<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_10_1517228</id>
	<title>Power To the Pop-Ups</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1265819400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Slashdot frequent contributor <a href="mailto:bennett@peacefire.org">Bennett Haselton</a> writes a piece advocating for Pop-Ups and even more obtrusive advertising.  But not for the reasons you might think.  He says <i>"Annoying pop-up ads have been a great friend to Internet freedom, by enabling the operation of proxy sites that would be too expensive to operate otherwise.  With the rising costs of making new proxy sites to stay ahead of the 'censorware' companies, even more intrusive ads could be an even bigger friend to Internet freedom.  Got any ideas for how those more intrusive ads could work?"</i>  Clicky clicky below to read his point.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot frequent contributor Bennett Haselton writes a piece advocating for Pop-Ups and even more obtrusive advertising .
But not for the reasons you might think .
He says " Annoying pop-up ads have been a great friend to Internet freedom , by enabling the operation of proxy sites that would be too expensive to operate otherwise .
With the rising costs of making new proxy sites to stay ahead of the 'censorware ' companies , even more intrusive ads could be an even bigger friend to Internet freedom .
Got any ideas for how those more intrusive ads could work ?
" Clicky clicky below to read his point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot frequent contributor Bennett Haselton writes a piece advocating for Pop-Ups and even more obtrusive advertising.
But not for the reasons you might think.
He says "Annoying pop-up ads have been a great friend to Internet freedom, by enabling the operation of proxy sites that would be too expensive to operate otherwise.
With the rising costs of making new proxy sites to stay ahead of the 'censorware' companies, even more intrusive ads could be an even bigger friend to Internet freedom.
Got any ideas for how those more intrusive ads could work?
"  Clicky clicky below to read his point.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31088178</id>
	<title>Re:Adblock Plus Rocks</title>
	<author>icebraining</author>
	<datestamp>1265050620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've *never* disabled Slashdot ads, or do I have Adblock installed, and Slashdot is allowed in NoScript. Yet I never see ads of any kind. Go figure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've * never * disabled Slashdot ads , or do I have Adblock installed , and Slashdot is allowed in NoScript .
Yet I never see ads of any kind .
Go figure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've *never* disabled Slashdot ads, or do I have Adblock installed, and Slashdot is allowed in NoScript.
Yet I never see ads of any kind.
Go figure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087636</id>
	<title>Is not better to sell something with real valor?</title>
	<author>TheDarkMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1265048400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Instead of trying to force more and more to view ads, it would be better to offer something in this ads the people <i>really</i> like to buy?
<br>
Ads like "WinAntiVirus 2000 plus max, click here NOW!!" go immediately to the ignore/junk list. People have learned to ignore ads because 95\%  (or more) of them are pure garbage, dubious products or simply frauds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of trying to force more and more to view ads , it would be better to offer something in this ads the people really like to buy ?
Ads like " WinAntiVirus 2000 plus max , click here NOW ! !
" go immediately to the ignore/junk list .
People have learned to ignore ads because 95 \ % ( or more ) of them are pure garbage , dubious products or simply frauds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of trying to force more and more to view ads, it would be better to offer something in this ads the people really like to buy?
Ads like "WinAntiVirus 2000 plus max, click here NOW!!
" go immediately to the ignore/junk list.
People have learned to ignore ads because 95\%  (or more) of them are pure garbage, dubious products or simply frauds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087066</id>
	<title>It's official.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265045820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's official -- Haselton has gone off the deep end.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's official -- Haselton has gone off the deep end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's official -- Haselton has gone off the deep end.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087810</id>
	<title>Re:TLDR</title>
	<author>nacturation</author>
	<datestamp>1265049060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Regular readers will recognize Slashdot frequent contributor Bennett Haselton as the<br>contributor who writes essays on the most banal of topics.  Today, he wrote us to<br>announce a name change.  From now on he'll be known as Banal Tldr, or "Tilder" for short.</p><p>Click below to read his explanation of the name change.</p><p><a href="/" title="slashdot.org"> <b>Read 23872 More Bytes...</b> </a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Regular readers will recognize Slashdot frequent contributor Bennett Haselton as thecontributor who writes essays on the most banal of topics .
Today , he wrote us toannounce a name change .
From now on he 'll be known as Banal Tldr , or " Tilder " for short.Click below to read his explanation of the name change .
Read 23872 More Bytes... [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regular readers will recognize Slashdot frequent contributor Bennett Haselton as thecontributor who writes essays on the most banal of topics.
Today, he wrote us toannounce a name change.
From now on he'll be known as Banal Tldr, or "Tilder" for short.Click below to read his explanation of the name change.
Read 23872 More Bytes...  [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087416</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265047440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, it would also be better if there was no war; everyone had basic necessities like food, shelter, and healthcare; and everyone had someone to love and to love them. I mean, if we're going to dream, might as well cover it all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , it would also be better if there was no war ; everyone had basic necessities like food , shelter , and healthcare ; and everyone had someone to love and to love them .
I mean , if we 're going to dream , might as well cover it all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, it would also be better if there was no war; everyone had basic necessities like food, shelter, and healthcare; and everyone had someone to love and to love them.
I mean, if we're going to dream, might as well cover it all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31096912</id>
	<title>Re:I think I see your problem</title>
	<author>Eivind</author>
	<datestamp>1265921700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Furthermore, the core clients, those arguably most in need of a proxy, say Iranian dissenters, not highschool-kids who want to do youtube from school, aren't even in the target demographic for most advertisers.</p><p>They have little free capital, and don't buy many products from typical advertisers, hell in many cases they couldn't even if they tried, it's not as if there's that many starbucks in Iran.</p><p>In short: It's no wonder the funding don't work well this way, and no, the trend isn't going to turn just from managing to piss off the users too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Furthermore , the core clients , those arguably most in need of a proxy , say Iranian dissenters , not highschool-kids who want to do youtube from school , are n't even in the target demographic for most advertisers.They have little free capital , and do n't buy many products from typical advertisers , hell in many cases they could n't even if they tried , it 's not as if there 's that many starbucks in Iran.In short : It 's no wonder the funding do n't work well this way , and no , the trend is n't going to turn just from managing to piss off the users too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Furthermore, the core clients, those arguably most in need of a proxy, say Iranian dissenters, not highschool-kids who want to do youtube from school, aren't even in the target demographic for most advertisers.They have little free capital, and don't buy many products from typical advertisers, hell in many cases they couldn't even if they tried, it's not as if there's that many starbucks in Iran.In short: It's no wonder the funding don't work well this way, and no, the trend isn't going to turn just from managing to piss off the users too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087570</id>
	<title>Mod parent up.</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1265048100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Mod parent up.
</p><p>
This is just someone whining because their somewhat lame business model is having problems.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up .
This is just someone whining because their somewhat lame business model is having problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Mod parent up.
This is just someone whining because their somewhat lame business model is having problems.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087082</id>
	<title>What popup ads?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265045940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've never seen them. I don't have javascript.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never seen them .
I do n't have javascript .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never seen them.
I don't have javascript.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31088046</id>
	<title>He's an idiot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265050080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Popups are bad!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Popups are bad !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Popups are bad!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31088676</id>
	<title>Broken Window Fallacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265052600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parableofthebrokenwindow" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Parable of the broken window</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Parable of the broken window [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parable of the broken window [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31094052</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265034600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>everyone had basic necessities like food, shelter, and healthcare</p></div></blockquote><p>So why are you going to take *MY* stuff that I worked hard for to give it to someone who *didn't*?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>everyone had basic necessities like food , shelter , and healthcareSo why are you going to take * MY * stuff that I worked hard for to give it to someone who * did n't * ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>everyone had basic necessities like food, shelter, and healthcareSo why are you going to take *MY* stuff that I worked hard for to give it to someone who *didn't*?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087644</id>
	<title>Are you kidding?</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1265048460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A proxy site that alters the content of the page so the proxy site can afford to operate?</p><p>This seems on its face to be an awfully spammy way to operate, and one that I would think would be easily defeated by the site owner.  Just make it so that the pages can't be scraped in that manner and you are home free.  Should be easy with AJAX and other tools.</p><p>Ads are not the answer.  If the users absolutely will not pay for services, then the ads are a hoax anyway - you are serving ads to non-customers that never will be customers.  The advertiser is going to catch on eventually and stop paying to put ads up that just annoy people who never buy.</p><p>And make no mistake about it, we aren't talking about poor oppressed people in Iran looking for a gateway to content otherwise blocked by their evil government.  We are most likely talking about teenage porn surfers at the library.  Or college kids trying to make a few bucks with online poker (and failing, much to Dad's dismay.)</p><p>For Iran and China and a few other places you might be able to get a real charity to support such an operation - but it would have to be able to prove it wasn't serving the porn surfers and poker addicts.  Which isn't going to happen, so forget about getting any sort of sympathy for the poor oppressed people in China and Iran.  This is all about the porn surfers and the like in the US and Europe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A proxy site that alters the content of the page so the proxy site can afford to operate ? This seems on its face to be an awfully spammy way to operate , and one that I would think would be easily defeated by the site owner .
Just make it so that the pages ca n't be scraped in that manner and you are home free .
Should be easy with AJAX and other tools.Ads are not the answer .
If the users absolutely will not pay for services , then the ads are a hoax anyway - you are serving ads to non-customers that never will be customers .
The advertiser is going to catch on eventually and stop paying to put ads up that just annoy people who never buy.And make no mistake about it , we are n't talking about poor oppressed people in Iran looking for a gateway to content otherwise blocked by their evil government .
We are most likely talking about teenage porn surfers at the library .
Or college kids trying to make a few bucks with online poker ( and failing , much to Dad 's dismay .
) For Iran and China and a few other places you might be able to get a real charity to support such an operation - but it would have to be able to prove it was n't serving the porn surfers and poker addicts .
Which is n't going to happen , so forget about getting any sort of sympathy for the poor oppressed people in China and Iran .
This is all about the porn surfers and the like in the US and Europe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A proxy site that alters the content of the page so the proxy site can afford to operate?This seems on its face to be an awfully spammy way to operate, and one that I would think would be easily defeated by the site owner.
Just make it so that the pages can't be scraped in that manner and you are home free.
Should be easy with AJAX and other tools.Ads are not the answer.
If the users absolutely will not pay for services, then the ads are a hoax anyway - you are serving ads to non-customers that never will be customers.
The advertiser is going to catch on eventually and stop paying to put ads up that just annoy people who never buy.And make no mistake about it, we aren't talking about poor oppressed people in Iran looking for a gateway to content otherwise blocked by their evil government.
We are most likely talking about teenage porn surfers at the library.
Or college kids trying to make a few bucks with online poker (and failing, much to Dad's dismay.
)For Iran and China and a few other places you might be able to get a real charity to support such an operation - but it would have to be able to prove it wasn't serving the porn surfers and poker addicts.
Which isn't going to happen, so forget about getting any sort of sympathy for the poor oppressed people in China and Iran.
This is all about the porn surfers and the like in the US and Europe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087522</id>
	<title>How to make more effective and invasive popups</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265047920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take an icepick and jam it as far into your nose or ear as you can. Now take a heavy object and hammer on this icepick until the world goes black.</p><p>For best results have a friend hammer on it for awhile afterwards, just to make sure.</p><p>It may also help to drink some antifreeze &amp; eat broken glass beforehand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take an icepick and jam it as far into your nose or ear as you can .
Now take a heavy object and hammer on this icepick until the world goes black.For best results have a friend hammer on it for awhile afterwards , just to make sure.It may also help to drink some antifreeze &amp; eat broken glass beforehand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take an icepick and jam it as far into your nose or ear as you can.
Now take a heavy object and hammer on this icepick until the world goes black.For best results have a friend hammer on it for awhile afterwards, just to make sure.It may also help to drink some antifreeze &amp; eat broken glass beforehand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31095800</id>
	<title>There are ads on the Internet?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265046360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought they were forbidden with the Adblock and Adblock Plus acts.</p><p>And what the hell is a pop-up?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought they were forbidden with the Adblock and Adblock Plus acts.And what the hell is a pop-up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought they were forbidden with the Adblock and Adblock Plus acts.And what the hell is a pop-up?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31092020</id>
	<title>what</title>
	<author>nitehawk214</author>
	<datestamp>1265023980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Clicky clicky below to read his point.</p> </div><p>Nowhere in that meaningless expanse of dribble did he ever come close to something resembling a point. We are all dumber for having read his post.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clicky clicky below to read his point .
Nowhere in that meaningless expanse of dribble did he ever come close to something resembling a point .
We are all dumber for having read his post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clicky clicky below to read his point.
Nowhere in that meaningless expanse of dribble did he ever come close to something resembling a point.
We are all dumber for having read his post.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087252</id>
	<title>He's going to lose to Tor</title>
	<author>characterZer0</author>
	<datestamp>1265046540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He said people do not use Tor because it is too slow.</p><p>Then he proposed making his own service slower by making the users do some stuff before seeing what they want to.</p><p>Then Tor will be the faster option.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He said people do not use Tor because it is too slow.Then he proposed making his own service slower by making the users do some stuff before seeing what they want to.Then Tor will be the faster option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He said people do not use Tor because it is too slow.Then he proposed making his own service slower by making the users do some stuff before seeing what they want to.Then Tor will be the faster option.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087658</id>
	<title>Intrusiveness != Effectiveness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265048520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The key to running something that depends on advertising is providing an effective platform for delivering advertisements.  Effectiveness means that people will actually take some time to actually see and respond to the ad.  This is why advertisers are generally obsessed with demographics.  They want to make sure they make their pitch to potential customers.</p><p>You have to find a way to match up the visitors to your website to an ad that may interest them.  Of course, this is hard.  Too bad.  Throwing up intrusive, annoying ads does not suddenly make your advertising platform effective.  If I'm not interested in something, then it doesn't matter how intrusive you are; I'm still not interested.  Many advertisers suffer from the delusion that if people just payed attention to their pitch, they would all come running to hand over money.  Bzzzt!  Wrong!  It doesn't work that way.  If you can't find an effective way to deliver ads, then someone else will come along (like Google) and kick your butt, so stop being annoying and start using your brain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The key to running something that depends on advertising is providing an effective platform for delivering advertisements .
Effectiveness means that people will actually take some time to actually see and respond to the ad .
This is why advertisers are generally obsessed with demographics .
They want to make sure they make their pitch to potential customers.You have to find a way to match up the visitors to your website to an ad that may interest them .
Of course , this is hard .
Too bad .
Throwing up intrusive , annoying ads does not suddenly make your advertising platform effective .
If I 'm not interested in something , then it does n't matter how intrusive you are ; I 'm still not interested .
Many advertisers suffer from the delusion that if people just payed attention to their pitch , they would all come running to hand over money .
Bzzzt ! Wrong !
It does n't work that way .
If you ca n't find an effective way to deliver ads , then someone else will come along ( like Google ) and kick your butt , so stop being annoying and start using your brain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key to running something that depends on advertising is providing an effective platform for delivering advertisements.
Effectiveness means that people will actually take some time to actually see and respond to the ad.
This is why advertisers are generally obsessed with demographics.
They want to make sure they make their pitch to potential customers.You have to find a way to match up the visitors to your website to an ad that may interest them.
Of course, this is hard.
Too bad.
Throwing up intrusive, annoying ads does not suddenly make your advertising platform effective.
If I'm not interested in something, then it doesn't matter how intrusive you are; I'm still not interested.
Many advertisers suffer from the delusion that if people just payed attention to their pitch, they would all come running to hand over money.
