<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_07_0319253</id>
	<title>Ars Technica Inveighs Against Ad Blocking</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1267967400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Ars Technica recently conducted a 12-hour experiment in which story content was hidden from users of popular ad blocking tools. <a href="http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars">Explaining the experiment</a>, Ken Fisher appealed to Ars's readership: 'My argument is simple: blocking ads can be devastating to the sites you love. I am not making an argument that blocking ads is a form of stealing, or is immoral, or unethical, or makes someone the son of the devil. It can result in people losing their jobs, it can result in less content on any given site, and it definitely can affect the quality of content. It can also put sites into a real advertising death spin. As ad revenues go down, many sites are lured into running advertising of a truly questionable nature. We've all seen it happen. I am very proud of the fact that we routinely talk to you guys in our feedback forum about the quality of our ads. I have proven over 12 years that we will fight on the behalf of readers whenever we can. Does that mean that there are the occasional intrusive ads, expanding this way and that? Yes, sometimes we have to accept those ads. But any of you reading this site for any significant period of time know that these are few and far between. We turn down offers every month for advertising like that out of respect for you guys. We simply ask that you return the favor and not block ads.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Ars Technica recently conducted a 12-hour experiment in which story content was hidden from users of popular ad blocking tools .
Explaining the experiment , Ken Fisher appealed to Ars 's readership : 'My argument is simple : blocking ads can be devastating to the sites you love .
I am not making an argument that blocking ads is a form of stealing , or is immoral , or unethical , or makes someone the son of the devil .
It can result in people losing their jobs , it can result in less content on any given site , and it definitely can affect the quality of content .
It can also put sites into a real advertising death spin .
As ad revenues go down , many sites are lured into running advertising of a truly questionable nature .
We 've all seen it happen .
I am very proud of the fact that we routinely talk to you guys in our feedback forum about the quality of our ads .
I have proven over 12 years that we will fight on the behalf of readers whenever we can .
Does that mean that there are the occasional intrusive ads , expanding this way and that ?
Yes , sometimes we have to accept those ads .
But any of you reading this site for any significant period of time know that these are few and far between .
We turn down offers every month for advertising like that out of respect for you guys .
We simply ask that you return the favor and not block ads .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Ars Technica recently conducted a 12-hour experiment in which story content was hidden from users of popular ad blocking tools.
Explaining the experiment, Ken Fisher appealed to Ars's readership: 'My argument is simple: blocking ads can be devastating to the sites you love.
I am not making an argument that blocking ads is a form of stealing, or is immoral, or unethical, or makes someone the son of the devil.
It can result in people losing their jobs, it can result in less content on any given site, and it definitely can affect the quality of content.
It can also put sites into a real advertising death spin.
As ad revenues go down, many sites are lured into running advertising of a truly questionable nature.
We've all seen it happen.
I am very proud of the fact that we routinely talk to you guys in our feedback forum about the quality of our ads.
I have proven over 12 years that we will fight on the behalf of readers whenever we can.
Does that mean that there are the occasional intrusive ads, expanding this way and that?
Yes, sometimes we have to accept those ads.
But any of you reading this site for any significant period of time know that these are few and far between.
We turn down offers every month for advertising like that out of respect for you guys.
We simply ask that you return the favor and not block ads.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389992</id>
	<title>Ars Technica? Who is that?</title>
	<author>wowbagger</author>
	<datestamp>1267978380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ars Technica, who is that? Oh yes, that's one of those annoying sites I don't read anymore, because they insist upon breaking every story into a dozen pages so they can push more ads.</p><p>Hey Ars,<br>here's some<br>advice:</p><p>(buy Brawndo capacitors - they got electrolytics, its what current craves!)<br>(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next)</p><p>Rather than<br>making me<br>search for<br>a Print link</p><p>(Buy BigJuggs Disks - you KNOW what you want to store!)<br>(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next)</p><p>So that I<br>can read<br>your site<br>quickly</p><p>(Play NoLife for free for the next three minutes- only $123.99!)<br>(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next)</p><p>and actually<br>use ALL of<br>my screen,<br>instead of<br>just the<br>middle</p><p>(Host your site on NotWorking Pollution!)<br>(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next)</p><p>why don't<br>you put it<br>on one page</p><p>(Microsoft, we aren't sociopathic monopolists, we just act like one)<br>(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next)</p><p>And see<br>if that<br>works.<br>(visit our sister site ICanHasContent!)<br>(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next)</p><p>(post us to Wastebook!)<br>(Post us to Shovel!)<br>(Post us to DidntReadIt!)<br>(Post us to NoLife!)<br>(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ars Technica , who is that ?
Oh yes , that 's one of those annoying sites I do n't read anymore , because they insist upon breaking every story into a dozen pages so they can push more ads.Hey Ars,here 's someadvice : ( buy Brawndo capacitors - they got electrolytics , its what current craves !
) ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next ) Rather thanmaking mesearch fora Print link ( Buy BigJuggs Disks - you KNOW what you want to store !
) ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next ) So that Ican readyour sitequickly ( Play NoLife for free for the next three minutes- only $ 123.99 !
) ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next ) and actuallyuse ALL ofmy screen,instead ofjust themiddle ( Host your site on NotWorking Pollution !
) ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next ) why don'tyou put iton one page ( Microsoft , we are n't sociopathic monopolists , we just act like one ) ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next ) And seeif thatworks .
( visit our sister site ICanHasContent !
) ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next ) ( post us to Wastebook !
) ( Post us to Shovel !
) ( Post us to DidntReadIt !
) ( Post us to NoLife !
) ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ars Technica, who is that?
Oh yes, that's one of those annoying sites I don't read anymore, because they insist upon breaking every story into a dozen pages so they can push more ads.Hey Ars,here's someadvice:(buy Brawndo capacitors - they got electrolytics, its what current craves!
)(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next)Rather thanmaking mesearch fora Print link(Buy BigJuggs Disks - you KNOW what you want to store!
)(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next)So that Ican readyour sitequickly(Play NoLife for free for the next three minutes- only $123.99!
)(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next)and actuallyuse ALL ofmy screen,instead ofjust themiddle(Host your site on NotWorking Pollution!
)(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next)why don'tyou put iton one page(Microsoft, we aren't sociopathic monopolists, we just act like one)(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next)And seeif thatworks.
(visit our sister site ICanHasContent!
)(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next)(post us to Wastebook!
)(Post us to Shovel!
)(Post us to DidntReadIt!
)(Post us to NoLife!
)(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392354</id>
	<title>Re:Cart before the horse again....</title>
	<author>brit74</author>
	<datestamp>1267991160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem I have with your comment is that it treats websites as one monolithic group.  The reality is more along the lines of:
<br> <br>
- Company A shows advertising on their website to gain revenue.<br>
- Company B comes along with "hard sell" tactics<br>
- Users get angry and block all ads.<br>
- Company A says that they've been responsible with advertising, but are getting hurt by ad-blocking.<br>
- Then you come along and say that Company A is to blame for "hard sell" tactics, as if Company A and Company B were the same company, or that Company A has any control whatsoever over what Company B does.  Now, not only does Company A lose ad-revenue, but users blame *them* for something they never did ("Ad-blocking is here to stay BECAUSE your foolish greed arrived first.")</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem I have with your comment is that it treats websites as one monolithic group .
The reality is more along the lines of : - Company A shows advertising on their website to gain revenue .
- Company B comes along with " hard sell " tactics - Users get angry and block all ads .
- Company A says that they 've been responsible with advertising , but are getting hurt by ad-blocking .
- Then you come along and say that Company A is to blame for " hard sell " tactics , as if Company A and Company B were the same company , or that Company A has any control whatsoever over what Company B does .
Now , not only does Company A lose ad-revenue , but users blame * them * for something they never did ( " Ad-blocking is here to stay BECAUSE your foolish greed arrived first .
" )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem I have with your comment is that it treats websites as one monolithic group.
The reality is more along the lines of:
 
- Company A shows advertising on their website to gain revenue.
- Company B comes along with "hard sell" tactics
- Users get angry and block all ads.
- Company A says that they've been responsible with advertising, but are getting hurt by ad-blocking.
- Then you come along and say that Company A is to blame for "hard sell" tactics, as if Company A and Company B were the same company, or that Company A has any control whatsoever over what Company B does.
Now, not only does Company A lose ad-revenue, but users blame *them* for something they never did ("Ad-blocking is here to stay BECAUSE your foolish greed arrived first.
")</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390084</id>
	<title>Oh no!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267978920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It can result in people losing their jobs, it can result in less content on any given site, and it definitely can affect the quality of content.</p></div><p>Listen - I don't mind your site going bankrupt, even if you have occasionally quality stuff. There are, and will always be enough suck... I mean generous people, providing content for free. If you and all your friends in similar industries quit your jobs right now, we'd be in pre-dotcom situation. Can you imagine the horror?</p><p>To me, it'd be like a dream come true.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It can result in people losing their jobs , it can result in less content on any given site , and it definitely can affect the quality of content.Listen - I do n't mind your site going bankrupt , even if you have occasionally quality stuff .
There are , and will always be enough suck... I mean generous people , providing content for free .
If you and all your friends in similar industries quit your jobs right now , we 'd be in pre-dotcom situation .
Can you imagine the horror ? To me , it 'd be like a dream come true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It can result in people losing their jobs, it can result in less content on any given site, and it definitely can affect the quality of content.Listen - I don't mind your site going bankrupt, even if you have occasionally quality stuff.
There are, and will always be enough suck... I mean generous people, providing content for free.
If you and all your friends in similar industries quit your jobs right now, we'd be in pre-dotcom situation.
Can you imagine the horror?To me, it'd be like a dream come true.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392224</id>
	<title>How about it CmdrTaco?</title>
	<author>nixkuroi</author>
	<datestamp>1267990500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think people are intentionally missing the point.</p><p>Someone makes a website.<br>The time it took to make the site costs them money either directly or indirectly (they made it, or they paid someone to make it).<br>Someone is paying to keep the web server online in bandwidth, hardware, content upkeep or software costs.</p><p>The only way most people can make money from a website is to show ads. Ad companies can tell if their ads are displaying and pay less if their ads are blocked. The only way for people using this model to pay for content managers, bandwidth costs, faster servers, etc is through ad revenue.  If site owners don't get paid, they can't pay for these things, so one or many of the things running the site don't work as well.</p><p>If you can't afford reliable content managers (or you yourself have to work a real job because you don't get paid enough), the content suffers. If you can't afford a lot of bandwidth, the site gets slow from throttling it.  If you can't afford up to date anti-virus (or a good ops guy to manage your firewall), your site is easier to hack and take down. If you can't afford a new nic card (or F5 for large sites with server farms), your site goes offline with hardware issues.</p><p>If a large business owns a site and it doesn't make money, it simply takes it offline or invests less in the above mentioned maintenance costs until the value of the site is diminished to the point that it's better to read another site - or a magazine for that matter.</p><p>The thing the guy is trying to say is that if you like the current state of the site, it takes money to maintain.  If it doesn't make enough money, he doesn't have to work for free.  If you don't care if the site goes down or degrades in some way, go ahead and block the ads. If you take a "I wasn't going to pay for it anyway, but will if it's free and those ads are like a tax on my sanity so I block them" stance, what he's saying is that you're reducing his ability to make money from his site and by extension, lowering the overall experience for everyone.</p><p>I worked for a news site that made money with a per-view ad model and can tell you that it takes several million dollars a month to maintain a world class news site. The AP must be paid for content. Editors to moderate the AP must be paid.  Production Operations guys, Test Operations guys, Developers, Release Engineers, Project Managers, Ad Operations, Managers for PM/Dev/Editorial/Test, Marketing, Sales...all have to be paid.</p><p>It's always a delicate balancing act with your corporate overlords who want to make a lot of money (to pay the bills, and appease THEIR corporate overlords) - while trying not to alienate your user.  Big invasive ads make more money per impression than little ones that few people see.  That you don't see giant ads on a given site all the time is a testament to their restraint or ability to ward off the bottom-lining execs.</p><p>I love free sites like Slashdot, but they're probably has high quality as they are because the majority of people let ads display.  Sure, Slashdot would probably still be on the web if nobody viewed the ads, but it's unlikely to have a lot of the features that ad revenue paid to have developed.</p><p>I'd be interested to hear what Slashdot would be like if they made no ad revenue from CmdrTaco.  Would they have been bought up by their corporate overlords?  What would that have meant if they hadn't?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think people are intentionally missing the point.Someone makes a website.The time it took to make the site costs them money either directly or indirectly ( they made it , or they paid someone to make it ) .Someone is paying to keep the web server online in bandwidth , hardware , content upkeep or software costs.The only way most people can make money from a website is to show ads .
Ad companies can tell if their ads are displaying and pay less if their ads are blocked .
The only way for people using this model to pay for content managers , bandwidth costs , faster servers , etc is through ad revenue .
If site owners do n't get paid , they ca n't pay for these things , so one or many of the things running the site do n't work as well.If you ca n't afford reliable content managers ( or you yourself have to work a real job because you do n't get paid enough ) , the content suffers .
If you ca n't afford a lot of bandwidth , the site gets slow from throttling it .
If you ca n't afford up to date anti-virus ( or a good ops guy to manage your firewall ) , your site is easier to hack and take down .
If you ca n't afford a new nic card ( or F5 for large sites with server farms ) , your site goes offline with hardware issues.If a large business owns a site and it does n't make money , it simply takes it offline or invests less in the above mentioned maintenance costs until the value of the site is diminished to the point that it 's better to read another site - or a magazine for that matter.The thing the guy is trying to say is that if you like the current state of the site , it takes money to maintain .
If it does n't make enough money , he does n't have to work for free .
If you do n't care if the site goes down or degrades in some way , go ahead and block the ads .
If you take a " I was n't going to pay for it anyway , but will if it 's free and those ads are like a tax on my sanity so I block them " stance , what he 's saying is that you 're reducing his ability to make money from his site and by extension , lowering the overall experience for everyone.I worked for a news site that made money with a per-view ad model and can tell you that it takes several million dollars a month to maintain a world class news site .
The AP must be paid for content .
Editors to moderate the AP must be paid .
Production Operations guys , Test Operations guys , Developers , Release Engineers , Project Managers , Ad Operations , Managers for PM/Dev/Editorial/Test , Marketing , Sales...all have to be paid.It 's always a delicate balancing act with your corporate overlords who want to make a lot of money ( to pay the bills , and appease THEIR corporate overlords ) - while trying not to alienate your user .
Big invasive ads make more money per impression than little ones that few people see .
That you do n't see giant ads on a given site all the time is a testament to their restraint or ability to ward off the bottom-lining execs.I love free sites like Slashdot , but they 're probably has high quality as they are because the majority of people let ads display .
Sure , Slashdot would probably still be on the web if nobody viewed the ads , but it 's unlikely to have a lot of the features that ad revenue paid to have developed.I 'd be interested to hear what Slashdot would be like if they made no ad revenue from CmdrTaco .
Would they have been bought up by their corporate overlords ?
What would that have meant if they had n't ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think people are intentionally missing the point.Someone makes a website.The time it took to make the site costs them money either directly or indirectly (they made it, or they paid someone to make it).Someone is paying to keep the web server online in bandwidth, hardware, content upkeep or software costs.The only way most people can make money from a website is to show ads.
Ad companies can tell if their ads are displaying and pay less if their ads are blocked.
The only way for people using this model to pay for content managers, bandwidth costs, faster servers, etc is through ad revenue.
If site owners don't get paid, they can't pay for these things, so one or many of the things running the site don't work as well.If you can't afford reliable content managers (or you yourself have to work a real job because you don't get paid enough), the content suffers.
If you can't afford a lot of bandwidth, the site gets slow from throttling it.
If you can't afford up to date anti-virus (or a good ops guy to manage your firewall), your site is easier to hack and take down.
If you can't afford a new nic card (or F5 for large sites with server farms), your site goes offline with hardware issues.If a large business owns a site and it doesn't make money, it simply takes it offline or invests less in the above mentioned maintenance costs until the value of the site is diminished to the point that it's better to read another site - or a magazine for that matter.The thing the guy is trying to say is that if you like the current state of the site, it takes money to maintain.
If it doesn't make enough money, he doesn't have to work for free.
If you don't care if the site goes down or degrades in some way, go ahead and block the ads.
If you take a "I wasn't going to pay for it anyway, but will if it's free and those ads are like a tax on my sanity so I block them" stance, what he's saying is that you're reducing his ability to make money from his site and by extension, lowering the overall experience for everyone.I worked for a news site that made money with a per-view ad model and can tell you that it takes several million dollars a month to maintain a world class news site.
The AP must be paid for content.
Editors to moderate the AP must be paid.
Production Operations guys, Test Operations guys, Developers, Release Engineers, Project Managers, Ad Operations, Managers for PM/Dev/Editorial/Test, Marketing, Sales...all have to be paid.It's always a delicate balancing act with your corporate overlords who want to make a lot of money (to pay the bills, and appease THEIR corporate overlords) - while trying not to alienate your user.
Big invasive ads make more money per impression than little ones that few people see.
That you don't see giant ads on a given site all the time is a testament to their restraint or ability to ward off the bottom-lining execs.I love free sites like Slashdot, but they're probably has high quality as they are because the majority of people let ads display.
Sure, Slashdot would probably still be on the web if nobody viewed the ads, but it's unlikely to have a lot of the features that ad revenue paid to have developed.I'd be interested to hear what Slashdot would be like if they made no ad revenue from CmdrTaco.
Would they have been bought up by their corporate overlords?
What would that have meant if they hadn't?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394896</id>
	<title>Back in the day...</title>
	<author>fortfive</author>
	<datestamp>1267964460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...content on the web was mostly generated by amateurs in their spare time.

And it was way more informative, and way more entertaining.

And the ads were few, far between, and for stuff I might actually buy.

So there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...content on the web was mostly generated by amateurs in their spare time .
And it was way more informative , and way more entertaining .
And the ads were few , far between , and for stuff I might actually buy .
So there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...content on the web was mostly generated by amateurs in their spare time.
And it was way more informative, and way more entertaining.
And the ads were few, far between, and for stuff I might actually buy.
So there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388738</id>
	<title>It's the freeloaders time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267971060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somehow Internet has made people to forget that creating quality content costs money. Often a lot of money. Often with these kind of things I'm really surprised at how dumb nerdy people can be too. You know, us who should know better and <i>not be</i> those stupid sheeps who are happy have a "mindless" job and then watch tv for rest of the evening and <i>still enjoy it</i>, even if theres no mentally requiring tasks involved.</p><p>But all the while a lot of people, mostly us geeks, cannot grasp that immaterial products and content also costs to create and takes just the same manhours. This is usually the same thing on discussions about piracy too - there's always someone pointing out that "duplicating" that content to sell it to you doesn't cost anything. Really? Are we really that dumb? That may not cost much, but it's creating it that does and those costs are got back from selling it to people. A lot of times a lot later, with some forms of entertainment even years later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somehow Internet has made people to forget that creating quality content costs money .
Often a lot of money .
Often with these kind of things I 'm really surprised at how dumb nerdy people can be too .
You know , us who should know better and not be those stupid sheeps who are happy have a " mindless " job and then watch tv for rest of the evening and still enjoy it , even if theres no mentally requiring tasks involved.But all the while a lot of people , mostly us geeks , can not grasp that immaterial products and content also costs to create and takes just the same manhours .
This is usually the same thing on discussions about piracy too - there 's always someone pointing out that " duplicating " that content to sell it to you does n't cost anything .
Really ? Are we really that dumb ?
That may not cost much , but it 's creating it that does and those costs are got back from selling it to people .
A lot of times a lot later , with some forms of entertainment even years later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somehow Internet has made people to forget that creating quality content costs money.
Often a lot of money.
Often with these kind of things I'm really surprised at how dumb nerdy people can be too.
You know, us who should know better and not be those stupid sheeps who are happy have a "mindless" job and then watch tv for rest of the evening and still enjoy it, even if theres no mentally requiring tasks involved.But all the while a lot of people, mostly us geeks, cannot grasp that immaterial products and content also costs to create and takes just the same manhours.
This is usually the same thing on discussions about piracy too - there's always someone pointing out that "duplicating" that content to sell it to you doesn't cost anything.
Really? Are we really that dumb?
That may not cost much, but it's creating it that does and those costs are got back from selling it to people.
A lot of times a lot later, with some forms of entertainment even years later.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391796</id>
	<title>Use FlashBlock</title>
	<author>Weezul</author>
	<datestamp>1267988400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone who leaves tabs open needs a flash blocker, like FlashBlock under Safari and ClickToFlash under Safari, not necessarily an ad blocker.  You can always still load desirable flash objects by clicking them.</p><p>Any advertiser could circumvent your ad blocker with flash ads hosted by the content distributor, that flash will still crash your browser.  Heck, I've found that even intentional flash like games, youtube, and porn can crash the browser, so you need flash blocked whenever you hit reopen all windows from last session.</p><p>I'm quite happy leaving ads unblocked now that flash is blocked almost completely.  Advertisers still get their impressions so long as those impressions are not flash.  All web functionality is preserved.  All for the small cost of clicking desirable flash games and videos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who leaves tabs open needs a flash blocker , like FlashBlock under Safari and ClickToFlash under Safari , not necessarily an ad blocker .
You can always still load desirable flash objects by clicking them.Any advertiser could circumvent your ad blocker with flash ads hosted by the content distributor , that flash will still crash your browser .
Heck , I 've found that even intentional flash like games , youtube , and porn can crash the browser , so you need flash blocked whenever you hit reopen all windows from last session.I 'm quite happy leaving ads unblocked now that flash is blocked almost completely .
Advertisers still get their impressions so long as those impressions are not flash .
All web functionality is preserved .
All for the small cost of clicking desirable flash games and videos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who leaves tabs open needs a flash blocker, like FlashBlock under Safari and ClickToFlash under Safari, not necessarily an ad blocker.
You can always still load desirable flash objects by clicking them.Any advertiser could circumvent your ad blocker with flash ads hosted by the content distributor, that flash will still crash your browser.
Heck, I've found that even intentional flash like games, youtube, and porn can crash the browser, so you need flash blocked whenever you hit reopen all windows from last session.I'm quite happy leaving ads unblocked now that flash is blocked almost completely.
Advertisers still get their impressions so long as those impressions are not flash.
All web functionality is preserved.
All for the small cost of clicking desirable flash games and videos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391666</id>
	<title>Playing devil's advocate here</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1267987680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The TV station does not know whether you switch and neither does the advertiser, so the ad space is sold by viewer averages for the program/hour and any fall-off is just accepted as the way TV-ads work.
</p><p>But on the net, you can measure eyeballs, and so advertisers have become obsessed with counting eyeballs.
</p><p>When a tv ad goes out, the only way to measure its success is to see if the product sells, and of course those sales might be unrelated to the ad.
</p><p>But when you run a internet ad, you CAN in real time track it, all the way from how many view it, from which sites to who arrives at your site. And this creates a drive in advertisers to attempt to maximize this in ways that they would not consider with tv-ads. Maybe it is also a budget thing, internet ads are typically low budget affairs. The Coca-cola's of this world don't bother with overly annoying ads because they got the resources to produce ads that people love to see.
</p><p>But some cheapo company WANTS to see his conversion rates increase and hey, if they can't help but see it, they must click on it right?
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The TV station does not know whether you switch and neither does the advertiser , so the ad space is sold by viewer averages for the program/hour and any fall-off is just accepted as the way TV-ads work .
But on the net , you can measure eyeballs , and so advertisers have become obsessed with counting eyeballs .
When a tv ad goes out , the only way to measure its success is to see if the product sells , and of course those sales might be unrelated to the ad .
But when you run a internet ad , you CAN in real time track it , all the way from how many view it , from which sites to who arrives at your site .
And this creates a drive in advertisers to attempt to maximize this in ways that they would not consider with tv-ads .
Maybe it is also a budget thing , internet ads are typically low budget affairs .
The Coca-cola 's of this world do n't bother with overly annoying ads because they got the resources to produce ads that people love to see .
But some cheapo company WANTS to see his conversion rates increase and hey , if they ca n't help but see it , they must click on it right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The TV station does not know whether you switch and neither does the advertiser, so the ad space is sold by viewer averages for the program/hour and any fall-off is just accepted as the way TV-ads work.
But on the net, you can measure eyeballs, and so advertisers have become obsessed with counting eyeballs.
When a tv ad goes out, the only way to measure its success is to see if the product sells, and of course those sales might be unrelated to the ad.
But when you run a internet ad, you CAN in real time track it, all the way from how many view it, from which sites to who arrives at your site.
And this creates a drive in advertisers to attempt to maximize this in ways that they would not consider with tv-ads.
Maybe it is also a budget thing, internet ads are typically low budget affairs.
The Coca-cola's of this world don't bother with overly annoying ads because they got the resources to produce ads that people love to see.
But some cheapo company WANTS to see his conversion rates increase and hey, if they can't help but see it, they must click on it right?
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390272</id>
	<title>keep content on ONE domain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267979940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am only going to load content from the same domain as the page I'm viewing, I'm only going to run scripts from the same domain (assuming there is any actual *need* for scripts at all).</p><p>If that causes your site to implode then then You're Doing It Wrong(TM)</p><p>Of course that rather breaks all third party ads on most sites, but then I've never understood this ad business model thing, I let anyone enjoy things I've produced online for free without having to have their eyes bleed and their CPU catch fire by running a flash ad for a few fractions of a penny. Maybe I'm just one of those evil foreign commies who hates the US you all seem so paranoid about over there<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am only going to load content from the same domain as the page I 'm viewing , I 'm only going to run scripts from the same domain ( assuming there is any actual * need * for scripts at all ) .If that causes your site to implode then then You 're Doing It Wrong ( TM ) Of course that rather breaks all third party ads on most sites , but then I 've never understood this ad business model thing , I let anyone enjoy things I 've produced online for free without having to have their eyes bleed and their CPU catch fire by running a flash ad for a few fractions of a penny .
Maybe I 'm just one of those evil foreign commies who hates the US you all seem so paranoid about over there ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am only going to load content from the same domain as the page I'm viewing, I'm only going to run scripts from the same domain (assuming there is any actual *need* for scripts at all).If that causes your site to implode then then You're Doing It Wrong(TM)Of course that rather breaks all third party ads on most sites, but then I've never understood this ad business model thing, I let anyone enjoy things I've produced online for free without having to have their eyes bleed and their CPU catch fire by running a flash ad for a few fractions of a penny.
Maybe I'm just one of those evil foreign commies who hates the US you all seem so paranoid about over there ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389612</id>
	<title>Packages are the future</title>
	<author>cellurl</author>
	<datestamp>1267975920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>We all know where this is headed.<br>
In the future you will be offered cable-esque packages.<br> <br>

$29.95/mo for 100 of your favorite sites ad free. wsj, Nickjr,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>
$9.95/mo for 10 of your favorite sites ad free.<br> <br> <br>


<a href="http://www.wikispeedia.org/" title="wikispeedia.org" rel="nofollow">Legal speed</a> [wikispeedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>We all know where this is headed .
In the future you will be offered cable-esque packages .
$ 29.95/mo for 100 of your favorite sites ad free .
wsj , Nickjr , .. . $ 9.95/mo for 10 of your favorite sites ad free .
Legal speed [ wikispeedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all know where this is headed.
In the future you will be offered cable-esque packages.
$29.95/mo for 100 of your favorite sites ad free.
wsj, Nickjr, ...
$9.95/mo for 10 of your favorite sites ad free.
Legal speed [wikispeedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31399524</id>
	<title>in adblock plus you can whitelist a site</title>
	<author>jeanph01</author>
	<datestamp>1268055960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To "unblock" an ad-blocked site in ad-block plus, the technique is described here :<br><a href="http://www.devcha.com/2007/08/how-to-disable-adblock-plus-or.html" title="devcha.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.devcha.com/2007/08/how-to-disable-adblock-plus-or.html</a> [devcha.com]</p><p>I think it's fare so ask us to disable our ad blocking engine for specific site we visit often.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To " unblock " an ad-blocked site in ad-block plus , the technique is described here : http : //www.devcha.com/2007/08/how-to-disable-adblock-plus-or.html [ devcha.com ] I think it 's fare so ask us to disable our ad blocking engine for specific site we visit often .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To "unblock" an ad-blocked site in ad-block plus, the technique is described here :http://www.devcha.com/2007/08/how-to-disable-adblock-plus-or.html [devcha.com]I think it's fare so ask us to disable our ad blocking engine for specific site we visit often.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389706</id>
	<title>Scholarly cloaking</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1267976460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You won't be indexed by search engines</p></div><p>Elsevier, Wiley, Springerlink, JSTOR, and other sites in Google Scholar appear to be indexed despite all the cloaking they do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You wo n't be indexed by search enginesElsevier , Wiley , Springerlink , JSTOR , and other sites in Google Scholar appear to be indexed despite all the cloaking they do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You won't be indexed by search enginesElsevier, Wiley, Springerlink, JSTOR, and other sites in Google Scholar appear to be indexed despite all the cloaking they do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393068</id>
	<title>No You Don't -- Grow a Pair</title>
	<author>hduff</author>
	<datestamp>1267952520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does that mean that there are the occasional intrusive ads, expanding this way and that? Yes, sometimes we have to accept those ads.</p></div><p>Have the courage of your convictions if you want credibility and <b>never</b> accept those ads. Otherwise, all I hear from you is "Blah, blah,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... adverts<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..., blah, blah,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... more money<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..., blah, blah, blah."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does that mean that there are the occasional intrusive ads , expanding this way and that ?
Yes , sometimes we have to accept those ads.Have the courage of your convictions if you want credibility and never accept those ads .
Otherwise , all I hear from you is " Blah , blah , ... adverts ... , blah , blah , ... more money ... , blah , blah , blah .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does that mean that there are the occasional intrusive ads, expanding this way and that?
Yes, sometimes we have to accept those ads.Have the courage of your convictions if you want credibility and never accept those ads.
Otherwise, all I hear from you is "Blah, blah, ... adverts ..., blah, blah, ... more money ..., blah, blah, blah.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388800</id>
	<title>Cant read with Seizure Robot adds in my view</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267971780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use an adblocker purely because I can't read articles with flashing pictures and text in my vision. I accept targeted ads that are non obtrusive, but when content makers continually allow obnoxious ads that ruin the experience the reading public have few options.  Would they prefer I didn't visit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use an adblocker purely because I ca n't read articles with flashing pictures and text in my vision .
I accept targeted ads that are non obtrusive , but when content makers continually allow obnoxious ads that ruin the experience the reading public have few options .
Would they prefer I did n't visit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use an adblocker purely because I can't read articles with flashing pictures and text in my vision.
I accept targeted ads that are non obtrusive, but when content makers continually allow obnoxious ads that ruin the experience the reading public have few options.
Would they prefer I didn't visit?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390948</id>
	<title>Nut up or Shut up</title>
	<author>j\_166</author>
	<datestamp>1267983840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See, here's the thing: I don't care.</p><p>Clearly you have the technology to withhold content from users running adblockers, so why don't you just do that?</p><p>Why don't we make a deal? I don't care how you run your site if you don't care how I run my browser. If that means excluding me from your content if I refuse to look at ads or run flash or scripts, then so be it. If its compelling enough content to make me turn off my ad blocker, than I will. If you're worried about losing impressions due to people not knowing why your site isn't rendering, include a message saying as much in the ad-block version.</p><p>Its time to nut up or shut up. Bitching about it in this article is a lame attempt at emotional extortion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See , here 's the thing : I do n't care.Clearly you have the technology to withhold content from users running adblockers , so why do n't you just do that ? Why do n't we make a deal ?
I do n't care how you run your site if you do n't care how I run my browser .
If that means excluding me from your content if I refuse to look at ads or run flash or scripts , then so be it .
If its compelling enough content to make me turn off my ad blocker , than I will .
If you 're worried about losing impressions due to people not knowing why your site is n't rendering , include a message saying as much in the ad-block version.Its time to nut up or shut up .
Bitching about it in this article is a lame attempt at emotional extortion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See, here's the thing: I don't care.Clearly you have the technology to withhold content from users running adblockers, so why don't you just do that?Why don't we make a deal?
I don't care how you run your site if you don't care how I run my browser.
If that means excluding me from your content if I refuse to look at ads or run flash or scripts, then so be it.
If its compelling enough content to make me turn off my ad blocker, than I will.
If you're worried about losing impressions due to people not knowing why your site isn't rendering, include a message saying as much in the ad-block version.Its time to nut up or shut up.
Bitching about it in this article is a lame attempt at emotional extortion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391558</id>
	<title>enough with the flash ads</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267987080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I flashblock cause every time I visit a page, my cpu goes to 100\% ( 4 year old laptop) and actually runs at dead slow speeds (responce). no more flashes, specially with sound, for me</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I flashblock cause every time I visit a page , my cpu goes to 100 \ % ( 4 year old laptop ) and actually runs at dead slow speeds ( responce ) .
no more flashes , specially with sound , for me</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I flashblock cause every time I visit a page, my cpu goes to 100\% ( 4 year old laptop) and actually runs at dead slow speeds (responce).
no more flashes, specially with sound, for me</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389936</id>
	<title>I used to create banner ads...</title>
	<author>webdog314</author>
	<datestamp>1267977960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am embarrassed to say that about a decade ago, I was one of those designers who was making ad banners for various advertising agencies. Interestingly, at the time, our specifications for design rarely included animation (as a gif - flash? what's that?) and if they were animated, it had to be tasteful and minimal. The LAST thing you wanted to do was piss off a potential customer with an invasive and annoying banner ad. In less than a decade, advertisers on the internet have completely reversed this principle, and while I no longer do this kind of work, I can't understand their reasoning. Advertising ALWAYS works better when you can attract the attention of a potential customer in a POSITIVE way rather than a NEGATIVE one. Maybe they are funny, or amazing, or even thought provoking. But successful ads are never annoying.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am embarrassed to say that about a decade ago , I was one of those designers who was making ad banners for various advertising agencies .
Interestingly , at the time , our specifications for design rarely included animation ( as a gif - flash ?
what 's that ?
) and if they were animated , it had to be tasteful and minimal .
The LAST thing you wanted to do was piss off a potential customer with an invasive and annoying banner ad .
In less than a decade , advertisers on the internet have completely reversed this principle , and while I no longer do this kind of work , I ca n't understand their reasoning .
Advertising ALWAYS works better when you can attract the attention of a potential customer in a POSITIVE way rather than a NEGATIVE one .
Maybe they are funny , or amazing , or even thought provoking .
But successful ads are never annoying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am embarrassed to say that about a decade ago, I was one of those designers who was making ad banners for various advertising agencies.
Interestingly, at the time, our specifications for design rarely included animation (as a gif - flash?
what's that?
) and if they were animated, it had to be tasteful and minimal.
The LAST thing you wanted to do was piss off a potential customer with an invasive and annoying banner ad.
In less than a decade, advertisers on the internet have completely reversed this principle, and while I no longer do this kind of work, I can't understand their reasoning.
Advertising ALWAYS works better when you can attract the attention of a potential customer in a POSITIVE way rather than a NEGATIVE one.
Maybe they are funny, or amazing, or even thought provoking.
But successful ads are never annoying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390766</id>
	<title>Re:Ads suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267982940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your analogy is completely incorrect.  You can't send ads by fax because they are unsolicited, and receiving a fax is an unsolicited activity (the fax machine is just a receiver) unless you have requested a fax via some other medium.</p><p>Requesting a webpage, however, is directly soliciting the content of that page.  That content may include advertisements.  If you don't want the ads, don't request the page.  If you don't know if the page has ads in advance, then the gamble is yours to take, or not take.</p><p>However, it seems you want to have both free content, and no ads.  Luckily you can just ride on the back of everyone else who does view the ads.  You are freeloading on everyone else, and you have no problem with that.  So you either think you are innately better than everyone else, or you are just an asshole, or maybe both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your analogy is completely incorrect .
You ca n't send ads by fax because they are unsolicited , and receiving a fax is an unsolicited activity ( the fax machine is just a receiver ) unless you have requested a fax via some other medium.Requesting a webpage , however , is directly soliciting the content of that page .
That content may include advertisements .
If you do n't want the ads , do n't request the page .
If you do n't know if the page has ads in advance , then the gamble is yours to take , or not take.However , it seems you want to have both free content , and no ads .
Luckily you can just ride on the back of everyone else who does view the ads .
You are freeloading on everyone else , and you have no problem with that .
So you either think you are innately better than everyone else , or you are just an asshole , or maybe both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your analogy is completely incorrect.
You can't send ads by fax because they are unsolicited, and receiving a fax is an unsolicited activity (the fax machine is just a receiver) unless you have requested a fax via some other medium.Requesting a webpage, however, is directly soliciting the content of that page.
That content may include advertisements.
If you don't want the ads, don't request the page.
If you don't know if the page has ads in advance, then the gamble is yours to take, or not take.However, it seems you want to have both free content, and no ads.
Luckily you can just ride on the back of everyone else who does view the ads.
You are freeloading on everyone else, and you have no problem with that.
So you either think you are innately better than everyone else, or you are just an asshole, or maybe both.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31406578</id>
	<title>Re:How about it CmdrTaco?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268047440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>BZZZZZT</b> wrong.  Advertising is NOT the only way to make money on a webpage.  That's like saying that TV and Radio stations make 100\% of their money from ads.  Guess what, they don't.</p><p>The problem with websites (or anything else reliant on pissing people off for money) is that you think that WE owe YOU something.  No.  We don't.  You should be fucking PRIVILEGED that I'm even here.  I'm here now, so do something.  And if you piss me off, I WILL leave, and then you have nothing.</p><p>Your business model not working for you because times changed?  Boo hoo, tough luck.  Change your business model, because holding society back into the past doesn't work.</p><p>To use the old cliche, I'm sure the buggy-whip makers were just as pissed off as you are.  But they're not around any more, now are they?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BZZZZZT wrong .
Advertising is NOT the only way to make money on a webpage .
That 's like saying that TV and Radio stations make 100 \ % of their money from ads .
Guess what , they do n't.The problem with websites ( or anything else reliant on pissing people off for money ) is that you think that WE owe YOU something .
No. We do n't .
You should be fucking PRIVILEGED that I 'm even here .
I 'm here now , so do something .
And if you piss me off , I WILL leave , and then you have nothing.Your business model not working for you because times changed ?
Boo hoo , tough luck .
Change your business model , because holding society back into the past does n't work.To use the old cliche , I 'm sure the buggy-whip makers were just as pissed off as you are .
But they 're not around any more , now are they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BZZZZZT wrong.
Advertising is NOT the only way to make money on a webpage.
That's like saying that TV and Radio stations make 100\% of their money from ads.
Guess what, they don't.The problem with websites (or anything else reliant on pissing people off for money) is that you think that WE owe YOU something.
No.  We don't.
You should be fucking PRIVILEGED that I'm even here.
I'm here now, so do something.
And if you piss me off, I WILL leave, and then you have nothing.Your business model not working for you because times changed?
Boo hoo, tough luck.
Change your business model, because holding society back into the past doesn't work.To use the old cliche, I'm sure the buggy-whip makers were just as pissed off as you are.
But they're not around any more, now are they?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390568</id>
	<title>The Problem is Third-Party Ads</title>
	<author>Prototerm</author>
	<datestamp>1267981800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, here's a really radical idea: Maybe the problem isn't the ads, but that the ads are provided by third party hosting sites that are out of the control of the web site *using* those ads. If the web site hosted the ad file, then *they* would be held responsible for the singing, dancing gophers trying to sell you the latest in prophylactics, and ad-blockers would be less effective.</p><p>But in general, the reason ad blocking exists, and will continue to exist is:<br>1) animation (any kind)<br>2) sound and/or music<br>3) popups, pupunders, and any other sort of ad that *demands* your immediate attention like a little kid jumping up and down, waving his hands because he has to go to the bathroom.</p><p>Advertisers need to understand: we *tolerate* you. But make yourself too annoying, and we *will* cut you off at the knees. This is true of Television (Tivo), Radio (iPod), Newspapers (yeah, just flip the page here), and now the Internet. Push us too far, and someone *will* develop ad blocking software that happily tells you we are viewing your ad, while at the same time dropping the whole thing in the trash. Please don't turn this into a war. It's one you can't win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , here 's a really radical idea : Maybe the problem is n't the ads , but that the ads are provided by third party hosting sites that are out of the control of the web site * using * those ads .
If the web site hosted the ad file , then * they * would be held responsible for the singing , dancing gophers trying to sell you the latest in prophylactics , and ad-blockers would be less effective.But in general , the reason ad blocking exists , and will continue to exist is : 1 ) animation ( any kind ) 2 ) sound and/or music3 ) popups , pupunders , and any other sort of ad that * demands * your immediate attention like a little kid jumping up and down , waving his hands because he has to go to the bathroom.Advertisers need to understand : we * tolerate * you .
But make yourself too annoying , and we * will * cut you off at the knees .
This is true of Television ( Tivo ) , Radio ( iPod ) , Newspapers ( yeah , just flip the page here ) , and now the Internet .
Push us too far , and someone * will * develop ad blocking software that happily tells you we are viewing your ad , while at the same time dropping the whole thing in the trash .
Please do n't turn this into a war .
It 's one you ca n't win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, here's a really radical idea: Maybe the problem isn't the ads, but that the ads are provided by third party hosting sites that are out of the control of the web site *using* those ads.
If the web site hosted the ad file, then *they* would be held responsible for the singing, dancing gophers trying to sell you the latest in prophylactics, and ad-blockers would be less effective.But in general, the reason ad blocking exists, and will continue to exist is:1) animation (any kind)2) sound and/or music3) popups, pupunders, and any other sort of ad that *demands* your immediate attention like a little kid jumping up and down, waving his hands because he has to go to the bathroom.Advertisers need to understand: we *tolerate* you.
But make yourself too annoying, and we *will* cut you off at the knees.
This is true of Television (Tivo), Radio (iPod), Newspapers (yeah, just flip the page here), and now the Internet.
Push us too far, and someone *will* develop ad blocking software that happily tells you we are viewing your ad, while at the same time dropping the whole thing in the trash.
Please don't turn this into a war.
It's one you can't win.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390438</id>
	<title>Re:The other side: Ad abuse and malware</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1267981020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be fair, browsing the Web using Windows is high-risk.</p><p>If you can't abide Linux due to gaming, use a Linux browser appliance and browse with that. It won't be enough load on a gaming PC to matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , browsing the Web using Windows is high-risk.If you ca n't abide Linux due to gaming , use a Linux browser appliance and browse with that .
It wo n't be enough load on a gaming PC to matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, browsing the Web using Windows is high-risk.If you can't abide Linux due to gaming, use a Linux browser appliance and browse with that.
It won't be enough load on a gaming PC to matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389282</id>
	<title>the problem with ads these days</title>
	<author>RobertLTux</author>
	<datestamp>1267974120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>even if you ignore the pop over under  float frames interstial type things most pages these days are</p><p>counting from the left<br>Ad rail with a few site links<br>content frame with a half dozen embeded ads<br>first rail of site link content<br>second rail of site link content (with videos) and duplicates of first rail<br>ad rail number 2<br>ad rail number 3<br>then you mix in the banners scattered across run of the page and the list of comments and various blog and share links</p><p>ONLY 5 PERCENT OF THE PAGE IS ACTUAL CONTENT</p><p>oh btw am i mistaken that ad block plus actually DOES NOT DOWNLOAD THE ADS IT BLOCKS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>even if you ignore the pop over under float frames interstial type things most pages these days arecounting from the leftAd rail with a few site linkscontent frame with a half dozen embeded adsfirst rail of site link contentsecond rail of site link content ( with videos ) and duplicates of first railad rail number 2ad rail number 3then you mix in the banners scattered across run of the page and the list of comments and various blog and share linksONLY 5 PERCENT OF THE PAGE IS ACTUAL CONTENToh btw am i mistaken that ad block plus actually DOES NOT DOWNLOAD THE ADS IT BLOCKS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>even if you ignore the pop over under  float frames interstial type things most pages these days arecounting from the leftAd rail with a few site linkscontent frame with a half dozen embeded adsfirst rail of site link contentsecond rail of site link content (with videos) and duplicates of first railad rail number 2ad rail number 3then you mix in the banners scattered across run of the page and the list of comments and various blog and share linksONLY 5 PERCENT OF THE PAGE IS ACTUAL CONTENToh btw am i mistaken that ad block plus actually DOES NOT DOWNLOAD THE ADS IT BLOCKS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389362</id>
	<title>Internet exchange.</title>
	<author>Albert Sandberg</author>
	<datestamp>1267974540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The main thing with internet is that it's free exchange of information. It's just profit-hungry news companies that needed ads to begin with (since other companies deals with physical products). It's basicly in the last few years that people are demanding that their web envadours are going to be financially secure and pay their salaries.</p><p>The main problem (cost) is that of bandwidth and the ads sure haven't made that easier.</p><p>I never use ad-blockers but when I see animated noisy ads I sure wish I would.. but instead I simply stop visiting those pages for most of the time. Ads are fucking annoying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The main thing with internet is that it 's free exchange of information .
It 's just profit-hungry news companies that needed ads to begin with ( since other companies deals with physical products ) .
It 's basicly in the last few years that people are demanding that their web envadours are going to be financially secure and pay their salaries.The main problem ( cost ) is that of bandwidth and the ads sure have n't made that easier.I never use ad-blockers but when I see animated noisy ads I sure wish I would.. but instead I simply stop visiting those pages for most of the time .
Ads are fucking annoying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main thing with internet is that it's free exchange of information.
It's just profit-hungry news companies that needed ads to begin with (since other companies deals with physical products).
It's basicly in the last few years that people are demanding that their web envadours are going to be financially secure and pay their salaries.The main problem (cost) is that of bandwidth and the ads sure haven't made that easier.I never use ad-blockers but when I see animated noisy ads I sure wish I would.. but instead I simply stop visiting those pages for most of the time.
Ads are fucking annoying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391164</id>
	<title>Another kind of blocking?</title>
	<author>NorthWay</author>
	<datestamp>1267984980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does anyone know of an alternative kind of ad blocker?

I'm thinking of something that actually \_does\_ download the ad, but does not show it in the browser. Everyone happy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone know of an alternative kind of ad blocker ?
I 'm thinking of something that actually \ _does \ _ download the ad , but does not show it in the browser .
Everyone happy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone know of an alternative kind of ad blocker?
I'm thinking of something that actually \_does\_ download the ad, but does not show it in the browser.
Everyone happy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31395316</id>
	<title>Invasive ads</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1267967760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never, ever ran adblockers until advertisers became so obnoxious that they insist on displaying their ads over content in floating flash objects, which don't always turn off when clicked, and when they started with the auto-playing video (with audio) crap. I was fine with banner and text ads and accepted them as the reality that content providers need to make a living too. However, by interfering with my web browser and making the very sites they are trying to advertise on completely useless by covering content, they crossed way over the line. So, I installed adblock and haven't looked back.</p><p>Fix your fucking advertisements then I might consider uninstalling adblock.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never , ever ran adblockers until advertisers became so obnoxious that they insist on displaying their ads over content in floating flash objects , which do n't always turn off when clicked , and when they started with the auto-playing video ( with audio ) crap .
I was fine with banner and text ads and accepted them as the reality that content providers need to make a living too .
However , by interfering with my web browser and making the very sites they are trying to advertise on completely useless by covering content , they crossed way over the line .
So , I installed adblock and have n't looked back.Fix your fucking advertisements then I might consider uninstalling adblock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never, ever ran adblockers until advertisers became so obnoxious that they insist on displaying their ads over content in floating flash objects, which don't always turn off when clicked, and when they started with the auto-playing video (with audio) crap.
I was fine with banner and text ads and accepted them as the reality that content providers need to make a living too.
However, by interfering with my web browser and making the very sites they are trying to advertise on completely useless by covering content, they crossed way over the line.
So, I installed adblock and haven't looked back.Fix your fucking advertisements then I might consider uninstalling adblock.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391748</id>
	<title>Re:Love this comment by Ars</title>
	<author>Macrat</author>
	<datestamp>1267988040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ok, your terms are acceptable.  See ya.</p></div><p>Yup. If they have any content that's really notable, it will appear on other sites anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , your terms are acceptable .
See ya.Yup .
If they have any content that 's really notable , it will appear on other sites anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, your terms are acceptable.
See ya.Yup.
If they have any content that's really notable, it will appear on other sites anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389174</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Ars, you are animated too</title>
	<author>owlnation</author>
	<datestamp>1267973580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could not possibly agree more!<br> <br>

I've never seen many animated ads on websites. In the days before adblock, I'd scroll the screen, put a piece of paper over that part of the monitor, or just leave the site -- never to return usually.<br> <br>

No-one has ever gotten any money from me by showing me an animated ad. No-one EVER will. If by chance I happen to catch the name of the company that produced the ad, I will do everything I can to avoid buying from them for the rest of my life. If your company doesn't respect my eyes, time and intelligence, then fuck you! I'm not giving you any money.<br> <br>

You want ads, fine. Google got it pretty much right. Discreet, contextual links. Those are quality ads. They can even have pictures in them, but if they move -- they die.<br> <br>

Arstechnica, if you aren't smart enough to understand this, and as the parent said; this is oft-discussed and well-known, then your site will eventually die. And it will be ENTIRELY your own fault. Quality ads do NOT intrude on the user -- they do NOT need to. It's just that simple.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could not possibly agree more !
I 've never seen many animated ads on websites .
In the days before adblock , I 'd scroll the screen , put a piece of paper over that part of the monitor , or just leave the site -- never to return usually .
No-one has ever gotten any money from me by showing me an animated ad .
No-one EVER will .
If by chance I happen to catch the name of the company that produced the ad , I will do everything I can to avoid buying from them for the rest of my life .
If your company does n't respect my eyes , time and intelligence , then fuck you !
I 'm not giving you any money .
You want ads , fine .
Google got it pretty much right .
Discreet , contextual links .
Those are quality ads .
They can even have pictures in them , but if they move -- they die .
Arstechnica , if you are n't smart enough to understand this , and as the parent said ; this is oft-discussed and well-known , then your site will eventually die .
And it will be ENTIRELY your own fault .
Quality ads do NOT intrude on the user -- they do NOT need to .
It 's just that simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could not possibly agree more!
I've never seen many animated ads on websites.
In the days before adblock, I'd scroll the screen, put a piece of paper over that part of the monitor, or just leave the site -- never to return usually.
No-one has ever gotten any money from me by showing me an animated ad.
No-one EVER will.
If by chance I happen to catch the name of the company that produced the ad, I will do everything I can to avoid buying from them for the rest of my life.
If your company doesn't respect my eyes, time and intelligence, then fuck you!
I'm not giving you any money.
You want ads, fine.
Google got it pretty much right.
Discreet, contextual links.
Those are quality ads.
They can even have pictures in them, but if they move -- they die.
Arstechnica, if you aren't smart enough to understand this, and as the parent said; this is oft-discussed and well-known, then your site will eventually die.
And it will be ENTIRELY your own fault.
Quality ads do NOT intrude on the user -- they do NOT need to.
It's just that simple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391574</id>
	<title>Re:Adblock Plus proposal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267987200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is false. Click revenue is generally an After thought now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is false .
Click revenue is generally an After thought now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is false.
Click revenue is generally an After thought now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392690</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Ars, you are animated too</title>
	<author>weaponsfree</author>
	<datestamp>1267993320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sorry Ars Technica... you can CLAIM your ads are non-intrusive and "quality", but I just visited your site with adblocking off and was immediately met with one highly annoying animated banner and a second, lower-animated, section</p></div><p>Ars Technica has for years discouraged its users from running ad blockers.  They need the revenue; I get that.

However, since Ars was acquired by Conde Nast, the ads have become significantly more intrusive and annoying.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry Ars Technica... you can CLAIM your ads are non-intrusive and " quality " , but I just visited your site with adblocking off and was immediately met with one highly annoying animated banner and a second , lower-animated , sectionArs Technica has for years discouraged its users from running ad blockers .
They need the revenue ; I get that .
However , since Ars was acquired by Conde Nast , the ads have become significantly more intrusive and annoying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry Ars Technica... you can CLAIM your ads are non-intrusive and "quality", but I just visited your site with adblocking off and was immediately met with one highly annoying animated banner and a second, lower-animated, sectionArs Technica has for years discouraged its users from running ad blockers.
They need the revenue; I get that.
However, since Ars was acquired by Conde Nast, the ads have become significantly more intrusive and annoying.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389462</id>
	<title>And what about NoScript?</title>
	<author>RevWaldo</author>
	<datestamp>1267975080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NoScript technically isn't an ad blocker, but it does block a lot of ads. Is there less of an ethical quandary to blocking scripts as opposed to directly targeting advertisements?</htmltext>
<tokenext>NoScript technically is n't an ad blocker , but it does block a lot of ads .
Is there less of an ethical quandary to blocking scripts as opposed to directly targeting advertisements ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NoScript technically isn't an ad blocker, but it does block a lot of ads.
Is there less of an ethical quandary to blocking scripts as opposed to directly targeting advertisements?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392558</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267992480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Paywall here we come!!!</p></div><p>FYI: Ars has a paywall for their premium content.</p><p>See: <a href="http://arstechnica.com/subscriptions/" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/subscriptions/</a> [arstechnica.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Paywall here we come ! !
! FYI : Ars has a paywall for their premium content.See : http : //arstechnica.com/subscriptions/ [ arstechnica.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Paywall here we come!!
!FYI: Ars has a paywall for their premium content.See: http://arstechnica.com/subscriptions/ [arstechnica.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389302</id>
	<title>Re:It's the freeloaders time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267974240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>We need an ad whitelist. I have a blocklist I've copied from somewhere else that effectively blocks just about everything ad-like. However, I don't actually mind ads that are useful and don't flash/scroll/make fart noises. Somehow allowing those through would make the web better for everyone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We need an ad whitelist .
I have a blocklist I 've copied from somewhere else that effectively blocks just about everything ad-like .
However , I do n't actually mind ads that are useful and do n't flash/scroll/make fart noises .
Somehow allowing those through would make the web better for everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need an ad whitelist.
I have a blocklist I've copied from somewhere else that effectively blocks just about everything ad-like.
However, I don't actually mind ads that are useful and don't flash/scroll/make fart noises.
Somehow allowing those through would make the web better for everyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389458</id>
	<title>Then Stop Annoying Me</title>
	<author>ElusiveMind</author>
	<datestamp>1267975080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If ads didn't have video, or audio that plays by default, or stuff that pops directly over the content I am trying to view via a modal dialog, I would make less of an effort to block them.<br> <br>

The catch-22 is, the more the advertiser tries to get the attention of the viewer, the less I am willing to put up with the annoyance of being required to click on modal dialogs or hit the "sound off" option. <br> <br>

The last thing I want to hear at 11pm when everyone is asleep is "CONGRATULATIONS!!! YOU ARE OUR 10,000TH VISITOR" or some shizz. Facebook has a good model. You can "dislike" or block ads that are repetitive, annoying, or otherwise uninteresting - and it helps them target you better. <br> <br>

I have no problem clicking on ads for things I am genuinely interested in. But I have zero interest in being annoyed in the process.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If ads did n't have video , or audio that plays by default , or stuff that pops directly over the content I am trying to view via a modal dialog , I would make less of an effort to block them .
The catch-22 is , the more the advertiser tries to get the attention of the viewer , the less I am willing to put up with the annoyance of being required to click on modal dialogs or hit the " sound off " option .
The last thing I want to hear at 11pm when everyone is asleep is " CONGRATULATIONS ! ! !
YOU ARE OUR 10,000TH VISITOR " or some shizz .
Facebook has a good model .
You can " dislike " or block ads that are repetitive , annoying , or otherwise uninteresting - and it helps them target you better .
I have no problem clicking on ads for things I am genuinely interested in .
But I have zero interest in being annoyed in the process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If ads didn't have video, or audio that plays by default, or stuff that pops directly over the content I am trying to view via a modal dialog, I would make less of an effort to block them.
The catch-22 is, the more the advertiser tries to get the attention of the viewer, the less I am willing to put up with the annoyance of being required to click on modal dialogs or hit the "sound off" option.
The last thing I want to hear at 11pm when everyone is asleep is "CONGRATULATIONS!!!
YOU ARE OUR 10,000TH VISITOR" or some shizz.
Facebook has a good model.
You can "dislike" or block ads that are repetitive, annoying, or otherwise uninteresting - and it helps them target you better.
I have no problem clicking on ads for things I am genuinely interested in.
But I have zero interest in being annoyed in the process.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392448</id>
	<title>Re:I have ad block in because of facebook</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1267991700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Facebook apps scare me more than Facebook ads. With Facebook ads I know there's a solid paper trail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook apps scare me more than Facebook ads .
With Facebook ads I know there 's a solid paper trail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook apps scare me more than Facebook ads.
With Facebook ads I know there's a solid paper trail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391004</id>
	<title>Ads without Javascript/Flash/etc are fine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267984140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As others already said here: Ads without active content (images, good ol' text) stand a good chance of being read by me. As for the others... I won't even know they are there most of the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As others already said here : Ads without active content ( images , good ol ' text ) stand a good chance of being read by me .
As for the others... I wo n't even know they are there most of the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As others already said here: Ads without active content (images, good ol' text) stand a good chance of being read by me.
As for the others... I won't even know they are there most of the time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392870</id>
	<title>Ad Blockers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267994460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have Adblock Plus and the only ads I block are the ones I don't ever want to see. Ads like the one for the flesh light. I don't mind ads otherwise. I do, however, block javascript and flash for most sites. I don't like to leave holes in my security that are too easy to get through. So for me to see an ad, It needs to be text or just a picture or something. Let the ads roll, but I'm not getting a virus because some site trusted a flash or javascript ad producer and screwed up my system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have Adblock Plus and the only ads I block are the ones I do n't ever want to see .
Ads like the one for the flesh light .
I do n't mind ads otherwise .
I do , however , block javascript and flash for most sites .
I do n't like to leave holes in my security that are too easy to get through .
So for me to see an ad , It needs to be text or just a picture or something .
Let the ads roll , but I 'm not getting a virus because some site trusted a flash or javascript ad producer and screwed up my system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have Adblock Plus and the only ads I block are the ones I don't ever want to see.
Ads like the one for the flesh light.
I don't mind ads otherwise.
I do, however, block javascript and flash for most sites.
I don't like to leave holes in my security that are too easy to get through.
So for me to see an ad, It needs to be text or just a picture or something.
Let the ads roll, but I'm not getting a virus because some site trusted a flash or javascript ad producer and screwed up my system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31408094</id>
	<title>Re:How about it CmdrTaco?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268054460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I worked for a news site that made money with a per-view ad model and can tell you that it takes several million dollars a month to maintain a world class news site. The AP must be paid for content. Editors to moderate the AP must be paid.  Production Operations guys, Test Operations guys, Developers, Release Engineers, Project Managers, Ad Operations, Managers for PM/Dev/Editorial/Test, Marketing, Sales...all have to be paid.</p></div><p>I don't doubt what you say, and thus wanted to quote the relevant portion.  If a site with any high amount of readership takes several million dollars to operate, then I can see how a site alone can never be sustained solely by ads.  Good luck to all web only content producers.  It may be time for business to view the web site not as the product, but as an advertising expense for some other product.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked for a news site that made money with a per-view ad model and can tell you that it takes several million dollars a month to maintain a world class news site .
The AP must be paid for content .
Editors to moderate the AP must be paid .
Production Operations guys , Test Operations guys , Developers , Release Engineers , Project Managers , Ad Operations , Managers for PM/Dev/Editorial/Test , Marketing , Sales...all have to be paid.I do n't doubt what you say , and thus wanted to quote the relevant portion .
If a site with any high amount of readership takes several million dollars to operate , then I can see how a site alone can never be sustained solely by ads .
Good luck to all web only content producers .
It may be time for business to view the web site not as the product , but as an advertising expense for some other product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I worked for a news site that made money with a per-view ad model and can tell you that it takes several million dollars a month to maintain a world class news site.
The AP must be paid for content.
Editors to moderate the AP must be paid.
Production Operations guys, Test Operations guys, Developers, Release Engineers, Project Managers, Ad Operations, Managers for PM/Dev/Editorial/Test, Marketing, Sales...all have to be paid.I don't doubt what you say, and thus wanted to quote the relevant portion.
If a site with any high amount of readership takes several million dollars to operate, then I can see how a site alone can never be sustained solely by ads.
Good luck to all web only content producers.
It may be time for business to view the web site not as the product, but as an advertising expense for some other product.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393320</id>
	<title>Ruining it for the rest of us</title>
	<author>jmactacular</author>
	<datestamp>1267954140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some of these advertisers are ruining a programmer's ability to create a modern web application.  They abuse technology that freaks out users who then block it, and prevents legitimate sites and it's users from being able to leverage that technology.
<br> <br>
First it was cookie blockers.  Maintaining state is absolutely essential to every modern web application.  According to REST architecture design patterns, you're not supposed to maintain state on the server side, so that leaves you with the client.  And cookies are the only durable option.
<br> <br>
Then it was pop-up blockers.  There are times when you don't want the user to have to move to another page, and still be able to input or view a sub-set of data specific to that page, but there's no more room on the page.  So you have to pop up a child window.  Nowadays we create modals with hidden divs, and while that is a better user experience, it does add to the initial load time unless you embed an iframe.
<br> <br>
Now some are disabling Javascript.  Seriously, if you don't have javascript enabled, any sort of web application is rendered helpless entirely.
<br> <br>
If we are to have any hope of building enterprise class applications on the web, we need a way for legitimate sites to be able to leverage the full depth and breadth of technology, without advertisers abusing our tools that causes end users to block the technology altogether.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of these advertisers are ruining a programmer 's ability to create a modern web application .
They abuse technology that freaks out users who then block it , and prevents legitimate sites and it 's users from being able to leverage that technology .
First it was cookie blockers .
Maintaining state is absolutely essential to every modern web application .
According to REST architecture design patterns , you 're not supposed to maintain state on the server side , so that leaves you with the client .
And cookies are the only durable option .
Then it was pop-up blockers .
There are times when you do n't want the user to have to move to another page , and still be able to input or view a sub-set of data specific to that page , but there 's no more room on the page .
So you have to pop up a child window .
Nowadays we create modals with hidden divs , and while that is a better user experience , it does add to the initial load time unless you embed an iframe .
Now some are disabling Javascript .
Seriously , if you do n't have javascript enabled , any sort of web application is rendered helpless entirely .
If we are to have any hope of building enterprise class applications on the web , we need a way for legitimate sites to be able to leverage the full depth and breadth of technology , without advertisers abusing our tools that causes end users to block the technology altogether .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of these advertisers are ruining a programmer's ability to create a modern web application.
They abuse technology that freaks out users who then block it, and prevents legitimate sites and it's users from being able to leverage that technology.
First it was cookie blockers.
Maintaining state is absolutely essential to every modern web application.
According to REST architecture design patterns, you're not supposed to maintain state on the server side, so that leaves you with the client.
And cookies are the only durable option.
Then it was pop-up blockers.
There are times when you don't want the user to have to move to another page, and still be able to input or view a sub-set of data specific to that page, but there's no more room on the page.
So you have to pop up a child window.
Nowadays we create modals with hidden divs, and while that is a better user experience, it does add to the initial load time unless you embed an iframe.
Now some are disabling Javascript.
Seriously, if you don't have javascript enabled, any sort of web application is rendered helpless entirely.
If we are to have any hope of building enterprise class applications on the web, we need a way for legitimate sites to be able to leverage the full depth and breadth of technology, without advertisers abusing our tools that causes end users to block the technology altogether.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391960</id>
	<title>Re:The other side: Ad abuse and malware</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267989300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately Ars is expecting the MOST TECH SAVVY community to not block ads?  Sometimes you have to wonder if they know their audience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately Ars is expecting the MOST TECH SAVVY community to not block ads ?
Sometimes you have to wonder if they know their audience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately Ars is expecting the MOST TECH SAVVY community to not block ads?
Sometimes you have to wonder if they know their audience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392540</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes?</title>
	<author>Ifni</author>
	<datestamp>1267992300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And sometimes when you run computer software you just have to accept that it will crash.  So you should probably just log off the Internet and never come back.  In other words, what I think he was trying to convey is that such ads occasionally slip through - not that they are intentionally accepted by Ars.  Ars could drop the offending ad provider, but the reality is that it probably isn't their fault either.  They deal with thousands of ads per day and so can't have a person inspect each and every one that they accept for distribution.  They rely on their clients to follow their guidelines, which prohibit creating certain types of ads.  They probably also have technical measures that help to reduce the odds of accepting such ads.  But unscrupulous clients will occasionally break those rules.  The (reputable) ad company usually pulls them from rotation as soon a they are reported, but the fact is that you will still, on rare occasion, see one slip through, just like your spam filter isn't perfect (unless you, as you suggest above, just block ALL email).</p><p>If you can't accept anything less than perfection, then you have bigger issues than web advertising.  By far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And sometimes when you run computer software you just have to accept that it will crash .
So you should probably just log off the Internet and never come back .
In other words , what I think he was trying to convey is that such ads occasionally slip through - not that they are intentionally accepted by Ars .
Ars could drop the offending ad provider , but the reality is that it probably is n't their fault either .
They deal with thousands of ads per day and so ca n't have a person inspect each and every one that they accept for distribution .
They rely on their clients to follow their guidelines , which prohibit creating certain types of ads .
They probably also have technical measures that help to reduce the odds of accepting such ads .
But unscrupulous clients will occasionally break those rules .
The ( reputable ) ad company usually pulls them from rotation as soon a they are reported , but the fact is that you will still , on rare occasion , see one slip through , just like your spam filter is n't perfect ( unless you , as you suggest above , just block ALL email ) .If you ca n't accept anything less than perfection , then you have bigger issues than web advertising .
By far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And sometimes when you run computer software you just have to accept that it will crash.
So you should probably just log off the Internet and never come back.
In other words, what I think he was trying to convey is that such ads occasionally slip through - not that they are intentionally accepted by Ars.
Ars could drop the offending ad provider, but the reality is that it probably isn't their fault either.
They deal with thousands of ads per day and so can't have a person inspect each and every one that they accept for distribution.
They rely on their clients to follow their guidelines, which prohibit creating certain types of ads.
They probably also have technical measures that help to reduce the odds of accepting such ads.
But unscrupulous clients will occasionally break those rules.
The (reputable) ad company usually pulls them from rotation as soon a they are reported, but the fact is that you will still, on rare occasion, see one slip through, just like your spam filter isn't perfect (unless you, as you suggest above, just block ALL email).If you can't accept anything less than perfection, then you have bigger issues than web advertising.
By far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391904</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267989000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ahh, yes.  The next step in the aforementioned death spiral.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahh , yes .
The next step in the aforementioned death spiral .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahh, yes.
The next step in the aforementioned death spiral.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390172</id>
	<title>Re:Love this comment by Ars</title>
	<author>Somebody Is Using My</author>
	<datestamp>1267979400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This reminds of when Salon decided to put all their content behind a paywall; it seemed to make economic sense to them at the time. Unfortunately when the users hit the paywall, many of them decided the content wasn't worth their money and left for greener (and freer pastures). Not only did they stop visiting the website directly, but whenever they saw a Salon link, they did not click it because they knew there was an intervening paywall.</p><p>Some time later, Salon decided to revist the issue of paywalls and decided making their content only available to paying customers was not the best way of doing things after all. Down came the paywall. But the people they lost *still* avoided the site because -as far as they knew- the content was still only available for a fee and therefore they continued to avoid Salon entirely.</p><p>Although the paywall arguably was necessary for Salon to survive an economic rough spot, it took them years to recover (in terms of numbers of readership) from that decision. I wonder if Ars Technica may suffer the same fate; users with ad-blockers will not be able to see the content, and decide to write off the site entirely. Should Ars Technica revisit their policy, those users will have no way of knowing, since they aren't going to the website and won't hear about the change.</p><p>And let's face it: most readers of Ars Technica are more technically-inclined than the rest of the Internet, and are thus more likely to be using ad-blockers. If they follow through with this policy, this could have some severe blowback.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds of when Salon decided to put all their content behind a paywall ; it seemed to make economic sense to them at the time .
Unfortunately when the users hit the paywall , many of them decided the content was n't worth their money and left for greener ( and freer pastures ) .
Not only did they stop visiting the website directly , but whenever they saw a Salon link , they did not click it because they knew there was an intervening paywall.Some time later , Salon decided to revist the issue of paywalls and decided making their content only available to paying customers was not the best way of doing things after all .
Down came the paywall .
But the people they lost * still * avoided the site because -as far as they knew- the content was still only available for a fee and therefore they continued to avoid Salon entirely.Although the paywall arguably was necessary for Salon to survive an economic rough spot , it took them years to recover ( in terms of numbers of readership ) from that decision .
I wonder if Ars Technica may suffer the same fate ; users with ad-blockers will not be able to see the content , and decide to write off the site entirely .
Should Ars Technica revisit their policy , those users will have no way of knowing , since they are n't going to the website and wo n't hear about the change.And let 's face it : most readers of Ars Technica are more technically-inclined than the rest of the Internet , and are thus more likely to be using ad-blockers .
If they follow through with this policy , this could have some severe blowback .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds of when Salon decided to put all their content behind a paywall; it seemed to make economic sense to them at the time.
Unfortunately when the users hit the paywall, many of them decided the content wasn't worth their money and left for greener (and freer pastures).
Not only did they stop visiting the website directly, but whenever they saw a Salon link, they did not click it because they knew there was an intervening paywall.Some time later, Salon decided to revist the issue of paywalls and decided making their content only available to paying customers was not the best way of doing things after all.
Down came the paywall.
But the people they lost *still* avoided the site because -as far as they knew- the content was still only available for a fee and therefore they continued to avoid Salon entirely.Although the paywall arguably was necessary for Salon to survive an economic rough spot, it took them years to recover (in terms of numbers of readership) from that decision.
I wonder if Ars Technica may suffer the same fate; users with ad-blockers will not be able to see the content, and decide to write off the site entirely.
Should Ars Technica revisit their policy, those users will have no way of knowing, since they aren't going to the website and won't hear about the change.And let's face it: most readers of Ars Technica are more technically-inclined than the rest of the Internet, and are thus more likely to be using ad-blockers.
If they follow through with this policy, this could have some severe blowback.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392806</id>
	<title>Arstech = animated with trojans in adbanners</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267994100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica</b> -&gt; Philip</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PM<br>internet</p><p>Philip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it. When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus. Here is a copy of my log. I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites. 1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"</p><p>Link to Original Source</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica - &gt; Philiphttp : //slashdot.org/firehose.pl ? op = view&amp;id = 447008 [ slashdot.org ] Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008 , @ 03 : 00PMinternetPhilip writes " It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it .
When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus .
Here is a copy of my log .
I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites .
1/2/2008 2 : 27 : 15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe ( http : //arstechnica.com/index.ars ) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO ( Trojan ) " Link to Original Sourcehttp : //slashdot.org/firehose.pl ? op = view&amp;id = 447008 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica -&gt; Philiphttp://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008 [slashdot.org]Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PMinternetPhilip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it.
When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus.
Here is a copy of my log.
I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites.
1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"Link to Original Sourcehttp://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392092</id>
	<title>Re:Love this comment by Ars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267989840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is funny that you say this with some sarcasm, like you are somehow "sticking it to them" by taking them up on their offer.  They give content, you give nothing back.  You stop visiting... and, how exactly is that bad for them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is funny that you say this with some sarcasm , like you are somehow " sticking it to them " by taking them up on their offer .
They give content , you give nothing back .
You stop visiting... and , how exactly is that bad for them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is funny that you say this with some sarcasm, like you are somehow "sticking it to them" by taking them up on their offer.
They give content, you give nothing back.
You stop visiting... and, how exactly is that bad for them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392632</id>
	<title>Re:My thoughts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267993020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clearly you didn't read the article as this is the first misconception they clarify.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly you did n't read the article as this is the first misconception they clarify .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly you didn't read the article as this is the first misconception they clarify.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390644</id>
	<title>Re:I have ad block in because of facebook</title>
	<author>martyros</author>
	<datestamp>1267982160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>When they started doing pop-ups and float overs, I even tolerated it.</p></div></blockquote><p>I never understood how marketing people could not make the connection: if I annoy my target market with my image, they will associate my image with annoyance and be less likely to buy.
</p><p>GMail's ads are not at all intrusive; what's more, they're targeted, so that instead of having a 0.01\% probability that I might find any particular ad interesting, there's probably more like a 1\% probability.  So I actually <i>look</i> at gmail's ads, because there's often something there that I actually <i>want</i>.
</p><p>That's the best part of marketing: connecting people with a valuable product to people who would find that product really valuable.  The worst is trying to push a load of crap on people who don't really need it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When they started doing pop-ups and float overs , I even tolerated it.I never understood how marketing people could not make the connection : if I annoy my target market with my image , they will associate my image with annoyance and be less likely to buy .
GMail 's ads are not at all intrusive ; what 's more , they 're targeted , so that instead of having a 0.01 \ % probability that I might find any particular ad interesting , there 's probably more like a 1 \ % probability .
So I actually look at gmail 's ads , because there 's often something there that I actually want .
That 's the best part of marketing : connecting people with a valuable product to people who would find that product really valuable .
The worst is trying to push a load of crap on people who do n't really need it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When they started doing pop-ups and float overs, I even tolerated it.I never understood how marketing people could not make the connection: if I annoy my target market with my image, they will associate my image with annoyance and be less likely to buy.
GMail's ads are not at all intrusive; what's more, they're targeted, so that instead of having a 0.01\% probability that I might find any particular ad interesting, there's probably more like a 1\% probability.
So I actually look at gmail's ads, because there's often something there that I actually want.
That's the best part of marketing: connecting people with a valuable product to people who would find that product really valuable.
The worst is trying to push a load of crap on people who don't really need it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392078</id>
	<title>Malicious ad responsibility</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267989840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When cnn, ars, msnbc, etc etc etc take full responsibility for the ads they want to deliver on their pages, instead of redirecting our browsers to content they have ZERO control over, then we can talk about disabling ad blocking. Not before.</p><p>In the past 2 years I've seen an amazing amount of PCs infected from ads that were seen on major mainstream sites. Grandma, or Jim's Plumbing, Inc, or anyone else for that matter SHOULD be able to sue the fuck out of the site that sent them to the malicious ad server in the first place.</p><p>If ad views are so important, why don't they sell ad space like the print media and EMBED the things as static images LOCALLY in the pages they server?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When cnn , ars , msnbc , etc etc etc take full responsibility for the ads they want to deliver on their pages , instead of redirecting our browsers to content they have ZERO control over , then we can talk about disabling ad blocking .
Not before.In the past 2 years I 've seen an amazing amount of PCs infected from ads that were seen on major mainstream sites .
Grandma , or Jim 's Plumbing , Inc , or anyone else for that matter SHOULD be able to sue the fuck out of the site that sent them to the malicious ad server in the first place.If ad views are so important , why do n't they sell ad space like the print media and EMBED the things as static images LOCALLY in the pages they server ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When cnn, ars, msnbc, etc etc etc take full responsibility for the ads they want to deliver on their pages, instead of redirecting our browsers to content they have ZERO control over, then we can talk about disabling ad blocking.
Not before.In the past 2 years I've seen an amazing amount of PCs infected from ads that were seen on major mainstream sites.
Grandma, or Jim's Plumbing, Inc, or anyone else for that matter SHOULD be able to sue the fuck out of the site that sent them to the malicious ad server in the first place.If ad views are so important, why don't they sell ad space like the print media and EMBED the things as static images LOCALLY in the pages they server?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389474</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Ars, you are animated too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267975140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I absolutely agree with markdavis.<br>I don't mind non-intrusive ads in the slightest. For example I never block ads on Slashdot, and I've had the option to do so for quite some time. Google ads never bother me either.</p><p>But on many sites the ads flash annoyingly in the peripheral vision, they make noise on their own or if the mouse pointer moves over them, animations pop up in front of the article I'm trying to read. And then occasionally, the ad server is someone who has been compromised and is serving malware.</p><p>If you don't want people blocking the ads on your site, then get involved in the ad selection process. Be quick to jump on obnoxious ads. Blue's News has done that for years. If there are complaints about an ad, he has it removed from the rotation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I absolutely agree with markdavis.I do n't mind non-intrusive ads in the slightest .
For example I never block ads on Slashdot , and I 've had the option to do so for quite some time .
Google ads never bother me either.But on many sites the ads flash annoyingly in the peripheral vision , they make noise on their own or if the mouse pointer moves over them , animations pop up in front of the article I 'm trying to read .
And then occasionally , the ad server is someone who has been compromised and is serving malware.If you do n't want people blocking the ads on your site , then get involved in the ad selection process .
Be quick to jump on obnoxious ads .
Blue 's News has done that for years .
If there are complaints about an ad , he has it removed from the rotation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I absolutely agree with markdavis.I don't mind non-intrusive ads in the slightest.
For example I never block ads on Slashdot, and I've had the option to do so for quite some time.
Google ads never bother me either.But on many sites the ads flash annoyingly in the peripheral vision, they make noise on their own or if the mouse pointer moves over them, animations pop up in front of the article I'm trying to read.
And then occasionally, the ad server is someone who has been compromised and is serving malware.If you don't want people blocking the ads on your site, then get involved in the ad selection process.
Be quick to jump on obnoxious ads.
Blue's News has done that for years.
If there are complaints about an ad, he has it removed from the rotation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390078</id>
	<title>Re:Ads suck</title>
	<author>Stauken</author>
	<datestamp>1267978860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hell in a lot of cases the fact is that UNBLOCKED ads and visiting the site and using its service still actually costs the content provider money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hell in a lot of cases the fact is that UNBLOCKED ads and visiting the site and using its service still actually costs the content provider money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hell in a lot of cases the fact is that UNBLOCKED ads and visiting the site and using its service still actually costs the content provider money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389370</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Ars, you are animated too</title>
	<author>DoktorFaust</author>
	<datestamp>1267974600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>They addressed exactly the issue you cite in the <a href="http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars?comments=0#comment-5042" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">fourth comment of the article.</a> [arstechnica.com]

