This is my last reply to this thread, because this is a bit ot.
* Timothy R. Butler
These are pay-per-impression - not pay-per-click. So, you see, it really does pay - even if you don't click.
Then I should get my proxy to download all the banners to /dev/null and it will seem like I saw them.
* Sites with advertisements do not explicitly request that you view the ads. Perhaps if they did, I would just leave the site. Also, this would justify the strange claim that I am stealing.
This is like a debate currently going on over at the KDE-General list. The Debian people claim the KDE developers must specifically state they agree to let their GPL'ed code get linked to the QPL'ed QT. Even though KDE can't work without QT, the Debian project claims this isn't enough proof. Same goes for ads. If web-developers didn't want you to view the ads - why would they be there?
Well, of Course they want you to view the ads; the question is, is it stealing just because I do not do what they desire? SuSE is a company. Therefore they *want* you to by the CDs. Still you can download the iso image, if you go to the extra trouble. You do what is contrary to their main desire, but you can do it. It is not stealing. I can go to an extra length to 'clarify' my web browsing experience, because you didn't forbid it.
* An ad at the top of a page will (often) load completely *before* the content is displayed. This is stealing time from me.
But it's up to you to spend that time waiting. If it isn't worth it to you, stick to organizations like the GNU Project or other non-profit pages. I pay for bandwidth (on my site), I spend many hours of hard work developing, etc. Why do I want to loose money? If you don't wanna pay, don't come at all.
My, if you conveyed these opinions on your website, I'll bet nobody would come ;-) You have no intention of considering anything but those very ugly defacements of the internet. Probably, most people don't filter ads. But! If they do (or when they do), then this is a sign to the ad-vendors that we don't need no steenkin' ads. Call it my vote. You own your website. If you want to, you can request on your page that anybody using ad filtering software either disable it or leave. But I personally don't think that there is a stronger argument for it than that you own the copyright, so can stipulate such rules.
Really, just think about it. Wouldn't it be faster to walk out of the grocery store without paying? Sure, but where are the employees who stock the shelves for you going to make money to eat?
The savings in time of walking out of the store without paying is grossly overshadowed by the fact that you are shoplifting. Doing that is illegal. It is explicitly forbidden with laws and warnings on the wall. There are punishtments in store.
* I use w3m 50% of my web time. It cannot display inline images. Would you tell me to dutifully load every ad into an image viewer before being entitled to view your site? Would I be stealing if I didn't?
No, then you just can't see them. You also aren't wasting my bandwidth downloading the rest of the images on my site. It's when you _are_ using my bandwidth, you _are_ using my free technical support, etc. Why shouldn't I use a little of _your_ time?
Ah, so I can just turn off images completely, and then I'm not stealing? david, who feels the heat. -- 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/