Bzzzt!  Wrong!
It doesn't work that way.
If you can't find an effective way to deliver ads, then someone else will come along (like Google) and kick your butt, so stop being annoying and start using your brain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31089458</id>
	<title>Meh</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1265055480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find a SOCKS proxy running on the machine of the desk of the person charged with administering the block works fine; for some reason, that machine is always exempted.  If that doesn't work, put a keylogger on it too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find a SOCKS proxy running on the machine of the desk of the person charged with administering the block works fine ; for some reason , that machine is always exempted .
If that does n't work , put a keylogger on it too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find a SOCKS proxy running on the machine of the desk of the person charged with administering the block works fine; for some reason, that machine is always exempted.
If that doesn't work, put a keylogger on it too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31090162</id>
	<title>Hey!</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1265016060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>more intrusive != better paying.. more intrusive simply means more intrusive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>more intrusive ! = better paying.. more intrusive simply means more intrusive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>more intrusive != better paying.. more intrusive simply means more intrusive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087670</id>
	<title>Most annoying ads yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265048520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I call them Gaping Maw Ads. It's where essentially part of the page drops down revealing the ad. CNN was an early adopter but stopped using them. Wired seems to think they are the second coming and has stuck by the offensive practice. I always scroll down until the ad finishes and ignore it as best I can. The problem is on top of everything I often try to click on a link just as the ad finishes and the page suddenly is in motion to close the ad. I wind up clicking on the wrong link, taking me to the wrong page, only to have to backtrack and once again face the gaping maw as it restarts. I really don't see the point of ads designed to piss people off? 1 in a 100 may fall for it and read them but the other 99 are pissed off and have a negative reaction to the product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I call them Gaping Maw Ads .
It 's where essentially part of the page drops down revealing the ad .
CNN was an early adopter but stopped using them .
Wired seems to think they are the second coming and has stuck by the offensive practice .
I always scroll down until the ad finishes and ignore it as best I can .
The problem is on top of everything I often try to click on a link just as the ad finishes and the page suddenly is in motion to close the ad .
I wind up clicking on the wrong link , taking me to the wrong page , only to have to backtrack and once again face the gaping maw as it restarts .
I really do n't see the point of ads designed to piss people off ?
1 in a 100 may fall for it and read them but the other 99 are pissed off and have a negative reaction to the product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I call them Gaping Maw Ads.
It's where essentially part of the page drops down revealing the ad.
CNN was an early adopter but stopped using them.
Wired seems to think they are the second coming and has stuck by the offensive practice.
I always scroll down until the ad finishes and ignore it as best I can.
The problem is on top of everything I often try to click on a link just as the ad finishes and the page suddenly is in motion to close the ad.
I wind up clicking on the wrong link, taking me to the wrong page, only to have to backtrack and once again face the gaping maw as it restarts.
I really don't see the point of ads designed to piss people off?
1 in a 100 may fall for it and read them but the other 99 are pissed off and have a negative reaction to the product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087232</id>
	<title>Adblock Plus Rocks</title>
	<author>WaywardGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1265046480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even slashdot.org has a nice little comment permantely in the upper right corner: "As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable advertising."  I get a real kick out of that.</p><p>The funny thing, is I like slashdot adds.  It's that freaking girl in a bikini who really wants to meet me that requires the block.  If I could somehow allow really well targeted adds, and block the spam, I'd enable it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even slashdot.org has a nice little comment permantely in the upper right corner : " As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot , you are eligible to disable advertising .
" I get a real kick out of that.The funny thing , is I like slashdot adds .
It 's that freaking girl in a bikini who really wants to meet me that requires the block .
If I could somehow allow really well targeted adds , and block the spam , I 'd enable it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even slashdot.org has a nice little comment permantely in the upper right corner: "As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable advertising.
"  I get a real kick out of that.The funny thing, is I like slashdot adds.
It's that freaking girl in a bikini who really wants to meet me that requires the block.
If I could somehow allow really well targeted adds, and block the spam, I'd enable it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31088422</id>
	<title>WTF?</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1265051640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh okay, let me try to re-cap what he is claiming.
</p><p>A: I run a proxy so that people can access the internet through me and get around filters. Example: from China access cluelesssiteowner.com to read wikipedia.org.
</p><p>B: This costs money.
</p><p>C: I want to plaster this proxy experience with ads to pay for this.
</p><p>D: If I make the ads annoying enough, I can pay to keep the proxy running.
</p><p>Is this guy a marketing genius or what? His reasoning is straight out of the Internet bubble days.
</p><p>NO SHERLOCK. People using a proxy to access a site are NOT people you can advertise to. Why would an American company pay for eyeballs in China? Especially eyeballs that want to be hidden for some reason? Shindlers List, now sponsored by Coca Cola!
</p><p>Your proxy will either be used by privacy freaks who think that anyone cares what they do OR people who actually need it. In both cases, ads will not be useful at all. The first will freak out at the thought that ad company can read their mind because yes their penis needs to be bigger and in the last case, the people got better things to worry about.
</p><p>Either find some alternative way of funding your proxy or just eat the costs out of the goodness of your heart. But no sensible advertiser will advertise on a proxy server. How after all are you going to track user identity? Proxies should be anonymous, so how do you track how many unique visits you have unless you keep records and that means your proxy is worthless from a privacy view point.
</p><p>Really, is the web bubble back again? This is such a classic "I got an audience, advertisers love audiences, I can make some cash here!" idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh okay , let me try to re-cap what he is claiming .
A : I run a proxy so that people can access the internet through me and get around filters .
Example : from China access cluelesssiteowner.com to read wikipedia.org .
B : This costs money .
C : I want to plaster this proxy experience with ads to pay for this .
D : If I make the ads annoying enough , I can pay to keep the proxy running .
Is this guy a marketing genius or what ?
His reasoning is straight out of the Internet bubble days .
NO SHERLOCK .
People using a proxy to access a site are NOT people you can advertise to .
Why would an American company pay for eyeballs in China ?
Especially eyeballs that want to be hidden for some reason ?
Shindlers List , now sponsored by Coca Cola !
Your proxy will either be used by privacy freaks who think that anyone cares what they do OR people who actually need it .
In both cases , ads will not be useful at all .
The first will freak out at the thought that ad company can read their mind because yes their penis needs to be bigger and in the last case , the people got better things to worry about .
Either find some alternative way of funding your proxy or just eat the costs out of the goodness of your heart .
But no sensible advertiser will advertise on a proxy server .
How after all are you going to track user identity ?
Proxies should be anonymous , so how do you track how many unique visits you have unless you keep records and that means your proxy is worthless from a privacy view point .
Really , is the web bubble back again ?
This is such a classic " I got an audience , advertisers love audiences , I can make some cash here !
" idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh okay, let me try to re-cap what he is claiming.
A: I run a proxy so that people can access the internet through me and get around filters.
Example: from China access cluelesssiteowner.com to read wikipedia.org.
B: This costs money.
C: I want to plaster this proxy experience with ads to pay for this.
D: If I make the ads annoying enough, I can pay to keep the proxy running.
Is this guy a marketing genius or what?
His reasoning is straight out of the Internet bubble days.
NO SHERLOCK.
People using a proxy to access a site are NOT people you can advertise to.
Why would an American company pay for eyeballs in China?
Especially eyeballs that want to be hidden for some reason?
Shindlers List, now sponsored by Coca Cola!
Your proxy will either be used by privacy freaks who think that anyone cares what they do OR people who actually need it.
In both cases, ads will not be useful at all.
The first will freak out at the thought that ad company can read their mind because yes their penis needs to be bigger and in the last case, the people got better things to worry about.
Either find some alternative way of funding your proxy or just eat the costs out of the goodness of your heart.
But no sensible advertiser will advertise on a proxy server.
How after all are you going to track user identity?
Proxies should be anonymous, so how do you track how many unique visits you have unless you keep records and that means your proxy is worthless from a privacy view point.
Really, is the web bubble back again?
This is such a classic "I got an audience, advertisers love audiences, I can make some cash here!
" idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087590</id>
	<title>use tor</title>
	<author>larry bagina</author>
	<datestamp>1265048220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ok, it's slow sometimes.  Well, do your part.  Run a node (and ideally an exit node).</htmltext>
<tokenext>ok , it 's slow sometimes .
Well , do your part .
Run a node ( and ideally an exit node ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ok, it's slow sometimes.
Well, do your part.
Run a node (and ideally an exit node).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087518</id>
	<title>Have you considered a subscription</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1265047920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can always spin off a subscription-only alternative (with some added perks for subscribers like no ads at all). This may or may not make enough money to support the free version. If it does, great. If not, you could always shutter the free version and say "Sorry freeloaders." There are a lot of people willing to pay a premium for a good service (just look at all the subscribers to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.). But realistically, if someone is a freeloader and isn't willing to look at ads to begin with--you're not going to change their nature just by making even more annoying ads (you're just going to drive away a lot of other people who might actually be willing to pay for a premium ad-free version). If you have to dump the freeloaders at some point, I don't think it will be a big loss.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can always spin off a subscription-only alternative ( with some added perks for subscribers like no ads at all ) .
This may or may not make enough money to support the free version .
If it does , great .
If not , you could always shutter the free version and say " Sorry freeloaders .
" There are a lot of people willing to pay a premium for a good service ( just look at all the subscribers to /. ) .
But realistically , if someone is a freeloader and is n't willing to look at ads to begin with--you 're not going to change their nature just by making even more annoying ads ( you 're just going to drive away a lot of other people who might actually be willing to pay for a premium ad-free version ) .
If you have to dump the freeloaders at some point , I do n't think it will be a big loss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can always spin off a subscription-only alternative (with some added perks for subscribers like no ads at all).
This may or may not make enough money to support the free version.
If it does, great.
If not, you could always shutter the free version and say "Sorry freeloaders.
" There are a lot of people willing to pay a premium for a good service (just look at all the subscribers to /.).
But realistically, if someone is a freeloader and isn't willing to look at ads to begin with--you're not going to change their nature just by making even more annoying ads (you're just going to drive away a lot of other people who might actually be willing to pay for a premium ad-free version).
If you have to dump the freeloaders at some point, I don't think it will be a big loss.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087582</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1265048160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just wanted to ensure I understod him correclty - a little too busy to read the full summary, but I gathered that from the first couple of paragraphs.</p><p>Though really, it would probably be better if there were no guns. We should go back to swords, because swordplay is awesome, and every good action movie has at least one swordfighting sequence. I'm getting a little side tracked here, what were we talking about?</p><p>Censorship! Right. It's not going away anytime soon, though thats not to say it isn't going to go away ever. It might seem a little idealistic but its not that hard to imagine some countries abolishing censorship, similarily to how they have stopped slavery and other things that were at one point acceptable but now considered attrocities.</p><p>Granted, it won't go worldwide, but the demand for this kind of technology could easily waver if Europe and North America abolish censorship - and then the unlikely scenario of a coup or something in China that causes major reformation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just wanted to ensure I understod him correclty - a little too busy to read the full summary , but I gathered that from the first couple of paragraphs.Though really , it would probably be better if there were no guns .
We should go back to swords , because swordplay is awesome , and every good action movie has at least one swordfighting sequence .
I 'm getting a little side tracked here , what were we talking about ? Censorship !
Right. It 's not going away anytime soon , though thats not to say it is n't going to go away ever .
It might seem a little idealistic but its not that hard to imagine some countries abolishing censorship , similarily to how they have stopped slavery and other things that were at one point acceptable but now considered attrocities.Granted , it wo n't go worldwide , but the demand for this kind of technology could easily waver if Europe and North America abolish censorship - and then the unlikely scenario of a coup or something in China that causes major reformation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just wanted to ensure I understod him correclty - a little too busy to read the full summary, but I gathered that from the first couple of paragraphs.Though really, it would probably be better if there were no guns.
We should go back to swords, because swordplay is awesome, and every good action movie has at least one swordfighting sequence.
I'm getting a little side tracked here, what were we talking about?Censorship!
Right. It's not going away anytime soon, though thats not to say it isn't going to go away ever.
It might seem a little idealistic but its not that hard to imagine some countries abolishing censorship, similarily to how they have stopped slavery and other things that were at one point acceptable but now considered attrocities.Granted, it won't go worldwide, but the demand for this kind of technology could easily waver if Europe and North America abolish censorship - and then the unlikely scenario of a coup or something in China that causes major reformation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31089476</id>
	<title>Re:Even Pop-Ups are not enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265055600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're thinking too small, give another choice to the viewer: buy the product in the ad or we'll sell your IP and the URL you're visiting to whoever you're trying to hide from.<br>
That way, either people pay and the internet infrastructure can be improved, or they stop surfing altogether and the internet infrastructure doesn't need improving anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're thinking too small , give another choice to the viewer : buy the product in the ad or we 'll sell your IP and the URL you 're visiting to whoever you 're trying to hide from .
That way , either people pay and the internet infrastructure can be improved , or they stop surfing altogether and the internet infrastructure does n't need improving anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're thinking too small, give another choice to the viewer: buy the product in the ad or we'll sell your IP and the URL you're visiting to whoever you're trying to hide from.
That way, either people pay and the internet infrastructure can be improved, or they stop surfing altogether and the internet infrastructure doesn't need improving anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31088744</id>
	<title>Re:TLDR</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1265052780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>T<b>B</b>DR. Too boring, didn't read. Is Haselton trying to <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100210/ap\_on\_he\_me/eu\_med\_bored\_to\_death" title="yahoo.com">kill us?</a> [yahoo.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TBDR .
Too boring , did n't read .
Is Haselton trying to kill us ?
[ yahoo.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TBDR.
Too boring, didn't read.
Is Haselton trying to kill us?
[yahoo.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087270</id>
	<title>Buy Lightspeeds!</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1265046660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea that more intrusive ads are a good thing comes ultimately from those who are trying to sell stuff via the ads. They will invariably want the most intrusive ads possible reaching as large a group of people possible. That's what they'll pay the most for, and where there's a demand for it someone will sell it.</p><p>The only way to combat ads being absolutely everywhere is for the commodity being sold to advertisers (our eyeballs) to avoid or not pay any attention to the most intrusive ads. If we don't set limits (via technological means or just training ourselves to really ignore them), then what is "really intrusive" now will become the new normal, and a new even more intrusive ad will be created for when the marketer wants to be intrusive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea that more intrusive ads are a good thing comes ultimately from those who are trying to sell stuff via the ads .
They will invariably want the most intrusive ads possible reaching as large a group of people possible .
That 's what they 'll pay the most for , and where there 's a demand for it someone will sell it.The only way to combat ads being absolutely everywhere is for the commodity being sold to advertisers ( our eyeballs ) to avoid or not pay any attention to the most intrusive ads .
If we do n't set limits ( via technological means or just training ourselves to really ignore them ) , then what is " really intrusive " now will become the new normal , and a new even more intrusive ad will be created for when the marketer wants to be intrusive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea that more intrusive ads are a good thing comes ultimately from those who are trying to sell stuff via the ads.
They will invariably want the most intrusive ads possible reaching as large a group of people possible.
That's what they'll pay the most for, and where there's a demand for it someone will sell it.The only way to combat ads being absolutely everywhere is for the commodity being sold to advertisers (our eyeballs) to avoid or not pay any attention to the most intrusive ads.