From the comment,<p><div class="quote"><p>When you disable Flash completely, we serve up static backup ads. Flashblock, however, breaks this so it's effectively the same as running a dedicated ad blocker. It's more a technical problem with Flashblock, though.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They addressed exactly the issue you cite in the fourth comment of the article .
[ arstechnica.com ] From the comment,When you disable Flash completely , we serve up static backup ads .
Flashblock , however , breaks this so it 's effectively the same as running a dedicated ad blocker .
It 's more a technical problem with Flashblock , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They addressed exactly the issue you cite in the fourth comment of the article.
[arstechnica.com]

From the comment,When you disable Flash completely, we serve up static backup ads.
Flashblock, however, breaks this so it's effectively the same as running a dedicated ad blocker.
It's more a technical problem with Flashblock, though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389240</id>
	<title>Blocking content to those who block ads</title>
	<author>jddimarco</author>
	<datestamp>1267973880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's fair for Ars to block content to those who block ads from their site, if that's what they wish: it's Ars content.  It's also fair for those who use ad blockers to be annoyed at Ars for it: nobody likes having something nice taken away from them, and Ars is taking away ad-free access to the content.  Ars needs to be careful about the trade-off: is the increased ad revenue (if any) worth the bad publicity?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's fair for Ars to block content to those who block ads from their site , if that 's what they wish : it 's Ars content .
It 's also fair for those who use ad blockers to be annoyed at Ars for it : nobody likes having something nice taken away from them , and Ars is taking away ad-free access to the content .
Ars needs to be careful about the trade-off : is the increased ad revenue ( if any ) worth the bad publicity ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's fair for Ars to block content to those who block ads from their site, if that's what they wish: it's Ars content.
It's also fair for those who use ad blockers to be annoyed at Ars for it: nobody likes having something nice taken away from them, and Ars is taking away ad-free access to the content.
Ars needs to be careful about the trade-off: is the increased ad revenue (if any) worth the bad publicity?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394150</id>
	<title>Very simple naivety</title>
	<author>myowntrueself</author>
	<datestamp>1267959720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Naive people don't block ads.</p><p>Naive people are more likely to respond positively to ads.</p><p>Enough said?</p><p>The ads ARE hitting their target market; naive people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Naive people do n't block ads.Naive people are more likely to respond positively to ads.Enough said ? The ads ARE hitting their target market ; naive people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Naive people don't block ads.Naive people are more likely to respond positively to ads.Enough said?The ads ARE hitting their target market; naive people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394048</id>
	<title>Is planting trojans on others better than piracy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267959000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica</b> -&gt; Philip</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PM<br>internet</p><p>Philip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it. When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus. Here is a copy of my log. I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites. 1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"</p><p>Link to Original Source</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>***</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"Some people would argue that this is Ars Technica's problem and that if they can't find a service that people will buy, they "deserve" to go out of business" - by GospelHead821 (466923)<br>on Sunday March 07, @08:58AM (#31389238)</p></div><p>Some people would definitely argue that the type of thing occurring as stated above (like bad adbanners on a website that is heavily scripted like Arstechnica is) ought to go under. Definitely, after reading what I read here on this very site in regards to arstechnica years ago.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica - &gt; Philiphttp : //slashdot.org/firehose.pl ? op = view&amp;id = 447008 [ slashdot.org ] Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008 , @ 03 : 00PMinternetPhilip writes " It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it .
When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus .
Here is a copy of my log .
I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites .
1/2/2008 2 : 27 : 15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe ( http : //arstechnica.com/index.ars ) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO ( Trojan ) " Link to Original Sourcehttp : //slashdot.org/firehose.pl ? op = view&amp;id = 447008 [ slashdot.org ] * * * " Some people would argue that this is Ars Technica 's problem and that if they ca n't find a service that people will buy , they " deserve " to go out of business " - by GospelHead821 ( 466923 ) on Sunday March 07 , @ 08 : 58AM ( # 31389238 ) Some people would definitely argue that the type of thing occurring as stated above ( like bad adbanners on a website that is heavily scripted like Arstechnica is ) ought to go under .
Definitely , after reading what I read here on this very site in regards to arstechnica years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica -&gt; Philiphttp://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008 [slashdot.org]Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PMinternetPhilip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it.
When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus.
Here is a copy of my log.
I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites.
1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"Link to Original Sourcehttp://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008 [slashdot.org]***"Some people would argue that this is Ars Technica's problem and that if they can't find a service that people will buy, they "deserve" to go out of business" - by GospelHead821 (466923)on Sunday March 07, @08:58AM (#31389238)Some people would definitely argue that the type of thing occurring as stated above (like bad adbanners on a website that is heavily scripted like Arstechnica is) ought to go under.
Definitely, after reading what I read here on this very site in regards to arstechnica years ago.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392422</id>
	<title>I have a solution</title>
	<author>graft</author>
	<datestamp>1267991520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I haven't thought this out fully, since I just came up with it, but here's an interesting idea for a business:<br>
<br>
My biggest problem with pay sites is that most of the time, I don't really want to read the thing regularly enough to make it worthwhile. Some people like to read the NY times ever day; I don't, I'd rather just read it once in a while when someone suggests a good article to me. Many other people - probably the majority on the web - fall into this category. For people running a site, as with most things on the web, they need a way to catch the Internet's famous long tail.<br>
<br>
So why aren't there digital library sites instead? You pay them a small subscription fee (say, $10 a month), and in return get access to any paysite you want - the site negotiates a revenue-sharing model with each paysite and takes a modest cut of the subscription for itself. Everyone wins: I get to browse the internet for a minor fee without being assaulted by ads or having to sign up on every damn site I want to look at, content providers have a way to make money without cutting people out. The only downside seems to be that as usual there's a damn bootstrapping problem...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't thought this out fully , since I just came up with it , but here 's an interesting idea for a business : My biggest problem with pay sites is that most of the time , I do n't really want to read the thing regularly enough to make it worthwhile .
Some people like to read the NY times ever day ; I do n't , I 'd rather just read it once in a while when someone suggests a good article to me .
Many other people - probably the majority on the web - fall into this category .
For people running a site , as with most things on the web , they need a way to catch the Internet 's famous long tail .
So why are n't there digital library sites instead ?
You pay them a small subscription fee ( say , $ 10 a month ) , and in return get access to any paysite you want - the site negotiates a revenue-sharing model with each paysite and takes a modest cut of the subscription for itself .
Everyone wins : I get to browse the internet for a minor fee without being assaulted by ads or having to sign up on every damn site I want to look at , content providers have a way to make money without cutting people out .
The only downside seems to be that as usual there 's a damn bootstrapping problem.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't thought this out fully, since I just came up with it, but here's an interesting idea for a business:

My biggest problem with pay sites is that most of the time, I don't really want to read the thing regularly enough to make it worthwhile.
Some people like to read the NY times ever day; I don't, I'd rather just read it once in a while when someone suggests a good article to me.
Many other people - probably the majority on the web - fall into this category.
For people running a site, as with most things on the web, they need a way to catch the Internet's famous long tail.
So why aren't there digital library sites instead?
You pay them a small subscription fee (say, $10 a month), and in return get access to any paysite you want - the site negotiates a revenue-sharing model with each paysite and takes a modest cut of the subscription for itself.
Everyone wins: I get to browse the internet for a minor fee without being assaulted by ads or having to sign up on every damn site I want to look at, content providers have a way to make money without cutting people out.
The only downside seems to be that as usual there's a damn bootstrapping problem...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390310</id>
	<title>Re:I have ad block in because of facebook</title>
	<author>dirk</author>
	<datestamp>1267980180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I agree with a lot of this, the issue is that with ad-blockers even sites that don't use these advertising methods get caught.  I know many sites that I just couldn't visit without ad-blocking because they are so bad.  SO you install and ad-blocker and it blocks every ad from every site.  So when you visit Ars, you never get the chance to see that they do basic no-frills ads and not the flashing, noisy, deceptive ads that everyone hates.</p><p>I would much prefer an ad-blocker that would allow you to turn it on per site (instead of off per site).  When you first go to a site, it should load the site and ask if you want to block ads on the site.  That way you can see what the site is like before you choose to block the ads.  Instead, everything is blocked by default and people don't even consider unblocking sites. At the very least it would be nice to have any option to download the ads but not display them (which I swear used to be an option but I can't find it anymore).  Then places like Ars could get the credit for the ads that pay per view (yes, there are much fewer than them, but it is better than nothing).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree with a lot of this , the issue is that with ad-blockers even sites that do n't use these advertising methods get caught .
I know many sites that I just could n't visit without ad-blocking because they are so bad .
SO you install and ad-blocker and it blocks every ad from every site .
So when you visit Ars , you never get the chance to see that they do basic no-frills ads and not the flashing , noisy , deceptive ads that everyone hates.I would much prefer an ad-blocker that would allow you to turn it on per site ( instead of off per site ) .
When you first go to a site , it should load the site and ask if you want to block ads on the site .
That way you can see what the site is like before you choose to block the ads .
Instead , everything is blocked by default and people do n't even consider unblocking sites .
At the very least it would be nice to have any option to download the ads but not display them ( which I swear used to be an option but I ca n't find it anymore ) .
Then places like Ars could get the credit for the ads that pay per view ( yes , there are much fewer than them , but it is better than nothing ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree with a lot of this, the issue is that with ad-blockers even sites that don't use these advertising methods get caught.
I know many sites that I just couldn't visit without ad-blocking because they are so bad.
SO you install and ad-blocker and it blocks every ad from every site.
So when you visit Ars, you never get the chance to see that they do basic no-frills ads and not the flashing, noisy, deceptive ads that everyone hates.I would much prefer an ad-blocker that would allow you to turn it on per site (instead of off per site).
When you first go to a site, it should load the site and ask if you want to block ads on the site.
That way you can see what the site is like before you choose to block the ads.
Instead, everything is blocked by default and people don't even consider unblocking sites.
At the very least it would be nice to have any option to download the ads but not display them (which I swear used to be an option but I can't find it anymore).
Then places like Ars could get the credit for the ads that pay per view (yes, there are much fewer than them, but it is better than nothing).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394640</id>
	<title>Re:Turn off Flash ads, and I'll turn off the ad bl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267962360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd love to see some sort of Better House Keeping seal of approval for websites that don't use flash ads, vet their ads in house and screen them for malware/scareware before putting them up rather than outsource everything to 3rd parties then act like there's nothing they can do about it when their readers get their computers compromised. Yes I'm looking at you Wikia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd love to see some sort of Better House Keeping seal of approval for websites that do n't use flash ads , vet their ads in house and screen them for malware/scareware before putting them up rather than outsource everything to 3rd parties then act like there 's nothing they can do about it when their readers get their computers compromised .
Yes I 'm looking at you Wikia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd love to see some sort of Better House Keeping seal of approval for websites that don't use flash ads, vet their ads in house and screen them for malware/scareware before putting them up rather than outsource everything to 3rd parties then act like there's nothing they can do about it when their readers get their computers compromised.
Yes I'm looking at you Wikia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389762</id>
	<title>Re:It's *my* CPU you're using</title>
	<author>Pav</author>
	<datestamp>1267976820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>  I agree.  I've been on the web since the beginning, and I can't remember clicking on a single ad...  I can say with certainty that I've never made any purchases because of them.  I actually hope banning ad blockers becomes the norm - I'm already inhabiting the non-commercial areas of the Internet more and more (eg. technical discussions on IRC after a LOOOONG hiatus after the 90's, mailing lists etc...).  I strongly suspect forcing ads on people will precipitate out the more technically minded users with less patience for distraction to the non-commercial net.  I'd be quite happy with that.  If that makes me parasitic so be it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
I 've been on the web since the beginning , and I ca n't remember clicking on a single ad... I can say with certainty that I 've never made any purchases because of them .
I actually hope banning ad blockers becomes the norm - I 'm already inhabiting the non-commercial areas of the Internet more and more ( eg .
technical discussions on IRC after a LOOOONG hiatus after the 90 's , mailing lists etc... ) .
I strongly suspect forcing ads on people will precipitate out the more technically minded users with less patience for distraction to the non-commercial net .
I 'd be quite happy with that .
If that makes me parasitic so be it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  I agree.
I've been on the web since the beginning, and I can't remember clicking on a single ad...  I can say with certainty that I've never made any purchases because of them.
I actually hope banning ad blockers becomes the norm - I'm already inhabiting the non-commercial areas of the Internet more and more (eg.
technical discussions on IRC after a LOOOONG hiatus after the 90's, mailing lists etc...).
I strongly suspect forcing ads on people will precipitate out the more technically minded users with less patience for distraction to the non-commercial net.
I'd be quite happy with that.
If that makes me parasitic so be it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31407304</id>
	<title>Killer App waiting to happen</title>
	<author>vanyel</author>
	<datestamp>1268050260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am unwilling to put up with the intrusively annoying majority of ads, but would be happy to pay a reasonable small fee to read an article --- as long as that payment is also non-intrusive.  The Killer App waiting to happen is a simple, easy, standard way to do that securely.  They will be the next paypal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am unwilling to put up with the intrusively annoying majority of ads , but would be happy to pay a reasonable small fee to read an article --- as long as that payment is also non-intrusive .
The Killer App waiting to happen is a simple , easy , standard way to do that securely .
They will be the next paypal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am unwilling to put up with the intrusively annoying majority of ads, but would be happy to pay a reasonable small fee to read an article --- as long as that payment is also non-intrusive.
The Killer App waiting to happen is a simple, easy, standard way to do that securely.
They will be the next paypal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31395594</id>
	<title>No, it doesn't</title>
	<author>sdpinpdx</author>
	<datestamp>1267969560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does that mean that there are the occasional intrusive ads, expanding this way and that? Yes, sometimes we have to accept those ads.</p></div><p>No, it doesn't.</p><p>The first popup, pop-behind, obnoxious animation (if it's annoying or turns the fan on in my laptop it's obnoxious), or sound of any kind will drive me to block that ad or switch to a news source that doesn't have it.  I don't really feel the need to block text or still image ads.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does that mean that there are the occasional intrusive ads , expanding this way and that ?
Yes , sometimes we have to accept those ads.No , it does n't.The first popup , pop-behind , obnoxious animation ( if it 's annoying or turns the fan on in my laptop it 's obnoxious ) , or sound of any kind will drive me to block that ad or switch to a news source that does n't have it .
I do n't really feel the need to block text or still image ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does that mean that there are the occasional intrusive ads, expanding this way and that?
Yes, sometimes we have to accept those ads.No, it doesn't.The first popup, pop-behind, obnoxious animation (if it's annoying or turns the fan on in my laptop it's obnoxious), or sound of any kind will drive me to block that ad or switch to a news source that doesn't have it.
I don't really feel the need to block text or still image ads.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390388</id>
	<title>Re:I have ad block in because of facebook</title>
	<author>bwcbwc</author>
	<datestamp>1267980720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know if we really want to train the advertisers, we should only click on tasteful, unobtrusive ads. This rewards the sites that don't pander to the "used car dealers" of the internet and educates the advertisers that to reach some market segments, discreet is more effective.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know if we really want to train the advertisers , we should only click on tasteful , unobtrusive ads .
This rewards the sites that do n't pander to the " used car dealers " of the internet and educates the advertisers that to reach some market segments , discreet is more effective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know if we really want to train the advertisers, we should only click on tasteful, unobtrusive ads.
This rewards the sites that don't pander to the "used car dealers" of the internet and educates the advertisers that to reach some market segments, discreet is more effective.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388796</id>
	<title>Re:It's the freeloaders time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267971720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>For me, it comes down to the annoyance factor. If the ads on a site are cleanly organized in a way that won't distract me while reading the article, then I'm okay with it. But lots of sites display those seizure-inducing, bright-blinking-scrolling ads.   THEY get black-listed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For me , it comes down to the annoyance factor .
If the ads on a site are cleanly organized in a way that wo n't distract me while reading the article , then I 'm okay with it .
But lots of sites display those seizure-inducing , bright-blinking-scrolling ads .
THEY get black-listed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For me, it comes down to the annoyance factor.
If the ads on a site are cleanly organized in a way that won't distract me while reading the article, then I'm okay with it.
But lots of sites display those seizure-inducing, bright-blinking-scrolling ads.
THEY get black-listed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389228</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Ars, you are animated too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267973820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>
I'm with that too. I'm perfectly fine with ads like the Google text ads. Hell, I even enjoy them sometimes. I went to a site that had these ads that constantly advertised for different MMOs, which I tried. I won't have found about these sites.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm with that too .
I 'm perfectly fine with ads like the Google text ads .
Hell , I even enjoy them sometimes .
I went to a site that had these ads that constantly advertised for different MMOs , which I tried .
I wo n't have found about these sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I'm with that too.
I'm perfectly fine with ads like the Google text ads.
Hell, I even enjoy them sometimes.
I went to a site that had these ads that constantly advertised for different MMOs, which I tried.
I won't have found about these sites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31400440</id>
	<title>Advertisement Security</title>
	<author>TheFlannelAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1268062680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I got to this thread late, this may have been mentioned, but I wanted to explain my reason for adblocking websites. Ads come from a third party, usually. It's that simple. If I visit a site I know and trust, I enable scripting and active content on their page (No Script for Firefox). But, not for their advertising affiliates. I really have no idea where the ads are coming from. If the NY Times can get hit by rogue ad servers, anyone can. Yes, they are not a tech site, but they are a well established major web presence with security and policies on par with most others. ( Article here for that story <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009\_3-10351460-83.html" title="cnet.com" rel="nofollow">http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009\_3-10351460-83.html</a> [cnet.com] ). I agree there should be a balance somewhere, but when I visit a page, look at my No Script alert and see the page trying to load scripts from 15 websites aside from the one I'm at, I don't exactly feel inclined to add to their revenue stream.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I got to this thread late , this may have been mentioned , but I wanted to explain my reason for adblocking websites .
Ads come from a third party , usually .
It 's that simple .
If I visit a site I know and trust , I enable scripting and active content on their page ( No Script for Firefox ) .
But , not for their advertising affiliates .
I really have no idea where the ads are coming from .
If the NY Times can get hit by rogue ad servers , anyone can .
Yes , they are not a tech site , but they are a well established major web presence with security and policies on par with most others .
( Article here for that story http : //news.cnet.com/8301-1009 \ _3-10351460-83.html [ cnet.com ] ) .
I agree there should be a balance somewhere , but when I visit a page , look at my No Script alert and see the page trying to load scripts from 15 websites aside from the one I 'm at , I do n't exactly feel inclined to add to their revenue stream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got to this thread late, this may have been mentioned, but I wanted to explain my reason for adblocking websites.
Ads come from a third party, usually.
It's that simple.
If I visit a site I know and trust, I enable scripting and active content on their page (No Script for Firefox).
But, not for their advertising affiliates.
I really have no idea where the ads are coming from.
If the NY Times can get hit by rogue ad servers, anyone can.
Yes, they are not a tech site, but they are a well established major web presence with security and policies on par with most others.
( Article here for that story http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009\_3-10351460-83.html [cnet.com] ).
I agree there should be a balance somewhere, but when I visit a page, look at my No Script alert and see the page trying to load scripts from 15 websites aside from the one I'm at, I don't exactly feel inclined to add to their revenue stream.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31399962</id>
	<title>Not all ads are bad, but...</title>
	<author>Kintar1900</author>
	<datestamp>1268059500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I don't mind ads.  They're much better than requiring me to subscribe for content that I only occasionally consume, and they actually bring useful/interesting items to my attention from time to time.
</p><p>
If, however, you run ads that pop-up over my screen, bother me with obnoxious sounds or "Congratulations, you've already won!" voices, or flicker and flash like they're trying to induce a seizure, I will block them.  I will also be on the lookout for a competitor's site that can provide me with the information I'm seeking without treating me like an over-caffeinated ferret with attention deficit disorder, and drop you like a bad habit when I find them.
</p><p>
Oh, and that goes for breaking up a six-paragraph article over five pages, too.
</p><p>
Yes, the content you provide is valuable.  Yes, I'm more than happy to bend to the necessities of capitalism so you can be paid for your work.  But there are models that work and don't require being obnoxious to your readers/users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't mind ads .
They 're much better than requiring me to subscribe for content that I only occasionally consume , and they actually bring useful/interesting items to my attention from time to time .
If , however , you run ads that pop-up over my screen , bother me with obnoxious sounds or " Congratulations , you 've already won !
" voices , or flicker and flash like they 're trying to induce a seizure , I will block them .
I will also be on the lookout for a competitor 's site that can provide me with the information I 'm seeking without treating me like an over-caffeinated ferret with attention deficit disorder , and drop you like a bad habit when I find them .
Oh , and that goes for breaking up a six-paragraph article over five pages , too .
Yes , the content you provide is valuable .
Yes , I 'm more than happy to bend to the necessities of capitalism so you can be paid for your work .
But there are models that work and do n't require being obnoxious to your readers/users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I don't mind ads.
They're much better than requiring me to subscribe for content that I only occasionally consume, and they actually bring useful/interesting items to my attention from time to time.
If, however, you run ads that pop-up over my screen, bother me with obnoxious sounds or "Congratulations, you've already won!
" voices, or flicker and flash like they're trying to induce a seizure, I will block them.
I will also be on the lookout for a competitor's site that can provide me with the information I'm seeking without treating me like an over-caffeinated ferret with attention deficit disorder, and drop you like a bad habit when I find them.
Oh, and that goes for breaking up a six-paragraph article over five pages, too.
Yes, the content you provide is valuable.
Yes, I'm more than happy to bend to the necessities of capitalism so you can be paid for your work.
But there are models that work and don't require being obnoxious to your readers/users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391808</id>
	<title>Interesting</title>
	<author>Lomby</author>
	<datestamp>1267988520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use an ad-blocker and the main reason is Ars!</p><p>I never used an ad-blocker, but their advertising was so intrusive that an ad-blocker was a necessity to be able to read their news on a netbook with a small screen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use an ad-blocker and the main reason is Ars ! I never used an ad-blocker , but their advertising was so intrusive that an ad-blocker was a necessity to be able to read their news on a netbook with a small screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use an ad-blocker and the main reason is Ars!I never used an ad-blocker, but their advertising was so intrusive that an ad-blocker was a necessity to be able to read their news on a netbook with a small screen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388928</id>
	<title>I don't block advertisements</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267972380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I only block Flash. Or, rather, on some machines I don't even have any Flash implementation installed. If the ads don't make it, well...that's their problem. Google AdSense is fine, flashing, screaming monsters are not. But I guess that sites like Ars Technica don't make users block ads by serving them such crap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I only block Flash .
Or , rather , on some machines I do n't even have any Flash implementation installed .
If the ads do n't make it , well...that 's their problem .
Google AdSense is fine , flashing , screaming monsters are not .
But I guess that sites like Ars Technica do n't make users block ads by serving them such crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I only block Flash.
Or, rather, on some machines I don't even have any Flash implementation installed.
If the ads don't make it, well...that's their problem.
Google AdSense is fine, flashing, screaming monsters are not.
But I guess that sites like Ars Technica don't make users block ads by serving them such crap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389558</id>
	<title>Quote with reply</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267975560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>[No ads] can result in less content on any given site, and it definitely can affect the quality of content.</p></div></blockquote><p>http://www.wikipedia.org<br>http://www.plos.org<br>etc.</p><p>Non INTRUSIVE (which paper says nothing about) ads:<br>http://www.google.com<br>http://www.nytimes.com<br>etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ No ads ] can result in less content on any given site , and it definitely can affect the quality of content.http : //www.wikipedia.orghttp : //www.plos.orgetc.Non INTRUSIVE ( which paper says nothing about ) ads : http : //www.google.comhttp : //www.nytimes.cometc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[No ads] can result in less content on any given site, and it definitely can affect the quality of content.http://www.wikipedia.orghttp://www.plos.orgetc.Non INTRUSIVE (which paper says nothing about) ads:http://www.google.comhttp://www.nytimes.cometc.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389754</id>
	<title>Re:How is this different than muting TV commercial</title>
	<author>osgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1267976820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read TFA.  It's very different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read TFA .
It 's very different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read TFA.
It's very different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392330</id>
	<title>For me, this is really easy...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267990980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I pay for the sites I want (e.g. cook's illustrated).  I block all ads.  If you've got good content, I will pay for it directly (money) rather than indirectly (suffering through ads).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I pay for the sites I want ( e.g .
cook 's illustrated ) .
I block all ads .
If you 've got good content , I will pay for it directly ( money ) rather than indirectly ( suffering through ads ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I pay for the sites I want (e.g.
cook's illustrated).
I block all ads.
If you've got good content, I will pay for it directly (money) rather than indirectly (suffering through ads).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392086</id>
	<title>Re:Content Creators Just Can't Win</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267989840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not that people have anything against content creators; they have something against advertisers.  Everything else is collateral damage.</p><p>Your description is akin to asking what's a family man to do when said family man supports his family by mugging.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not that people have anything against content creators ; they have something against advertisers .
Everything else is collateral damage.Your description is akin to asking what 's a family man to do when said family man supports his family by mugging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not that people have anything against content creators; they have something against advertisers.
Everything else is collateral damage.Your description is akin to asking what's a family man to do when said family man supports his family by mugging.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388910</id>
	<title>How is this different than muting TV commercials?</title>
	<author>schwit1</author>
	<datestamp>1267972260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or changing the channel when a commercial comes on?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or changing the channel when a commercial comes on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or changing the channel when a commercial comes on?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392944</id>
	<title>Arstech ad banners with trojans?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267994940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica</b> -&gt; Philip</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PM<br>internet</p><p>Philip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it. When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus. Here is a copy of my log. I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites. 1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"</p><p>Link to Original Source</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica - &gt; Philiphttp : //slashdot.org/firehose.pl ? op = view&amp;id = 447008 [ slashdot.org ] Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008 , @ 03 : 00PMinternetPhilip writes " It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it .
When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus .
Here is a copy of my log .
I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites .
1/2/2008 2 : 27 : 15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe ( http : //arstechnica.com/index.ars ) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO ( Trojan ) " Link to Original Sourcehttp : //slashdot.org/firehose.pl ? op = view&amp;id = 447008 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica -&gt; Philiphttp://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008 [slashdot.org]Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PMinternetPhilip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it.
When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus.
Here is a copy of my log.
I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites.
1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"Link to Original Sourcehttp://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388788</id>
	<title>I have ad block in because of facebook</title>
	<author>codeguy007</author>
	<datestamp>1267971660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only reason, I have ad block is because of facebook. While personally I don't like facebook, I have lots of friends on it so I do use it. The problem with facebook is it allows ads that look exactly like facebook apps. Sometimes is really hard to tell the ad from the app. So I installed Ad block plus to remove those annoying ads. If facebook would smarten up and start blocking those ads, I would be willing to remove the ad blocker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reason , I have ad block is because of facebook .
While personally I do n't like facebook , I have lots of friends on it so I do use it .
The problem with facebook is it allows ads that look exactly like facebook apps .
Sometimes is really hard to tell the ad from the app .
So I installed Ad block plus to remove those annoying ads .
If facebook would smarten up and start blocking those ads , I would be willing to remove the ad blocker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only reason, I have ad block is because of facebook.
While personally I don't like facebook, I have lots of friends on it so I do use it.
The problem with facebook is it allows ads that look exactly like facebook apps.
Sometimes is really hard to tell the ad from the app.
So I installed Ad block plus to remove those annoying ads.
If facebook would smarten up and start blocking those ads, I would be willing to remove the ad blocker.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389614</id>
	<title>Re:the problem with ads these days</title>
	<author>RevWaldo</author>
	<datestamp>1267975920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>ONLY 5 PERCENT OF THE PAGE IS ACTUAL CONTENT</p></div><p>
Just like the newspaper. At least back in the day when a daily newspaper would be a 1-2 inches thick and still only cost 15-25 cents. And even then the ad/content ratio was around 60/40. But Craigslist et al ate up all the classified ad revenue. Now you're paying 50-100 cents for a paper that's half an inch thick.<br> <br>
Long story short - TANSTAAFL!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ONLY 5 PERCENT OF THE PAGE IS ACTUAL CONTENT Just like the newspaper .
At least back in the day when a daily newspaper would be a 1-2 inches thick and still only cost 15-25 cents .
And even then the ad/content ratio was around 60/40 .
But Craigslist et al ate up all the classified ad revenue .
Now you 're paying 50-100 cents for a paper that 's half an inch thick .
Long story short - TANSTAAFL !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ONLY 5 PERCENT OF THE PAGE IS ACTUAL CONTENT
Just like the newspaper.
At least back in the day when a daily newspaper would be a 1-2 inches thick and still only cost 15-25 cents.
And even then the ad/content ratio was around 60/40.
But Craigslist et al ate up all the classified ad revenue.
Now you're paying 50-100 cents for a paper that's half an inch thick.
Long story short - TANSTAAFL!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391668</id>
	<title>Wall-Sic? They already have sent those in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267987680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><div class="quote"><p><b>"Advertisers have no morals and no shame. If they could legally send a barker around who breaks into your house and yells at you through a megaphone, they would."</b> -by walt-sjc (145127) on Sunday March 07, @09:32AM (#31389610)</p></div><p>Heck man - they ALREADY DO, see below:</p><p><b>The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>They have been found more than a few times serving up FAR more and FAR WORSE than mere tracking cookies, as you can see above. Thus, I agree on this account with you by ALL means.</p><p>So, if a websurfer finds out that he can go faster online by blocking out banner ads (as well as safer, per the article above), then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock (or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript), or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files, or a custom HOSTS file.</p><p>There's that above, which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation (which is not cheap, and not every "Joe Sixpack" knows how it is done, or wants to for that matter), and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.</p><p>So it's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime, and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too, but also to pay for Ken Fisher's life on top of that all as well? A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt, and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done, as well as the coding work put into his site (which I doubt he did every line of himself as well).</p><p><b>So, who are the REAL freeloaders here?</b></p><p>The end users, or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V., since both basically snag a user's subconscious attention via a "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"!)</p><p>So, once more: <b>Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here??</b></p><p>The end users, or those using them (website owners) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked, basically yelling at them "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"? There's the real question to ask here!)??</p><p>This is a "double-edged sword", and that is all there is to it, period.</p><p>Ken Fisher "made hay while the sun shined" &amp; now that sun is fading, because people are WISE to those like he, who use others to make a profit via said person's actual efforts in content creation (whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less).</p><p>"The art of good business is putting people together"!</p><p>(Sure - until they "wise up" to it that is. Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it (see the URL above once more in regards to that), and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is "above such mundane things"? Then I suggest they rethink their premises. People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain. Don't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise).</p><p>Above all - <b>I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts?? How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors???</b></p><p>I hope the article writer reads this.</p><p>The jigs up buddy, and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains, because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply, then you'd fund that website of yours yourself, Mr. Ken Fisher (after all, you've profited by others long enough to do so, right?).</p><p>(That, and Ken Fisher would find out just how truly "faithful" his arstech 'subscriptors' are, as well as he having to do the actual work in creating the content (instead of using others like Emil Protalinski for example to do so, while he pays them squat compared to what he makes off of their efforts by way of comparison)).</p><p>No, the game's over Ken Fisher, face it. Want to keep making money off your website? Time to spend some of what you've earned from it it looks like in funding it yourself. Want to make money?? You'll have to spend money to do so, sooner or later.</p><p>THE FUTURE IS NOW, buddy.</p><p>Go on now, switch to a subscriber only model, &amp; see how many people still attend your website. They'll simply move to another, &amp; quickly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Advertisers have no morals and no shame .
If they could legally send a barker around who breaks into your house and yells at you through a megaphone , they would .
" -by walt-sjc ( 145127 ) on Sunday March 07 , @ 09 : 32AM ( # 31389610 ) Heck man - they ALREADY DO , see below : The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus : http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/06/15/2056219 [ slashdot.org ] They have been found more than a few times serving up FAR more and FAR WORSE than mere tracking cookies , as you can see above .
Thus , I agree on this account with you by ALL means.So , if a websurfer finds out that he can go faster online by blocking out banner ads ( as well as safer , per the article above ) , then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock ( or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript ) , or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files , or a custom HOSTS file.There 's that above , which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation ( which is not cheap , and not every " Joe Sixpack " knows how it is done , or wants to for that matter ) , and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.So it 's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime , and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too , but also to pay for Ken Fisher 's life on top of that all as well ?
A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt , and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done , as well as the coding work put into his site ( which I doubt he did every line of himself as well ) .So , who are the REAL freeloaders here ? The end users , or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads ( which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V. , since both basically snag a user 's subconscious attention via a " look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need " !
) So , once more : Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here ?
? The end users , or those using them ( website owners ) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads ( which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked , basically yelling at them " look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need " ?
There 's the real question to ask here ! ) ?
? This is a " double-edged sword " , and that is all there is to it , period.Ken Fisher " made hay while the sun shined " &amp; now that sun is fading , because people are WISE to those like he , who use others to make a profit via said person 's actual efforts in content creation ( whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less ) .
" The art of good business is putting people together " !
( Sure - until they " wise up " to it that is .
Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it ( see the URL above once more in regards to that ) , and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is " above such mundane things " ?
Then I suggest they rethink their premises .
People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain .
Do n't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise ) .Above all - I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts ? ?
How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he 's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors ? ?
? I hope the article writer reads this.The jigs up buddy , and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains , because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply , then you 'd fund that website of yours yourself , Mr. Ken Fisher ( after all , you 've profited by others long enough to do so , right ? ) .
( That , and Ken Fisher would find out just how truly " faithful " his arstech 'subscriptors ' are , as well as he having to do the actual work in creating the content ( instead of using others like Emil Protalinski for example to do so , while he pays them squat compared to what he makes off of their efforts by way of comparison ) ) .No , the game 's over Ken Fisher , face it .
Want to keep making money off your website ?
Time to spend some of what you 've earned from it it looks like in funding it yourself .
Want to make money ? ?
You 'll have to spend money to do so , sooner or later.THE FUTURE IS NOW , buddy.Go on now , switch to a subscriber only model , &amp; see how many people still attend your website .
They 'll simply move to another , &amp; quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Advertisers have no morals and no shame.
If they could legally send a barker around who breaks into your house and yells at you through a megaphone, they would.
" -by walt-sjc (145127) on Sunday March 07, @09:32AM (#31389610)Heck man - they ALREADY DO, see below:The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219 [slashdot.org]They have been found more than a few times serving up FAR more and FAR WORSE than mere tracking cookies, as you can see above.
Thus, I agree on this account with you by ALL means.So, if a websurfer finds out that he can go faster online by blocking out banner ads (as well as safer, per the article above), then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock (or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript), or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files, or a custom HOSTS file.There's that above, which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation (which is not cheap, and not every "Joe Sixpack" knows how it is done, or wants to for that matter), and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.So it's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime, and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too, but also to pay for Ken Fisher's life on top of that all as well?
A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt, and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done, as well as the coding work put into his site (which I doubt he did every line of himself as well).So, who are the REAL freeloaders here?The end users, or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V., since both basically snag a user's subconscious attention via a "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"!
)So, once more: Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here?
?The end users, or those using them (website owners) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked, basically yelling at them "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"?
There's the real question to ask here!)?
?This is a "double-edged sword", and that is all there is to it, period.Ken Fisher "made hay while the sun shined" &amp; now that sun is fading, because people are WISE to those like he, who use others to make a profit via said person's actual efforts in content creation (whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less).
"The art of good business is putting people together"!
(Sure - until they "wise up" to it that is.
Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it (see the URL above once more in regards to that), and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is "above such mundane things"?
Then I suggest they rethink their premises.
People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain.
Don't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise).Above all - I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts??
How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors??
?I hope the article writer reads this.The jigs up buddy, and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains, because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply, then you'd fund that website of yours yourself, Mr. Ken Fisher (after all, you've profited by others long enough to do so, right?).
(That, and Ken Fisher would find out just how truly "faithful" his arstech 'subscriptors' are, as well as he having to do the actual work in creating the content (instead of using others like Emil Protalinski for example to do so, while he pays them squat compared to what he makes off of their efforts by way of comparison)).No, the game's over Ken Fisher, face it.
Want to keep making money off your website?
Time to spend some of what you've earned from it it looks like in funding it yourself.
Want to make money??
You'll have to spend money to do so, sooner or later.THE FUTURE IS NOW, buddy.Go on now, switch to a subscriber only model, &amp; see how many people still attend your website.
They'll simply move to another, &amp; quickly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31395178</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267966440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Free alternative site, here we come!!!  Oh, Ars went tits-up?  Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh some more on the way out!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Free alternative site , here we come ! ! !
Oh , Ars went tits-up ?
Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh some more on the way out !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free alternative site, here we come!!!
Oh, Ars went tits-up?
Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh some more on the way out!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393370</id>
	<title>Show me text only ads relevant to what I read</title>
	<author>melted</author>
	<datestamp>1267954560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Show me text only ads relevant to what I read. That's all I ask. Don't bombard me with BS I never click on. It's POINTLESS to show me those ads, and I'm pretty sure I'm saving at least someone money by not downloading them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Show me text only ads relevant to what I read .
That 's all I ask .
Do n't bombard me with BS I never click on .
It 's POINTLESS to show me those ads , and I 'm pretty sure I 'm saving at least someone money by not downloading them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Show me text only ads relevant to what I read.
That's all I ask.
Don't bombard me with BS I never click on.
It's POINTLESS to show me those ads, and I'm pretty sure I'm saving at least someone money by not downloading them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392118</id>
	<title>Re:Ads suck</title>
	<author>Ifni</author>
	<datestamp>1267989900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your logic in your sig is highly flawed, which might explain the view espoused in your comment.</p><p>1. 1^2=1; good so far</p><p>2. (-1)^2=1; yes, yes</p><p>3. 1^2=(-1)^2; I'm with you so far</p><p>4. 1=-1; wait, what?  You just said that (-1)^2=1, now you are saying it equals -1?  Shouldn't the previous statement evaluate to 1=1?</p><p>5. 1=0; Um, that's not how this works (though it might explain the mistake in step 4), even if we took that last statement at face value - you are supposed to add, subtract, multiply, divide, etc each side the same (simply removing the exponent, as you did in step 4, is not a valid operation), so you would either add 1 to each side, or subtract one from each side (or multiply/divide both sides by 1 or -1), not add one side to the other.  So you would end up with either 2=0 or 0=-2</p><p>I suspect you know this, which is probably why you felt this was humorous enough to include as your sig, but in a cutthroat community like Slashdot, having a logic error in your sig does not foster confidence in your comments.  Especially when your comment is a perfect example of such logical fallacy.</p><p>YOU chose to view their free content, so the ad is not unsolicited - just like radio and TV and newspaper and magazine ads.  THAT is the difference between web advertising and fax/cold calls.  Since your basis has just been shown to be invalid, the rest of your argument crumbles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your logic in your sig is highly flawed , which might explain the view espoused in your comment.1 .
1 ^ 2 = 1 ; good so far2 .
( -1 ) ^ 2 = 1 ; yes , yes3 .
1 ^ 2 = ( -1 ) ^ 2 ; I 'm with you so far4 .
1 = -1 ; wait , what ?
You just said that ( -1 ) ^ 2 = 1 , now you are saying it equals -1 ?
Should n't the previous statement evaluate to 1 = 1 ? 5 .
1 = 0 ; Um , that 's not how this works ( though it might explain the mistake in step 4 ) , even if we took that last statement at face value - you are supposed to add , subtract , multiply , divide , etc each side the same ( simply removing the exponent , as you did in step 4 , is not a valid operation ) , so you would either add 1 to each side , or subtract one from each side ( or multiply/divide both sides by 1 or -1 ) , not add one side to the other .
So you would end up with either 2 = 0 or 0 = -2I suspect you know this , which is probably why you felt this was humorous enough to include as your sig , but in a cutthroat community like Slashdot , having a logic error in your sig does not foster confidence in your comments .
Especially when your comment is a perfect example of such logical fallacy.YOU chose to view their free content , so the ad is not unsolicited - just like radio and TV and newspaper and magazine ads .
THAT is the difference between web advertising and fax/cold calls .
Since your basis has just been shown to be invalid , the rest of your argument crumbles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your logic in your sig is highly flawed, which might explain the view espoused in your comment.1.
1^2=1; good so far2.
(-1)^2=1; yes, yes3.
1^2=(-1)^2; I'm with you so far4.
1=-1; wait, what?
You just said that (-1)^2=1, now you are saying it equals -1?
Shouldn't the previous statement evaluate to 1=1?5.
1=0; Um, that's not how this works (though it might explain the mistake in step 4), even if we took that last statement at face value - you are supposed to add, subtract, multiply, divide, etc each side the same (simply removing the exponent, as you did in step 4, is not a valid operation), so you would either add 1 to each side, or subtract one from each side (or multiply/divide both sides by 1 or -1), not add one side to the other.
So you would end up with either 2=0 or 0=-2I suspect you know this, which is probably why you felt this was humorous enough to include as your sig, but in a cutthroat community like Slashdot, having a logic error in your sig does not foster confidence in your comments.
Especially when your comment is a perfect example of such logical fallacy.YOU chose to view their free content, so the ad is not unsolicited - just like radio and TV and newspaper and magazine ads.
THAT is the difference between web advertising and fax/cold calls.
Since your basis has just been shown to be invalid, the rest of your argument crumbles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394492</id>
	<title>Re:well then</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267961400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They do all of that except for the occasional animated ad which doesn't play for more then a few seconds.  They are going to be re-opening your their store as well, but they do offer a yearly (soon to be monthly) subscription.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do all of that except for the occasional animated ad which does n't play for more then a few seconds .
They are going to be re-opening your their store as well , but they do offer a yearly ( soon to be monthly ) subscription .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do all of that except for the occasional animated ad which doesn't play for more then a few seconds.
They are going to be re-opening your their store as well, but they do offer a yearly (soon to be monthly) subscription.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389310</id>
	<title>Re:Ads suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267974240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>by blocking ads and still visiting the site <strong>you</strong> are costing the content provider money</p></div><p>We have the option of using adblocking software, they have the option of using client blocking software.  Obviously Ars was able to do it, ain't nothing stopping any other site from doing the same.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>by blocking ads and still visiting the site you are costing the content provider moneyWe have the option of using adblocking software , they have the option of using client blocking software .
Obviously Ars was able to do it , ai n't nothing stopping any other site from doing the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>by blocking ads and still visiting the site you are costing the content provider moneyWe have the option of using adblocking software, they have the option of using client blocking software.
Obviously Ars was able to do it, ain't nothing stopping any other site from doing the same.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802</id>
	<title>Sorry Ars, you are animated too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267971780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have been through all this stuff over and over again.  People wouldn't have started blocking ads in the first place if they were reasonable ads.  These are the reasons I use an ad-blocker:</p><p>* Animation- movement of any type<br>* Sound<br>* Popups<br>* Flyouts<br>* More ad space than content space<br>* Slow loading third-party sites</p><p>I am so anti-animation (I can't STAND movement on the screen while I am trying to read) that I have to block even non-Ad content (using "Flash Killer" and/or a manual Adblock addition for those sections with movement).  Sometimes I even have to resort to killing Javascript ("JS Switch"). I don't want to deny sites revenue, but without being able to block the above types of Ad's, I wouldn't visit (or stay on) a site, anyway- so there is little difference.</p><p>Sorry Ars Technica... you can CLAIM your ads are non-intrusive and "quality", but I just visited your site with adblocking off and was immediately met with one highly annoying animated banner and a second, lower-animated, section.  At least you only had two.</p><p>I am tired of companies trying to turn the Internet into Television.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have been through all this stuff over and over again .
People would n't have started blocking ads in the first place if they were reasonable ads .
These are the reasons I use an ad-blocker : * Animation- movement of any type * Sound * Popups * Flyouts * More ad space than content space * Slow loading third-party sitesI am so anti-animation ( I ca n't STAND movement on the screen while I am trying to read ) that I have to block even non-Ad content ( using " Flash Killer " and/or a manual Adblock addition for those sections with movement ) .
Sometimes I even have to resort to killing Javascript ( " JS Switch " ) .
I do n't want to deny sites revenue , but without being able to block the above types of Ad 's , I would n't visit ( or stay on ) a site , anyway- so there is little difference.Sorry Ars Technica... you can CLAIM your ads are non-intrusive and " quality " , but I just visited your site with adblocking off and was immediately met with one highly annoying animated banner and a second , lower-animated , section .
At least you only had two.I am tired of companies trying to turn the Internet into Television .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have been through all this stuff over and over again.
People wouldn't have started blocking ads in the first place if they were reasonable ads.
These are the reasons I use an ad-blocker:* Animation- movement of any type* Sound* Popups* Flyouts* More ad space than content space* Slow loading third-party sitesI am so anti-animation (I can't STAND movement on the screen while I am trying to read) that I have to block even non-Ad content (using "Flash Killer" and/or a manual Adblock addition for those sections with movement).
Sometimes I even have to resort to killing Javascript ("JS Switch").
I don't want to deny sites revenue, but without being able to block the above types of Ad's, I wouldn't visit (or stay on) a site, anyway- so there is little difference.Sorry Ars Technica... you can CLAIM your ads are non-intrusive and "quality", but I just visited your site with adblocking off and was immediately met with one highly annoying animated banner and a second, lower-animated, section.
At least you only had two.I am tired of companies trying to turn the Internet into Television.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391824</id>
	<title>Re:Ads suck</title>
	<author>sootman</author>
	<datestamp>1267988580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow. You are so totally wrong you don't deserve a single "insightful" mod. Since Slashdot still lacks a "-1. factually incorrect" mod option, I feel compelled to reply, lest people stand in awe of your "+5, Insightful" score and think you're actually right.</p><p>"There are laws against sending advertisements over the fax and cold-calling cell phones. The logic is that the recipient must pay for the unsolicited advertisement (in fax paper, toner, or cell phone minutes). Internet ads are no different. I pay for bandwidth and connection time, so your ad directly costs me money, and it should be illegal for that reason."</p><p>Wrong, wrong, WRONG. The ads you see WHEN YOU VISIT A SITE THAT SOMEONE ELSE IS RUNNING are NOT "unsolicited." Let me put it to you this way: if some junk mail arrives at your house, that's unsolicited. If a magazine that you subscribe to arrives and it contains ads, those ads are NOT "unsolicited." If someone sends you an ad via fax, that is unsolicited. If you're watching a TV show and it has ads, those ads are not. See the difference?</p><p>Ars is a business. They choose to pay writers to create content, they buy servers and pay for electricity to keep them running, and they pay for bandwidth to--believe it or not, they do not get ONE PENNY of the money you give your ISP. And since they spent all this money to create content, they get to choose how to pay for it. They offer <a href="http://ars-technica.com/subscriptions/" title="ars-technica.com">subscriptions</a> [ars-technica.com] but obviously your cheap ass isn't paying for that--if you were, you would not be here complaining about the ads because you wouldn't see them. Pretty much the only other option they have to make money is to sell ads. It's their product that comes along with these ads, so they are fully within their rights to do whatever the hell they want to with it.</p><p>It breaks down like this:</p><ul> <li>They pay to create content.</li><li>They use ads to pay for the content.</li><li>You are free to block their ads.</li><li>They are free to deny you the content they paid to produce.</li></ul><p>And that's the deal. You don't like it? Then block their ads or don't visit them. If they go out of business it is, as you say, "their problem." But get the idea out of your head that they're supposed to pay a staff to create content, pay to keep a bunch of servers running, AND then give that content away.</p><p>If somebody wants to run a site as a hobby and give away content, that's fine. If someone decides to run a site as a business, they are free to do so, and like EVERY OTHER BUSINESS N THE PLANET you are free to patronize them or not. It's just that simple. You don't like it? Then pay for some writers, start your own site, and give away the content, or "get creative" and find a way to monetize it that doesn't make whiny freeloaders like you unhappy. Otherwise, please STFU.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
You are so totally wrong you do n't deserve a single " insightful " mod .
Since Slashdot still lacks a " -1. factually incorrect " mod option , I feel compelled to reply , lest people stand in awe of your " + 5 , Insightful " score and think you 're actually right .
" There are laws against sending advertisements over the fax and cold-calling cell phones .
The logic is that the recipient must pay for the unsolicited advertisement ( in fax paper , toner , or cell phone minutes ) .
Internet ads are no different .
I pay for bandwidth and connection time , so your ad directly costs me money , and it should be illegal for that reason .
" Wrong , wrong , WRONG .
The ads you see WHEN YOU VISIT A SITE THAT SOMEONE ELSE IS RUNNING are NOT " unsolicited .
" Let me put it to you this way : if some junk mail arrives at your house , that 's unsolicited .
If a magazine that you subscribe to arrives and it contains ads , those ads are NOT " unsolicited .
" If someone sends you an ad via fax , that is unsolicited .
If you 're watching a TV show and it has ads , those ads are not .
See the difference ? Ars is a business .
They choose to pay writers to create content , they buy servers and pay for electricity to keep them running , and they pay for bandwidth to--believe it or not , they do not get ONE PENNY of the money you give your ISP .
And since they spent all this money to create content , they get to choose how to pay for it .
They offer subscriptions [ ars-technica.com ] but obviously your cheap ass is n't paying for that--if you were , you would not be here complaining about the ads because you would n't see them .
Pretty much the only other option they have to make money is to sell ads .
It 's their product that comes along with these ads , so they are fully within their rights to do whatever the hell they want to with it.It breaks down like this : They pay to create content.They use ads to pay for the content.You are free to block their ads.They are free to deny you the content they paid to produce.And that 's the deal .
You do n't like it ?
Then block their ads or do n't visit them .
If they go out of business it is , as you say , " their problem .
" But get the idea out of your head that they 're supposed to pay a staff to create content , pay to keep a bunch of servers running , AND then give that content away.If somebody wants to run a site as a hobby and give away content , that 's fine .
If someone decides to run a site as a business , they are free to do so , and like EVERY OTHER BUSINESS N THE PLANET you are free to patronize them or not .
It 's just that simple .
You do n't like it ?
Then pay for some writers , start your own site , and give away the content , or " get creative " and find a way to monetize it that does n't make whiny freeloaders like you unhappy .
Otherwise , please STFU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
You are so totally wrong you don't deserve a single "insightful" mod.
Since Slashdot still lacks a "-1. factually incorrect" mod option, I feel compelled to reply, lest people stand in awe of your "+5, Insightful" score and think you're actually right.
"There are laws against sending advertisements over the fax and cold-calling cell phones.
The logic is that the recipient must pay for the unsolicited advertisement (in fax paper, toner, or cell phone minutes).
Internet ads are no different.
I pay for bandwidth and connection time, so your ad directly costs me money, and it should be illegal for that reason.
"Wrong, wrong, WRONG.
The ads you see WHEN YOU VISIT A SITE THAT SOMEONE ELSE IS RUNNING are NOT "unsolicited.
" Let me put it to you this way: if some junk mail arrives at your house, that's unsolicited.
If a magazine that you subscribe to arrives and it contains ads, those ads are NOT "unsolicited.
" If someone sends you an ad via fax, that is unsolicited.
If you're watching a TV show and it has ads, those ads are not.
See the difference?Ars is a business.
They choose to pay writers to create content, they buy servers and pay for electricity to keep them running, and they pay for bandwidth to--believe it or not, they do not get ONE PENNY of the money you give your ISP.
And since they spent all this money to create content, they get to choose how to pay for it.
They offer subscriptions [ars-technica.com] but obviously your cheap ass isn't paying for that--if you were, you would not be here complaining about the ads because you wouldn't see them.
Pretty much the only other option they have to make money is to sell ads.
It's their product that comes along with these ads, so they are fully within their rights to do whatever the hell they want to with it.It breaks down like this: They pay to create content.They use ads to pay for the content.You are free to block their ads.They are free to deny you the content they paid to produce.And that's the deal.
You don't like it?
Then block their ads or don't visit them.
If they go out of business it is, as you say, "their problem.
" But get the idea out of your head that they're supposed to pay a staff to create content, pay to keep a bunch of servers running, AND then give that content away.If somebody wants to run a site as a hobby and give away content, that's fine.
If someone decides to run a site as a business, they are free to do so, and like EVERY OTHER BUSINESS N THE PLANET you are free to patronize them or not.
It's just that simple.
You don't like it?
Then pay for some writers, start your own site, and give away the content, or "get creative" and find a way to monetize it that doesn't make whiny freeloaders like you unhappy.
Otherwise, please STFU.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391872</id>
	<title>Re:It's *my* CPU you're using</title>
	<author>Ifni</author>
	<datestamp>1267988820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why we have reality TV programming and the pop sensation of the week...</htmltext>
<tokenext>And this , ladies and gentlemen , is why we have reality TV programming and the pop sensation of the week.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why we have reality TV programming and the pop sensation of the week...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389844</id>
	<title>not me</title>
	<author>McGiraf</author>
	<datestamp>1267977240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>" Does that mean that there are the occasional intrusive ads, expanding this way and that? Yes, sometimes we have to accept those ads."</p><p>Maybe you do, but I don't. You want to sell my eyeball for money? give me a cut, not "content".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Does that mean that there are the occasional intrusive ads , expanding this way and that ?
Yes , sometimes we have to accept those ads .
" Maybe you do , but I do n't .
You want to sell my eyeball for money ?
give me a cut , not " content " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" Does that mean that there are the occasional intrusive ads, expanding this way and that?
Yes, sometimes we have to accept those ads.
"Maybe you do, but I don't.
You want to sell my eyeball for money?
give me a cut, not "content".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392898</id>
	<title>Arstech ads apparently can't be trusted, inside</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267994640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica</b> -&gt; Philip</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PM<br>internet</p><p>Philip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it. When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus. Here is a copy of my log. I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites. 1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"</p><p>Link to Original Source</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica - &gt; Philiphttp : //slashdot.org/firehose.pl ? op = view&amp;id = 447008 [ slashdot.org ] Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008 , @ 03 : 00PMinternetPhilip writes " It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it .
When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus .
Here is a copy of my log .
I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites .
1/2/2008 2 : 27 : 15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe ( http : //arstechnica.com/index.ars ) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO ( Trojan ) " Link to Original Sourcehttp : //slashdot.org/firehose.pl ? op = view&amp;id = 447008 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica -&gt; Philiphttp://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008 [slashdot.org]Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PMinternetPhilip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it.
When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus.
Here is a copy of my log.
I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites.
1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"Link to Original Sourcehttp://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389202</id>
	<title>Ad blockers will just stop announcing themselves</title>
	<author>H4x0r Jim Duggan</author>
	<datestamp>1267973700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you block browsers that have "with Mega Ad Blocker" in the browser string, then those programs will just stop mentioning their presence in the browser string.  Or if the server detects if the ads were downloaded or not, then the Ad Blocker will starting downloading the ads (lowest priority), but still not showing them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you block browsers that have " with Mega Ad Blocker " in the browser string , then those programs will just stop mentioning their presence in the browser string .
Or if the server detects if the ads were downloaded or not , then the Ad Blocker will starting downloading the ads ( lowest priority ) , but still not showing them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you block browsers that have "with Mega Ad Blocker" in the browser string, then those programs will just stop mentioning their presence in the browser string.
Or if the server detects if the ads were downloaded or not, then the Ad Blocker will starting downloading the ads (lowest priority), but still not showing them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393050</id>
	<title>Adblockers that still download all content?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267952400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone have an alternative to adblock that actually downloads all content, renders it, but "whites it out" on the client side so we don't see it?</p><p>I don't have a problem with bandwidth or loading speed - I just don't want to see the ads.  If everything is downloaded as normal, advertisers will still pay the bills (because there would be no way of telling if visitors were blocking or not), but we wouldn't be annoyed with ads.</p><p>Possible?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone have an alternative to adblock that actually downloads all content , renders it , but " whites it out " on the client side so we do n't see it ? I do n't have a problem with bandwidth or loading speed - I just do n't want to see the ads .
If everything is downloaded as normal , advertisers will still pay the bills ( because there would be no way of telling if visitors were blocking or not ) , but we would n't be annoyed with ads.Possible ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone have an alternative to adblock that actually downloads all content, renders it, but "whites it out" on the client side so we don't see it?I don't have a problem with bandwidth or loading speed - I just don't want to see the ads.
If everything is downloaded as normal, advertisers will still pay the bills (because there would be no way of telling if visitors were blocking or not), but we wouldn't be annoyed with ads.Possible?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394186</id>
	<title>Idiocy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267959840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once again, Ted Nelson has been proven right.</p><p>I love how the idea that it's somehow our "job" to click on ads is reinforced by this Ars article.  It is NOT my job.  It is NOT my duty to be subjected to advertising of any kind, Web or Television.  I'm paying enough god damn money for my internet connection (and cable).  Advertising is NOT speech.</p><p>But back to my original comment:  Ted Nelson was pooh-pooed and reviled by "luminaries" at Wired and elsewhere for daring to suggest a micropayment scheme to fund the web.  Actually it had nothing to do with the web at all:  it was part of Xanadu, the system the Web was a piss-poor copy of.  He foresaw that the system would need funding, exactly the way the current web does.  He knew this back in the 60's.  The half-assed copy of Xanadu pioneered by Berners-Lee had none of this in it's design.  The web's lame-assed "answer" to the need for funding was "Punch the Monkey" and popup/pop-under intrusive bullshit advertising.  "Nonsense!" the cry went out from the internet cowboys, "Pshaw!  Old Mad Ted knows nothing of what he's speaking..this is The Internet(TM), and it's a gold rush!"  How are y'all enjoying that Fools Gold now?</p><p>Advertising is doomed to failure.  It always will be.  Ever since the VCR people have been fast forwarding past that bullshit and will continue to do so.  Micropayments are an answer...a good, simple working one.  Hell, "old mad Ted" even had the whole system worked out to give original authors their due AND payment.  But you all would rather ignore that and re-invent the wheel badly.</p><p>The SYSTEM needs to change.  If you can't run your web sites without slinging visual slop at me (in the form of advertisements) then you deserve to fail.  This is the New Media after all...COME UP WITH SOMETHING DIFFERENT.  Or just admit that Ted was right after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again , Ted Nelson has been proven right.I love how the idea that it 's somehow our " job " to click on ads is reinforced by this Ars article .
It is NOT my job .
It is NOT my duty to be subjected to advertising of any kind , Web or Television .
I 'm paying enough god damn money for my internet connection ( and cable ) .
Advertising is NOT speech.But back to my original comment : Ted Nelson was pooh-pooed and reviled by " luminaries " at Wired and elsewhere for daring to suggest a micropayment scheme to fund the web .
Actually it had nothing to do with the web at all : it was part of Xanadu , the system the Web was a piss-poor copy of .
He foresaw that the system would need funding , exactly the way the current web does .
He knew this back in the 60 's .
The half-assed copy of Xanadu pioneered by Berners-Lee had none of this in it 's design .
The web 's lame-assed " answer " to the need for funding was " Punch the Monkey " and popup/pop-under intrusive bullshit advertising .
" Nonsense ! " the cry went out from the internet cowboys , " Pshaw !
Old Mad Ted knows nothing of what he 's speaking..this is The Internet ( TM ) , and it 's a gold rush !
" How are y'all enjoying that Fools Gold now ? Advertising is doomed to failure .
It always will be .
Ever since the VCR people have been fast forwarding past that bullshit and will continue to do so .
Micropayments are an answer...a good , simple working one .
Hell , " old mad Ted " even had the whole system worked out to give original authors their due AND payment .
But you all would rather ignore that and re-invent the wheel badly.The SYSTEM needs to change .
If you ca n't run your web sites without slinging visual slop at me ( in the form of advertisements ) then you deserve to fail .
This is the New Media after all...COME UP WITH SOMETHING DIFFERENT .
Or just admit that Ted was right after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again, Ted Nelson has been proven right.I love how the idea that it's somehow our "job" to click on ads is reinforced by this Ars article.
It is NOT my job.
It is NOT my duty to be subjected to advertising of any kind, Web or Television.
I'm paying enough god damn money for my internet connection (and cable).
Advertising is NOT speech.But back to my original comment:  Ted Nelson was pooh-pooed and reviled by "luminaries" at Wired and elsewhere for daring to suggest a micropayment scheme to fund the web.
Actually it had nothing to do with the web at all:  it was part of Xanadu, the system the Web was a piss-poor copy of.
He foresaw that the system would need funding, exactly the way the current web does.
He knew this back in the 60's.
The half-assed copy of Xanadu pioneered by Berners-Lee had none of this in it's design.
The web's lame-assed "answer" to the need for funding was "Punch the Monkey" and popup/pop-under intrusive bullshit advertising.
"Nonsense!" the cry went out from the internet cowboys, "Pshaw!
Old Mad Ted knows nothing of what he's speaking..this is The Internet(TM), and it's a gold rush!
"  How are y'all enjoying that Fools Gold now?Advertising is doomed to failure.
It always will be.
Ever since the VCR people have been fast forwarding past that bullshit and will continue to do so.
Micropayments are an answer...a good, simple working one.
Hell, "old mad Ted" even had the whole system worked out to give original authors their due AND payment.
But you all would rather ignore that and re-invent the wheel badly.The SYSTEM needs to change.
If you can't run your web sites without slinging visual slop at me (in the form of advertisements) then you deserve to fail.
This is the New Media after all...COME UP WITH SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
Or just admit that Ted was right after all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31398744</id>
	<title>Re:Couple of things the submission missed</title>
	<author>makomk</author>
	<datestamp>1268045880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Readers who complained [arstechnica.com] were called "leechers" who were "held in contempt".</p></div><p>And then their forum accounts were permanently banned. Don't forget that part.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Readers who complained [ arstechnica.com ] were called " leechers " who were " held in contempt " .And then their forum accounts were permanently banned .
Do n't forget that part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Readers who complained [arstechnica.com] were called "leechers" who were "held in contempt".And then their forum accounts were permanently banned.
Don't forget that part.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390882</id>
	<title>Re:How is this different than muting TV commercial</title>
	<author>GuldKalle</author>
	<datestamp>1267983480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Invariably someone always pops into a discussion like this and brings up some analogy with television advertising, radio, or somesuch. It is not in any way the same; advertisers in those mediums are paying for potential to reach audiences, and not for results. They have complex models which tell them if X number are watching, Y will likely see the ad (and it even varies by ad position, show type, etc!). But they really have no true idea who sees what ad, and that's why it's a medium based on potential and not provable results. On the Internet everything is 100\% trackable and is billed and sold as such. Comparing a website to TiVo is comparing apples to asparagus.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA : Invariably someone always pops into a discussion like this and brings up some analogy with television advertising , radio , or somesuch .
It is not in any way the same ; advertisers in those mediums are paying for potential to reach audiences , and not for results .
They have complex models which tell them if X number are watching , Y will likely see the ad ( and it even varies by ad position , show type , etc ! ) .
But they really have no true idea who sees what ad , and that 's why it 's a medium based on potential and not provable results .
On the Internet everything is 100 \ % trackable and is billed and sold as such .
Comparing a website to TiVo is comparing apples to asparagus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA:Invariably someone always pops into a discussion like this and brings up some analogy with television advertising, radio, or somesuch.
It is not in any way the same; advertisers in those mediums are paying for potential to reach audiences, and not for results.
They have complex models which tell them if X number are watching, Y will likely see the ad (and it even varies by ad position, show type, etc!).
But they really have no true idea who sees what ad, and that's why it's a medium based on potential and not provable results.
On the Internet everything is 100\% trackable and is billed and sold as such.
Comparing a website to TiVo is comparing apples to asparagus.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389418</id>
	<title>TOTC</title>
	<author>cvtan</author>
	<datestamp>1267974900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You realize that saying, "Please don't block our ads or people will be out of work." is a Think of the Children argument.  "Please buy our heroin or our poor farmers will starve."  "Please buy our 1975 Trabant or the Fatherland will surely perish!"
See 50 Worst Cars of All Time: <a href="http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545\_1658533\_1658030,00.html" title="time.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545\_1658533\_1658030,00.html</a> [time.com].
Please see the Abbott and Costello mustard routine: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q24mfUn9HFU" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q24mfUn9HFU</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>You realize that saying , " Please do n't block our ads or people will be out of work .
" is a Think of the Children argument .
" Please buy our heroin or our poor farmers will starve .
" " Please buy our 1975 Trabant or the Fatherland will surely perish !
" See 50 Worst Cars of All Time : http : //www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545 \ _1658533 \ _1658030,00.html [ time.com ] .
Please see the Abbott and Costello mustard routine : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = Q24mfUn9HFU [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You realize that saying, "Please don't block our ads or people will be out of work.
" is a Think of the Children argument.
"Please buy our heroin or our poor farmers will starve.
"  "Please buy our 1975 Trabant or the Fatherland will surely perish!
"
See 50 Worst Cars of All Time: http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545\_1658533\_1658030,00.html [time.com].
Please see the Abbott and Costello mustard routine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q24mfUn9HFU [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390124</id>
	<title>Re:Content Creators Just Can't Win</title>
	<author>Garwulf</author>
	<datestamp>1267979160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, first off, you've raised some very good points, but you shouldn't have included authors in your list for a couple of reasons.  Number one, authors don't get usually paid for book signings; and number two, most people still consume books as paper objects - the printed book occupies around 95\% of the market, with the e-book and audiobook fighting over the remainder - so the original business model still actually holds true.</p><p>(And, the 2009 figures are in - the e-book made a lot of gains in 2009, reaching 3.31\% of the total market.  Source: <a href="http://www.publishers.org/main/PressCenter/Archicves/2010\_February/SalesUp4.1in2009Release.htm" title="publishers.org">http://www.publishers.org/main/PressCenter/Archicves/2010\_February/SalesUp4.1in2009Release.htm</a> [publishers.org] )</p><p>That said, there will be adjustments in the market.  The way I figure it will play out is as follows:</p><p>1. Advertising-based sites lose revenue from ad-blockers, and content quality goes down.<br>2. Those sites either move to a subscription or corporate sponsorship-based revenue stream (or something else that works) or die out.<br>3. Something new happens.</p><p>Ultimately, somebody has to pay for the content - whether it's paying the writers (always a good thing!), or just for the bandwidth, the money has to come from somewhere.  So, with online advertising having become somewhat toxic (as has been pointed out, a lot of these ads carry malware), that particular business model is on its way out.  Eventually, a new one will come in, and it will last as long as the market allows.</p><p>So, it's not really a matter of deserving anything.  The business plan either survives contact with reality or it doesn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , first off , you 've raised some very good points , but you should n't have included authors in your list for a couple of reasons .
Number one , authors do n't get usually paid for book signings ; and number two , most people still consume books as paper objects - the printed book occupies around 95 \ % of the market , with the e-book and audiobook fighting over the remainder - so the original business model still actually holds true .
( And , the 2009 figures are in - the e-book made a lot of gains in 2009 , reaching 3.31 \ % of the total market .
Source : http : //www.publishers.org/main/PressCenter/Archicves/2010 \ _February/SalesUp4.1in2009Release.htm [ publishers.org ] ) That said , there will be adjustments in the market .
The way I figure it will play out is as follows : 1 .
Advertising-based sites lose revenue from ad-blockers , and content quality goes down.2 .
Those sites either move to a subscription or corporate sponsorship-based revenue stream ( or something else that works ) or die out.3 .
Something new happens.Ultimately , somebody has to pay for the content - whether it 's paying the writers ( always a good thing !
) , or just for the bandwidth , the money has to come from somewhere .
So , with online advertising having become somewhat toxic ( as has been pointed out , a lot of these ads carry malware ) , that particular business model is on its way out .
Eventually , a new one will come in , and it will last as long as the market allows.So , it 's not really a matter of deserving anything .
The business plan either survives contact with reality or it does n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, first off, you've raised some very good points, but you shouldn't have included authors in your list for a couple of reasons.
Number one, authors don't get usually paid for book signings; and number two, most people still consume books as paper objects - the printed book occupies around 95\% of the market, with the e-book and audiobook fighting over the remainder - so the original business model still actually holds true.
(And, the 2009 figures are in - the e-book made a lot of gains in 2009, reaching 3.31\% of the total market.
Source: http://www.publishers.org/main/PressCenter/Archicves/2010\_February/SalesUp4.1in2009Release.htm [publishers.org] )That said, there will be adjustments in the market.
The way I figure it will play out is as follows:1.
Advertising-based sites lose revenue from ad-blockers, and content quality goes down.2.
Those sites either move to a subscription or corporate sponsorship-based revenue stream (or something else that works) or die out.3.
Something new happens.Ultimately, somebody has to pay for the content - whether it's paying the writers (always a good thing!
), or just for the bandwidth, the money has to come from somewhere.
So, with online advertising having become somewhat toxic (as has been pointed out, a lot of these ads carry malware), that particular business model is on its way out.
Eventually, a new one will come in, and it will last as long as the market allows.So, it's not really a matter of deserving anything.
The business plan either survives contact with reality or it doesn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388902</id>
	<title>Adblock Plus proposal</title>
	<author>kasper\_souren</author>
	<datestamp>1267972260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're missing the point.  Most of the ads only get them money if people click on them.  From my experience people who run adblock software are also people who refuse to click on ads in general.  So instead of calling people to be annoyed by ads they should call people to turn off their adblock for a second, click on an ad and turn it back on. But well, that's not gonna make the advertisers happy.

