousands of others who WILL buy. There's always a population that won't buy and another with their credit card numbers tattooed on their foreheads. What you doesn't matter as long as they keep doing what they do.

Comment Re:Said it before and I'll say it again ... (Score 1) 282

Well pop-up windows are pretty much out because all the major browsers now block them by default. I've seen a few in-page pop-ups but those are probablly pretty easy for an ad-blocker to detect.

They just make you click on something first. Using the onclick action bypasses every major popup blocker I'm aware of.

Comment Re:Said it before and I'll say it again ... (Score 5, Interesting) 282

It's not that I want to hide the ads. What I want is to hide the annoyance of the ads. Keep the ads subtle and out of the flow of what I'm on a site for, and I won't want to block them.

What the marketers don't understand is that the more annoying they get, the less eyeballs they receive because of more and more people use ad-ons like Adblock to avoid the annoyance. All they seem to understand is the lazy approach. Be loud! Be garish! Be anything but smart and honest!

What users don't get is that the more people use adblock, the more marketers will have to extract every last penny they can out of the users they can. That means dirtier, high ROI ads, pop-ups, etc. Most users aren't going to install adblock no matter what they do.
The other end of it is that marketers in general are confident that they can overcome adblock if it ever becomes popular to the point where it's a problem. Adblock only works by recognizing the domain hosting the image/scripts or common path names.
Toss that banner add on the cloud, or have it hosted locally by the site owners(in a non-"banners" or "ads" subdirectory) and for the most part you've got it beat. Advertisers haven't adapted because there's not a big enough incentive to. But if push ever comes to shove, they'll win.
Imagining that AdBlock provides(or could provide) enough incentive to make anyone even think about cleaning up advertising is nothing but wishful thinking.

Comment Re:Bitter from competition? (Score 1) 278

The fact that Wkileaks is making a big deal of the stolen stash of documents suggest they are NOT in this to provide information, but rather to further a specific agenda.

Forget for a moment about the irony of bickering over "ownership" of stolen documents. The fact that Wikileaks still HAS a copy of those documents means they weren't harmed.

They are in this to provide information, but part of their self-given task is also to get the information as much coverage as possible. Controlling the flow of information is part of this in their eyes.

As their relationship with their formal partners(Guardian, NYTimes, etc) deteriorate, the leaks have been released differently. Instead of trying to create the news, they latch onto existing stories and ride on their coat tails. In Egypt for example: News about Mohamed ElBaradei and Egypt would have been ignored had it been in the original dump of releases. But by releasing the information as Egypt starts to get international attention, the information ends up showing up in a huge variety of articles on the topic. The information spreads without being the cause of the news. It compliments it instead.

Comment Re:Which is the sane thing to assume (Score 1) 239

Well what I think the poster was getting at is the idea that, if you're closing off all insecure ports on all your machines themselves, then firewalls shouldn't really being doing anything anyway. It's not an either-or proposition, is it? Either you have a firewall or you have unpatched computers running with all ports open?

Except that you generally don't "close off insecure ports". You're not disabling them, you're just setting them to "not open yet". A large part of the point behind a firewall is to make sure nefarious programs can't open the ports without your knowledge.

Comment Re:lolwut? (Score 1) 510

Have you ever used Grooveshark?
It's in Flash and pretty gorgeous/easy to use. In fact, a lot of the functionality I really like in it like right click menus with unique options when you're about to play a song is only possible because of Flash. It takes a little bit to load, but there's a fair amount of functionality given for it, and afterwards it runs relatively fast.

Comment Re:My thoughts (Score 1) 1051

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't internet ads generate their revenue through the amount of clicks they incur? I know Google's ads do this. By using adblock, what I'm saying is: I'm never going to be clicking on any of the ads on your website. If I didn't use it, I still wouldn't be clicking on any ads on your website and they will also annoy me. It's most likely that the people using ad blocking don't care about the ads you display and won't be clicking on them anyway.

Small text ads are generally pay per click, large banners are generally pay per 1000 views.

Comment Re:Why fear terrorists... (Score 2, Insightful) 689

-We are being spied on all the time.
-They lied to us to get us into Afghanistan.
...just like in Vietnam -We have consistently overthrown governments in foreign countries.
-We've had orders that involved killing US citizens make it remarkably high up the ladder.

I agree with the examples you chose, but our government hasn't exactly given us a multitude of reasons to trust them
First Person Shooters (Games)

Duke Nukem Forever Not Dead? (Yes, This Again) 195

kaychoro writes "There may be hope for Duke Nukem Forever (again). 'Jon St. John, better known as the voice of Duke Nukem, said some interesting words during a panel discussion at the Music and Games Festival (MAGFest) that took place January 1 – 4 in Alexandria, Virginia, according to Pixel Enemy. Answering a question from the crowd regarding DNF, St. John said: "... let me go ahead and tell you right now that I'm not allowed to talk about Duke Nukem Forever. No, no, don't be disappointed, read between the lines — why am I not allowed to talk about it?"'"

Comment Re:Forgery perhaps (Score 1) 215

The United States Postal Service is a government agency. That's why punishments for interfering with mail are so harsh. The letters/mailboxes and whatnot are their property until you take possession of it. (Yes, the post office owns EVERY mailbox) Your ISP/file/website/torrent has nothing to do with the government. Big difference.

Comment Re:Not possible (Score 1) 435

Except that Google gets much more than $2.00 CPM on searches. MUCH more.
Checking some quick numbers from campaigns I have access to show it's actually in the double digits in some pretty low-intensity/cheap vertical.

I guess we'd have to know what percent of searches trigger an ad to get anything conclusive though.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you had better tools, you could more effectively demonstrate your total incompetence.