If we don't set limits (via technological means or just training ourselves to really ignore them), then what is "really intrusive" now will become the new normal, and a new even more intrusive ad will be created for when the marketer wants to be intrusive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087138</id>
	<title>So is this a /vertisement or a serious rant?</title>
	<author>drachenstern</author>
	<datestamp>1265046120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because seriously:</p><p>a) quiz-advert is stupid. I'm sorry, subvert my browser and change who's in control of the flow of information before either I or the information provider can have a say in the process? I would write the firefox plugin to stop that one post haste.</p><p>b) this sounds like a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/vertisement.</p><p>c) does this REALLY solve a problem? I submit to you "gloves". <a href="http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Classic-WTF-The-Complicators-Gloves.aspx" title="thedailywtf.com">http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Classic-WTF-The-Complicators-Gloves.aspx</a> [thedailywtf.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because seriously : a ) quiz-advert is stupid .
I 'm sorry , subvert my browser and change who 's in control of the flow of information before either I or the information provider can have a say in the process ?
I would write the firefox plugin to stop that one post haste.b ) this sounds like a /vertisement.c ) does this REALLY solve a problem ?
I submit to you " gloves " .
http : //thedailywtf.com/Articles/Classic-WTF-The-Complicators-Gloves.aspx [ thedailywtf.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because seriously:a) quiz-advert is stupid.
I'm sorry, subvert my browser and change who's in control of the flow of information before either I or the information provider can have a say in the process?
I would write the firefox plugin to stop that one post haste.b) this sounds like a /vertisement.c) does this REALLY solve a problem?
I submit to you "gloves".
http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Classic-WTF-The-Complicators-Gloves.aspx [thedailywtf.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087228</id>
	<title>WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265046480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>God DAMN that was a rambling, boring, pointless, content-free soup of barely related words strung together to create something beyond annoying, moving into the downright infuriating. Why is it so infuriating? Bennett Haselton is a pompous douche, for one. Second, seriously, what is the point of this? Is it meant to be humorous? Informative? What? Third, Bennet Haselton is a pompous douche. Fourth, who cares? No seriously. Who cares? Whatever this is meant to be, it's a self indulgent wank fest, meaningful only to, I assume, Bennet Haselton. Fifth, did I mention he's a pompous douche?</p><p>See, now, I'm trying to pad this post out to mock Bennet's long winded style, <i>but it isn't possible.</i> Nobody can be as long winded as Bennet Haselton, the pompous douche. And I want to stress here that I have nothing personal against Mr. Haselton, except for the fact that he <i>makes my fucking EYES BLEED</i> when I read the crap he posts. I keep giving him the benefit of the doubt, too. I read as much of his crap as I can before the eye bleeding forces me to stop.</p><p>Does anyone have any idea what sort of person this story is meant to appeal to?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>God DAMN that was a rambling , boring , pointless , content-free soup of barely related words strung together to create something beyond annoying , moving into the downright infuriating .
Why is it so infuriating ?
Bennett Haselton is a pompous douche , for one .
Second , seriously , what is the point of this ?
Is it meant to be humorous ?
Informative ? What ?
Third , Bennet Haselton is a pompous douche .
Fourth , who cares ?
No seriously .
Who cares ?
Whatever this is meant to be , it 's a self indulgent wank fest , meaningful only to , I assume , Bennet Haselton .
Fifth , did I mention he 's a pompous douche ? See , now , I 'm trying to pad this post out to mock Bennet 's long winded style , but it is n't possible .
Nobody can be as long winded as Bennet Haselton , the pompous douche .
And I want to stress here that I have nothing personal against Mr. Haselton , except for the fact that he makes my fucking EYES BLEED when I read the crap he posts .
I keep giving him the benefit of the doubt , too .
I read as much of his crap as I can before the eye bleeding forces me to stop.Does anyone have any idea what sort of person this story is meant to appeal to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God DAMN that was a rambling, boring, pointless, content-free soup of barely related words strung together to create something beyond annoying, moving into the downright infuriating.
Why is it so infuriating?
Bennett Haselton is a pompous douche, for one.
Second, seriously, what is the point of this?
Is it meant to be humorous?
Informative? What?
Third, Bennet Haselton is a pompous douche.
Fourth, who cares?
No seriously.
Who cares?
Whatever this is meant to be, it's a self indulgent wank fest, meaningful only to, I assume, Bennet Haselton.
Fifth, did I mention he's a pompous douche?See, now, I'm trying to pad this post out to mock Bennet's long winded style, but it isn't possible.
Nobody can be as long winded as Bennet Haselton, the pompous douche.
And I want to stress here that I have nothing personal against Mr. Haselton, except for the fact that he makes my fucking EYES BLEED when I read the crap he posts.
I keep giving him the benefit of the doubt, too.
I read as much of his crap as I can before the eye bleeding forces me to stop.Does anyone have any idea what sort of person this story is meant to appeal to?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087360</id>
	<title>Everyone will have to pay.</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1265047080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The advertising model of American media is going to go away, either through self-destruction or consumer choice. Advertisement subsidized content is mostly worthless. You have a choice between low production value in niche markets, or high production value where the content is dumbed down and filtered through corporate "values" lenses so you can sell enough ads to pay for the production. In the first option you have marginally interesting but poorly presented content. In the second, it's a highly polished turd. There are a few outlets that manage to hit the middle, but not many.</p><p>You're better off trying to found some sort of non-profit to provide free speech services for proxy use. But it seems like you just want to help people fuck off at work, and if they're not willing to pay for that privilege, what's the point?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The advertising model of American media is going to go away , either through self-destruction or consumer choice .
Advertisement subsidized content is mostly worthless .
You have a choice between low production value in niche markets , or high production value where the content is dumbed down and filtered through corporate " values " lenses so you can sell enough ads to pay for the production .
In the first option you have marginally interesting but poorly presented content .
In the second , it 's a highly polished turd .
There are a few outlets that manage to hit the middle , but not many.You 're better off trying to found some sort of non-profit to provide free speech services for proxy use .
But it seems like you just want to help people fuck off at work , and if they 're not willing to pay for that privilege , what 's the point ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The advertising model of American media is going to go away, either through self-destruction or consumer choice.
Advertisement subsidized content is mostly worthless.
You have a choice between low production value in niche markets, or high production value where the content is dumbed down and filtered through corporate "values" lenses so you can sell enough ads to pay for the production.
In the first option you have marginally interesting but poorly presented content.
In the second, it's a highly polished turd.
There are a few outlets that manage to hit the middle, but not many.You're better off trying to found some sort of non-profit to provide free speech services for proxy use.
But it seems like you just want to help people fuck off at work, and if they're not willing to pay for that privilege, what's the point?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087296</id>
	<title>Mostly whining...</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1265046780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have ZERO problems with all the mentioned sites through the Proxy that everyone here at work has to use.  His whine is with his script that auto changes or inserts ad's for his proxy to spam the life out of you with.</p><p>If I was a site admin that a proxy site was trying to inject ad's onto, I'd code it to break their ad injection.</p><p>I have no sympathy for a proxy operator that whines about a site changing it's design to stop ad injection. I dont want my site looking like I support some scumbag company because a proxy company injected a ad into my site to an end user. I would have less problems with it if the proxy companies would inject their ad with "THIS IS NO THIS WEBSITES AD, IT WAS PUT HERE BY YOUR PROXY"   but they wont do that.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have ZERO problems with all the mentioned sites through the Proxy that everyone here at work has to use .
His whine is with his script that auto changes or inserts ad 's for his proxy to spam the life out of you with.If I was a site admin that a proxy site was trying to inject ad 's onto , I 'd code it to break their ad injection.I have no sympathy for a proxy operator that whines about a site changing it 's design to stop ad injection .
I dont want my site looking like I support some scumbag company because a proxy company injected a ad into my site to an end user .
I would have less problems with it if the proxy companies would inject their ad with " THIS IS NO THIS WEBSITES AD , IT WAS PUT HERE BY YOUR PROXY " but they wont do that .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have ZERO problems with all the mentioned sites through the Proxy that everyone here at work has to use.
His whine is with his script that auto changes or inserts ad's for his proxy to spam the life out of you with.If I was a site admin that a proxy site was trying to inject ad's onto, I'd code it to break their ad injection.I have no sympathy for a proxy operator that whines about a site changing it's design to stop ad injection.
I dont want my site looking like I support some scumbag company because a proxy company injected a ad into my site to an end user.
I would have less problems with it if the proxy companies would inject their ad with "THIS IS NO THIS WEBSITES AD, IT WAS PUT HERE BY YOUR PROXY"   but they wont do that.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31091932</id>
	<title>Re:The Obvious Solution!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265023620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>what if i want to protect the perverts and hackers posting on 4chan?</htmltext>
<tokenext>what if i want to protect the perverts and hackers posting on 4chan ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what if i want to protect the perverts and hackers posting on 4chan?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087474</id>
	<title>Re:Reading the f****ing post.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265047740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am just going to wait for the post to come out in e-book form and download it to my Kindle...  reading in a browser is just nonsense!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am just going to wait for the post to come out in e-book form and download it to my Kindle... reading in a browser is just nonsense !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am just going to wait for the post to come out in e-book form and download it to my Kindle...  reading in a browser is just nonsense!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087632</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>city</author>
	<datestamp>1265048400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That seems to be the point he is making, that we do live in a censored world and it is up to us to find ways to take these freedoms back. As a capitalist he finds opportunities to serve his consumers, and in this case he uses pop-ups. Sure it's kind of a hack, but hey, if I subscribed to his proxy list -and put up with intrusive ads- I could at least get uncensored internet (just kidding corporate overlords, I would never betray you!). It might even be less intrusive than my hundred $ unlimited data cell phone bill, which I currently use to do the same thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That seems to be the point he is making , that we do live in a censored world and it is up to us to find ways to take these freedoms back .
As a capitalist he finds opportunities to serve his consumers , and in this case he uses pop-ups .
Sure it 's kind of a hack , but hey , if I subscribed to his proxy list -and put up with intrusive ads- I could at least get uncensored internet ( just kidding corporate overlords , I would never betray you ! ) .
It might even be less intrusive than my hundred $ unlimited data cell phone bill , which I currently use to do the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That seems to be the point he is making, that we do live in a censored world and it is up to us to find ways to take these freedoms back.
As a capitalist he finds opportunities to serve his consumers, and in this case he uses pop-ups.
Sure it's kind of a hack, but hey, if I subscribed to his proxy list -and put up with intrusive ads- I could at least get uncensored internet (just kidding corporate overlords, I would never betray you!).
It might even be less intrusive than my hundred $ unlimited data cell phone bill, which I currently use to do the same thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31088626</id>
	<title>Bennet, you're a lazy, freeloading tool</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265052360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So basically, you want to set up the easiest fucking 'service' it is possible to imagine, sit back, and watch the cash roll in. Only it turns out not to be as easy as or as lucrative as you thought, so you come up with some of the most hairbrained, intrusive, selfish rent-seeking I've ever heard of. To top it all off, you want free advice from Slashdot.</p><p>Get a real job to support yourself and set up a proxy because you want to, not because it is something you imagine you can just set up and make money off of without having to do any work. The name Bennet Haselton sounds like an inbred East Coast old money elitist's name. The kind of person who thinks the world owes them not only a living, but an easy, effort free living leaching off the backs of the less fortunate.</p><p>Fuck you, Bennet. The world does not owe you a living, and Slashdot does not owe you free information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So basically , you want to set up the easiest fucking 'service ' it is possible to imagine , sit back , and watch the cash roll in .
Only it turns out not to be as easy as or as lucrative as you thought , so you come up with some of the most hairbrained , intrusive , selfish rent-seeking I 've ever heard of .
To top it all off , you want free advice from Slashdot.Get a real job to support yourself and set up a proxy because you want to , not because it is something you imagine you can just set up and make money off of without having to do any work .
The name Bennet Haselton sounds like an inbred East Coast old money elitist 's name .
The kind of person who thinks the world owes them not only a living , but an easy , effort free living leaching off the backs of the less fortunate.Fuck you , Bennet .
The world does not owe you a living , and Slashdot does not owe you free information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So basically, you want to set up the easiest fucking 'service' it is possible to imagine, sit back, and watch the cash roll in.
Only it turns out not to be as easy as or as lucrative as you thought, so you come up with some of the most hairbrained, intrusive, selfish rent-seeking I've ever heard of.
To top it all off, you want free advice from Slashdot.Get a real job to support yourself and set up a proxy because you want to, not because it is something you imagine you can just set up and make money off of without having to do any work.
The name Bennet Haselton sounds like an inbred East Coast old money elitist's name.
The kind of person who thinks the world owes them not only a living, but an easy, effort free living leaching off the backs of the less fortunate.Fuck you, Bennet.
The world does not owe you a living, and Slashdot does not owe you free information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31092658</id>
	<title>Advertising only really works for search engines</title>
	<author>Mandrel</author>
	<datestamp>1265027880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Ads, in particular text ads, only really work for search engines, because that is where people are searching for information sources to visit, including for their shopping research. Once users are on individual websites, ads are more often a distraction from the actual content.
</p><p>
So given that search marketing is destroying display advertising because it is so much more useful to users, I see four alternatives for content providers:
</p><ol>
<li>
A greater use of charging users directly (including subscriptions and micro-payments). This will be hard to swing with the global competition delivered by the Internet.
</li><li>
A greater use of affiliate sales. However even though their material may be helping people choose the most suitable product, publishers don't benefit from the vast majority of sales that are not made through their links (both online and offline). As well, they compromise their independence by becoming part of the sales process.
</li><li>
Accepting payment for content (sponsored articles, or editorial-for-advertising wink-wink deals). This is becoming more and more common, even though it's the easiest way for a source to erode its quality and trust.
</li><li>
Getting paid by both users and product makers only when they help someone choose the best product. I'm involved in a solution along these lines.
</li></ol><p>
Content without bias, or with a small but declared bias, is what people want, not ads which are paid placements with specific agendas, and which cause publishers to lose control of their users' experience.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ads , in particular text ads , only really work for search engines , because that is where people are searching for information sources to visit , including for their shopping research .
Once users are on individual websites , ads are more often a distraction from the actual content .
So given that search marketing is destroying display advertising because it is so much more useful to users , I see four alternatives for content providers : A greater use of charging users directly ( including subscriptions and micro-payments ) .
This will be hard to swing with the global competition delivered by the Internet .
A greater use of affiliate sales .
However even though their material may be helping people choose the most suitable product , publishers do n't benefit from the vast majority of sales that are not made through their links ( both online and offline ) .
As well , they compromise their independence by becoming part of the sales process .
Accepting payment for content ( sponsored articles , or editorial-for-advertising wink-wink deals ) .
This is becoming more and more common , even though it 's the easiest way for a source to erode its quality and trust .
Getting paid by both users and product makers only when they help someone choose the best product .
I 'm involved in a solution along these lines .
Content without bias , or with a small but declared bias , is what people want , not ads which are paid placements with specific agendas , and which cause publishers to lose control of their users ' experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Ads, in particular text ads, only really work for search engines, because that is where people are searching for information sources to visit, including for their shopping research.
Once users are on individual websites, ads are more often a distraction from the actual content.
So given that search marketing is destroying display advertising because it is so much more useful to users, I see four alternatives for content providers:


A greater use of charging users directly (including subscriptions and micro-payments).
This will be hard to swing with the global competition delivered by the Internet.
A greater use of affiliate sales.
However even though their material may be helping people choose the most suitable product, publishers don't benefit from the vast majority of sales that are not made through their links (both online and offline).
As well, they compromise their independence by becoming part of the sales process.