The authors of Adblock Plus came up with a better proposal <a href="http://adblockplus.org/blog/an-approach-to-fair-ad-blocking" title="adblockplus.org" rel="nofollow">http://adblockplus.org/blog/an-approach-to-fair-ad-blocking</a> [adblockplus.org] - I wonder if Ars Technica has looked into that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're missing the point .
Most of the ads only get them money if people click on them .
From my experience people who run adblock software are also people who refuse to click on ads in general .
So instead of calling people to be annoyed by ads they should call people to turn off their adblock for a second , click on an ad and turn it back on .
But well , that 's not gon na make the advertisers happy .
The authors of Adblock Plus came up with a better proposal http : //adblockplus.org/blog/an-approach-to-fair-ad-blocking [ adblockplus.org ] - I wonder if Ars Technica has looked into that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're missing the point.
Most of the ads only get them money if people click on them.
From my experience people who run adblock software are also people who refuse to click on ads in general.
So instead of calling people to be annoyed by ads they should call people to turn off their adblock for a second, click on an ad and turn it back on.
But well, that's not gonna make the advertisers happy.
The authors of Adblock Plus came up with a better proposal http://adblockplus.org/blog/an-approach-to-fair-ad-blocking [adblockplus.org] - I wonder if Ars Technica has looked into that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389662</id>
	<title>Re:The other side: Ad abuse and malware</title>
	<author>Stray7Xi</author>
	<datestamp>1267976220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I consider it irresponsible not to browse the web with a really good ad/Flash/javascript blocker. Not just because of the annoyance factor, but because it is a significant vector of malicious code attacks.</p></div><p>Exactly.  I will gladly view the ads if they were served by Ars (yes I know this isn't how web advertising economics works).    I have a relationship with ars, they provide me with content.  I'm willing to reciprocate in some way but I'm not giving the keys to my computer to some stranger who writes Ars a check.  I don't have a relationship with doubleclick, adsense or f7feghn.cn.  I don't trust those sites, and even if they served me plain static images I don't want them tracking my web browsing.  I'm a kindle subscriber to Ars and I adblock them on my PC.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I consider it irresponsible not to browse the web with a really good ad/Flash/javascript blocker .
Not just because of the annoyance factor , but because it is a significant vector of malicious code attacks.Exactly .
I will gladly view the ads if they were served by Ars ( yes I know this is n't how web advertising economics works ) .
I have a relationship with ars , they provide me with content .
I 'm willing to reciprocate in some way but I 'm not giving the keys to my computer to some stranger who writes Ars a check .
I do n't have a relationship with doubleclick , adsense or f7feghn.cn .
I do n't trust those sites , and even if they served me plain static images I do n't want them tracking my web browsing .
I 'm a kindle subscriber to Ars and I adblock them on my PC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I consider it irresponsible not to browse the web with a really good ad/Flash/javascript blocker.
Not just because of the annoyance factor, but because it is a significant vector of malicious code attacks.Exactly.
I will gladly view the ads if they were served by Ars (yes I know this isn't how web advertising economics works).
I have a relationship with ars, they provide me with content.
I'm willing to reciprocate in some way but I'm not giving the keys to my computer to some stranger who writes Ars a check.
I don't have a relationship with doubleclick, adsense or f7feghn.cn.
I don't trust those sites, and even if they served me plain static images I don't want them tracking my web browsing.
I'm a kindle subscriber to Ars and I adblock them on my PC.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390346</id>
	<title>Put the burden on the advertisers</title>
	<author>chaotropic agent</author>
	<datestamp>1267980420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think maybe Adblock Plus, or some other trustworthy party should generate a list of companies and adservers that comply with delivering non-intrusive, friendly, good quality ads so that users could allow those ads to go through, while blocking all other ad content. If an advertiser on the good list then comes along with a pop-up or some flash that takes over the whole screen, users should be able to vote them off the list. That way, we aren't judging the website or blaming the user, who are not the people who are the problem. The websites, knowing full well that the ads from the advertisers on the good list are being delivered to the user, will let those advertisers use their space over the other advertisers and in the end it would be the advertisers who would have to change to become more friendly to the users. I think users all just want the highest quality of content to be delivered to them, and we need to teach the advertisers this and not penalize the already proven quality of the websites we frequently visit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think maybe Adblock Plus , or some other trustworthy party should generate a list of companies and adservers that comply with delivering non-intrusive , friendly , good quality ads so that users could allow those ads to go through , while blocking all other ad content .
If an advertiser on the good list then comes along with a pop-up or some flash that takes over the whole screen , users should be able to vote them off the list .
That way , we are n't judging the website or blaming the user , who are not the people who are the problem .
The websites , knowing full well that the ads from the advertisers on the good list are being delivered to the user , will let those advertisers use their space over the other advertisers and in the end it would be the advertisers who would have to change to become more friendly to the users .
I think users all just want the highest quality of content to be delivered to them , and we need to teach the advertisers this and not penalize the already proven quality of the websites we frequently visit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think maybe Adblock Plus, or some other trustworthy party should generate a list of companies and adservers that comply with delivering non-intrusive, friendly, good quality ads so that users could allow those ads to go through, while blocking all other ad content.
If an advertiser on the good list then comes along with a pop-up or some flash that takes over the whole screen, users should be able to vote them off the list.
That way, we aren't judging the website or blaming the user, who are not the people who are the problem.
The websites, knowing full well that the ads from the advertisers on the good list are being delivered to the user, will let those advertisers use their space over the other advertisers and in the end it would be the advertisers who would have to change to become more friendly to the users.
I think users all just want the highest quality of content to be delivered to them, and we need to teach the advertisers this and not penalize the already proven quality of the websites we frequently visit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392856</id>
	<title>I have never clicked on an ad.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267994400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have never clicked on an ad, nor do I intend to ever click on an ad.</p><p>I would have continued to ignore ads rather than block them, until they became obnoxious.  It's hard to read text when there are flashing moving things around the screen.  So, I blocked them.  That's not really doing anyone any harm since you only get paid if the ads get clicked.   I'm not ever going to click an ad even if I could see them, I promise.</p><p>The only ways I choose whether or not to buy a product are:  word of mouth, demos where I get to handle/taste/use/etc., or detailed product reviews.  A flashy picture on a screen or 30-second television spot just isn't going to convince me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have never clicked on an ad , nor do I intend to ever click on an ad.I would have continued to ignore ads rather than block them , until they became obnoxious .
It 's hard to read text when there are flashing moving things around the screen .
So , I blocked them .
That 's not really doing anyone any harm since you only get paid if the ads get clicked .
I 'm not ever going to click an ad even if I could see them , I promise.The only ways I choose whether or not to buy a product are : word of mouth , demos where I get to handle/taste/use/etc. , or detailed product reviews .
A flashy picture on a screen or 30-second television spot just is n't going to convince me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have never clicked on an ad, nor do I intend to ever click on an ad.I would have continued to ignore ads rather than block them, until they became obnoxious.
It's hard to read text when there are flashing moving things around the screen.
So, I blocked them.
That's not really doing anyone any harm since you only get paid if the ads get clicked.
I'm not ever going to click an ad even if I could see them, I promise.The only ways I choose whether or not to buy a product are:  word of mouth, demos where I get to handle/taste/use/etc., or detailed product reviews.
A flashy picture on a screen or 30-second television spot just isn't going to convince me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391970</id>
	<title>Same here</title>
	<author>Wee</author>
	<datestamp>1267989360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't read something that has big flashy colors pulsating near it.
<br> <br>

The web is useless with the kinds of ads that Ars Technica has on its site (I just looked at it using IE; it's fucking terrible).  I can't read their site without blocking ads. So if they go under due to ad blocking, what's the loss?  I couldn't have viewed it anyway...
<br> <br>

-B</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't read something that has big flashy colors pulsating near it .
The web is useless with the kinds of ads that Ars Technica has on its site ( I just looked at it using IE ; it 's fucking terrible ) .
I ca n't read their site without blocking ads .
So if they go under due to ad blocking , what 's the loss ?
I could n't have viewed it anyway.. . -B</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't read something that has big flashy colors pulsating near it.
The web is useless with the kinds of ads that Ars Technica has on its site (I just looked at it using IE; it's fucking terrible).
I can't read their site without blocking ads.
So if they go under due to ad blocking, what's the loss?
I couldn't have viewed it anyway...
 

-B</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390868</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267983360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe you should just not visit their website.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe you should just not visit their website .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe you should just not visit their website.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391576</id>
	<title>Re:Block content and...</title>
	<author>nxtw</author>
	<datestamp>1267987200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> You won't be indexed by search engines, so you lose more than if you don't block it.</p></div></blockquote><p>Not true.  I have seen member only/premium sites that allow their content to be indexed by Google.  They even instruct Google not to cache the page.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You wo n't be indexed by search engines , so you lose more than if you do n't block it.Not true .
I have seen member only/premium sites that allow their content to be indexed by Google .
They even instruct Google not to cache the page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> You won't be indexed by search engines, so you lose more than if you don't block it.Not true.
I have seen member only/premium sites that allow their content to be indexed by Google.
They even instruct Google not to cache the page.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389176</id>
	<title>Cart before the horse again....</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1267973580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here we have yet another politician trying to manipulate us into seeing things his way with a fallacious argument.  Why does anyone decide to use ad-blocking software in the first place?  Do people set out with the express goal that "Heh, I'm gonna teach these fuckers a lesson"?  I certainly didn't.  Nope... I employed ad-blocking techniques because the ads became a truly hard-sell nightmare.  Does anyone recall the meatspace jokes about car salesmen and "hard sell" tactics?  That's what we're talking about here: digital ads that take a hard-sell approach.</p><p>NOBODY likes the hard-sell tactics.  That's why I, and most other people, employ RECIPROCAL tactics to block ads, because far too many are insanely hard-sell.  Has it been simple greed and lack of self-restraint, no scruples, or did their business model just suck vacuum from the start?  Is either cause my fault, my problem?  Honestly... and they blame *us* for starting the whole contest?  Ya got it ass backwards there, chum.  Ad-blocking is here to stay BECAUSE your foolish greed arrived first.</p><p>Honestly, it's already just too damned late; this ship had already sailed.  Advertisers proved themselves to be consistently untrustworthy and self-centered, and we responded in kind.  How do they intend to win back our trust?  Oh, that's right: by blaming the bad behavior on *us* and claiming they always had our best interests at heart.</p><p>Bullshit.</p><p>Ya know what?  I do believe I could survive well enough without their "content" if it just dried up and blew away.  So find yourselves a revenue model, guys, one that actually works and that we can actually afford, or just go away.  Ad-blocking is here to stay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here we have yet another politician trying to manipulate us into seeing things his way with a fallacious argument .
Why does anyone decide to use ad-blocking software in the first place ?
Do people set out with the express goal that " Heh , I 'm gon na teach these fuckers a lesson " ?
I certainly did n't .
Nope... I employed ad-blocking techniques because the ads became a truly hard-sell nightmare .
Does anyone recall the meatspace jokes about car salesmen and " hard sell " tactics ?
That 's what we 're talking about here : digital ads that take a hard-sell approach.NOBODY likes the hard-sell tactics .
That 's why I , and most other people , employ RECIPROCAL tactics to block ads , because far too many are insanely hard-sell .
Has it been simple greed and lack of self-restraint , no scruples , or did their business model just suck vacuum from the start ?
Is either cause my fault , my problem ?
Honestly... and they blame * us * for starting the whole contest ?
Ya got it ass backwards there , chum .
Ad-blocking is here to stay BECAUSE your foolish greed arrived first.Honestly , it 's already just too damned late ; this ship had already sailed .
Advertisers proved themselves to be consistently untrustworthy and self-centered , and we responded in kind .
How do they intend to win back our trust ?
Oh , that 's right : by blaming the bad behavior on * us * and claiming they always had our best interests at heart.Bullshit.Ya know what ?
I do believe I could survive well enough without their " content " if it just dried up and blew away .
So find yourselves a revenue model , guys , one that actually works and that we can actually afford , or just go away .
Ad-blocking is here to stay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here we have yet another politician trying to manipulate us into seeing things his way with a fallacious argument.
Why does anyone decide to use ad-blocking software in the first place?
Do people set out with the express goal that "Heh, I'm gonna teach these fuckers a lesson"?
I certainly didn't.
Nope... I employed ad-blocking techniques because the ads became a truly hard-sell nightmare.
Does anyone recall the meatspace jokes about car salesmen and "hard sell" tactics?
That's what we're talking about here: digital ads that take a hard-sell approach.NOBODY likes the hard-sell tactics.
That's why I, and most other people, employ RECIPROCAL tactics to block ads, because far too many are insanely hard-sell.
Has it been simple greed and lack of self-restraint, no scruples, or did their business model just suck vacuum from the start?
Is either cause my fault, my problem?
Honestly... and they blame *us* for starting the whole contest?
Ya got it ass backwards there, chum.
Ad-blocking is here to stay BECAUSE your foolish greed arrived first.Honestly, it's already just too damned late; this ship had already sailed.
Advertisers proved themselves to be consistently untrustworthy and self-centered, and we responded in kind.
How do they intend to win back our trust?
Oh, that's right: by blaming the bad behavior on *us* and claiming they always had our best interests at heart.Bullshit.Ya know what?
I do believe I could survive well enough without their "content" if it just dried up and blew away.
So find yourselves a revenue model, guys, one that actually works and that we can actually afford, or just go away.
Ad-blocking is here to stay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389812</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Ars, you are animated too</title>
	<author>KuRa\_Scvls</author>
	<datestamp>1267977120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am tired of companies trying to turn the Internet into Television.</p></div><p>You mean, they should totally ignore and forget about the last generally accepted method of mainstream advertising?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am tired of companies trying to turn the Internet into Television.You mean , they should totally ignore and forget about the last generally accepted method of mainstream advertising ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am tired of companies trying to turn the Internet into Television.You mean, they should totally ignore and forget about the last generally accepted method of mainstream advertising?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393636</id>
	<title>epSos.de loves Ad Blockers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267956300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That dude from ars technica is a noob.</p><p>Ad blockers are very beneficial to the quality score on Google Adsense, because people who are not interested in ads have ad-blindness anyway.</p><p>If Ad blockers were such a treat to the ads, Goog, Yahoo, and Bing would have already done something against it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That dude from ars technica is a noob.Ad blockers are very beneficial to the quality score on Google Adsense , because people who are not interested in ads have ad-blindness anyway.If Ad blockers were such a treat to the ads , Goog , Yahoo , and Bing would have already done something against it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That dude from ars technica is a noob.Ad blockers are very beneficial to the quality score on Google Adsense, because people who are not interested in ads have ad-blindness anyway.If Ad blockers were such a treat to the ads, Goog, Yahoo, and Bing would have already done something against it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31400844</id>
	<title>No apologies.</title>
	<author>DeVilla</author>
	<datestamp>1268065140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If your ad is overly distracting, it's gone.  (I want to read.)</p><p>If it obstructs the page, it's gone. (The same.)</p><p>If it wastes too much screen space, it's gone.  (Screen space is precious.)</p><p>If it is larger than article, it's gone. (The same.  I'm looking at the Slashdot rss feed in Google reader.</p><p>If it displays annoyingly incorrectly, it's gone.  (It's an eye sore.  Slashdot feed, that was you again.)</p><p>If it consumes enough CPU that I notice it, it's gone.  (Computing power is precious.  An ad does not require any.)</p><p>If it appears to implement tracking mechanisms, it's gone.  (You don't get to put a tag on my ear.)</p><p>If your ads do not violate these rules, I'm willing let them display.  Otherwise I will make them disappear using the easiest methods available to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If your ad is overly distracting , it 's gone .
( I want to read .
) If it obstructs the page , it 's gone .
( The same .
) If it wastes too much screen space , it 's gone .
( Screen space is precious .
) If it is larger than article , it 's gone .
( The same .
I 'm looking at the Slashdot rss feed in Google reader.If it displays annoyingly incorrectly , it 's gone .
( It 's an eye sore .
Slashdot feed , that was you again .
) If it consumes enough CPU that I notice it , it 's gone .
( Computing power is precious .
An ad does not require any .
) If it appears to implement tracking mechanisms , it 's gone .
( You do n't get to put a tag on my ear .
) If your ads do not violate these rules , I 'm willing let them display .
Otherwise I will make them disappear using the easiest methods available to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your ad is overly distracting, it's gone.
(I want to read.
)If it obstructs the page, it's gone.
(The same.
)If it wastes too much screen space, it's gone.
(Screen space is precious.
)If it is larger than article, it's gone.
(The same.
I'm looking at the Slashdot rss feed in Google reader.If it displays annoyingly incorrectly, it's gone.
(It's an eye sore.
Slashdot feed, that was you again.
)If it consumes enough CPU that I notice it, it's gone.
(Computing power is precious.
An ad does not require any.
)If it appears to implement tracking mechanisms, it's gone.
(You don't get to put a tag on my ear.
)If your ads do not violate these rules, I'm willing let them display.
Otherwise I will make them disappear using the easiest methods available to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391708</id>
	<title>Re:Love this comment by Ars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267987920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>"If you're not willing to unblock our ads, we're fairly happy for you to not read the content we work very hard on, or to just stop visiting the site altogether."</i> (in comment thread <a href="http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/09/dois-and-their-discontents.ars?comments=1#comment-4641" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [arstechnica.com])</p><p>Ok, your terms are acceptable.  See ya.</p></div><p>the problem is the content industry really don't want those terms.</p><p>If enough do that, they will run to the government and claim free and pirating is killing their business model and demand/pay for laws go take away your choices and stack the deck in their favor.</p><p>The media content is fully ready to push for solutions that control every aspect of your lives (laws, chiefly) and equipment (DRM) to get back the control they consider their birthright.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" If you 're not willing to unblock our ads , we 're fairly happy for you to not read the content we work very hard on , or to just stop visiting the site altogether .
" ( in comment thread here [ arstechnica.com ] ) Ok , your terms are acceptable .
See ya.the problem is the content industry really do n't want those terms.If enough do that , they will run to the government and claim free and pirating is killing their business model and demand/pay for laws go take away your choices and stack the deck in their favor.The media content is fully ready to push for solutions that control every aspect of your lives ( laws , chiefly ) and equipment ( DRM ) to get back the control they consider their birthright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "If you're not willing to unblock our ads, we're fairly happy for you to not read the content we work very hard on, or to just stop visiting the site altogether.
" (in comment thread here [arstechnica.com])Ok, your terms are acceptable.
See ya.the problem is the content industry really don't want those terms.If enough do that, they will run to the government and claim free and pirating is killing their business model and demand/pay for laws go take away your choices and stack the deck in their favor.The media content is fully ready to push for solutions that control every aspect of your lives (laws, chiefly) and equipment (DRM) to get back the control they consider their birthright.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389434</id>
	<title>Re:My thoughts</title>
	<author>DoktorFaust</author>
	<datestamp>1267974900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't internet ads generate their revenue through the amount of clicks they incur? I know Google's ads do this.</p></div><p>RTFA. From the THIRD and FOURTH sentences in the article,</p><p><div class="quote"><p>There is an oft-stated misconception that if a user never clicks on ads, then blocking them won't hurt a site financially. This is wrong.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct me if I 'm wrong , but do n't internet ads generate their revenue through the amount of clicks they incur ?
I know Google 's ads do this.RTFA .
From the THIRD and FOURTH sentences in the article,There is an oft-stated misconception that if a user never clicks on ads , then blocking them wo n't hurt a site financially .
This is wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't internet ads generate their revenue through the amount of clicks they incur?
I know Google's ads do this.RTFA.
From the THIRD and FOURTH sentences in the article,There is an oft-stated misconception that if a user never clicks on ads, then blocking them won't hurt a site financially.
This is wrong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391758</id>
	<title>fuck advertising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267988160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it is all 100\% spam</p><p>unfortunately I can't get adblock for my brain but I can for my browser</p><p>The point of advertising is to make me do something that I normally wouldn't do.  It is fundamentally no different than a punch in the face or a gun to my head.  Both of those can also be ignored.  My mind is my own and marketers are invaders.  Fuck them all and I hope they burn in hell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it is all 100 \ % spamunfortunately I ca n't get adblock for my brain but I can for my browserThe point of advertising is to make me do something that I normally would n't do .
It is fundamentally no different than a punch in the face or a gun to my head .
Both of those can also be ignored .
My mind is my own and marketers are invaders .
Fuck them all and I hope they burn in hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it is all 100\% spamunfortunately I can't get adblock for my brain but I can for my browserThe point of advertising is to make me do something that I normally wouldn't do.
It is fundamentally no different than a punch in the face or a gun to my head.
Both of those can also be ignored.
My mind is my own and marketers are invaders.
Fuck them all and I hope they burn in hell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391534</id>
	<title>Funny thing, they admitted their ads are intrusive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267986960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I let Slashdot do pretty much anything it wants, and yet, Slashdot continually tells me I have good enough Karma to disable ads.  But I don't, because Slashdot ads are not annoying or intrusive.</p><p>Contrast with Arse who admits in the article some of the time they knowingly place intrusive ads.</p><p>Lie down with goatfuckers don't be surprised if you wake up smelling like goat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I let Slashdot do pretty much anything it wants , and yet , Slashdot continually tells me I have good enough Karma to disable ads .
But I do n't , because Slashdot ads are not annoying or intrusive.Contrast with Arse who admits in the article some of the time they knowingly place intrusive ads.Lie down with goatfuckers do n't be surprised if you wake up smelling like goat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I let Slashdot do pretty much anything it wants, and yet, Slashdot continually tells me I have good enough Karma to disable ads.
But I don't, because Slashdot ads are not annoying or intrusive.Contrast with Arse who admits in the article some of the time they knowingly place intrusive ads.Lie down with goatfuckers don't be surprised if you wake up smelling like goat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392872</id>
	<title>I'll unblock ads if you virus scan them!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267994460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are two reasons that I block ads when I do: viruses and offensive ads.  And when I say offensive, I mean things like pop-ups.  For the most part, offensive ads have gone into decline, though by no means has it stopped.  However, more pressing is the lack of security management.  While I can appreciate the need of many sites for ad-based revenue just to keep the lights on, I'm certainly not going to expose my computer to every half-assed company with a quarter-assed approach to security, spewing out viruses this way and that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are two reasons that I block ads when I do : viruses and offensive ads .
And when I say offensive , I mean things like pop-ups .
For the most part , offensive ads have gone into decline , though by no means has it stopped .
However , more pressing is the lack of security management .
While I can appreciate the need of many sites for ad-based revenue just to keep the lights on , I 'm certainly not going to expose my computer to every half-assed company with a quarter-assed approach to security , spewing out viruses this way and that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are two reasons that I block ads when I do: viruses and offensive ads.
And when I say offensive, I mean things like pop-ups.
For the most part, offensive ads have gone into decline, though by no means has it stopped.
However, more pressing is the lack of security management.
While I can appreciate the need of many sites for ad-based revenue just to keep the lights on, I'm certainly not going to expose my computer to every half-assed company with a quarter-assed approach to security, spewing out viruses this way and that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389574</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Ars, you are animated too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267975740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same here.</p><p>I have adblock installed because of pop-ups, animation, automatically playing sounds, ads that take over the content in any way (as a separate page before the content, a layer placed over the top of the content like a pop-up, or a Flash animation that extends outside it's boundaries if you so much as move the mouse over it), and ads with any kind of auto-playing video.</p><p>That's not even considering the technical issues. Ads with sound or videos are enormous, and consume my (limited - I'm in Australia) bandwidth. Flash animations in general chew through CPU time like crazy, particularly on my Macbook, which heats the machine up a lot, and drains the batteries. Most ad networks are slow and overloaded, and it's quite common to see a page stuck for thirty seconds waiting on an ad server before it'll display the content I actually want.</p><p>As it stands, AdBlock is pretty much the nuclear option - wiping out all advertisements because some of them are annoying. Unfortunately, that's what we've been driven to. It's simply not possible to blacklist only annoying ads (or even ad networks that permit annoying ads). I tried maintaining a manual filter list of only annoying ads. It was far too much effort, so I simply gave up, and subscribed to some filter lists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same here.I have adblock installed because of pop-ups , animation , automatically playing sounds , ads that take over the content in any way ( as a separate page before the content , a layer placed over the top of the content like a pop-up , or a Flash animation that extends outside it 's boundaries if you so much as move the mouse over it ) , and ads with any kind of auto-playing video.That 's not even considering the technical issues .
Ads with sound or videos are enormous , and consume my ( limited - I 'm in Australia ) bandwidth .
Flash animations in general chew through CPU time like crazy , particularly on my Macbook , which heats the machine up a lot , and drains the batteries .
Most ad networks are slow and overloaded , and it 's quite common to see a page stuck for thirty seconds waiting on an ad server before it 'll display the content I actually want.As it stands , AdBlock is pretty much the nuclear option - wiping out all advertisements because some of them are annoying .
Unfortunately , that 's what we 've been driven to .
It 's simply not possible to blacklist only annoying ads ( or even ad networks that permit annoying ads ) .
I tried maintaining a manual filter list of only annoying ads .
It was far too much effort , so I simply gave up , and subscribed to some filter lists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same here.I have adblock installed because of pop-ups, animation, automatically playing sounds, ads that take over the content in any way (as a separate page before the content, a layer placed over the top of the content like a pop-up, or a Flash animation that extends outside it's boundaries if you so much as move the mouse over it), and ads with any kind of auto-playing video.That's not even considering the technical issues.
Ads with sound or videos are enormous, and consume my (limited - I'm in Australia) bandwidth.
Flash animations in general chew through CPU time like crazy, particularly on my Macbook, which heats the machine up a lot, and drains the batteries.
Most ad networks are slow and overloaded, and it's quite common to see a page stuck for thirty seconds waiting on an ad server before it'll display the content I actually want.As it stands, AdBlock is pretty much the nuclear option - wiping out all advertisements because some of them are annoying.
Unfortunately, that's what we've been driven to.
It's simply not possible to blacklist only annoying ads (or even ad networks that permit annoying ads).
I tried maintaining a manual filter list of only annoying ads.
It was far too much effort, so I simply gave up, and subscribed to some filter lists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31396778</id>
	<title>Ken Fisher must be about to lose his job @ arstech</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267977720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd wager there is clause in Ken Fisher's contract that says if he doesn't make a certain money mark, he is GONE (and so are his trolling cronies too at arstechnica), since he no longer owns arstechnica and is crying like a beyotch now that he is not "in control" and he is scared.</p><p>Oh "how the MIGHTY CAESAR (Ken Fisher's nick-handle on arstechnica) HAS FALLEN!". Serves him right.</p><p>"All the MIGHTY CAESAR'S ARSTECHNICA TROLLS AND OTHER ARSTECHNICA 'NOT MEN' COULDN'T PUT ARSTECHNICA BACK TOGETHER AGAIN", and rightfully so - they're a pack of known internet trolls only second to 4chan BBS's crowd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd wager there is clause in Ken Fisher 's contract that says if he does n't make a certain money mark , he is GONE ( and so are his trolling cronies too at arstechnica ) , since he no longer owns arstechnica and is crying like a beyotch now that he is not " in control " and he is scared.Oh " how the MIGHTY CAESAR ( Ken Fisher 's nick-handle on arstechnica ) HAS FALLEN ! " .
Serves him right .
" All the MIGHTY CAESAR 'S ARSTECHNICA TROLLS AND OTHER ARSTECHNICA 'NOT MEN ' COULD N'T PUT ARSTECHNICA BACK TOGETHER AGAIN " , and rightfully so - they 're a pack of known internet trolls only second to 4chan BBS 's crowd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd wager there is clause in Ken Fisher's contract that says if he doesn't make a certain money mark, he is GONE (and so are his trolling cronies too at arstechnica), since he no longer owns arstechnica and is crying like a beyotch now that he is not "in control" and he is scared.Oh "how the MIGHTY CAESAR (Ken Fisher's nick-handle on arstechnica) HAS FALLEN!".
Serves him right.
"All the MIGHTY CAESAR'S ARSTECHNICA TROLLS AND OTHER ARSTECHNICA 'NOT MEN' COULDN'T PUT ARSTECHNICA BACK TOGETHER AGAIN", and rightfully so - they're a pack of known internet trolls only second to 4chan BBS's crowd.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392150</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267990080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And nothing of value was lost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And nothing of value was lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And nothing of value was lost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392542</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267992360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know the &ldquo;paywall&rdquo; gets bashed a lot around here. But if you actually have valuable information, it&rsquo;s a valid concept. In fact it&rsquo;s the only concept at all, that guarantees you will get something in return.<br>But other than you might think, once the information is passed on trough the paywall, control of that information is split between the sender and the recipient. So then the client can choose if he wants something in return himself. And so the value of information is inversely proportional to the amount of people having it.</p><p>But passing the information on for free, and then expecting something in return, is like making music in the streets, an suing everyone who walked by without throwing something in your hat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know the    paywall    gets bashed a lot around here .
But if you actually have valuable information , it    s a valid concept .
In fact it    s the only concept at all , that guarantees you will get something in return.But other than you might think , once the information is passed on trough the paywall , control of that information is split between the sender and the recipient .
So then the client can choose if he wants something in return himself .
And so the value of information is inversely proportional to the amount of people having it.But passing the information on for free , and then expecting something in return , is like making music in the streets , an suing everyone who walked by without throwing something in your hat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know the “paywall” gets bashed a lot around here.
But if you actually have valuable information, it’s a valid concept.
In fact it’s the only concept at all, that guarantees you will get something in return.But other than you might think, once the information is passed on trough the paywall, control of that information is split between the sender and the recipient.
So then the client can choose if he wants something in return himself.
And so the value of information is inversely proportional to the amount of people having it.But passing the information on for free, and then expecting something in return, is like making music in the streets, an suing everyone who walked by without throwing something in your hat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390660</id>
	<title>Re:How is this different than muting TV commercial</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267982280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because it doesn't cost the TV stations money when you turn your TV on. Websites have to pay bandwidth fees and the like.</p><p>I've got mixed feelings about ad-blocking, so I'm not saying it's good or bad, but it's definitely different from muting TV commercials.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it does n't cost the TV stations money when you turn your TV on .
Websites have to pay bandwidth fees and the like.I 've got mixed feelings about ad-blocking , so I 'm not saying it 's good or bad , but it 's definitely different from muting TV commercials .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it doesn't cost the TV stations money when you turn your TV on.
Websites have to pay bandwidth fees and the like.I've got mixed feelings about ad-blocking, so I'm not saying it's good or bad, but it's definitely different from muting TV commercials.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393782</id>
	<title>oh, so that's what was going on</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267957320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i ran into this the other day.  ars is one of the rss feeds i have bookmarked, and i periodically check it to see if there's any new content posted that i might wish to read.  when i last saw something that caught my eye and clicked the link, the ars page loaded with just the title of the post and no content, though the rest of the page was present and the post comments were also available.  i simply assumed that ars had had nothing to say and so i moved on.  i certainly didn't say to myself, "gee, i really need to see this content.  i wonder if i have to turn off ad blocking."  in fact, the thought never remotely occurred to me at all.  instead, i thought, "oh.  nothing to see here.  moving on."  i'm not sure i'd call their experiment a success.</p><p>there's precious little content online that i find myself so compelled to see that i would be willing to turn off ad blocking and be bombarded with all that advertising just so i can view it(*).  my feeling is that if a site doesn't want me viewing their content without also having to view advertising, advertising which, nine times out of ten, is loud, annoying and bandwidth hogging, then i simply don't need to see their content.</p><p>(*) i freely admit i do occasionally watch hulu and grudgingly endure the ads to do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i ran into this the other day .
ars is one of the rss feeds i have bookmarked , and i periodically check it to see if there 's any new content posted that i might wish to read .
when i last saw something that caught my eye and clicked the link , the ars page loaded with just the title of the post and no content , though the rest of the page was present and the post comments were also available .
i simply assumed that ars had had nothing to say and so i moved on .
i certainly did n't say to myself , " gee , i really need to see this content .
i wonder if i have to turn off ad blocking .
" in fact , the thought never remotely occurred to me at all .
instead , i thought , " oh .
nothing to see here .
moving on .
" i 'm not sure i 'd call their experiment a success.there 's precious little content online that i find myself so compelled to see that i would be willing to turn off ad blocking and be bombarded with all that advertising just so i can view it ( * ) .
my feeling is that if a site does n't want me viewing their content without also having to view advertising , advertising which , nine times out of ten , is loud , annoying and bandwidth hogging , then i simply do n't need to see their content .
( * ) i freely admit i do occasionally watch hulu and grudgingly endure the ads to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i ran into this the other day.
ars is one of the rss feeds i have bookmarked, and i periodically check it to see if there's any new content posted that i might wish to read.
when i last saw something that caught my eye and clicked the link, the ars page loaded with just the title of the post and no content, though the rest of the page was present and the post comments were also available.
i simply assumed that ars had had nothing to say and so i moved on.
i certainly didn't say to myself, "gee, i really need to see this content.
i wonder if i have to turn off ad blocking.
"  in fact, the thought never remotely occurred to me at all.
instead, i thought, "oh.
nothing to see here.
moving on.
"  i'm not sure i'd call their experiment a success.there's precious little content online that i find myself so compelled to see that i would be willing to turn off ad blocking and be bombarded with all that advertising just so i can view it(*).
my feeling is that if a site doesn't want me viewing their content without also having to view advertising, advertising which, nine times out of ten, is loud, annoying and bandwidth hogging, then i simply don't need to see their content.
(*) i freely admit i do occasionally watch hulu and grudgingly endure the ads to do so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392858</id>
	<title>Arstech &amp; banner ad trojans? Saw it here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267994400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica</b> -&gt; Philip</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PM<br>internet</p><p>Philip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it. When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus. Here is a copy of my log. I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites. 1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"</p><p>Link to Original Source</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica - &gt; Philiphttp : //slashdot.org/firehose.pl ? op = view&amp;id = 447008 [ slashdot.org ] Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008 , @ 03 : 00PMinternetPhilip writes " It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it .
When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus .
Here is a copy of my log .
I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites .
1/2/2008 2 : 27 : 15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe ( http : //arstechnica.com/index.ars ) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO ( Trojan ) " Link to Original Sourcehttp : //slashdot.org/firehose.pl ? op = view&amp;id = 447008 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica -&gt; Philiphttp://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008 [slashdot.org]Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PMinternetPhilip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it.
When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus.
Here is a copy of my log.
I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites.
1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"Link to Original Sourcehttp://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390504</id>
	<title>Re:The other side: Ad abuse and malware</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267981380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The site hosts were completely unaware of it; the code was being injected through a third-party ad provider. "</p><p>It's worse.  They are aware of it, and they don't give a damn.</p><p>A site I regularly go to started hosting 3rd party ads and migrating to more intrusive ads.  During the Adobe debacle with pdf being used to inject code, I patched as soon was the news broke.  When I went to the site for the first time that day, I found some windows launching and stalling in the background, from a site which never popped up a window previously.  I found clearly that the ads were being used to inject material, since the pages with the problem all had the same ad from the same 3rd part host getting launched.</p><p>Contacting the site twice over the period of a few days.  This is a site that regularly updates their material, and where their editors read the material submitted.  Over a week later, that same 3rd party site serving the ad was still being used with the same result.  The ad revenue overrode their feeling of responsibility of the matter; they could have simply rejected that ad site until things were cleared up.  They didn't.</p><p>"I consider it irresponsible not to browse the web with a really good ad/Flash/javascript blocker. "</p><p>An additional concern are those of us who don't want to make it easy to be tracked by some unknown third party "collect and sell" ad revenue company, like doubleclick.  It still amazes me how many cookies were simply not showing up in my browser's cache when I started mapping/redirecting known ad sites to localhost.  Even Flash cookies are significantly down.</p><p>"I'm glad they brought the issue up in a tactful manner, "</p><p>Here, I disagree strongly.</p><p>The sad fact is that, while I used to like Ars, I feel their "experiment" is going to cause more harm than the point they were trying to make.  They proved this could be done, which will drivie up demand on other sites.  It was a proof of concept successfully done, and other sites will copy and keep it there.</p><p>Also, Ars did so with a singular point in mind, which was site revenue solely and only, when clearly a more tactful approach, called conversation and discussion, prior to making a move might have potentially resulted in a nicer solution and warning to their site visitors.  In my view, they showed themselves to be no different than any other content site, where money is the bottom line.  This is something I felt Ars had separated themselves, where content and the joy of information and the community was primary with ad revenue being secondary and in assistance to the primary objective.  Sadly, this doesn't seem to be the case.</p><p>Then again, I hold a very low opinion of the changes on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. since it's inception 13 some years ago, and I'm still posting here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The site hosts were completely unaware of it ; the code was being injected through a third-party ad provider .
" It 's worse .
They are aware of it , and they do n't give a damn.A site I regularly go to started hosting 3rd party ads and migrating to more intrusive ads .
During the Adobe debacle with pdf being used to inject code , I patched as soon was the news broke .
When I went to the site for the first time that day , I found some windows launching and stalling in the background , from a site which never popped up a window previously .
I found clearly that the ads were being used to inject material , since the pages with the problem all had the same ad from the same 3rd part host getting launched.Contacting the site twice over the period of a few days .
This is a site that regularly updates their material , and where their editors read the material submitted .
Over a week later , that same 3rd party site serving the ad was still being used with the same result .
The ad revenue overrode their feeling of responsibility of the matter ; they could have simply rejected that ad site until things were cleared up .
They did n't .
" I consider it irresponsible not to browse the web with a really good ad/Flash/javascript blocker .
" An additional concern are those of us who do n't want to make it easy to be tracked by some unknown third party " collect and sell " ad revenue company , like doubleclick .
It still amazes me how many cookies were simply not showing up in my browser 's cache when I started mapping/redirecting known ad sites to localhost .
Even Flash cookies are significantly down .
" I 'm glad they brought the issue up in a tactful manner , " Here , I disagree strongly.The sad fact is that , while I used to like Ars , I feel their " experiment " is going to cause more harm than the point they were trying to make .
They proved this could be done , which will drivie up demand on other sites .
It was a proof of concept successfully done , and other sites will copy and keep it there.Also , Ars did so with a singular point in mind , which was site revenue solely and only , when clearly a more tactful approach , called conversation and discussion , prior to making a move might have potentially resulted in a nicer solution and warning to their site visitors .
In my view , they showed themselves to be no different than any other content site , where money is the bottom line .
This is something I felt Ars had separated themselves , where content and the joy of information and the community was primary with ad revenue being secondary and in assistance to the primary objective .
Sadly , this does n't seem to be the case.Then again , I hold a very low opinion of the changes on / .
since it 's inception 13 some years ago , and I 'm still posting here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The site hosts were completely unaware of it; the code was being injected through a third-party ad provider.
"It's worse.
They are aware of it, and they don't give a damn.A site I regularly go to started hosting 3rd party ads and migrating to more intrusive ads.
During the Adobe debacle with pdf being used to inject code, I patched as soon was the news broke.
When I went to the site for the first time that day, I found some windows launching and stalling in the background, from a site which never popped up a window previously.
I found clearly that the ads were being used to inject material, since the pages with the problem all had the same ad from the same 3rd part host getting launched.Contacting the site twice over the period of a few days.
This is a site that regularly updates their material, and where their editors read the material submitted.
Over a week later, that same 3rd party site serving the ad was still being used with the same result.
The ad revenue overrode their feeling of responsibility of the matter; they could have simply rejected that ad site until things were cleared up.
They didn't.
"I consider it irresponsible not to browse the web with a really good ad/Flash/javascript blocker.
"An additional concern are those of us who don't want to make it easy to be tracked by some unknown third party "collect and sell" ad revenue company, like doubleclick.
It still amazes me how many cookies were simply not showing up in my browser's cache when I started mapping/redirecting known ad sites to localhost.
Even Flash cookies are significantly down.
"I'm glad they brought the issue up in a tactful manner, "Here, I disagree strongly.The sad fact is that, while I used to like Ars, I feel their "experiment" is going to cause more harm than the point they were trying to make.
They proved this could be done, which will drivie up demand on other sites.
It was a proof of concept successfully done, and other sites will copy and keep it there.Also, Ars did so with a singular point in mind, which was site revenue solely and only, when clearly a more tactful approach, called conversation and discussion, prior to making a move might have potentially resulted in a nicer solution and warning to their site visitors.
In my view, they showed themselves to be no different than any other content site, where money is the bottom line.
This is something I felt Ars had separated themselves, where content and the joy of information and the community was primary with ad revenue being secondary and in assistance to the primary objective.
Sadly, this doesn't seem to be the case.Then again, I hold a very low opinion of the changes on /.
since it's inception 13 some years ago, and I'm still posting here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389426</id>
	<title>No excuse for lazy programmers</title>
	<author>managerialslime</author>
	<datestamp>1267974900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With ads - without ads - what a waste of argument when geeks could instead debate an interesting arms race.</p><p>The ad-blocking technologies work because the ads themselves are easily identified by the source web site as different from the main web page.  A small change in architecture would allow ads to be funneled through the main presenting web page server and integrated with the main web site in real-time.</p><p>Current versions of Ad-block plus and No-script would then be rendered useless for the purpose of ad-blocking.</p><p>What the opposing side would then need to do is develop databases of ads, analyze screens and then repaint screens with blank space where the ads where.</p><p>No wait!  The ad presenters would then need to problematically vary every ad as appearing to be unique.</p><p>No wait! The blockers could then use Bayesian logic to detect areas of presentation close enough to ads to be suppresses anyway.</p><p>Whole new levels point-counter-point  spy-vs.-spy program evolution!</p><p>Whole new discussions, trolls, and flame-wars about the nuances of why one approach is SO MUCH BETTER at blocking (or overcoming blocking).</p><p>That would be the slash.dot,  SourceForge, and Mozilla Add-on communities I have come to know and love.</p><p>Bwahahahahahahaahahh..........</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With ads - without ads - what a waste of argument when geeks could instead debate an interesting arms race.The ad-blocking technologies work because the ads themselves are easily identified by the source web site as different from the main web page .
A small change in architecture would allow ads to be funneled through the main presenting web page server and integrated with the main web site in real-time.Current versions of Ad-block plus and No-script would then be rendered useless for the purpose of ad-blocking.What the opposing side would then need to do is develop databases of ads , analyze screens and then repaint screens with blank space where the ads where.No wait !
The ad presenters would then need to problematically vary every ad as appearing to be unique.No wait !
The blockers could then use Bayesian logic to detect areas of presentation close enough to ads to be suppresses anyway.Whole new levels point-counter-point spy-vs.-spy program evolution ! Whole new discussions , trolls , and flame-wars about the nuances of why one approach is SO MUCH BETTER at blocking ( or overcoming blocking ) .That would be the slash.dot , SourceForge , and Mozilla Add-on communities I have come to know and love.Bwahahahahahahaahahh......... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With ads - without ads - what a waste of argument when geeks could instead debate an interesting arms race.The ad-blocking technologies work because the ads themselves are easily identified by the source web site as different from the main web page.
A small change in architecture would allow ads to be funneled through the main presenting web page server and integrated with the main web site in real-time.Current versions of Ad-block plus and No-script would then be rendered useless for the purpose of ad-blocking.What the opposing side would then need to do is develop databases of ads, analyze screens and then repaint screens with blank space where the ads where.No wait!
The ad presenters would then need to problematically vary every ad as appearing to be unique.No wait!
The blockers could then use Bayesian logic to detect areas of presentation close enough to ads to be suppresses anyway.Whole new levels point-counter-point  spy-vs.-spy program evolution!Whole new discussions, trolls, and flame-wars about the nuances of why one approach is SO MUCH BETTER at blocking (or overcoming blocking).That would be the slash.dot,  SourceForge, and Mozilla Add-on communities I have come to know and love.Bwahahahahahahaahahh..........</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391498</id>
	<title>Don't use facebook apps.</title>
	<author>Weezul</author>
	<datestamp>1267986840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You won't have this problem if you don't use facebook apps, just facebook itself.  Any particularly annoying app gets blocked of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You wo n't have this problem if you do n't use facebook apps , just facebook itself .
Any particularly annoying app gets blocked of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You won't have this problem if you don't use facebook apps, just facebook itself.
Any particularly annoying app gets blocked of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391550</id>
	<title>Re:How is this different than muting TV commercial</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267987020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is a form of opt-in. I would opt-in to ads. I do not opt-in to being tracked (pay me if you want to make money off me), which is my main complaint about ads.</p><p>Anyone who says tracking me online is done to improve my user experience is full of some pretty steamy horsecrap. Better content improves my experience.</p><p>I'd even consider paywalls for certain content if it meant better content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is a form of opt-in .
I would opt-in to ads .
I do not opt-in to being tracked ( pay me if you want to make money off me ) , which is my main complaint about ads.Anyone who says tracking me online is done to improve my user experience is full of some pretty steamy horsecrap .
Better content improves my experience.I 'd even consider paywalls for certain content if it meant better content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is a form of opt-in.
I would opt-in to ads.
I do not opt-in to being tracked (pay me if you want to make money off me), which is my main complaint about ads.Anyone who says tracking me online is done to improve my user experience is full of some pretty steamy horsecrap.
Better content improves my experience.I'd even consider paywalls for certain content if it meant better content.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391448</id>
	<title>Adbanners can be dangerous too, see inside</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267986660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><div class="quote"><p><b>"If I open Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox, with a few tabs active in each on popular sites, the entirety of both cores of my Intel E7500 CPU will be consumed by Flash advertisements."</b> - by TodLiebeck (633704) on Sunday March 07, @08:40AM (#31389020) Homepage</p></div><p>CPU usage is not the TRUE danger - This, is:</p><p><b>The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>They have been found more than a few times serving up FAR more and FAR WORSE than mere tracking cookies, as you can see above.</p><p>So, if a websurfer finds out that he can go faster online by blocking out banner ads (as well as safer, per the article above), then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock (or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript), or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files, or a custom HOSTS file.</p><p>There's that above, which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation (which is not cheap, and not every "Joe Sixpack" knows how it is done, or wants to for that matter), and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.</p><p>So it's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime, and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too, but also to pay for Ken Fisher's life on top of that all as well? A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt, and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done, as well as the coding work put into his site (which I doubt he did every line of himself as well).</p><p><b>So, who are the REAL freeloaders here?</b></p><p>The end users, or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V., since both basically snag a user's subconscious attention via a "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"!)</p><p>So, once more: <b>Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here??</b></p><p>The end users, or those using them (website owners) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked, basically yelling at them "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"? There's the real question to ask here!)??</p><p>This is a "double-edged sword", and that is all there is to it, period.</p><p>Ken Fisher "made hay while the sun shined" &amp; now that sun is fading, because people are WISE to those like he, who use others to make a profit via said person's actual efforts in content creation (whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less).</p><p>"The art of good business is putting people together"!</p><p>(Sure - until they "wise up" to it that is. Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it (see the URL above once more in regards to that), and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is "above such mundane things"? Then I suggest they rethink their premises. People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain. Don't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise).</p><p>Above all - <b>I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts?? How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors???</b></p><p>I hope the article writer reads this.</p><p>The jigs up buddy, and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains, because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply, then you'd fund that website of yours yourself, Mr. Ken Fisher (after all, you've profited by others long enough to do so, right?).</p><p>(That, and Ken Fisher would find out just how truly "faithful" his arstech 'subscriptors' are, as well as he having to do the actual work in creating the content (instead of using others like Emil Protalinski for example to do so, while he pays them squat compared to what he makes off of their efforts by way of comparison)).</p><p>No, the game's over Ken Fisher, face it.</p><p>Go on now, switch to a subscriber only model, &amp; see how many people still attend your website. They'll simply move to another, &amp; quickly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" If I open Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox , with a few tabs active in each on popular sites , the entirety of both cores of my Intel E7500 CPU will be consumed by Flash advertisements .
" - by TodLiebeck ( 633704 ) on Sunday March 07 , @ 08 : 40AM ( # 31389020 ) HomepageCPU usage is not the TRUE danger - This , is : The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus : http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/06/15/2056219 [ slashdot.org ] They have been found more than a few times serving up FAR more and FAR WORSE than mere tracking cookies , as you can see above.So , if a websurfer finds out that he can go faster online by blocking out banner ads ( as well as safer , per the article above ) , then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock ( or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript ) , or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files , or a custom HOSTS file.There 's that above , which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation ( which is not cheap , and not every " Joe Sixpack " knows how it is done , or wants to for that matter ) , and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.So it 's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime , and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too , but also to pay for Ken Fisher 's life on top of that all as well ?
A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt , and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done , as well as the coding work put into his site ( which I doubt he did every line of himself as well ) .So , who are the REAL freeloaders here ? The end users , or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads ( which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V. , since both basically snag a user 's subconscious attention via a " look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need " !
) So , once more : Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here ?
? The end users , or those using them ( website owners ) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads ( which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked , basically yelling at them " look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need " ?
There 's the real question to ask here ! ) ?
? This is a " double-edged sword " , and that is all there is to it , period.Ken Fisher " made hay while the sun shined " &amp; now that sun is fading , because people are WISE to those like he , who use others to make a profit via said person 's actual efforts in content creation ( whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less ) .
" The art of good business is putting people together " !
( Sure - until they " wise up " to it that is .
Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it ( see the URL above once more in regards to that ) , and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is " above such mundane things " ?
Then I suggest they rethink their premises .
People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain .
Do n't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise ) .Above all - I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts ? ?
How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he 's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors ? ?
? I hope the article writer reads this.The jigs up buddy , and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains , because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply , then you 'd fund that website of yours yourself , Mr. Ken Fisher ( after all , you 've profited by others long enough to do so , right ? ) .
( That , and Ken Fisher would find out just how truly " faithful " his arstech 'subscriptors ' are , as well as he having to do the actual work in creating the content ( instead of using others like Emil Protalinski for example to do so , while he pays them squat compared to what he makes off of their efforts by way of comparison ) ) .No , the game 's over Ken Fisher , face it.Go on now , switch to a subscriber only model , &amp; see how many people still attend your website .
They 'll simply move to another , &amp; quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If I open Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox, with a few tabs active in each on popular sites, the entirety of both cores of my Intel E7500 CPU will be consumed by Flash advertisements.
" - by TodLiebeck (633704) on Sunday March 07, @08:40AM (#31389020) HomepageCPU usage is not the TRUE danger - This, is:The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219 [slashdot.org]They have been found more than a few times serving up FAR more and FAR WORSE than mere tracking cookies, as you can see above.So, if a websurfer finds out that he can go faster online by blocking out banner ads (as well as safer, per the article above), then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock (or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript), or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files, or a custom HOSTS file.There's that above, which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation (which is not cheap, and not every "Joe Sixpack" knows how it is done, or wants to for that matter), and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.So it's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime, and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too, but also to pay for Ken Fisher's life on top of that all as well?
A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt, and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done, as well as the coding work put into his site (which I doubt he did every line of himself as well).So, who are the REAL freeloaders here?The end users, or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V., since both basically snag a user's subconscious attention via a "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"!
)So, once more: Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here?
?The end users, or those using them (website owners) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked, basically yelling at them "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"?
There's the real question to ask here!)?
?This is a "double-edged sword", and that is all there is to it, period.Ken Fisher "made hay while the sun shined" &amp; now that sun is fading, because people are WISE to those like he, who use others to make a profit via said person's actual efforts in content creation (whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less).
"The art of good business is putting people together"!
(Sure - until they "wise up" to it that is.
Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it (see the URL above once more in regards to that), and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is "above such mundane things"?
Then I suggest they rethink their premises.
People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain.
Don't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise).Above all - I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts??
How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors??
?I hope the article writer reads this.The jigs up buddy, and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains, because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply, then you'd fund that website of yours yourself, Mr. Ken Fisher (after all, you've profited by others long enough to do so, right?).
(That, and Ken Fisher would find out just how truly "faithful" his arstech 'subscriptors' are, as well as he having to do the actual work in creating the content (instead of using others like Emil Protalinski for example to do so, while he pays them squat compared to what he makes off of their efforts by way of comparison)).No, the game's over Ken Fisher, face it.Go on now, switch to a subscriber only model, &amp; see how many people still attend your website.
They'll simply move to another, &amp; quickly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389560</id>
	<title>The argument is irrelevant....</title>
	<author>Jon-ZA</author>
	<datestamp>1267975560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I simply do not click on adverts so why would I want to see them?  Even if there was no way of blocking them I would never click on them.  It's as simple as that.  Finished and klaar.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I simply do not click on adverts so why would I want to see them ?
Even if there was no way of blocking them I would never click on them .
It 's as simple as that .
Finished and klaar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I simply do not click on adverts so why would I want to see them?
Even if there was no way of blocking them I would never click on them.
It's as simple as that.
Finished and klaar.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392708</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267993500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In that case: R.I.P. Ars</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In that case : R.I.P .
Ars</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In that case: R.I.P.
Ars</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389238</id>
	<title>Content Creators Just Can't Win</title>
	<author>GospelHead821</author>
	<datestamp>1267973880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sort of argument, as it pertains to piracy, is pretty darned common over at TechDirt, which I also read.  I have a lot of sympathy for the creators of "boring" content, like news sites.  At least a musician can do live performances and sell merchandise; an author can do lectures and book signings.  People used to pay for content so we blame the content creators for having a bad business model and challenge them to come up with something that we'll buy.  But we still want the content and we want the money-making good/service to be related to the content too.  What is a news site supposed to do?  How many people are going to buy an Ars Technica t-shirt?  So they make money by selling ads to third parties but people find ways to avoid looking at the ads.  Some people would argue that this is Ars Technica's problem and that if they can't find a service that people will buy, they "deserve" to go out of business.  How can people have this kind of attitude and then wonder why the content that remains is spineless and pandering?  It's because we've driven the real content creators away and all that's left are marketers with delusions of creativity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sort of argument , as it pertains to piracy , is pretty darned common over at TechDirt , which I also read .
I have a lot of sympathy for the creators of " boring " content , like news sites .
At least a musician can do live performances and sell merchandise ; an author can do lectures and book signings .
People used to pay for content so we blame the content creators for having a bad business model and challenge them to come up with something that we 'll buy .
But we still want the content and we want the money-making good/service to be related to the content too .
What is a news site supposed to do ?
How many people are going to buy an Ars Technica t-shirt ?
So they make money by selling ads to third parties but people find ways to avoid looking at the ads .
Some people would argue that this is Ars Technica 's problem and that if they ca n't find a service that people will buy , they " deserve " to go out of business .
How can people have this kind of attitude and then wonder why the content that remains is spineless and pandering ?
It 's because we 've driven the real content creators away and all that 's left are marketers with delusions of creativity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sort of argument, as it pertains to piracy, is pretty darned common over at TechDirt, which I also read.
I have a lot of sympathy for the creators of "boring" content, like news sites.
At least a musician can do live performances and sell merchandise; an author can do lectures and book signings.
People used to pay for content so we blame the content creators for having a bad business model and challenge them to come up with something that we'll buy.
But we still want the content and we want the money-making good/service to be related to the content too.
What is a news site supposed to do?
How many people are going to buy an Ars Technica t-shirt?
So they make money by selling ads to third parties but people find ways to avoid looking at the ads.
Some people would argue that this is Ars Technica's problem and that if they can't find a service that people will buy, they "deserve" to go out of business.
How can people have this kind of attitude and then wonder why the content that remains is spineless and pandering?
It's because we've driven the real content creators away and all that's left are marketers with delusions of creativity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31404636</id>
	<title>Ars Technica = ADWARE!!!!</title>
	<author>SirTreveyan</author>
	<datestamp>1268039580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It appears that Ken has a major case of sour grapes.  I am a user of ad blockers.  I use them not only to eliminate annoying ads, I use them to protect my privacy.  I do not like the idea of personalized advertising based upon what websites I visit.  I do not like the idea of advertisers downloading cookies on to MY computer just because I view a web page that contains one of their ads.  What web sites I view, is between me and the web site I am viewing, not some advertiser.  I view web ads as an infection, needing to be controlled.  AD BLOCKERS PROVIDE THAT CONTROL!!!</p><p>Ken rants against Internet users who do not experience the Internet in the fashion that would render maximum profits to Ars Technica, stopping just short of calling them thieves.  It is obvious that he cares not one iota about users privacy concerns.  No where does he indicate that Ars takes any steps to ensure that ads do not place tracking cookies and the such.  All he does is cry about ad blockers depriving him of profits!  Ken obviously cares not about users privacy issues as long as ad revenues flow.</p><p>He also displaying some ignorance of the subject on which he is pontificating.  For example when he is discussing the radio and television advertising model he states "advertisers in those mediums are paying for potential to reach audiences, and not for results."  I am sorry but no company spends money for "potential to reach audiences".  All companies spend advertising money with the expectation of results i.e. more business.  If a company spends money on a particular form of advertising and it does not produce results, they do not continue throwing money away.  They go to a different form of advertising. Ken also states "They have complex models which tell them if X number are watching, Y will likely see the ad."  This is true.  Radio and television have complex models because they take into consideration those who do not respond to advertising.</p><p>When he states "they really have no true idea <b> <i>who</i> </b> sees what ad, and that's why it's a medium based on potential and not provable results" he is making an assertion which is false.  While it is true the advertisers have no idea WHO is seeing the ad, they do know how many people are exposed it.  Neilsen <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen\_ratings" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen\_ratings</a> [wikipedia.org] and several other rating companies provide rating services for both local and national broadcasting entities.  The advertising rate for advertising during a broadcast is determined by the historical rating a broadcast has obtained.  The higher the rating the higher the ad rate.  Everyone remember the millions paid for a 30 second ad during the Super Bowl.  Ken says that because the advertiser does not know <b>WHO</b> viewed the ad, there are no provable results.  If that were true, why would a company spend MILLIONS on a single ad if there were no provable results?  That just makes no sense.</p><p>Now Ken also states "on the Internet everything is 100\% trackable and is billed and sold as such."  Here Ken is indicating that either the Ars Technica's advertising department is being dishonest, selling clients the idea that 100\% of Ars visitors will click through to the client's site or that Ars is willing to conspire with their clients to place adware of some form on each visitor's computer.  Combined with Ken's stressing the exaggerated importance of knowing WHO views an ad, my guess is the later, since that is the ONLY way for Ars to guarantee 100\% of anything getting to a client.  Why else would ad blockers cause him such heartburn.</p><p>Either way...now that I know this about Ars...I will never visit that site again without an ad blocker of some kind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It appears that Ken has a major case of sour grapes .
I am a user of ad blockers .
I use them not only to eliminate annoying ads , I use them to protect my privacy .
I do not like the idea of personalized advertising based upon what websites I visit .
I do not like the idea of advertisers downloading cookies on to MY computer just because I view a web page that contains one of their ads .
What web sites I view , is between me and the web site I am viewing , not some advertiser .
I view web ads as an infection , needing to be controlled .
AD BLOCKERS PROVIDE THAT CONTROL ! !
! Ken rants against Internet users who do not experience the Internet in the fashion that would render maximum profits to Ars Technica , stopping just short of calling them thieves .
It is obvious that he cares not one iota about users privacy concerns .
No where does he indicate that Ars takes any steps to ensure that ads do not place tracking cookies and the such .
All he does is cry about ad blockers depriving him of profits !
Ken obviously cares not about users privacy issues as long as ad revenues flow.He also displaying some ignorance of the subject on which he is pontificating .
For example when he is discussing the radio and television advertising model he states " advertisers in those mediums are paying for potential to reach audiences , and not for results .
" I am sorry but no company spends money for " potential to reach audiences " .
All companies spend advertising money with the expectation of results i.e .
more business .
If a company spends money on a particular form of advertising and it does not produce results , they do not continue throwing money away .
They go to a different form of advertising .
Ken also states " They have complex models which tell them if X number are watching , Y will likely see the ad .
" This is true .
Radio and television have complex models because they take into consideration those who do not respond to advertising.When he states " they really have no true idea who sees what ad , and that 's why it 's a medium based on potential and not provable results " he is making an assertion which is false .
While it is true the advertisers have no idea WHO is seeing the ad , they do know how many people are exposed it .
Neilsen http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen \ _ratings [ wikipedia.org ] and several other rating companies provide rating services for both local and national broadcasting entities .
The advertising rate for advertising during a broadcast is determined by the historical rating a broadcast has obtained .
The higher the rating the higher the ad rate .
Everyone remember the millions paid for a 30 second ad during the Super Bowl .
Ken says that because the advertiser does not know WHO viewed the ad , there are no provable results .
If that were true , why would a company spend MILLIONS on a single ad if there were no provable results ?
That just makes no sense.Now Ken also states " on the Internet everything is 100 \ % trackable and is billed and sold as such .
" Here Ken is indicating that either the Ars Technica 's advertising department is being dishonest , selling clients the idea that 100 \ % of Ars visitors will click through to the client 's site or that Ars is willing to conspire with their clients to place adware of some form on each visitor 's computer .
Combined with Ken 's stressing the exaggerated importance of knowing WHO views an ad , my guess is the later , since that is the ONLY way for Ars to guarantee 100 \ % of anything getting to a client .
Why else would ad blockers cause him such heartburn.Either way...now that I know this about Ars...I will never visit that site again without an ad blocker of some kind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It appears that Ken has a major case of sour grapes.
I am a user of ad blockers.
I use them not only to eliminate annoying ads, I use them to protect my privacy.
I do not like the idea of personalized advertising based upon what websites I visit.
I do not like the idea of advertisers downloading cookies on to MY computer just because I view a web page that contains one of their ads.
What web sites I view, is between me and the web site I am viewing, not some advertiser.
I view web ads as an infection, needing to be controlled.
AD BLOCKERS PROVIDE THAT CONTROL!!
!Ken rants against Internet users who do not experience the Internet in the fashion that would render maximum profits to Ars Technica, stopping just short of calling them thieves.
It is obvious that he cares not one iota about users privacy concerns.
No where does he indicate that Ars takes any steps to ensure that ads do not place tracking cookies and the such.
All he does is cry about ad blockers depriving him of profits!
Ken obviously cares not about users privacy issues as long as ad revenues flow.He also displaying some ignorance of the subject on which he is pontificating.
For example when he is discussing the radio and television advertising model he states "advertisers in those mediums are paying for potential to reach audiences, and not for results.
"  I am sorry but no company spends money for "potential to reach audiences".
All companies spend advertising money with the expectation of results i.e.
more business.
If a company spends money on a particular form of advertising and it does not produce results, they do not continue throwing money away.
They go to a different form of advertising.
Ken also states "They have complex models which tell them if X number are watching, Y will likely see the ad.
"  This is true.
Radio and television have complex models because they take into consideration those who do not respond to advertising.When he states "they really have no true idea  who  sees what ad, and that's why it's a medium based on potential and not provable results" he is making an assertion which is false.
While it is true the advertisers have no idea WHO is seeing the ad, they do know how many people are exposed it.
Neilsen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen\_ratings [wikipedia.org] and several other rating companies provide rating services for both local and national broadcasting entities.
The advertising rate for advertising during a broadcast is determined by the historical rating a broadcast has obtained.
The higher the rating the higher the ad rate.
Everyone remember the millions paid for a 30 second ad during the Super Bowl.
Ken says that because the advertiser does not know WHO viewed the ad, there are no provable results.
If that were true, why would a company spend MILLIONS on a single ad if there were no provable results?
That just makes no sense.Now Ken also states "on the Internet everything is 100\% trackable and is billed and sold as such.
"  Here Ken is indicating that either the Ars Technica's advertising department is being dishonest, selling clients the idea that 100\% of Ars visitors will click through to the client's site or that Ars is willing to conspire with their clients to place adware of some form on each visitor's computer.
Combined with Ken's stressing the exaggerated importance of knowing WHO views an ad, my guess is the later, since that is the ONLY way for Ars to guarantee 100\% of anything getting to a client.
Why else would ad blockers cause him such heartburn.Either way...now that I know this about Ars...I will never visit that site again without an ad blocker of some kind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388986</id>
	<title>Old story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267972620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your failed business model...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your failed business model.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your failed business model...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391372</id>
	<title>Here's a BIG "why", see inside</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267986180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><div class="quote"><p><b>"Why does anyone decide to use ad-blocking software in the first place? "</b> - by macraig (621737)  on Sunday March 07, @08:53AM (#31389176) Homepage(#31389104)</p></div><p>Here is a BIG why of the "WHY":</p><p><b>The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>They have been found more than a few times serving up FAR more and FAR WORSE than mere tracking cookies, as you can see above. Thus, I agree on this account with you by ALL means.</p><p>So, if a websurfer finds out that he can go faster online by blocking out banner ads (as well as safer, per the article above), then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock (or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript), or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files, or a custom HOSTS file.</p><p>There's that above, which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation (which is not cheap, and not every "Joe Sixpack" knows how it is done, or wants to for that matter), and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.</p><p>So it's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime, and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too, but also to pay for Ken Fisher's life on top of that all as well? A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt, and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done, as well as the coding work put into his site (which I doubt he did every line of himself as well).</p><p><b>So, who are the REAL freeloaders here?</b></p><p>The end users, or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V., since both basically snag a user's subconscious attention via a "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"!)</p><p>So, once more: <b>Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here??</b></p><p>The end users, or those using them (website owners) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked, basically yelling at them "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"? There's the real question to ask here!)??</p><p>This is a "double-edged sword", and that is all there is to it, period.</p><p>Ken Fisher "made hay while the sun shined" &amp; now that sun is fading, because people are WISE to those like he, who use others to make a profit via said person's actual efforts in content creation (whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less).</p><p>"The art of good business is putting people together"!</p><p>(Sure - until they "wise up" to it that is. Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it (see the URL above once more in regards to that), and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is "above such mundane things"? Then I suggest they rethink their premises. People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain. Don't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise).</p><p>Above all - <b>I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts?? How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors???</b></p><p>I hope the article writer reads this.</p><p>The jigs up buddy, and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains, because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply, then you'd fund that website of yours yourself, Mr. Ken Fisher (after all, you've profited by others long enough to do so, right?).</p><p>(That, and Ken Fisher would find out just how truly "faithful" his arstech 'subscriptors' are, as well as he having to do the actual work in creating the content (instead of using others like Emil Protalinski for example to do so, while he pays them squat compared to what he makes off of their efforts by way of comparison)).</p><p>No, the game's over Ken Fisher, face it.</p><p>Go on now, switch to a subscriber only model, &amp; see how many people still attend your website. They'll simply move to another, &amp; quickly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Why does anyone decide to use ad-blocking software in the first place ?
" - by macraig ( 621737 ) on Sunday March 07 , @ 08 : 53AM ( # 31389176 ) Homepage ( # 31389104 ) Here is a BIG why of the " WHY " : The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus : http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/06/15/2056219 [ slashdot.org ] They have been found more than a few times serving up FAR more and FAR WORSE than mere tracking cookies , as you can see above .
Thus , I agree on this account with you by ALL means.So , if a websurfer finds out that he can go faster online by blocking out banner ads ( as well as safer , per the article above ) , then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock ( or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript ) , or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files , or a custom HOSTS file.There 's that above , which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation ( which is not cheap , and not every " Joe Sixpack " knows how it is done , or wants to for that matter ) , and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.So it 's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime , and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too , but also to pay for Ken Fisher 's life on top of that all as well ?
A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt , and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done , as well as the coding work put into his site ( which I doubt he did every line of himself as well ) .So , who are the REAL freeloaders here ? The end users , or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads ( which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V. , since both basically snag a user 's subconscious attention via a " look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need " !
) So , once more : Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here ?
? The end users , or those using them ( website owners ) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads ( which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked , basically yelling at them " look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need " ?
There 's the real question to ask here ! ) ?
? This is a " double-edged sword " , and that is all there is to it , period.Ken Fisher " made hay while the sun shined " &amp; now that sun is fading , because people are WISE to those like he , who use others to make a profit via said person 's actual efforts in content creation ( whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less ) .
" The art of good business is putting people together " !
( Sure - until they " wise up " to it that is .
Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it ( see the URL above once more in regards to that ) , and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is " above such mundane things " ?
Then I suggest they rethink their premises .
People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain .
Do n't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise ) .Above all - I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts ? ?
How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he 's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors ? ?
? I hope the article writer reads this.The jigs up buddy , and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains , because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply , then you 'd fund that website of yours yourself , Mr. Ken Fisher ( after all , you 've profited by others long enough to do so , right ? ) .
( That , and Ken Fisher would find out just how truly " faithful " his arstech 'subscriptors ' are , as well as he having to do the actual work in creating the content ( instead of using others like Emil Protalinski for example to do so , while he pays them squat compared to what he makes off of their efforts by way of comparison ) ) .No , the game 's over Ken Fisher , face it.Go on now , switch to a subscriber only model , &amp; see how many people still attend your website .
They 'll simply move to another , &amp; quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Why does anyone decide to use ad-blocking software in the first place?
" - by macraig (621737)  on Sunday March 07, @08:53AM (#31389176) Homepage(#31389104)Here is a BIG why of the "WHY":The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219 [slashdot.org]They have been found more than a few times serving up FAR more and FAR WORSE than mere tracking cookies, as you can see above.
Thus, I agree on this account with you by ALL means.So, if a websurfer finds out that he can go faster online by blocking out banner ads (as well as safer, per the article above), then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock (or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript), or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files, or a custom HOSTS file.There's that above, which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation (which is not cheap, and not every "Joe Sixpack" knows how it is done, or wants to for that matter), and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.So it's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime, and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too, but also to pay for Ken Fisher's life on top of that all as well?
A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt, and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done, as well as the coding work put into his site (which I doubt he did every line of himself as well).So, who are the REAL freeloaders here?The end users, or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V., since both basically snag a user's subconscious attention via a "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"!
)So, once more: Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here?
?The end users, or those using them (website owners) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked, basically yelling at them "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"?
There's the real question to ask here!)?
?This is a "double-edged sword", and that is all there is to it, period.Ken Fisher "made hay while the sun shined" &amp; now that sun is fading, because people are WISE to those like he, who use others to make a profit via said person's actual efforts in content creation (whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less).
"The art of good business is putting people together"!
(Sure - until they "wise up" to it that is.
Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it (see the URL above once more in regards to that), and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is "above such mundane things"?
Then I suggest they rethink their premises.
People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain.
Don't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise).Above all - I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts??
How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors??
?I hope the article writer reads this.The jigs up buddy, and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains, because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply, then you'd fund that website of yours yourself, Mr. Ken Fisher (after all, you've profited by others long enough to do so, right?).
(That, and Ken Fisher would find out just how truly "faithful" his arstech 'subscriptors' are, as well as he having to do the actual work in creating the content (instead of using others like Emil Protalinski for example to do so, while he pays them squat compared to what he makes off of their efforts by way of comparison)).No, the game's over Ken Fisher, face it.Go on now, switch to a subscriber only model, &amp; see how many people still attend your website.
They'll simply move to another, &amp; quickly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391218</id>
	<title>I really hate ads</title>
	<author>Omnifarious</author>
	<datestamp>1267985220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not saying that anybody who puts up ads is evil or immoral or anything of the sort.  But advertising is a useless intrusion into my mental space, and the effort of trying to ignore them takes cognitive effort I'd rather be putting into other things.</p><p>My favorite model is the Slashdot model.  If you pay for a subscription, you don't see ads.  Every site that has a long-term relationship with its customers that has ads should have an option to pay not to see them.  An honestly priced option that only recovers the revenue lost from the advertising they don't see.</p><p>Yes, I know the most valuable demographic to advertisers is likely the people who subscribe.  Tough.  If your product is any good, I'll certainly hear about it from a friend at some point or find it when I'm actively searching for a solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not saying that anybody who puts up ads is evil or immoral or anything of the sort .
But advertising is a useless intrusion into my mental space , and the effort of trying to ignore them takes cognitive effort I 'd rather be putting into other things.My favorite model is the Slashdot model .
If you pay for a subscription , you do n't see ads .
Every site that has a long-term relationship with its customers that has ads should have an option to pay not to see them .
An honestly priced option that only recovers the revenue lost from the advertising they do n't see.Yes , I know the most valuable demographic to advertisers is likely the people who subscribe .
Tough. If your product is any good , I 'll certainly hear about it from a friend at some point or find it when I 'm actively searching for a solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not saying that anybody who puts up ads is evil or immoral or anything of the sort.
But advertising is a useless intrusion into my mental space, and the effort of trying to ignore them takes cognitive effort I'd rather be putting into other things.My favorite model is the Slashdot model.
If you pay for a subscription, you don't see ads.
Every site that has a long-term relationship with its customers that has ads should have an option to pay not to see them.
An honestly priced option that only recovers the revenue lost from the advertising they don't see.Yes, I know the most valuable demographic to advertisers is likely the people who subscribe.
Tough.  If your product is any good, I'll certainly hear about it from a friend at some point or find it when I'm actively searching for a solution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392592</id>
	<title>Dear web sites: I'll make you a deal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267992720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tell you what.  Stop making your advertisements obnoxious and overbearing and I'll stop blocking them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell you what .
Stop making your advertisements obnoxious and overbearing and I 'll stop blocking them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell you what.
Stop making your advertisements obnoxious and overbearing and I'll stop blocking them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392880</id>
	<title>Tough titties</title>
	<author>chucklebutte</author>
	<datestamp>1267994520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too bad so sad, ads are fail! Ads are evil! Ads are a waste of bandwidth, ruin the landscape of the internet, and 99\% of time total crap! Oh yeah im pretty sure those super hot chicks that are so horny and "in my area" are so totally in my area, or yeah I won a ps3!!! Really? I am supposed to believe this shit?</p><p>Sorry you companies, businesses, and corporations havent figured it out yet, but ads dont work! Sorry let me tell you one more time ADS DONT WORK PERIOD! Why do you think people want DVR's? Why is there so many ad blocking choices in our browser extensions? The people have spoken, we do not want ads.</p><p>If ad revenue is your websites only source of income, get a new hosting provider, or run your own server! I have hosting (free hosting) through <a href="http://x10hosting.com/" title="x10hosting.com" rel="nofollow">http://x10hosting.com/</a> [x10hosting.com] I have free hosting with 0 ads! If i wanted to pony up the dough for a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com it would cost me a mere 5 bucks a month with an additional $20 fee per year to retain the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com. That is $80 a year, im a pretty broke fool and I can even muster $80 a year, dont get me wrong I don't, I still go the free route!</p><p>If your product is worth buying or if your services are worth paying for you will do fine with out those fractions of pennies for every ad click you get, and really who clicks on any ad? Where is the proof that ads actually bring any revenue in? Who runs a website chalked full of ads? How many people click on them? How much of your traffic is from ads on other shitty web sites full of ads linking to your shitty filled ad site?</p><p>Ads = fail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad so sad , ads are fail !
Ads are evil !
Ads are a waste of bandwidth , ruin the landscape of the internet , and 99 \ % of time total crap !
Oh yeah im pretty sure those super hot chicks that are so horny and " in my area " are so totally in my area , or yeah I won a ps3 ! ! !
Really ? I am supposed to believe this shit ? Sorry you companies , businesses , and corporations havent figured it out yet , but ads dont work !
Sorry let me tell you one more time ADS DONT WORK PERIOD !
Why do you think people want DVR 's ?
Why is there so many ad blocking choices in our browser extensions ?
The people have spoken , we do not want ads.If ad revenue is your websites only source of income , get a new hosting provider , or run your own server !
I have hosting ( free hosting ) through http : //x10hosting.com/ [ x10hosting.com ] I have free hosting with 0 ads !
If i wanted to pony up the dough for a .com it would cost me a mere 5 bucks a month with an additional $ 20 fee per year to retain the .com .
That is $ 80 a year , im a pretty broke fool and I can even muster $ 80 a year , dont get me wrong I do n't , I still go the free route ! If your product is worth buying or if your services are worth paying for you will do fine with out those fractions of pennies for every ad click you get , and really who clicks on any ad ?
Where is the proof that ads actually bring any revenue in ?
Who runs a website chalked full of ads ?
How many people click on them ?
How much of your traffic is from ads on other shitty web sites full of ads linking to your shitty filled ad site ? Ads = fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad so sad, ads are fail!
Ads are evil!
Ads are a waste of bandwidth, ruin the landscape of the internet, and 99\% of time total crap!
Oh yeah im pretty sure those super hot chicks that are so horny and "in my area" are so totally in my area, or yeah I won a ps3!!!
Really? I am supposed to believe this shit?Sorry you companies, businesses, and corporations havent figured it out yet, but ads dont work!
Sorry let me tell you one more time ADS DONT WORK PERIOD!
Why do you think people want DVR's?
Why is there so many ad blocking choices in our browser extensions?
The people have spoken, we do not want ads.If ad revenue is your websites only source of income, get a new hosting provider, or run your own server!
I have hosting (free hosting) through http://x10hosting.com/ [x10hosting.com] I have free hosting with 0 ads!
If i wanted to pony up the dough for a .com it would cost me a mere 5 bucks a month with an additional $20 fee per year to retain the .com.
That is $80 a year, im a pretty broke fool and I can even muster $80 a year, dont get me wrong I don't, I still go the free route!If your product is worth buying or if your services are worth paying for you will do fine with out those fractions of pennies for every ad click you get, and really who clicks on any ad?
Where is the proof that ads actually bring any revenue in?
Who runs a website chalked full of ads?
How many people click on them?
How much of your traffic is from ads on other shitty web sites full of ads linking to your shitty filled ad site?Ads = fail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389656</id>
	<title>Block me?  No, block you!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267976160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm always amused when I hear organizations with so much traffic complaining.</p><p>It's really quite simple.  Block my adblocker and I won't be reading your site.  I'm not going to be buying any of the crap your ad networks push anyway. or clicking on any of the "Discovered by a Mom" ads.  So you really wouldn't be losing any sales or clicks.</p><p>If you block, what you'll be losing is impressions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm always amused when I hear organizations with so much traffic complaining.It 's really quite simple .
Block my adblocker and I wo n't be reading your site .
I 'm not going to be buying any of the crap your ad networks push anyway .
or clicking on any of the " Discovered by a Mom " ads .
So you really would n't be losing any sales or clicks.If you block , what you 'll be losing is impressions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm always amused when I hear organizations with so much traffic complaining.It's really quite simple.
Block my adblocker and I won't be reading your site.
I'm not going to be buying any of the crap your ad networks push anyway.
or clicking on any of the "Discovered by a Mom" ads.
So you really wouldn't be losing any sales or clicks.If you block, what you'll be losing is impressions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31404198</id>
	<title>I'm an end user, not a theoretical accountant.</title>
	<author>^\_^x</author>
	<datestamp>1268081160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I understand ads help a site out. If I use a site a lot, I'll even click a banner once in a while and click around a little before closing the window to register a clickthrough.<br>If false links or FUIs lead me off site, too bad. I will block your ads, and maybe even blacklist your advertisers in my HOSTS file.<br>If the article is buried in so many ads across the top, and cascading down both sides, doing everything short of prying my eyes open and shoving banners into it... tough - I will block them without remorse.</p><p>The fastest way to get me to block an ad though is to use Flash. The instant I see a video starting to stream where it shouldn't, it's blocked, and if that also blocks part of the real site, I will file tech support requests for the site not working and let them figure it out. They should be glad I don't bill them for my wasted bandwidth, or interference with the operation of my PC as its resources pool into showing me crap I don't care about. This is inexcusable and any time it happens, I lose all sympathy for the site owners - I don't care if they're starving and the site's about to go dark; there's at least one very good reason for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand ads help a site out .
If I use a site a lot , I 'll even click a banner once in a while and click around a little before closing the window to register a clickthrough.If false links or FUIs lead me off site , too bad .
I will block your ads , and maybe even blacklist your advertisers in my HOSTS file.If the article is buried in so many ads across the top , and cascading down both sides , doing everything short of prying my eyes open and shoving banners into it... tough - I will block them without remorse.The fastest way to get me to block an ad though is to use Flash .
The instant I see a video starting to stream where it should n't , it 's blocked , and if that also blocks part of the real site , I will file tech support requests for the site not working and let them figure it out .
They should be glad I do n't bill them for my wasted bandwidth , or interference with the operation of my PC as its resources pool into showing me crap I do n't care about .
This is inexcusable and any time it happens , I lose all sympathy for the site owners - I do n't care if they 're starving and the site 's about to go dark ; there 's at least one very good reason for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand ads help a site out.
If I use a site a lot, I'll even click a banner once in a while and click around a little before closing the window to register a clickthrough.If false links or FUIs lead me off site, too bad.
I will block your ads, and maybe even blacklist your advertisers in my HOSTS file.If the article is buried in so many ads across the top, and cascading down both sides, doing everything short of prying my eyes open and shoving banners into it... tough - I will block them without remorse.The fastest way to get me to block an ad though is to use Flash.
The instant I see a video starting to stream where it shouldn't, it's blocked, and if that also blocks part of the real site, I will file tech support requests for the site not working and let them figure it out.
They should be glad I don't bill them for my wasted bandwidth, or interference with the operation of my PC as its resources pool into showing me crap I don't care about.
This is inexcusable and any time it happens, I lose all sympathy for the site owners - I don't care if they're starving and the site's about to go dark; there's at least one very good reason for that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388994</id>
	<title>Re:Ads suck</title>
	<author>Registered Coward v2</author>
	<datestamp>1267972680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ads are invasive, intrusive, annoying, and I don't want to see them.  ever.  There are laws against sending advertisements over the fax and cold-calling cell phones.  The logic is that the <i>recipient</i> must pay for the unsolicited advertisement (in fax paper, toner, or cell phone minutes).</p></div><p>Internet ads are no different. </p><p> Internet ads are different - the key being unsolicited - you chose to go to a site, unlike fax spam or cold - calls where the sender initiates the communication.
</p><p><div class="quote"><p> I pay for bandwidth and connection time, so your ad directly costs me money, and it should be illegal for that reason.  It costs me time too, making your page slower and more annoying.  I don't want to have to hunt for the content among all the cleverly disguised ads.  I don't want to have to examine the links to figure out which ones are ads and which ones are legitimate.</p></div><p>You can chose not to visit a site and not expend the bandwidth if you don't like the ads.  If you don't like how a site pays for itself, don't visit it.  Pretty simple; and if enough people do that the site will go away.  Sites have real bills to pay; and unless they do that they will eventually fold. Ads are one way of doing that.
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I will continue blocking ads until the end of time.  If you can't figure out how to make money without annoying people, that's your problem.  Get creative folks, and stop whining about how you wish people would just be more receptive to being annoyed.</p></div><p>They are - one site I frequent ran a public radio style pledge campaign, and vigorously polices its ads to remove annoying ones.  Others are moving to paid content.  In the end, there is no free lunch; good content costs money and if people insist on blocking ads they will have to find another way to make money or go out of business.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ads are invasive , intrusive , annoying , and I do n't want to see them .
ever. There are laws against sending advertisements over the fax and cold-calling cell phones .
The logic is that the recipient must pay for the unsolicited advertisement ( in fax paper , toner , or cell phone minutes ) .Internet ads are no different .
Internet ads are different - the key being unsolicited - you chose to go to a site , unlike fax spam or cold - calls where the sender initiates the communication .
I pay for bandwidth and connection time , so your ad directly costs me money , and it should be illegal for that reason .
It costs me time too , making your page slower and more annoying .
I do n't want to have to hunt for the content among all the cleverly disguised ads .
I do n't want to have to examine the links to figure out which ones are ads and which ones are legitimate.You can chose not to visit a site and not expend the bandwidth if you do n't like the ads .
If you do n't like how a site pays for itself , do n't visit it .
Pretty simple ; and if enough people do that the site will go away .
Sites have real bills to pay ; and unless they do that they will eventually fold .
Ads are one way of doing that .
I will continue blocking ads until the end of time .
If you ca n't figure out how to make money without annoying people , that 's your problem .
Get creative folks , and stop whining about how you wish people would just be more receptive to being annoyed.They are - one site I frequent ran a public radio style pledge campaign , and vigorously polices its ads to remove annoying ones .
Others are moving to paid content .
In the end , there is no free lunch ; good content costs money and if people insist on blocking ads they will have to find another way to make money or go out of business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ads are invasive, intrusive, annoying, and I don't want to see them.
ever.  There are laws against sending advertisements over the fax and cold-calling cell phones.
The logic is that the recipient must pay for the unsolicited advertisement (in fax paper, toner, or cell phone minutes).Internet ads are no different.
Internet ads are different - the key being unsolicited - you chose to go to a site, unlike fax spam or cold - calls where the sender initiates the communication.
I pay for bandwidth and connection time, so your ad directly costs me money, and it should be illegal for that reason.
It costs me time too, making your page slower and more annoying.
I don't want to have to hunt for the content among all the cleverly disguised ads.
I don't want to have to examine the links to figure out which ones are ads and which ones are legitimate.You can chose not to visit a site and not expend the bandwidth if you don't like the ads.
If you don't like how a site pays for itself, don't visit it.
Pretty simple; and if enough people do that the site will go away.
Sites have real bills to pay; and unless they do that they will eventually fold.
Ads are one way of doing that.
I will continue blocking ads until the end of time.
If you can't figure out how to make money without annoying people, that's your problem.
Get creative folks, and stop whining about how you wish people would just be more receptive to being annoyed.They are - one site I frequent ran a public radio style pledge campaign, and vigorously polices its ads to remove annoying ones.
Others are moving to paid content.
In the end, there is no free lunch; good content costs money and if people insist on blocking ads they will have to find another way to make money or go out of business.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31404956</id>
	<title>First Internet Ad with sound</title>
	<author>Alari</author>
	<datestamp>1268041200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first ad with sound that I encountered on the internet was an ad for some soda. (Coke or pepsi, don't know, don't care)</p><p>You get 1 guess what the sound effect was.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Yep, that's right. "KA-CHUNK. SLLLLLLLLLLLLUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRPPPPPPPPPPPPPP!   AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH"<br>(wow even slashdot's posting filter thinks my TEXT rendition is annoying<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>You get 1 guess where I was when I encountered that ad.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Yep, that's right, at work.  I had the sound turned up because I was listening to music that was quiet, too.</p><p>I installed Proxomitron that same day. I even wrote some custom filters for it. When that project died I switched to the hosts file everyone knows about.  ( <a href="http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm" title="mvps.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm</a> [mvps.org]  -  #3 on Google for "hosts")</p><p>To all sites: serious about getting viewers to see your ads?</p><p>First, don't make them so damn annoying. Don't allow crappy ads on your site, period.<br>Second, use your own ad server. If it's not in the hosts file, I don't block it unless it becomes an annoyance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first ad with sound that I encountered on the internet was an ad for some soda .
( Coke or pepsi , do n't know , do n't care ) You get 1 guess what the sound effect was .
: ) Yep , that 's right .
" KA-CHUNK. SLLLLLLLLLLLLUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRPPPPPPPPPPPPPP !
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH " ( wow even slashdot 's posting filter thinks my TEXT rendition is annoying : ) You get 1 guess where I was when I encountered that ad .
: ) Yep , that 's right , at work .
I had the sound turned up because I was listening to music that was quiet , too.I installed Proxomitron that same day .
I even wrote some custom filters for it .
When that project died I switched to the hosts file everyone knows about .
( http : //www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [ mvps.org ] - # 3 on Google for " hosts " ) To all sites : serious about getting viewers to see your ads ? First , do n't make them so damn annoying .
Do n't allow crappy ads on your site , period.Second , use your own ad server .
If it 's not in the hosts file , I do n't block it unless it becomes an annoyance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first ad with sound that I encountered on the internet was an ad for some soda.
(Coke or pepsi, don't know, don't care)You get 1 guess what the sound effect was.
:)Yep, that's right.
"KA-CHUNK. SLLLLLLLLLLLLUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRPPPPPPPPPPPPPP!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH"(wow even slashdot's posting filter thinks my TEXT rendition is annoying :)You get 1 guess where I was when I encountered that ad.
:)Yep, that's right, at work.
I had the sound turned up because I was listening to music that was quiet, too.I installed Proxomitron that same day.
I even wrote some custom filters for it.
When that project died I switched to the hosts file everyone knows about.
( http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org]  -  #3 on Google for "hosts")To all sites: serious about getting viewers to see your ads?First, don't make them so damn annoying.
Don't allow crappy ads on your site, period.Second, use your own ad server.
If it's not in the hosts file, I don't block it unless it becomes an annoyance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392550</id>
	<title>Arstechnica and trojans in adbanners?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267992420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica</b> -&gt; Philip</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PM<br>internet</p><p>Philip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it. When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus. Here is a copy of my log. I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites. 1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"</p><p>Link to Original Source</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Americans Don't want targetted ads:</b></p><p><a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/10/01/1854214" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/10/01/1854214</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>Especially when arstechnica ads apparently are truly targetting them, for termination. See last url below on that account.</p><p>----</p><p><b>Users Know Advertisers Watch Them, and Hate It:</b></p><p><a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/04/02/0058247.shtml" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/04/02/0058247.shtml</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>How Much Are Ad Servers Slowing the Web?</b></p><p><a href="http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/07/08/17/1617259.shtml" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/07/08/17/1617259.shtml</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>A lot, and arstechnica appears to be "doing their part" in the URL above too (albeit by actually slowing others' machines at a local system level, not just online after arstechnica is done with their systems apparently)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica - &gt; Philiphttp : //slashdot.org/firehose.pl ? op = view&amp;id = 447008 [ slashdot.org ] Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008 , @ 03 : 00PMinternetPhilip writes " It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it .
When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus .
Here is a copy of my log .
I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites .
1/2/2008 2 : 27 : 15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe ( http : //arstechnica.com/index.ars ) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO ( Trojan ) " Link to Original Sourcehttp : //slashdot.org/firehose.pl ? op = view&amp;id = 447008 [ slashdot.org ] ----Americans Do n't want targetted ads : http : //yro.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/10/01/1854214 [ slashdot.org ] Especially when arstechnica ads apparently are truly targetting them , for termination .
See last url below on that account.----Users Know Advertisers Watch Them , and Hate It : http : //yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/04/02/0058247.shtml [ slashdot.org ] ----How Much Are Ad Servers Slowing the Web ? http : //ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/07/08/17/1617259.shtml [ slashdot.org ] A lot , and arstechnica appears to be " doing their part " in the URL above too ( albeit by actually slowing others ' machines at a local system level , not just online after arstechnica is done with their systems apparently )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica -&gt; Philiphttp://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008 [slashdot.org]Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PMinternetPhilip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it.
When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus.
Here is a copy of my log.
I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites.
1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"Link to Original Sourcehttp://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008 [slashdot.org]----Americans Don't want targetted ads:http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/10/01/1854214 [slashdot.org]Especially when arstechnica ads apparently are truly targetting them, for termination.
See last url below on that account.----Users Know Advertisers Watch Them, and Hate It:http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/04/02/0058247.shtml [slashdot.org]----How Much Are Ad Servers Slowing the Web?http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/07/08/17/1617259.shtml [slashdot.org]A lot, and arstechnica appears to be "doing their part" in the URL above too (albeit by actually slowing others' machines at a local system level, not just online after arstechnica is done with their systems apparently)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389962</id>
	<title>Re:My thoughts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267978080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't internet ads generate their revenue through the amount of clicks they incur? I know Google's ads do this.</p><p>By using adblock, what I'm saying is: I'm never going to be clicking on any of the ads on your website.</p><p>If I didn't use it, I still wouldn't be clicking on any ads on your website and they will also annoy me.</p><p>It's most likely that the people using ad blocking don't care about the ads you display and won't be clicking on them anyway.</p></div><p>You are wrong.</p><p>Ads did used to pay only for clickthrough, but I think this model went away a few years ago, because it was a poor model for advertising, and failed to account for the value of branding even when a sale isn't directly attributable to a specific viewing of a specific ad.</p><p>Ads currently pay two ways:  for clicks and for views.  Even if you never click, if your browser downloads and displays the ad, it helps support the site that presented the ad.  So, if you're blocking ads entirely, you're denying the site revenue for those ad views that they fail to generate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct me if I 'm wrong , but do n't internet ads generate their revenue through the amount of clicks they incur ?
I know Google 's ads do this.By using adblock , what I 'm saying is : I 'm never going to be clicking on any of the ads on your website.If I did n't use it , I still would n't be clicking on any ads on your website and they will also annoy me.It 's most likely that the people using ad blocking do n't care about the ads you display and wo n't be clicking on them anyway.You are wrong.Ads did used to pay only for clickthrough , but I think this model went away a few years ago , because it was a poor model for advertising , and failed to account for the value of branding even when a sale is n't directly attributable to a specific viewing of a specific ad.Ads currently pay two ways : for clicks and for views .
Even if you never click , if your browser downloads and displays the ad , it helps support the site that presented the ad .
So , if you 're blocking ads entirely , you 're denying the site revenue for those ad views that they fail to generate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't internet ads generate their revenue through the amount of clicks they incur?
I know Google's ads do this.By using adblock, what I'm saying is: I'm never going to be clicking on any of the ads on your website.If I didn't use it, I still wouldn't be clicking on any ads on your website and they will also annoy me.It's most likely that the people using ad blocking don't care about the ads you display and won't be clicking on them anyway.You are wrong.Ads did used to pay only for clickthrough, but I think this model went away a few years ago, because it was a poor model for advertising, and failed to account for the value of branding even when a sale isn't directly attributable to a specific viewing of a specific ad.Ads currently pay two ways:  for clicks and for views.
Even if you never click, if your browser downloads and displays the ad, it helps support the site that presented the ad.
So, if you're blocking ads entirely, you're denying the site revenue for those ad views that they fail to generate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391500</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Ars, you are animated too</title>
	<author>nxtw</author>
	<datestamp>1267986840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We have been through all this stuff over and over again. People wouldn't have started blocking ads in the first place if they were reasonable ads.</p></div></blockquote><p>This is simply not true.  I started blocking ads because <i>they were there</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have been through all this stuff over and over again .
People would n't have started blocking ads in the first place if they were reasonable ads.This is simply not true .
I started blocking ads because they were there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have been through all this stuff over and over again.
People wouldn't have started blocking ads in the first place if they were reasonable ads.This is simply not true.
I started blocking ads because they were there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389124</id>
	<title>Stop annoying us with your ads</title>
	<author>dmesg0</author>
	<datestamp>1267973340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are way too many sites with intrusive ads, very low content/advertisement ratio, lots of flash banners that eat up CPU (Isn't it annoying to see 100\% CPU taken by the browser?). There is even a site that displays a screaming flash ad, so when I visited it at work, it was quite embarrassing. </p><p>So it's very simple, as long as there are many such sites, we'll continue to use ad blockers. The webmasters must finally understand that in order to get some revenue they should not annoy their visitors. And it's not that hard to do, I don't think many would mind a few text ads or one static banner on a page.</p><p>And if you refuse to let us see the content without flashy ads, well, go to hell, such sites aren't worth visiting anyway.  </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are way too many sites with intrusive ads , very low content/advertisement ratio , lots of flash banners that eat up CPU ( Is n't it annoying to see 100 \ % CPU taken by the browser ? ) .
There is even a site that displays a screaming flash ad , so when I visited it at work , it was quite embarrassing .
So it 's very simple , as long as there are many such sites , we 'll continue to use ad blockers .
The webmasters must finally understand that in order to get some revenue they should not annoy their visitors .
And it 's not that hard to do , I do n't think many would mind a few text ads or one static banner on a page.And if you refuse to let us see the content without flashy ads , well , go to hell , such sites are n't worth visiting anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are way too many sites with intrusive ads, very low content/advertisement ratio, lots of flash banners that eat up CPU (Isn't it annoying to see 100\% CPU taken by the browser?).
There is even a site that displays a screaming flash ad, so when I visited it at work, it was quite embarrassing.
So it's very simple, as long as there are many such sites, we'll continue to use ad blockers.
The webmasters must finally understand that in order to get some revenue they should not annoy their visitors.
And it's not that hard to do, I don't think many would mind a few text ads or one static banner on a page.And if you refuse to let us see the content without flashy ads, well, go to hell, such sites aren't worth visiting anyway.  </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388954</id>
	<title>The other side: Ad abuse and malware</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267972560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I posted this there, and I'll post it here, too.</p><p>I consider it irresponsible <i>not</i> to browse the web with a really good ad/Flash/javascript blocker.  Not just because of the annoyance factor, but because it is a significant vector of malicious code attacks.  This isn't just hypothetical; in the recent past, sites such as Wikia and a gaming site I visit injected malicious code and infected users' machines.  The site hosts were completely unaware of it; the code was being injected through a third-party ad provider.  Fortunately, I found out about this through someone else when they brought it to my attention, because the code never made it to my browser.</p><p>Ars raises a good point, but the simple truth is that given the choice between having less content available or putting my system's security at risk, I'll choose the first option any day.  I'm sorry--I really am, because I know that it is devastating to sites such as theirs, and I'd gladly whitelist their site but for the risk.  I don't blame reputable sites like Ars, I blame a decade and a half of abuse by ad companies.  But such is the state of affairs.</p><p>Plus, please keep in mind that a lot of sites I visit are new to me, and they're sites that I don't know whether or not they're reputable.  Many of them engage in what I consider an "ad assault" on me, barraging me with all sorts of annoyances for content that is of little to no value.  When I'm just puttering around the Internet without visiting one of my usual haunts, most of the content means so little to me that until I have a chance to evaluate whether or not it's worth it and whether or not they advertise in some sane, responsible manner, I feel fully justified in not letting them force feed such annoyances to me.</p><p>For what it's worth, he is right, I'm glad they brought the issue up in a tactful manner, and I'm going to subscribe to Ars since I do indeed find its content of high value.  When sites I value provide such an alternate business model for paying for their existence, I do try to do my part to support them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I posted this there , and I 'll post it here , too.I consider it irresponsible not to browse the web with a really good ad/Flash/javascript blocker .
Not just because of the annoyance factor , but because it is a significant vector of malicious code attacks .
This is n't just hypothetical ; in the recent past , sites such as Wikia and a gaming site I visit injected malicious code and infected users ' machines .
The site hosts were completely unaware of it ; the code was being injected through a third-party ad provider .
Fortunately , I found out about this through someone else when they brought it to my attention , because the code never made it to my browser.Ars raises a good point , but the simple truth is that given the choice between having less content available or putting my system 's security at risk , I 'll choose the first option any day .
I 'm sorry--I really am , because I know that it is devastating to sites such as theirs , and I 'd gladly whitelist their site but for the risk .
I do n't blame reputable sites like Ars , I blame a decade and a half of abuse by ad companies .
But such is the state of affairs.Plus , please keep in mind that a lot of sites I visit are new to me , and they 're sites that I do n't know whether or not they 're reputable .
Many of them engage in what I consider an " ad assault " on me , barraging me with all sorts of annoyances for content that is of little to no value .
When I 'm just puttering around the Internet without visiting one of my usual haunts , most of the content means so little to me that until I have a chance to evaluate whether or not it 's worth it and whether or not they advertise in some sane , responsible manner , I feel fully justified in not letting them force feed such annoyances to me.For what it 's worth , he is right , I 'm glad they brought the issue up in a tactful manner , and I 'm going to subscribe to Ars since I do indeed find its content of high value .
When sites I value provide such an alternate business model for paying for their existence , I do try to do my part to support them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I posted this there, and I'll post it here, too.I consider it irresponsible not to browse the web with a really good ad/Flash/javascript blocker.
Not just because of the annoyance factor, but because it is a significant vector of malicious code attacks.
This isn't just hypothetical; in the recent past, sites such as Wikia and a gaming site I visit injected malicious code and infected users' machines.
The site hosts were completely unaware of it; the code was being injected through a third-party ad provider.
Fortunately, I found out about this through someone else when they brought it to my attention, because the code never made it to my browser.Ars raises a good point, but the simple truth is that given the choice between having less content available or putting my system's security at risk, I'll choose the first option any day.
I'm sorry--I really am, because I know that it is devastating to sites such as theirs, and I'd gladly whitelist their site but for the risk.
I don't blame reputable sites like Ars, I blame a decade and a half of abuse by ad companies.
But such is the state of affairs.Plus, please keep in mind that a lot of sites I visit are new to me, and they're sites that I don't know whether or not they're reputable.
Many of them engage in what I consider an "ad assault" on me, barraging me with all sorts of annoyances for content that is of little to no value.
When I'm just puttering around the Internet without visiting one of my usual haunts, most of the content means so little to me that until I have a chance to evaluate whether or not it's worth it and whether or not they advertise in some sane, responsible manner, I feel fully justified in not letting them force feed such annoyances to me.For what it's worth, he is right, I'm glad they brought the issue up in a tactful manner, and I'm going to subscribe to Ars since I do indeed find its content of high value.
When sites I value provide such an alternate business model for paying for their existence, I do try to do my part to support them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391314</id>
	<title>Re:Turn off Flash ads, and I'll turn off the ad bl</title>
	<author>wvmarle</author>
	<datestamp>1267985760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should consider using Flashblock instead of AdblockPlus. That is doing exactly what you are asking for: block flash and flash alone (and if you do want to see the flash part after all: just click on it).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should consider using Flashblock instead of AdblockPlus .
That is doing exactly what you are asking for : block flash and flash alone ( and if you do want to see the flash part after all : just click on it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should consider using Flashblock instead of AdblockPlus.
That is doing exactly what you are asking for: block flash and flash alone (and if you do want to see the flash part after all: just click on it).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391364</id>
	<title>Shut your site down.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267986180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sell or close down your business BEFORE you have to result to begging.<br>When you say please don't block the adds, you mean : Please don't block the adds and then click on loads of them (So that you can get rich off our clicks.) That pretty much equates to working for you for free, whilst actually paying monthly to do that (Internet connect subscription fee.)<br>No thanks.</p><p>There should be MORE filtering of advertising crap. Not less.</p><p>Cold calling is illegal in lots places in the UK. So is begging.<br>Same rules should apply on the Internet and if consumers wanted to see adverts in the first place, there wouldn't be so many of them blocking them.</p><p>Internet advertisers should be taxed and if they fail to pay that tax, they should then be blocked by isps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sell or close down your business BEFORE you have to result to begging.When you say please do n't block the adds , you mean : Please do n't block the adds and then click on loads of them ( So that you can get rich off our clicks .
) That pretty much equates to working for you for free , whilst actually paying monthly to do that ( Internet connect subscription fee .
) No thanks.There should be MORE filtering of advertising crap .
Not less.Cold calling is illegal in lots places in the UK .
So is begging.Same rules should apply on the Internet and if consumers wanted to see adverts in the first place , there would n't be so many of them blocking them.Internet advertisers should be taxed and if they fail to pay that tax , they should then be blocked by isps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sell or close down your business BEFORE you have to result to begging.When you say please don't block the adds, you mean : Please don't block the adds and then click on loads of them (So that you can get rich off our clicks.
) That pretty much equates to working for you for free, whilst actually paying monthly to do that (Internet connect subscription fee.
)No thanks.There should be MORE filtering of advertising crap.
Not less.Cold calling is illegal in lots places in the UK.
So is begging.Same rules should apply on the Internet and if consumers wanted to see adverts in the first place, there wouldn't be so many of them blocking them.Internet advertisers should be taxed and if they fail to pay that tax, they should then be blocked by isps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392986</id>
	<title>Re:It's the freeloaders time</title>
	<author>Brian Gordon</author>
	<datestamp>1267995180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And it's not like the advertisers are losing money on it - you'd never buy anything from an ad.</p><p>I would never even click on an ad. They're not losing any business by me blocking ads, and anyway I'm not obligated to render every piece of data that comes in on the wire exactly as they want me to render it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it 's not like the advertisers are losing money on it - you 'd never buy anything from an ad.I would never even click on an ad .
They 're not losing any business by me blocking ads , and anyway I 'm not obligated to render every piece of data that comes in on the wire exactly as they want me to render it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it's not like the advertisers are losing money on it - you'd never buy anything from an ad.I would never even click on an ad.
They're not losing any business by me blocking ads, and anyway I'm not obligated to render every piece of data that comes in on the wire exactly as they want me to render it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393984</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Ars, you are animated too</title>
	<author>Game\_Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1267958700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So the only thing they had was animation and those animations stopped after a few seconds didn't they?  They also loaded after the page's content.  I think you have to get over yourself, they are as low key as possible while still satisfy the people who pay for the ads.

