Matthew,
Tim. If I am to follow your logic here then would you say that users DO NOT have the right to dissable cookies, javascript, activeX controls and java applets in their web browsers? Or better yet are not allowed to use anything other than the latest and greatest versions of the most popular web browsers (even though I just happen to run Communicator 4.73 and IE 5.5) to view web your web pages? Or how about those poor individuals who might be at work and have an old Sun SPARC5 that can only handle 256 colors, and you have a web page with all the eye-candy in the world in it, including some pluggins that just do not exist on that particular platform? Are ALL these people in the wrong? I certanly hope
No, I don't care if it looks horrible on the screen (I mean I do, but it doesn't hurt me if you can only do 256 colors). All I want is for the ad to be transferred from the server to your PC. Send it to /dev/null if you wish, just don't burden me with the cost of you visit.
not. I will say your analogy is one of the worst I have heard in a long time. Yeah your web site is YOUR property, however the users of the web browsers are not MODIFYING your "e-Realestate" ( Now thats a term I thought I would NEVER hear, e-this, e-that what next ) or HTML documents. To do that they would have to accually log on to the server and EDIT the source files (whatever they might be). I have in the past
Then why is it a crime to tamper with the code in Netscape (not Mozilla, but normal Netscape) or RealPlayer or your favorite NDA-licensed product. It isn't changing their code base! But, if you read the license it says you can't reverse compile, disassemble, or otherwise change the code! Hmm... why is a web site different?
dissabled javascript in my web browser because I got tired of idiotic web site designers placing javascript functions in the web page that would pop up multiple sub windows when attempting to leave their site as well as when closing the sub windows. Basicly what you had was approx. 18+ little windows popping up everywhere on the computer desktop just because you followed one link. If I am to use your flawed analogy for this, then it would be like going to your house and when I decide to leave you say I can but only after I have visited X number of other houses (and each one could
I see what you mean about pop ups, they are annoying. However, that could be, in a way considered malicious because it forces you to keep looking at their site even after you close it. Ad banners don't do that in any way.
as pay a bit more for a sale as a result of a web page ad. People aren't getting the "wacky" concept that they can do whatever they want on "the net", it is that you are now just seeing how upset some people have always been with marketing and advertizing (much in the same way as junk mail in the mail box outside their house). Of course no one forces someone to visit a web site. However there are some sites that are like a black-hole. They do their best to keep you there once you get there. Once I realize a site is one of those I avoid it like the plague. I (and many others) don't like this type of advertizing.
As Don excellently said in a previous post, there isn't any free lunches. If you are a business man, you will understand that the money has to come from somewhere be it your pocket or mine or your time. This is much like the way every item in the store must be paid for by you or the store owner.
Equating blocking ads to hacking or even shoplifting has got to be one of the biggest jokes I have ever heard of. First of all they ARE NOT HACKING your web site. I think you meant to use the term Cracking which is the hacking with a malicious intent. But that is a WHOLE
<head repeatly smacks desk> Okay, I'm sorry, CRACKING. <g>
different thread. They aredownloading the entire document and deciding that they only want to view certain pages. As far as your web server knows they viewed the entire document. This IS like going into a store to buy the news paper and not reading the comics or the ads for the latest sale at the local mall. So where in the entire act of visiting the web site and after the content has been downloaded from YOUR server to MY computer and then viewed the way I want shoplifting? Unless you charge people to download each and every page and they find a way to download it without paying then THAT would be stealing.
Removing the ads from a site is like receiving a free newspaper (one of those at your grocer, etc.) and immediately dropping it into some machine that removed every advertisement from it. Only it really wouldn't be like that. The reason is, if you don't take a newspaper or if you do, it's already cost the exact same amount. It'd be more like if that newspaper was custom printed for every person who wanted it. It cost extra to give you a copy, and yet ungratefully you remove the only way that company pays to give it to you. Is that right? I surely wouldn't think so. Remember, if 1,000 people download 30k, the bandwidth would cost me approx. 34 cents (figuring at the rate I can buy extra bandwidth). That would add up pretty quick if you had a popular site, and would even be costly for smaller sites if they made nothing to recoup it. Say a site that gets a thousand page-views a day each with 15k of text and graphics, that would cost $5.14 in bandwidth in just one month. Now, since even a site with a few hundred visitors will get more than that in page views per day, you can see how that would ad up. That isn't even including the many hours of work to produce that content. -Tim ----------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy R. Butler Universal Networks Information Tech. Consultant Christian Web Services Since 1996 ICQ #12495932 AIM: Uninettm An Authorized IPSwitch Reseller tbutler@uninetsolutions.com http://www.uninetsolutions.com ===================== "Solutions that Work" ===================== -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/