Accepting payment for content (sponsored articles, or editorial-for-advertising wink-wink deals).
This is becoming more and more common, even though it's the easiest way for a source to erode its quality and trust.
Getting paid by both users and product makers only when they help someone choose the best product.
I'm involved in a solution along these lines.
Content without bias, or with a small but declared bias, is what people want, not ads which are paid placements with specific agendas, and which cause publishers to lose control of their users' experience.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087568</id>
	<title>Advertisement and anonymity</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1265048100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Displaying ads is a very, very great danger to anonymity. A whole new network is "put into the loop" in the user's request, able to log IPs, see URLs in referral headers, and store cookies. Adding advertisements to websites in a proxy and then claiming that proxy to be anything but worse than useless for evading censorship is not honest. If you're in a repressive country and want to avoid being imprisoned, do not listen to advice like this and use Tor and hard crypto instead (and learn how to use them right).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Displaying ads is a very , very great danger to anonymity .
A whole new network is " put into the loop " in the user 's request , able to log IPs , see URLs in referral headers , and store cookies .
Adding advertisements to websites in a proxy and then claiming that proxy to be anything but worse than useless for evading censorship is not honest .
If you 're in a repressive country and want to avoid being imprisoned , do not listen to advice like this and use Tor and hard crypto instead ( and learn how to use them right ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Displaying ads is a very, very great danger to anonymity.
A whole new network is "put into the loop" in the user's request, able to log IPs, see URLs in referral headers, and store cookies.
Adding advertisements to websites in a proxy and then claiming that proxy to be anything but worse than useless for evading censorship is not honest.
If you're in a repressive country and want to avoid being imprisoned, do not listen to advice like this and use Tor and hard crypto instead (and learn how to use them right).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31096632</id>
	<title>Instead of advertising...</title>
	<author>GWBasic</author>
	<datestamp>1265918640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Instead of advertising, why not find someone who needs a <a href="https://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome" title="mturk.com">mechanical turk</a> [mturk.com]?  For example, why not require that someone accessing the proxy perform some work items instead of interacting with an ad?  These work items might be more valuable then an ad impression, and thus could pay more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of advertising , why not find someone who needs a mechanical turk [ mturk.com ] ?
For example , why not require that someone accessing the proxy perform some work items instead of interacting with an ad ?
These work items might be more valuable then an ad impression , and thus could pay more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of advertising, why not find someone who needs a mechanical turk [mturk.com]?
For example, why not require that someone accessing the proxy perform some work items instead of interacting with an ad?
These work items might be more valuable then an ad impression, and thus could pay more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087738</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265048820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your argument is a straw man.</p><p>Banning legal firearms to prevent gun violence is to banning free speech to prevent censorship laws.</p><p>Equating a ban on firearms to a ban on censorship is backwards thinking.  It is more correct to state, "There shouldn't be a ban on firearms, and there shouldn't be censorship on free speech."</p><p>Purchasing a legal firearm does not give you the right to murder a person or commit other crimes with the firearm any more than using free speech to infringe on anyone else's right to free speech.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your argument is a straw man.Banning legal firearms to prevent gun violence is to banning free speech to prevent censorship laws.Equating a ban on firearms to a ban on censorship is backwards thinking .
It is more correct to state , " There should n't be a ban on firearms , and there should n't be censorship on free speech .
" Purchasing a legal firearm does not give you the right to murder a person or commit other crimes with the firearm any more than using free speech to infringe on anyone else 's right to free speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your argument is a straw man.Banning legal firearms to prevent gun violence is to banning free speech to prevent censorship laws.Equating a ban on firearms to a ban on censorship is backwards thinking.
It is more correct to state, "There shouldn't be a ban on firearms, and there shouldn't be censorship on free speech.
"Purchasing a legal firearm does not give you the right to murder a person or commit other crimes with the firearm any more than using free speech to infringe on anyone else's right to free speech.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087516</id>
	<title>Advertising and Taxes</title>
	<author>Thyamine</author>
	<datestamp>1265047920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No one likes either of them, but they serve a understandable purpose.  The problem is that it's easy money to keep increasing the revenue that way, but people get more and more annoyed.  There needs to be a proper balance, and sites that get it wrong are likely to be subject to less viewers and/or ad-blockers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one likes either of them , but they serve a understandable purpose .
The problem is that it 's easy money to keep increasing the revenue that way , but people get more and more annoyed .
There needs to be a proper balance , and sites that get it wrong are likely to be subject to less viewers and/or ad-blockers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one likes either of them, but they serve a understandable purpose.
The problem is that it's easy money to keep increasing the revenue that way, but people get more and more annoyed.
There needs to be a proper balance, and sites that get it wrong are likely to be subject to less viewers and/or ad-blockers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087132</id>
	<title>TLDR</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265046120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TLDR<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... idle?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TLDR ... idle ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TLDR ... idle?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087960</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1265049720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>His basic point is that free sites which have high operating costs are expensive to run, so they need more money to continue to offer services for free.  His solution to getting more money for the free sites is to have more intrusive advertising.  One example of a free site with high operating costs is a proxy site.</p><p>I'm not sure why he needed 14KB to say that, but that's what he's saying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>His basic point is that free sites which have high operating costs are expensive to run , so they need more money to continue to offer services for free .
His solution to getting more money for the free sites is to have more intrusive advertising .
One example of a free site with high operating costs is a proxy site.I 'm not sure why he needed 14KB to say that , but that 's what he 's saying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His basic point is that free sites which have high operating costs are expensive to run, so they need more money to continue to offer services for free.
His solution to getting more money for the free sites is to have more intrusive advertising.
One example of a free site with high operating costs is a proxy site.I'm not sure why he needed 14KB to say that, but that's what he's saying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31088242</id>
	<title>Re:So is this a /vertisement or a serious rant?</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1265050920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks for the WTF link about gloves. It fits in with my current premature optimizer recovery program. And here I was thinking "removable grips that have water or other material you heat up before you ride".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for the WTF link about gloves .
It fits in with my current premature optimizer recovery program .
And here I was thinking " removable grips that have water or other material you heat up before you ride " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for the WTF link about gloves.
It fits in with my current premature optimizer recovery program.
And here I was thinking "removable grips that have water or other material you heat up before you ride".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31089140</id>
	<title>1800banners advertisers are practicing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265054100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Over in 1800banners.com the advertisers are practicing at being more annoying.
<ul>
<li>Interstitial ads even if interstitials are disabled (OK, so that's probably due to 1800banners and not the advertisers).</li><li>Sound ads.  If you think random noises or someone talking is annoying, try two ads talking over each other.</li><li>Browser hijacking.  Your browser window suddenly goes over to some other site.</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Over in 1800banners.com the advertisers are practicing at being more annoying .
Interstitial ads even if interstitials are disabled ( OK , so that 's probably due to 1800banners and not the advertisers ) .Sound ads .
If you think random noises or someone talking is annoying , try two ads talking over each other.Browser hijacking .
Your browser window suddenly goes over to some other site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over in 1800banners.com the advertisers are practicing at being more annoying.
Interstitial ads even if interstitials are disabled (OK, so that's probably due to 1800banners and not the advertisers).Sound ads.
If you think random noises or someone talking is annoying, try two ads talking over each other.Browser hijacking.
Your browser window suddenly goes over to some other site.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087542</id>
	<title>Nobody likes intrusive ads</title>
	<author>tecnico.hitos</author>
	<datestamp>1265047980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If someone clicks in a pop-up or a similarly intrusive ad, it is probably either an accident or they are not used to navigating the internet. It is very unlikely they will see the advertiser in a positive view and end up buying from them.</p><p>An ad doesn't have to be intrusive or distracting in any way. Some people may be amused game, quiz and other flashy ads for a while, but they will end up ignoring them and/or considering them a nuisance. Being informative is important for an ad, but it needs more than that. It needs to be relevant to what its target is browsing.</p><p>Eventually, the advertisers may notice that intrusive ads annoy people and stop doing it. They are a flawed and unreliable solution for the free proxies' problem. However, this problem is complicated because payment services may compromise the anonymity of the user of paid proxies.</p><p>I don't support intrusive ads (and I use Adblock Plus), but I support internet freedom and anonymity. I don't think more ads are the solution, and they can compromise the superior speed of those free proxies, which is their advantage over alternatives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone clicks in a pop-up or a similarly intrusive ad , it is probably either an accident or they are not used to navigating the internet .
It is very unlikely they will see the advertiser in a positive view and end up buying from them.An ad does n't have to be intrusive or distracting in any way .
Some people may be amused game , quiz and other flashy ads for a while , but they will end up ignoring them and/or considering them a nuisance .
Being informative is important for an ad , but it needs more than that .
It needs to be relevant to what its target is browsing.Eventually , the advertisers may notice that intrusive ads annoy people and stop doing it .
They are a flawed and unreliable solution for the free proxies ' problem .
However , this problem is complicated because payment services may compromise the anonymity of the user of paid proxies.I do n't support intrusive ads ( and I use Adblock Plus ) , but I support internet freedom and anonymity .
I do n't think more ads are the solution , and they can compromise the superior speed of those free proxies , which is their advantage over alternatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone clicks in a pop-up or a similarly intrusive ad, it is probably either an accident or they are not used to navigating the internet.
It is very unlikely they will see the advertiser in a positive view and end up buying from them.An ad doesn't have to be intrusive or distracting in any way.
Some people may be amused game, quiz and other flashy ads for a while, but they will end up ignoring them and/or considering them a nuisance.
Being informative is important for an ad, but it needs more than that.
It needs to be relevant to what its target is browsing.Eventually, the advertisers may notice that intrusive ads annoy people and stop doing it.
They are a flawed and unreliable solution for the free proxies' problem.
However, this problem is complicated because payment services may compromise the anonymity of the user of paid proxies.I don't support intrusive ads (and I use Adblock Plus), but I support internet freedom and anonymity.
I don't think more ads are the solution, and they can compromise the superior speed of those free proxies, which is their advantage over alternatives.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087324</id>
	<title>Even Pop-Ups are not enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265046900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The author is thinking too 'small time'.  More Intrusive Pop-ups are just more annoying, and the website visitor will do the minimum amount of work possible to get past it.  I propose a much more proactive plan.</p><p>Web technology is sufficiently advanced that the advertising company can now force a choice upon the ad viewer: either buy the products being advertised, or do some small amount of work for the company, right now, in order to get past the advertisement.  Imagine if every viewer of an internet pop-up had to read through a short product manual, and then go right to work for five minutes as a "virtual customer service representative." These virtual workers could be evaluated on their expertise, call turnover, etc., just like actual employees, and then given the reward of getting past the advertisement and on to whatever content/service they were seeking.  This would guarantee a more reasonable level of ROI for an advertiser, thus encouraging more companies to adopt this model and therefore funding further growth and support of the internet infrastructure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The author is thinking too 'small time' .
More Intrusive Pop-ups are just more annoying , and the website visitor will do the minimum amount of work possible to get past it .
I propose a much more proactive plan.Web technology is sufficiently advanced that the advertising company can now force a choice upon the ad viewer : either buy the products being advertised , or do some small amount of work for the company , right now , in order to get past the advertisement .
Imagine if every viewer of an internet pop-up had to read through a short product manual , and then go right to work for five minutes as a " virtual customer service representative .
" These virtual workers could be evaluated on their expertise , call turnover , etc. , just like actual employees , and then given the reward of getting past the advertisement and on to whatever content/service they were seeking .
This would guarantee a more reasonable level of ROI for an advertiser , thus encouraging more companies to adopt this model and therefore funding further growth and support of the internet infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The author is thinking too 'small time'.
More Intrusive Pop-ups are just more annoying, and the website visitor will do the minimum amount of work possible to get past it.
I propose a much more proactive plan.Web technology is sufficiently advanced that the advertising company can now force a choice upon the ad viewer: either buy the products being advertised, or do some small amount of work for the company, right now, in order to get past the advertisement.
Imagine if every viewer of an internet pop-up had to read through a short product manual, and then go right to work for five minutes as a "virtual customer service representative.
" These virtual workers could be evaluated on their expertise, call turnover, etc., just like actual employees, and then given the reward of getting past the advertisement and on to whatever content/service they were seeking.
This would guarantee a more reasonable level of ROI for an advertiser, thus encouraging more companies to adopt this model and therefore funding further growth and support of the internet infrastructure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31094884</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265039280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it was supposed to appeal to Bennet Haselton. The boy certainly loves to hear himself type.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it was supposed to appeal to Bennet Haselton .
The boy certainly loves to hear himself type .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it was supposed to appeal to Bennet Haselton.
The boy certainly loves to hear himself type.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087496</id>
	<title>Advertising by any means necessary</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1265047860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is kind of a freaky argument.  Sites need funding, so if a site provides a useful service and is not directly funded by end user payments, then it can do whatever it needs to generate advertising revenue.
<p>
Of course it is true.  Without funding the site would not exist, so users should be happy to do endure whatever is necessary to support the advertising model, or be willing to cover costs and profits among themselves.  In reality advertising is a heavily regulated system with many silly rules.  For instance, during the superbowl I notice that the women in the adverts were wearing clothes.  I am sure the advertisers and the majority of the viewers would have preferred otherwise.
</p><p>
Pop ups, and related 'browser hostage' ads,  are more annoying.  They are security risks.  Furthermore, as the NYT fiasco a few months ago, interstitial and pop ups can destroy the creditability of a site and the advertising in general relatively quickly.
</p><p>
I realize that part of the argument is that 'proxies serve a holy purpose, and therefore are above the normal rules we place on society".  This is kind of like saying that Baptists have a higher duty and can traffic children across national lines.  I do not disagree on any particular point except to say no matter what higher power one believe you are serving, or whatever higher values ones believes one is serving, there are civilized rules on needs to follow.  One can't say one is saving the world by allowing kids to play online video games at school, or circumvent their parents rules about not hooking up with 25 year old guys who will rape them, and then say these higher causes justfies something as repulsive, to most people, as pop up ads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is kind of a freaky argument .
Sites need funding , so if a site provides a useful service and is not directly funded by end user payments , then it can do whatever it needs to generate advertising revenue .
Of course it is true .
Without funding the site would not exist , so users should be happy to do endure whatever is necessary to support the advertising model , or be willing to cover costs and profits among themselves .
In reality advertising is a heavily regulated system with many silly rules .
For instance , during the superbowl I notice that the women in the adverts were wearing clothes .
I am sure the advertisers and the majority of the viewers would have preferred otherwise .
Pop ups , and related 'browser hostage ' ads , are more annoying .
They are security risks .
Furthermore , as the NYT fiasco a few months ago , interstitial and pop ups can destroy the creditability of a site and the advertising in general relatively quickly .
I realize that part of the argument is that 'proxies serve a holy purpose , and therefore are above the normal rules we place on society " .
This is kind of like saying that Baptists have a higher duty and can traffic children across national lines .
I do not disagree on any particular point except to say no matter what higher power one believe you are serving , or whatever higher values ones believes one is serving , there are civilized rules on needs to follow .
One ca n't say one is saving the world by allowing kids to play online video games at school , or circumvent their parents rules about not hooking up with 25 year old guys who will rape them , and then say these higher causes justfies something as repulsive , to most people , as pop up ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is kind of a freaky argument.
Sites need funding, so if a site provides a useful service and is not directly funded by end user payments, then it can do whatever it needs to generate advertising revenue.
Of course it is true.
Without funding the site would not exist, so users should be happy to do endure whatever is necessary to support the advertising model, or be willing to cover costs and profits among themselves.