As for internet = TV, they are both "rich" media, ie. if it allows animation it will be used.  If you are *truly* tired of the Internet being TV you would never use an online video site, or use it to gather video.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the only thing they had was animation and those animations stopped after a few seconds did n't they ?
They also loaded after the page 's content .
I think you have to get over yourself , they are as low key as possible while still satisfy the people who pay for the ads .
As for internet = TV , they are both " rich " media , ie .
if it allows animation it will be used .
If you are * truly * tired of the Internet being TV you would never use an online video site , or use it to gather video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the only thing they had was animation and those animations stopped after a few seconds didn't they?
They also loaded after the page's content.
I think you have to get over yourself, they are as low key as possible while still satisfy the people who pay for the ads.
As for internet = TV, they are both "rich" media, ie.
if it allows animation it will be used.
If you are *truly* tired of the Internet being TV you would never use an online video site, or use it to gather video.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389060</id>
	<title>Re:Ads suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267972980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know who else is paying for bandwidth for you to view the content?  The host.  Ars Technica (or whoever).</p><p>You have a fucking choice over whether you want to go look at a site or not, so don't try to act like they're violating your rights by displaying advertisements.  Go ahead and keep blocking the ads, but don't sit here and act like you're being ass-raped by people because they're trying to make money to support their site.  Just admit that you're aware that they're trying to make some money to support the content you're viewing, but you don't care and you'd rather they be that much poorer so you can blissfully read their hard work the way YOU want to read it.  Don't sit here and act like you're being wronged, admit that you're being selfish.</p><p>Seriously, who marked this guy insightful?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know who else is paying for bandwidth for you to view the content ?
The host .
Ars Technica ( or whoever ) .You have a fucking choice over whether you want to go look at a site or not , so do n't try to act like they 're violating your rights by displaying advertisements .
Go ahead and keep blocking the ads , but do n't sit here and act like you 're being ass-raped by people because they 're trying to make money to support their site .
Just admit that you 're aware that they 're trying to make some money to support the content you 're viewing , but you do n't care and you 'd rather they be that much poorer so you can blissfully read their hard work the way YOU want to read it .
Do n't sit here and act like you 're being wronged , admit that you 're being selfish.Seriously , who marked this guy insightful ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know who else is paying for bandwidth for you to view the content?
The host.
Ars Technica (or whoever).You have a fucking choice over whether you want to go look at a site or not, so don't try to act like they're violating your rights by displaying advertisements.
Go ahead and keep blocking the ads, but don't sit here and act like you're being ass-raped by people because they're trying to make money to support their site.
Just admit that you're aware that they're trying to make some money to support the content you're viewing, but you don't care and you'd rather they be that much poorer so you can blissfully read their hard work the way YOU want to read it.
Don't sit here and act like you're being wronged, admit that you're being selfish.Seriously, who marked this guy insightful?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393358</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Ars, you are animated too</title>
	<author>neosake</author>
	<datestamp>1267954440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I don't want to deny sites revenue, but without being able to block the above types of Ad's, I wouldn't visit (or stay on) a site, anyway- so there is little difference.</p></div><p>So in essence you're hurting the site more by visiting them with no ads than not visiting them at all. TFA's point was that not visiting them doesn't cost them bandwith / server fees etc, but visiting them with adblock costs THEM to serve you content. With no return.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want to deny sites revenue , but without being able to block the above types of Ad 's , I would n't visit ( or stay on ) a site , anyway- so there is little difference.So in essence you 're hurting the site more by visiting them with no ads than not visiting them at all .
TFA 's point was that not visiting them does n't cost them bandwith / server fees etc , but visiting them with adblock costs THEM to serve you content .
With no return .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I don't want to deny sites revenue, but without being able to block the above types of Ad's, I wouldn't visit (or stay on) a site, anyway- so there is little difference.So in essence you're hurting the site more by visiting them with no ads than not visiting them at all.
TFA's point was that not visiting them doesn't cost them bandwith / server fees etc, but visiting them with adblock costs THEM to serve you content.
With no return.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394952</id>
	<title>No Ads, no Free content</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267964880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I run a site that makes it's money entirely from ads. Guess what, the site is free, it's entertainment, and if you block the ads, eventually you won't be able to visit the site because I'll just shut it down when it costs more to operate than it receives in revenue.</p><p>People who use ad blockers are dumb leeches, sorry. Not everyone can keep their bandwidth down to 1Mbit/sec to fit on shitty services like dreamhost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I run a site that makes it 's money entirely from ads .
Guess what , the site is free , it 's entertainment , and if you block the ads , eventually you wo n't be able to visit the site because I 'll just shut it down when it costs more to operate than it receives in revenue.People who use ad blockers are dumb leeches , sorry .
Not everyone can keep their bandwidth down to 1Mbit/sec to fit on shitty services like dreamhost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run a site that makes it's money entirely from ads.
Guess what, the site is free, it's entertainment, and if you block the ads, eventually you won't be able to visit the site because I'll just shut it down when it costs more to operate than it receives in revenue.People who use ad blockers are dumb leeches, sorry.
Not everyone can keep their bandwidth down to 1Mbit/sec to fit on shitty services like dreamhost.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392730</id>
	<title>Will wget get them paid?</title>
	<author>justinchudgar</author>
	<datestamp>1267993560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, my personal positions is that Ars has a point. I love some of their writers and visit them pretty much daily. I want to support them, but I do not have the cash to buy a subscription which would be the proper thing to do. I also really hate ads around my articles. Which leads me to the question: will a simple wget cronjob (i.e. wget -r -l 2 -o<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/null -O<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/null -U 'Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; de; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100214 Ubuntu/9.10 (karmic) Firefox/3.5.8' www.arstechnica.com) result in them getting paid for a few page views?

Input on how to make this work would be most welcome.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , my personal positions is that Ars has a point .
I love some of their writers and visit them pretty much daily .
I want to support them , but I do not have the cash to buy a subscription which would be the proper thing to do .
I also really hate ads around my articles .
Which leads me to the question : will a simple wget cronjob ( i.e .
wget -r -l 2 -o /dev/null -O /dev/null -U 'Mozilla/5.0 ( X11 ; U ; Linux i686 ; de ; rv : 1.9.1.8 ) Gecko/20100214 Ubuntu/9.10 ( karmic ) Firefox/3.5.8 ' www.arstechnica.com ) result in them getting paid for a few page views ?
Input on how to make this work would be most welcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, my personal positions is that Ars has a point.
I love some of their writers and visit them pretty much daily.
I want to support them, but I do not have the cash to buy a subscription which would be the proper thing to do.
I also really hate ads around my articles.
Which leads me to the question: will a simple wget cronjob (i.e.
wget -r -l 2 -o /dev/null -O /dev/null -U 'Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; de; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100214 Ubuntu/9.10 (karmic) Firefox/3.5.8' www.arstechnica.com) result in them getting paid for a few page views?
Input on how to make this work would be most welcome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392382</id>
	<title>Don't forget to ask why</title>
	<author>meerling</author>
	<datestamp>1267991280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I didn't mind it when the ads were banner ads or sidebars.<br>I didn't mind when the showed up between articles.<br>Some of the animated ones were ok.<br><br>But the moment they got annoying, they had to go.<br>Popups are pure evile, popunders, even more so.<br>Ads with jarring animations or ads with bright distractions prevented enjoyment of the page and had to be killed.<br>Scripted ads that followed my mouse or stayed on screen at all times needed to be destroyed.<br>Ads with sound also had to be annihilated and silenced.<br>Those in the middle of articles needed to be (re)moved.<br><br>The advertisers started this war, and the websites may be in the crossfire of lost revenues, but there is no way in hell I'm going to give in to those evil marketing weasels.<br>Down them all and let the DNS server sort them out!<br><br>The moral of this story is that when you let someone tromp all over you and your readers/customers, you don't deserve to have the internet anymore...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't mind it when the ads were banner ads or sidebars.I did n't mind when the showed up between articles.Some of the animated ones were ok.But the moment they got annoying , they had to go.Popups are pure evile , popunders , even more so.Ads with jarring animations or ads with bright distractions prevented enjoyment of the page and had to be killed.Scripted ads that followed my mouse or stayed on screen at all times needed to be destroyed.Ads with sound also had to be annihilated and silenced.Those in the middle of articles needed to be ( re ) moved.The advertisers started this war , and the websites may be in the crossfire of lost revenues , but there is no way in hell I 'm going to give in to those evil marketing weasels.Down them all and let the DNS server sort them out ! The moral of this story is that when you let someone tromp all over you and your readers/customers , you do n't deserve to have the internet anymore.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't mind it when the ads were banner ads or sidebars.I didn't mind when the showed up between articles.Some of the animated ones were ok.But the moment they got annoying, they had to go.Popups are pure evile, popunders, even more so.Ads with jarring animations or ads with bright distractions prevented enjoyment of the page and had to be killed.Scripted ads that followed my mouse or stayed on screen at all times needed to be destroyed.Ads with sound also had to be annihilated and silenced.Those in the middle of articles needed to be (re)moved.The advertisers started this war, and the websites may be in the crossfire of lost revenues, but there is no way in hell I'm going to give in to those evil marketing weasels.Down them all and let the DNS server sort them out!The moral of this story is that when you let someone tromp all over you and your readers/customers, you don't deserve to have the internet anymore...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392824</id>
	<title>Know What You Block</title>
	<author>loox</author>
	<datestamp>1267994160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just block Flash. Good advertising is welcome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just block Flash .
Good advertising is welcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just block Flash.
Good advertising is welcome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388846</id>
	<title>Too annoying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267971960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most ads are just too annoying. Some are blinking, some hovering over the web page etc. I have to be afraid to lose <b>my</b> job with these kind of ads. I have no problems with statis ads, that's why I only use flash blockers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most ads are just too annoying .
Some are blinking , some hovering over the web page etc .
I have to be afraid to lose my job with these kind of ads .
I have no problems with statis ads , that 's why I only use flash blockers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most ads are just too annoying.
Some are blinking, some hovering over the web page etc.
I have to be afraid to lose my job with these kind of ads.
I have no problems with statis ads, that's why I only use flash blockers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388912</id>
	<title>My thoughts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267972320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't internet ads generate their revenue through the amount of clicks they incur? I know Google's ads do this.<br><br>By using adblock, what I'm saying is: I'm never going to be clicking on any of the ads on your website.<br><br>If I didn't use it, I still wouldn't be clicking on any ads on your website and they will also annoy me.<br><br>It's most likely that the people using ad blocking don't care about the ads you display and won't be clicking on them anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct me if I 'm wrong , but do n't internet ads generate their revenue through the amount of clicks they incur ?
I know Google 's ads do this.By using adblock , what I 'm saying is : I 'm never going to be clicking on any of the ads on your website.If I did n't use it , I still would n't be clicking on any ads on your website and they will also annoy me.It 's most likely that the people using ad blocking do n't care about the ads you display and wo n't be clicking on them anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't internet ads generate their revenue through the amount of clicks they incur?
I know Google's ads do this.By using adblock, what I'm saying is: I'm never going to be clicking on any of the ads on your website.If I didn't use it, I still wouldn't be clicking on any ads on your website and they will also annoy me.It's most likely that the people using ad blocking don't care about the ads you display and won't be clicking on them anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388960</id>
	<title>Slashdot ads</title>
	<author>i'm lost</author>
	<datestamp>1267972560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't ever read Ars Technia (except for following links from slashdot), but I did try to whitelist ads for this site.  Unfortunately, I would have to allow javascript from whatever ad servers slashdot uses.  Disabling adblock on this site and allowing javascript from this domain isn't enough to view ads, so I don't see them.  It would be nice if I could support slashdot by viewing ads without trusting javascript from an ad server.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't ever read Ars Technia ( except for following links from slashdot ) , but I did try to whitelist ads for this site .
Unfortunately , I would have to allow javascript from whatever ad servers slashdot uses .
Disabling adblock on this site and allowing javascript from this domain is n't enough to view ads , so I do n't see them .
It would be nice if I could support slashdot by viewing ads without trusting javascript from an ad server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't ever read Ars Technia (except for following links from slashdot), but I did try to whitelist ads for this site.
Unfortunately, I would have to allow javascript from whatever ad servers slashdot uses.
Disabling adblock on this site and allowing javascript from this domain isn't enough to view ads, so I don't see them.
It would be nice if I could support slashdot by viewing ads without trusting javascript from an ad server.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390276</id>
	<title>Host your own ads</title>
	<author>TSPhoenix</author>
	<datestamp>1267980000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only time I'll click an ad is if I know where the URL is going, not some stupid 80-mile URL that doesn't even take me to what I want. 99\% of the time ads aren't even relevant, but when I see sites that host their own hand-picked ads, I'll click them if it looks interesting.</p><p>It makes sense too, a site picks out ads that they think their audience will be responsive to. They host them on their own server as to avoid ad blocking, and I actually click said ads. Sure ad-tracking and such can't really work so seamlessly, but it could be a lot better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only time I 'll click an ad is if I know where the URL is going , not some stupid 80-mile URL that does n't even take me to what I want .
99 \ % of the time ads are n't even relevant , but when I see sites that host their own hand-picked ads , I 'll click them if it looks interesting.It makes sense too , a site picks out ads that they think their audience will be responsive to .
They host them on their own server as to avoid ad blocking , and I actually click said ads .
Sure ad-tracking and such ca n't really work so seamlessly , but it could be a lot better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only time I'll click an ad is if I know where the URL is going, not some stupid 80-mile URL that doesn't even take me to what I want.
99\% of the time ads aren't even relevant, but when I see sites that host their own hand-picked ads, I'll click them if it looks interesting.It makes sense too, a site picks out ads that they think their audience will be responsive to.
They host them on their own server as to avoid ad blocking, and I actually click said ads.
Sure ad-tracking and such can't really work so seamlessly, but it could be a lot better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393884</id>
	<title>Until we get viable micropayments, adblock = ON</title>
	<author>atomic777</author>
	<datestamp>1267958040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think I could have said it better, but I'll go a step further. The argument of TFA is fallacious
</p><p>
I'm waiting for the internet financing model to shift away from employing vast numbers of people in an entirely useless pursuit of harassing me into buying things I don't want or need, and towards building a comparatively simple micropayment infrastructure, where as I view sites that I enjoy and value, i can drop small (less than 1 cent) tips that contribute to the revenue of the site.
</p><p>
Compared to the typical effective value per thousand page views most sites get for ads, it would result in maybe $0.10 - $2 worth of tips you leave for every <i>thousand</i> pages you load (depending on the site)
</p><p>
Until that infrastructure is in place, my adblocker is still on, because im' not going to buy any useless crap based on a flash animation, so I only dilute the value of the advertising, and the extra cpu cycles my computer spends to render the ads is actually a net cost to me in power consumption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think I could have said it better , but I 'll go a step further .
The argument of TFA is fallacious I 'm waiting for the internet financing model to shift away from employing vast numbers of people in an entirely useless pursuit of harassing me into buying things I do n't want or need , and towards building a comparatively simple micropayment infrastructure , where as I view sites that I enjoy and value , i can drop small ( less than 1 cent ) tips that contribute to the revenue of the site .
Compared to the typical effective value per thousand page views most sites get for ads , it would result in maybe $ 0.10 - $ 2 worth of tips you leave for every thousand pages you load ( depending on the site ) Until that infrastructure is in place , my adblocker is still on , because im ' not going to buy any useless crap based on a flash animation , so I only dilute the value of the advertising , and the extra cpu cycles my computer spends to render the ads is actually a net cost to me in power consumption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think I could have said it better, but I'll go a step further.
The argument of TFA is fallacious

I'm waiting for the internet financing model to shift away from employing vast numbers of people in an entirely useless pursuit of harassing me into buying things I don't want or need, and towards building a comparatively simple micropayment infrastructure, where as I view sites that I enjoy and value, i can drop small (less than 1 cent) tips that contribute to the revenue of the site.
Compared to the typical effective value per thousand page views most sites get for ads, it would result in maybe $0.10 - $2 worth of tips you leave for every thousand pages you load (depending on the site)

Until that infrastructure is in place, my adblocker is still on, because im' not going to buy any useless crap based on a flash animation, so I only dilute the value of the advertising, and the extra cpu cycles my computer spends to render the ads is actually a net cost to me in power consumption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391176</id>
	<title>Ads have been shown to harbor malware too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267985040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><div class="quote"><p><b>"Ads are invasive, intrusive, annoying, and I don't want to see them. ever."</b> - by Epsillon (608775) on Sunday March 07, @09:34AM (#31389634) Homepage</p></div><p>They're also dangerous!</p><p><b>The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>They have been found more than a few times serving up FAR more and FAR WORSE than mere tracking cookies, as you can see above.</p><p>So, if a websurfer finds out that he can go faster online by blocking out banner ads (as well as safer, per the article above), then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock (or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript), or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files, or a custom HOSTS file.</p><p>There's that above, which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation (which is not cheap, and not every "Joe Sixpack" knows how it is done, or wants to for that matter), and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.</p><p>So it's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime, and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too, but also to pay for Ken Fisher's life on top of that all as well? A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt, and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done, as well as the coding work put into his site (which I doubt he did every line of himself as well).</p><p><b>So, who are the REAL freeloaders here?</b></p><p>The end users, or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V., since both basically snag a user's subconscious attention via a "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"!)</p><p>So, once more: <b>Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here??</b></p><p>The end users, or those using them (website owners) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked, basically yelling at them "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"? There's the real question to ask here!)??</p><p>This is a "double-edged sword", and that is all there is to it, period.</p><p>Ken Fisher "made hay while the sun shined" &amp; now that sun is fading, because people are WISE to those like he, who use others to make a profit via said person's actual efforts in content creation (whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less).</p><p>"The art of good business is putting people together"!</p><p>(Sure - until they "wise up" to it that is. Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it (see the URL above once more in regards to that), and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is "above such mundane things"? Then I suggest they rethink their premises. People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain. Don't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise).</p><p>Above all - <b>I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts?? How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors???</b></p><p>I hope the article writer reads this.</p><p>The jigs up buddy, and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains, because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply, then you'd fund that website of yours yourself, Mr. Ken Fisher (after all, you've profited by others long enough to do so, right?).</p><p>(That, and Ken Fisher would find out "faithful" his arstech 'subscriptors' are, as well as he having to do the actual work in creating the content (instead of using others like Emil Protalinski for example to do so, while he pays them squat compared to what he makes off of their efforts by way of comparison)).</p><p>No, the game's over Ken Fisher, face it.</p><p>Go on now, switch to a subscriber only model, &amp; see how many people still attend your website. They'll simply move to another, &amp; quickly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Ads are invasive , intrusive , annoying , and I do n't want to see them .
ever. " - by Epsillon ( 608775 ) on Sunday March 07 , @ 09 : 34AM ( # 31389634 ) HomepageThey 're also dangerous ! The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus : http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/06/15/2056219 [ slashdot.org ] They have been found more than a few times serving up FAR more and FAR WORSE than mere tracking cookies , as you can see above.So , if a websurfer finds out that he can go faster online by blocking out banner ads ( as well as safer , per the article above ) , then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock ( or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript ) , or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files , or a custom HOSTS file.There 's that above , which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation ( which is not cheap , and not every " Joe Sixpack " knows how it is done , or wants to for that matter ) , and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.So it 's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime , and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too , but also to pay for Ken Fisher 's life on top of that all as well ?
A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt , and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done , as well as the coding work put into his site ( which I doubt he did every line of himself as well ) .So , who are the REAL freeloaders here ? The end users , or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads ( which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V. , since both basically snag a user 's subconscious attention via a " look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need " !
) So , once more : Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here ?
? The end users , or those using them ( website owners ) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads ( which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked , basically yelling at them " look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need " ?
There 's the real question to ask here ! ) ?
? This is a " double-edged sword " , and that is all there is to it , period.Ken Fisher " made hay while the sun shined " &amp; now that sun is fading , because people are WISE to those like he , who use others to make a profit via said person 's actual efforts in content creation ( whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less ) .
" The art of good business is putting people together " !
( Sure - until they " wise up " to it that is .
Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it ( see the URL above once more in regards to that ) , and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is " above such mundane things " ?
Then I suggest they rethink their premises .
People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain .
Do n't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise ) .Above all - I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts ? ?
How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he 's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors ? ?
? I hope the article writer reads this.The jigs up buddy , and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains , because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply , then you 'd fund that website of yours yourself , Mr. Ken Fisher ( after all , you 've profited by others long enough to do so , right ? ) .
( That , and Ken Fisher would find out " faithful " his arstech 'subscriptors ' are , as well as he having to do the actual work in creating the content ( instead of using others like Emil Protalinski for example to do so , while he pays them squat compared to what he makes off of their efforts by way of comparison ) ) .No , the game 's over Ken Fisher , face it.Go on now , switch to a subscriber only model , &amp; see how many people still attend your website .
They 'll simply move to another , &amp; quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Ads are invasive, intrusive, annoying, and I don't want to see them.
ever." - by Epsillon (608775) on Sunday March 07, @09:34AM (#31389634) HomepageThey're also dangerous!The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219 [slashdot.org]They have been found more than a few times serving up FAR more and FAR WORSE than mere tracking cookies, as you can see above.So, if a websurfer finds out that he can go faster online by blocking out banner ads (as well as safer, per the article above), then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock (or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript), or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files, or a custom HOSTS file.There's that above, which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation (which is not cheap, and not every "Joe Sixpack" knows how it is done, or wants to for that matter), and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.So it's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime, and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too, but also to pay for Ken Fisher's life on top of that all as well?
A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt, and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done, as well as the coding work put into his site (which I doubt he did every line of himself as well).So, who are the REAL freeloaders here?The end users, or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V., since both basically snag a user's subconscious attention via a "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"!
)So, once more: Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here?
?The end users, or those using them (website owners) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked, basically yelling at them "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"?
There's the real question to ask here!)?
?This is a "double-edged sword", and that is all there is to it, period.Ken Fisher "made hay while the sun shined" &amp; now that sun is fading, because people are WISE to those like he, who use others to make a profit via said person's actual efforts in content creation (whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less).
"The art of good business is putting people together"!
(Sure - until they "wise up" to it that is.
Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it (see the URL above once more in regards to that), and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is "above such mundane things"?
Then I suggest they rethink their premises.
People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain.
Don't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise).Above all - I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts??
How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors??
?I hope the article writer reads this.The jigs up buddy, and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains, because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply, then you'd fund that website of yours yourself, Mr. Ken Fisher (after all, you've profited by others long enough to do so, right?).
(That, and Ken Fisher would find out "faithful" his arstech 'subscriptors' are, as well as he having to do the actual work in creating the content (instead of using others like Emil Protalinski for example to do so, while he pays them squat compared to what he makes off of their efforts by way of comparison)).No, the game's over Ken Fisher, face it.Go on now, switch to a subscriber only model, &amp; see how many people still attend your website.
They'll simply move to another, &amp; quickly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392176</id>
	<title>How are they detecting Ab Blockers?</title>
	<author>MrSteveSD</author>
	<datestamp>1267990200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are they somehow specifically detecting Ablock Plus or just detecting that some flash ad is not running on the user's browser?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are they somehow specifically detecting Ablock Plus or just detecting that some flash ad is not running on the user 's browser ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are they somehow specifically detecting Ablock Plus or just detecting that some flash ad is not running on the user's browser?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389954</id>
	<title>Re:Ads suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267978080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You sir, are a bloody moron.</p><p>The internet ads are entirely different. You do not pay for hulu.com to run their webservers, databases, and storage. Nor do you pay for the processing power there. You have no right to deny their advertising what is otherwise a free service being provided to you. If the fax company gave you a fax line for free, and then started sending ads through it to you, do you think you would have a legal precedent or any form of valid legal argument at all what-so-ever? No. Quit being a moron. The internet built itself off of the promise of advertising revenue, cuz it's the only thing/reason that big business would have any thing to do w/ it for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You sir , are a bloody moron.The internet ads are entirely different .
You do not pay for hulu.com to run their webservers , databases , and storage .
Nor do you pay for the processing power there .
You have no right to deny their advertising what is otherwise a free service being provided to you .
If the fax company gave you a fax line for free , and then started sending ads through it to you , do you think you would have a legal precedent or any form of valid legal argument at all what-so-ever ?
No. Quit being a moron .
The internet built itself off of the promise of advertising revenue , cuz it 's the only thing/reason that big business would have any thing to do w/ it for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sir, are a bloody moron.The internet ads are entirely different.
You do not pay for hulu.com to run their webservers, databases, and storage.
Nor do you pay for the processing power there.
You have no right to deny their advertising what is otherwise a free service being provided to you.
If the fax company gave you a fax line for free, and then started sending ads through it to you, do you think you would have a legal precedent or any form of valid legal argument at all what-so-ever?
No. Quit being a moron.
The internet built itself off of the promise of advertising revenue, cuz it's the only thing/reason that big business would have any thing to do w/ it for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389246</id>
	<title>Ad-Blocking</title>
	<author>jern</author>
	<datestamp>1267973880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see ads everywhere I go, in every media I consume.  Television, Print, and Radio constantly present me with a barrage of ads that attempt to sell me a product I don't want, don't care about, and more often then not; do not need.

I block ads because of the latter reason listed above.  I don't want to find people I went to high school with, I don't want to meet refreshing singles in my area, I don't want to participate in a contest for some product... I want my content!

To Mr. Fisher,  About four paragraphs into your ed. piece you say someone always brings in the argument pitting traditional media advertising against "new media"  and you mention relevant factors such as potential audience.  TIVO, Sirius/XM those are two technologies that can allow the consumer to experience the content they want to enjoy relatively ad-free.  These technologies cost money to the consumer to enjoy.  People pay because there are no ads.

If your content is worth all the money that it gets from advertising, and according to your article, it is.  Then charge for your content.  That will be the quickest way to see if you really have a top quality publication.  This is the internet, old-skool rules still in some way apply; advertisements still bring in money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see ads everywhere I go , in every media I consume .
Television , Print , and Radio constantly present me with a barrage of ads that attempt to sell me a product I do n't want , do n't care about , and more often then not ; do not need .
I block ads because of the latter reason listed above .
I do n't want to find people I went to high school with , I do n't want to meet refreshing singles in my area , I do n't want to participate in a contest for some product... I want my content !
To Mr. Fisher , About four paragraphs into your ed .
piece you say someone always brings in the argument pitting traditional media advertising against " new media " and you mention relevant factors such as potential audience .
TIVO , Sirius/XM those are two technologies that can allow the consumer to experience the content they want to enjoy relatively ad-free .
These technologies cost money to the consumer to enjoy .
People pay because there are no ads .
If your content is worth all the money that it gets from advertising , and according to your article , it is .
Then charge for your content .
That will be the quickest way to see if you really have a top quality publication .
This is the internet , old-skool rules still in some way apply ; advertisements still bring in money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see ads everywhere I go, in every media I consume.
Television, Print, and Radio constantly present me with a barrage of ads that attempt to sell me a product I don't want, don't care about, and more often then not; do not need.
I block ads because of the latter reason listed above.
I don't want to find people I went to high school with, I don't want to meet refreshing singles in my area, I don't want to participate in a contest for some product... I want my content!
To Mr. Fisher,  About four paragraphs into your ed.
piece you say someone always brings in the argument pitting traditional media advertising against "new media"  and you mention relevant factors such as potential audience.
TIVO, Sirius/XM those are two technologies that can allow the consumer to experience the content they want to enjoy relatively ad-free.
These technologies cost money to the consumer to enjoy.
People pay because there are no ads.
If your content is worth all the money that it gets from advertising, and according to your article, it is.
Then charge for your content.
That will be the quickest way to see if you really have a top quality publication.
This is the internet, old-skool rules still in some way apply; advertisements still bring in money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389442</id>
	<title>Change the channel to what?</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1267974960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To another station blasting ads at you.. Ever notice how they are all timed to go off about the same so you don't have much choice, other then to walk away and do something constructive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To another station blasting ads at you.. Ever notice how they are all timed to go off about the same so you do n't have much choice , other then to walk away and do something constructive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To another station blasting ads at you.. Ever notice how they are all timed to go off about the same so you don't have much choice, other then to walk away and do something constructive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388852</id>
	<title>Intrusive ads</title>
	<author>dushkin</author>
	<datestamp>1267972020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I block flash by default (click-to-flash) both at home and at work and run an ad blocker at work. The flash bit is because Flash is full of problems, and I don't always want it loaded. The ad block at work is because ads make it look like I'm not working<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</p><p>Ads have tuned down a bit since a few years back, so I'm actually not as inclined to block them anymore. Except, like I said, if it's Flash or I'm at work.</p><p>Also, ads on Israeli websites make me want to kill myself. They're so intrusive. Popping over text as a flash graphic for instance.</p><p>ugh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I block flash by default ( click-to-flash ) both at home and at work and run an ad blocker at work .
The flash bit is because Flash is full of problems , and I do n't always want it loaded .
The ad block at work is because ads make it look like I 'm not working : /Ads have tuned down a bit since a few years back , so I 'm actually not as inclined to block them anymore .
Except , like I said , if it 's Flash or I 'm at work.Also , ads on Israeli websites make me want to kill myself .
They 're so intrusive .
Popping over text as a flash graphic for instance.ugh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I block flash by default (click-to-flash) both at home and at work and run an ad blocker at work.
The flash bit is because Flash is full of problems, and I don't always want it loaded.
The ad block at work is because ads make it look like I'm not working :/Ads have tuned down a bit since a few years back, so I'm actually not as inclined to block them anymore.
Except, like I said, if it's Flash or I'm at work.Also, ads on Israeli websites make me want to kill myself.
They're so intrusive.
Popping over text as a flash graphic for instance.ugh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390168</id>
	<title>Re:Love this comment by Ars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267979400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks. You're saving them money, since they no longer need to spend any processing time or bandwidth serving content to you.  After all, you were providing them with $0 advertising revenue. so why exactly should they care if you visit their site or not?  You're a non-entity to them; you might as well be a Web spider.</p><p>Some customers can actually be worth <i>negative</i> money, you know.  Three readers who are worth $1 each are more valuable than a million who cost $-0.01 each.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks .
You 're saving them money , since they no longer need to spend any processing time or bandwidth serving content to you .
After all , you were providing them with $ 0 advertising revenue .
so why exactly should they care if you visit their site or not ?
You 're a non-entity to them ; you might as well be a Web spider.Some customers can actually be worth negative money , you know .
Three readers who are worth $ 1 each are more valuable than a million who cost $ -0.01 each .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks.
You're saving them money, since they no longer need to spend any processing time or bandwidth serving content to you.
After all, you were providing them with $0 advertising revenue.
so why exactly should they care if you visit their site or not?
You're a non-entity to them; you might as well be a Web spider.Some customers can actually be worth negative money, you know.
Three readers who are worth $1 each are more valuable than a million who cost $-0.01 each.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388946</id>
	<title>Re:Ads suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267972500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could be an Ars Subscriber for $50 a year.  But I bet you want it all for free as well, don't you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could be an Ars Subscriber for $ 50 a year .
But I bet you want it all for free as well , do n't you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could be an Ars Subscriber for $50 a year.
But I bet you want it all for free as well, don't you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389630</id>
	<title>Degrees of gullibility</title>
	<author>Forget4it</author>
	<datestamp>1267975980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gullibility is in the eye of the beholder.<br>Close the eye and you lose that gullibility.<br>Indiscriminate advertising get's what it merits<br>if it treats all as equally gullible.</p><p>All should have the right to divert their eyes away from what is trying to take advantage of them.<br>Some people have a high tolerance to this "being taken as gullible";<br>Others less;  It's a question of degrees:<br>Ad-blocking is for those, like me, who are disturbed by indiscriminate advertising<br>in the same way as Cayce was allergic to brand in Pattern Recognition by William Gibson</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gullibility is in the eye of the beholder.Close the eye and you lose that gullibility.Indiscriminate advertising get 's what it meritsif it treats all as equally gullible.All should have the right to divert their eyes away from what is trying to take advantage of them.Some people have a high tolerance to this " being taken as gullible " ; Others less ; It 's a question of degrees : Ad-blocking is for those , like me , who are disturbed by indiscriminate advertisingin the same way as Cayce was allergic to brand in Pattern Recognition by William Gibson</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gullibility is in the eye of the beholder.Close the eye and you lose that gullibility.Indiscriminate advertising get's what it meritsif it treats all as equally gullible.All should have the right to divert their eyes away from what is trying to take advantage of them.Some people have a high tolerance to this "being taken as gullible";Others less;  It's a question of degrees:Ad-blocking is for those, like me, who are disturbed by indiscriminate advertisingin the same way as Cayce was allergic to brand in Pattern Recognition by William Gibson</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389500</id>
	<title>Don't abuse something that's a privilege.</title>
	<author>Dukenukemx</author>
	<datestamp>1267975320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remember when websites used to use pop up ads?  Always had to click it off, and usually, another would pop back up.  This is sorta the same problem here, only you can't close the ads.  Plus, a lot of websites like to abuse them, like HardOCP does.  I swear, without Adblock Plus, I'd have a seizure from induced epilepsy, cause of the flashing ads.  Just saw Ars Technica's website, and it's pretty bad.

What do visitors get to see, from Ars Technica?  Regurgitated tech news that every tech website has?  I have a hard time visiting HardOCP with Kyle Bennetts skewed comments, with all the ads they have on their.

Another thing, is that tech websites seem to be doing this a lot, and will complain about Adblock Plus.  Tech-Report and HardOCP will permanently ban forum members, if they mention Adblock Plus.  BTW, if you think you're getting an unbiased review from these websites, try to remember they can't give out information that will deny sales to the product.  Otherwise, they'll never get their hands on new hardware to review.  It's not magic that these websites all release benchmarks on a single day.  I remember spending hours to figure out why Windows XP would always crash and reset on boot when I put together a new system, using a Abit BF6 motherboard, which according to FiringSquad was the best motherboard ever.  Long and behold the default motherboard settings had an IRQ conflict.  You're better off visiting Newegg, and reading user comments about the hardware.  The only good thing about tech websites is their benchmarks, and there's hundreds of other websites that have benchmarks.

Wanna stop people from using AdBlockers?  Then host the ads on your site, and keep it unintuitive.  Majority of websites have the ads hosted on another server, usually through another company.  How you think adblockers work?  Majority of ads are hosted on common servers.  All you gotta do is block those servers and 99\% of website ads are gone.

Too many good reasons to use an ad blocker.

#1  Faster load times.  Majority of it is flash or gif based, and animates.
#2  Some people don't have unlimited internet, and would like to save bandwidth, by avoiding ads they don't click anyway.
#3  Less likely to get a virus, as has happened to some people in the past.

Honestly, unless other websites stop with annoying ads, then I'll keep my adblocker.  I'm too lazy to allow some websites to show ads, and don't give a damn either.  Keep it to one ad, and don't animate it.  Adblocker gave me back my internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember when websites used to use pop up ads ?
Always had to click it off , and usually , another would pop back up .
This is sorta the same problem here , only you ca n't close the ads .
Plus , a lot of websites like to abuse them , like HardOCP does .
I swear , without Adblock Plus , I 'd have a seizure from induced epilepsy , cause of the flashing ads .
Just saw Ars Technica 's website , and it 's pretty bad .
What do visitors get to see , from Ars Technica ?
Regurgitated tech news that every tech website has ?
I have a hard time visiting HardOCP with Kyle Bennetts skewed comments , with all the ads they have on their .
Another thing , is that tech websites seem to be doing this a lot , and will complain about Adblock Plus .
Tech-Report and HardOCP will permanently ban forum members , if they mention Adblock Plus .
BTW , if you think you 're getting an unbiased review from these websites , try to remember they ca n't give out information that will deny sales to the product .
Otherwise , they 'll never get their hands on new hardware to review .
It 's not magic that these websites all release benchmarks on a single day .
I remember spending hours to figure out why Windows XP would always crash and reset on boot when I put together a new system , using a Abit BF6 motherboard , which according to FiringSquad was the best motherboard ever .
Long and behold the default motherboard settings had an IRQ conflict .
You 're better off visiting Newegg , and reading user comments about the hardware .
The only good thing about tech websites is their benchmarks , and there 's hundreds of other websites that have benchmarks .
Wan na stop people from using AdBlockers ?
Then host the ads on your site , and keep it unintuitive .
Majority of websites have the ads hosted on another server , usually through another company .
How you think adblockers work ?
Majority of ads are hosted on common servers .
All you got ta do is block those servers and 99 \ % of website ads are gone .
Too many good reasons to use an ad blocker .
# 1 Faster load times .
Majority of it is flash or gif based , and animates .
# 2 Some people do n't have unlimited internet , and would like to save bandwidth , by avoiding ads they do n't click anyway .
# 3 Less likely to get a virus , as has happened to some people in the past .
Honestly , unless other websites stop with annoying ads , then I 'll keep my adblocker .
I 'm too lazy to allow some websites to show ads , and do n't give a damn either .
Keep it to one ad , and do n't animate it .
Adblocker gave me back my internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember when websites used to use pop up ads?
Always had to click it off, and usually, another would pop back up.
This is sorta the same problem here, only you can't close the ads.
Plus, a lot of websites like to abuse them, like HardOCP does.
I swear, without Adblock Plus, I'd have a seizure from induced epilepsy, cause of the flashing ads.
Just saw Ars Technica's website, and it's pretty bad.
What do visitors get to see, from Ars Technica?
Regurgitated tech news that every tech website has?
I have a hard time visiting HardOCP with Kyle Bennetts skewed comments, with all the ads they have on their.
Another thing, is that tech websites seem to be doing this a lot, and will complain about Adblock Plus.
Tech-Report and HardOCP will permanently ban forum members, if they mention Adblock Plus.
BTW, if you think you're getting an unbiased review from these websites, try to remember they can't give out information that will deny sales to the product.
Otherwise, they'll never get their hands on new hardware to review.
It's not magic that these websites all release benchmarks on a single day.
I remember spending hours to figure out why Windows XP would always crash and reset on boot when I put together a new system, using a Abit BF6 motherboard, which according to FiringSquad was the best motherboard ever.
Long and behold the default motherboard settings had an IRQ conflict.
You're better off visiting Newegg, and reading user comments about the hardware.
The only good thing about tech websites is their benchmarks, and there's hundreds of other websites that have benchmarks.
Wanna stop people from using AdBlockers?
Then host the ads on your site, and keep it unintuitive.
Majority of websites have the ads hosted on another server, usually through another company.
How you think adblockers work?
Majority of ads are hosted on common servers.
All you gotta do is block those servers and 99\% of website ads are gone.
Too many good reasons to use an ad blocker.
#1  Faster load times.
Majority of it is flash or gif based, and animates.
#2  Some people don't have unlimited internet, and would like to save bandwidth, by avoiding ads they don't click anyway.
#3  Less likely to get a virus, as has happened to some people in the past.
Honestly, unless other websites stop with annoying ads, then I'll keep my adblocker.
I'm too lazy to allow some websites to show ads, and don't give a damn either.
Keep it to one ad, and don't animate it.
Adblocker gave me back my internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394818</id>
	<title>They've jumped the shark for good</title>
	<author>Whuffo</author>
	<datestamp>1267963860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After a quick email exchange with the folks at Ars Technica I've made my decision.</p><p>
I've considered the balance between their need to show ads and my need to protect my computer. So I'm going to change the configuration of my ad blocker - I'm going to add their whole domain to the block list. They can be self-important all they want but they can do it without me watching.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After a quick email exchange with the folks at Ars Technica I 've made my decision .
I 've considered the balance between their need to show ads and my need to protect my computer .
So I 'm going to change the configuration of my ad blocker - I 'm going to add their whole domain to the block list .
They can be self-important all they want but they can do it without me watching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After a quick email exchange with the folks at Ars Technica I've made my decision.
I've considered the balance between their need to show ads and my need to protect my computer.
So I'm going to change the configuration of my ad blocker - I'm going to add their whole domain to the block list.
They can be self-important all they want but they can do it without me watching.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391718</id>
	<title>Who perverted the Internet?</title>
	<author>thebian</author>
	<datestamp>1267987980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The businesses who see the Internet as a profit-making venture brought us much more than the ads. </p><p>They are turning the Internet into a giant shopping mall.</p><p>Microsoft and Apple and Intel and all those assemblers build commodities that are friendly to users and wide open to businesses that want to probe, prod and promote stuff to those happy consumer-users. Of course, they'd like to do something about the criminals who use the same techniques, but not if it gets in the way of their digital rights.</p><p>Cond&#233; Nast owns Ars; this is a company that would like to sell Vogue-like <em>content</em> to everyone. I get along with it. I'll get along without Ars Technica if it's necessary for them to make me watch gyrating office girls selling no-money-down mortgages and worthless college degrees. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The businesses who see the Internet as a profit-making venture brought us much more than the ads .
They are turning the Internet into a giant shopping mall.Microsoft and Apple and Intel and all those assemblers build commodities that are friendly to users and wide open to businesses that want to probe , prod and promote stuff to those happy consumer-users .
Of course , they 'd like to do something about the criminals who use the same techniques , but not if it gets in the way of their digital rights.Cond   Nast owns Ars ; this is a company that would like to sell Vogue-like content to everyone .
I get along with it .
I 'll get along without Ars Technica if it 's necessary for them to make me watch gyrating office girls selling no-money-down mortgages and worthless college degrees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The businesses who see the Internet as a profit-making venture brought us much more than the ads.
They are turning the Internet into a giant shopping mall.Microsoft and Apple and Intel and all those assemblers build commodities that are friendly to users and wide open to businesses that want to probe, prod and promote stuff to those happy consumer-users.
Of course, they'd like to do something about the criminals who use the same techniques, but not if it gets in the way of their digital rights.Condé Nast owns Ars; this is a company that would like to sell Vogue-like content to everyone.
I get along with it.
I'll get along without Ars Technica if it's necessary for them to make me watch gyrating office girls selling no-money-down mortgages and worthless college degrees. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390688</id>
	<title>They've killed the golden goose</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267982460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Adds in general have reached a tipping point where people are no longer interested in these mediums and have found alternatives.</p><p>When I have to sit through 20 minutes of adds per hour of a paid subscription to cable tv just to watch a show, hear only 4 songs on the radio durring my 40 minute commute, or pay for a pound of newspaper that only has a page of content I'm interested in, I'll just throw in the towel with these mediums. Same thing for the Internet, count me out if I can't block adds on a lot of sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Adds in general have reached a tipping point where people are no longer interested in these mediums and have found alternatives.When I have to sit through 20 minutes of adds per hour of a paid subscription to cable tv just to watch a show , hear only 4 songs on the radio durring my 40 minute commute , or pay for a pound of newspaper that only has a page of content I 'm interested in , I 'll just throw in the towel with these mediums .
Same thing for the Internet , count me out if I ca n't block adds on a lot of sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adds in general have reached a tipping point where people are no longer interested in these mediums and have found alternatives.When I have to sit through 20 minutes of adds per hour of a paid subscription to cable tv just to watch a show, hear only 4 songs on the radio durring my 40 minute commute, or pay for a pound of newspaper that only has a page of content I'm interested in, I'll just throw in the towel with these mediums.
Same thing for the Internet, count me out if I can't block adds on a lot of sites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393734</id>
	<title>We've all seen it happen....</title>
	<author>Reemi</author>
	<datestamp>1267957020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It can result in people losing their jobs, it can result in less content on any given site, and it definitely can affect the quality of content. It can also put sites into a real advertising death spin. As ad revenues go down, many sites are lured into running advertising of a truly questionable nature. We've all seen it happen.</i>

<p>
O yes, I've seen it happen. Sites like yours killed my favorite independent magazine. They lost subscribers that were lured by the 'free' web sites. They had to increase their advertising volume and which drove away their last subscribers.

</p><p>Don't get me wrong, I understand the problem but please don't try to make me feel guilty. You killed many more jobs than that you are now trying to protect. You're no different and that is just the free market we're living in. Accept it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It can result in people losing their jobs , it can result in less content on any given site , and it definitely can affect the quality of content .
It can also put sites into a real advertising death spin .
As ad revenues go down , many sites are lured into running advertising of a truly questionable nature .
We 've all seen it happen .
O yes , I 've seen it happen .
Sites like yours killed my favorite independent magazine .
They lost subscribers that were lured by the 'free ' web sites .
They had to increase their advertising volume and which drove away their last subscribers .
Do n't get me wrong , I understand the problem but please do n't try to make me feel guilty .
You killed many more jobs than that you are now trying to protect .
You 're no different and that is just the free market we 're living in .
Accept it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It can result in people losing their jobs, it can result in less content on any given site, and it definitely can affect the quality of content.
It can also put sites into a real advertising death spin.
As ad revenues go down, many sites are lured into running advertising of a truly questionable nature.
We've all seen it happen.
O yes, I've seen it happen.
Sites like yours killed my favorite independent magazine.
They lost subscribers that were lured by the 'free' web sites.
They had to increase their advertising volume and which drove away their last subscribers.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the problem but please don't try to make me feel guilty.
You killed many more jobs than that you are now trying to protect.
You're no different and that is just the free market we're living in.
Accept it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388860</id>
	<title>Malicious...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267972080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are simply too many blinky, flashy (and indeed Flash) ads out there. Popups. Popunders. Sound. And far, FAR too many <i>malicious</i> ads: it's bitten too many sites and too many major ad networks to trust any of them. I don't want third-party cookies tracking me, I never did, and I don't.</p><p>I've blocked banner ads on the web since they existed. I helped with the Proxomitron (RIP, Scott). A web browser isn't finished these days until it can block ads, and if you're locking people out because they don't view the ads, I will help with ad blockers' counter-countermeasures.</p><p>The reason is simple: because banner ads are <i>fucking annoying</i>. (Hint: I don't block text ads. That is reasonable.)</p><p>I don't care about your business model, I want to browse your goddamn site without having blinky Flash shit in my face and without having malicious Javascript even <i>try</i> to fuck my browser. We're not pirating or anything, we're just not displaying your ads, we're showing your site to us on our terms, because it's our computer and we can do what the fuck we want.</p><p>This makes you come over as a whiny crybaby. "Oh noes, it costs money to write articles!" No it fucking <i>doesn't</i>. People send you gear to review, damn it, what's costing you money about that? Oh my god, traffic? What a monster. Oh, wait, I <i>own</i> a hosting company, and traffic is fucking cheap. Thousands of bloggers prove you wrong about content costing money to produce. I appreciate what you do, man, but it didn't cost me a dime to write this.</p><p>Don't make the mistake of thinking readers need your site. Believe me, it's the other way around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are simply too many blinky , flashy ( and indeed Flash ) ads out there .
Popups. Popunders .
Sound. And far , FAR too many malicious ads : it 's bitten too many sites and too many major ad networks to trust any of them .
I do n't want third-party cookies tracking me , I never did , and I do n't.I 've blocked banner ads on the web since they existed .
I helped with the Proxomitron ( RIP , Scott ) .
A web browser is n't finished these days until it can block ads , and if you 're locking people out because they do n't view the ads , I will help with ad blockers ' counter-countermeasures.The reason is simple : because banner ads are fucking annoying .
( Hint : I do n't block text ads .
That is reasonable .
) I do n't care about your business model , I want to browse your goddamn site without having blinky Flash shit in my face and without having malicious Javascript even try to fuck my browser .
We 're not pirating or anything , we 're just not displaying your ads , we 're showing your site to us on our terms , because it 's our computer and we can do what the fuck we want.This makes you come over as a whiny crybaby .
" Oh noes , it costs money to write articles !
" No it fucking does n't .
People send you gear to review , damn it , what 's costing you money about that ?
Oh my god , traffic ?
What a monster .
Oh , wait , I own a hosting company , and traffic is fucking cheap .
Thousands of bloggers prove you wrong about content costing money to produce .
I appreciate what you do , man , but it did n't cost me a dime to write this.Do n't make the mistake of thinking readers need your site .
Believe me , it 's the other way around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are simply too many blinky, flashy (and indeed Flash) ads out there.
Popups. Popunders.
Sound. And far, FAR too many malicious ads: it's bitten too many sites and too many major ad networks to trust any of them.
I don't want third-party cookies tracking me, I never did, and I don't.I've blocked banner ads on the web since they existed.
I helped with the Proxomitron (RIP, Scott).
A web browser isn't finished these days until it can block ads, and if you're locking people out because they don't view the ads, I will help with ad blockers' counter-countermeasures.The reason is simple: because banner ads are fucking annoying.
(Hint: I don't block text ads.
That is reasonable.
)I don't care about your business model, I want to browse your goddamn site without having blinky Flash shit in my face and without having malicious Javascript even try to fuck my browser.
We're not pirating or anything, we're just not displaying your ads, we're showing your site to us on our terms, because it's our computer and we can do what the fuck we want.This makes you come over as a whiny crybaby.
"Oh noes, it costs money to write articles!
" No it fucking doesn't.
People send you gear to review, damn it, what's costing you money about that?
Oh my god, traffic?
What a monster.
Oh, wait, I own a hosting company, and traffic is fucking cheap.
Thousands of bloggers prove you wrong about content costing money to produce.
I appreciate what you do, man, but it didn't cost me a dime to write this.Don't make the mistake of thinking readers need your site.
Believe me, it's the other way around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390348</id>
	<title>Re:How is this different than muting TV commercial</title>
	<author>schwit1</author>
	<datestamp>1267980420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I did. Do you believe that people's TV commercial viewing habits would change if the advertisers could determine who is watching their ads and then complained about the lack of viewers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did .
Do you believe that people 's TV commercial viewing habits would change if the advertisers could determine who is watching their ads and then complained about the lack of viewers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did.
Do you believe that people's TV commercial viewing habits would change if the advertisers could determine who is watching their ads and then complained about the lack of viewers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392960</id>
	<title>Re:It's the freeloaders time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267995000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the article, it states they are pay-per view.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the article , it states they are pay-per view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the article, it states they are pay-per view.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389062</id>
	<title>Flash is my problem</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1267972980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've never really bothered to block web content until recently.  But I've now started using rekonq's Click-To-Flash mode having seen (far too many times) pointless Flash applets consuming 100\% CPU when I just leave them.  I'm currently using nspluginwrapper so at least I can hunt down the misbehaving Flash and kill it directly (a la Google Chrome), which is better than the old days where I had to guess which Firefox tab might contain an applet that's hammering performance.  Unfortunately this means I don't see all the ads - I've never been that bothered by ads appearing, just one of those things that you get because people need to pay the bills.  Occasionally ads are even amusing (e.g. the Plants vs Zombies parodies of the maddening Evony psuedo-porn adverts).</p><p>I don't block adverts specifically, though.  Non-Flash ads are free to take up screen space and my attention and very rarely they're even interesting.  Google's text-based ads are also fine, although some sites make it difficult to distinguish those from the actual articles.  But these days it's a pretty hard sell to ask people to run resource-hungry software just to get adverts.  Maybe Flash behaves better on other platforms - but OTOH, advertisers are going to lose revenue on iPad and iPhone customers if they don't move away from Flash at some point.  For lots of these adverts I'd be tempted to say that an HTML5 video might even be more appropriate (!).</p><p>Linux Weekly News (http://lwn.net/) which is by far my favourite "serious" geek news site (mainly because of their kernel page) has a nice model involving some adverts + subscription.  They do have some adverts.  They also delay some of their best content by a week if you're not a paying subscriber.  Subscribers can categorise themselves according to an "honour system" to choose how much they pay if they want to subscribe.  Apparently it works OK for them.  I suspect this only really works for them because they produce extremely high-quality, specialist articles - you plain can't get some of this stuff elsewhere, so it's worth supporting them.  A general-consumption geek news site is going to find that sort of thing a lot harder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never really bothered to block web content until recently .
But I 've now started using rekonq 's Click-To-Flash mode having seen ( far too many times ) pointless Flash applets consuming 100 \ % CPU when I just leave them .
I 'm currently using nspluginwrapper so at least I can hunt down the misbehaving Flash and kill it directly ( a la Google Chrome ) , which is better than the old days where I had to guess which Firefox tab might contain an applet that 's hammering performance .
Unfortunately this means I do n't see all the ads - I 've never been that bothered by ads appearing , just one of those things that you get because people need to pay the bills .
Occasionally ads are even amusing ( e.g .
the Plants vs Zombies parodies of the maddening Evony psuedo-porn adverts ) .I do n't block adverts specifically , though .
Non-Flash ads are free to take up screen space and my attention and very rarely they 're even interesting .
Google 's text-based ads are also fine , although some sites make it difficult to distinguish those from the actual articles .
But these days it 's a pretty hard sell to ask people to run resource-hungry software just to get adverts .
Maybe Flash behaves better on other platforms - but OTOH , advertisers are going to lose revenue on iPad and iPhone customers if they do n't move away from Flash at some point .
For lots of these adverts I 'd be tempted to say that an HTML5 video might even be more appropriate ( !
) .Linux Weekly News ( http : //lwn.net/ ) which is by far my favourite " serious " geek news site ( mainly because of their kernel page ) has a nice model involving some adverts + subscription .
They do have some adverts .
They also delay some of their best content by a week if you 're not a paying subscriber .
Subscribers can categorise themselves according to an " honour system " to choose how much they pay if they want to subscribe .
Apparently it works OK for them .
I suspect this only really works for them because they produce extremely high-quality , specialist articles - you plain ca n't get some of this stuff elsewhere , so it 's worth supporting them .
A general-consumption geek news site is going to find that sort of thing a lot harder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never really bothered to block web content until recently.
But I've now started using rekonq's Click-To-Flash mode having seen (far too many times) pointless Flash applets consuming 100\% CPU when I just leave them.
I'm currently using nspluginwrapper so at least I can hunt down the misbehaving Flash and kill it directly (a la Google Chrome), which is better than the old days where I had to guess which Firefox tab might contain an applet that's hammering performance.
Unfortunately this means I don't see all the ads - I've never been that bothered by ads appearing, just one of those things that you get because people need to pay the bills.
Occasionally ads are even amusing (e.g.
the Plants vs Zombies parodies of the maddening Evony psuedo-porn adverts).I don't block adverts specifically, though.
Non-Flash ads are free to take up screen space and my attention and very rarely they're even interesting.
Google's text-based ads are also fine, although some sites make it difficult to distinguish those from the actual articles.
But these days it's a pretty hard sell to ask people to run resource-hungry software just to get adverts.
Maybe Flash behaves better on other platforms - but OTOH, advertisers are going to lose revenue on iPad and iPhone customers if they don't move away from Flash at some point.
For lots of these adverts I'd be tempted to say that an HTML5 video might even be more appropriate (!
).Linux Weekly News (http://lwn.net/) which is by far my favourite "serious" geek news site (mainly because of their kernel page) has a nice model involving some adverts + subscription.
They do have some adverts.
They also delay some of their best content by a week if you're not a paying subscriber.
Subscribers can categorise themselves according to an "honour system" to choose how much they pay if they want to subscribe.
Apparently it works OK for them.
I suspect this only really works for them because they produce extremely high-quality, specialist articles - you plain can't get some of this stuff elsewhere, so it's worth supporting them.
A general-consumption geek news site is going to find that sort of thing a lot harder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392136</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Ars, you are animated too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267989960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My pet fuck off, is every page load, my browser screaming "you need to install flash" to which my reply is "i would rather cut my balls off with a rusty spoon"</p><p>flash should be banned from any third party content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My pet fuck off , is every page load , my browser screaming " you need to install flash " to which my reply is " i would rather cut my balls off with a rusty spoon " flash should be banned from any third party content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My pet fuck off, is every page load, my browser screaming "you need to install flash" to which my reply is "i would rather cut my balls off with a rusty spoon"flash should be banned from any third party content.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393060</id>
	<title>C-YA, especially after Arstech trojan laden banner</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267952460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica</b> -&gt; Philip</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PM<br>internet</p><p>Philip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it. When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus. Here is a copy of my log. I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites. 1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"</p><p>Link to Original Source</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>Apparently this is the case, it's time to say "see ya", as you stated (per that quoted evidence above)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica - &gt; Philiphttp : //slashdot.org/firehose.pl ? op = view&amp;id = 447008 [ slashdot.org ] Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008 , @ 03 : 00PMinternetPhilip writes " It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it .
When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus .
Here is a copy of my log .
I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites .
1/2/2008 2 : 27 : 15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe ( http : //arstechnica.com/index.ars ) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO ( Trojan ) " Link to Original Sourcehttp : //slashdot.org/firehose.pl ? op = view&amp;id = 447008 [ slashdot.org ] Apparently this is the case , it 's time to say " see ya " , as you stated ( per that quoted evidence above )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica -&gt; Philiphttp://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008 [slashdot.org]Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PMinternetPhilip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it.
When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus.
Here is a copy of my log.
I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites.
1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"Link to Original Sourcehttp://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008 [slashdot.org]Apparently this is the case, it's time to say "see ya", as you stated (per that quoted evidence above)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390422</id>
	<title>Re:Adblock Plus proposal</title>
	<author>bwcbwc</author>
	<datestamp>1267980960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FTFA:
<i>There is an oft-stated misconception that if a user never clicks on ads, then blocking them won't hurt a site financially. This is wrong. Most sites, at least sites the size of ours, are paid on a <b>per view</b> basis.</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFA : There is an oft-stated misconception that if a user never clicks on ads , then blocking them wo n't hurt a site financially .
This is wrong .
Most sites , at least sites the size of ours , are paid on a per view basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTFA:
There is an oft-stated misconception that if a user never clicks on ads, then blocking them won't hurt a site financially.
This is wrong.
Most sites, at least sites the size of ours, are paid on a per view basis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390696</id>
	<title>Ars are owned by Cond&#233; Nast</title>
	<author>T-Kir</author>
	<datestamp>1267982520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I searched the comments here and noted that no-one has mentioned that Ars are owned by Cond&#233; Nast, a company with an estimated $4-5Billion+ annual revenue. They also own Wired and Reddit, let alone Vogue, GQ and numerous other publications.</p><p>Why do I mention this? Context.  If Ars was still an independent operator then I'd have more sympathy for their argument, and yes they still have numbers to maintain... but have you considered their sister magazines, take Vogue/GQ for example and think of page content vs pages of advertising.  I watched "The September Issue" a few weeks ago and the thing that stuck in my mind was that that issue of Vogue had about 800 pages and only over a 100 pages were actual content, the rest were adverts.  Fucking nuts!  So yes, the argument of advertising driven content isn't going away and we'll see what happens should Mr Murdoch (who seems to want to own every content producer on the planet) try his pay-wall experiment.</p><p>As for ad-blocking... I continue using it and am glad since I've seen the latest shit that people have to deal with, auto-loading videos, sound, fly-outs you can't shut, flash ads that grind your page to a halt, as well as the malware that floats around and even hits high profile sites... I want control of what opens up in my browser and the only ads I'd ever consider are Google textual ads... why? cos they don't piss me off.  Advertising should be an enticement of a good deal, done in a thoughtful and pleasant manner.. Unfortunately the Advertising 'industry' (I also include SEO bastards too here) battles everyone to promise customers the Earth while pissing off the very people they're meant to attract, they go through periods of continual fads in order to push shit and pretend to everyone they are 'unique' in their services, yet do the same as everyone else.  The arguments from most advertisers that people who use ad-blocking software need burning at the stake tells me a lot, in that they just don't 'get-it', a good advertiser/marketer will have spent time arguing both camps and understand the issues at hand (as well as the people they're meant to be advertising to) whereas the rest fail at being the clever people they advertise themselves to be.</p><p>My suggestion to Ars, if it is that much of an issue then block your content from being shown 'full-stop' to anyone using ad-blocking software as you did in your experiment... then you only have to serve a minimal bandwidth using text page explaining why, fucking deal with it instead of whining like everyone else (i.e. News Corp, et al).  The advertising industry won't die, but it will contract, change and evolve.  But as a web browser I will not be dictated to that I have to have certain content forced down my throat, and I will control what I choose to see.  There are multiple revenue streams possible, and I view Ars as producing higher quality content than a lot of other sites out there that I would be willing to pay for if I visited it enough (El Reg, BBC News, Slashdot and Fark tend to be my usual reads, and as a TV license holder I already pay for BBC News).  Going back to context again, it would also be handy if Ars was to tell us their average percentage of userbase are that employ ad-blocking, which as a tech site I'd guess would be higher than a regular new site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I searched the comments here and noted that no-one has mentioned that Ars are owned by Cond   Nast , a company with an estimated $ 4-5Billion + annual revenue .
They also own Wired and Reddit , let alone Vogue , GQ and numerous other publications.Why do I mention this ?
Context. If Ars was still an independent operator then I 'd have more sympathy for their argument , and yes they still have numbers to maintain... but have you considered their sister magazines , take Vogue/GQ for example and think of page content vs pages of advertising .
I watched " The September Issue " a few weeks ago and the thing that stuck in my mind was that that issue of Vogue had about 800 pages and only over a 100 pages were actual content , the rest were adverts .
Fucking nuts !
So yes , the argument of advertising driven content is n't going away and we 'll see what happens should Mr Murdoch ( who seems to want to own every content producer on the planet ) try his pay-wall experiment.As for ad-blocking... I continue using it and am glad since I 've seen the latest shit that people have to deal with , auto-loading videos , sound , fly-outs you ca n't shut , flash ads that grind your page to a halt , as well as the malware that floats around and even hits high profile sites... I want control of what opens up in my browser and the only ads I 'd ever consider are Google textual ads... why ? cos they do n't piss me off .
Advertising should be an enticement of a good deal , done in a thoughtful and pleasant manner.. Unfortunately the Advertising 'industry ' ( I also include SEO bastards too here ) battles everyone to promise customers the Earth while pissing off the very people they 're meant to attract , they go through periods of continual fads in order to push shit and pretend to everyone they are 'unique ' in their services , yet do the same as everyone else .
The arguments from most advertisers that people who use ad-blocking software need burning at the stake tells me a lot , in that they just do n't 'get-it ' , a good advertiser/marketer will have spent time arguing both camps and understand the issues at hand ( as well as the people they 're meant to be advertising to ) whereas the rest fail at being the clever people they advertise themselves to be.My suggestion to Ars , if it is that much of an issue then block your content from being shown 'full-stop ' to anyone using ad-blocking software as you did in your experiment... then you only have to serve a minimal bandwidth using text page explaining why , fucking deal with it instead of whining like everyone else ( i.e .
News Corp , et al ) .
The advertising industry wo n't die , but it will contract , change and evolve .
But as a web browser I will not be dictated to that I have to have certain content forced down my throat , and I will control what I choose to see .
There are multiple revenue streams possible , and I view Ars as producing higher quality content than a lot of other sites out there that I would be willing to pay for if I visited it enough ( El Reg , BBC News , Slashdot and Fark tend to be my usual reads , and as a TV license holder I already pay for BBC News ) .
Going back to context again , it would also be handy if Ars was to tell us their average percentage of userbase are that employ ad-blocking , which as a tech site I 'd guess would be higher than a regular new site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I searched the comments here and noted that no-one has mentioned that Ars are owned by Condé Nast, a company with an estimated $4-5Billion+ annual revenue.
They also own Wired and Reddit, let alone Vogue, GQ and numerous other publications.Why do I mention this?
Context.  If Ars was still an independent operator then I'd have more sympathy for their argument, and yes they still have numbers to maintain... but have you considered their sister magazines, take Vogue/GQ for example and think of page content vs pages of advertising.
I watched "The September Issue" a few weeks ago and the thing that stuck in my mind was that that issue of Vogue had about 800 pages and only over a 100 pages were actual content, the rest were adverts.
Fucking nuts!
So yes, the argument of advertising driven content isn't going away and we'll see what happens should Mr Murdoch (who seems to want to own every content producer on the planet) try his pay-wall experiment.As for ad-blocking... I continue using it and am glad since I've seen the latest shit that people have to deal with, auto-loading videos, sound, fly-outs you can't shut, flash ads that grind your page to a halt, as well as the malware that floats around and even hits high profile sites... I want control of what opens up in my browser and the only ads I'd ever consider are Google textual ads... why? cos they don't piss me off.
Advertising should be an enticement of a good deal, done in a thoughtful and pleasant manner.. Unfortunately the Advertising 'industry' (I also include SEO bastards too here) battles everyone to promise customers the Earth while pissing off the very people they're meant to attract, they go through periods of continual fads in order to push shit and pretend to everyone they are 'unique' in their services, yet do the same as everyone else.
The arguments from most advertisers that people who use ad-blocking software need burning at the stake tells me a lot, in that they just don't 'get-it', a good advertiser/marketer will have spent time arguing both camps and understand the issues at hand (as well as the people they're meant to be advertising to) whereas the rest fail at being the clever people they advertise themselves to be.My suggestion to Ars, if it is that much of an issue then block your content from being shown 'full-stop' to anyone using ad-blocking software as you did in your experiment... then you only have to serve a minimal bandwidth using text page explaining why, fucking deal with it instead of whining like everyone else (i.e.
News Corp, et al).
The advertising industry won't die, but it will contract, change and evolve.
But as a web browser I will not be dictated to that I have to have certain content forced down my throat, and I will control what I choose to see.
There are multiple revenue streams possible, and I view Ars as producing higher quality content than a lot of other sites out there that I would be willing to pay for if I visited it enough (El Reg, BBC News, Slashdot and Fark tend to be my usual reads, and as a TV license holder I already pay for BBC News).
Going back to context again, it would also be handy if Ars was to tell us their average percentage of userbase are that employ ad-blocking, which as a tech site I'd guess would be higher than a regular new site.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389862</id>
	<title>Noone would block ads if they were not obnoxious</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1267977420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and increasingly intrusive. leave those aside, they have increasingly became loaded with javascript, which are aimed in abstracting various information about the visitor on whose computer they are displayed on. and on top of these, they are incurring latency. often im finding that my page has paused loading because it is waiting a response from a 3rd party adserver serving a random ad on the page.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and increasingly intrusive .
leave those aside , they have increasingly became loaded with javascript , which are aimed in abstracting various information about the visitor on whose computer they are displayed on .
and on top of these , they are incurring latency .
often im finding that my page has paused loading because it is waiting a response from a 3rd party adserver serving a random ad on the page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and increasingly intrusive.
leave those aside, they have increasingly became loaded with javascript, which are aimed in abstracting various information about the visitor on whose computer they are displayed on.
and on top of these, they are incurring latency.
often im finding that my page has paused loading because it is waiting a response from a 3rd party adserver serving a random ad on the page.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388764</id>
	<title>Hmmmm</title>
	<author>zoomshorts</author>
	<datestamp>1267971420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the ad blockers would actually follow the links and give the<br>people the clicks they desire, without displaying the advertisement,<br>would that help?</p><p>Sure it would pollute the ad revenue, but at least it would not<br>pollute my eyes... plus the demographic studies these revenue<br>sources depending upon the click analysis would fail. How nice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the ad blockers would actually follow the links and give thepeople the clicks they desire , without displaying the advertisement,would that help ? Sure it would pollute the ad revenue , but at least it would notpollute my eyes... plus the demographic studies these revenuesources depending upon the click analysis would fail .
How nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the ad blockers would actually follow the links and give thepeople the clicks they desire, without displaying the advertisement,would that help?Sure it would pollute the ad revenue, but at least it would notpollute my eyes... plus the demographic studies these revenuesources depending upon the click analysis would fail.
How nice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389020</id>
	<title>Turn off Flash ads, and I'll turn off the ad block</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267972800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I open Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox, with a few tabs active in each on popular sites, the entirety of both cores of my Intel E7500 CPU will be consumed by Flash advertisements.</p><p>I'm on a Linux machine with a lot of memory, which makes for the worst case scenario:  First, Flash is horrible on Linux.  Second, I use virtual desktops and leave browsers open for days at a time.  Memory is not a problem.</p><p>Flash ads tend to be poorly written by a creative designer who could give a rat's rear end about your system resources.</p><p>The ads interfere with my ability to work, which costs me money.  They also cause my computer to consume significantly more power.  So in effect, your Flash ads are even bad for the environment.</p><p>They're also of course quite annoying, and if given only the options of browsing the internet with Flash ads or not browsing the internet at all, I'll choose the latter.</p><p>How about you try this experiment:  Turn off Flash ads.  Post a banner at the top of your site that says, "Hey, we've turned off Flash ads.  Please exclude this site from your ad blocker so we can make money."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I open Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox , with a few tabs active in each on popular sites , the entirety of both cores of my Intel E7500 CPU will be consumed by Flash advertisements.I 'm on a Linux machine with a lot of memory , which makes for the worst case scenario : First , Flash is horrible on Linux .
Second , I use virtual desktops and leave browsers open for days at a time .
Memory is not a problem.Flash ads tend to be poorly written by a creative designer who could give a rat 's rear end about your system resources.The ads interfere with my ability to work , which costs me money .
They also cause my computer to consume significantly more power .
So in effect , your Flash ads are even bad for the environment.They 're also of course quite annoying , and if given only the options of browsing the internet with Flash ads or not browsing the internet at all , I 'll choose the latter.How about you try this experiment : Turn off Flash ads .
Post a banner at the top of your site that says , " Hey , we 've turned off Flash ads .
Please exclude this site from your ad blocker so we can make money .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I open Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox, with a few tabs active in each on popular sites, the entirety of both cores of my Intel E7500 CPU will be consumed by Flash advertisements.I'm on a Linux machine with a lot of memory, which makes for the worst case scenario:  First, Flash is horrible on Linux.
Second, I use virtual desktops and leave browsers open for days at a time.
Memory is not a problem.Flash ads tend to be poorly written by a creative designer who could give a rat's rear end about your system resources.The ads interfere with my ability to work, which costs me money.
They also cause my computer to consume significantly more power.
So in effect, your Flash ads are even bad for the environment.They're also of course quite annoying, and if given only the options of browsing the internet with Flash ads or not browsing the internet at all, I'll choose the latter.How about you try this experiment:  Turn off Flash ads.
Post a banner at the top of your site that says, "Hey, we've turned off Flash ads.
Please exclude this site from your ad blocker so we can make money.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394496</id>
	<title>Neither did I, until I saw what I post inside</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267961460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"I've never really bothered to block web content until recently" - by Lemming Mark (849014) on Sunday March 07, @08:43AM (#31389062) Homepage</p></div><p>Can't say I blame you, because I read this about ad banners and arstechnica here on this website years ago in 2008:</p><p>*****</p><p><b>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica</b> -&gt; Philip</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PM<br>internet</p><p>Philip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it. When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus. Here is a copy of my log. I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites. 1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"</p><p>Link to Original Source</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>*****</p><p>That's part of what got me into blocking ad banners. I realized how much faster and safer I was surfing without them, or their scripts too, shortly afterwards. I use a custom HOSTS file to do so because:</p><p>1.) HOSTS files eat no CPU cycles like browser addons do no less!</p><p>2.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -&gt; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts\_file" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts\_file</a> [wikipedia.org] ) &amp; edited too.</p><p>3.) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, OR even DNS servers.</p><p>4.) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE for both added speed and added security online (vs. threats like those shown above in fact)</p><p>5.) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well, via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's even.</p><p>6.) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons, are. HOSTS files cover &amp; protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).</p><p>7.) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).</p><p>8.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR.</p><p>9.) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised, or downed (if either occurs, you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case).</p><p>10.) ADBLOCK DOES NOT ALLOW A USER DIRECT EDITABLE CONTROL OVER WHAT IT BLOCKS (afaik, @ least - feel free to correct me IF I am in error here (thanks)).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 've never really bothered to block web content until recently " - by Lemming Mark ( 849014 ) on Sunday March 07 , @ 08 : 43AM ( # 31389062 ) HomepageCa n't say I blame you , because I read this about ad banners and arstechnica here on this website years ago in 2008 : * * * * * Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica - &gt; Philiphttp : //slashdot.org/firehose.pl ? op = view&amp;id = 447008 [ slashdot.org ] Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008 , @ 03 : 00PMinternetPhilip writes " It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it .
When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus .
Here is a copy of my log .
I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites .
1/2/2008 2 : 27 : 15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe ( http : //arstechnica.com/index.ars ) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO ( Trojan ) " Link to Original Sourcehttp : //slashdot.org/firehose.pl ? op = view&amp;id = 447008 [ slashdot.org ] * * * * * That 's part of what got me into blocking ad banners .
I realized how much faster and safer I was surfing without them , or their scripts too , shortly afterwards .
I use a custom HOSTS file to do so because : 1 .
) HOSTS files eat no CPU cycles like browser addons do no less ! 2 .
) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled , obtained ( for reliable ones - &gt; http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts \ _file [ wikipedia.org ] ) &amp; edited too.3 .
) HOSTS files are n't as vulnerable to " bugs " either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are , OR even DNS servers.4 .
) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE for both added speed and added security online ( vs. threats like those shown above in fact ) 5 .
) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well , via write-protection " read-only " attributes set on them , or more radically , via ACL 's even.6 .
) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons , are .
HOSTS files cover &amp; protect ( for security ) and speed up ( all apps that are webbound ) any app you have that goes to the internet ( specifically the web ) .7 .
) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs ( via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server , but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised ( see Dan Kaminsky online , on that note ) ) .8 .
) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like , via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file , FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR.9 .
) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised , or downed ( if either occurs , you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case ) .10 .
) ADBLOCK DOES NOT ALLOW A USER DIRECT EDITABLE CONTROL OVER WHAT IT BLOCKS ( afaik , @ least - feel free to correct me IF I am in error here ( thanks ) ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I've never really bothered to block web content until recently" - by Lemming Mark (849014) on Sunday March 07, @08:43AM (#31389062) HomepageCan't say I blame you, because I read this about ad banners and arstechnica here on this website years ago in 2008:*****Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica -&gt; Philiphttp://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008 [slashdot.org]Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PMinternetPhilip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it.
When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus.
Here is a copy of my log.
I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites.
1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"Link to Original Sourcehttp://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008 [slashdot.org]*****That's part of what got me into blocking ad banners.
I realized how much faster and safer I was surfing without them, or their scripts too, shortly afterwards.
I use a custom HOSTS file to do so because:1.
) HOSTS files eat no CPU cycles like browser addons do no less!2.
) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -&gt; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts\_file [wikipedia.org] ) &amp; edited too.3.
) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, OR even DNS servers.4.
) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE for both added speed and added security online (vs. threats like those shown above in fact)5.
) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well, via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's even.6.
) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons, are.
HOSTS files cover &amp; protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).7.
) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).8.
) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR.9.
) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised, or downed (if either occurs, you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case).10.
) ADBLOCK DOES NOT ALLOW A USER DIRECT EDITABLE CONTROL OVER WHAT IT BLOCKS (afaik, @ least - feel free to correct me IF I am in error here (thanks)).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391292</id>
	<title>Benefit of Doubt</title>
	<author>cjeze</author>
	<datestamp>1267985580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well Ars, I exclusively allowed pop-ups for your site. If it gets too intrusive I'll block it again. I trust you to deliver quality ads and not abuse this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well Ars , I exclusively allowed pop-ups for your site .
If it gets too intrusive I 'll block it again .
I trust you to deliver quality ads and not abuse this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well Ars, I exclusively allowed pop-ups for your site.
If it gets too intrusive I'll block it again.
I trust you to deliver quality ads and not abuse this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394248</id>
	<title>People lose their jobs if I don't..</title>
	<author>MikeFM</author>
	<datestamp>1267960140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like to dump garbage on the ground and break things at the store. That way they'll have to hire more people to keep up with me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like to dump garbage on the ground and break things at the store .
That way they 'll have to hire more people to keep up with me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like to dump garbage on the ground and break things at the store.
That way they'll have to hire more people to keep up with me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391734</id>
	<title>And here WE as users, all GO (from arstech)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267988040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><div class="quote"><p><b>"Paywall here we come!!!"</b> - by distantbody (852269) on Sunday March 07, @09:06AM (#31389324)</p></div><p>1 of the reasons I block ads:</p><p><b>The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>They have been found more than a few times serving up FAR more and FAR WORSE than mere tracking cookies, as you can see above.</p><p>So, per your own words quoted above? Well... So what? Is arstechnica the "only game in town"?? No!</p><p>See, if a websurfer finds out that he can go faster online by blocking out banner ads (as well as safer, per the article above), then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock (or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript), or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files, or a custom HOSTS file.</p><p>There's that above, which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation (which is not cheap, and not every "Joe Sixpack" knows how it is done, or wants to for that matter), and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.</p><p>So it's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime, and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too, but also to pay for Ken Fisher's life on top of that all as well? A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt, and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done, as well as the coding work put into his site (which I doubt he did every line of himself as well).</p><p><b>So, who are the REAL freeloaders here?</b></p><p>The end users, or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V., since both basically snag a user's subconscious attention via a "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"!)</p><p>So, once more: <b>Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here??</b></p><p>The end users, or those using them (website owners) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked, basically yelling at them "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"? There's the real question to ask here!)??</p><p>This is a "double-edged sword", and that is all there is to it, period.</p><p>Ken Fisher "made hay while the sun shined" &amp; now that sun is fading, because people are WISE to those like he, who use others to make a profit via said person's actual efforts in content creation (whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less).</p><p>"The art of good business is putting people together"!</p><p>(Sure - until they "wise up" to it that is. Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it (see the URL above once more in regards to that), and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is "above such mundane things"? Then I suggest they rethink their premises. People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain. Don't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise).</p><p>Above all - <b>I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts?? How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors???</b></p><p>I hope the article writer reads this.</p><p>The jigs up buddy, and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains, because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply, then you'd fund that website of yours yourself, Mr. Ken Fisher (after all, you've profited by others long enough to do so, right?).</p><p>(That, and Ken Fisher would find out just how truly "faithful" his arstech 'subscriptors' are, as well as he having to do the actual work in creating the content (instead of using others like Emil Protalinski for example to do so, while he pays them squat compared to what he makes off of their efforts by way of comparison)).</p><p>No, the game's over Ken Fisher, face it. Want to keep making money off your website? Time to spend some of what you've earned from it it looks like in funding it yourself. Want to make money?? You'll have to spend money to do so, sooner or later.</p><p>THE FUTURE IS NOW, buddy.</p><p>Go on now, switch to a subscriber only model, &amp; see how many people still attend your website. They'll simply move to another, &amp; quickly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Paywall here we come ! ! !
" - by distantbody ( 852269 ) on Sunday March 07 , @ 09 : 06AM ( # 31389324 ) 1 of the reasons I block ads : The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus : http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/06/15/2056219 [ slashdot.org ] They have been found more than a few times serving up FAR more and FAR WORSE than mere tracking cookies , as you can see above.So , per your own words quoted above ?
Well... So what ?
Is arstechnica the " only game in town " ? ?
No ! See , if a websurfer finds out that he can go faster online by blocking out banner ads ( as well as safer , per the article above ) , then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock ( or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript ) , or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files , or a custom HOSTS file.There 's that above , which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation ( which is not cheap , and not every " Joe Sixpack " knows how it is done , or wants to for that matter ) , and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.So it 's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime , and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too , but also to pay for Ken Fisher 's life on top of that all as well ?
A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt , and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done , as well as the coding work put into his site ( which I doubt he did every line of himself as well ) .So , who are the REAL freeloaders here ? The end users , or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads ( which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V. , since both basically snag a user 's subconscious attention via a " look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need " !
) So , once more : Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here ?
? The end users , or those using them ( website owners ) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads ( which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked , basically yelling at them " look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need " ?
There 's the real question to ask here ! ) ?
? This is a " double-edged sword " , and that is all there is to it , period.Ken Fisher " made hay while the sun shined " &amp; now that sun is fading , because people are WISE to those like he , who use others to make a profit via said person 's actual efforts in content creation ( whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less ) .
" The art of good business is putting people together " !
( Sure - until they " wise up " to it that is .
Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it ( see the URL above once more in regards to that ) , and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is " above such mundane things " ?
Then I suggest they rethink their premises .
People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain .
Do n't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise ) .Above all - I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts ? ?
How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he 's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors ? ?
? I hope the article writer reads this.The jigs up buddy , and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains , because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply , then you 'd fund that website of yours yourself , Mr. Ken Fisher ( after all , you 've profited by others long enough to do so , right ? ) .
( That , and Ken Fisher would find out just how truly " faithful " his arstech 'subscriptors ' are , as well as he having to do the actual work in creating the content ( instead of using others like Emil Protalinski for example to do so , while he pays them squat compared to what he makes off of their efforts by way of comparison ) ) .No , the game 's over Ken Fisher , face it .
Want to keep making money off your website ?
Time to spend some of what you 've earned from it it looks like in funding it yourself .
Want to make money ? ?
You 'll have to spend money to do so , sooner or later.THE FUTURE IS NOW , buddy.Go on now , switch to a subscriber only model , &amp; see how many people still attend your website .
They 'll simply move to another , &amp; quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Paywall here we come!!!
" - by distantbody (852269) on Sunday March 07, @09:06AM (#31389324)1 of the reasons I block ads:The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219 [slashdot.org]They have been found more than a few times serving up FAR more and FAR WORSE than mere tracking cookies, as you can see above.So, per your own words quoted above?
Well... So what?
Is arstechnica the "only game in town"??
No!See, if a websurfer finds out that he can go faster online by blocking out banner ads (as well as safer, per the article above), then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock (or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript), or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files, or a custom HOSTS file.There's that above, which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation (which is not cheap, and not every "Joe Sixpack" knows how it is done, or wants to for that matter), and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.So it's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime, and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too, but also to pay for Ken Fisher's life on top of that all as well?
A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt, and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done, as well as the coding work put into his site (which I doubt he did every line of himself as well).So, who are the REAL freeloaders here?The end users, or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V., since both basically snag a user's subconscious attention via a "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"!
)So, once more: Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here?
?The end users, or those using them (website owners) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked, basically yelling at them "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"?
There's the real question to ask here!)?
?This is a "double-edged sword", and that is all there is to it, period.Ken Fisher "made hay while the sun shined" &amp; now that sun is fading, because people are WISE to those like he, who use others to make a profit via said person's actual efforts in content creation (whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less).
"The art of good business is putting people together"!
(Sure - until they "wise up" to it that is.
Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it (see the URL above once more in regards to that), and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is "above such mundane things"?
Then I suggest they rethink their premises.
People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain.
Don't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise).Above all - I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts??
How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors??
?I hope the article writer reads this.The jigs up buddy, and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains, because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply, then you'd fund that website of yours yourself, Mr. Ken Fisher (after all, you've profited by others long enough to do so, right?).
(That, and Ken Fisher would find out just how truly "faithful" his arstech 'subscriptors' are, as well as he having to do the actual work in creating the content (instead of using others like Emil Protalinski for example to do so, while he pays them squat compared to what he makes off of their efforts by way of comparison)).No, the game's over Ken Fisher, face it.
Want to keep making money off your website?
Time to spend some of what you've earned from it it looks like in funding it yourself.
Want to make money??
You'll have to spend money to do so, sooner or later.THE FUTURE IS NOW, buddy.Go on now, switch to a subscriber only model, &amp; see how many people still attend your website.
They'll simply move to another, &amp; quickly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391536</id>
	<title>Why I block many ads on many sites.</title>
	<author>rnturn</author>
	<datestamp>1267986960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not that I hate seeing the ads. I block ads when viewing some sites when they detract from the content that I'm trying to read.  Modern web site "designs" are shrinking the area devoted to content more and more. It wasn't so bad when the advertisements were limited to banner ads at the top and, sometimes, bottom of the web page.  Some sites are displaying as much, if not more, advertising on the page as there is content, breaking stories up into paragraph-sized chunks to maximize the number of ads displays, and failing to include "printable format" buttons to allow one to view the content without all the ads. And it's more and more all animated advertisements. I block ads because, with all that the dancing bologna surrounding the main content, I find that I cannot concentrate on the reason why I visited the page in the first place. (Plus there are the sites that only seem to display the content <i>after</i> all the advertisements have been loaded. This is an especially ugly practice for those with low-bandwidth connections.)

</p><p>Imagine if, instead of showing ads serially in groups periodically throughout the show as they do now, all TV shows limited the programming to the middle 50\% of the screen and had advertisements blinking around the edges all during the program. People would be turning off their TVs in droves. (Even more than they probably have already in response to the increase in so-called "reality" shows. But that's another story.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not that I hate seeing the ads .
I block ads when viewing some sites when they detract from the content that I 'm trying to read .
Modern web site " designs " are shrinking the area devoted to content more and more .
It was n't so bad when the advertisements were limited to banner ads at the top and , sometimes , bottom of the web page .
Some sites are displaying as much , if not more , advertising on the page as there is content , breaking stories up into paragraph-sized chunks to maximize the number of ads displays , and failing to include " printable format " buttons to allow one to view the content without all the ads .
And it 's more and more all animated advertisements .
I block ads because , with all that the dancing bologna surrounding the main content , I find that I can not concentrate on the reason why I visited the page in the first place .
( Plus there are the sites that only seem to display the content after all the advertisements have been loaded .
This is an especially ugly practice for those with low-bandwidth connections .
) Imagine if , instead of showing ads serially in groups periodically throughout the show as they do now , all TV shows limited the programming to the middle 50 \ % of the screen and had advertisements blinking around the edges all during the program .
People would be turning off their TVs in droves .
( Even more than they probably have already in response to the increase in so-called " reality " shows .
But that 's another story .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not that I hate seeing the ads.
I block ads when viewing some sites when they detract from the content that I'm trying to read.
Modern web site "designs" are shrinking the area devoted to content more and more.
It wasn't so bad when the advertisements were limited to banner ads at the top and, sometimes, bottom of the web page.
Some sites are displaying as much, if not more, advertising on the page as there is content, breaking stories up into paragraph-sized chunks to maximize the number of ads displays, and failing to include "printable format" buttons to allow one to view the content without all the ads.
And it's more and more all animated advertisements.
I block ads because, with all that the dancing bologna surrounding the main content, I find that I cannot concentrate on the reason why I visited the page in the first place.
(Plus there are the sites that only seem to display the content after all the advertisements have been loaded.
This is an especially ugly practice for those with low-bandwidth connections.
)

Imagine if, instead of showing ads serially in groups periodically throughout the show as they do now, all TV shows limited the programming to the middle 50\% of the screen and had advertisements blinking around the edges all during the program.
People would be turning off their TVs in droves.
(Even more than they probably have already in response to the increase in so-called "reality" shows.
But that's another story.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389016</id>
	<title>Ads are not integrated</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267972740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason we have ads is because they are easy for advertisers to generate sales/revenue with them. They are a shortcut instead of actually providing a product we really need.

</p><p>Face it, do we need much that is advertised? No. We also don't need much of the content we read. Advertising is this dance that occurs within non-critical content because we really don't have to watch TV or read entertainment news.

</p><p>If products were so important, name dropping within actual content would be sufficient to generate sales commensurate with demand. Advertising is a way of increasing demand that wouldn't ordinarily exist (since we don't <i>need</i> it in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason we have ads is because they are easy for advertisers to generate sales/revenue with them .
They are a shortcut instead of actually providing a product we really need .
Face it , do we need much that is advertised ?
No. We also do n't need much of the content we read .
Advertising is this dance that occurs within non-critical content because we really do n't have to watch TV or read entertainment news .
If products were so important , name dropping within actual content would be sufficient to generate sales commensurate with demand .
Advertising is a way of increasing demand that would n't ordinarily exist ( since we do n't need it in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason we have ads is because they are easy for advertisers to generate sales/revenue with them.
They are a shortcut instead of actually providing a product we really need.
Face it, do we need much that is advertised?
No. We also don't need much of the content we read.
Advertising is this dance that occurs within non-critical content because we really don't have to watch TV or read entertainment news.
If products were so important, name dropping within actual content would be sufficient to generate sales commensurate with demand.
Advertising is a way of increasing demand that wouldn't ordinarily exist (since we don't need it in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389848</id>
	<title>I don't click them, why should I see them?</title>
	<author>davepermen</author>
	<datestamp>1267977240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I never clicked an ad except out of accident, ever. Why should I be forced to see them when I know I will NEVER react to them. You won't make money out of me except out of accident. And you don't deserve that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I never clicked an ad except out of accident , ever .
Why should I be forced to see them when I know I will NEVER react to them .
You wo n't make money out of me except out of accident .
And you do n't deserve that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never clicked an ad except out of accident, ever.
Why should I be forced to see them when I know I will NEVER react to them.
You won't make money out of me except out of accident.
And you don't deserve that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389160</id>
	<title>Re:My thoughts</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1267973520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought they moved on to "impressions" not "clicks" - I don't think I've ever (intentionally) clicked on an ad in my life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought they moved on to " impressions " not " clicks " - I do n't think I 've ever ( intentionally ) clicked on an ad in my life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought they moved on to "impressions" not "clicks" - I don't think I've ever (intentionally) clicked on an ad in my life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394454</id>
	<title>Ignore annoying ads, support good ads</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1267961160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I always support sites with decent ads or as long as the majority of their ads aren't bad. Slashdot has given me the option to disable ads for which I can assume comes from the fact I do occasionally click on ads (minus the lame blu-ray ones awhile back) and quite frankly I rather just click on some ads than pay because paying means I should visit more often to get my money's worth and it becomes a chore or I don't visit and I throw money away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always support sites with decent ads or as long as the majority of their ads are n't bad .
Slashdot has given me the option to disable ads for which I can assume comes from the fact I do occasionally click on ads ( minus the lame blu-ray ones awhile back ) and quite frankly I rather just click on some ads than pay because paying means I should visit more often to get my money 's worth and it becomes a chore or I do n't visit and I throw money away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always support sites with decent ads or as long as the majority of their ads aren't bad.
Slashdot has given me the option to disable ads for which I can assume comes from the fact I do occasionally click on ads (minus the lame blu-ray ones awhile back) and quite frankly I rather just click on some ads than pay because paying means I should visit more often to get my money's worth and it becomes a chore or I don't visit and I throw money away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394162</id>
	<title>Re:How is this different than muting TV commercial</title>
	<author>don\_bear\_wilkinson</author>
	<datestamp>1267959720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>a TV commercial won't give me a virus or steal my identity or make my TV almost unusable</htmltext>
<tokenext>a TV commercial wo n't give me a virus or steal my identity or make my TV almost unusable</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a TV commercial won't give me a virus or steal my identity or make my TV almost unusable</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390614</id>
	<title>This is just like piracy</title>
	<author>KamuZ</author>
	<datestamp>1267982040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be honest, I think this is just like piracy. "I block them because I can and is easy for the average Joe".</p><p>People saying "yeah, I block them but let the good sites to show me the ads" is probably from the same ones saying "I download music from torrents but if I like them, then I buy them".<br>People saying "I don't trust any script from ads because they will hack my computer" is probably the same ones saying "I don't buy music from the RIAA because they are evil" or "If they didn't have DRM"</p><p>If you think ads from Ars are bad, don't visit them or send them an e-mail.<br>And don't come with the "They should change the business model", well maybe they need to but it is not that easy and come on, if they charge $2 dollars/month for a subscriptions everyone will whine and say "no no no, I can get all the content free on the Internet or other website", then, if that is the answer, GO to the other sites already.</p><p>*sigh* burning karma</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be honest , I think this is just like piracy .
" I block them because I can and is easy for the average Joe " .People saying " yeah , I block them but let the good sites to show me the ads " is probably from the same ones saying " I download music from torrents but if I like them , then I buy them " .People saying " I do n't trust any script from ads because they will hack my computer " is probably the same ones saying " I do n't buy music from the RIAA because they are evil " or " If they did n't have DRM " If you think ads from Ars are bad , do n't visit them or send them an e-mail.And do n't come with the " They should change the business model " , well maybe they need to but it is not that easy and come on , if they charge $ 2 dollars/month for a subscriptions everyone will whine and say " no no no , I can get all the content free on the Internet or other website " , then , if that is the answer , GO to the other sites already .
* sigh * burning karma</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be honest, I think this is just like piracy.
"I block them because I can and is easy for the average Joe".People saying "yeah, I block them but let the good sites to show me the ads" is probably from the same ones saying "I download music from torrents but if I like them, then I buy them".People saying "I don't trust any script from ads because they will hack my computer" is probably the same ones saying "I don't buy music from the RIAA because they are evil" or "If they didn't have DRM"If you think ads from Ars are bad, don't visit them or send them an e-mail.And don't come with the "They should change the business model", well maybe they need to but it is not that easy and come on, if they charge $2 dollars/month for a subscriptions everyone will whine and say "no no no, I can get all the content free on the Internet or other website", then, if that is the answer, GO to the other sites already.
*sigh* burning karma</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394590</id>
	<title>Re:Dear web sites: I'll make you a deal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267962000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you use Ad-block Plus you nuke all ads without first making that call.  If you would visit Ars for a while with ads enabled you would see that the vast majority of ads are exactly not obnoxious or overbearing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you use Ad-block Plus you nuke all ads without first making that call .
If you would visit Ars for a while with ads enabled you would see that the vast majority of ads are exactly not obnoxious or overbearing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you use Ad-block Plus you nuke all ads without first making that call.
If you would visit Ars for a while with ads enabled you would see that the vast majority of ads are exactly not obnoxious or overbearing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393800</id>
	<title>Re:Ads suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267957500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do realize that the sites that make money are like InfoWorld, right? You know, the sites where each article is split across a million pages, each with a sea of blinking ads. Sites whose content quality is pathetically poor because they hire cheap, unethical writers and journalists, but they make money because of the crapload of ads they have.</p><p>I agree on blocking truly annoying ads on poor-quality sites, but places like Ars Technica have to make money \_somehow\_, and by blocking ads everywhere they get caught in the crossfire and slowly whither away and die.</p><p>In the future the whining won't come from Ars because they'll die. They'll come from us because sites like Ars died, and all we're left with is InfoWorld.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that the sites that make money are like InfoWorld , right ?
You know , the sites where each article is split across a million pages , each with a sea of blinking ads .
Sites whose content quality is pathetically poor because they hire cheap , unethical writers and journalists , but they make money because of the crapload of ads they have.I agree on blocking truly annoying ads on poor-quality sites , but places like Ars Technica have to make money \ _somehow \ _ , and by blocking ads everywhere they get caught in the crossfire and slowly whither away and die.In the future the whining wo n't come from Ars because they 'll die .
They 'll come from us because sites like Ars died , and all we 're left with is InfoWorld .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that the sites that make money are like InfoWorld, right?
You know, the sites where each article is split across a million pages, each with a sea of blinking ads.
Sites whose content quality is pathetically poor because they hire cheap, unethical writers and journalists, but they make money because of the crapload of ads they have.I agree on blocking truly annoying ads on poor-quality sites, but places like Ars Technica have to make money \_somehow\_, and by blocking ads everywhere they get caught in the crossfire and slowly whither away and die.In the future the whining won't come from Ars because they'll die.
They'll come from us because sites like Ars died, and all we're left with is InfoWorld.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31395040</id>
	<title>Aggregated subscription?</title>
	<author>CrashandDie</author>
	<datestamp>1267965480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It can result in people losing their jobs, it can result in less content on any given site, and it definitely can affect the quality of content.</p></div><p>Well, guess fucking what Ken: Ads can also affect the quality of content. I don't have an issue with having a few ads here and there, and I'm happy to support the websites I enjoy, however having to allow me eyeballs to be raped by stroboscope-like flashes, flash-ohsoslowness, and general latency due to overloaded ad servers isn't making the content any <em>better</em>.<br> <br>

The day editors stop putting <em>stupidly short</em> articles on 9 pages just to get more clicks, which forces me to go to the print version (which most of the time doesn't bring any ad clicks to the website anyway, or less at least) rather than the full website edition, I will reconsider using adblockers. You're shooting yourselves in the foot more than any adblock-user.<br> <br>

And if the amount of people using adblockers is large enough for you guys to run an experiment, and make<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. front page, I'm guessing the numbers isn't low enough for you to keep ignoring it. You pride yourselves in listening to the community, maybe they've already sent the first message, and this wasn't the response they expected.<br> <br>

I don't mind paying for content -- however I'm not going to have a monthly payment going for every news website that I visit. How about a conglomerate of websites, bundled with OpenID. I pay once, and that gives me ad-free access to all the websites in the bundle. The model could be based on pay-per-view (you have an amount of credit which gives you x number of page views) or full-on subscriptions (you get unlimited views to website x, y, z. Price is based on the number of websites you want).<br> <br>

Considering I'm logged in with OpenID, you guys even get the luxury to blast me with 100\% accurately targeted ads on the websites I haven't paid for.<br> <br>

How about the content-creation industry starts using their fucking heads rather than always using the ban hammer as soon as they lose profit?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It can result in people losing their jobs , it can result in less content on any given site , and it definitely can affect the quality of content.Well , guess fucking what Ken : Ads can also affect the quality of content .
I do n't have an issue with having a few ads here and there , and I 'm happy to support the websites I enjoy , however having to allow me eyeballs to be raped by stroboscope-like flashes , flash-ohsoslowness , and general latency due to overloaded ad servers is n't making the content any better .
The day editors stop putting stupidly short articles on 9 pages just to get more clicks , which forces me to go to the print version ( which most of the time does n't bring any ad clicks to the website anyway , or less at least ) rather than the full website edition , I will reconsider using adblockers .
You 're shooting yourselves in the foot more than any adblock-user .
And if the amount of people using adblockers is large enough for you guys to run an experiment , and make / .
front page , I 'm guessing the numbers is n't low enough for you to keep ignoring it .
You pride yourselves in listening to the community , maybe they 've already sent the first message , and this was n't the response they expected .
I do n't mind paying for content -- however I 'm not going to have a monthly payment going for every news website that I visit .
How about a conglomerate of websites , bundled with OpenID .
I pay once , and that gives me ad-free access to all the websites in the bundle .
The model could be based on pay-per-view ( you have an amount of credit which gives you x number of page views ) or full-on subscriptions ( you get unlimited views to website x , y , z. Price is based on the number of websites you want ) .
Considering I 'm logged in with OpenID , you guys even get the luxury to blast me with 100 \ % accurately targeted ads on the websites I have n't paid for .
How about the content-creation industry starts using their fucking heads rather than always using the ban hammer as soon as they lose profit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It can result in people losing their jobs, it can result in less content on any given site, and it definitely can affect the quality of content.Well, guess fucking what Ken: Ads can also affect the quality of content.
I don't have an issue with having a few ads here and there, and I'm happy to support the websites I enjoy, however having to allow me eyeballs to be raped by stroboscope-like flashes, flash-ohsoslowness, and general latency due to overloaded ad servers isn't making the content any better.
The day editors stop putting stupidly short articles on 9 pages just to get more clicks, which forces me to go to the print version (which most of the time doesn't bring any ad clicks to the website anyway, or less at least) rather than the full website edition, I will reconsider using adblockers.
You're shooting yourselves in the foot more than any adblock-user.
And if the amount of people using adblockers is large enough for you guys to run an experiment, and make /.
front page, I'm guessing the numbers isn't low enough for you to keep ignoring it.
You pride yourselves in listening to the community, maybe they've already sent the first message, and this wasn't the response they expected.
I don't mind paying for content -- however I'm not going to have a monthly payment going for every news website that I visit.
How about a conglomerate of websites, bundled with OpenID.
I pay once, and that gives me ad-free access to all the websites in the bundle.
The model could be based on pay-per-view (you have an amount of credit which gives you x number of page views) or full-on subscriptions (you get unlimited views to website x, y, z. Price is based on the number of websites you want).
Considering I'm logged in with OpenID, you guys even get the luxury to blast me with 100\% accurately targeted ads on the websites I haven't paid for.
How about the content-creation industry starts using their fucking heads rather than always using the ban hammer as soon as they lose profit?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390942</id>
	<title>Watch it w/ ad banners - see inside, 1st line</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267983780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>Additionally, if a websurfer can go faster online by blocking out banner ads (as well as safer, per the article above), then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock (or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript), or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files, or a custom HOSTS file.</p><p>There's that above, which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation (which is not cheap, and not every "Joe Sixpack" knows how it is done, or wants to for that matter), and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.</p><p>So it's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime, and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too, but also to pay for Ken Fisher's life on top of that all as well? A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt, and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done, as well as the coding work put into his site (which I doubt he did every line of himself as well).</p><p><b>So, who are the REAL freeloaders here?</b></p><p>The end users, or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V., since both basically snag a user's subconscious attention via a "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"!)</p><p>So, once more: <b>Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here??</b></p><p>The end users, or those using them (website owners) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked, basically yelling at them "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"? There's the real question to ask here!)??</p><p>This is a "double-edged sword", and that is all there is to it, period.</p><p>Ken Fisher "made hay while the sun shined" &amp; now that sun is fading, because people are WISE to those like he, who use others to make a profit via said person's actual efforts in content creation (whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less).</p><p>"The art of good business is putting people together"!</p><p>(Sure - until they "wise up" to it that is. Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it (see the URL above once more in regards to that), and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is "above such mundane things"? Then I suggest they rethink their premises. People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain. Don't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise).</p><p>Above all - I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts?? How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors???</p><p>I hope the article writer reads this.</p><p>The jigs up buddy, and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains, because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply, then you'd fund that website of yours yourself, Mr. Ken Fisher (after all, you've profited by others long enough to do so, right?).</p><p>(That, and Ken Fisher would find out "faithful" his arstech 'subscriptors' are, as well as he having to do the actual work in creating the content (instead of using others like Emil Protalinski for example to do so, while he pays them squat compared to what he makes off of their efforts by way of comparison)).</p><p>No, the game's over Ken Fisher, face it.</p><p>Go on now, switch to a subscriber only model, &amp; see how many people still attend your website. They'll simply move to another, &amp; quickly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus : http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/06/15/2056219 [ slashdot.org ] Additionally , if a websurfer can go faster online by blocking out banner ads ( as well as safer , per the article above ) , then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock ( or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript ) , or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files , or a custom HOSTS file.There 's that above , which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation ( which is not cheap , and not every " Joe Sixpack " knows how it is done , or wants to for that matter ) , and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.So it 's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime , and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too , but also to pay for Ken Fisher 's life on top of that all as well ?
A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt , and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done , as well as the coding work put into his site ( which I doubt he did every line of himself as well ) .So , who are the REAL freeloaders here ? The end users , or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads ( which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V. , since both basically snag a user 's subconscious attention via a " look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need " !
) So , once more : Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here ?
? The end users , or those using them ( website owners ) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads ( which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked , basically yelling at them " look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need " ?
There 's the real question to ask here ! ) ?
? This is a " double-edged sword " , and that is all there is to it , period.Ken Fisher " made hay while the sun shined " &amp; now that sun is fading , because people are WISE to those like he , who use others to make a profit via said person 's actual efforts in content creation ( whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less ) .
" The art of good business is putting people together " !
( Sure - until they " wise up " to it that is .
Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it ( see the URL above once more in regards to that ) , and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is " above such mundane things " ?
Then I suggest they rethink their premises .
People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain .
Do n't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise ) .Above all - I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts ? ?
How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he 's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors ? ?
? I hope the article writer reads this.The jigs up buddy , and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains , because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply , then you 'd fund that website of yours yourself , Mr. Ken Fisher ( after all , you 've profited by others long enough to do so , right ? ) .
( That , and Ken Fisher would find out " faithful " his arstech 'subscriptors ' are , as well as he having to do the actual work in creating the content ( instead of using others like Emil Protalinski for example to do so , while he pays them squat compared to what he makes off of their efforts by way of comparison ) ) .No , the game 's over Ken Fisher , face it.Go on now , switch to a subscriber only model , &amp; see how many people still attend your website .
They 'll simply move to another , &amp; quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219 [slashdot.org]Additionally, if a websurfer can go faster online by blocking out banner ads (as well as safer, per the article above), then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock (or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript), or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files, or a custom HOSTS file.There's that above, which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation (which is not cheap, and not every "Joe Sixpack" knows how it is done, or wants to for that matter), and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.So it's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime, and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too, but also to pay for Ken Fisher's life on top of that all as well?
A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt, and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done, as well as the coding work put into his site (which I doubt he did every line of himself as well).So, who are the REAL freeloaders here?The end users, or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V., since both basically snag a user's subconscious attention via a "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"!
)So, once more: Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here?
?The end users, or those using them (website owners) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked, basically yelling at them "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"?
There's the real question to ask here!)?
?This is a "double-edged sword", and that is all there is to it, period.Ken Fisher "made hay while the sun shined" &amp; now that sun is fading, because people are WISE to those like he, who use others to make a profit via said person's actual efforts in content creation (whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less).
"The art of good business is putting people together"!
(Sure - until they "wise up" to it that is.
Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it (see the URL above once more in regards to that), and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is "above such mundane things"?
Then I suggest they rethink their premises.
People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain.
Don't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise).Above all - I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts??
How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors??
?I hope the article writer reads this.The jigs up buddy, and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains, because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply, then you'd fund that website of yours yourself, Mr. Ken Fisher (after all, you've profited by others long enough to do so, right?).
(That, and Ken Fisher would find out "faithful" his arstech 'subscriptors' are, as well as he having to do the actual work in creating the content (instead of using others like Emil Protalinski for example to do so, while he pays them squat compared to what he makes off of their efforts by way of comparison)).No, the game's over Ken Fisher, face it.Go on now, switch to a subscriber only model, &amp; see how many people still attend your website.
They'll simply move to another, &amp; quickly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390056</id>
	<title>Re:Ads suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267978680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also, you have text based plugs to your 'projects' that you have written, which is the exact same thing as short, to the point advertisement. Pot calling the kettle black, which brings me to another point.