In reality advertising is a heavily regulated system with many silly rules.
For instance, during the superbowl I notice that the women in the adverts were wearing clothes.
I am sure the advertisers and the majority of the viewers would have preferred otherwise.
Pop ups, and related 'browser hostage' ads,  are more annoying.
They are security risks.
Furthermore, as the NYT fiasco a few months ago, interstitial and pop ups can destroy the creditability of a site and the advertising in general relatively quickly.
I realize that part of the argument is that 'proxies serve a holy purpose, and therefore are above the normal rules we place on society".
This is kind of like saying that Baptists have a higher duty and can traffic children across national lines.
I do not disagree on any particular point except to say no matter what higher power one believe you are serving, or whatever higher values ones believes one is serving, there are civilized rules on needs to follow.
One can't say one is saving the world by allowing kids to play online video games at school, or circumvent their parents rules about not hooking up with 25 year old guys who will rape them, and then say these higher causes justfies something as repulsive, to most people, as pop up ads.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31091930</id>
	<title>Re:Even Pop-Ups are not enough</title>
	<author>leromarinvit</author>
	<datestamp>1265023620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This would guarantee a more reasonable level of ROI for an advertiser, thus encouraging more companies to adopt this model and therefore funding further growth and support of the internet infrastructure.</p></div><p>Not to mention it would greatly improve many a company's customer support!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This would guarantee a more reasonable level of ROI for an advertiser , thus encouraging more companies to adopt this model and therefore funding further growth and support of the internet infrastructure.Not to mention it would greatly improve many a company 's customer support !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would guarantee a more reasonable level of ROI for an advertiser, thus encouraging more companies to adopt this model and therefore funding further growth and support of the internet infrastructure.Not to mention it would greatly improve many a company's customer support!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087762</id>
	<title>A better solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265048820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a revolutionary idea. One that may seem totally outlandish but you know, it just might work!</p><p>Please understand; I don't intend to "steal"[sic] content. I understand your web sites need to make money. That is why until recently I never ran ad blockers; I made do with popup blocking. However, advertisements have become so $\%&amp;@ing intrusive that about a year ago I started using adblock, and haven't looked back since.   See, you advertisers minimally test your ads; you don't test them integrated into all of the pages in your advertising network, and you don't test all the major browsers. In fact, I don't think you even test Firefox or Opera <i>at all</i>.When those $\%&amp;@ing "popover" ads started with the close button being inaccessible or nonresponsive, or when your $\%&amp;@ing ad is floating over DHTML, you are hurting my "web browsing experience." You are blocking my access to the content, and that is a major no-no. Instead of courting me as a potential customer, you are alienating me.  Even worse are the audio-visual ads which play loud noises on mouseovers. That is incredibly irritating, especially if I am browsing the web at night when guests are over.</p><p>So, I installed adblock and haven't looked back since.</p><p>Now again, understand that I agree that content isn't free and has to be paid for. Believe me, I like to have a roof over my head, drive nice cars, and even eat on occasion. So yes, I <i>do</i> understand that and agree that you need to make a living. However, by negatively impacting my computing experience, you are not winning me as a customer. So, I now block your ads. Your eating is not more important to me than my computing experience. It's not that I don't understand, it's that I don't care. It is almost as if you are going out of your way to be completely obnoxious with your malfunctioning DHTML or Flash-based ads, which is malicious. So, it is my desire for you to go bankrupt and ultimately homeless, without Internet access, since you can't do your job responsibly.</p><p>What was wrong with text-based or banner ads? You can't say they don't work. If you claim that they don't work, I'll point you at one of the most valuable tech companies in existence as proof otherwise: Google: 99.9999\%+ of their revenue is advertising revenue. I have small (2-3 person) manufacturing clients who make $20K (profit) per month (I wish I made that much!) and they promote their products world-wide through google adwords. I know that text-based banner advertising works!</p><p>I never worried about blocking text-based or banner ads. I never even blocked, uh, "adult" ads regardless of environment. I understood everyone needs to make a living. But, now that you have gone way, way over the line by negatively impacting my computing experience, I don't see any of your ads. Adblock takes care of that.</p><p>Bring back banner ads. You can even use animated GIF images; I don't care. Use text-based ads like google adsense/adwords. I have made purchase decisions based on being made aware of products via such ads. However, I refuse to be a patron of businesses which go out of their way to annoy me and to interfere with my web browser's functionality. Now your obnoxious ads don't reach me at all. Also, any time I work on client machines, I install adblock (I've been deploying it network-wide in business environments for 3+ years now, and now I install it on privately-owned computers as well).  I'm not the only one deploying ad blocking extensions, either, so your outreach is becoming increasingly small. You are annoying yourself out of existence.</p><p>Obnoxious pop-over web ads are the new spam, and are just as annoying. It is your job to <i>court</i> me to fall in love with your clients' products; not to alienate me and make me hate your client and refuse to patronize them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a revolutionary idea .
One that may seem totally outlandish but you know , it just might work ! Please understand ; I do n't intend to " steal " [ sic ] content .
I understand your web sites need to make money .
That is why until recently I never ran ad blockers ; I made do with popup blocking .
However , advertisements have become so $ \ % &amp; @ ing intrusive that about a year ago I started using adblock , and have n't looked back since .
See , you advertisers minimally test your ads ; you do n't test them integrated into all of the pages in your advertising network , and you do n't test all the major browsers .
In fact , I do n't think you even test Firefox or Opera at all.When those $ \ % &amp; @ ing " popover " ads started with the close button being inaccessible or nonresponsive , or when your $ \ % &amp; @ ing ad is floating over DHTML , you are hurting my " web browsing experience .
" You are blocking my access to the content , and that is a major no-no .
Instead of courting me as a potential customer , you are alienating me .
Even worse are the audio-visual ads which play loud noises on mouseovers .
That is incredibly irritating , especially if I am browsing the web at night when guests are over.So , I installed adblock and have n't looked back since.Now again , understand that I agree that content is n't free and has to be paid for .
Believe me , I like to have a roof over my head , drive nice cars , and even eat on occasion .
So yes , I do understand that and agree that you need to make a living .
However , by negatively impacting my computing experience , you are not winning me as a customer .
So , I now block your ads .
Your eating is not more important to me than my computing experience .
It 's not that I do n't understand , it 's that I do n't care .
It is almost as if you are going out of your way to be completely obnoxious with your malfunctioning DHTML or Flash-based ads , which is malicious .
So , it is my desire for you to go bankrupt and ultimately homeless , without Internet access , since you ca n't do your job responsibly.What was wrong with text-based or banner ads ?
You ca n't say they do n't work .
If you claim that they do n't work , I 'll point you at one of the most valuable tech companies in existence as proof otherwise : Google : 99.9999 \ % + of their revenue is advertising revenue .
I have small ( 2-3 person ) manufacturing clients who make $ 20K ( profit ) per month ( I wish I made that much !
) and they promote their products world-wide through google adwords .
I know that text-based banner advertising works ! I never worried about blocking text-based or banner ads .
I never even blocked , uh , " adult " ads regardless of environment .
I understood everyone needs to make a living .
But , now that you have gone way , way over the line by negatively impacting my computing experience , I do n't see any of your ads .
Adblock takes care of that.Bring back banner ads .
You can even use animated GIF images ; I do n't care .
Use text-based ads like google adsense/adwords .
I have made purchase decisions based on being made aware of products via such ads .
However , I refuse to be a patron of businesses which go out of their way to annoy me and to interfere with my web browser 's functionality .
Now your obnoxious ads do n't reach me at all .
Also , any time I work on client machines , I install adblock ( I 've been deploying it network-wide in business environments for 3 + years now , and now I install it on privately-owned computers as well ) .
I 'm not the only one deploying ad blocking extensions , either , so your outreach is becoming increasingly small .
You are annoying yourself out of existence.Obnoxious pop-over web ads are the new spam , and are just as annoying .
It is your job to court me to fall in love with your clients ' products ; not to alienate me and make me hate your client and refuse to patronize them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a revolutionary idea.
One that may seem totally outlandish but you know, it just might work!Please understand; I don't intend to "steal"[sic] content.
I understand your web sites need to make money.
That is why until recently I never ran ad blockers; I made do with popup blocking.
However, advertisements have become so $\%&amp;@ing intrusive that about a year ago I started using adblock, and haven't looked back since.
See, you advertisers minimally test your ads; you don't test them integrated into all of the pages in your advertising network, and you don't test all the major browsers.
In fact, I don't think you even test Firefox or Opera at all.When those $\%&amp;@ing "popover" ads started with the close button being inaccessible or nonresponsive, or when your $\%&amp;@ing ad is floating over DHTML, you are hurting my "web browsing experience.
" You are blocking my access to the content, and that is a major no-no.
Instead of courting me as a potential customer, you are alienating me.
Even worse are the audio-visual ads which play loud noises on mouseovers.
That is incredibly irritating, especially if I am browsing the web at night when guests are over.So, I installed adblock and haven't looked back since.Now again, understand that I agree that content isn't free and has to be paid for.
Believe me, I like to have a roof over my head, drive nice cars, and even eat on occasion.
So yes, I do understand that and agree that you need to make a living.
However, by negatively impacting my computing experience, you are not winning me as a customer.
So, I now block your ads.
Your eating is not more important to me than my computing experience.
It's not that I don't understand, it's that I don't care.
It is almost as if you are going out of your way to be completely obnoxious with your malfunctioning DHTML or Flash-based ads, which is malicious.
So, it is my desire for you to go bankrupt and ultimately homeless, without Internet access, since you can't do your job responsibly.What was wrong with text-based or banner ads?
You can't say they don't work.
If you claim that they don't work, I'll point you at one of the most valuable tech companies in existence as proof otherwise: Google: 99.9999\%+ of their revenue is advertising revenue.
I have small (2-3 person) manufacturing clients who make $20K (profit) per month (I wish I made that much!
) and they promote their products world-wide through google adwords.
I know that text-based banner advertising works!I never worried about blocking text-based or banner ads.
I never even blocked, uh, "adult" ads regardless of environment.
I understood everyone needs to make a living.
But, now that you have gone way, way over the line by negatively impacting my computing experience, I don't see any of your ads.
Adblock takes care of that.Bring back banner ads.
You can even use animated GIF images; I don't care.
Use text-based ads like google adsense/adwords.
I have made purchase decisions based on being made aware of products via such ads.
However, I refuse to be a patron of businesses which go out of their way to annoy me and to interfere with my web browser's functionality.
Now your obnoxious ads don't reach me at all.
Also, any time I work on client machines, I install adblock (I've been deploying it network-wide in business environments for 3+ years now, and now I install it on privately-owned computers as well).
I'm not the only one deploying ad blocking extensions, either, so your outreach is becoming increasingly small.
You are annoying yourself out of existence.Obnoxious pop-over web ads are the new spam, and are just as annoying.
It is your job to court me to fall in love with your clients' products; not to alienate me and make me hate your client and refuse to patronize them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087472</id>
	<title>Tor and I2P</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265047740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pay-for proxy services are only as trustworthy as the company that runs them, and their security.<br>Decentralized anonymizing networks such as <a href="torproject.org" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Tor</a> [slashdot.org] and <a href="http://www.i2p2.de/" title="i2p2.de" rel="nofollow">I2P</a> [i2p2.de] do not require that users trust a single entity.</p><p>So why not contribute to those instead?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pay-for proxy services are only as trustworthy as the company that runs them , and their security.Decentralized anonymizing networks such as Tor [ slashdot.org ] and I2P [ i2p2.de ] do not require that users trust a single entity.So why not contribute to those instead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pay-for proxy services are only as trustworthy as the company that runs them, and their security.Decentralized anonymizing networks such as Tor [slashdot.org] and I2P [i2p2.de] do not require that users trust a single entity.So why not contribute to those instead?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087184</id>
	<title>Point?</title>
	<author>HunterWare</author>
	<datestamp>1265046300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see the original thought here.  Intrusive ads generate more revenue... yep.  Some services need more revenue... yep.  There are many ways to pay that increased cost of which intrusive ads are one... yep.  That doesn't make them less obnoxious and isn't really new.</p><p>If you want to use those ads as a way to generate revenue then good for you.  Maybe it will work, and maybe those customers of yours will enable popups and other crap to use your service.  The rest of us will still avoid those boils on the ass of humanity as much as we can because that's what they are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see the original thought here .
Intrusive ads generate more revenue... yep. Some services need more revenue... yep. There are many ways to pay that increased cost of which intrusive ads are one... yep. That does n't make them less obnoxious and is n't really new.If you want to use those ads as a way to generate revenue then good for you .
Maybe it will work , and maybe those customers of yours will enable popups and other crap to use your service .
The rest of us will still avoid those boils on the ass of humanity as much as we can because that 's what they are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see the original thought here.
Intrusive ads generate more revenue... yep.  Some services need more revenue... yep.  There are many ways to pay that increased cost of which intrusive ads are one... yep.  That doesn't make them less obnoxious and isn't really new.If you want to use those ads as a way to generate revenue then good for you.
Maybe it will work, and maybe those customers of yours will enable popups and other crap to use your service.
The rest of us will still avoid those boils on the ass of humanity as much as we can because that's what they are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31089392</id>
	<title>This is a joke, right?</title>
	<author>Fantastic Lad</author>
	<datestamp>1265055240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this some kind of joke?  This guy is NOT asking for help with this article.</p><p>It's a mind-game which he hopes will achieve two things. . .</p><p>1. He's advertising his site to privacy freaks (well, you and me, actually) who might actually be inclined to use his services, thus ballooning his traffic, thus increasing the price he can ask for when selling to advertisers.</p><p>2. He's trying to inject the idea into popular discussion that ads are some sort of Freedom Fry, and hopefully infect the IT people of the world with the idea that ad-blocking is bad for good things.</p><p>Sorry, but anybody who is so totally into pumping adverts at people against their will cannot be trusted.  And it IS against their will.  <b>People who have installed ad-blocking features on their browsers have CHOSEN not to see ads.  To attempt to circumvent this, as he clearly explains he does on a daily basis, is a violation of Free Will.</b>  People who have no problem violating Free Will, will also have no difficulty in justifying the selling of private click data to the highest bidder.  I'd be shocked if he wasn't doing this.</p><p>This guy is not a censorship crusader.  It's all about profit and personal gain.  He may not view himself that way, but that wouldn't be any surprise either; denial is always easier to embrace than a hard truth and the work required to change one's behavior.</p><p>-FL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this some kind of joke ?
This guy is NOT asking for help with this article.It 's a mind-game which he hopes will achieve two things .
. .1 .
He 's advertising his site to privacy freaks ( well , you and me , actually ) who might actually be inclined to use his services , thus ballooning his traffic , thus increasing the price he can ask for when selling to advertisers.2 .
He 's trying to inject the idea into popular discussion that ads are some sort of Freedom Fry , and hopefully infect the IT people of the world with the idea that ad-blocking is bad for good things.Sorry , but anybody who is so totally into pumping adverts at people against their will can not be trusted .
And it IS against their will .
People who have installed ad-blocking features on their browsers have CHOSEN not to see ads .
To attempt to circumvent this , as he clearly explains he does on a daily basis , is a violation of Free Will .
People who have no problem violating Free Will , will also have no difficulty in justifying the selling of private click data to the highest bidder .
I 'd be shocked if he was n't doing this.This guy is not a censorship crusader .
It 's all about profit and personal gain .