It seems your metric for whether or not something is an advertisement is based off of the fact you will or will not need to use the product/service/feature being 'advertised'. If you use it, based on empirical evidence provided in your description of advertising as it stands, then you weren't 'advertised' the product so much as simply (?) psychically knew about it? (?) and decided it was a worthwhile investment of your time and/or money.

Before you run around making stupid claims like this, and then having how much you've done for the opensource community and all of your programs all over your website, you really should explain to us how it's any different -- what you're doing versus what they're doing -- except you don't use obtrusive graphics and I'm sure you are arrogant enough to believe that your programs aren't useless drivel and everybody should be using them so it's not really an advertisement. That sum it up?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , you have text based plugs to your 'projects ' that you have written , which is the exact same thing as short , to the point advertisement .
Pot calling the kettle black , which brings me to another point .
It seems your metric for whether or not something is an advertisement is based off of the fact you will or will not need to use the product/service/feature being 'advertised' .
If you use it , based on empirical evidence provided in your description of advertising as it stands , then you were n't 'advertised ' the product so much as simply ( ?
) psychically knew about it ?
( ? ) and decided it was a worthwhile investment of your time and/or money .
Before you run around making stupid claims like this , and then having how much you 've done for the opensource community and all of your programs all over your website , you really should explain to us how it 's any different -- what you 're doing versus what they 're doing -- except you do n't use obtrusive graphics and I 'm sure you are arrogant enough to believe that your programs are n't useless drivel and everybody should be using them so it 's not really an advertisement .
That sum it up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, you have text based plugs to your 'projects' that you have written, which is the exact same thing as short, to the point advertisement.
Pot calling the kettle black, which brings me to another point.
It seems your metric for whether or not something is an advertisement is based off of the fact you will or will not need to use the product/service/feature being 'advertised'.
If you use it, based on empirical evidence provided in your description of advertising as it stands, then you weren't 'advertised' the product so much as simply (?
) psychically knew about it?
(?) and decided it was a worthwhile investment of your time and/or money.
Before you run around making stupid claims like this, and then having how much you've done for the opensource community and all of your programs all over your website, you really should explain to us how it's any different -- what you're doing versus what they're doing -- except you don't use obtrusive graphics and I'm sure you are arrogant enough to believe that your programs aren't useless drivel and everybody should be using them so it's not really an advertisement.
That sum it up?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390308</id>
	<title>Re:It's the freeloaders time</title>
	<author>cynyr</author>
	<datestamp>1267980180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any ad with motion is too much, i won't be able to leave your page open and not watch firefox/chromium eat at least 20\% of my cpu. Static text ads relevant to the content on the page/site are useful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any ad with motion is too much , i wo n't be able to leave your page open and not watch firefox/chromium eat at least 20 \ % of my cpu .
Static text ads relevant to the content on the page/site are useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any ad with motion is too much, i won't be able to leave your page open and not watch firefox/chromium eat at least 20\% of my cpu.
Static text ads relevant to the content on the page/site are useful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393498</id>
	<title>It depends...</title>
	<author>refactored</author>
	<datestamp>1267955340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Feed me a pop up or pop under and I instantly block.
</p><p>
If the page takes ages to load because it's waiting for the ad server. I block.
</p><p>
Feed me more content than crap, and I disable ad block on that site.
</p><p>
ps: I usually use <a href="http://noscript.net/" title="noscript.net">
"no script"</a> [noscript.net] because 99.99\% of what I care about doesn't need JavaScript and 99.99\% of what pisses me off does!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Feed me a pop up or pop under and I instantly block .
If the page takes ages to load because it 's waiting for the ad server .
I block .
Feed me more content than crap , and I disable ad block on that site .
ps : I usually use " no script " [ noscript.net ] because 99.99 \ % of what I care about does n't need JavaScript and 99.99 \ % of what pisses me off does !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Feed me a pop up or pop under and I instantly block.
If the page takes ages to load because it's waiting for the ad server.
I block.
Feed me more content than crap, and I disable ad block on that site.
ps: I usually use 
"no script" [noscript.net] because 99.99\% of what I care about doesn't need JavaScript and 99.99\% of what pisses me off does!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393100</id>
	<title>Re:I have ad block in because of facebook</title>
	<author>Randle\_Revar</author>
	<datestamp>1267952760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you mean? FB apps don't look like anything except items in your news feed, and the ads certainly don't look like that. I have an idea that maybe a long time ago FB apps where in little boxes on the side of your screen (kind of like the ads are), but that was a long time and several redesigns ago</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you mean ?
FB apps do n't look like anything except items in your news feed , and the ads certainly do n't look like that .
I have an idea that maybe a long time ago FB apps where in little boxes on the side of your screen ( kind of like the ads are ) , but that was a long time and several redesigns ago</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you mean?
FB apps don't look like anything except items in your news feed, and the ads certainly don't look like that.
I have an idea that maybe a long time ago FB apps where in little boxes on the side of your screen (kind of like the ads are), but that was a long time and several redesigns ago</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391932</id>
	<title>Talk to my ISP...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267989120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here up north you cannot find an ISP without a cap.  60 G / mo with Bell Canada; I'm sure others are very close; something like $1/G if I go over.  Therefore, I must conserve my bandwidth, which means blocking ads.   I won't pay bandwidth charges to look at ads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here up north you can not find an ISP without a cap .
60 G / mo with Bell Canada ; I 'm sure others are very close ; something like $ 1/G if I go over .
Therefore , I must conserve my bandwidth , which means blocking ads .
I wo n't pay bandwidth charges to look at ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here up north you cannot find an ISP without a cap.
60 G / mo with Bell Canada; I'm sure others are very close; something like $1/G if I go over.
Therefore, I must conserve my bandwidth, which means blocking ads.
I won't pay bandwidth charges to look at ads.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390192</id>
	<title>Re:Adblock Plus proposal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267979520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great point.  I have always had the view that my adblock/flashblock/noscript combo is my "DO NOT CALL" list entry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great point .
I have always had the view that my adblock/flashblock/noscript combo is my " DO NOT CALL " list entry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great point.
I have always had the view that my adblock/flashblock/noscript combo is my "DO NOT CALL" list entry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391924</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes?</title>
	<author>Gaffod</author>
	<datestamp>1267989120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who cares? With so much content being regurgitated by everyone, maybe some paywalls would get rid of duplicate content on the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares ?
With so much content being regurgitated by everyone , maybe some paywalls would get rid of duplicate content on the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares?
With so much content being regurgitated by everyone, maybe some paywalls would get rid of duplicate content on the internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390314</id>
	<title>We can't read your content, moron</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267980240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't read if there is something moving on the screen. So if I can't read your content, why the hell should I visit your website in the first place?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't read if there is something moving on the screen .
So if I ca n't read your content , why the hell should I visit your website in the first place ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't read if there is something moving on the screen.
So if I can't read your content, why the hell should I visit your website in the first place?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393554</id>
	<title>The problem with ads</title>
	<author>Flipao</author>
	<datestamp>1267955700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They've turned into obstacles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've turned into obstacles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've turned into obstacles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393902</id>
	<title>block is just too easy to do.</title>
	<author>OrangeTide</author>
	<datestamp>1267958220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is way too easy for us to block ads these days. Asking nicely will likely have no long term affect on the whole ad blocking situation, and it won't go away by itself.</p><p>I have no idea how else you could make money, but if only a tiny fraction of your readership actually see the ads I fail to see how that is a sustainable business model. I suggest if ads are the only revenue model you have, that you adapt or perish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is way too easy for us to block ads these days .
Asking nicely will likely have no long term affect on the whole ad blocking situation , and it wo n't go away by itself.I have no idea how else you could make money , but if only a tiny fraction of your readership actually see the ads I fail to see how that is a sustainable business model .
I suggest if ads are the only revenue model you have , that you adapt or perish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is way too easy for us to block ads these days.
Asking nicely will likely have no long term affect on the whole ad blocking situation, and it won't go away by itself.I have no idea how else you could make money, but if only a tiny fraction of your readership actually see the ads I fail to see how that is a sustainable business model.
I suggest if ads are the only revenue model you have, that you adapt or perish.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389896</id>
	<title>Make ads worth seeing rather than obnoxious</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1267977660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>its like tv ads. remember how the ad agencies in europe started to make funny/interesting ads so that viewers would at least watch them once, and tell them to other people ? its supposed to be like that. when an ad is funny, even if you havent seen it, you HEAR it from someone else. eventually you end up checking out the ads if the thing will come up or not, if you cant find it directly online. and then you watch it and laugh. you laugh, and the ad agency delivers their message. give and take, everyone is happy.</p><p>the situation of online advertising is more like american advertising of old times - obnoxious, intrusive, repetitive, stupid (or at least takes viewers as stupid) and makeshift. noone wants that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>its like tv ads .
remember how the ad agencies in europe started to make funny/interesting ads so that viewers would at least watch them once , and tell them to other people ?
its supposed to be like that .
when an ad is funny , even if you havent seen it , you HEAR it from someone else .
eventually you end up checking out the ads if the thing will come up or not , if you cant find it directly online .
and then you watch it and laugh .
you laugh , and the ad agency delivers their message .
give and take , everyone is happy.the situation of online advertising is more like american advertising of old times - obnoxious , intrusive , repetitive , stupid ( or at least takes viewers as stupid ) and makeshift .
noone wants that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its like tv ads.
remember how the ad agencies in europe started to make funny/interesting ads so that viewers would at least watch them once, and tell them to other people ?
its supposed to be like that.
when an ad is funny, even if you havent seen it, you HEAR it from someone else.
eventually you end up checking out the ads if the thing will come up or not, if you cant find it directly online.
and then you watch it and laugh.
you laugh, and the ad agency delivers their message.
give and take, everyone is happy.the situation of online advertising is more like american advertising of old times - obnoxious, intrusive, repetitive, stupid (or at least takes viewers as stupid) and makeshift.
noone wants that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394034</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Ars, you are animated too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267958940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You make blocking flash sound hard - I just use FlashBlock. It's good in the sense that, unlike most noscript-style browser additions, it doesn't just block everything and bury it - it blocks by default, but it's fairly easy to unblock a certain SWF or whatever, so if you've got a streaming video site with flash video <i>and</i> flash ads, you can just continue with the video and the ads will stay blocked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You make blocking flash sound hard - I just use FlashBlock .
It 's good in the sense that , unlike most noscript-style browser additions , it does n't just block everything and bury it - it blocks by default , but it 's fairly easy to unblock a certain SWF or whatever , so if you 've got a streaming video site with flash video and flash ads , you can just continue with the video and the ads will stay blocked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You make blocking flash sound hard - I just use FlashBlock.
It's good in the sense that, unlike most noscript-style browser additions, it doesn't just block everything and bury it - it blocks by default, but it's fairly easy to unblock a certain SWF or whatever, so if you've got a streaming video site with flash video and flash ads, you can just continue with the video and the ads will stay blocked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391244</id>
	<title>I don't buy things from ads</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267985340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have never deliberately clicked on a banner ad.  I certainly have seen banner ads before, so it's impossible to say that they have had NO influence on me, but I can't remember ever seeing an ad for any of the companies that I actually buy things from (gibson, asus, newegg, amazon, etc).  Even if I did, for anything other than commodity items with no practical difference between them (deodorant, cola), I would base my decision off of some research, not the contents of a banner ad.  Honestly, if you make an ad that is really that good, I'll see it on youtube anyways (e.g. that Old Spice "now I'm on a horse" ad).</p><p>One could argue that I would generate impressions for the sites whose ads I view, but I would contribute no click-throughs, thus lowering the click-through rate.  You then could reply by saying that I'm obligated to click some of the ads, to which I would respond 1) fuck you, no and 2) then that unless I actually purchase something, I'm just watering down the statistics again.</p><p>At the end of the day, advertising is about ROI, and inflating impressions or click-throughs doesn't make a damn bit of difference.</p><p>Plenty of companies (Amazon and Newegg) get plenty of my money over the internet, and if you can't figure out how to do that, then I'm comfortable with you going out of business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have never deliberately clicked on a banner ad .
I certainly have seen banner ads before , so it 's impossible to say that they have had NO influence on me , but I ca n't remember ever seeing an ad for any of the companies that I actually buy things from ( gibson , asus , newegg , amazon , etc ) .
Even if I did , for anything other than commodity items with no practical difference between them ( deodorant , cola ) , I would base my decision off of some research , not the contents of a banner ad .
Honestly , if you make an ad that is really that good , I 'll see it on youtube anyways ( e.g .
that Old Spice " now I 'm on a horse " ad ) .One could argue that I would generate impressions for the sites whose ads I view , but I would contribute no click-throughs , thus lowering the click-through rate .
You then could reply by saying that I 'm obligated to click some of the ads , to which I would respond 1 ) fuck you , no and 2 ) then that unless I actually purchase something , I 'm just watering down the statistics again.At the end of the day , advertising is about ROI , and inflating impressions or click-throughs does n't make a damn bit of difference.Plenty of companies ( Amazon and Newegg ) get plenty of my money over the internet , and if you ca n't figure out how to do that , then I 'm comfortable with you going out of business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have never deliberately clicked on a banner ad.
I certainly have seen banner ads before, so it's impossible to say that they have had NO influence on me, but I can't remember ever seeing an ad for any of the companies that I actually buy things from (gibson, asus, newegg, amazon, etc).
Even if I did, for anything other than commodity items with no practical difference between them (deodorant, cola), I would base my decision off of some research, not the contents of a banner ad.
Honestly, if you make an ad that is really that good, I'll see it on youtube anyways (e.g.
that Old Spice "now I'm on a horse" ad).One could argue that I would generate impressions for the sites whose ads I view, but I would contribute no click-throughs, thus lowering the click-through rate.
You then could reply by saying that I'm obligated to click some of the ads, to which I would respond 1) fuck you, no and 2) then that unless I actually purchase something, I'm just watering down the statistics again.At the end of the day, advertising is about ROI, and inflating impressions or click-throughs doesn't make a damn bit of difference.Plenty of companies (Amazon and Newegg) get plenty of my money over the internet, and if you can't figure out how to do that, then I'm comfortable with you going out of business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389364</id>
	<title>contradiction</title>
	<author>deander2</author>
	<datestamp>1267974600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> Imagine running a restaurant where 40\% of the people who came and ate didn't pay. In a way, that's what ad blocking is doing to us.</i></p><p><i> I am not making an argument that blocking ads is a form of stealing, or is immoral, or unethical, [...]</i></p><p>really.  because when you compare ad blocking to stealing food at a restaurant, it seems that you <b>are</b> making the argument that blocking ads is a form of stealing, is immoral, and unethical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine running a restaurant where 40 \ % of the people who came and ate did n't pay .
In a way , that 's what ad blocking is doing to us .
I am not making an argument that blocking ads is a form of stealing , or is immoral , or unethical , [ ... ] really .
because when you compare ad blocking to stealing food at a restaurant , it seems that you are making the argument that blocking ads is a form of stealing , is immoral , and unethical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Imagine running a restaurant where 40\% of the people who came and ate didn't pay.
In a way, that's what ad blocking is doing to us.
I am not making an argument that blocking ads is a form of stealing, or is immoral, or unethical, [...]really.
because when you compare ad blocking to stealing food at a restaurant, it seems that you are making the argument that blocking ads is a form of stealing, is immoral, and unethical.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389096</id>
	<title>Don't forget</title>
	<author>Redlazer</author>
	<datestamp>1267973160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No matter what you do, so long as you know you are now stealing content, that is allright. It's not illegal, but it's hardly justifiable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No matter what you do , so long as you know you are now stealing content , that is allright .
It 's not illegal , but it 's hardly justifiable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No matter what you do, so long as you know you are now stealing content, that is allright.
It's not illegal, but it's hardly justifiable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389658</id>
	<title>Re:Adblock Plus proposal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267976220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They're missing the point.  Most of the ads only get them money if people click on them.</p></div><p>You should probably look into reading the article:</p><p><i>"There is an oft-stated misconception that if a user never clicks on ads, then blocking them won't hurt a site financially. This is wrong. Most sites, at least sites the size of ours, are paid on a per view basis."</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're missing the point .
Most of the ads only get them money if people click on them.You should probably look into reading the article : " There is an oft-stated misconception that if a user never clicks on ads , then blocking them wo n't hurt a site financially .
This is wrong .
Most sites , at least sites the size of ours , are paid on a per view basis .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're missing the point.
Most of the ads only get them money if people click on them.You should probably look into reading the article:"There is an oft-stated misconception that if a user never clicks on ads, then blocking them won't hurt a site financially.
This is wrong.
Most sites, at least sites the size of ours, are paid on a per view basis.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31398982</id>
	<title>Rural Broadband</title>
	<author>TM22721</author>
	<datestamp>1268048640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will watch their ads when they start subsidizing the distribution as happened with broadcast TV many years ago.</p><p>By cherry picking the rich suburbs advertisers are sending me a message that my time is not worth their bother.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will watch their ads when they start subsidizing the distribution as happened with broadcast TV many years ago.By cherry picking the rich suburbs advertisers are sending me a message that my time is not worth their bother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will watch their ads when they start subsidizing the distribution as happened with broadcast TV many years ago.By cherry picking the rich suburbs advertisers are sending me a message that my time is not worth their bother.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31415506</id>
	<title>Re:Couple of things the submission missed</title>
	<author>Ol Olsoc</author>
	<datestamp>1268157060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However the fact that web advertising is so inflexible and user-hostile is very sad and says something about the industry.</p></div><p>And there you have it. That is exactly what they need to hear.</p><p>
And I'll say it in more direct terms:
</p><p>
Ars and other content providers, if you provide ads that do not violate my machine, do not install tracking software, and simply allow me to see ads that don't break my machine, I'll look at the darn ads!
</p><p>
It's going to have to be an industry wide thing. We hear about self policing. Start doing it. Otherwise I'm not going to turn on the ads. It's your system that is broken, not mine. I'm just trying to protect myself from your system.
</p><p>
Then I won't be a leech, and you won't be part of a system that delivers evil to my computer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However the fact that web advertising is so inflexible and user-hostile is very sad and says something about the industry.And there you have it .
That is exactly what they need to hear .
And I 'll say it in more direct terms : Ars and other content providers , if you provide ads that do not violate my machine , do not install tracking software , and simply allow me to see ads that do n't break my machine , I 'll look at the darn ads !
It 's going to have to be an industry wide thing .
We hear about self policing .
Start doing it .
Otherwise I 'm not going to turn on the ads .
It 's your system that is broken , not mine .
I 'm just trying to protect myself from your system .
Then I wo n't be a leech , and you wo n't be part of a system that delivers evil to my computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However the fact that web advertising is so inflexible and user-hostile is very sad and says something about the industry.And there you have it.
That is exactly what they need to hear.
And I'll say it in more direct terms:

Ars and other content providers, if you provide ads that do not violate my machine, do not install tracking software, and simply allow me to see ads that don't break my machine, I'll look at the darn ads!
It's going to have to be an industry wide thing.
We hear about self policing.
Start doing it.
Otherwise I'm not going to turn on the ads.
It's your system that is broken, not mine.
I'm just trying to protect myself from your system.
Then I won't be a leech, and you won't be part of a system that delivers evil to my computer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394040</id>
	<title>Re:I have ad block in because of facebook</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1267958940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some advertisements these days show pictures which border on NSFW. How is this supposed to make me want to buy a product? I either avoid sites with those adverts or block them. Its a race to the bottom and I think (hope) we are close to the bottom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some advertisements these days show pictures which border on NSFW .
How is this supposed to make me want to buy a product ?
I either avoid sites with those adverts or block them .
Its a race to the bottom and I think ( hope ) we are close to the bottom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some advertisements these days show pictures which border on NSFW.
How is this supposed to make me want to buy a product?
I either avoid sites with those adverts or block them.
Its a race to the bottom and I think (hope) we are close to the bottom.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388996</id>
	<title>Yes, I know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267972680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"My argument is simple: blocking ads can be devastating to the sites you love."</p><p>Yes, I know.  So.... when it's a site I like and visit regularly, and it's one that I trust not to be feeding the latest malware in the ads (slashdot is an example), I enable JavaScript for the site in my whitelist.  But that's as far as I go, and it's a pretty short list.</p><p>No, I do not enable flash.  No, I do not enable pop-ups.  And, no, I don't run my web browser with JavaScript enabled by default.  Browsing with all that enabled is like walking around with a big "kick me" sign on your back.  If you can't advertise without using those techniques then I have no sympathy.</p><p>Let me put it another way: if your website doesn't gracefully degrade the user experience to deal with lack of JavaScript or flash then with a few exceptions you're going to lose revenue.  That would be the case for any people visiting without flash or JavaScript in their browsers, so get on the ball and fix the defect in your website because that's what it is: a defect.  You're unnecessarily losing revenue by failing to serve up content with non-obtrusive ads that I and many other people would be able to read in my default browsing mode.  Any decent website can figure out my browser capabilities without too much trouble and theoretically serve up a simpler ad.</p><p>[Checks ArsTechnica]<br>I see no ad, just a big empty rectangle where I'm guessing one should be beside the article.  I'm not *trying* to specifically block ads.  I'm trying to browse reasonably securely.  If it's so important for all the legitimate reasons you outlined, then <i>fix your damn site</i>.  You'd think a technical site would be more on the ball with these sorts of things.</p><p>Even slashdot has issues.  I've enabled JavaScript for it in my whitelist, but they're still serving up some ads with flash.  I don't see those ones.  Their loss, unfortunately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" My argument is simple : blocking ads can be devastating to the sites you love .
" Yes , I know .
So.... when it 's a site I like and visit regularly , and it 's one that I trust not to be feeding the latest malware in the ads ( slashdot is an example ) , I enable JavaScript for the site in my whitelist .
But that 's as far as I go , and it 's a pretty short list.No , I do not enable flash .
No , I do not enable pop-ups .
And , no , I do n't run my web browser with JavaScript enabled by default .
Browsing with all that enabled is like walking around with a big " kick me " sign on your back .
If you ca n't advertise without using those techniques then I have no sympathy.Let me put it another way : if your website does n't gracefully degrade the user experience to deal with lack of JavaScript or flash then with a few exceptions you 're going to lose revenue .
That would be the case for any people visiting without flash or JavaScript in their browsers , so get on the ball and fix the defect in your website because that 's what it is : a defect .
You 're unnecessarily losing revenue by failing to serve up content with non-obtrusive ads that I and many other people would be able to read in my default browsing mode .
Any decent website can figure out my browser capabilities without too much trouble and theoretically serve up a simpler ad .
[ Checks ArsTechnica ] I see no ad , just a big empty rectangle where I 'm guessing one should be beside the article .
I 'm not * trying * to specifically block ads .
I 'm trying to browse reasonably securely .
If it 's so important for all the legitimate reasons you outlined , then fix your damn site .
You 'd think a technical site would be more on the ball with these sorts of things.Even slashdot has issues .
I 've enabled JavaScript for it in my whitelist , but they 're still serving up some ads with flash .
I do n't see those ones .
Their loss , unfortunately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"My argument is simple: blocking ads can be devastating to the sites you love.
"Yes, I know.
So.... when it's a site I like and visit regularly, and it's one that I trust not to be feeding the latest malware in the ads (slashdot is an example), I enable JavaScript for the site in my whitelist.
But that's as far as I go, and it's a pretty short list.No, I do not enable flash.
No, I do not enable pop-ups.
And, no, I don't run my web browser with JavaScript enabled by default.
Browsing with all that enabled is like walking around with a big "kick me" sign on your back.
If you can't advertise without using those techniques then I have no sympathy.Let me put it another way: if your website doesn't gracefully degrade the user experience to deal with lack of JavaScript or flash then with a few exceptions you're going to lose revenue.
That would be the case for any people visiting without flash or JavaScript in their browsers, so get on the ball and fix the defect in your website because that's what it is: a defect.
You're unnecessarily losing revenue by failing to serve up content with non-obtrusive ads that I and many other people would be able to read in my default browsing mode.
Any decent website can figure out my browser capabilities without too much trouble and theoretically serve up a simpler ad.
[Checks ArsTechnica]I see no ad, just a big empty rectangle where I'm guessing one should be beside the article.
I'm not *trying* to specifically block ads.
I'm trying to browse reasonably securely.
If it's so important for all the legitimate reasons you outlined, then fix your damn site.
You'd think a technical site would be more on the ball with these sorts of things.Even slashdot has issues.
I've enabled JavaScript for it in my whitelist, but they're still serving up some ads with flash.
I don't see those ones.
Their loss, unfortunately.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392774</id>
	<title>Say what?</title>
	<author>Geminii</author>
	<datestamp>1267993920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>"blocking ads can be devastating to the sites you love"</i>
</p><p>
If a site decides not to show me content, it's not a site I love. I'm sorry, did Ars think there was brand loyalty on the internet? Please. Every site's userbase is two seconds and one Google search away from moving lock, stock and barrel to a competitor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" blocking ads can be devastating to the sites you love " If a site decides not to show me content , it 's not a site I love .
I 'm sorry , did Ars think there was brand loyalty on the internet ?
Please. Every site 's userbase is two seconds and one Google search away from moving lock , stock and barrel to a competitor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "blocking ads can be devastating to the sites you love"

If a site decides not to show me content, it's not a site I love.
I'm sorry, did Ars think there was brand loyalty on the internet?
Please. Every site's userbase is two seconds and one Google search away from moving lock, stock and barrel to a competitor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393520</id>
	<title>ads changed</title>
	<author>luther349</author>
	<datestamp>1267955460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>back in the days of when ads where simple banners that did not bother anyone i never used ad blocking. but ads changed from something that way there not in the way to annoying flash riddled junk. really the ones with sound annoy me the most. so now i use every ad blocking trick i can use. and in 10 yars of using the web i never have seen a ad that i responded to they never ad a product or a item but Rather then loan offers free trials and credit card offers all things i can get at my local bank.</htmltext>
<tokenext>back in the days of when ads where simple banners that did not bother anyone i never used ad blocking .
but ads changed from something that way there not in the way to annoying flash riddled junk .
really the ones with sound annoy me the most .
so now i use every ad blocking trick i can use .
and in 10 yars of using the web i never have seen a ad that i responded to they never ad a product or a item but Rather then loan offers free trials and credit card offers all things i can get at my local bank .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>back in the days of when ads where simple banners that did not bother anyone i never used ad blocking.
but ads changed from something that way there not in the way to annoying flash riddled junk.
really the ones with sound annoy me the most.
so now i use every ad blocking trick i can use.
and in 10 yars of using the web i never have seen a ad that i responded to they never ad a product or a item but Rather then loan offers free trials and credit card offers all things i can get at my local bank.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392644</id>
	<title>Stop the blinking and spinning!</title>
	<author>HooliganIntellectual</author>
	<datestamp>1267993140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My friends and I have run a popular news site for over a decade with no advertising. It's possible to run a site while relying on a non-advertising revenue model. It's not easy and our content could be better, but folks are ridiculous when they whine about people not looking at their ads.</p><p>I've run ad-blocking plug-ins on my Firefox browser for years. If a site like Ars Technica disabled my ability to see their site, I'd just get that news from elsewhere.</p><p>One of the main reasons why I start using ad-blocking software was because of the ads that animate, blink, and otherwise do anything other than being static. I can't read some damn article if ads are doing stuff in my peripheral vision. And if the moving ads are blocked, I can also tune out the other ads, until the time when I'm actually thinking about buying something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My friends and I have run a popular news site for over a decade with no advertising .
It 's possible to run a site while relying on a non-advertising revenue model .
It 's not easy and our content could be better , but folks are ridiculous when they whine about people not looking at their ads.I 've run ad-blocking plug-ins on my Firefox browser for years .
If a site like Ars Technica disabled my ability to see their site , I 'd just get that news from elsewhere.One of the main reasons why I start using ad-blocking software was because of the ads that animate , blink , and otherwise do anything other than being static .
I ca n't read some damn article if ads are doing stuff in my peripheral vision .
And if the moving ads are blocked , I can also tune out the other ads , until the time when I 'm actually thinking about buying something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My friends and I have run a popular news site for over a decade with no advertising.
It's possible to run a site while relying on a non-advertising revenue model.
It's not easy and our content could be better, but folks are ridiculous when they whine about people not looking at their ads.I've run ad-blocking plug-ins on my Firefox browser for years.
If a site like Ars Technica disabled my ability to see their site, I'd just get that news from elsewhere.One of the main reasons why I start using ad-blocking software was because of the ads that animate, blink, and otherwise do anything other than being static.
I can't read some damn article if ads are doing stuff in my peripheral vision.
And if the moving ads are blocked, I can also tune out the other ads, until the time when I'm actually thinking about buying something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389126</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Ars, you are animated too</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1267973340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find flashblock eliminates 90\% of the animating ads, without blocking normal ads.  I think Firefox has an option to disable GIF animation.  Hopefully, one day it will have the ability to block HTML5 animations too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find flashblock eliminates 90 \ % of the animating ads , without blocking normal ads .
I think Firefox has an option to disable GIF animation .
Hopefully , one day it will have the ability to block HTML5 animations too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find flashblock eliminates 90\% of the animating ads, without blocking normal ads.
I think Firefox has an option to disable GIF animation.
Hopefully, one day it will have the ability to block HTML5 animations too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31398968</id>
	<title>Re:Ads suck</title>
	<author>mcelrath</author>
	<datestamp>1268048460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh don't worry, there was a little fight over moderation between "insightful" and "overrated".  I always thought slashdot needs a "-1 disagree" moderation...but "overrated" gets used instead.  Someone even went so far as to go back and mod down my posts on other stories, they disagreed so much.

</p><p>I refuse to expend my resources on things which do not benefit me.  It is in no way my obligation to spend CPU cycles and bandwidth spinning flash ads.  These things also may cause me tangible harm, in viruses, privacy violating tracking, etc.  You see loading flash ads on my n900.  It's sllooowww, and 3G is not that fast in the first place.  You better believe I run an ad blocker there.  The marginal cost to me on a desktop computer is lower, but the principal is the same.

</p><p>P.S. I never, ever click on ads anyway.  So I'm saving you money in bandwidth by not requesting your ads.  Hmmm...are pages with un-clicked ads self-supporting in bandwidth costs?  Then we can just load ads in a hidden div.  Surely advertisers would catch on if people started doing that.  But I'm still not going to burn CPU to animate your gif or run flash or java.

</p><p>P.P.S. I seriously lament the death of journalism.  I really wish there was a way I could pay for it.  But in no way can I consider annoying me to be a form of payment.  Best I do right now is buy the print Economist on a semi-regular basis.  But I'm not spending $50 because I visited Ars once.  (I'm not a regular reader there)  I'd hardly call that "journalism" anyway...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh do n't worry , there was a little fight over moderation between " insightful " and " overrated " .
I always thought slashdot needs a " -1 disagree " moderation...but " overrated " gets used instead .
Someone even went so far as to go back and mod down my posts on other stories , they disagreed so much .
I refuse to expend my resources on things which do not benefit me .
It is in no way my obligation to spend CPU cycles and bandwidth spinning flash ads .
These things also may cause me tangible harm , in viruses , privacy violating tracking , etc .
You see loading flash ads on my n900 .
It 's sllooowww , and 3G is not that fast in the first place .
You better believe I run an ad blocker there .
The marginal cost to me on a desktop computer is lower , but the principal is the same .
P.S. I never , ever click on ads anyway .
So I 'm saving you money in bandwidth by not requesting your ads .
Hmmm...are pages with un-clicked ads self-supporting in bandwidth costs ?
Then we can just load ads in a hidden div .
Surely advertisers would catch on if people started doing that .
But I 'm still not going to burn CPU to animate your gif or run flash or java .
P.P.S. I seriously lament the death of journalism .
I really wish there was a way I could pay for it .
But in no way can I consider annoying me to be a form of payment .
Best I do right now is buy the print Economist on a semi-regular basis .
But I 'm not spending $ 50 because I visited Ars once .
( I 'm not a regular reader there ) I 'd hardly call that " journalism " anyway.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh don't worry, there was a little fight over moderation between "insightful" and "overrated".
I always thought slashdot needs a "-1 disagree" moderation...but "overrated" gets used instead.
Someone even went so far as to go back and mod down my posts on other stories, they disagreed so much.
I refuse to expend my resources on things which do not benefit me.
It is in no way my obligation to spend CPU cycles and bandwidth spinning flash ads.
These things also may cause me tangible harm, in viruses, privacy violating tracking, etc.
You see loading flash ads on my n900.
It's sllooowww, and 3G is not that fast in the first place.
You better believe I run an ad blocker there.
The marginal cost to me on a desktop computer is lower, but the principal is the same.
P.S. I never, ever click on ads anyway.
So I'm saving you money in bandwidth by not requesting your ads.
Hmmm...are pages with un-clicked ads self-supporting in bandwidth costs?
Then we can just load ads in a hidden div.
Surely advertisers would catch on if people started doing that.
But I'm still not going to burn CPU to animate your gif or run flash or java.
P.P.S. I seriously lament the death of journalism.
I really wish there was a way I could pay for it.
But in no way can I consider annoying me to be a form of payment.
Best I do right now is buy the print Economist on a semi-regular basis.
But I'm not spending $50 because I visited Ars once.
(I'm not a regular reader there)  I'd hardly call that "journalism" anyway...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390514</id>
	<title>Re:Love this comment by Ars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267981440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ok, your terms are acceptable. See ya.</p></div><p>Pretty much. Ars Technica's approach here is to ask people to do something they dislike so Ars can make money. What they're finding out is that a substantial number of people dislike the ads more than they like the content, and if push comes to shove, they're willing to give up the content along with the ads. If your business model consists of haranguing your users and telling them that if they don't do something unpleasant, they'll be sorry, you have become rather embarrassingly detached from reality and should probably look for something else to do. It's 2010, fer chrissakes. You'd think that by now people would have figured out that, at least on the web, popular does not equal profitable, and any business "plan" that involves attracting lots of non-paying spectators and making money from their mere presence is likely to crater.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , your terms are acceptable .
See ya.Pretty much .
Ars Technica 's approach here is to ask people to do something they dislike so Ars can make money .
What they 're finding out is that a substantial number of people dislike the ads more than they like the content , and if push comes to shove , they 're willing to give up the content along with the ads .
If your business model consists of haranguing your users and telling them that if they do n't do something unpleasant , they 'll be sorry , you have become rather embarrassingly detached from reality and should probably look for something else to do .
It 's 2010 , fer chrissakes .
You 'd think that by now people would have figured out that , at least on the web , popular does not equal profitable , and any business " plan " that involves attracting lots of non-paying spectators and making money from their mere presence is likely to crater .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, your terms are acceptable.
See ya.Pretty much.
Ars Technica's approach here is to ask people to do something they dislike so Ars can make money.
What they're finding out is that a substantial number of people dislike the ads more than they like the content, and if push comes to shove, they're willing to give up the content along with the ads.
If your business model consists of haranguing your users and telling them that if they don't do something unpleasant, they'll be sorry, you have become rather embarrassingly detached from reality and should probably look for something else to do.
It's 2010, fer chrissakes.
You'd think that by now people would have figured out that, at least on the web, popular does not equal profitable, and any business "plan" that involves attracting lots of non-paying spectators and making money from their mere presence is likely to crater.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389782</id>
	<title>Advertisers...</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1267976880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By definition, the entire advertising business is based around changing/influencing my behavior and the ONLY way they can do that is by intruding on my time/space (if there's another way, nobody's come up with it yet).</p><p>Now they're surprised when I try to prevent them? LOL!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By definition , the entire advertising business is based around changing/influencing my behavior and the ONLY way they can do that is by intruding on my time/space ( if there 's another way , nobody 's come up with it yet ) .Now they 're surprised when I try to prevent them ?
LOL !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By definition, the entire advertising business is based around changing/influencing my behavior and the ONLY way they can do that is by intruding on my time/space (if there's another way, nobody's come up with it yet).Now they're surprised when I try to prevent them?
LOL!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390950</id>
	<title>History People</title>
	<author>zoomshorts</author>
	<datestamp>1267983840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Prior to 1994, it was not legal to make commercial use of the internet.<br>Congress allowed that. Before it was for educational and DEFENSE usage.<br>They were often tied together. Educational institutions did and still<br>do research for the DOD.<br>Most of you do not remember those days. Text only pages.</p><p>LYNX - remember that one? University of Kansas. Didn't think so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Prior to 1994 , it was not legal to make commercial use of the internet.Congress allowed that .
Before it was for educational and DEFENSE usage.They were often tied together .
Educational institutions did and stilldo research for the DOD.Most of you do not remember those days .
Text only pages.LYNX - remember that one ?
University of Kansas .
Did n't think so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prior to 1994, it was not legal to make commercial use of the internet.Congress allowed that.
Before it was for educational and DEFENSE usage.They were often tied together.
Educational institutions did and stilldo research for the DOD.Most of you do not remember those days.
Text only pages.LYNX - remember that one?
University of Kansas.
Didn't think so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389998</id>
	<title>Slashdot has adds?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267978380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't know Slashdot had adds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't know Slashdot had adds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't know Slashdot had adds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389214</id>
	<title>Love this comment by Ars</title>
	<author>s.d.</author>
	<datestamp>1267973760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>"If you're not willing to unblock our ads, we're fairly happy for you to not read the content we work very hard on, or to just stop visiting the site altogether."</i> (in comment thread <a href="http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/09/dois-and-their-discontents.ars?comments=1#comment-4641" title="arstechnica.com">here</a> [arstechnica.com])</p><p>Ok, your terms are acceptable.  See ya.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If you 're not willing to unblock our ads , we 're fairly happy for you to not read the content we work very hard on , or to just stop visiting the site altogether .
" ( in comment thread here [ arstechnica.com ] ) Ok , your terms are acceptable .
See ya .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "If you're not willing to unblock our ads, we're fairly happy for you to not read the content we work very hard on, or to just stop visiting the site altogether.
" (in comment thread here [arstechnica.com])Ok, your terms are acceptable.
See ya.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391286</id>
	<title>Actual evidence to back you here KingSkippus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267985520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><div class="quote"><p><b>"I consider it irresponsible not to browse the web with a really good ad/Flash/javascript blocker. Not just because of the annoyance factor, but because it is a significant vector of malicious code attacks."</b> - by KingSkippus (799657) on Sunday March 07, @08:36AM (#31388954) Homepage</p></div><p>You may find this useful in backing you:</p><p><b>The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>They have been found more than a few times serving up FAR more and FAR WORSE than mere tracking cookies, as you can see above. Thus, I agree on this account with you by ALL means.</p><p>So, if a websurfer finds out that he can go faster online by blocking out banner ads (as well as safer, per the article above), then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock (or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript), or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files, or a custom HOSTS file.</p><p>There's that above, which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation (which is not cheap, and not every "Joe Sixpack" knows how it is done, or wants to for that matter), and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.</p><p>So it's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime, and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too, but also to pay for Ken Fisher's life on top of that all as well? A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt, and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done, as well as the coding work put into his site (which I doubt he did every line of himself as well).</p><p><b>So, who are the REAL freeloaders here?</b></p><p>The end users, or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V., since both basically snag a user's subconscious attention via a "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"!)</p><p>So, once more: <b>Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here??</b></p><p>The end users, or those using them (website owners) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked, basically yelling at them "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"? There's the real question to ask here!)??</p><p>This is a "double-edged sword", and that is all there is to it, period.</p><p>Ken Fisher "made hay while the sun shined" &amp; now that sun is fading, because people are WISE to those like he, who use others to make a profit via said person's actual efforts in content creation (whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less).</p><p>"The art of good business is putting people together"!</p><p>(Sure - until they "wise up" to it that is. Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it (see the URL above once more in regards to that), and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is "above such mundane things"? Then I suggest they rethink their premises. People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain. Don't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise).</p><p>Above all - <b>I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts?? How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors???</b></p><p>I hope the article writer reads this.</p><p>The jigs up buddy, and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains, because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply, then you'd fund that website of yours yourself, Mr. Ken Fisher (after all, you've profited by others long enough to do so, right?).</p><p>(That, and Ken Fisher would find out "faithful" his arstech 'subscriptors' are, as well as he having to do the actual work in creating the content (instead of using others like Emil Protalinski for example to do so, while he pays them squat compared to what he makes off of their efforts by way of comparison)).</p><p>No, the game's over Ken Fisher, face it.</p><p>Go on now, switch to a subscriber only model, &amp; see how many people still attend your website. They'll simply move to another, &amp; quickly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I consider it irresponsible not to browse the web with a really good ad/Flash/javascript blocker .
Not just because of the annoyance factor , but because it is a significant vector of malicious code attacks .
" - by KingSkippus ( 799657 ) on Sunday March 07 , @ 08 : 36AM ( # 31388954 ) HomepageYou may find this useful in backing you : The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus : http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/06/15/2056219 [ slashdot.org ] They have been found more than a few times serving up FAR more and FAR WORSE than mere tracking cookies , as you can see above .
Thus , I agree on this account with you by ALL means.So , if a websurfer finds out that he can go faster online by blocking out banner ads ( as well as safer , per the article above ) , then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock ( or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript ) , or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files , or a custom HOSTS file.There 's that above , which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation ( which is not cheap , and not every " Joe Sixpack " knows how it is done , or wants to for that matter ) , and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.So it 's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime , and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too , but also to pay for Ken Fisher 's life on top of that all as well ?
A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt , and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done , as well as the coding work put into his site ( which I doubt he did every line of himself as well ) .So , who are the REAL freeloaders here ? The end users , or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads ( which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V. , since both basically snag a user 's subconscious attention via a " look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need " !
) So , once more : Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here ?
? The end users , or those using them ( website owners ) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads ( which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked , basically yelling at them " look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need " ?
There 's the real question to ask here ! ) ?
? This is a " double-edged sword " , and that is all there is to it , period.Ken Fisher " made hay while the sun shined " &amp; now that sun is fading , because people are WISE to those like he , who use others to make a profit via said person 's actual efforts in content creation ( whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less ) .
" The art of good business is putting people together " !
( Sure - until they " wise up " to it that is .
Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it ( see the URL above once more in regards to that ) , and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is " above such mundane things " ?
Then I suggest they rethink their premises .
People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain .
Do n't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise ) .Above all - I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts ? ?
How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he 's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors ? ?
? I hope the article writer reads this.The jigs up buddy , and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains , because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply , then you 'd fund that website of yours yourself , Mr. Ken Fisher ( after all , you 've profited by others long enough to do so , right ? ) .
( That , and Ken Fisher would find out " faithful " his arstech 'subscriptors ' are , as well as he having to do the actual work in creating the content ( instead of using others like Emil Protalinski for example to do so , while he pays them squat compared to what he makes off of their efforts by way of comparison ) ) .No , the game 's over Ken Fisher , face it.Go on now , switch to a subscriber only model , &amp; see how many people still attend your website .
They 'll simply move to another , &amp; quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I consider it irresponsible not to browse the web with a really good ad/Flash/javascript blocker.
Not just because of the annoyance factor, but because it is a significant vector of malicious code attacks.
" - by KingSkippus (799657) on Sunday March 07, @08:36AM (#31388954) HomepageYou may find this useful in backing you:The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219 [slashdot.org]They have been found more than a few times serving up FAR more and FAR WORSE than mere tracking cookies, as you can see above.
Thus, I agree on this account with you by ALL means.So, if a websurfer finds out that he can go faster online by blocking out banner ads (as well as safer, per the article above), then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock (or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript), or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files, or a custom HOSTS file.There's that above, which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation (which is not cheap, and not every "Joe Sixpack" knows how it is done, or wants to for that matter), and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.So it's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime, and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too, but also to pay for Ken Fisher's life on top of that all as well?
A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt, and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done, as well as the coding work put into his site (which I doubt he did every line of himself as well).So, who are the REAL freeloaders here?The end users, or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V., since both basically snag a user's subconscious attention via a "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"!
)So, once more: Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here?
?The end users, or those using them (website owners) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked, basically yelling at them "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"?
There's the real question to ask here!)?
?This is a "double-edged sword", and that is all there is to it, period.Ken Fisher "made hay while the sun shined" &amp; now that sun is fading, because people are WISE to those like he, who use others to make a profit via said person's actual efforts in content creation (whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less).
"The art of good business is putting people together"!
(Sure - until they "wise up" to it that is.
Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it (see the URL above once more in regards to that), and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is "above such mundane things"?
Then I suggest they rethink their premises.
People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain.
Don't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise).Above all - I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts??
How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors??
?I hope the article writer reads this.The jigs up buddy, and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains, because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply, then you'd fund that website of yours yourself, Mr. Ken Fisher (after all, you've profited by others long enough to do so, right?).
(That, and Ken Fisher would find out "faithful" his arstech 'subscriptors' are, as well as he having to do the actual work in creating the content (instead of using others like Emil Protalinski for example to do so, while he pays them squat compared to what he makes off of their efforts by way of comparison)).No, the game's over Ken Fisher, face it.Go on now, switch to a subscriber only model, &amp; see how many people still attend your website.
They'll simply move to another, &amp; quickly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31396984</id>
	<title>Re:Flash is my problem</title>
	<author>eloki</author>
	<datestamp>1267979700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love LWN's ad/subscriber policy in that it's so reader-friendly but Jon Corbet repeatedly indicates that the site is not economically sustainable in the long term.</p><p>Effectively he must be subsidising it, so it does't serve as an example of how sites can succeed with such pleasant policy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love LWN 's ad/subscriber policy in that it 's so reader-friendly but Jon Corbet repeatedly indicates that the site is not economically sustainable in the long term.Effectively he must be subsidising it , so it does't serve as an example of how sites can succeed with such pleasant policy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love LWN's ad/subscriber policy in that it's so reader-friendly but Jon Corbet repeatedly indicates that the site is not economically sustainable in the long term.Effectively he must be subsidising it, so it does't serve as an example of how sites can succeed with such pleasant policy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392254</id>
	<title>Tough Shit...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267990680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you decide to create a website, or a blog with original content in it, you are not entitled to profit, consider yourself lucky if you even get any. The more annoying people make advertising the more intensive scripts will be made to ignore them, advertising companies and content creators need to realize that the popup add and sidebanners are becoming more and more obsolete in this day, people will not be buying random bullshit that they see in an ad on their internet browser, especially in this economy.

The consumer knows what they want, and they will use the correct resources to make these purchases when the time comes (Google, Newegg, Amazon, etc). Ad companies need to realize that they are in an obsolete business and need to either adapt or die.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you decide to create a website , or a blog with original content in it , you are not entitled to profit , consider yourself lucky if you even get any .
The more annoying people make advertising the more intensive scripts will be made to ignore them , advertising companies and content creators need to realize that the popup add and sidebanners are becoming more and more obsolete in this day , people will not be buying random bullshit that they see in an ad on their internet browser , especially in this economy .
The consumer knows what they want , and they will use the correct resources to make these purchases when the time comes ( Google , Newegg , Amazon , etc ) .
Ad companies need to realize that they are in an obsolete business and need to either adapt or die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you decide to create a website, or a blog with original content in it, you are not entitled to profit, consider yourself lucky if you even get any.
The more annoying people make advertising the more intensive scripts will be made to ignore them, advertising companies and content creators need to realize that the popup add and sidebanners are becoming more and more obsolete in this day, people will not be buying random bullshit that they see in an ad on their internet browser, especially in this economy.
The consumer knows what they want, and they will use the correct resources to make these purchases when the time comes (Google, Newegg, Amazon, etc).
Ad companies need to realize that they are in an obsolete business and need to either adapt or die.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31396854</id>
	<title>Ken Fisher must be about to lose his job @ arstech</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267978440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd wager there is clause in Ken Fisher's contract that says if he doesn't make a certain money mark, he is GONE (and so are his trolling cronies too at arstechnica), since he no longer owns arstechnica and is crying like a beyotch now that he is not "in control" and he is scared.</p><p>Oh "how the MIGHTY CAESAR (Ken Fisher's nick-handle on arstechnica) HAS FALLEN!". Serves him right.</p><p>"All the MIGHTY CAESAR'S ARSTECHNICA TROLLS AND OTHER ARSTECHNICA 'NOT MEN' COULDN'T PUT ARSTECHNICA BACK TOGETHER AGAIN", and rightfully so - they're a pack of known internet trolls only second to 4chan BBS's crowd.</p><p>Example being the trolling beyotch whom I am replying to above, with this PITIFUL remark from him:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"In the future the whining won't come from Ars because they'll die. They'll come from us because sites like Ars died, and all we're left with is InfoWorld." - by Anonymous Coward<br>on Sunday March 07, @04:25PM (#31393800)</p></div><p>Arstechnica is NOT "the only game in town" and they have fakes like Jeremy Reimer posting articles for them for Pete's sake - that stooge doesn't even have a CSC or CIS degree, much less years to decades of hands-on experience in the trenches coding or networking even. Who the hell do you think arstechnica are? I'll clue you in - a pack of failures &amp; fakes largely, and mainly those of them who are moderators there (none of which I know of have ever been even featured in a written publication in the sciences of computing no less).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd wager there is clause in Ken Fisher 's contract that says if he does n't make a certain money mark , he is GONE ( and so are his trolling cronies too at arstechnica ) , since he no longer owns arstechnica and is crying like a beyotch now that he is not " in control " and he is scared.Oh " how the MIGHTY CAESAR ( Ken Fisher 's nick-handle on arstechnica ) HAS FALLEN ! " .
Serves him right .
" All the MIGHTY CAESAR 'S ARSTECHNICA TROLLS AND OTHER ARSTECHNICA 'NOT MEN ' COULD N'T PUT ARSTECHNICA BACK TOGETHER AGAIN " , and rightfully so - they 're a pack of known internet trolls only second to 4chan BBS 's crowd.Example being the trolling beyotch whom I am replying to above , with this PITIFUL remark from him : " In the future the whining wo n't come from Ars because they 'll die .
They 'll come from us because sites like Ars died , and all we 're left with is InfoWorld .
" - by Anonymous Cowardon Sunday March 07 , @ 04 : 25PM ( # 31393800 ) Arstechnica is NOT " the only game in town " and they have fakes like Jeremy Reimer posting articles for them for Pete 's sake - that stooge does n't even have a CSC or CIS degree , much less years to decades of hands-on experience in the trenches coding or networking even .
Who the hell do you think arstechnica are ?
I 'll clue you in - a pack of failures &amp; fakes largely , and mainly those of them who are moderators there ( none of which I know of have ever been even featured in a written publication in the sciences of computing no less ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd wager there is clause in Ken Fisher's contract that says if he doesn't make a certain money mark, he is GONE (and so are his trolling cronies too at arstechnica), since he no longer owns arstechnica and is crying like a beyotch now that he is not "in control" and he is scared.Oh "how the MIGHTY CAESAR (Ken Fisher's nick-handle on arstechnica) HAS FALLEN!".
Serves him right.
"All the MIGHTY CAESAR'S ARSTECHNICA TROLLS AND OTHER ARSTECHNICA 'NOT MEN' COULDN'T PUT ARSTECHNICA BACK TOGETHER AGAIN", and rightfully so - they're a pack of known internet trolls only second to 4chan BBS's crowd.Example being the trolling beyotch whom I am replying to above, with this PITIFUL remark from him:"In the future the whining won't come from Ars because they'll die.
They'll come from us because sites like Ars died, and all we're left with is InfoWorld.
" - by Anonymous Cowardon Sunday March 07, @04:25PM (#31393800)Arstechnica is NOT "the only game in town" and they have fakes like Jeremy Reimer posting articles for them for Pete's sake - that stooge doesn't even have a CSC or CIS degree, much less years to decades of hands-on experience in the trenches coding or networking even.
Who the hell do you think arstechnica are?
I'll clue you in - a pack of failures &amp; fakes largely, and mainly those of them who are moderators there (none of which I know of have ever been even featured in a written publication in the sciences of computing no less).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31401602</id>
	<title>The easiest solution....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268069160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...would be for an advertising company to come forward with a "do no evil" approach.  No whack-the-mole, no fake virus warnings, no "have you been harmed by xxx product" fear-mongering....</p><p>Just ads that are potentially worthwhile, served from a discrete, identifiable group of ad servers.  That service could then have a hope of being white-listed, as opposed to the ad-sluts that currently serve up slop from anyone who will pay them money.</p><p>This new "do no evil" company would have to host all ad content on their own servers; they would also have to be both selective in their advertisers AND proactive on delivered content - i.e. scanning the content they receive from advertisers BEFORE they deliver it; they would also have to stand by a set of policies that enforce good netizenship instead of inflicting malware on us and assaulting every sense in hopes of an accidental (or angry) click.</p><p>Indeed, such a company would flourish, should it come to be.  I, for one, would be willing to give them a shot with my family and all the others who look to me for unofficial tech support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...would be for an advertising company to come forward with a " do no evil " approach .
No whack-the-mole , no fake virus warnings , no " have you been harmed by xxx product " fear-mongering....Just ads that are potentially worthwhile , served from a discrete , identifiable group of ad servers .
That service could then have a hope of being white-listed , as opposed to the ad-sluts that currently serve up slop from anyone who will pay them money.This new " do no evil " company would have to host all ad content on their own servers ; they would also have to be both selective in their advertisers AND proactive on delivered content - i.e .
scanning the content they receive from advertisers BEFORE they deliver it ; they would also have to stand by a set of policies that enforce good netizenship instead of inflicting malware on us and assaulting every sense in hopes of an accidental ( or angry ) click.Indeed , such a company would flourish , should it come to be .
I , for one , would be willing to give them a shot with my family and all the others who look to me for unofficial tech support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...would be for an advertising company to come forward with a "do no evil" approach.
No whack-the-mole, no fake virus warnings, no "have you been harmed by xxx product" fear-mongering....Just ads that are potentially worthwhile, served from a discrete, identifiable group of ad servers.
That service could then have a hope of being white-listed, as opposed to the ad-sluts that currently serve up slop from anyone who will pay them money.This new "do no evil" company would have to host all ad content on their own servers; they would also have to be both selective in their advertisers AND proactive on delivered content - i.e.
scanning the content they receive from advertisers BEFORE they deliver it; they would also have to stand by a set of policies that enforce good netizenship instead of inflicting malware on us and assaulting every sense in hopes of an accidental (or angry) click.Indeed, such a company would flourish, should it come to be.
I, for one, would be willing to give them a shot with my family and all the others who look to me for unofficial tech support.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31395256</id>
	<title>Block only obnoxious ads</title>
	<author>Sivar</author>
	<datestamp>1267967040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ad-block has a rather heavy handed policy of blocking every ad it possibly can, at least with the most common lists.<br>My proposed solution: Add a voting system, or some other means to detect when ads are very intrusive (like the flashing "You've Won!!!!" ads), and keep a list of ads or ad servers that follow that criteria.</p><p>Then, users can subscribe to an "obnoxious ad" list in adblock, eliminating the ones we all hate (discouraging their use at all), and allowing those which aren't bad, or are actually useful.</p><p>--Charles N. Burns</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ad-block has a rather heavy handed policy of blocking every ad it possibly can , at least with the most common lists.My proposed solution : Add a voting system , or some other means to detect when ads are very intrusive ( like the flashing " You 've Won ! ! ! !
" ads ) , and keep a list of ads or ad servers that follow that criteria.Then , users can subscribe to an " obnoxious ad " list in adblock , eliminating the ones we all hate ( discouraging their use at all ) , and allowing those which are n't bad , or are actually useful.--Charles N. Burns</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ad-block has a rather heavy handed policy of blocking every ad it possibly can, at least with the most common lists.My proposed solution: Add a voting system, or some other means to detect when ads are very intrusive (like the flashing "You've Won!!!!
" ads), and keep a list of ads or ad servers that follow that criteria.Then, users can subscribe to an "obnoxious ad" list in adblock, eliminating the ones we all hate (discouraging their use at all), and allowing those which aren't bad, or are actually useful.--Charles N. Burns</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389296</id>
	<title>Re:How is this different than muting TV commercial</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267974180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They provide a twisted rationalization that in the end is wrong. If everyone watching a broadcast show used TiVo, the show's revenue would dry up, and here's why.</p><p>TV ads are paid per view, just not directly. Networks set pricing based on the ratings that a show gets. Sweeps weeks are when shows do something "awesome" or "controversial" so they drive up ratings - then the networks can charge more. A show with lower ratings gets less ad money than a show with high ratings. That's a price per view, but a really rough approximation. Now if everyone with a Nielsen box stopped watching and used TiVo, then ratings would plummet. It's not comparing apples to asparagus, like the article wants you to believe. It's that websites can track individual views.</p><p>So who's to blame here? As usual, the advertisers, for producing animated/autoplay/asinine ads. If Ars can convince/coerce people into not using adblockers then things will continue as normal. If, however, people get annoyed at animated ads (Yes, Ars, that is what bothers me. And yes, you still have animated ads) then they will continue to block the site. What Ars needs to do is push a new model. You claim you're inventive? Prove it. Either go Taliban on ads yourself, or be driving force in a new model. This whole Jewish-mother-guilt-trip thing you have going on is weak. If it's hurting revenue then do something serious. Otherwise it's passive aggressive bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They provide a twisted rationalization that in the end is wrong .
If everyone watching a broadcast show used TiVo , the show 's revenue would dry up , and here 's why.TV ads are paid per view , just not directly .
Networks set pricing based on the ratings that a show gets .
Sweeps weeks are when shows do something " awesome " or " controversial " so they drive up ratings - then the networks can charge more .
A show with lower ratings gets less ad money than a show with high ratings .
That 's a price per view , but a really rough approximation .
Now if everyone with a Nielsen box stopped watching and used TiVo , then ratings would plummet .
It 's not comparing apples to asparagus , like the article wants you to believe .
It 's that websites can track individual views.So who 's to blame here ?
As usual , the advertisers , for producing animated/autoplay/asinine ads .
If Ars can convince/coerce people into not using adblockers then things will continue as normal .
If , however , people get annoyed at animated ads ( Yes , Ars , that is what bothers me .
And yes , you still have animated ads ) then they will continue to block the site .
What Ars needs to do is push a new model .
You claim you 're inventive ?
Prove it .
Either go Taliban on ads yourself , or be driving force in a new model .
This whole Jewish-mother-guilt-trip thing you have going on is weak .
If it 's hurting revenue then do something serious .
Otherwise it 's passive aggressive bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They provide a twisted rationalization that in the end is wrong.
If everyone watching a broadcast show used TiVo, the show's revenue would dry up, and here's why.TV ads are paid per view, just not directly.
Networks set pricing based on the ratings that a show gets.
Sweeps weeks are when shows do something "awesome" or "controversial" so they drive up ratings - then the networks can charge more.
A show with lower ratings gets less ad money than a show with high ratings.
That's a price per view, but a really rough approximation.
Now if everyone with a Nielsen box stopped watching and used TiVo, then ratings would plummet.
It's not comparing apples to asparagus, like the article wants you to believe.
It's that websites can track individual views.So who's to blame here?
As usual, the advertisers, for producing animated/autoplay/asinine ads.
If Ars can convince/coerce people into not using adblockers then things will continue as normal.
If, however, people get annoyed at animated ads (Yes, Ars, that is what bothers me.
And yes, you still have animated ads) then they will continue to block the site.
What Ars needs to do is push a new model.
You claim you're inventive?
Prove it.
Either go Taliban on ads yourself, or be driving force in a new model.
This whole Jewish-mother-guilt-trip thing you have going on is weak.
If it's hurting revenue then do something serious.
Otherwise it's passive aggressive bullshit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391416</id>
	<title>business is hard, let's go shopping!</title>
	<author>Tikkun</author>
	<datestamp>1267986480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given that:

<ol>
<li>There is a huge surplus of places that write about technology news, many of them competing to post within minutes of developments. Most are "free" (from the perspective of the reader).</li>
<li>People interested in technology frequently hate ads and block them.</li>
<li>Ars tends to spend a lot of time and effort paying people to producing content (in comparison to other tech sites).</li></ol><p>

This makes the business model of Ars Technica less than ideal (I'm assuming that they're either losing money or aren't making enough for Conde Nast). <br> <br>

To solve this problem you can (among other things):
</p><ol>
<li>Stop spending as much time on producing content (The Register).</li><li>Post somewhat infrequently about topics that would cost other organizations a lot of money to do at a high level for readers that spend stupid amounts of money on what you're reviewing and advertising (Anandtech).</li><li>Post frequently about topics that aren't covered quickly in other sites about upcoming products from secretive consumer electronics manufacturers for readers that spend stupid amounts of money on what you're posting about and it's accessories (MacRumors).</li><li>Make some/much of the content free, but charge for a portion that isn't covered as quickly elsewhere for people that need the content to make money (The Wall Street Journal, Jane's).</li><li>Limit the content to people that are using locked down hardware and software (Kindle, iPad).</li><li>Charge for the content (Consumer Reports).</li></ol><p>

Breaking browsers with Adblock or posting about how they may lose their jobs if they can't get more ad revenue won't fix the underlying problem. They're in a crowded market and spend more money than many writing about topics that can be covered quickly and cheaply because companies *want* people to read about what they're doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that : There is a huge surplus of places that write about technology news , many of them competing to post within minutes of developments .
Most are " free " ( from the perspective of the reader ) .
People interested in technology frequently hate ads and block them .
Ars tends to spend a lot of time and effort paying people to producing content ( in comparison to other tech sites ) .
This makes the business model of Ars Technica less than ideal ( I 'm assuming that they 're either losing money or are n't making enough for Conde Nast ) .
To solve this problem you can ( among other things ) : Stop spending as much time on producing content ( The Register ) .Post somewhat infrequently about topics that would cost other organizations a lot of money to do at a high level for readers that spend stupid amounts of money on what you 're reviewing and advertising ( Anandtech ) .Post frequently about topics that are n't covered quickly in other sites about upcoming products from secretive consumer electronics manufacturers for readers that spend stupid amounts of money on what you 're posting about and it 's accessories ( MacRumors ) .Make some/much of the content free , but charge for a portion that is n't covered as quickly elsewhere for people that need the content to make money ( The Wall Street Journal , Jane 's ) .Limit the content to people that are using locked down hardware and software ( Kindle , iPad ) .Charge for the content ( Consumer Reports ) .
Breaking browsers with Adblock or posting about how they may lose their jobs if they ca n't get more ad revenue wo n't fix the underlying problem .
They 're in a crowded market and spend more money than many writing about topics that can be covered quickly and cheaply because companies * want * people to read about what they 're doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that:


There is a huge surplus of places that write about technology news, many of them competing to post within minutes of developments.
Most are "free" (from the perspective of the reader).
People interested in technology frequently hate ads and block them.
Ars tends to spend a lot of time and effort paying people to producing content (in comparison to other tech sites).
This makes the business model of Ars Technica less than ideal (I'm assuming that they're either losing money or aren't making enough for Conde Nast).
To solve this problem you can (among other things):

Stop spending as much time on producing content (The Register).Post somewhat infrequently about topics that would cost other organizations a lot of money to do at a high level for readers that spend stupid amounts of money on what you're reviewing and advertising (Anandtech).Post frequently about topics that aren't covered quickly in other sites about upcoming products from secretive consumer electronics manufacturers for readers that spend stupid amounts of money on what you're posting about and it's accessories (MacRumors).Make some/much of the content free, but charge for a portion that isn't covered as quickly elsewhere for people that need the content to make money (The Wall Street Journal, Jane's).Limit the content to people that are using locked down hardware and software (Kindle, iPad).Charge for the content (Consumer Reports).
Breaking browsers with Adblock or posting about how they may lose their jobs if they can't get more ad revenue won't fix the underlying problem.
They're in a crowded market and spend more money than many writing about topics that can be covered quickly and cheaply because companies *want* people to read about what they're doing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389444</id>
	<title>Re:How is this different than muting TV commercial</title>
	<author>Spatial</author>
	<datestamp>1267974960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to the article, it's different because it more directly affects the amount of money derived from Internet advertising.  On TV it's based on prediction, on the Internet it's based on actual data.</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the article , it 's different because it more directly affects the amount of money derived from Internet advertising .
On TV it 's based on prediction , on the Internet it 's based on actual data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the article, it's different because it more directly affects the amount of money derived from Internet advertising.
On TV it's based on prediction, on the Internet it's based on actual data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389098</id>
	<title>Re:How is this different than muting TV commercial</title>
	<author>nacturation</author>
	<datestamp>1267973160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RTFA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RTFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RTFA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388774</id>
	<title>It's the sexist time!</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1267971480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But all the while a lot of people, mostly us geeks, cannot grasp that immaterial products and content also costs to create and takes just the same manhours.</p></div><p> - what about 'woman-hours'?  Those are about 1.5 times longer than man-hours are and you are deliberately neglecting this in your comment!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But all the while a lot of people , mostly us geeks , can not grasp that immaterial products and content also costs to create and takes just the same manhours .
- what about 'woman-hours ' ?
Those are about 1.5 times longer than man-hours are and you are deliberately neglecting this in your comment !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But all the while a lot of people, mostly us geeks, cannot grasp that immaterial products and content also costs to create and takes just the same manhours.
- what about 'woman-hours'?
Those are about 1.5 times longer than man-hours are and you are deliberately neglecting this in your comment!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393736</id>
	<title>ARS site is full of animated ads</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267957020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not against advertising. I'm against annoying advertising, including anything animated or flashy that is going to distract me from reading an article.<br>I use Ad Block Plus with Firefox to deal with it. Just to see if ARS had a point and was sincere with it's "we don't run annoying ads" comment, I turned off ABP when reading their article.</p><p>Guess what? They had animated and distracting ads from top to bottom.</p><p>No doubt, I turned ABP back on.</p><p>If websites want ad revenue, great. Do it the right way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not against advertising .
I 'm against annoying advertising , including anything animated or flashy that is going to distract me from reading an article.I use Ad Block Plus with Firefox to deal with it .
Just to see if ARS had a point and was sincere with it 's " we do n't run annoying ads " comment , I turned off ABP when reading their article.Guess what ?
They had animated and distracting ads from top to bottom.No doubt , I turned ABP back on.If websites want ad revenue , great .
Do it the right way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not against advertising.
I'm against annoying advertising, including anything animated or flashy that is going to distract me from reading an article.I use Ad Block Plus with Firefox to deal with it.
Just to see if ARS had a point and was sincere with it's "we don't run annoying ads" comment, I turned off ABP when reading their article.Guess what?
They had animated and distracting ads from top to bottom.No doubt, I turned ABP back on.If websites want ad revenue, great.
Do it the right way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389972</id>
	<title>I want....</title>
	<author>jimpop</author>
	<datestamp>1267978200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want the sites I frequent to continue their success.  However, I've found that blocking ads makes those sites load much faster, and they layout much cleaner.   If sites want me to load their ads they *must* solve the speed and layout issues, because I'm already addicted to the fast and clean version of their site.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want the sites I frequent to continue their success .
However , I 've found that blocking ads makes those sites load much faster , and they layout much cleaner .
If sites want me to load their ads they * must * solve the speed and layout issues , because I 'm already addicted to the fast and clean version of their site .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want the sites I frequent to continue their success.
However, I've found that blocking ads makes those sites load much faster, and they layout much cleaner.
If sites want me to load their ads they *must* solve the speed and layout issues, because I'm already addicted to the fast and clean version of their site.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389064</id>
	<title>Targeted ads suck</title>
	<author>billsf</author>
	<datestamp>1267972980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ads that originate from the site, I display, the rest &gt;/dev/null. You can proxy where the ad is displayed 'internally', the site gets paid by the trash provider and I never have to see it. 'Flash' ads are by far the worst and no site I use places them directly on their own site. (A 30s flash commercial may take 10s to load &gt;/dev/null) On the brighter side, the conduits for targeted ads can be sometimes used as proxies to beat the "Not available in your country" crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ads that originate from the site , I display , the rest &gt; /dev/null .
You can proxy where the ad is displayed 'internally ' , the site gets paid by the trash provider and I never have to see it .
'Flash ' ads are by far the worst and no site I use places them directly on their own site .
( A 30s flash commercial may take 10s to load &gt; /dev/null ) On the brighter side , the conduits for targeted ads can be sometimes used as proxies to beat the " Not available in your country " crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ads that originate from the site, I display, the rest &gt;/dev/null.
You can proxy where the ad is displayed 'internally', the site gets paid by the trash provider and I never have to see it.
'Flash' ads are by far the worst and no site I use places them directly on their own site.
(A 30s flash commercial may take 10s to load &gt;/dev/null) On the brighter side, the conduits for targeted ads can be sometimes used as proxies to beat the "Not available in your country" crap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393236</id>
	<title>Re:Love this comment by Ars</title>
	<author>Chicken\_Kickers</author>
	<datestamp>1267953660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amen, brother. My daily morning routine used to be open up my email, browse Slashdot and then Ars. Been doing this for many years now. I even whitelisted Ars but after reading the exceedingly arrogant comments by the Ars site admins, I have deleted the Ars website from my bookmarks. The truth is that there are many other websites out there that do what Ars does and pissing off your readers is suicide. Good luck to Ars if they continue on this trajectory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen , brother .
My daily morning routine used to be open up my email , browse Slashdot and then Ars .
Been doing this for many years now .
I even whitelisted Ars but after reading the exceedingly arrogant comments by the Ars site admins , I have deleted the Ars website from my bookmarks .
The truth is that there are many other websites out there that do what Ars does and pissing off your readers is suicide .
Good luck to Ars if they continue on this trajectory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen, brother.
My daily morning routine used to be open up my email, browse Slashdot and then Ars.
Been doing this for many years now.
I even whitelisted Ars but after reading the exceedingly arrogant comments by the Ars site admins, I have deleted the Ars website from my bookmarks.
The truth is that there are many other websites out there that do what Ars does and pissing off your readers is suicide.
Good luck to Ars if they continue on this trajectory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394876</id>
	<title>I quit reading Ars...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267964280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... as soon as I noticed "copyright 200x Conde Nast Digital" at the bottom of the page.<br>'Tis no longer the Ars of old, and it really shows here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... as soon as I noticed " copyright 200x Conde Nast Digital " at the bottom of the page .
'T is no longer the Ars of old , and it really shows here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... as soon as I noticed "copyright 200x Conde Nast Digital" at the bottom of the page.
'Tis no longer the Ars of old, and it really shows here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31395632</id>
	<title>Ads make you miserable</title>
	<author>mutherhacker</author>
	<datestamp>1267969680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately, the effect of ads is much worse than most people know. 