He may not view himself that way , but that would n't be any surprise either ; denial is always easier to embrace than a hard truth and the work required to change one 's behavior.-FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this some kind of joke?
This guy is NOT asking for help with this article.It's a mind-game which he hopes will achieve two things.
. .1.
He's advertising his site to privacy freaks (well, you and me, actually) who might actually be inclined to use his services, thus ballooning his traffic, thus increasing the price he can ask for when selling to advertisers.2.
He's trying to inject the idea into popular discussion that ads are some sort of Freedom Fry, and hopefully infect the IT people of the world with the idea that ad-blocking is bad for good things.Sorry, but anybody who is so totally into pumping adverts at people against their will cannot be trusted.
And it IS against their will.
People who have installed ad-blocking features on their browsers have CHOSEN not to see ads.
To attempt to circumvent this, as he clearly explains he does on a daily basis, is a violation of Free Will.
People who have no problem violating Free Will, will also have no difficulty in justifying the selling of private click data to the highest bidder.
I'd be shocked if he wasn't doing this.This guy is not a censorship crusader.
It's all about profit and personal gain.
He may not view himself that way, but that wouldn't be any surprise either; denial is always easier to embrace than a hard truth and the work required to change one's behavior.-FL</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31090066</id>
	<title>Re:TLDR</title>
	<author>treeves</author>
	<datestamp>1265015340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thermo<br>Luminescent<br>Dosimeter<br>Reader<br>?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ThermoLuminescentDosimeterReader ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ThermoLuminescentDosimeterReader?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31089348</id>
	<title>Pop tarts?</title>
	<author>DrVomact</author>
	<datestamp>1265055060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What are these "popup ads" of which the article speaks? Is it something you toast for breakfast?</p><p>Maybe "intrusive ads" create more revenue...for the site that serves them up, but that's not the same thing as being effective&mdash;that is, actually selling stuff. All I know is that I don't usually see "intrusive" ads on the web. I've made arrangements that pretty much eliminate "intrusive" content from my web reality. Basically, my policy is to kill anything that moves. Uh, well I mean anything that's animated, flashes at me, does any popping up or under or sideways, and does not basically sit meekly in a corner and behave itself. I get a kick out of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. notice that offers to turn off advertisements for me because I have such good karma (yes this is your chance, oh my enemies!). I mean, doesn't having good karma mean I've been around? Like, what ads, man? </p><p>
Here's free advice to advertisers: if you want me to notice your advertisement and even maybe click on it, make it a nice discreet image that doesn't get in my way, but shows something I am likely to be interested in buying. You know, stuff that will draw my eye instantly: guns, ammo, camera lenses, computer parts, neat tools, or new science fiction books. I'd even be willing to sign up for a service that plants a cookie that cues advertisers about my special interests, as long as that meant I wouldn't be bothered by obnoxious ads for all the other stuff I will never want. In fact, why hasn't anybody already implemented a system like this? Ooops, time to fill out the patent application.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What are these " popup ads " of which the article speaks ?
Is it something you toast for breakfast ? Maybe " intrusive ads " create more revenue...for the site that serves them up , but that 's not the same thing as being effective    that is , actually selling stuff .
All I know is that I do n't usually see " intrusive " ads on the web .
I 've made arrangements that pretty much eliminate " intrusive " content from my web reality .
Basically , my policy is to kill anything that moves .
Uh , well I mean anything that 's animated , flashes at me , does any popping up or under or sideways , and does not basically sit meekly in a corner and behave itself .
I get a kick out of the / .
notice that offers to turn off advertisements for me because I have such good karma ( yes this is your chance , oh my enemies ! ) .
I mean , does n't having good karma mean I 've been around ?
Like , what ads , man ?
Here 's free advice to advertisers : if you want me to notice your advertisement and even maybe click on it , make it a nice discreet image that does n't get in my way , but shows something I am likely to be interested in buying .
You know , stuff that will draw my eye instantly : guns , ammo , camera lenses , computer parts , neat tools , or new science fiction books .
I 'd even be willing to sign up for a service that plants a cookie that cues advertisers about my special interests , as long as that meant I would n't be bothered by obnoxious ads for all the other stuff I will never want .
In fact , why has n't anybody already implemented a system like this ?
Ooops , time to fill out the patent application .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are these "popup ads" of which the article speaks?
Is it something you toast for breakfast?Maybe "intrusive ads" create more revenue...for the site that serves them up, but that's not the same thing as being effective—that is, actually selling stuff.
All I know is that I don't usually see "intrusive" ads on the web.
I've made arrangements that pretty much eliminate "intrusive" content from my web reality.
Basically, my policy is to kill anything that moves.
Uh, well I mean anything that's animated, flashes at me, does any popping up or under or sideways, and does not basically sit meekly in a corner and behave itself.
I get a kick out of the /.
notice that offers to turn off advertisements for me because I have such good karma (yes this is your chance, oh my enemies!).
I mean, doesn't having good karma mean I've been around?
Like, what ads, man?
Here's free advice to advertisers: if you want me to notice your advertisement and even maybe click on it, make it a nice discreet image that doesn't get in my way, but shows something I am likely to be interested in buying.
You know, stuff that will draw my eye instantly: guns, ammo, camera lenses, computer parts, neat tools, or new science fiction books.
I'd even be willing to sign up for a service that plants a cookie that cues advertisers about my special interests, as long as that meant I wouldn't be bothered by obnoxious ads for all the other stuff I will never want.
In fact, why hasn't anybody already implemented a system like this?
Ooops, time to fill out the patent application.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31089100</id>
	<title>i am probably not the first to say</title>
	<author>FudRucker</author>
	<datestamp>1265053920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>fuck you! i hope you die in a fire! the whole goddamn planet is swamped with advertising, billboards, spam in email, TV &amp; radio, i use adblocking software and turned off javascript and never bother to install any plugins because of all the goddamn advertising, i say enough already so one last time = fuck you! Bennett Haselton i hope you die a painful miserable slow death</htmltext>
<tokenext>fuck you !
i hope you die in a fire !
the whole goddamn planet is swamped with advertising , billboards , spam in email , TV &amp; radio , i use adblocking software and turned off javascript and never bother to install any plugins because of all the goddamn advertising , i say enough already so one last time = fuck you !
Bennett Haselton i hope you die a painful miserable slow death</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fuck you!
i hope you die in a fire!
the whole goddamn planet is swamped with advertising, billboards, spam in email, TV &amp; radio, i use adblocking software and turned off javascript and never bother to install any plugins because of all the goddamn advertising, i say enough already so one last time = fuck you!
Bennett Haselton i hope you die a painful miserable slow death</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31090876</id>
	<title>Slashdot has ads?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265019480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess that makes sense. I love my ad-blocking firewall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess that makes sense .
I love my ad-blocking firewall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess that makes sense.
I love my ad-blocking firewall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087566</id>
	<title>Re:What nonsense</title>
	<author>PhilHibbs</author>
	<datestamp>1265048100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if you can't change the proxy setting?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if you ca n't change the proxy setting ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if you can't change the proxy setting?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087332</id>
	<title>Chatter, chatter, chatter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265046960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apart from the fact that the article is a lot of mindless, meaningless chatter for "internet ads pay for proxy services", I still do not see the need for proxy services.  I know <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy\_server" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">what they are</a> [wikipedia.org]; I do not understand why the administrator of the service can't foot their own bill, or make users subscribe to the service with an annual or monthly fee, if they think the service is that important.  Dodging the expense issue with pop-up ads is a cheat that guarantees hostility towards the service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apart from the fact that the article is a lot of mindless , meaningless chatter for " internet ads pay for proxy services " , I still do not see the need for proxy services .
I know what they are [ wikipedia.org ] ; I do not understand why the administrator of the service ca n't foot their own bill , or make users subscribe to the service with an annual or monthly fee , if they think the service is that important .
Dodging the expense issue with pop-up ads is a cheat that guarantees hostility towards the service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apart from the fact that the article is a lot of mindless, meaningless chatter for "internet ads pay for proxy services", I still do not see the need for proxy services.
I know what they are [wikipedia.org]; I do not understand why the administrator of the service can't foot their own bill, or make users subscribe to the service with an annual or monthly fee, if they think the service is that important.
Dodging the expense issue with pop-up ads is a cheat that guarantees hostility towards the service.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31089926</id>
	<title>Re:What nonsense</title>
	<author>geminidomino</author>
	<datestamp>1265057760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> If you are too stupid and/or lazy to do this then you should just [b]get <a href="http://foxyproxy.mozdev.org/" title="mozdev.org">foxyproxy</a> [mozdev.org].</p></div><p>At least if you're "lazy". It is a lot better than having to bounce in and out of the advanced options</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are too stupid and/or lazy to do this then you should just [ b ] get foxyproxy [ mozdev.org ] .At least if you 're " lazy " .
It is a lot better than having to bounce in and out of the advanced options</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If you are too stupid and/or lazy to do this then you should just [b]get foxyproxy [mozdev.org].At least if you're "lazy".
It is a lot better than having to bounce in and out of the advanced options
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087686</id>
	<title>Just ...</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1265048640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... remove the enabling technology from the standards and the browsers.  Problem solved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... remove the enabling technology from the standards and the browsers .
Problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... remove the enabling technology from the standards and the browsers.
Problem solved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31088694</id>
	<title>Re:The Obvious Solution!</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1265052660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is a wonderful business model, but I have an improvement on it that would allow you to increase your profits by another third.</p><p>Just sell them <em>all</em> out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is a wonderful business model , but I have an improvement on it that would allow you to increase your profits by another third.Just sell them all out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is a wonderful business model, but I have an improvement on it that would allow you to increase your profits by another third.Just sell them all out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31089576</id>
	<title>intrusive ads = personal boycott list</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265056080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The more intrusive the ad, the more I'm likely to add it to my personal boycott list.</p><p>In other words, if everyone did as I do, advertisers would be less willing to pay for more intrusive ads than less-intrusive ones.</p><p>Also, if a site's ads are too intrusive I start looking for a competing company offering the same service.  This is very easy for things like newspaper web sites but a bit harder for sites where there are few competitors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The more intrusive the ad , the more I 'm likely to add it to my personal boycott list.In other words , if everyone did as I do , advertisers would be less willing to pay for more intrusive ads than less-intrusive ones.Also , if a site 's ads are too intrusive I start looking for a competing company offering the same service .
This is very easy for things like newspaper web sites but a bit harder for sites where there are few competitors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more intrusive the ad, the more I'm likely to add it to my personal boycott list.In other words, if everyone did as I do, advertisers would be less willing to pay for more intrusive ads than less-intrusive ones.Also, if a site's ads are too intrusive I start looking for a competing company offering the same service.
This is very easy for things like newspaper web sites but a bit harder for sites where there are few competitors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087434</id>
	<title>Bite us</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265047560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're annoying.  Nobody likes you or popup ads, so forget trolling here for new ideas to annoy us with popup ads!<br>Oh, and you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're annoying .
Nobody likes you or popup ads , so forget trolling here for new ideas to annoy us with popup ads ! Oh , and you 're ugly and your mother dresses you funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're annoying.
Nobody likes you or popup ads, so forget trolling here for new ideas to annoy us with popup ads!Oh, and you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087124</id>
	<title>Doing it wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265046060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So to stay ahead of the filters, I have to mail out several sites every morning to different portions of the mailing list, so that the filtering companies generally learn about them and block them at different points throughout the day. Just registering several<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com domains every day is not cheap. (GoDaddy sells<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.info domains for less than a dollar apiece, but this proved to be an ineffective solution because too many censored networks simply block all<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.info sites.)</p></div></blockquote><p>Stop registering domains and just mail out the IP addresses with instructions on how to set them up as a proxy in your webbrowser of choice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So to stay ahead of the filters , I have to mail out several sites every morning to different portions of the mailing list , so that the filtering companies generally learn about them and block them at different points throughout the day .
Just registering several .com domains every day is not cheap .
( GoDaddy sells .info domains for less than a dollar apiece , but this proved to be an ineffective solution because too many censored networks simply block all .info sites .
) Stop registering domains and just mail out the IP addresses with instructions on how to set them up as a proxy in your webbrowser of choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So to stay ahead of the filters, I have to mail out several sites every morning to different portions of the mailing list, so that the filtering companies generally learn about them and block them at different points throughout the day.
Just registering several .com domains every day is not cheap.
(GoDaddy sells .info domains for less than a dollar apiece, but this proved to be an ineffective solution because too many censored networks simply block all .info sites.
)Stop registering domains and just mail out the IP addresses with instructions on how to set them up as a proxy in your webbrowser of choice.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087022</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265045640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is he saying that annoying pop up ads have brought about the technology to get around censorship, and thats why we still have a Free Internet?</p><p>Wouldn't it be better if there wasn't a form of censorship at all except what the user wishes to?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is he saying that annoying pop up ads have brought about the technology to get around censorship , and thats why we still have a Free Internet ? Would n't it be better if there was n't a form of censorship at all except what the user wishes to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is he saying that annoying pop up ads have brought about the technology to get around censorship, and thats why we still have a Free Internet?Wouldn't it be better if there wasn't a form of censorship at all except what the user wishes to?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31089244</id>
	<title>My ad blocking history..</title>
	<author>Rexdude</author>
	<datestamp>1265054580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's 12 years since I first got onto the net, and 11 of those have been utterly, satisfyingly ad-free. First, here's why I have zero guilt about supposedly leeching off the revenue(?) stream of website operators:<br>1) Most of the English language websites I visit are American. I am Indian, from India.<br>2) The products advertised here are also American, or delivered within the US/Canada only.<br>3) There's no way in hell that I'm going to buy anything advertised here, thanks to lack of a little thing called purchasing power parity when it comes to pricing.(If you charge $20 for a Tshirt, that's about 1k INR, when I can get 5 good tshirts for the same price here, add another 50 dollars for international shipping..you get the idea). I'd rather rip off your design and make my own tshirt elsewhere.<br>4) Ergo, I am not going to ever click a single ad, and am fully justified in banishing them.</p><p>1998-99 - Argh, WTF are these banners doing choking up my already slow dialup line?<br>1999-2003 - AtGuard Personal Firewall. Awesome URL based adblocking included, it would auto load on detecting a dialup connection and exit when disconnected. Bought over by Symantec and turned into the bloatware called Symantec Personal Firewall. Sadly doesn't run on XP.</p><p>2003 to present - <a href="http://www.admuncher.com/" title="admuncher.com">Ad Muncher</a> [admuncher.com] - Socket level filtering, so can filter any program that can make a network connection. 7 GB bandwidth saved, 850,000 ads blocked (according to the built in counter) since then.<br>What Admuncher could not catch, Adblock Plus does, and what slips through that gets routed to 0.0.0.0 by my 15k+ entry hosts file.</p><p>The End.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's 12 years since I first got onto the net , and 11 of those have been utterly , satisfyingly ad-free .
First , here 's why I have zero guilt about supposedly leeching off the revenue ( ?
) stream of website operators : 1 ) Most of the English language websites I visit are American .
I am Indian , from India.2 ) The products advertised here are also American , or delivered within the US/Canada only.3 ) There 's no way in hell that I 'm going to buy anything advertised here , thanks to lack of a little thing called purchasing power parity when it comes to pricing .
( If you charge $ 20 for a Tshirt , that 's about 1k INR , when I can get 5 good tshirts for the same price here , add another 50 dollars for international shipping..you get the idea ) .