<p>The problem with ads is that they present you with an "image" of how your life should be. Shiny hair, pearly white teeth, a six-pack and a blond girlfriend with huge boobs. A big house, an SUV, lawn and 2 kids. They present an image of what "success" should be like or what a "man" should be like.. or more than the others what a woman should do, wear and think. Humans naturally wish to emulate stuff they are constantly exposed to. The human brain, watching stuff every day in ads, start to think that "Hey, everybody is like that so I should be too". So naturally you become miserable when you cannot be like them.

</p><p>There's those who say "Ads do not affect me", and to those I say "O'RLY?". Think again.

</p><p>I have submitted many stores about ads to slashdot which have been rejected. One of them is the following:

</p><p>Today, a day which will live in infamy, I have created a filter which blocks all e-mail messages sent from Hotmail and iPhone devices. The reason? I don't like to read ads in my messages. The filter also sends the following message as a reply:

</p><p>"YOUR MESSAGE TO me@somedomain HAS NOT BEEN READ, IT HAS BEEN AUTOMATICALLY DELETED!

</p><p>Thank you for contacting me. In my ongoing fight against ads/commercial messages I have decided to block all messages that contain ad-like content. This includes messages from:
</p><ul>
       <li> * apple's iPhone that contain the line: "Sent from my iPhone" &mdash; I don't care where it has been sent from.</li>
        <li>* Microsoft's Hotmail service that append a short ad at the bottom of the message &mdash; I don't like to read ads.</li>
        <li>*<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...probably more to come</li>
</ul><p>If you wish to contact me please do so using a service that does not append ads or irrelevant information inside your e-mail message.
I apologize for any inconvenience caused and I beg for your understanding."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , the effect of ads is much worse than most people know .
The problem with ads is that they present you with an " image " of how your life should be .
Shiny hair , pearly white teeth , a six-pack and a blond girlfriend with huge boobs .
A big house , an SUV , lawn and 2 kids .
They present an image of what " success " should be like or what a " man " should be like.. or more than the others what a woman should do , wear and think .
Humans naturally wish to emulate stuff they are constantly exposed to .
The human brain , watching stuff every day in ads , start to think that " Hey , everybody is like that so I should be too " .
So naturally you become miserable when you can not be like them .
There 's those who say " Ads do not affect me " , and to those I say " O'RLY ? " .
Think again .
I have submitted many stores about ads to slashdot which have been rejected .
One of them is the following : Today , a day which will live in infamy , I have created a filter which blocks all e-mail messages sent from Hotmail and iPhone devices .
The reason ?
I do n't like to read ads in my messages .
The filter also sends the following message as a reply : " YOUR MESSAGE TO me @ somedomain HAS NOT BEEN READ , IT HAS BEEN AUTOMATICALLY DELETED !
Thank you for contacting me .
In my ongoing fight against ads/commercial messages I have decided to block all messages that contain ad-like content .
This includes messages from : * apple 's iPhone that contain the line : " Sent from my iPhone "    I do n't care where it has been sent from .
* Microsoft 's Hotmail service that append a short ad at the bottom of the message    I do n't like to read ads .
* ...probably more to come If you wish to contact me please do so using a service that does not append ads or irrelevant information inside your e-mail message .
I apologize for any inconvenience caused and I beg for your understanding .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, the effect of ads is much worse than most people know.
The problem with ads is that they present you with an "image" of how your life should be.
Shiny hair, pearly white teeth, a six-pack and a blond girlfriend with huge boobs.
A big house, an SUV, lawn and 2 kids.
They present an image of what "success" should be like or what a "man" should be like.. or more than the others what a woman should do, wear and think.
Humans naturally wish to emulate stuff they are constantly exposed to.
The human brain, watching stuff every day in ads, start to think that "Hey, everybody is like that so I should be too".
So naturally you become miserable when you cannot be like them.
There's those who say "Ads do not affect me", and to those I say "O'RLY?".
Think again.
I have submitted many stores about ads to slashdot which have been rejected.
One of them is the following:

Today, a day which will live in infamy, I have created a filter which blocks all e-mail messages sent from Hotmail and iPhone devices.
The reason?
I don't like to read ads in my messages.
The filter also sends the following message as a reply:

"YOUR MESSAGE TO me@somedomain HAS NOT BEEN READ, IT HAS BEEN AUTOMATICALLY DELETED!
Thank you for contacting me.
In my ongoing fight against ads/commercial messages I have decided to block all messages that contain ad-like content.
This includes messages from:

        * apple's iPhone that contain the line: "Sent from my iPhone" — I don't care where it has been sent from.
* Microsoft's Hotmail service that append a short ad at the bottom of the message — I don't like to read ads.
* ...probably more to come
If you wish to contact me please do so using a service that does not append ads or irrelevant information inside your e-mail message.
I apologize for any inconvenience caused and I beg for your understanding.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391844</id>
	<title>Advertising = malware</title>
	<author>LihTox</author>
	<datestamp>1267988700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most advertising is malware for the human brain: it attempts to exploit weaknesses in human psychology to get us to do things we would not otherwise do.</p><p>Not all advertising is like that-- announcements of new or poorly-known products or sites or services are certainly fair.  But most advertising is not informational, it is manipulative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most advertising is malware for the human brain : it attempts to exploit weaknesses in human psychology to get us to do things we would not otherwise do.Not all advertising is like that-- announcements of new or poorly-known products or sites or services are certainly fair .
But most advertising is not informational , it is manipulative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most advertising is malware for the human brain: it attempts to exploit weaknesses in human psychology to get us to do things we would not otherwise do.Not all advertising is like that-- announcements of new or poorly-known products or sites or services are certainly fair.
But most advertising is not informational, it is manipulative.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391776</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Ars, you are animated too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267988220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh please, you can't focus on reading if there is movement on the screen!?</p><p>For one, you're definitely in the fucking minority, BY FAR. You claim to be "anti" so honestly, given that you're close minded, I read your opinion and I choose to be close minded as well, so too bad, boo-hoo.</p><p>Colin Smith - your bandwidth, you pay for it all!? Bitch please. When YOU pay for a websites bandwidth then you can bitch. And to be honest, you don't pay for BANDWIDTH, you're paying for access with high bandwidth - idiot.</p><p>You fucking idiots just don't get it, do you?  NOTHING is free.  It's because of advertising radio and TV exist.  It'll be because of advertising that the internet exists.  Pretty soon your phone will have it to - oh wait, I've seen ads in the FREE apps for my phone.</p><p>God people like you grind my fucking gears.  Righteous, close minded, know more than anyone, self-centered assholes. Good sites go out of business because of you selfish, self-centered parasites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh please , you ca n't focus on reading if there is movement on the screen !
? For one , you 're definitely in the fucking minority , BY FAR .
You claim to be " anti " so honestly , given that you 're close minded , I read your opinion and I choose to be close minded as well , so too bad , boo-hoo.Colin Smith - your bandwidth , you pay for it all ! ?
Bitch please .
When YOU pay for a websites bandwidth then you can bitch .
And to be honest , you do n't pay for BANDWIDTH , you 're paying for access with high bandwidth - idiot.You fucking idiots just do n't get it , do you ?
NOTHING is free .
It 's because of advertising radio and TV exist .
It 'll be because of advertising that the internet exists .
Pretty soon your phone will have it to - oh wait , I 've seen ads in the FREE apps for my phone.God people like you grind my fucking gears .
Righteous , close minded , know more than anyone , self-centered assholes .
Good sites go out of business because of you selfish , self-centered parasites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh please, you can't focus on reading if there is movement on the screen!
?For one, you're definitely in the fucking minority, BY FAR.
You claim to be "anti" so honestly, given that you're close minded, I read your opinion and I choose to be close minded as well, so too bad, boo-hoo.Colin Smith - your bandwidth, you pay for it all!?
Bitch please.
When YOU pay for a websites bandwidth then you can bitch.
And to be honest, you don't pay for BANDWIDTH, you're paying for access with high bandwidth - idiot.You fucking idiots just don't get it, do you?
NOTHING is free.
It's because of advertising radio and TV exist.
It'll be because of advertising that the internet exists.
Pretty soon your phone will have it to - oh wait, I've seen ads in the FREE apps for my phone.God people like you grind my fucking gears.
Righteous, close minded, know more than anyone, self-centered assholes.
Good sites go out of business because of you selfish, self-centered parasites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391918</id>
	<title>Pay per Click</title>
	<author>saulot</author>
	<datestamp>1267989060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was under the impression that the ads in a page were pay per click.<br>
So if I visit the site but dont click the ad the site takes nil.<br>
Thats why I use adblockers, beacuse I dont care for ads of any kind and the site takes nothing either way from my browsing</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was under the impression that the ads in a page were pay per click .
So if I visit the site but dont click the ad the site takes nil .
Thats why I use adblockers , beacuse I dont care for ads of any kind and the site takes nothing either way from my browsing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was under the impression that the ads in a page were pay per click.
So if I visit the site but dont click the ad the site takes nil.
Thats why I use adblockers, beacuse I dont care for ads of any kind and the site takes nothing either way from my browsing</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388964</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Ars, you are animated too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267972560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This pretty much sums it up.</p><p>6 things that ads have no right doing. Flash is the worst, but animated gif ads are the reason I have firefox set to not play them at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This pretty much sums it up.6 things that ads have no right doing .
Flash is the worst , but animated gif ads are the reason I have firefox set to not play them at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This pretty much sums it up.6 things that ads have no right doing.
Flash is the worst, but animated gif ads are the reason I have firefox set to not play them at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390424</id>
	<title>Agreed, 110\% (and with more, see 1st evidence)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267980960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>See, if a websurfer can go faster online by blocking out banner ads (as well as safer, per the article above), then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock (or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript), or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files, or a custom HOSTS file.</p><p>There's that above, which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation (which is not cheap, and not every "Joe Sixpack" knows how it is done, or wants to for that matter), and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.</p><p>So it's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime, and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too, but also to pay for Ken Fisher's life on top of that all as well? A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt, and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done, as well as the coding work put into his site (which I doubt he did every line of himself as well).</p><p><b>So, who are the REAL freeloaders here?</b></p><p>The end users, or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V., since both basically snag a user's subconscious attention via a "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"!)</p><p>So, once more: <b>Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here??</b></p><p>The end users, or those using them (website owners) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked, basically yelling at them "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"? There's the real question to ask here!)??</p><p>This is a "double-edged sword", and that is all there is to it, period. Ken Fisher "made hay while the sun shined" &amp; now that sun is fading, because people are WISE to those like he, who use others to make a profit via said person's actual efforts in content creation (whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less).</p><p>"The art of good business is putting people together", sure - until they "wise up" to it that is. Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it (see the URL above once more in regards to that), and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is "above such mundane things"? Then I suggest they rethink their premises. People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain. Don't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise.</p><p>Above all - I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts?? How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors???</p><p>I hope the article writer reads this. The jigs up buddy, and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains, because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply, then you'd fund that website of yours yourself, Mr. Ken Fisher (after all, you've profited by others long enough to do so, right?) - that, and Ken Fisher would find out "faithful" his arstech 'subscriptors' are, as well as he having to do the actual work in creating the content (instead of using others like Emil Protalinski for example to do so, while he pays them squat compared to what he makes off of their efforts by way of comparison).</p><p>No, the game's over Ken Fisher, face it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus : http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/06/15/2056219 [ slashdot.org ] See , if a websurfer can go faster online by blocking out banner ads ( as well as safer , per the article above ) , then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock ( or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript ) , or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files , or a custom HOSTS file.There 's that above , which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation ( which is not cheap , and not every " Joe Sixpack " knows how it is done , or wants to for that matter ) , and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.So it 's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime , and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too , but also to pay for Ken Fisher 's life on top of that all as well ?
A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt , and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done , as well as the coding work put into his site ( which I doubt he did every line of himself as well ) .So , who are the REAL freeloaders here ? The end users , or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads ( which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V. , since both basically snag a user 's subconscious attention via a " look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need " !
) So , once more : Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here ?
? The end users , or those using them ( website owners ) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads ( which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked , basically yelling at them " look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need " ?
There 's the real question to ask here ! ) ?
? This is a " double-edged sword " , and that is all there is to it , period .
Ken Fisher " made hay while the sun shined " &amp; now that sun is fading , because people are WISE to those like he , who use others to make a profit via said person 's actual efforts in content creation ( whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less ) .
" The art of good business is putting people together " , sure - until they " wise up " to it that is .
Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it ( see the URL above once more in regards to that ) , and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is " above such mundane things " ?
Then I suggest they rethink their premises .
People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain .
Do n't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise.Above all - I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts ? ?
How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he 's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors ? ?
? I hope the article writer reads this .
The jigs up buddy , and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains , because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply , then you 'd fund that website of yours yourself , Mr. Ken Fisher ( after all , you 've profited by others long enough to do so , right ?
) - that , and Ken Fisher would find out " faithful " his arstech 'subscriptors ' are , as well as he having to do the actual work in creating the content ( instead of using others like Emil Protalinski for example to do so , while he pays them squat compared to what he makes off of their efforts by way of comparison ) .No , the game 's over Ken Fisher , face it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219 [slashdot.org]See, if a websurfer can go faster online by blocking out banner ads (as well as safer, per the article above), then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock (or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript), or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files, or a custom HOSTS file.There's that above, which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation (which is not cheap, and not every "Joe Sixpack" knows how it is done, or wants to for that matter), and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.So it's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime, and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too, but also to pay for Ken Fisher's life on top of that all as well?
A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt, and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done, as well as the coding work put into his site (which I doubt he did every line of himself as well).So, who are the REAL freeloaders here?The end users, or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V., since both basically snag a user's subconscious attention via a "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"!
)So, once more: Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here?
?The end users, or those using them (website owners) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked, basically yelling at them "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"?
There's the real question to ask here!)?
?This is a "double-edged sword", and that is all there is to it, period.
Ken Fisher "made hay while the sun shined" &amp; now that sun is fading, because people are WISE to those like he, who use others to make a profit via said person's actual efforts in content creation (whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less).
"The art of good business is putting people together", sure - until they "wise up" to it that is.
Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it (see the URL above once more in regards to that), and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is "above such mundane things"?
Then I suggest they rethink their premises.
People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain.
Don't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise.Above all - I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts??
How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors??
?I hope the article writer reads this.
The jigs up buddy, and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains, because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply, then you'd fund that website of yours yourself, Mr. Ken Fisher (after all, you've profited by others long enough to do so, right?
) - that, and Ken Fisher would find out "faithful" his arstech 'subscriptors' are, as well as he having to do the actual work in creating the content (instead of using others like Emil Protalinski for example to do so, while he pays them squat compared to what he makes off of their efforts by way of comparison).No, the game's over Ken Fisher, face it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31398384</id>
	<title>My argument is simple - I control what's on my PC</title>
	<author>Peter (Professor) Fo</author>
	<datestamp>1268040660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have the final say in what's shown on my computer.
<p>
Also, as an aside, sites that are funded by advertisers are not free to say what they want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have the final say in what 's shown on my computer .
Also , as an aside , sites that are funded by advertisers are not free to say what they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have the final say in what's shown on my computer.
Also, as an aside, sites that are funded by advertisers are not free to say what they want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391646</id>
	<title>I'll care when adverts care about anoying me.</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1267987560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you really want to stop people from adblocking... then simply make ads smaller, less intrusive, less anoying, less in your face... less flash, less evil.</p><p>Its really that simple. You cant ask people to put down their defenses when the industry of ad driven material is hell bent on basically taking over your computer and your browser.</p><p>I'm sorry. The defenses stay up... until you play fair.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you really want to stop people from adblocking... then simply make ads smaller , less intrusive , less anoying , less in your face... less flash , less evil.Its really that simple .
You cant ask people to put down their defenses when the industry of ad driven material is hell bent on basically taking over your computer and your browser.I 'm sorry .
The defenses stay up... until you play fair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you really want to stop people from adblocking... then simply make ads smaller, less intrusive, less anoying, less in your face... less flash, less evil.Its really that simple.
You cant ask people to put down their defenses when the industry of ad driven material is hell bent on basically taking over your computer and your browser.I'm sorry.
The defenses stay up... until you play fair.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389864</id>
	<title>Re:I have ad block in because of facebook</title>
	<author>Spatial</author>
	<datestamp>1267977420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Its the advertisers fault. I understand that advertising is all about making sure your message is heard above the noise</p></div><p>Well that's really the principle at work here isn't it.<br> <br>

To an advertiser, the content of the site is noise.  To us the adverts are noise.  Some people block adverts on that principle alone.<br> <br>

The rest depends on the signal-to-noise ratio.  Too far in one direction and you don't get enough money, too far in the other and you alienate your readership.  The key is balance.<br> <br>

Advertisers forgot that.  They took the short-view and went with increasingly intrusive and annoying adverts.  They broke the balance in their favour, so we broke it in ours with filtering tools.<br> <br>

It just so happens that it's <i>easier</i> to block every advert on the entire Internet than to be selective about it.  And here we are.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its the advertisers fault .
I understand that advertising is all about making sure your message is heard above the noiseWell that 's really the principle at work here is n't it .
To an advertiser , the content of the site is noise .
To us the adverts are noise .
Some people block adverts on that principle alone .
The rest depends on the signal-to-noise ratio .
Too far in one direction and you do n't get enough money , too far in the other and you alienate your readership .
The key is balance .
Advertisers forgot that .
They took the short-view and went with increasingly intrusive and annoying adverts .
They broke the balance in their favour , so we broke it in ours with filtering tools .
It just so happens that it 's easier to block every advert on the entire Internet than to be selective about it .
And here we are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its the advertisers fault.
I understand that advertising is all about making sure your message is heard above the noiseWell that's really the principle at work here isn't it.
To an advertiser, the content of the site is noise.
To us the adverts are noise.
Some people block adverts on that principle alone.
The rest depends on the signal-to-noise ratio.
Too far in one direction and you don't get enough money, too far in the other and you alienate your readership.
The key is balance.
Advertisers forgot that.
They took the short-view and went with increasingly intrusive and annoying adverts.
They broke the balance in their favour, so we broke it in ours with filtering tools.
It just so happens that it's easier to block every advert on the entire Internet than to be selective about it.
And here we are.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390902</id>
	<title>Re:Ads suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267983600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Internet ads are actually 100\% different.  You didn't get that webpage unsolicited.  You actively chose to go there.  If you think the deal sucks, fair enough, you can walk away.</p><p>The fact that your comment got modded +5 "insightful" shows how braindead and parasitic slashdot people are on average.  There's nothing illegal or immoral about serving ads on a site that you aren't forcing people to come to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Internet ads are actually 100 \ % different .
You did n't get that webpage unsolicited .
You actively chose to go there .
If you think the deal sucks , fair enough , you can walk away.The fact that your comment got modded + 5 " insightful " shows how braindead and parasitic slashdot people are on average .
There 's nothing illegal or immoral about serving ads on a site that you are n't forcing people to come to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Internet ads are actually 100\% different.
You didn't get that webpage unsolicited.
You actively chose to go there.
If you think the deal sucks, fair enough, you can walk away.The fact that your comment got modded +5 "insightful" shows how braindead and parasitic slashdot people are on average.
There's nothing illegal or immoral about serving ads on a site that you aren't forcing people to come to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389438</id>
	<title>Re:Ads suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267974900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, if I stole my computer, run Windows 7 Pirate Edition, and steal my neighbours' wireless and electricity, am I not entitled to block adverts?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , if I stole my computer , run Windows 7 Pirate Edition , and steal my neighbours ' wireless and electricity , am I not entitled to block adverts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, if I stole my computer, run Windows 7 Pirate Edition, and steal my neighbours' wireless and electricity, am I not entitled to block adverts?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31395492</id>
	<title>My rant of the day.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267968960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm unfortunately stuck on dialup. My computers aren't brand spanking new multi-core powerhouses. Blocking ads means I don't have to wait more than several minutes for a goddamn page to load while the shit flash ads suck up all available CPU cycles only to crash the browser due to poor programming. So fuck you and your ads, Ars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm unfortunately stuck on dialup .
My computers are n't brand spanking new multi-core powerhouses .
Blocking ads means I do n't have to wait more than several minutes for a goddamn page to load while the shit flash ads suck up all available CPU cycles only to crash the browser due to poor programming .
So fuck you and your ads , Ars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm unfortunately stuck on dialup.
My computers aren't brand spanking new multi-core powerhouses.
Blocking ads means I don't have to wait more than several minutes for a goddamn page to load while the shit flash ads suck up all available CPU cycles only to crash the browser due to poor programming.
So fuck you and your ads, Ars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392784</id>
	<title>Arstech and ad banner trojan?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267993980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica</b> -&gt; Philip</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PM<br>internet</p><p>Philip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it. When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus. Here is a copy of my log. I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites. 1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"</p><p>Link to Original Source</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica - &gt; Philiphttp : //slashdot.org/firehose.pl ? op = view&amp;id = 447008 [ slashdot.org ] Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008 , @ 03 : 00PMinternetPhilip writes " It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it .
When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus .
Here is a copy of my log .
I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites .
1/2/2008 2 : 27 : 15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe ( http : //arstechnica.com/index.ars ) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO ( Trojan ) " Link to Original Sourcehttp : //slashdot.org/firehose.pl ? op = view&amp;id = 447008 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica -&gt; Philiphttp://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008 [slashdot.org]Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PMinternetPhilip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it.
When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus.
Here is a copy of my log.
I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites.
1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"Link to Original Sourcehttp://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393894</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Ars, you are animated too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267958100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, it is worse. You ever watch the cable channel FX? You ever see their animated ads during the movies or TV shows? And I use "ads" loosely to refer to anything that interrupts the show.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , it is worse .
You ever watch the cable channel FX ?
You ever see their animated ads during the movies or TV shows ?
And I use " ads " loosely to refer to anything that interrupts the show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, it is worse.
You ever watch the cable channel FX?
You ever see their animated ads during the movies or TV shows?
And I use "ads" loosely to refer to anything that interrupts the show.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389384</id>
	<title>Wrong economic model</title>
	<author>moteyalpha</author>
	<datestamp>1267974720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A business makes money by definition. if [-e "whine"]; then echo "I feel your pain.";fi<br>
If they had a section which said "Find out about buying X" they might actually get real results from the stuff. A Microsoft ad will never sell me anything and if there were an ad for routers I would probably click to see what they had to say. I personally do not like being treated like an object. If you run a site for an intelligent audience, don't treat them like tools or statistical models.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A business makes money by definition .
if [ -e " whine " ] ; then echo " I feel your pain .
" ; fi If they had a section which said " Find out about buying X " they might actually get real results from the stuff .
A Microsoft ad will never sell me anything and if there were an ad for routers I would probably click to see what they had to say .
I personally do not like being treated like an object .
If you run a site for an intelligent audience , do n't treat them like tools or statistical models .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A business makes money by definition.
if [-e "whine"]; then echo "I feel your pain.
";fi
If they had a section which said "Find out about buying X" they might actually get real results from the stuff.
A Microsoft ad will never sell me anything and if there were an ad for routers I would probably click to see what they had to say.
I personally do not like being treated like an object.
If you run a site for an intelligent audience, don't treat them like tools or statistical models.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393110</id>
	<title>Re:It's the freeloaders time</title>
	<author>TeamMCS</author>
	<datestamp>1267952760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That gives me a thought, when an advert seriously contrasts with a page (*cough, HardOCP) it should be killed.

<br> <br>
It would be nice to see a way to [easily] finely tune AdBlock to allow certain types of adverts. That way we could take the power without dwindling ad revenues.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That gives me a thought , when an advert seriously contrasts with a page ( * cough , HardOCP ) it should be killed .
It would be nice to see a way to [ easily ] finely tune AdBlock to allow certain types of adverts .
That way we could take the power without dwindling ad revenues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That gives me a thought, when an advert seriously contrasts with a page (*cough, HardOCP) it should be killed.
It would be nice to see a way to [easily] finely tune AdBlock to allow certain types of adverts.
That way we could take the power without dwindling ad revenues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394456</id>
	<title>How about a mod system FOR THE ADS?</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1267961160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know what other people do, but I tune my ad-blocking solutions for each site, using pattern matching and turning their own standardized HTML and CSS against them where needed. I sometimes use the same pattern matching to remove other page elements that simply aren't relevant to me.</p><p>My ability to remove the offensive and distracting ads and the irrelevant content <i>actually works in favor</i> of the sites I so modify, because it <i>makes it more likely</i> I will choose to visit repeatedly.</p><p>Why do this? In large part because there's no effective means to give feedback to each site about which ads or ad spaces are offensive and which ones aren't. Many sites now have systems in place for rating the actual content, but how many offer a system to "mod" the delivered advertising? NONE. Not a single one. Not even Slashdot nor ARS Technica. If the site operators knew statistically which ads were doing more harm than good, they in turn could tune their ad delivery to reduce the offensiveness. Apparently it's never occurred to anyone but ME to implement such a system?! Why? Is is because I'm that much of a genius? No. It's because they just don't give a flying fuck if the ads are offensive to their visitors or not. <b>So instead of implementing a feedback system for the advertising, they implement "enforcement" schemes to thwart ad-blocking and try to make the ads even more attention-getting.</b></p><p>When you find a site that actually cares enough what its visitors think of its advertising to implement a feedback system for it, get back to me and we can have a more substantive discussion about the ethics of ad blocking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what other people do , but I tune my ad-blocking solutions for each site , using pattern matching and turning their own standardized HTML and CSS against them where needed .
I sometimes use the same pattern matching to remove other page elements that simply are n't relevant to me.My ability to remove the offensive and distracting ads and the irrelevant content actually works in favor of the sites I so modify , because it makes it more likely I will choose to visit repeatedly.Why do this ?
In large part because there 's no effective means to give feedback to each site about which ads or ad spaces are offensive and which ones are n't .
Many sites now have systems in place for rating the actual content , but how many offer a system to " mod " the delivered advertising ?
NONE. Not a single one .
Not even Slashdot nor ARS Technica .
If the site operators knew statistically which ads were doing more harm than good , they in turn could tune their ad delivery to reduce the offensiveness .
Apparently it 's never occurred to anyone but ME to implement such a system ? !
Why ? Is is because I 'm that much of a genius ?
No. It 's because they just do n't give a flying fuck if the ads are offensive to their visitors or not .
So instead of implementing a feedback system for the advertising , they implement " enforcement " schemes to thwart ad-blocking and try to make the ads even more attention-getting.When you find a site that actually cares enough what its visitors think of its advertising to implement a feedback system for it , get back to me and we can have a more substantive discussion about the ethics of ad blocking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what other people do, but I tune my ad-blocking solutions for each site, using pattern matching and turning their own standardized HTML and CSS against them where needed.
I sometimes use the same pattern matching to remove other page elements that simply aren't relevant to me.My ability to remove the offensive and distracting ads and the irrelevant content actually works in favor of the sites I so modify, because it makes it more likely I will choose to visit repeatedly.Why do this?
In large part because there's no effective means to give feedback to each site about which ads or ad spaces are offensive and which ones aren't.
Many sites now have systems in place for rating the actual content, but how many offer a system to "mod" the delivered advertising?
NONE. Not a single one.
Not even Slashdot nor ARS Technica.
If the site operators knew statistically which ads were doing more harm than good, they in turn could tune their ad delivery to reduce the offensiveness.
Apparently it's never occurred to anyone but ME to implement such a system?!
Why? Is is because I'm that much of a genius?
No. It's because they just don't give a flying fuck if the ads are offensive to their visitors or not.
So instead of implementing a feedback system for the advertising, they implement "enforcement" schemes to thwart ad-blocking and try to make the ads even more attention-getting.When you find a site that actually cares enough what its visitors think of its advertising to implement a feedback system for it, get back to me and we can have a more substantive discussion about the ethics of ad blocking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392154</id>
	<title>Like Pretentious Douchbag Daily Kos Message -</title>
	<author>gadlaw</author>
	<datestamp>1267990080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every few months I forget about the Daily Kos screaming  - "SUBSCRIBE! (or exclude from AdBlock)"  thing that greets me if I happen to click on that site. NO, I'm not going to subscribe and give you money, NO I'm not going to turn off AdBlock so I can be assailed by your ads. Here's what I will do for you Daily KOS douchbags - I'll click away from your site altogether and find something to read somewhere else. How's about that? What a Pretentious message to put out there for someone to read, I wonder how many folks say - 'oh jeez, I'm going to immediately subscribe to this site and turn my AdBlock off cause I've been dressed down.

If you all want us to not turn on the AdBlock then don't let all those annoying ads on the site. There are plenty of sites where I don't have the AdBlock turned on. In fact, if it's a site I like I do try to turn the AdBlock off and see what happens. Any site that tries to berate me gets nothing from me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every few months I forget about the Daily Kos screaming - " SUBSCRIBE !
( or exclude from AdBlock ) " thing that greets me if I happen to click on that site .
NO , I 'm not going to subscribe and give you money , NO I 'm not going to turn off AdBlock so I can be assailed by your ads .
Here 's what I will do for you Daily KOS douchbags - I 'll click away from your site altogether and find something to read somewhere else .
How 's about that ?
What a Pretentious message to put out there for someone to read , I wonder how many folks say - 'oh jeez , I 'm going to immediately subscribe to this site and turn my AdBlock off cause I 've been dressed down .
If you all want us to not turn on the AdBlock then do n't let all those annoying ads on the site .
There are plenty of sites where I do n't have the AdBlock turned on .
In fact , if it 's a site I like I do try to turn the AdBlock off and see what happens .
Any site that tries to berate me gets nothing from me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every few months I forget about the Daily Kos screaming  - "SUBSCRIBE!
(or exclude from AdBlock)"  thing that greets me if I happen to click on that site.
NO, I'm not going to subscribe and give you money, NO I'm not going to turn off AdBlock so I can be assailed by your ads.
Here's what I will do for you Daily KOS douchbags - I'll click away from your site altogether and find something to read somewhere else.
How's about that?
What a Pretentious message to put out there for someone to read, I wonder how many folks say - 'oh jeez, I'm going to immediately subscribe to this site and turn my AdBlock off cause I've been dressed down.
If you all want us to not turn on the AdBlock then don't let all those annoying ads on the site.
There are plenty of sites where I don't have the AdBlock turned on.
In fact, if it's a site I like I do try to turn the AdBlock off and see what happens.
Any site that tries to berate me gets nothing from me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31397820</id>
	<title>communal brainwashing</title>
	<author>epine</author>
	<datestamp>1267989360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a common meme to speculate what features of life on planet earth will prove hard to explain to ET once we finally meet one.  Communal brainwashing might rank right up there.  I lived through the seventies, which were the height of communal brainwashing, because there wasn't much else to do, unless you *really* liked winter sports.</p><p>It helps to think clearly about prostitution.  In addition to the risk of violence and being raped financially by your pimp, the customers don't necessarily have good hygiene, you don't know where they've been, and your guesses would likely be far too accurate.</p><p>Advertising is sweaty with greed.  After a hundred thousand ad impressions, you're not the same person any more.  You've lived too long in the gutter of commerce.  You're mentally unclean.</p><p>My policy is to ignore the ads even if they are turned on.  I have a method for discovering things I need to purchase.  It's the old Al Gore, and it serves me well, in blood hound mode.  I don't need sweaty businessmen tapping me on the visual shoulder with their idea of a great offer.  I'm one of those people where nothing goes in my cart until I've read the label.  I've said this several times before.  Capitalism only exists when *both sides* of a transaction are making rational decisions.  Any effort by one side to tilt the landscape through brainwashing techniques or emotional appeals is a degradation of capitalism.  Mutually informed, rational decisions are the miraculous device that make markets honest.</p><p>I would leave the ads turned on to benefit sites such as Ars, despite the fact that I think this is a ludicrous social convention, except for one small problem: too many ads blink.  Thinks that blink eat away at my attention something fierce.  I'm like one of Temple Grandin's cows.  The <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/temple\_grandin\_the\_world\_needs\_all\_kinds\_of\_minds.html" title="ted.com">flickering flag</a> [ted.com] drives me mad.  In some ways I have some autistic markers.  OTOH, I'm extremely perceptive to emotion, only not so much the surface emotion that everyone else picks up quickly (I'm often slow to process this); I tend to pick up the underlying cognitive state beneath the emotion, given enough time to triangulate.  It's a bit like what Feynman says about <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/richard\_feynman.html" title="ted.com">depth of explanation</a> [ted.com] (segment on magnetism).  I wouldn't call myself autistic, until an ad starts to blink on my screen, cutting my reading speed/comprehension by half.  Instant ad blocker.  Am I going to sacrifice 50\% of my capacity for 100\% of the reason I'm visiting a site, just so Ars can make a few pennies per page view when I've already made a blood pact with Adam Smith not to purchase anything I haven't independently researched?  Not in this lifetime.</p><p>Ads are a ludicrous substitute for a workable micro-payment system.  If we hadn't first invented the 1970s, this would be obvious to everyone.  Imagine if we had the micro-payment system first, and it worked, then some guy comes along with a business plan where "we distract the reader with emotionally charged images, impelling the viewer to buy a product they wouldn't have purchased on native intelligence, through the power of communal brainwashing".  Would this plan find any takers?</p><p>The entire culture of ad-influence commerce is an affront to human dignity, allowing us to become so caught up in image, we forget the nature of value.  Neither does prostitution do much for human dignity, on either side of the transaction.</p><p>It's too bad the majority is coddled into becoming gullible consumers.  We'd all be a lot more empowered if consumers voted their dollars rationally.  Everything good about markets would become better.  Good products would rise to the top, crap would be driven out.</p><p>I think long and hard about what life on planet earth might be like if we collectively less gullible, if this cheap Jedi mind trick didn't work half so well.  Maybe our gullibility to emotional persuasion is critical to our teetering social cohesion.  How is it tha</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a common meme to speculate what features of life on planet earth will prove hard to explain to ET once we finally meet one .
Communal brainwashing might rank right up there .
I lived through the seventies , which were the height of communal brainwashing , because there was n't much else to do , unless you * really * liked winter sports.It helps to think clearly about prostitution .
In addition to the risk of violence and being raped financially by your pimp , the customers do n't necessarily have good hygiene , you do n't know where they 've been , and your guesses would likely be far too accurate.Advertising is sweaty with greed .
After a hundred thousand ad impressions , you 're not the same person any more .
You 've lived too long in the gutter of commerce .
You 're mentally unclean.My policy is to ignore the ads even if they are turned on .
I have a method for discovering things I need to purchase .
It 's the old Al Gore , and it serves me well , in blood hound mode .
I do n't need sweaty businessmen tapping me on the visual shoulder with their idea of a great offer .
I 'm one of those people where nothing goes in my cart until I 've read the label .
I 've said this several times before .
Capitalism only exists when * both sides * of a transaction are making rational decisions .
Any effort by one side to tilt the landscape through brainwashing techniques or emotional appeals is a degradation of capitalism .
Mutually informed , rational decisions are the miraculous device that make markets honest.I would leave the ads turned on to benefit sites such as Ars , despite the fact that I think this is a ludicrous social convention , except for one small problem : too many ads blink .
Thinks that blink eat away at my attention something fierce .
I 'm like one of Temple Grandin 's cows .
The flickering flag [ ted.com ] drives me mad .
In some ways I have some autistic markers .
OTOH , I 'm extremely perceptive to emotion , only not so much the surface emotion that everyone else picks up quickly ( I 'm often slow to process this ) ; I tend to pick up the underlying cognitive state beneath the emotion , given enough time to triangulate .
It 's a bit like what Feynman says about depth of explanation [ ted.com ] ( segment on magnetism ) .
I would n't call myself autistic , until an ad starts to blink on my screen , cutting my reading speed/comprehension by half .
Instant ad blocker .
Am I going to sacrifice 50 \ % of my capacity for 100 \ % of the reason I 'm visiting a site , just so Ars can make a few pennies per page view when I 've already made a blood pact with Adam Smith not to purchase anything I have n't independently researched ?
Not in this lifetime.Ads are a ludicrous substitute for a workable micro-payment system .
If we had n't first invented the 1970s , this would be obvious to everyone .
Imagine if we had the micro-payment system first , and it worked , then some guy comes along with a business plan where " we distract the reader with emotionally charged images , impelling the viewer to buy a product they would n't have purchased on native intelligence , through the power of communal brainwashing " .
Would this plan find any takers ? The entire culture of ad-influence commerce is an affront to human dignity , allowing us to become so caught up in image , we forget the nature of value .
Neither does prostitution do much for human dignity , on either side of the transaction.It 's too bad the majority is coddled into becoming gullible consumers .
We 'd all be a lot more empowered if consumers voted their dollars rationally .
Everything good about markets would become better .
Good products would rise to the top , crap would be driven out.I think long and hard about what life on planet earth might be like if we collectively less gullible , if this cheap Jedi mind trick did n't work half so well .
Maybe our gullibility to emotional persuasion is critical to our teetering social cohesion .
How is it tha</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a common meme to speculate what features of life on planet earth will prove hard to explain to ET once we finally meet one.
Communal brainwashing might rank right up there.
I lived through the seventies, which were the height of communal brainwashing, because there wasn't much else to do, unless you *really* liked winter sports.It helps to think clearly about prostitution.
In addition to the risk of violence and being raped financially by your pimp, the customers don't necessarily have good hygiene, you don't know where they've been, and your guesses would likely be far too accurate.Advertising is sweaty with greed.
After a hundred thousand ad impressions, you're not the same person any more.
You've lived too long in the gutter of commerce.
You're mentally unclean.My policy is to ignore the ads even if they are turned on.
I have a method for discovering things I need to purchase.
It's the old Al Gore, and it serves me well, in blood hound mode.
I don't need sweaty businessmen tapping me on the visual shoulder with their idea of a great offer.
I'm one of those people where nothing goes in my cart until I've read the label.
I've said this several times before.
Capitalism only exists when *both sides* of a transaction are making rational decisions.
Any effort by one side to tilt the landscape through brainwashing techniques or emotional appeals is a degradation of capitalism.
Mutually informed, rational decisions are the miraculous device that make markets honest.I would leave the ads turned on to benefit sites such as Ars, despite the fact that I think this is a ludicrous social convention, except for one small problem: too many ads blink.
Thinks that blink eat away at my attention something fierce.
I'm like one of Temple Grandin's cows.
The flickering flag [ted.com] drives me mad.
In some ways I have some autistic markers.
OTOH, I'm extremely perceptive to emotion, only not so much the surface emotion that everyone else picks up quickly (I'm often slow to process this); I tend to pick up the underlying cognitive state beneath the emotion, given enough time to triangulate.
It's a bit like what Feynman says about depth of explanation [ted.com] (segment on magnetism).
I wouldn't call myself autistic, until an ad starts to blink on my screen, cutting my reading speed/comprehension by half.
Instant ad blocker.
Am I going to sacrifice 50\% of my capacity for 100\% of the reason I'm visiting a site, just so Ars can make a few pennies per page view when I've already made a blood pact with Adam Smith not to purchase anything I haven't independently researched?
Not in this lifetime.Ads are a ludicrous substitute for a workable micro-payment system.
If we hadn't first invented the 1970s, this would be obvious to everyone.
Imagine if we had the micro-payment system first, and it worked, then some guy comes along with a business plan where "we distract the reader with emotionally charged images, impelling the viewer to buy a product they wouldn't have purchased on native intelligence, through the power of communal brainwashing".
Would this plan find any takers?The entire culture of ad-influence commerce is an affront to human dignity, allowing us to become so caught up in image, we forget the nature of value.
Neither does prostitution do much for human dignity, on either side of the transaction.It's too bad the majority is coddled into becoming gullible consumers.
We'd all be a lot more empowered if consumers voted their dollars rationally.
Everything good about markets would become better.
Good products would rise to the top, crap would be driven out.I think long and hard about what life on planet earth might be like if we collectively less gullible, if this cheap Jedi mind trick didn't work half so well.
Maybe our gullibility to emotional persuasion is critical to our teetering social cohesion.
How is it tha</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390746</id>
	<title>Re:The other side: Ad abuse and malware</title>
	<author>c-reus</author>
	<datestamp>1267982820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't use ad blockers. However, I do have ad.doubleclick.com and a few other ad serving sites in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/hosts, mapped to 127.0.0.1.</p><p>The logic works like this: if an annoying ad is shown somewhere, the ad server gets added to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/hosts. Ad servers that serve static or text only ads are fine by me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't use ad blockers .
However , I do have ad.doubleclick.com and a few other ad serving sites in /etc/hosts , mapped to 127.0.0.1.The logic works like this : if an annoying ad is shown somewhere , the ad server gets added to /etc/hosts .
Ad servers that serve static or text only ads are fine by me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't use ad blockers.
However, I do have ad.doubleclick.com and a few other ad serving sites in /etc/hosts, mapped to 127.0.0.1.The logic works like this: if an annoying ad is shown somewhere, the ad server gets added to /etc/hosts.
Ad servers that serve static or text only ads are fine by me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394060</id>
	<title>"I don't mind so-and-so ads, it's the others!"</title>
	<author>Spewns</author>
	<datestamp>1267959060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't relate to the bandwagon of "I don't mind ads that are X and Y, I just can't stand Z!" at all.</p><p>I despise X, Y, Z, A, B, C, and D ads. All of them. I resent the whole idea of modern marketing and advertising. The whole point of this article against adblocking is to evoke an emotional response. Brainwash your audience into feeling sympathetic and disabling their adblockers, and your ad revenue goes up. It isn't rocket science. They're a business - they exist to lie, cheat, manipulate, and steal to maximize profit. There's no sympathy to be had.</p><p>

I started using Adblock Plus a long time ago, and it's amazing how one addon like that can completely revamp the entire web. I've tried browsing without it since and I really can't. The internet is a wasteland.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't relate to the bandwagon of " I do n't mind ads that are X and Y , I just ca n't stand Z !
" at all.I despise X , Y , Z , A , B , C , and D ads .
All of them .
I resent the whole idea of modern marketing and advertising .
The whole point of this article against adblocking is to evoke an emotional response .
Brainwash your audience into feeling sympathetic and disabling their adblockers , and your ad revenue goes up .
It is n't rocket science .
They 're a business - they exist to lie , cheat , manipulate , and steal to maximize profit .
There 's no sympathy to be had .
I started using Adblock Plus a long time ago , and it 's amazing how one addon like that can completely revamp the entire web .
I 've tried browsing without it since and I really ca n't .
The internet is a wasteland .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't relate to the bandwagon of "I don't mind ads that are X and Y, I just can't stand Z!
" at all.I despise X, Y, Z, A, B, C, and D ads.
All of them.
I resent the whole idea of modern marketing and advertising.
The whole point of this article against adblocking is to evoke an emotional response.
Brainwash your audience into feeling sympathetic and disabling their adblockers, and your ad revenue goes up.
It isn't rocket science.
They're a business - they exist to lie, cheat, manipulate, and steal to maximize profit.
There's no sympathy to be had.
I started using Adblock Plus a long time ago, and it's amazing how one addon like that can completely revamp the entire web.
I've tried browsing without it since and I really can't.
The internet is a wasteland.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392436</id>
	<title>OK</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1267991580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All *I* ask is that the ads not be the visual equivalent of being in a box of cymbals bouncing down a flight of stairs. I don't block ads because they are ads- I block them because they are ANNOYING. Was it Ars or Wired that has those Intel ads recently where people walk across the content put put up an Intel logo? If you put ads on *top* of the content and gobble up *my* processor cycles to do it, then I have no sympathy for any fallout you suffer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All * I * ask is that the ads not be the visual equivalent of being in a box of cymbals bouncing down a flight of stairs .
I do n't block ads because they are ads- I block them because they are ANNOYING .
Was it Ars or Wired that has those Intel ads recently where people walk across the content put put up an Intel logo ?
If you put ads on * top * of the content and gobble up * my * processor cycles to do it , then I have no sympathy for any fallout you suffer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All *I* ask is that the ads not be the visual equivalent of being in a box of cymbals bouncing down a flight of stairs.
I don't block ads because they are ads- I block them because they are ANNOYING.
Was it Ars or Wired that has those Intel ads recently where people walk across the content put put up an Intel logo?
If you put ads on *top* of the content and gobble up *my* processor cycles to do it, then I have no sympathy for any fallout you suffer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389808</id>
	<title>Your model is broken</title>
	<author>bryan314</author>
	<datestamp>1267977120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If people are blocking ads, the problem is with your advertising, not with the people.<br>Adverting by definition, is a request for attention, not a requirement.<br>Ad block software is our way of telling you, you f'd up, and we're not paying attention until you, the site owners, fix it.<br>I have no sympathy if your site goes under because of your poor business model advertising decisions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If people are blocking ads , the problem is with your advertising , not with the people.Adverting by definition , is a request for attention , not a requirement.Ad block software is our way of telling you , you f 'd up , and we 're not paying attention until you , the site owners , fix it.I have no sympathy if your site goes under because of your poor business model advertising decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If people are blocking ads, the problem is with your advertising, not with the people.Adverting by definition, is a request for attention, not a requirement.Ad block software is our way of telling you, you f'd up, and we're not paying attention until you, the site owners, fix it.I have no sympathy if your site goes under because of your poor business model advertising decisions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389196</id>
	<title>Re:I have ad block in because of facebook</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1267973700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"While personally I don't like facebook, I have lots of friends on it so I do use it."<br> <br>

You know, it is not that hard to stay off Facebook, even if your friends are on it.  I would guess that all of my friends are on Facebook, but the fact that I am not has not caused any major problems...</htmltext>
<tokenext>" While personally I do n't like facebook , I have lots of friends on it so I do use it .
" You know , it is not that hard to stay off Facebook , even if your friends are on it .
I would guess that all of my friends are on Facebook , but the fact that I am not has not caused any major problems.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"While personally I don't like facebook, I have lots of friends on it so I do use it.
" 

You know, it is not that hard to stay off Facebook, even if your friends are on it.
I would guess that all of my friends are on Facebook, but the fact that I am not has not caused any major problems...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31407228</id>
	<title>Re:My thoughts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268049840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this would explain why adblockers in chrome still load the ads, then remove them... you generally only see them for a second, then poof. but at least they load. chromes made by google, who makes virtually all their money off ads. they say they're working on changing it so ads are completely blocked from loading, but they don't appear to be in a hurry.</p><p>i'd switch from firefox toot sweet if they would change it, i like chrome. but i prefer not to waste the bandwidth to see ads i would never click. i don't trust ads, i don't look at ads, and i would never click an ad... not even from a site i trusted, cause it might be served from elsewhere. and i really don't like wasting the bandwidth... i have plenty to spare technically, but you gotta admit, transferring all the data for all those ads all day every day has got to use an awful lot of power.... and how much of that is causing pollution.</p><p>i can think of better ways to make money then having ads, and i'm a nobody. sure, right now having ads is an easy way to make money... but that appears to be changing. tomorrow, evolution could be mandatory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this would explain why adblockers in chrome still load the ads , then remove them... you generally only see them for a second , then poof .
but at least they load .
chromes made by google , who makes virtually all their money off ads .
they say they 're working on changing it so ads are completely blocked from loading , but they do n't appear to be in a hurry.i 'd switch from firefox toot sweet if they would change it , i like chrome .
but i prefer not to waste the bandwidth to see ads i would never click .
i do n't trust ads , i do n't look at ads , and i would never click an ad... not even from a site i trusted , cause it might be served from elsewhere .
and i really do n't like wasting the bandwidth... i have plenty to spare technically , but you got ta admit , transferring all the data for all those ads all day every day has got to use an awful lot of power.... and how much of that is causing pollution.i can think of better ways to make money then having ads , and i 'm a nobody .
sure , right now having ads is an easy way to make money... but that appears to be changing .
tomorrow , evolution could be mandatory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this would explain why adblockers in chrome still load the ads, then remove them... you generally only see them for a second, then poof.
but at least they load.
chromes made by google, who makes virtually all their money off ads.
they say they're working on changing it so ads are completely blocked from loading, but they don't appear to be in a hurry.i'd switch from firefox toot sweet if they would change it, i like chrome.
but i prefer not to waste the bandwidth to see ads i would never click.
i don't trust ads, i don't look at ads, and i would never click an ad... not even from a site i trusted, cause it might be served from elsewhere.
and i really don't like wasting the bandwidth... i have plenty to spare technically, but you gotta admit, transferring all the data for all those ads all day every day has got to use an awful lot of power.... and how much of that is causing pollution.i can think of better ways to make money then having ads, and i'm a nobody.
sure, right now having ads is an easy way to make money... but that appears to be changing.
tomorrow, evolution could be mandatory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389262</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Ars, you are animated too</title>
	<author>lc\_overlord</author>
	<datestamp>1267974000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to agree, though personally i don't mind the slightly animated ones.</p><p>They started it (not specifically Ars Technica), they got greedy in wanting to maximize ad exposure and now they have to pay the price, it's that simple.<br>I mean i am not against advertising as i am myself trying to start something up that is partially ad supported, but until something can be done about this i have to block everything, and so should everyone else.</p><p>I have a suggestion, lets introduce a new html tag called noadblock (or possibly a CSS value)<br>within it the browser and relevant plug-in will make sure that content cant be alowed to<br>*make a sound<br>*change size, visibility or position<br>*expand past it's set borders<br>*be transparent<br>*have a total area larger than half a screen or something like that<br>*take long to load (in addition they also have to load last)<br>*interact with the user except for normal linking</p><p>but in return all adblockers will respect that tag and show it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agree , though personally i do n't mind the slightly animated ones.They started it ( not specifically Ars Technica ) , they got greedy in wanting to maximize ad exposure and now they have to pay the price , it 's that simple.I mean i am not against advertising as i am myself trying to start something up that is partially ad supported , but until something can be done about this i have to block everything , and so should everyone else.I have a suggestion , lets introduce a new html tag called noadblock ( or possibly a CSS value ) within it the browser and relevant plug-in will make sure that content cant be alowed to * make a sound * change size , visibility or position * expand past it 's set borders * be transparent * have a total area larger than half a screen or something like that * take long to load ( in addition they also have to load last ) * interact with the user except for normal linkingbut in return all adblockers will respect that tag and show it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agree, though personally i don't mind the slightly animated ones.They started it (not specifically Ars Technica), they got greedy in wanting to maximize ad exposure and now they have to pay the price, it's that simple.I mean i am not against advertising as i am myself trying to start something up that is partially ad supported, but until something can be done about this i have to block everything, and so should everyone else.I have a suggestion, lets introduce a new html tag called noadblock (or possibly a CSS value)within it the browser and relevant plug-in will make sure that content cant be alowed to*make a sound*change size, visibility or position*expand past it's set borders*be transparent*have a total area larger than half a screen or something like that*take long to load (in addition they also have to load last)*interact with the user except for normal linkingbut in return all adblockers will respect that tag and show it</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394784</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward :)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267963440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that they think the Business Case they have is the one and only working one. Its said that TV just works different as in the web they can track and charge anything. Well try the TV case and be happy if someone stays during the ads and not takes a pi** as usual during ad breaks in TV. Stop whining you poor guys and start thinking that might help more then anoy your customers and call them thives. What if I spend my whole day in a mall but buy nothing? Did I also steal the warm air and the space offered to maybe others who would have bought something? You guys are discusting with your atitude that if I stumble upon your page you have to bombard me with ads and I have to take them. I avoid ads in real live as I do so in the web so where is the difference? Just die if you fail to make business out of the web.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that they think the Business Case they have is the one and only working one .
Its said that TV just works different as in the web they can track and charge anything .
Well try the TV case and be happy if someone stays during the ads and not takes a pi * * as usual during ad breaks in TV .
Stop whining you poor guys and start thinking that might help more then anoy your customers and call them thives .
What if I spend my whole day in a mall but buy nothing ?
Did I also steal the warm air and the space offered to maybe others who would have bought something ?
You guys are discusting with your atitude that if I stumble upon your page you have to bombard me with ads and I have to take them .
I avoid ads in real live as I do so in the web so where is the difference ?
Just die if you fail to make business out of the web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that they think the Business Case they have is the one and only working one.
Its said that TV just works different as in the web they can track and charge anything.
Well try the TV case and be happy if someone stays during the ads and not takes a pi** as usual during ad breaks in TV.
Stop whining you poor guys and start thinking that might help more then anoy your customers and call them thives.
What if I spend my whole day in a mall but buy nothing?
Did I also steal the warm air and the space offered to maybe others who would have bought something?
You guys are discusting with your atitude that if I stumble upon your page you have to bombard me with ads and I have to take them.
I avoid ads in real live as I do so in the web so where is the difference?
Just die if you fail to make business out of the web.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31395172</id>
	<title>But if you wont be using the ads..?</title>
	<author>datakid23</author>
	<datestamp>1267966380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what am I meant to do? I'm never going to click on an ad, ever, full stop. I just don't work like that. Don't feel special, internet, I similarly ignore ads in daily newspapers and magazines as well as on television. The truth is, I spend more time on the internet because my filtering system is better.

I hear what you are saying Ars, but it presumes that ads are effective on all of your readers. They're not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what am I meant to do ?
I 'm never going to click on an ad , ever , full stop .
I just do n't work like that .
Do n't feel special , internet , I similarly ignore ads in daily newspapers and magazines as well as on television .
The truth is , I spend more time on the internet because my filtering system is better .
I hear what you are saying Ars , but it presumes that ads are effective on all of your readers .
They 're not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what am I meant to do?
I'm never going to click on an ad, ever, full stop.
I just don't work like that.
Don't feel special, internet, I similarly ignore ads in daily newspapers and magazines as well as on television.
The truth is, I spend more time on the internet because my filtering system is better.
I hear what you are saying Ars, but it presumes that ads are effective on all of your readers.
They're not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394198</id>
	<title>The Bottom Line...</title>
	<author>Disz</author>
	<datestamp>1267959900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...is this;

If you wanted to get rich, you should've finished your CS, instead of transferring into journalism.
I don't exist to make you money, Ars. In fact, for being so arrogant as to try and illustrate the idea that I should be making you money, I'm blacklisting your entire fucking domain. Don't appreciate that? Eat a dick. Anandtech, Tom's Hardware...[H]ard|OCP...plenty of other sites out there that handle tech.
Technophiles want hardware opinions and the math that backs them up - not a popup full of blinkenlights trying to sell them cock pills and hero worship.

Learn your place or enjoy your obsolescence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...is this ; If you wanted to get rich , you should 've finished your CS , instead of transferring into journalism .
I do n't exist to make you money , Ars .
In fact , for being so arrogant as to try and illustrate the idea that I should be making you money , I 'm blacklisting your entire fucking domain .
Do n't appreciate that ?
Eat a dick .
Anandtech , Tom 's Hardware... [ H ] ard | OCP...plenty of other sites out there that handle tech .
Technophiles want hardware opinions and the math that backs them up - not a popup full of blinkenlights trying to sell them cock pills and hero worship .
Learn your place or enjoy your obsolescence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is this;