I 'd rather rip off your design and make my own tshirt elsewhere.4 ) Ergo , I am not going to ever click a single ad , and am fully justified in banishing them.1998-99 - Argh , WTF are these banners doing choking up my already slow dialup line ? 1999-2003 - AtGuard Personal Firewall .
Awesome URL based adblocking included , it would auto load on detecting a dialup connection and exit when disconnected .
Bought over by Symantec and turned into the bloatware called Symantec Personal Firewall .
Sadly does n't run on XP.2003 to present - Ad Muncher [ admuncher.com ] - Socket level filtering , so can filter any program that can make a network connection .
7 GB bandwidth saved , 850,000 ads blocked ( according to the built in counter ) since then.What Admuncher could not catch , Adblock Plus does , and what slips through that gets routed to 0.0.0.0 by my 15k + entry hosts file.The End .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's 12 years since I first got onto the net, and 11 of those have been utterly, satisfyingly ad-free.
First, here's why I have zero guilt about supposedly leeching off the revenue(?
) stream of website operators:1) Most of the English language websites I visit are American.
I am Indian, from India.2) The products advertised here are also American, or delivered within the US/Canada only.3) There's no way in hell that I'm going to buy anything advertised here, thanks to lack of a little thing called purchasing power parity when it comes to pricing.
(If you charge $20 for a Tshirt, that's about 1k INR, when I can get 5 good tshirts for the same price here, add another 50 dollars for international shipping..you get the idea).
I'd rather rip off your design and make my own tshirt elsewhere.4) Ergo, I am not going to ever click a single ad, and am fully justified in banishing them.1998-99 - Argh, WTF are these banners doing choking up my already slow dialup line?1999-2003 - AtGuard Personal Firewall.
Awesome URL based adblocking included, it would auto load on detecting a dialup connection and exit when disconnected.
Bought over by Symantec and turned into the bloatware called Symantec Personal Firewall.
Sadly doesn't run on XP.2003 to present - Ad Muncher [admuncher.com] - Socket level filtering, so can filter any program that can make a network connection.
7 GB bandwidth saved, 850,000 ads blocked (according to the built in counter) since then.What Admuncher could not catch, Adblock Plus does, and what slips through that gets routed to 0.0.0.0 by my 15k+ entry hosts file.The End.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087564</id>
	<title>Re:What nonsense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265048100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If you are too stupid and/or lazy to do this then you should just suffer.</i></p><p>I shall apply my mystic powers of mindreading<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you really enjoyed The Incredibles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are too stupid and/or lazy to do this then you should just suffer.I shall apply my mystic powers of mindreading ... you really enjoyed The Incredibles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are too stupid and/or lazy to do this then you should just suffer.I shall apply my mystic powers of mindreading ... you really enjoyed The Incredibles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087330</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>ConceptJunkie</author>
	<datestamp>1265046960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But if censorship isn't going away... and it isn't... then you have to look ways to deal with it.  His premise is odd, but seems valid.</p><p>You response is like saying, "Why bother talking about all these laws to prevent gun violence?  Wouldn't it be better if there simply were no guns?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But if censorship is n't going away... and it is n't... then you have to look ways to deal with it .
His premise is odd , but seems valid.You response is like saying , " Why bother talking about all these laws to prevent gun violence ?
Would n't it be better if there simply were no guns ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But if censorship isn't going away... and it isn't... then you have to look ways to deal with it.
His premise is odd, but seems valid.You response is like saying, "Why bother talking about all these laws to prevent gun violence?
Wouldn't it be better if there simply were no guns?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087602</id>
	<title>Go4Et</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265048220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">is part of the design approa3h. As</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>is part of the design approa3h .
As [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is part of the design approa3h.
As [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087120</id>
	<title>Windbag</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265046060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>Slashdot frequent windbag Bennett Haselton spewed more self-important tripe... TL;DR<br> <br>:P</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot frequent windbag Bennett Haselton spewed more self-important tripe... TL ; DR : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot frequent windbag Bennett Haselton spewed more self-important tripe... TL;DR :P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31089070</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Chicken04GTO</author>
	<datestamp>1265053800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its retarded, not odd.  Guns have nothing to do with violence, anymore than pop-up adds have anything to do with censorship around the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its retarded , not odd .
Guns have nothing to do with violence , anymore than pop-up adds have anything to do with censorship around the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its retarded, not odd.
Guns have nothing to do with violence, anymore than pop-up adds have anything to do with censorship around the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31091848</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>NotBornYesterday</author>
	<datestamp>1265023200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dear God, I wish I had some mod points.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear God , I wish I had some mod points .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear God, I wish I had some mod points.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31097434</id>
	<title>Alternate (Less Popuppy) Solution</title>
	<author>cyclomedia</author>
	<datestamp>1265885280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm working on a web page with a proxy built in. A single ASPX with no external css,javascript, image or library dependencies. At the moment it can do links but i've deliberately shied away from being able to execute javascript or show images. It's ultimate goal is to allow google searching and reading of wikipedia (forms wont be too hard, just need to harvest their data into key/value pairs). When it can do that it'll be at version 1.0. The fun part is that by default it obfuscates its own traffic via Base64 but you can use your own PGP key pair to actually encrypt your requests (fast javascript interpreter required!)

Because it's a single page, and bypasses HTTPS it means *anyone* running a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net/Mono 2 web site can just drop it in and link to it. Bish bash bosh - a zillion web sites containing proxy engines. I'll stick it on google code sometime this year, probably.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm working on a web page with a proxy built in .
A single ASPX with no external css,javascript , image or library dependencies .
At the moment it can do links but i 've deliberately shied away from being able to execute javascript or show images .
It 's ultimate goal is to allow google searching and reading of wikipedia ( forms wont be too hard , just need to harvest their data into key/value pairs ) .
When it can do that it 'll be at version 1.0 .
The fun part is that by default it obfuscates its own traffic via Base64 but you can use your own PGP key pair to actually encrypt your requests ( fast javascript interpreter required !
) Because it 's a single page , and bypasses HTTPS it means * anyone * running a .Net/Mono 2 web site can just drop it in and link to it .
Bish bash bosh - a zillion web sites containing proxy engines .
I 'll stick it on google code sometime this year , probably .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm working on a web page with a proxy built in.
A single ASPX with no external css,javascript, image or library dependencies.
At the moment it can do links but i've deliberately shied away from being able to execute javascript or show images.
It's ultimate goal is to allow google searching and reading of wikipedia (forms wont be too hard, just need to harvest their data into key/value pairs).
When it can do that it'll be at version 1.0.
The fun part is that by default it obfuscates its own traffic via Base64 but you can use your own PGP key pair to actually encrypt your requests (fast javascript interpreter required!
)

Because it's a single page, and bypasses HTTPS it means *anyone* running a .Net/Mono 2 web site can just drop it in and link to it.
Bish bash bosh - a zillion web sites containing proxy engines.
I'll stick it on google code sometime this year, probably.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087638</id>
	<title>I'd rather pay</title>
	<author>residieu</author>
	<datestamp>1265048400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I was going to make regular use of a proxy-site, I would rather pay a modest subscription fee and not be hit with obnoxious advertising. Especially since you know these new ad techniques will be moving out from just the proxy sites to the rest of the wild west web.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I was going to make regular use of a proxy-site , I would rather pay a modest subscription fee and not be hit with obnoxious advertising .
Especially since you know these new ad techniques will be moving out from just the proxy sites to the rest of the wild west web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I was going to make regular use of a proxy-site, I would rather pay a modest subscription fee and not be hit with obnoxious advertising.
Especially since you know these new ad techniques will be moving out from just the proxy sites to the rest of the wild west web.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087146</id>
	<title>Pop ups...</title>
	<author>dyingtolive</author>
	<datestamp>1265046180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Go visit www.yzzzyrd.com in IE and tell me pop ups are a good thing, until then, crawl back under whatever rock from 10 years ago that you came out from.  Popups are good like a geocities web address is good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Go visit www.yzzzyrd.com in IE and tell me pop ups are a good thing , until then , crawl back under whatever rock from 10 years ago that you came out from .
Popups are good like a geocities web address is good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go visit www.yzzzyrd.com in IE and tell me pop ups are a good thing, until then, crawl back under whatever rock from 10 years ago that you came out from.
Popups are good like a geocities web address is good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31088436</id>
	<title>Re:So is this a /vertisement or a serious rant?</title>
	<author>PetiePooo</author>
	<datestamp>1265051700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>d) all of the above

<br> <br>Most multiple choice have four options, after all...</htmltext>
<tokenext>d ) all of the above Most multiple choice have four options , after all.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>d) all of the above

 Most multiple choice have four options, after all...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087836</id>
	<title>Re:Doing it wrong</title>
	<author>cryoman23</author>
	<datestamp>1265049180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>my thoughts exactly... but then what if the ip gets blacklisted....</htmltext>
<tokenext>my thoughts exactly... but then what if the ip gets blacklisted... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my thoughts exactly... but then what if the ip gets blacklisted....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31093034</id>
	<title>Missing the Point</title>
	<author>kj\_cmpe</author>
	<datestamp>1265029800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This article suggests that advertisements should be *more* intrusive, but his examples directly contradict the point. What bothers many people most about pop-up ads and their ilk is not that it requires them to view the content, it's the techniques used such as auto-reopening when you click to close, or opening tens or hundreds of windows. As the author correctly states, many people don't mind watching the pre-commercial on sites like cnn or hulu. The point isn't that those are *really* intrusive but that an advertisement done well in a clearly opt-in way is tolerated. As with the proxy sites he's a proponent of, the key to advertisement is NOT intrusion, it's doing the ad well and making it a clearly opt-in system that makes it good.

When I go to hulu or cnn or whatever I have a clear choice - use the site and tolerate ads (assuming the nice model of not using ad-blockers to bypass them), or simply choose not to use the site. With the kind of intrusive pop-ups that the author talks about and suggests creating, it removes the opt-in aspect. Where there isn't opt-in, users WILL get mad at the advertisers and negatively impact them overall... so if they really want better, higher paying ads, the answer is to create good ads, pay for them in targeted spots that actually cover the market, and make sure that the users have essentially agreed to see the ad in exchange for the service. None of that sounds like it *needs* to be intrusive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This article suggests that advertisements should be * more * intrusive , but his examples directly contradict the point .
What bothers many people most about pop-up ads and their ilk is not that it requires them to view the content , it 's the techniques used such as auto-reopening when you click to close , or opening tens or hundreds of windows .
As the author correctly states , many people do n't mind watching the pre-commercial on sites like cnn or hulu .
The point is n't that those are * really * intrusive but that an advertisement done well in a clearly opt-in way is tolerated .
As with the proxy sites he 's a proponent of , the key to advertisement is NOT intrusion , it 's doing the ad well and making it a clearly opt-in system that makes it good .
When I go to hulu or cnn or whatever I have a clear choice - use the site and tolerate ads ( assuming the nice model of not using ad-blockers to bypass them ) , or simply choose not to use the site .
With the kind of intrusive pop-ups that the author talks about and suggests creating , it removes the opt-in aspect .
Where there is n't opt-in , users WILL get mad at the advertisers and negatively impact them overall... so if they really want better , higher paying ads , the answer is to create good ads , pay for them in targeted spots that actually cover the market , and make sure that the users have essentially agreed to see the ad in exchange for the service .
None of that sounds like it * needs * to be intrusive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article suggests that advertisements should be *more* intrusive, but his examples directly contradict the point.
What bothers many people most about pop-up ads and their ilk is not that it requires them to view the content, it's the techniques used such as auto-reopening when you click to close, or opening tens or hundreds of windows.
As the author correctly states, many people don't mind watching the pre-commercial on sites like cnn or hulu.
The point isn't that those are *really* intrusive but that an advertisement done well in a clearly opt-in way is tolerated.
As with the proxy sites he's a proponent of, the key to advertisement is NOT intrusion, it's doing the ad well and making it a clearly opt-in system that makes it good.
When I go to hulu or cnn or whatever I have a clear choice - use the site and tolerate ads (assuming the nice model of not using ad-blockers to bypass them), or simply choose not to use the site.
With the kind of intrusive pop-ups that the author talks about and suggests creating, it removes the opt-in aspect.
Where there isn't opt-in, users WILL get mad at the advertisers and negatively impact them overall... so if they really want better, higher paying ads, the answer is to create good ads, pay for them in targeted spots that actually cover the market, and make sure that the users have essentially agreed to see the ad in exchange for the service.
None of that sounds like it *needs* to be intrusive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31089564</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265056020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that he's talking about enabling people with *limited* Internet access to broaden it. This isn't about evading censorship on your home connection. For example, schools (not universities) are required to do some content blocking. He's allowing it to be circumvented. If you don't agree with the premise that grade schools must block access to pornography (and other things) then take it up with the legislature -- there's no need for proxy sites like his.</p><p>Basically, he's set up a way to make money, it isn't working out and he's whining.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that he 's talking about enabling people with * limited * Internet access to broaden it .
This is n't about evading censorship on your home connection .
For example , schools ( not universities ) are required to do some content blocking .
He 's allowing it to be circumvented .
If you do n't agree with the premise that grade schools must block access to pornography ( and other things ) then take it up with the legislature -- there 's no need for proxy sites like his.Basically , he 's set up a way to make money , it is n't working out and he 's whining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that he's talking about enabling people with *limited* Internet access to broaden it.
This isn't about evading censorship on your home connection.
For example, schools (not universities) are required to do some content blocking.
He's allowing it to be circumvented.
If you don't agree with the premise that grade schools must block access to pornography (and other things) then take it up with the legislature -- there's no need for proxy sites like his.Basically, he's set up a way to make money, it isn't working out and he's whining.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31094798</id>
	<title>Re:Point?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Intrusive ads generate more revenue... yep<br>&amp;<br>| I propose that ads which are even more intrusive than pop-ups<br>| -- thus grabbing more of the user's attention and providing more<br>| value to the advertiser</p><p>Hell NO!<br>Intrusive ads just PISS PEOPLE OFF!</p><p>When a site provides a good service and the ads are UNintrusive<br>I click on them sometimes, but when they get annoying or, even<br>worse, *block* my way to the sites contents then it's either R.I.P.<br>or good-bye forever!<br>Even forced banner-clicking with a fixed amount of ads in exchange<br>for a certain period of access to a service is acceptable, but when you<br>screw up your content you might as well shoot yourselves in the arse.</p><p>PS did I mention that pop-ups are a PITA and thus a big source for<br>negative karma?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Intrusive ads generate more revenue... yep&amp; | I propose that ads which are even more intrusive than pop-ups | -- thus grabbing more of the user 's attention and providing more | value to the advertiserHell NO ! Intrusive ads just PISS PEOPLE OFF ! When a site provides a good service and the ads are UNintrusiveI click on them sometimes , but when they get annoying or , evenworse , * block * my way to the sites contents then it 's either R.I.P.or good-bye forever ! Even forced banner-clicking with a fixed amount of ads in exchangefor a certain period of access to a service is acceptable , but when youscrew up your content you might as well shoot yourselves in the arse.PS did I mention that pop-ups are a PITA and thus a big source fornegative karma ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Intrusive ads generate more revenue... yep&amp;| I propose that ads which are even more intrusive than pop-ups| -- thus grabbing more of the user's attention and providing more| value to the advertiserHell NO!Intrusive ads just PISS PEOPLE OFF!When a site provides a good service and the ads are UNintrusiveI click on them sometimes, but when they get annoying or, evenworse, *block* my way to the sites contents then it's either R.I.P.or good-bye forever!Even forced banner-clicking with a fixed amount of ads in exchangefor a certain period of access to a service is acceptable, but when youscrew up your content you might as well shoot yourselves in the arse.PS did I mention that pop-ups are a PITA and thus a big source fornegative karma?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087386</id>
	<title>Reading the f****ing post.</title>
	<author>SimonTheSoundMan</author>
	<datestamp>1265047200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know a rule of thumb for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is not to RTFA, but I can't be bothered to read this damn<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. post.</p><p>Can someone summarise?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know a rule of thumb for / .
is not to RTFA , but I ca n't be bothered to read this damn / .
post.Can someone summarise ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know a rule of thumb for /.
is not to RTFA, but I can't be bothered to read this damn /.
post.Can someone summarise?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087362</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>eparker05</author>
	<datestamp>1265047080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We can speak ad nauseum about what would be better, but the thesis here is pragmatic. Oppressive governments don't care about what the enlightened world thinks about freedom of speech/expression.. But thankfully, we have annoying ads that force people in countries with free speech to develop the tools used in those without free speech.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We can speak ad nauseum about what would be better , but the thesis here is pragmatic .
Oppressive governments do n't care about what the enlightened world thinks about freedom of speech/expression.. But thankfully , we have annoying ads that force people in countries with free speech to develop the tools used in those without free speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can speak ad nauseum about what would be better, but the thesis here is pragmatic.
Oppressive governments don't care about what the enlightened world thinks about freedom of speech/expression.. But thankfully, we have annoying ads that force people in countries with free speech to develop the tools used in those without free speech.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087534</id>
	<title>Fail for buying from Pizza Hut after seeing an ad</title>
	<author>PingXao</author>
	<datestamp>1265047980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ugh.  And no.  People already have the option of not blocking popups in most browsers.  Let those who want to see the ads disable the blocking feature.  Not me, not today, not tomorrow, not ever.</p><p>And seriously<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... Pizza Hut?  Chainstore pizza = fail without exception.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ugh .
And no .
People already have the option of not blocking popups in most browsers .
Let those who want to see the ads disable the blocking feature .
Not me , not today , not tomorrow , not ever.And seriously .... Pizza Hut ?
Chainstore pizza = fail without exception .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ugh.
And no.
People already have the option of not blocking popups in most browsers.
Let those who want to see the ads disable the blocking feature.
Not me, not today, not tomorrow, not ever.And seriously .... Pizza Hut?
Chainstore pizza = fail without exception.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087188</id>
	<title>I think I see your problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265046300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're trying to serve ads to people trying to get around government censorship. They're probably not interested in the new Maxi Pad with propellers. In fact, if somebody is using a proxy for privacy reasons at all, I don't think they're interested in buying, and thus giving out personal information, for anything. Your business model basically depends on the gullibility of your advertising clients. This is, as you're already finding, not sustainable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're trying to serve ads to people trying to get around government censorship .
They 're probably not interested in the new Maxi Pad with propellers .
In fact , if somebody is using a proxy for privacy reasons at all , I do n't think they 're interested in buying , and thus giving out personal information , for anything .
Your business model basically depends on the gullibility of your advertising clients .
This is , as you 're already finding , not sustainable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're trying to serve ads to people trying to get around government censorship.
They're probably not interested in the new Maxi Pad with propellers.
In fact, if somebody is using a proxy for privacy reasons at all, I don't think they're interested in buying, and thus giving out personal information, for anything.
Your business model basically depends on the gullibility of your advertising clients.
This is, as you're already finding, not sustainable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087488</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>poetmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1265047800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess the guy doesn't like asking for donations or something.</p><p>Making annoying ads different doesn't make them less annoying. There is a well known trend away from online advertising being effective in any format. Really, people don't want ads and don't have interest in them. Have a proxy and a cost for that proxy? ask for it. Relakks does so with their vpn, and if you want a good proxy I see no reason not to have to pay them too. Maybe have the free option include ads as they are now, but trying to make the ads more intrusive will not gain the desired effect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess the guy does n't like asking for donations or something.Making annoying ads different does n't make them less annoying .
There is a well known trend away from online advertising being effective in any format .
Really , people do n't want ads and do n't have interest in them .
Have a proxy and a cost for that proxy ?
ask for it .
Relakks does so with their vpn , and if you want a good proxy I see no reason not to have to pay them too .
Maybe have the free option include ads as they are now , but trying to make the ads more intrusive will not gain the desired effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess the guy doesn't like asking for donations or something.Making annoying ads different doesn't make them less annoying.
There is a well known trend away from online advertising being effective in any format.
Really, people don't want ads and don't have interest in them.
Have a proxy and a cost for that proxy?
ask for it.
Relakks does so with their vpn, and if you want a good proxy I see no reason not to have to pay them too.
Maybe have the free option include ads as they are now, but trying to make the ads more intrusive will not gain the desired effect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087286</id>
	<title>The Obvious Solution!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265046720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Betrayal for money! Allow me to explain:<br> <br>

Proxies serve four broad classes of user: 1)Dissidents in the world's various despotic hellholes. 2)The bored cubicle slaves of the first world, who wish to stick it to the man by updating their twitbook instead of collating TPS reports. 3)Various flavors of copyright infringers, either trying to avoid the copy cops, or trying to access streaming sites that block their country of residence. 4)Kiddie porn enthusiasts who would rather not be raped to death in prison.<br> <br>

Here is what you have to do: Choose which of these markets you actually care about, either because they make you warm and fuzzy, or because they pay well and don't use too much bandwidth. Advertise your proxy to <i>all</i> of these markets. For all of these classes <i>except</i> the one you care about, secretly sell the users' identifying information to data brokers. For instance, if you care a whole lot about idealistic democracy activists in repressive hellholes, you can finance your great-firewall-of-china penetrating proxy by selling out the facebook users of corporate America to their HR departments. If you want to stick up for the beleaguered lower-white-collar class' right to check its friends page at work(because after they cut your health benefits, man, you have to fight back somehow)  you can pay for it by selling out the democracy activists and paedos of the world to their respective governments.<br> <br>

See? A brilliant plan! Why Monetize your userbase when you could Judasize it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Betrayal for money !
Allow me to explain : Proxies serve four broad classes of user : 1 ) Dissidents in the world 's various despotic hellholes .
2 ) The bored cubicle slaves of the first world , who wish to stick it to the man by updating their twitbook instead of collating TPS reports .
3 ) Various flavors of copyright infringers , either trying to avoid the copy cops , or trying to access streaming sites that block their country of residence .
4 ) Kiddie porn enthusiasts who would rather not be raped to death in prison .
Here is what you have to do : Choose which of these markets you actually care about , either because they make you warm and fuzzy , or because they pay well and do n't use too much bandwidth .
Advertise your proxy to all of these markets .
For all of these classes except the one you care about , secretly sell the users ' identifying information to data brokers .
For instance , if you care a whole lot about idealistic democracy activists in repressive hellholes , you can finance your great-firewall-of-china penetrating proxy by selling out the facebook users of corporate America to their HR departments .
If you want to stick up for the beleaguered lower-white-collar class ' right to check its friends page at work ( because after they cut your health benefits , man , you have to fight back somehow ) you can pay for it by selling out the democracy activists and paedos of the world to their respective governments .
See ? A brilliant plan !
Why Monetize your userbase when you could Judasize it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Betrayal for money!
Allow me to explain: 

Proxies serve four broad classes of user: 1)Dissidents in the world's various despotic hellholes.
2)The bored cubicle slaves of the first world, who wish to stick it to the man by updating their twitbook instead of collating TPS reports.
3)Various flavors of copyright infringers, either trying to avoid the copy cops, or trying to access streaming sites that block their country of residence.
4)Kiddie porn enthusiasts who would rather not be raped to death in prison.
Here is what you have to do: Choose which of these markets you actually care about, either because they make you warm and fuzzy, or because they pay well and don't use too much bandwidth.
Advertise your proxy to all of these markets.
For all of these classes except the one you care about, secretly sell the users' identifying information to data brokers.
For instance, if you care a whole lot about idealistic democracy activists in repressive hellholes, you can finance your great-firewall-of-china penetrating proxy by selling out the facebook users of corporate America to their HR departments.
If you want to stick up for the beleaguered lower-white-collar class' right to check its friends page at work(because after they cut your health benefits, man, you have to fight back somehow)  you can pay for it by selling out the democracy activists and paedos of the world to their respective governments.
See? A brilliant plan!
Why Monetize your userbase when you could Judasize it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087600</id>
	<title>Fight the Customer and always lose</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1265048220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you want to see what happens when you don't fight the Customer see Google.  Even though most of Google's revenue is from advertising, without the people using their tools then they would not make any money so the people using their tools need to be considered Customers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to see what happens when you do n't fight the Customer see Google .
Even though most of Google 's revenue is from advertising , without the people using their tools then they would not make any money so the people using their tools need to be considered Customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to see what happens when you don't fight the Customer see Google.
Even though most of Google's revenue is from advertising, without the people using their tools then they would not make any money so the people using their tools need to be considered Customers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31089482</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone will have to pay.</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1265055600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Advertisement subsidized content is mostly worthless</i></p><p>I haven't seen a newspaper or magazine without ads. I haven't seen but a handful of web sites without ads. Are you saying magazines, newspapers, and the internet are mostly worthless? If so, maybe worthless to YOU, but most people would beg to differ.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Advertisement subsidized content is mostly worthlessI have n't seen a newspaper or magazine without ads .
I have n't seen but a handful of web sites without ads .
Are you saying magazines , newspapers , and the internet are mostly worthless ?
If so , maybe worthless to YOU , but most people would beg to differ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Advertisement subsidized content is mostly worthlessI haven't seen a newspaper or magazine without ads.
I haven't seen but a handful of web sites without ads.
Are you saying magazines, newspapers, and the internet are mostly worthless?
If so, maybe worthless to YOU, but most people would beg to differ.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087040</id>
	<title>TLDR</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265045700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087464</id>
	<title>This starts from a completely false premise...</title>
	<author>ericbrow</author>
	<datestamp>1265047680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The author assumes that advertisements are a good thing, and implies they are necessary.  Ads may be necessary to his business model, just like prostitutes are necessary to a pimp's business model.  I do not see how this shotgun effect of advertisements can continue to be effective.  It seems that most sites that sell advertising space try to make up for decreasing revenue from ads by adding more ads.  They aren't getting the reality that people don't like advertisements, don't click on advertisements, and those that do are idiots that are likely to fight any charges they may incur by inadvertently clicking on something.

How about a totally different concept:  sell a service that people want, and charge a reasonable price for it.  If your idea is a good one, people will pay.  If it's not a good idea, if your pricing is too high, it will fail.  Don't try to subsidize your possibly good venture with advertisements.  Thank you for letting me know about a  service I won't be using.

If you're determined to use advertisements, I'd try to do it like sites where it's more successful, like Google.  I can tell you if Slashdot had pop-ups and ads screaming in my face, I would not be using it either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The author assumes that advertisements are a good thing , and implies they are necessary .
Ads may be necessary to his business model , just like prostitutes are necessary to a pimp 's business model .
I do not see how this shotgun effect of advertisements can continue to be effective .
It seems that most sites that sell advertising space try to make up for decreasing revenue from ads by adding more ads .
They are n't getting the reality that people do n't like advertisements , do n't click on advertisements , and those that do are idiots that are likely to fight any charges they may incur by inadvertently clicking on something .
How about a totally different concept : sell a service that people want , and charge a reasonable price for it .
If your idea is a good one , people will pay .
If it 's not a good idea , if your pricing is too high , it will fail .
Do n't try to subsidize your possibly good venture with advertisements .
Thank you for letting me know about a service I wo n't be using .
If you 're determined to use advertisements , I 'd try to do it like sites where it 's more successful , like Google .
I can tell you if Slashdot had pop-ups and ads screaming in my face , I would not be using it either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The author assumes that advertisements are a good thing, and implies they are necessary.
Ads may be necessary to his business model, just like prostitutes are necessary to a pimp's business model.
I do not see how this shotgun effect of advertisements can continue to be effective.
It seems that most sites that sell advertising space try to make up for decreasing revenue from ads by adding more ads.
They aren't getting the reality that people don't like advertisements, don't click on advertisements, and those that do are idiots that are likely to fight any charges they may incur by inadvertently clicking on something.
How about a totally different concept:  sell a service that people want, and charge a reasonable price for it.
If your idea is a good one, people will pay.
If it's not a good idea, if your pricing is too high, it will fail.
Don't try to subsidize your possibly good venture with advertisements.
Thank you for letting me know about a  service I won't be using.
If you're determined to use advertisements, I'd try to do it like sites where it's more successful, like Google.
I can tell you if Slashdot had pop-ups and ads screaming in my face, I would not be using it either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087262</id>
	<title>What nonsense</title>
	<author>rudy\_wayne</author>
	<datestamp>1265046600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The author is a retard.  There is no need to go to a "proxy site" filled with annoying ads (although AdBlocker takes care of them).  Just Google for a list of proxy addreses and put one of them into your web browser's configuration settings.  If you are too stupid and/or lazy to do this then you should just suffer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The author is a retard .
There is no need to go to a " proxy site " filled with annoying ads ( although AdBlocker takes care of them ) .
Just Google for a list of proxy addreses and put one of them into your web browser 's configuration settings .
If you are too stupid and/or lazy to do this then you should just suffer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The author is a retard.
There is no need to go to a "proxy site" filled with annoying ads (although AdBlocker takes care of them).
Just Google for a list of proxy addreses and put one of them into your web browser's configuration settings.
If you are too stupid and/or lazy to do this then you should just suffer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31091396</id>
	<title>Re:A better solution</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1265021520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That is incredibly irritating, especially if I am browsing the web at night when guests are over.</i></p><p>Sounds like quite the party.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is incredibly irritating , especially if I am browsing the web at night when guests are over.Sounds like quite the party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is incredibly irritating, especially if I am browsing the web at night when guests are over.Sounds like quite the party.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087762</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1517228_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1517228_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31096912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1517228_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31097434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1517228_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31091932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1517228_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31088744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1517228_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31088626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1517228_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31091848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1517228_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31088694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1517228_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31089070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1517228_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1517228_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31088178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1517228_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1517228_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31089926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1517228_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1517228_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31089476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1517228_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31094884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1517228_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1517228_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1517228_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31089482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1517228_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31092658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1517228_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31091930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1517228_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31088436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1517228_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1517228_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31094798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1517228_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31088242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1517228_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1517228_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31089564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1517228_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31090876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1517228_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31090066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1517228_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1517228_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31091396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1517228_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31094052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1517228_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1517228_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1517228.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1517228.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087252
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1517228.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31089244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1517228.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31088046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1517228.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1517228.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1517228.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31089926
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1517228.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31096912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1517228.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31088242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31088436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1517228.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31089392
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1517228.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087518
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1517228.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31089576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1517228.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31091396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31092658
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1517228.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087600
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1517228.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31091930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31089476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1517228.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31089482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1517228.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1517228.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31088744
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1517228.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31094798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1517228.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087146
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1517228.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087534
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1517228.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087658
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1517228.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31091932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31088694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1517228.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31090066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087810
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1517228.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1517228.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31094884
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1517228.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087332
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1517228.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087590
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1517228.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087296
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1517228.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31090876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31088178
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1517228.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1517228.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31089348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1517228.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087330
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31089070
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087738
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31091848
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087582
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31089564
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31088626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31097434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31087416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1517228.31094052
</commentlist>
</conversation>