If you wanted to get rich, you should've finished your CS, instead of transferring into journalism.
I don't exist to make you money, Ars.
In fact, for being so arrogant as to try and illustrate the idea that I should be making you money, I'm blacklisting your entire fucking domain.
Don't appreciate that?
Eat a dick.
Anandtech, Tom's Hardware...[H]ard|OCP...plenty of other sites out there that handle tech.
Technophiles want hardware opinions and the math that backs them up - not a popup full of blinkenlights trying to sell them cock pills and hero worship.
Learn your place or enjoy your obsolescence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388870</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmmm</title>
	<author>mrsteveman1</author>
	<datestamp>1267972080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not seeing an ad removes around $0.003-0.009 revenue per person. Clicking an ad can bring in $20+ per click.</p><p>Automating that click would be fraud.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not seeing an ad removes around $ 0.003-0.009 revenue per person .
Clicking an ad can bring in $ 20 + per click.Automating that click would be fraud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not seeing an ad removes around $0.003-0.009 revenue per person.
Clicking an ad can bring in $20+ per click.Automating that click would be fraud.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31399926</id>
	<title>Let's meet in the middle</title>
	<author>Ngarrang</author>
	<datestamp>1268059320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will stop blocking ads, if you promise to make the ads less stupid.</p><p>1.  Ban the use of ads with Audio/Video on them.  They are stealing MY bandwidth.<br>2.  If the ad uses animation, ban it.<br>3.  If the ad uses Flash, ban it.<br>4.  If the ad uses JavaScript, ban it.<br>5.  If the ad jumps out and covers up my screen because my mouse scrolled over, ban it.</p><p>Take the ads back to single pic GIFs and JPGs, or simple text like Google and we will stop blocking them.</p><p>All of the above steal the bandwidth *I* am paying for.  They slow down my browsing experience.  They are often transports for malware (I'm looking at you Flash Player).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will stop blocking ads , if you promise to make the ads less stupid.1 .
Ban the use of ads with Audio/Video on them .
They are stealing MY bandwidth.2 .
If the ad uses animation , ban it.3 .
If the ad uses Flash , ban it.4 .
If the ad uses JavaScript , ban it.5 .
If the ad jumps out and covers up my screen because my mouse scrolled over , ban it.Take the ads back to single pic GIFs and JPGs , or simple text like Google and we will stop blocking them.All of the above steal the bandwidth * I * am paying for .
They slow down my browsing experience .
They are often transports for malware ( I 'm looking at you Flash Player ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will stop blocking ads, if you promise to make the ads less stupid.1.
Ban the use of ads with Audio/Video on them.
They are stealing MY bandwidth.2.
If the ad uses animation, ban it.3.
If the ad uses Flash, ban it.4.
If the ad uses JavaScript, ban it.5.
If the ad jumps out and covers up my screen because my mouse scrolled over, ban it.Take the ads back to single pic GIFs and JPGs, or simple text like Google and we will stop blocking them.All of the above steal the bandwidth *I* am paying for.
They slow down my browsing experience.
They are often transports for malware (I'm looking at you Flash Player).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390358</id>
	<title>Re:How is this different than muting TV commercial</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267980540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article actually addresses this argument directly...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article actually addresses this argument directly.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article actually addresses this argument directly...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392670</id>
	<title>Re:It's the freeloaders time</title>
	<author>BatGnat</author>
	<datestamp>1267993260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We need an ad whitelist.</p> </div><p>No, YOU need a whitelist.  I am Quite happy with blocking ads.....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We need an ad whitelist .
No , YOU need a whitelist .
I am Quite happy with blocking ads.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need an ad whitelist.
No, YOU need a whitelist.
I am Quite happy with blocking ads.....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394688</id>
	<title>Explain this from '08 then, GameEnder</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267962780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica</b> -&gt; Philip</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PM<br>internet</p><p>Philip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it. When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus. Here is a copy of my log. I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites. 1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"</p><p>Link to Original Source</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica - &gt; Philiphttp : //slashdot.org/firehose.pl ? op = view&amp;id = 447008 [ slashdot.org ] Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008 , @ 03 : 00PMinternetPhilip writes " It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it .
When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus .
Here is a copy of my log .
I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites .
1/2/2008 2 : 27 : 15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe ( http : //arstechnica.com/index.ars ) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO ( Trojan ) " Link to Original Sourcehttp : //slashdot.org/firehose.pl ? op = view&amp;id = 447008 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica -&gt; Philiphttp://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008 [slashdot.org]Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PMinternetPhilip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it.
When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus.
Here is a copy of my log.
I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites.
1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"Link to Original Sourcehttp://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394050</id>
	<title>Re:It's the freeloaders time</title>
	<author>Phoobarnvaz</author>
	<datestamp>1267959000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The industry would (and currently is attempting to) outlaw any technology that is capable of bypassing ads in any medium. Hell, if they could get away with it, they would outlaw eyelids so you couldn't close your eyes and mandate locking seatbelts that wouldn't allow you to get up and go to the bathroom during commercial breaks.</p><p>Did I mention I hate most ads?</p></div><p>According to the industry...just recording their programs for later viewing is stealing...since the ads they're running may not be applicable for whatever later time I may watch the show. Plus...I'm stealing future revenue...since having seen the average TV show...don't want to watch it again...so no season whatever of that show on DVD or ITunes.<br> <br>
Just wonder how much of a load they would drop when they find out I edit out EVERY commercial...so I don't need to watch a wasted 15-20 minutes of the hour they STEAL from me. Do I really need to be told I can't get it up anymore without the blue pill or make sure to remind me that that time of the month is coming up? <br> <br>
You want me to watch your commercials...you pay me to do so. At that time...you'll have my full attention &amp; will gladly give you the time I would otherwise spend for my own pleasuring.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The industry would ( and currently is attempting to ) outlaw any technology that is capable of bypassing ads in any medium .
Hell , if they could get away with it , they would outlaw eyelids so you could n't close your eyes and mandate locking seatbelts that would n't allow you to get up and go to the bathroom during commercial breaks.Did I mention I hate most ads ? According to the industry...just recording their programs for later viewing is stealing...since the ads they 're running may not be applicable for whatever later time I may watch the show .
Plus...I 'm stealing future revenue...since having seen the average TV show...do n't want to watch it again...so no season whatever of that show on DVD or ITunes .
Just wonder how much of a load they would drop when they find out I edit out EVERY commercial...so I do n't need to watch a wasted 15-20 minutes of the hour they STEAL from me .
Do I really need to be told I ca n't get it up anymore without the blue pill or make sure to remind me that that time of the month is coming up ?
You want me to watch your commercials...you pay me to do so .
At that time...you 'll have my full attention &amp; will gladly give you the time I would otherwise spend for my own pleasuring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The industry would (and currently is attempting to) outlaw any technology that is capable of bypassing ads in any medium.
Hell, if they could get away with it, they would outlaw eyelids so you couldn't close your eyes and mandate locking seatbelts that wouldn't allow you to get up and go to the bathroom during commercial breaks.Did I mention I hate most ads?According to the industry...just recording their programs for later viewing is stealing...since the ads they're running may not be applicable for whatever later time I may watch the show.
Plus...I'm stealing future revenue...since having seen the average TV show...don't want to watch it again...so no season whatever of that show on DVD or ITunes.
Just wonder how much of a load they would drop when they find out I edit out EVERY commercial...so I don't need to watch a wasted 15-20 minutes of the hour they STEAL from me.
Do I really need to be told I can't get it up anymore without the blue pill or make sure to remind me that that time of the month is coming up?
You want me to watch your commercials...you pay me to do so.
At that time...you'll have my full attention &amp; will gladly give you the time I would otherwise spend for my own pleasuring.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389412</id>
	<title>"Stealth" ad blocking</title>
	<author>RevWaldo</author>
	<datestamp>1267974840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
It would seem technically feasible to have an ad blocker that actually downloads the ad content as if it's being displayed - and just not display it. It would appear to the ad agency the ads are getting through, even though in reality the user never sees them.<br>
Not a good solution by any means, as it needlessly wastes bandwidth, processor cycles, memory, etc.<br>
Of course this would just be one more salvo in the internet advertising arms race. What the advertisers would do to get around <i>this</i> should make one shudder to think.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would seem technically feasible to have an ad blocker that actually downloads the ad content as if it 's being displayed - and just not display it .
It would appear to the ad agency the ads are getting through , even though in reality the user never sees them .
Not a good solution by any means , as it needlessly wastes bandwidth , processor cycles , memory , etc .
Of course this would just be one more salvo in the internet advertising arms race .
What the advertisers would do to get around this should make one shudder to think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It would seem technically feasible to have an ad blocker that actually downloads the ad content as if it's being displayed - and just not display it.
It would appear to the ad agency the ads are getting through, even though in reality the user never sees them.
Not a good solution by any means, as it needlessly wastes bandwidth, processor cycles, memory, etc.
Of course this would just be one more salvo in the internet advertising arms race.
What the advertisers would do to get around this should make one shudder to think.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389068</id>
	<title>So Ars is selling impressions?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267972980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Ars was selling click-throughs, then ad blocking would only help them, because it saves them bandwidth they're using serving ads you'll never click on. But they're obviously selling impressions.</p><p>They're going to save even more bandwidth if they ban people using ad blockers; I, for one, am content to get my news elsewhere. Ars articles have been going steadily downhill anyway. I haven't even seen one linked from here in quite some time, so I'm not clear on why I need to read them anyway. I suspect I don't. Any content which cannot exist without ads is not important to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Ars was selling click-throughs , then ad blocking would only help them , because it saves them bandwidth they 're using serving ads you 'll never click on .
But they 're obviously selling impressions.They 're going to save even more bandwidth if they ban people using ad blockers ; I , for one , am content to get my news elsewhere .
Ars articles have been going steadily downhill anyway .
I have n't even seen one linked from here in quite some time , so I 'm not clear on why I need to read them anyway .
I suspect I do n't .
Any content which can not exist without ads is not important to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Ars was selling click-throughs, then ad blocking would only help them, because it saves them bandwidth they're using serving ads you'll never click on.
But they're obviously selling impressions.They're going to save even more bandwidth if they ban people using ad blockers; I, for one, am content to get my news elsewhere.
Ars articles have been going steadily downhill anyway.
I haven't even seen one linked from here in quite some time, so I'm not clear on why I need to read them anyway.
I suspect I don't.
Any content which cannot exist without ads is not important to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390316</id>
	<title>Agreed. 110\% (here is why, per /. no less)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267980240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>Also, if a websurfer can go faster online by blocking out banner ads (as well as safer, per the article above), then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock (or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript), or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files, or a custom HOSTS file.</p><p>There's that above, which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation (which is not cheap, and not every "Joe Sixpack" knows how it is done, or wants to for that matter), and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.</p><p>So it's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime, and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too, but also to pay for Ken Fisher's life on top of that all as well? A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt, and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done, as well as the coding work put into his site (which I doubt he did every line of himself as well).</p><p><b>So, who are the REAL freeloaders here?</b></p><p>The end users, or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V., since both basically snag a user's subconscious attention via a "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"!)</p><p>So, once more: <b>Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here??</b></p><p>The end users, or those using them (website owners) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked, basically yelling at them "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"? There's the real question to ask here!)??</p><p>This is a "double-edged sword", and that is all there is to it, period. Ken Fisher "made hay while the sun shined" &amp; now that sun is fading, because people are WISE to those like he, who use others to make a profit via said person's actual efforts in content creation (whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less).</p><p>"The art of good business is putting people together", sure - until they "wise up" to it that is. Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it (see the URL above once more in regards to that), and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is "above such mundane things"? Then I suggest they rethink their premises. People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain. Don't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise.</p><p>Above all - I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts?? How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors???</p><p>I hope the article writer reads this. The jigs up buddy, and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains, because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply, then you'd fund that website of yours yourself, Mr. Ken Fisher (after all, you've profited by others long enough to do so, right?) - that, and Ken Fisher would find out "faithful" his arstech 'subscriptors' are, as well as he having to do the actual work in creating the content (instead of using others like Emil Protalinski for example to do so, while he pays them squat compared to what he makes off of their efforts by way of comparison).</p><p>No, the game's over Ken Fisher, face it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus : http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/06/15/2056219 [ slashdot.org ] Also , if a websurfer can go faster online by blocking out banner ads ( as well as safer , per the article above ) , then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock ( or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript ) , or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files , or a custom HOSTS file.There 's that above , which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation ( which is not cheap , and not every " Joe Sixpack " knows how it is done , or wants to for that matter ) , and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.So it 's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime , and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too , but also to pay for Ken Fisher 's life on top of that all as well ?
A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt , and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done , as well as the coding work put into his site ( which I doubt he did every line of himself as well ) .So , who are the REAL freeloaders here ? The end users , or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads ( which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V. , since both basically snag a user 's subconscious attention via a " look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need " !
) So , once more : Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here ?
? The end users , or those using them ( website owners ) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads ( which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked , basically yelling at them " look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need " ?
There 's the real question to ask here ! ) ?
? This is a " double-edged sword " , and that is all there is to it , period .
Ken Fisher " made hay while the sun shined " &amp; now that sun is fading , because people are WISE to those like he , who use others to make a profit via said person 's actual efforts in content creation ( whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less ) .
" The art of good business is putting people together " , sure - until they " wise up " to it that is .
Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it ( see the URL above once more in regards to that ) , and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is " above such mundane things " ?
Then I suggest they rethink their premises .
People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain .
Do n't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise.Above all - I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts ? ?
How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he 's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors ? ?
? I hope the article writer reads this .
The jigs up buddy , and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains , because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply , then you 'd fund that website of yours yourself , Mr. Ken Fisher ( after all , you 've profited by others long enough to do so , right ?
) - that , and Ken Fisher would find out " faithful " his arstech 'subscriptors ' are , as well as he having to do the actual work in creating the content ( instead of using others like Emil Protalinski for example to do so , while he pays them squat compared to what he makes off of their efforts by way of comparison ) .No , the game 's over Ken Fisher , face it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219 [slashdot.org]Also, if a websurfer can go faster online by blocking out banner ads (as well as safer, per the article above), then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock (or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript), or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files, or a custom HOSTS file.There's that above, which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation (which is not cheap, and not every "Joe Sixpack" knows how it is done, or wants to for that matter), and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.So it's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime, and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too, but also to pay for Ken Fisher's life on top of that all as well?
A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt, and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done, as well as the coding work put into his site (which I doubt he did every line of himself as well).So, who are the REAL freeloaders here?The end users, or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V., since both basically snag a user's subconscious attention via a "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"!
)So, once more: Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here?
?The end users, or those using them (website owners) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked, basically yelling at them "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"?
There's the real question to ask here!)?
?This is a "double-edged sword", and that is all there is to it, period.
Ken Fisher "made hay while the sun shined" &amp; now that sun is fading, because people are WISE to those like he, who use others to make a profit via said person's actual efforts in content creation (whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less).
"The art of good business is putting people together", sure - until they "wise up" to it that is.
Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it (see the URL above once more in regards to that), and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is "above such mundane things"?
Then I suggest they rethink their premises.
People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain.
Don't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise.Above all - I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts??
How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors??
?I hope the article writer reads this.
The jigs up buddy, and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains, because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply, then you'd fund that website of yours yourself, Mr. Ken Fisher (after all, you've profited by others long enough to do so, right?
) - that, and Ken Fisher would find out "faithful" his arstech 'subscriptors' are, as well as he having to do the actual work in creating the content (instead of using others like Emil Protalinski for example to do so, while he pays them squat compared to what he makes off of their efforts by way of comparison).No, the game's over Ken Fisher, face it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389600</id>
	<title>Well now.</title>
	<author>Smooth and Shiny</author>
	<datestamp>1267975920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When sites go through the extra trouble to make sure that ads are not intrusive and that they do not contain rootkits, trojans or other nasty stuff, I will stop blocking ads. Until then, I don't feel bad AT ALL.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When sites go through the extra trouble to make sure that ads are not intrusive and that they do not contain rootkits , trojans or other nasty stuff , I will stop blocking ads .
Until then , I do n't feel bad AT ALL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When sites go through the extra trouble to make sure that ads are not intrusive and that they do not contain rootkits, trojans or other nasty stuff, I will stop blocking ads.
Until then, I don't feel bad AT ALL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31395338</id>
	<title>Re:It's the freeloaders time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267967820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't block ads.  If a site I want to visit insists on pop-up / annoying ads, I don't visit them any more.  I've had that little check box that says "disable ads" from Slashdot for quite a while not, and yet, I don't click it because I want to support them.  Sites I like, I'll occasionally click their ads so they get some click-through credit.  As long as the ads aren't terribly obnoxious, I don't mind seeing them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't block ads .
If a site I want to visit insists on pop-up / annoying ads , I do n't visit them any more .
I 've had that little check box that says " disable ads " from Slashdot for quite a while not , and yet , I do n't click it because I want to support them .
Sites I like , I 'll occasionally click their ads so they get some click-through credit .
As long as the ads are n't terribly obnoxious , I do n't mind seeing them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't block ads.
If a site I want to visit insists on pop-up / annoying ads, I don't visit them any more.
I've had that little check box that says "disable ads" from Slashdot for quite a while not, and yet, I don't click it because I want to support them.
Sites I like, I'll occasionally click their ads so they get some click-through credit.
As long as the ads aren't terribly obnoxious, I don't mind seeing them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31403394</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Ars, you are animated too</title>
	<author>bingoUV</author>
	<datestamp>1268077380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3514" title="ietf.org" rel="nofollow">Evil bit</a> [ietf.org] FTW. Yo man, you found the solution at last.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Evil bit [ ietf.org ] FTW .
Yo man , you found the solution at last .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evil bit [ietf.org] FTW.
Yo man, you found the solution at last.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390152</id>
	<title>Agreed, 110\% and here is why (along your lines)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267979280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>Also, if a websurfer can go faster online by blocking out banner ads (as well as safer, per the article above), then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock (or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript), or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files, or a custom HOSTS file.</p><p>There's that above, which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation (which is not cheap, and not every "Joe Sixpack" knows how it is done, or wants to for that matter), and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.</p><p>So it's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime, and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too, but also to pay for Ken Fisher's life on top of that all as well? A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt, and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done, as well as the coding work put into his site (which I doubt he did every line of himself as well).</p><p>So, who are the REAL freeloaders here?</p><p>The end users, or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V., since both basically snag a user's subconscious attention via a "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"!)</p><p>So, once more: Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here??</p><p>The end users, or those using them (website owners) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked, basically yelling at them "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"? There's the real question to ask here!)??</p><p>This is a "double-edged sword", and that is all there is to it, period. Ken Fisher "made hay while the sun shined" &amp; now that sun is fading, because people are WISE to those like he, who use others to make a profit via said person's actual efforts in content creation (whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less).</p><p>"The art of good business is putting people together", sure - until they "wise up" to it that is. Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it (see the URL above once more in regards to that), and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is "above such mundane things"? Then I suggest they rethink their premises. People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain. Don't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise.</p><p>Above all - I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts?? How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors???</p><p>I hope the article writer reads this. The jigs up buddy, and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains, because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply, then you'd fund that website of yours yourself, Mr. Ken Fisher (after all, you've profited by others long enough to do so, right?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus : http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/06/15/2056219 [ slashdot.org ] Also , if a websurfer can go faster online by blocking out banner ads ( as well as safer , per the article above ) , then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock ( or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript ) , or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files , or a custom HOSTS file.There 's that above , which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation ( which is not cheap , and not every " Joe Sixpack " knows how it is done , or wants to for that matter ) , and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.So it 's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime , and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too , but also to pay for Ken Fisher 's life on top of that all as well ?
A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt , and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done , as well as the coding work put into his site ( which I doubt he did every line of himself as well ) .So , who are the REAL freeloaders here ? The end users , or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads ( which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V. , since both basically snag a user 's subconscious attention via a " look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need " !
) So , once more : Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here ?
? The end users , or those using them ( website owners ) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads ( which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked , basically yelling at them " look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need " ?
There 's the real question to ask here ! ) ?
? This is a " double-edged sword " , and that is all there is to it , period .
Ken Fisher " made hay while the sun shined " &amp; now that sun is fading , because people are WISE to those like he , who use others to make a profit via said person 's actual efforts in content creation ( whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less ) .
" The art of good business is putting people together " , sure - until they " wise up " to it that is .
Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it ( see the URL above once more in regards to that ) , and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is " above such mundane things " ?
Then I suggest they rethink their premises .
People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain .
Do n't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise.Above all - I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts ? ?
How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he 's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors ? ?
? I hope the article writer reads this .
The jigs up buddy , and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains , because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply , then you 'd fund that website of yours yourself , Mr. Ken Fisher ( after all , you 've profited by others long enough to do so , right ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219 [slashdot.org]Also, if a websurfer can go faster online by blocking out banner ads (as well as safer, per the article above), then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock (or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript), or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files, or a custom HOSTS file.There's that above, which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation (which is not cheap, and not every "Joe Sixpack" knows how it is done, or wants to for that matter), and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.So it's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime, and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too, but also to pay for Ken Fisher's life on top of that all as well?
A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt, and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done, as well as the coding work put into his site (which I doubt he did every line of himself as well).So, who are the REAL freeloaders here?The end users, or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V., since both basically snag a user's subconscious attention via a "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"!
)So, once more: Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here?
?The end users, or those using them (website owners) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked, basically yelling at them "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"?
There's the real question to ask here!)?
?This is a "double-edged sword", and that is all there is to it, period.
Ken Fisher "made hay while the sun shined" &amp; now that sun is fading, because people are WISE to those like he, who use others to make a profit via said person's actual efforts in content creation (whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less).
"The art of good business is putting people together", sure - until they "wise up" to it that is.
Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it (see the URL above once more in regards to that), and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is "above such mundane things"?
Then I suggest they rethink their premises.
People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain.
Don't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise.Above all - I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts??
How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors??
?I hope the article writer reads this.
The jigs up buddy, and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains, because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply, then you'd fund that website of yours yourself, Mr. Ken Fisher (after all, you've profited by others long enough to do so, right?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389144</id>
	<title>Re:Ads suck</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1267973400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know advertisements on Slashdot just financed your ability to post that message.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know advertisements on Slashdot just financed your ability to post that message .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know advertisements on Slashdot just financed your ability to post that message.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390374</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Ars, you are animated too</title>
	<author>bwcbwc</author>
	<datestamp>1267980660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One highly-annoying banner ad seems like a small price to pay. It's not a pop-up, pop-under or anything really obtrusive. Scroll past it and forget it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One highly-annoying banner ad seems like a small price to pay .
It 's not a pop-up , pop-under or anything really obtrusive .
Scroll past it and forget it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One highly-annoying banner ad seems like a small price to pay.
It's not a pop-up, pop-under or anything really obtrusive.
Scroll past it and forget it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389026</id>
	<title>Re:Ads suck</title>
	<author>edumacator</author>
	<datestamp>1267972800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good points.</p><p>But then do you have a valid way for companies that produce the content to turn a profit? I'm willing to see non-intrusive ads that don't flash or talk, but the intrusive ads bug me, so I don't return to sites that have consistently intrusive ads.</p><p>But if we don't accept some ads, and if you are being honest, the cost of ads is miniscule in bandwidth cost.</p><p>Again, the points you make are valid, but I don't see any practical alternative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good points.But then do you have a valid way for companies that produce the content to turn a profit ?
I 'm willing to see non-intrusive ads that do n't flash or talk , but the intrusive ads bug me , so I do n't return to sites that have consistently intrusive ads.But if we do n't accept some ads , and if you are being honest , the cost of ads is miniscule in bandwidth cost.Again , the points you make are valid , but I do n't see any practical alternative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good points.But then do you have a valid way for companies that produce the content to turn a profit?
I'm willing to see non-intrusive ads that don't flash or talk, but the intrusive ads bug me, so I don't return to sites that have consistently intrusive ads.But if we don't accept some ads, and if you are being honest, the cost of ads is miniscule in bandwidth cost.Again, the points you make are valid, but I don't see any practical alternative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389496</id>
	<title>Re:Ads suck</title>
	<author>baegucb</author>
	<datestamp>1267975320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't have this option?</p><p>"Ads Disabled<br>Thanks again for helping make Slashdot great!"</p><p>I actually didn't mind slashdot's ads when I used to see them years ago. And it could be amusing when the company advertising was being trashed in the comments. But it's just plain good security to run adblock and noscript. But as others have stated, unobtrusive ads I don't mind, and some sites I go to I still see some of those when the author has taken the care to design his site that way (makes me even click on them too).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't have this option ?
" Ads DisabledThanks again for helping make Slashdot great !
" I actually did n't mind slashdot 's ads when I used to see them years ago .
And it could be amusing when the company advertising was being trashed in the comments .
But it 's just plain good security to run adblock and noscript .
But as others have stated , unobtrusive ads I do n't mind , and some sites I go to I still see some of those when the author has taken the care to design his site that way ( makes me even click on them too ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't have this option?
"Ads DisabledThanks again for helping make Slashdot great!
"I actually didn't mind slashdot's ads when I used to see them years ago.
And it could be amusing when the company advertising was being trashed in the comments.
But it's just plain good security to run adblock and noscript.
But as others have stated, unobtrusive ads I don't mind, and some sites I go to I still see some of those when the author has taken the care to design his site that way (makes me even click on them too).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389120</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Ars, you are animated too</title>
	<author>BoxRec</author>
	<datestamp>1267973340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you are a regular reader maybe you could consider subscribing to their site, that way both parties are happy, you don't see any ads and they get a little revenue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are a regular reader maybe you could consider subscribing to their site , that way both parties are happy , you do n't see any ads and they get a little revenue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are a regular reader maybe you could consider subscribing to their site, that way both parties are happy, you don't see any ads and they get a little revenue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392554</id>
	<title>Screw Ads.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267992420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To those who depend on ad revenue for their livelihood: Do something useful with your life.</p><p>If I want something, I will decide for myself whats best and buy it.  I don't need to subject myself to advertisements.  Damn lemmings.</p><p>That said, I will continue to use 3 layers of filtering; Everything nasty from ads to viruses are not allowed on my network.  And yes, the entire<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.microsoft.com resolves to 127.0.0.1 and all their netblocks are null routed.  Same goes for about 3500 online ad domains.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To those who depend on ad revenue for their livelihood : Do something useful with your life.If I want something , I will decide for myself whats best and buy it .
I do n't need to subject myself to advertisements .
Damn lemmings.That said , I will continue to use 3 layers of filtering ; Everything nasty from ads to viruses are not allowed on my network .
And yes , the entire .microsoft.com resolves to 127.0.0.1 and all their netblocks are null routed .
Same goes for about 3500 online ad domains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To those who depend on ad revenue for their livelihood: Do something useful with your life.If I want something, I will decide for myself whats best and buy it.
I don't need to subject myself to advertisements.
Damn lemmings.That said, I will continue to use 3 layers of filtering; Everything nasty from ads to viruses are not allowed on my network.
And yes, the entire .microsoft.com resolves to 127.0.0.1 and all their netblocks are null routed.
Same goes for about 3500 online ad domains.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389404</id>
	<title>12 Hour experiment with death</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1267974840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope you got a good taste of what it would be like if you piss off all your customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope you got a good taste of what it would be like if you piss off all your customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope you got a good taste of what it would be like if you piss off all your customers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390008</id>
	<title>simole solution ...</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1267978440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>let most of the ad-supported sites die.
<p>Aw, no more ars technica? Not missed anyways.
</p><p>
Aw, no more gmail? Tough shit - more than 95\% of all the bogus registrations I see are from spammers using gmail.
</p><p>
Aw, no more search? Aw - guess we'll have to depend on good old word-of-mouth, and specialized sites that also cache searchable content from elsewhere. And distributed search.
</p><p>
Aw, no more podcasts and webinars?  Nobody watches them anyways.
</p><p>
It's going to happen anyway - ad-blocking/security agents with enough intelligence to remove all ads. By 2020 the big Internet advertisers are all dead and gone, because change is chaotic, not gradual. Find another model, or FOAD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>let most of the ad-supported sites die .
Aw , no more ars technica ?
Not missed anyways .
Aw , no more gmail ?
Tough shit - more than 95 \ % of all the bogus registrations I see are from spammers using gmail .
Aw , no more search ?
Aw - guess we 'll have to depend on good old word-of-mouth , and specialized sites that also cache searchable content from elsewhere .
And distributed search .
Aw , no more podcasts and webinars ?
Nobody watches them anyways .
It 's going to happen anyway - ad-blocking/security agents with enough intelligence to remove all ads .
By 2020 the big Internet advertisers are all dead and gone , because change is chaotic , not gradual .
Find another model , or FOAD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>let most of the ad-supported sites die.
Aw, no more ars technica?
Not missed anyways.
Aw, no more gmail?
Tough shit - more than 95\% of all the bogus registrations I see are from spammers using gmail.
Aw, no more search?
Aw - guess we'll have to depend on good old word-of-mouth, and specialized sites that also cache searchable content from elsewhere.
And distributed search.
Aw, no more podcasts and webinars?
Nobody watches them anyways.
It's going to happen anyway - ad-blocking/security agents with enough intelligence to remove all ads.
By 2020 the big Internet advertisers are all dead and gone, because change is chaotic, not gradual.
Find another model, or FOAD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31407860</id>
	<title>Re:Content Creators Just Can't Win</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268053200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People used to pay for content so we blame the content creators for having a bad business model and challenge them to come up with something that we'll buy.  But we still want the content and we want the money-making good/service to be related to the content too.</p></div><p>Trap - you're presuming that people want the content enough to deal with ads that might root kit their systems.  They don't - thus some utilize ad blockers to alleviate this, because without these products, I am potentially one click away from having my system rooted, since I cannot divine in advance which links are going to go to a site with an ad, and which ones are ad free.</p><p>So yes - it is perfectly acceptable to say "if the content creators cannot come up with a valid business model, then they should go out of business."  They have already chosen to be paid by ad companies that were willing to install malware on their clients' computers.  After doing business with such unscrupulous entities, I have no sympathy for the content creators.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People used to pay for content so we blame the content creators for having a bad business model and challenge them to come up with something that we 'll buy .
But we still want the content and we want the money-making good/service to be related to the content too.Trap - you 're presuming that people want the content enough to deal with ads that might root kit their systems .
They do n't - thus some utilize ad blockers to alleviate this , because without these products , I am potentially one click away from having my system rooted , since I can not divine in advance which links are going to go to a site with an ad , and which ones are ad free.So yes - it is perfectly acceptable to say " if the content creators can not come up with a valid business model , then they should go out of business .
" They have already chosen to be paid by ad companies that were willing to install malware on their clients ' computers .
After doing business with such unscrupulous entities , I have no sympathy for the content creators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People used to pay for content so we blame the content creators for having a bad business model and challenge them to come up with something that we'll buy.
But we still want the content and we want the money-making good/service to be related to the content too.Trap - you're presuming that people want the content enough to deal with ads that might root kit their systems.
They don't - thus some utilize ad blockers to alleviate this, because without these products, I am potentially one click away from having my system rooted, since I cannot divine in advance which links are going to go to a site with an ad, and which ones are ad free.So yes - it is perfectly acceptable to say "if the content creators cannot come up with a valid business model, then they should go out of business.
"  They have already chosen to be paid by ad companies that were willing to install malware on their clients' computers.
After doing business with such unscrupulous entities, I have no sympathy for the content creators.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389454</id>
	<title>Subscriptions means the end of links</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267975080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One serious problem with subscriptions and paywalls is that they effectively prevent linking content -- the most important feature of the web.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One serious problem with subscriptions and paywalls is that they effectively prevent linking content -- the most important feature of the web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One serious problem with subscriptions and paywalls is that they effectively prevent linking content -- the most important feature of the web.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389324</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes?</title>
	<author>distantbody</author>
	<datestamp>1267974360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Maybe you should rethink that strategy, Ars?</p></div></blockquote><p>Paywall here we come!!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe you should rethink that strategy , Ars ? Paywall here we come ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe you should rethink that strategy, Ars?Paywall here we come!!
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391238</id>
	<title>Agreed 110\% (Good ideas are BULLETPROOF)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267985280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><div class="quote"><p><b>"Not blocking ads can be devastating to users' computers."</b> - by erroneus (253617) on Sunday March 07, @08:57AM (#31389226) Homepage</p></div><p>You will find this interesting:</p><p><b>The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>They have been found more than a few times serving up FAR more and FAR WORSE than mere tracking cookies, as you can see above.</p><p>So, if a websurfer finds out that he can go faster online by blocking out banner ads (as well as safer, per the article above), then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock (or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript), or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files, or a custom HOSTS file.</p><p>There's that above, which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation (which is not cheap, and not every "Joe Sixpack" knows how it is done, or wants to for that matter), and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.</p><p>So it's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime, and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too, but also to pay for Ken Fisher's life on top of that all as well? A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt, and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done, as well as the coding work put into his site (which I doubt he did every line of himself as well).</p><p><b>So, who are the REAL freeloaders here?</b></p><p>The end users, or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V., since both basically snag a user's subconscious attention via a "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"!)</p><p>So, once more: <b>Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here??</b></p><p>The end users, or those using them (website owners) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked, basically yelling at them "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"? There's the real question to ask here!)??</p><p>This is a "double-edged sword", and that is all there is to it, period.</p><p>Ken Fisher "made hay while the sun shined" &amp; now that sun is fading, because people are WISE to those like he, who use others to make a profit via said person's actual efforts in content creation (whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less).</p><p>"The art of good business is putting people together"!</p><p>(Sure - until they "wise up" to it that is. Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it (see the URL above once more in regards to that), and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is "above such mundane things"? Then I suggest they rethink their premises. People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain. Don't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise).</p><p>Above all - <b>I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts?? How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors???</b></p><p>I hope the article writer reads this.</p><p>The jigs up buddy, and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains, because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply, then you'd fund that website of yours yourself, Mr. Ken Fisher (after all, you've profited by others long enough to do so, right?).</p><p>(That, and Ken Fisher would find out "faithful" his arstech 'subscriptors' are, as well as he having to do the actual work in creating the content (instead of using others like Emil Protalinski for example to do so, while he pays them squat compared to what he makes off of their efforts by way of comparison)).</p><p>No, the game's over Ken Fisher, face it.</p><p>Go on now, switch to a subscriber only model, &amp; see how many people still attend your website. They'll simply move to another, &amp; quickly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Not blocking ads can be devastating to users ' computers .
" - by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Sunday March 07 , @ 08 : 57AM ( # 31389226 ) HomepageYou will find this interesting : The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus : http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/06/15/2056219 [ slashdot.org ] They have been found more than a few times serving up FAR more and FAR WORSE than mere tracking cookies , as you can see above.So , if a websurfer finds out that he can go faster online by blocking out banner ads ( as well as safer , per the article above ) , then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock ( or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript ) , or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files , or a custom HOSTS file.There 's that above , which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation ( which is not cheap , and not every " Joe Sixpack " knows how it is done , or wants to for that matter ) , and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.So it 's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime , and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too , but also to pay for Ken Fisher 's life on top of that all as well ?
A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt , and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done , as well as the coding work put into his site ( which I doubt he did every line of himself as well ) .So , who are the REAL freeloaders here ? The end users , or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads ( which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V. , since both basically snag a user 's subconscious attention via a " look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need " !
) So , once more : Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here ?
? The end users , or those using them ( website owners ) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads ( which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked , basically yelling at them " look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need " ?
There 's the real question to ask here ! ) ?
? This is a " double-edged sword " , and that is all there is to it , period.Ken Fisher " made hay while the sun shined " &amp; now that sun is fading , because people are WISE to those like he , who use others to make a profit via said person 's actual efforts in content creation ( whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less ) .
" The art of good business is putting people together " !
( Sure - until they " wise up " to it that is .
Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it ( see the URL above once more in regards to that ) , and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is " above such mundane things " ?
Then I suggest they rethink their premises .
People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain .
Do n't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise ) .Above all - I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts ? ?
How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he 's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors ? ?
? I hope the article writer reads this.The jigs up buddy , and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains , because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply , then you 'd fund that website of yours yourself , Mr. Ken Fisher ( after all , you 've profited by others long enough to do so , right ? ) .
( That , and Ken Fisher would find out " faithful " his arstech 'subscriptors ' are , as well as he having to do the actual work in creating the content ( instead of using others like Emil Protalinski for example to do so , while he pays them squat compared to what he makes off of their efforts by way of comparison ) ) .No , the game 's over Ken Fisher , face it.Go on now , switch to a subscriber only model , &amp; see how many people still attend your website .
They 'll simply move to another , &amp; quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Not blocking ads can be devastating to users' computers.
" - by erroneus (253617) on Sunday March 07, @08:57AM (#31389226) HomepageYou will find this interesting:The Next Ad you Click on may be a Virus:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219 [slashdot.org]They have been found more than a few times serving up FAR more and FAR WORSE than mere tracking cookies, as you can see above.So, if a websurfer finds out that he can go faster online by blocking out banner ads (as well as safer, per the article above), then they have that option via browser addons like Adblock (or protection vs. their more than potentially infected scripting via NoScript), or by mechanisms like PAC files or specialized CSS files, or a custom HOSTS file.There's that above, which means quite possibly spending monies on removing said infestation (which is not cheap, and not every "Joe Sixpack" knows how it is done, or wants to for that matter), and the fact that people pay for their own linetime.So it's ok for Ken Fisher of arstechnica to ask those same people to not only pay for their linetime, and for possible removal of viruses/spywares/rootkits/trojans/malwares in general that they may have caught from malicious adbanners too, but also to pay for Ken Fisher's life on top of that all as well?
A life and lifestyle made off of millions made from ad banner revenues no doubt, and yet not off of his own efforts writing up every article his site has done, as well as the coding work put into his site (which I doubt he did every line of himself as well).So, who are the REAL freeloaders here?The end users, or those using the end users to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked and not much better than subliminal ads on T.V., since both basically snag a user's subconscious attention via a "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"!
)So, once more: Who is/are the REAL freeloaders here?
?The end users, or those using them (website owners) to make their living from those passing by their sites and being forced to look at flashing ads (which are attacks on the psyche no questions asked, basically yelling at them "look at me and let me sell you something you may not even need"?
There's the real question to ask here!)?
?This is a "double-edged sword", and that is all there is to it, period.Ken Fisher "made hay while the sun shined" &amp; now that sun is fading, because people are WISE to those like he, who use others to make a profit via said person's actual efforts in content creation (whilst paying them peanuts vs. the profits made by their efforts no less).
"The art of good business is putting people together"!
(Sure - until they "wise up" to it that is.
Nobody likes being abused so others can gain by it (see the URL above once more in regards to that), and if anyone tries to tell us that arstechnica is "above such mundane things"?
Then I suggest they rethink their premises.
People like Ken Fisher consider the rest of you sheep to use for their own monetary gain.
Don't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise).Above all - I wonder how much Ken Fisher pays his article writers in terms of the percentage of profits he makes off of their efforts??
How come I have this feeling it is only tiny crumbs from the massive profits he's earned over time from ad banner monies given he by his sponsors??
?I hope the article writer reads this.The jigs up buddy, and you are now on the receiving end of your ill gotten gains, because IF you loved this field as much as you seem to imply, then you'd fund that website of yours yourself, Mr. Ken Fisher (after all, you've profited by others long enough to do so, right?).
(That, and Ken Fisher would find out "faithful" his arstech 'subscriptors' are, as well as he having to do the actual work in creating the content (instead of using others like Emil Protalinski for example to do so, while he pays them squat compared to what he makes off of their efforts by way of comparison)).No, the game's over Ken Fisher, face it.Go on now, switch to a subscriber only model, &amp; see how many people still attend your website.
They'll simply move to another, &amp; quickly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391288</id>
	<title>Installed AdBlock</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267985580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well because of this bullshit I just installed AdBlock.  Before I just had NoScript but now I have both.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well because of this bullshit I just installed AdBlock .
Before I just had NoScript but now I have both .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well because of this bullshit I just installed AdBlock.
Before I just had NoScript but now I have both.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31400780</id>
	<title>ad blocking</title>
	<author>fatbuckel</author>
	<datestamp>1268064900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Waaa.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Waaa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Waaa.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389676</id>
	<title>Re:It's the freeloaders time</title>
	<author>Alphathon</author>
	<datestamp>1267976280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same here. Google text ads don't bother me in the slighest.</p><p>I do wonder though, are the ads Ars use generally pay-per-view or pay-per-click? If they are pay-per-click, I doubt anyone who uses ad-blockers would be clicking them anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same here .
Google text ads do n't bother me in the slighest.I do wonder though , are the ads Ars use generally pay-per-view or pay-per-click ?
If they are pay-per-click , I doubt anyone who uses ad-blockers would be clicking them anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same here.
Google text ads don't bother me in the slighest.I do wonder though, are the ads Ars use generally pay-per-view or pay-per-click?
If they are pay-per-click, I doubt anyone who uses ad-blockers would be clicking them anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31397870</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267989900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Maybe you should rethink that strategy, Ars?</p></div></blockquote><p>Paywall here we come!!!</p></div><p>And nothing of value was lost....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe you should rethink that strategy , Ars ? Paywall here we come ! !
! And nothing of value was lost... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe you should rethink that strategy, Ars?Paywall here we come!!
!And nothing of value was lost....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390714</id>
	<title>To them I say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267982640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://adblockplus.org/blog/ads-dont-generate-money</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //adblockplus.org/blog/ads-dont-generate-money</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://adblockplus.org/blog/ads-dont-generate-money</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389982</id>
	<title>Re:How is this different than muting TV commercial</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267978260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference is that the TV ads use a pay per viewer model that is set in advance, while web ads often use a pay per click model, which requires an action that you can't take if you don't see the ads.  There are pay per view ads as well, and these are obviously screwed by blockers.  One other difference: something that blocks the ads never even downloads the ad content from an ad server, so the bits never flow out, unlike the bits flowing out on broadcast TV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is that the TV ads use a pay per viewer model that is set in advance , while web ads often use a pay per click model , which requires an action that you ca n't take if you do n't see the ads .
There are pay per view ads as well , and these are obviously screwed by blockers .
One other difference : something that blocks the ads never even downloads the ad content from an ad server , so the bits never flow out , unlike the bits flowing out on broadcast TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is that the TV ads use a pay per viewer model that is set in advance, while web ads often use a pay per click model, which requires an action that you can't take if you don't see the ads.
There are pay per view ads as well, and these are obviously screwed by blockers.
One other difference: something that blocks the ads never even downloads the ad content from an ad server, so the bits never flow out, unlike the bits flowing out on broadcast TV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391520</id>
	<title>Re:Content Creators Just Can't Win</title>
	<author>Z8</author>
	<datestamp>1267986900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yep, Slashdot is full of the same people, like the +5 comment above that says "If you can't figure out how to make money, that's your problem."  But isn't it his problem too if all the sites he's ad blocking go out of business?  I guess that thought is too complicated for most people; they assume that all these sites that "deserve to fail" will magically be around forever for them to leech off of.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , Slashdot is full of the same people , like the + 5 comment above that says " If you ca n't figure out how to make money , that 's your problem .
" But is n't it his problem too if all the sites he 's ad blocking go out of business ?
I guess that thought is too complicated for most people ; they assume that all these sites that " deserve to fail " will magically be around forever for them to leech off of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, Slashdot is full of the same people, like the +5 comment above that says "If you can't figure out how to make money, that's your problem.
"  But isn't it his problem too if all the sites he's ad blocking go out of business?
I guess that thought is too complicated for most people; they assume that all these sites that "deserve to fail" will magically be around forever for them to leech off of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392214</id>
	<title>Ars' problem with me</title>
	<author>Todd Knarr</author>
	<datestamp>1267990440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem Ars would have with me is that it's not Ars' ads at issue. It's the ads on hundreds of other sites that aren't as clean as Ars keeps theirs. I can't afford to hit one of those sites without ad blocking already on. By the time I can see the ads to make a decision, it's too late. If I can see the ads, my machine's already been hit with whatever payload they might be carrying. There's nothing Ars can do about this, they don't control other sites' advertising. So, I will arrive at Ars with an ad blocker running. All Ars can do is make it clear what I need to do to white-list them. Which, BTW, Ars didn't do. When I saw their pages, I saw no indication why the article wasn't appearing. I wrote it off as just more broken Javascript on their page causing a malfunction, and figured either it'd clear up in a day or two once enough users complained or it'd be permanent in which case I just wouldn't be reading Ars anymore. Since Ars gave no indication what they were doing, I had no reason to believe I needed to touch the ad blocker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem Ars would have with me is that it 's not Ars ' ads at issue .
It 's the ads on hundreds of other sites that are n't as clean as Ars keeps theirs .
I ca n't afford to hit one of those sites without ad blocking already on .
By the time I can see the ads to make a decision , it 's too late .
If I can see the ads , my machine 's already been hit with whatever payload they might be carrying .
There 's nothing Ars can do about this , they do n't control other sites ' advertising .
So , I will arrive at Ars with an ad blocker running .
All Ars can do is make it clear what I need to do to white-list them .
Which , BTW , Ars did n't do .
When I saw their pages , I saw no indication why the article was n't appearing .
I wrote it off as just more broken Javascript on their page causing a malfunction , and figured either it 'd clear up in a day or two once enough users complained or it 'd be permanent in which case I just would n't be reading Ars anymore .
Since Ars gave no indication what they were doing , I had no reason to believe I needed to touch the ad blocker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem Ars would have with me is that it's not Ars' ads at issue.
It's the ads on hundreds of other sites that aren't as clean as Ars keeps theirs.
I can't afford to hit one of those sites without ad blocking already on.
By the time I can see the ads to make a decision, it's too late.
If I can see the ads, my machine's already been hit with whatever payload they might be carrying.
There's nothing Ars can do about this, they don't control other sites' advertising.
So, I will arrive at Ars with an ad blocker running.
All Ars can do is make it clear what I need to do to white-list them.
Which, BTW, Ars didn't do.
When I saw their pages, I saw no indication why the article wasn't appearing.
I wrote it off as just more broken Javascript on their page causing a malfunction, and figured either it'd clear up in a day or two once enough users complained or it'd be permanent in which case I just wouldn't be reading Ars anymore.
Since Ars gave no indication what they were doing, I had no reason to believe I needed to touch the ad blocker.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31398764</id>
	<title>Contradiction in terms</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1268046120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>blocking ads can be devastating to the sites you love</p></div><p>A sites that forces me to watch adverts is by definition not one I want to use, let alone "one I love". To me the internet is a tool for finding information, nothing more. It is often very convenient, but I will not tolerate advertising, no more than I want to look at stupid adverts in my paper books. Does that make me strange? Well, I am strange, then.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>blocking ads can be devastating to the sites you loveA sites that forces me to watch adverts is by definition not one I want to use , let alone " one I love " .
To me the internet is a tool for finding information , nothing more .
It is often very convenient , but I will not tolerate advertising , no more than I want to look at stupid adverts in my paper books .
Does that make me strange ?
Well , I am strange , then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>blocking ads can be devastating to the sites you loveA sites that forces me to watch adverts is by definition not one I want to use, let alone "one I love".
To me the internet is a tool for finding information, nothing more.
It is often very convenient, but I will not tolerate advertising, no more than I want to look at stupid adverts in my paper books.
Does that make me strange?
Well, I am strange, then.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388808</id>
	<title>Charge the readers directly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267971780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ad-driven commerce rots the collective brain.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ad-driven commerce rots the collective brain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ad-driven commerce rots the collective brain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394728</id>
	<title>Subject</title>
	<author>Legion303</author>
	<datestamp>1267962960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read the first paragraph, and determined from there that since Ken's initial premise (that the web is there for people to make money) was completely wrong, then there was no point reading the rest of his argument. People are going to lose jobs because they decided to go into marketing and find innovative new ways to trick other people into seeing their ads? My heart bleeds for you, Ken.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read the first paragraph , and determined from there that since Ken 's initial premise ( that the web is there for people to make money ) was completely wrong , then there was no point reading the rest of his argument .
People are going to lose jobs because they decided to go into marketing and find innovative new ways to trick other people into seeing their ads ?
My heart bleeds for you , Ken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read the first paragraph, and determined from there that since Ken's initial premise (that the web is there for people to make money) was completely wrong, then there was no point reading the rest of his argument.
People are going to lose jobs because they decided to go into marketing and find innovative new ways to trick other people into seeing their ads?
My heart bleeds for you, Ken.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392702</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot does it right</title>
	<author>Danny Rathjens</author>
	<datestamp>1267993440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><ul> <li>The carrot: "As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable advertising."</li>
<li>The stick: "story content was hidden from users of popular ad blocking tools"</li>
</ul><p>This reminds of when the guy running freshmeat had a hissyfit and blocked access to the site content for everyone for a while.  On the other hand,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. and freshmeat get almost all of their content from the public while ars seems more like an online magazine with paid writers creating their content.  (ah, yes, ars is actually owned by a magazine company: Cond&#233; Nast and they do have subscriptions.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The carrot : " As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot , you are eligible to disable advertising .
" The stick : " story content was hidden from users of popular ad blocking tools " This reminds of when the guy running freshmeat had a hissyfit and blocked access to the site content for everyone for a while .
On the other hand , / .
and freshmeat get almost all of their content from the public while ars seems more like an online magazine with paid writers creating their content .
( ah , yes , ars is actually owned by a magazine company : Cond   Nast and they do have subscriptions .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The carrot: "As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable advertising.
"
The stick: "story content was hidden from users of popular ad blocking tools"
This reminds of when the guy running freshmeat had a hissyfit and blocked access to the site content for everyone for a while.
On the other hand, /.
and freshmeat get almost all of their content from the public while ars seems more like an online magazine with paid writers creating their content.
(ah, yes, ars is actually owned by a magazine company: Condé Nast and they do have subscriptions.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31395582</id>
	<title>walt-sjc: You'd hate arstech then, see inside</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267969440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica</b> -&gt; Philip</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008</a> [slashdot.org] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>"Did I mention I hate most ads? - by walt-sjc (145127) on Sunday March 07, @09:32AM (#31389610</p></div><p>See subject above, and this:</p><p>Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PM<br>internet</p><p>Philip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it. When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus. Here is a copy of my log. I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites. 1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"</p><p>Link to Original Source</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008</a> [slashdot.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica - &gt; Philiphttp : //slashdot.org/firehose.pl ? op = view&amp;id = 447008 [ slashdot.org ] " Did I mention I hate most ads ?
- by walt-sjc ( 145127 ) on Sunday March 07 , @ 09 : 32AM ( # 31389610See subject above , and this : Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008 , @ 03 : 00PMinternetPhilip writes " It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it .
When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus .
Here is a copy of my log .
I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites .
1/2/2008 2 : 27 : 15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe ( http : //arstechnica.com/index.ars ) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO ( Trojan ) " Link to Original Sourcehttp : //slashdot.org/firehose.pl ? op = view&amp;id = 447008 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica -&gt; Philiphttp://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008 [slashdot.org] "Did I mention I hate most ads?
- by walt-sjc (145127) on Sunday March 07, @09:32AM (#31389610See subject above, and this:Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PMinternetPhilip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it.
When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus.
Here is a copy of my log.
I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites.
1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"Link to Original Sourcehttp://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008 [slashdot.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392248</id>
	<title>Re:It's *my* CPU you're using</title>
	<author>LihTox</author>
	<datestamp>1267990620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you're right: if a website is just a diversion for you, easily replaceable by any other website, then block the ads on it with no guilt at all.  Such a website is just a commodity, and supply &amp; demand (particularly supply) have pushed the cost of commodity websites to $0, no matter how much they cost to run.</p><p>If a particular website means something to you, and is not replaceable, then we do have to deal with the fact that the website may die if their revenue is cut off.  Maybe this won't happen for general-interest sites, which are still visited by lots of people who don't know how to (or don't care to) install an ad-blocker, but for specialized sites, particularly those aimed at tech-saavy users, this could be a problem.</p><p>That said, I don't think that's a reason to turn off the adblocker; I think it's a reason to send them cash.  Budget a certain amount of money each month or year (if you can afford it of course), and distribute it to the websites you'd like to see stay around, if there are indeed any you care about.  Don't think of it as paying a debt, think of it as an investment whose dividends are the survival and additional content the site produces in the future.  Maybe this isn't the way we're used to thinking about financial transactions.</p><p>Am I right that a banner ad typically brings in $0.01-$0.05 per viewer?  It might be interesting to have a Firefox plugin which keeps track of the number of times you visit a given site, and roughly how much they would have made off of you in ads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're right : if a website is just a diversion for you , easily replaceable by any other website , then block the ads on it with no guilt at all .
Such a website is just a commodity , and supply &amp; demand ( particularly supply ) have pushed the cost of commodity websites to $ 0 , no matter how much they cost to run.If a particular website means something to you , and is not replaceable , then we do have to deal with the fact that the website may die if their revenue is cut off .
Maybe this wo n't happen for general-interest sites , which are still visited by lots of people who do n't know how to ( or do n't care to ) install an ad-blocker , but for specialized sites , particularly those aimed at tech-saavy users , this could be a problem.That said , I do n't think that 's a reason to turn off the adblocker ; I think it 's a reason to send them cash .
Budget a certain amount of money each month or year ( if you can afford it of course ) , and distribute it to the websites you 'd like to see stay around , if there are indeed any you care about .
Do n't think of it as paying a debt , think of it as an investment whose dividends are the survival and additional content the site produces in the future .
Maybe this is n't the way we 're used to thinking about financial transactions.Am I right that a banner ad typically brings in $ 0.01- $ 0.05 per viewer ?
It might be interesting to have a Firefox plugin which keeps track of the number of times you visit a given site , and roughly how much they would have made off of you in ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're right: if a website is just a diversion for you, easily replaceable by any other website, then block the ads on it with no guilt at all.
Such a website is just a commodity, and supply &amp; demand (particularly supply) have pushed the cost of commodity websites to $0, no matter how much they cost to run.If a particular website means something to you, and is not replaceable, then we do have to deal with the fact that the website may die if their revenue is cut off.
Maybe this won't happen for general-interest sites, which are still visited by lots of people who don't know how to (or don't care to) install an ad-blocker, but for specialized sites, particularly those aimed at tech-saavy users, this could be a problem.That said, I don't think that's a reason to turn off the adblocker; I think it's a reason to send them cash.
Budget a certain amount of money each month or year (if you can afford it of course), and distribute it to the websites you'd like to see stay around, if there are indeed any you care about.
Don't think of it as paying a debt, think of it as an investment whose dividends are the survival and additional content the site produces in the future.
Maybe this isn't the way we're used to thinking about financial transactions.Am I right that a banner ad typically brings in $0.01-$0.05 per viewer?
It might be interesting to have a Firefox plugin which keeps track of the number of times you visit a given site, and roughly how much they would have made off of you in ads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388980</id>
	<title>Re:Ads suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267972620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I pay for bandwidth and connection time, so your ad directly costs me money, and it should be illegal for that reason.</p></div><p>Funny, by blocking ads and still visiting the site <strong>you</strong> are costing the content provider money. You don't seem to have a problem with that.

If the ads bother you that much, the solution is much simpler than using adblocking software. Just don't visit that site.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I pay for bandwidth and connection time , so your ad directly costs me money , and it should be illegal for that reason.Funny , by blocking ads and still visiting the site you are costing the content provider money .
You do n't seem to have a problem with that .
If the ads bother you that much , the solution is much simpler than using adblocking software .
Just do n't visit that site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I pay for bandwidth and connection time, so your ad directly costs me money, and it should be illegal for that reason.Funny, by blocking ads and still visiting the site you are costing the content provider money.
You don't seem to have a problem with that.
If the ads bother you that much, the solution is much simpler than using adblocking software.
Just don't visit that site.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389926</id>
	<title>Re:How is this different than muting TV commercial</title>
	<author>Junior J. Junior III</author>
	<datestamp>1267977900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The ars article explains this...

With TV ads, the advertisors pay broadcasters to put the ads out there.  There is no way to know how many people actually see the ad.  They basically pay a lot of money on a chance that you'll see it.

With internet ads, they can tell through server logs how many times a particular ad is served, and so they pay out based on the number times an ad is served.  If your blocking software worked by downloading the ad, but then didn't display it, then the advertisor wouldn't be aware.  But most ad blockers work by blocking the call to the server that would bring the ad down.  This only makes sense because why waste bandwidth on something you're not going to use, but the unfortunate consequence of this is that the content provider never gets paid out on the ad.

So, I see a way for ad blockers to have a smarter implementation that allows everyone to get what they want (well, except the advertisor, but that's OK because they're inhuman scum.)  Modify the ad blocking software to download the ad, and simply don't display it to the user.  Make this a mode that you can turn on or off, so you can still conserve bandwidth if that's important for you, or so you can deny revenue to sites you don't want to support.  Currently, Adblock Plus allows you to whitelist or blacklist a domain.  A middle option to blacklist-but-support-ad-revenue would fix this.  Advertisers might not like it, but they wouldn't be able to do anything about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ars article explains this.. . With TV ads , the advertisors pay broadcasters to put the ads out there .
There is no way to know how many people actually see the ad .
They basically pay a lot of money on a chance that you 'll see it .
With internet ads , they can tell through server logs how many times a particular ad is served , and so they pay out based on the number times an ad is served .
If your blocking software worked by downloading the ad , but then did n't display it , then the advertisor would n't be aware .
But most ad blockers work by blocking the call to the server that would bring the ad down .
This only makes sense because why waste bandwidth on something you 're not going to use , but the unfortunate consequence of this is that the content provider never gets paid out on the ad .
So , I see a way for ad blockers to have a smarter implementation that allows everyone to get what they want ( well , except the advertisor , but that 's OK because they 're inhuman scum .
) Modify the ad blocking software to download the ad , and simply do n't display it to the user .
Make this a mode that you can turn on or off , so you can still conserve bandwidth if that 's important for you , or so you can deny revenue to sites you do n't want to support .
Currently , Adblock Plus allows you to whitelist or blacklist a domain .
A middle option to blacklist-but-support-ad-revenue would fix this .
Advertisers might not like it , but they would n't be able to do anything about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ars article explains this...

With TV ads, the advertisors pay broadcasters to put the ads out there.
There is no way to know how many people actually see the ad.
They basically pay a lot of money on a chance that you'll see it.
With internet ads, they can tell through server logs how many times a particular ad is served, and so they pay out based on the number times an ad is served.
If your blocking software worked by downloading the ad, but then didn't display it, then the advertisor wouldn't be aware.
But most ad blockers work by blocking the call to the server that would bring the ad down.
This only makes sense because why waste bandwidth on something you're not going to use, but the unfortunate consequence of this is that the content provider never gets paid out on the ad.
So, I see a way for ad blockers to have a smarter implementation that allows everyone to get what they want (well, except the advertisor, but that's OK because they're inhuman scum.
)  Modify the ad blocking software to download the ad, and simply don't display it to the user.
Make this a mode that you can turn on or off, so you can still conserve bandwidth if that's important for you, or so you can deny revenue to sites you don't want to support.
Currently, Adblock Plus allows you to whitelist or blacklist a domain.
A middle option to blacklist-but-support-ad-revenue would fix this.
Advertisers might not like it, but they wouldn't be able to do anything about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393368</id>
	<title>Arstech doesn't do right: See inside (Ars Virus)?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267954500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica</b> -&gt; Philip</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PM<br>internet</p><p>Philip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it. When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus. Here is a copy of my log. I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites. 1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"</p><p>Link to Original Source</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica - &gt; Philiphttp : //slashdot.org/firehose.pl ? op = view&amp;id = 447008 [ slashdot.org ] Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008 , @ 03 : 00PMinternetPhilip writes " It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it .
When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus .
Here is a copy of my log .
I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites .
1/2/2008 2 : 27 : 15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe ( http : //arstechnica.com/index.ars ) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO ( Trojan ) " Link to Original Sourcehttp : //slashdot.org/firehose.pl ? op = view&amp;id = 447008 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica -&gt; Philiphttp://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008 [slashdot.org]Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PMinternetPhilip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it.
When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus.
Here is a copy of my log.
I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites.
1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"Link to Original Sourcehttp://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389588</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267975800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or you could take the high road and avoid the sites that you do not like such policies of?</p><p>Seems the right thing to do... its what I do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or you could take the high road and avoid the sites that you do not like such policies of ? Seems the right thing to do... its what I do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or you could take the high road and avoid the sites that you do not like such policies of?Seems the right thing to do... its what I do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392360</id>
	<title>Whitewash.</title>
	<author>Zadaz</author>
	<datestamp>1267991160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except they didn't bring it up in a "tactful manner".  They didn't run an "Experiment", they ran out the change secretly, everyone complained, they rolled it back.</p><p>Don't tell me this was a "12 hour experiment" when they had engineered rolling content ID's to thwart filters.  You don't do that when you only plan to roll it out for 12 hours.  What they did was a "12 hour mistake."</p><p>But what really pissed me off about the whole thing was the naked contempt for people who use ad blockers.  After they secretly released this change there were article comments from visitors complaining that they couldn't see the content on the site.  When one reader suspected that it was intentionally done to get people to whitelist the editors response was, in essence, "Ya think?  *smirk*" and went on to pile on anyone who had a problem with their underhanded tactics.  It's not like they had even -asked- users to whitelist.  (This was a day before they posted TFA.)</p><p>And what is even worse is that they completely wiped all the comments to that article.  All of the various editor's dickish comments, all of the various viewer responses, all gone.  Then they post this article and everyone feels sorry for them.</p><p>Forget it.  I'm not going to give those guys my time of day much less any ad revenue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except they did n't bring it up in a " tactful manner " .
They did n't run an " Experiment " , they ran out the change secretly , everyone complained , they rolled it back.Do n't tell me this was a " 12 hour experiment " when they had engineered rolling content ID 's to thwart filters .
You do n't do that when you only plan to roll it out for 12 hours .
What they did was a " 12 hour mistake .
" But what really pissed me off about the whole thing was the naked contempt for people who use ad blockers .
After they secretly released this change there were article comments from visitors complaining that they could n't see the content on the site .
When one reader suspected that it was intentionally done to get people to whitelist the editors response was , in essence , " Ya think ?
* smirk * " and went on to pile on anyone who had a problem with their underhanded tactics .
It 's not like they had even -asked- users to whitelist .
( This was a day before they posted TFA .
) And what is even worse is that they completely wiped all the comments to that article .
All of the various editor 's dickish comments , all of the various viewer responses , all gone .
Then they post this article and everyone feels sorry for them.Forget it .
I 'm not going to give those guys my time of day much less any ad revenue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except they didn't bring it up in a "tactful manner".
They didn't run an "Experiment", they ran out the change secretly, everyone complained, they rolled it back.Don't tell me this was a "12 hour experiment" when they had engineered rolling content ID's to thwart filters.
You don't do that when you only plan to roll it out for 12 hours.
What they did was a "12 hour mistake.
"But what really pissed me off about the whole thing was the naked contempt for people who use ad blockers.
After they secretly released this change there were article comments from visitors complaining that they couldn't see the content on the site.
When one reader suspected that it was intentionally done to get people to whitelist the editors response was, in essence, "Ya think?
*smirk*" and went on to pile on anyone who had a problem with their underhanded tactics.
It's not like they had even -asked- users to whitelist.
(This was a day before they posted TFA.
)And what is even worse is that they completely wiped all the comments to that article.
All of the various editor's dickish comments, all of the various viewer responses, all gone.
Then they post this article and everyone feels sorry for them.Forget it.
I'm not going to give those guys my time of day much less any ad revenue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393206</id>
	<title>I don't block ads</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1267953480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't block ads.  I don't block arstechnica.com, either.  Yet I don't see any ads on their site.  Why is that?  Because I block selected ad servers that have a history of serving abusive ads (including Flash).  Apparently, they are using ad services that have less than stellar history.</p><p>What Ars Technica needs to do is simply use ad services that have no history of abusive ads (whether such ads ever showed on the Ars Technica site or not), or just serve the ads themselves from their own domain.  Or they can arrange to have the ad serving company servers used for serving their ads to have a hostname in their own domain (only the A record matters for how I block ads, so the same server can also serve ads for other sites, too).</p><p>Oh, and while we're on the subject of how to improve the Ars Technica site, I also suggest, in addition to a link for logged in users leaving comments, also provide a link for non-logged in users (e.g. those that don't want to register for yet another online account somewhere) to leave comments that run through a moderation queue, as well as a link for leaving feedback to the author (e.g. won't be published) or management.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't block ads .
I do n't block arstechnica.com , either .
Yet I do n't see any ads on their site .
Why is that ?
Because I block selected ad servers that have a history of serving abusive ads ( including Flash ) .
Apparently , they are using ad services that have less than stellar history.What Ars Technica needs to do is simply use ad services that have no history of abusive ads ( whether such ads ever showed on the Ars Technica site or not ) , or just serve the ads themselves from their own domain .
Or they can arrange to have the ad serving company servers used for serving their ads to have a hostname in their own domain ( only the A record matters for how I block ads , so the same server can also serve ads for other sites , too ) .Oh , and while we 're on the subject of how to improve the Ars Technica site , I also suggest , in addition to a link for logged in users leaving comments , also provide a link for non-logged in users ( e.g .
those that do n't want to register for yet another online account somewhere ) to leave comments that run through a moderation queue , as well as a link for leaving feedback to the author ( e.g .
wo n't be published ) or management .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't block ads.
I don't block arstechnica.com, either.
Yet I don't see any ads on their site.
Why is that?
Because I block selected ad servers that have a history of serving abusive ads (including Flash).
Apparently, they are using ad services that have less than stellar history.What Ars Technica needs to do is simply use ad services that have no history of abusive ads (whether such ads ever showed on the Ars Technica site or not), or just serve the ads themselves from their own domain.
Or they can arrange to have the ad serving company servers used for serving their ads to have a hostname in their own domain (only the A record matters for how I block ads, so the same server can also serve ads for other sites, too).Oh, and while we're on the subject of how to improve the Ars Technica site, I also suggest, in addition to a link for logged in users leaving comments, also provide a link for non-logged in users (e.g.
those that don't want to register for yet another online account somewhere) to leave comments that run through a moderation queue, as well as a link for leaving feedback to the author (e.g.
won't be published) or management.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392924</id>
	<title>Arstech and trojan banner adverts? See inside</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267994760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica</b> -&gt; Philip</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PM<br>internet</p><p>Philip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it. When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus. Here is a copy of my log. I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites. 1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"</p><p>Link to Original Source</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica - &gt; Philiphttp : //slashdot.org/firehose.pl ? op = view&amp;id = 447008 [ slashdot.org ] Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008 , @ 03 : 00PMinternetPhilip writes " It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it .
When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus .
Here is a copy of my log .
I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites .
1/2/2008 2 : 27 : 15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe ( http : //arstechnica.com/index.ars ) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO ( Trojan ) " Link to Original Sourcehttp : //slashdot.org/firehose.pl ? op = view&amp;id = 447008 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica -&gt; Philiphttp://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008 [slashdot.org]Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PMinternetPhilip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it.
When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus.
Here is a copy of my log.
I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites.
1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"Link to Original Sourcehttp://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388966</id>
	<title>This is the solution !</title>
	<author>burni2</author>
	<datestamp>1267972560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think we can all conclude that the cause for using adblockers is the annoying way some ads are appearing. Though blocking normal non-intrusive ads can be seen as collateral damage.</p><p>And here comes my solution, while clicking ads means money for the site-owners, we need ad-blockers which visit the ad in background and kill the tracker-cookie afterwards.</p><p>This way the site-owners get money - the ads are clicked but not seen. While most internet users have a very low technical skill, the impact on the advertisement business is small.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we can all conclude that the cause for using adblockers is the annoying way some ads are appearing .
Though blocking normal non-intrusive ads can be seen as collateral damage.And here comes my solution , while clicking ads means money for the site-owners , we need ad-blockers which visit the ad in background and kill the tracker-cookie afterwards.This way the site-owners get money - the ads are clicked but not seen .
While most internet users have a very low technical skill , the impact on the advertisement business is small .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we can all conclude that the cause for using adblockers is the annoying way some ads are appearing.
Though blocking normal non-intrusive ads can be seen as collateral damage.And here comes my solution, while clicking ads means money for the site-owners, we need ad-blockers which visit the ad in background and kill the tracker-cookie afterwards.This way the site-owners get money - the ads are clicked but not seen.
While most internet users have a very low technical skill, the impact on the advertisement business is small.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388898</id>
	<title>Disable Adblock for the sites you like, simple</title>
	<author>Ziekheid</author>
	<datestamp>1267972260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ads are fine with me as long as they aren't screenfilling/blocking content (like some flash ads that fill your entire screen with some shitty animation).<br>I have adblock enabled by default but add sites I visit regularly (like this one) in the allowed list so they can display ads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ads are fine with me as long as they are n't screenfilling/blocking content ( like some flash ads that fill your entire screen with some shitty animation ) .I have adblock enabled by default but add sites I visit regularly ( like this one ) in the allowed list so they can display ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ads are fine with me as long as they aren't screenfilling/blocking content (like some flash ads that fill your entire screen with some shitty animation).I have adblock enabled by default but add sites I visit regularly (like this one) in the allowed list so they can display ads.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388792</id>
	<title>Oh Come On</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267971660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not like everybody does this.  You make a profit off of them.  You don't need to make any more off of me.  I mean, it's not like I'd buy it anyway, nor would I pay to see ARS content.  If I had to pay, I'd go elsewhere.  If I have to unblock obnoxious in-your-face ads to see ARS spiel, I would, and of course do, go elsewhere.</p><p>Stop crying about that which you cannot and will not control.  Web is all about free, freedom, and free from ads if I know how.  Most don't so you win.  I win.  We all win, just the way it is now.  But go ahead, block me.  See if I care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not like everybody does this .
You make a profit off of them .
You do n't need to make any more off of me .
I mean , it 's not like I 'd buy it anyway , nor would I pay to see ARS content .
If I had to pay , I 'd go elsewhere .
If I have to unblock obnoxious in-your-face ads to see ARS spiel , I would , and of course do , go elsewhere.Stop crying about that which you can not and will not control .
Web is all about free , freedom , and free from ads if I know how .
Most do n't so you win .
I win .
We all win , just the way it is now .
But go ahead , block me .
See if I care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not like everybody does this.
You make a profit off of them.
You don't need to make any more off of me.
I mean, it's not like I'd buy it anyway, nor would I pay to see ARS content.
If I had to pay, I'd go elsewhere.
If I have to unblock obnoxious in-your-face ads to see ARS spiel, I would, and of course do, go elsewhere.Stop crying about that which you cannot and will not control.
Web is all about free, freedom, and free from ads if I know how.
Most don't so you win.
I win.
We all win, just the way it is now.
But go ahead, block me.
See if I care.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391154</id>
	<title>Advertising is not selling!</title>
	<author>Gonoff</author>
	<datestamp>1267984980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was a TV programme in the UK recently where some US 'expert' bemoaned how the internet is constantly selling us stuff and invading our privacy.</p><p>I don't know if this is some difference in language between the USA and the UK, but advertising is not selling!  Advertising is trying to start the process of me thinking about buying something.</p><p>Bad, invasive and annoying browser advertising is actually a very useful guide about what <b>not</b> to buy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a TV programme in the UK recently where some US 'expert ' bemoaned how the internet is constantly selling us stuff and invading our privacy.I do n't know if this is some difference in language between the USA and the UK , but advertising is not selling !
Advertising is trying to start the process of me thinking about buying something.Bad , invasive and annoying browser advertising is actually a very useful guide about what not to buy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a TV programme in the UK recently where some US 'expert' bemoaned how the internet is constantly selling us stuff and invading our privacy.I don't know if this is some difference in language between the USA and the UK, but advertising is not selling!
Advertising is trying to start the process of me thinking about buying something.Bad, invasive and annoying browser advertising is actually a very useful guide about what not to buy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31399672</id>
	<title>Infection</title>
	<author>elentiras</author>
	<datestamp>1268057700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've refused to block ads for well over a decade.  I want to support the sites I visit. I grumble, but endure the slow downs caused by hitting up ad servers.  The ads on my girlfriend's site give us some extra money each month.  However, twice in the past 6 months I've been infected with horrible viruses through someone's compromised ad network.  Each time I was on a perfectly reputable site running third party ads from third party servers.  So now I have ad block and no script and all of that.  Sending slashdot a couple bucks isn't worth hours and hours of virus removal.  (Yes I have a virus scanner.  No it didn't stop it.  Yes, I could run Linux, but my TV card isn't fully supported.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've refused to block ads for well over a decade .
I want to support the sites I visit .
I grumble , but endure the slow downs caused by hitting up ad servers .
The ads on my girlfriend 's site give us some extra money each month .
However , twice in the past 6 months I 've been infected with horrible viruses through someone 's compromised ad network .
Each time I was on a perfectly reputable site running third party ads from third party servers .
So now I have ad block and no script and all of that .
Sending slashdot a couple bucks is n't worth hours and hours of virus removal .
( Yes I have a virus scanner .
No it did n't stop it .
Yes , I could run Linux , but my TV card is n't fully supported .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've refused to block ads for well over a decade.
I want to support the sites I visit.
I grumble, but endure the slow downs caused by hitting up ad servers.
The ads on my girlfriend's site give us some extra money each month.
However, twice in the past 6 months I've been infected with horrible viruses through someone's compromised ad network.
Each time I was on a perfectly reputable site running third party ads from third party servers.
So now I have ad block and no script and all of that.
Sending slashdot a couple bucks isn't worth hours and hours of virus removal.
(Yes I have a virus scanner.
No it didn't stop it.
Yes, I could run Linux, but my TV card isn't fully supported.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393436</id>
	<title>Re:Adblock Plus proposal</title>
	<author>Rocket\_Sci</author>
	<datestamp>1267954980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a misconception.   Most ads are sold on a cost per view basis.  Cost per click is primarily a way to sell search-engine based text ads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a misconception .
Most ads are sold on a cost per view basis .
Cost per click is primarily a way to sell search-engine based text ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a misconception.
Most ads are sold on a cost per view basis.
Cost per click is primarily a way to sell search-engine based text ads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31396270</id>
	<title>Re:simole solution ...</title>
	<author>Scott Kevill</author>
	<datestamp>1267973760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"And then they came for me."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" And then they came for me .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"And then they came for me.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394274</id>
	<title>Re:Cart before the horse again....</title>
	<author>Antony-Kyre</author>
	<datestamp>1267960260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If only more sites took the wikipedia approach, asking people for donations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If only more sites took the wikipedia approach , asking people for donations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only more sites took the wikipedia approach, asking people for donations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390904</id>
	<title>Re:Cart before the horse again....</title>
	<author>HumanEmulator</author>
	<datestamp>1267983600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So find yourselves a revenue model, guys, one that actually works and that we can actually afford, or just go away.</p></div></blockquote><p>Unfortunately that model might be even worse. Similar problems with TV viewers skipping ads on their DVRs have been affecting the TV industry and the result has been to move the ads into the shows. And before you say "That's why I don't watch TV", a lot of people here work in jobs where staying informed on computer technology is a requirement. So they can skip reading Ars or Slashdot, but they can't skip reading <i>anything</i>.</p><p>Technology news is generally news about products (ie. announcements , updates, plans, etc.) -- do you think you're going to be able to spot every time a product appears in an article because it's a paid sponsorship? Or an article that has conclusions influenced by money? And even if you could, how will you know about articles that were paid to disappear?</p><p>I block Flash (to kill the popover click the monkey spam) but I don't block ads because I want them to stay put in obvious little boxes. However, ad blocking isn't going away, so how about an ad blocker that continues to load the images and content but prevents them from being displayed? Sites and advertisers get the numbers -- we get to keep our attention and focus.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So find yourselves a revenue model , guys , one that actually works and that we can actually afford , or just go away.Unfortunately that model might be even worse .
Similar problems with TV viewers skipping ads on their DVRs have been affecting the TV industry and the result has been to move the ads into the shows .
And before you say " That 's why I do n't watch TV " , a lot of people here work in jobs where staying informed on computer technology is a requirement .
So they can skip reading Ars or Slashdot , but they ca n't skip reading anything.Technology news is generally news about products ( ie .
announcements , updates , plans , etc .
) -- do you think you 're going to be able to spot every time a product appears in an article because it 's a paid sponsorship ?
Or an article that has conclusions influenced by money ?
And even if you could , how will you know about articles that were paid to disappear ? I block Flash ( to kill the popover click the monkey spam ) but I do n't block ads because I want them to stay put in obvious little boxes .
However , ad blocking is n't going away , so how about an ad blocker that continues to load the images and content but prevents them from being displayed ?
Sites and advertisers get the numbers -- we get to keep our attention and focus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So find yourselves a revenue model, guys, one that actually works and that we can actually afford, or just go away.Unfortunately that model might be even worse.
Similar problems with TV viewers skipping ads on their DVRs have been affecting the TV industry and the result has been to move the ads into the shows.
And before you say "That's why I don't watch TV", a lot of people here work in jobs where staying informed on computer technology is a requirement.
So they can skip reading Ars or Slashdot, but they can't skip reading anything.Technology news is generally news about products (ie.
announcements , updates, plans, etc.
) -- do you think you're going to be able to spot every time a product appears in an article because it's a paid sponsorship?
Or an article that has conclusions influenced by money?
And even if you could, how will you know about articles that were paid to disappear?I block Flash (to kill the popover click the monkey spam) but I don't block ads because I want them to stay put in obvious little boxes.
However, ad blocking isn't going away, so how about an ad blocker that continues to load the images and content but prevents them from being displayed?
Sites and advertisers get the numbers -- we get to keep our attention and focus.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390762</id>
	<title>Re:It's *my* CPU you're using</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267982880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, no, it's not your bandwidth. You might have paid for the last hop, but since you're on a flat rate you didn't actually see any incremental cost.</p><p>The owner of the web site you're looking at, however, probably just paid for every single byte.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , no , it 's not your bandwidth .
You might have paid for the last hop , but since you 're on a flat rate you did n't actually see any incremental cost.The owner of the web site you 're looking at , however , probably just paid for every single byte .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, no, it's not your bandwidth.
You might have paid for the last hop, but since you're on a flat rate you didn't actually see any incremental cost.The owner of the web site you're looking at, however, probably just paid for every single byte.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388830</id>
	<title>You lost me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267971900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..at the redesign from the black-and-orange. Was a regular (daily) visitor, now only click in on a specific story now and again if I see something interesting linked from elsewhere.</p><p>Now, the big problem with the people behind many internet sites is that they believe that they're ENTITLED to their sites existing and making money. I recognize that Ars <em>is a high-quality site</em>, but as I've explained above, I can do without it. So the bottom line is, why would I make my internet experience worse for a resource I hardly care about enough to even visit regularly?</p><p>Harsh, but honest.</p><p>The dynamics for a regular visitor are somewhat different, but I have no idea what the numbers are there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..at the redesign from the black-and-orange .
Was a regular ( daily ) visitor , now only click in on a specific story now and again if I see something interesting linked from elsewhere.Now , the big problem with the people behind many internet sites is that they believe that they 're ENTITLED to their sites existing and making money .
I recognize that Ars is a high-quality site , but as I 've explained above , I can do without it .
So the bottom line is , why would I make my internet experience worse for a resource I hardly care about enough to even visit regularly ? Harsh , but honest.The dynamics for a regular visitor are somewhat different , but I have no idea what the numbers are there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..at the redesign from the black-and-orange.
Was a regular (daily) visitor, now only click in on a specific story now and again if I see something interesting linked from elsewhere.Now, the big problem with the people behind many internet sites is that they believe that they're ENTITLED to their sites existing and making money.
I recognize that Ars is a high-quality site, but as I've explained above, I can do without it.
So the bottom line is, why would I make my internet experience worse for a resource I hardly care about enough to even visit regularly?Harsh, but honest.The dynamics for a regular visitor are somewhat different, but I have no idea what the numbers are there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391852</id>
	<title>Re:So Ars is selling impressions?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267988760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most or all big ad campaigns are based on impressions rather than clicks, because big advertisers know that there is value even when people do not click, due to increased brand awareness and so on. It's unbranded and low-end advertising (e.g. Google's text ads) that are click-based.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most or all big ad campaigns are based on impressions rather than clicks , because big advertisers know that there is value even when people do not click , due to increased brand awareness and so on .
It 's unbranded and low-end advertising ( e.g .
Google 's text ads ) that are click-based .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most or all big ad campaigns are based on impressions rather than clicks, because big advertisers know that there is value even when people do not click, due to increased brand awareness and so on.
It's unbranded and low-end advertising (e.g.
Google's text ads) that are click-based.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390288</id>
	<title>Re:My thoughts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267980060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To quote TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>There is an oft-stated misconception that if a user never clicks on ads, then blocking them won't hurt a site financially. This is wrong. Most sites, at least sites the size of ours, are paid on a per view basis.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To quote TFA : There is an oft-stated misconception that if a user never clicks on ads , then blocking them wo n't hurt a site financially .
This is wrong .
Most sites , at least sites the size of ours , are paid on a per view basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To quote TFA:There is an oft-stated misconception that if a user never clicks on ads, then blocking them won't hurt a site financially.
This is wrong.
Most sites, at least sites the size of ours, are paid on a per view basis.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389554</id>
	<title>Slashdot does it right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267975560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>/. has ads for passerbys and noobs. To support the community they let good users have a free pass, this doesn't cost them much and improves the site. Lastly they allow people to donate/sign up with money.<br> <br>They plan for and only expect a small chunk of people to sign up, but each signed up person pays for 1000 not signed up people. And the other bit of advertising is additional revenue without annoying anyone you really want on the site. Perfect! All sites should be run this way. <br> <br>That or have an additional source of revenue and leave the website as a loss in efforts to increase $ to the other products. Put website into 'advertising' as an expense rather than kidding yourself and thinking it is a revenue stream.</htmltext>
<tokenext>/ .
has ads for passerbys and noobs .
To support the community they let good users have a free pass , this does n't cost them much and improves the site .
Lastly they allow people to donate/sign up with money .
They plan for and only expect a small chunk of people to sign up , but each signed up person pays for 1000 not signed up people .
And the other bit of advertising is additional revenue without annoying anyone you really want on the site .
Perfect ! All sites should be run this way .
That or have an additional source of revenue and leave the website as a loss in efforts to increase $ to the other products .
Put website into 'advertising ' as an expense rather than kidding yourself and thinking it is a revenue stream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/.
has ads for passerbys and noobs.
To support the community they let good users have a free pass, this doesn't cost them much and improves the site.
Lastly they allow people to donate/sign up with money.
They plan for and only expect a small chunk of people to sign up, but each signed up person pays for 1000 not signed up people.
And the other bit of advertising is additional revenue without annoying anyone you really want on the site.
Perfect! All sites should be run this way.
That or have an additional source of revenue and leave the website as a loss in efforts to increase $ to the other products.
Put website into 'advertising' as an expense rather than kidding yourself and thinking it is a revenue stream.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389750</id>
	<title>how true...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267976760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it definitely can affect the quality of content</p></div><p>Yes it does. I find that once I enable my ad-blocker, I tend to visit a lot more sites that I would otherwise find unbearable to read.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>As ad revenues go down, many sites are lured into running advertising of a truly questionable nature. We've all seen it happen</p></div><p>Have we? Once again, the only ad company that really seems to "get it" is Google: text-only, non-hovering, non-flashing, inaudible ads. Of course, I block Google (cookies) because of its cross-site tracking, but that's not the point here.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It can result in people losing their jobs</p></div><p>I might hope so. The sooner those questionable ad-makers are put out of business, the better.</p><p>Stop victimizing yourself. <em>You</em> are the one choosing the advertisers of "questionable nature". If that means decreased revenue, it is <em>your</em> fault, because <em>you</em> wanted to go for the "easy money". <em>You</em> (plural) are the ones enabling those ads by buying from their distributors. Stop blaming the user. To insert a car analogy here, it's like GM blaming the customer for not buying more gas-guzzling SUVs, while failing to realize that the market has changed (I'm sure someone has a better one, but hey, it's mandatory).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it definitely can affect the quality of contentYes it does .
I find that once I enable my ad-blocker , I tend to visit a lot more sites that I would otherwise find unbearable to read.As ad revenues go down , many sites are lured into running advertising of a truly questionable nature .
We 've all seen it happenHave we ?
Once again , the only ad company that really seems to " get it " is Google : text-only , non-hovering , non-flashing , inaudible ads .
Of course , I block Google ( cookies ) because of its cross-site tracking , but that 's not the point here.It can result in people losing their jobsI might hope so .
The sooner those questionable ad-makers are put out of business , the better.Stop victimizing yourself .
You are the one choosing the advertisers of " questionable nature " .
If that means decreased revenue , it is your fault , because you wanted to go for the " easy money " .
You ( plural ) are the ones enabling those ads by buying from their distributors .
Stop blaming the user .
To insert a car analogy here , it 's like GM blaming the customer for not buying more gas-guzzling SUVs , while failing to realize that the market has changed ( I 'm sure someone has a better one , but hey , it 's mandatory ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it definitely can affect the quality of contentYes it does.
I find that once I enable my ad-blocker, I tend to visit a lot more sites that I would otherwise find unbearable to read.As ad revenues go down, many sites are lured into running advertising of a truly questionable nature.
We've all seen it happenHave we?
Once again, the only ad company that really seems to "get it" is Google: text-only, non-hovering, non-flashing, inaudible ads.
Of course, I block Google (cookies) because of its cross-site tracking, but that's not the point here.It can result in people losing their jobsI might hope so.
The sooner those questionable ad-makers are put out of business, the better.Stop victimizing yourself.
You are the one choosing the advertisers of "questionable nature".
If that means decreased revenue, it is your fault, because you wanted to go for the "easy money".
You (plural) are the ones enabling those ads by buying from their distributors.
Stop blaming the user.
To insert a car analogy here, it's like GM blaming the customer for not buying more gas-guzzling SUVs, while failing to realize that the market has changed (I'm sure someone has a better one, but hey, it's mandatory).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392878</id>
	<title>Arstech and adbanners + trojans? See inside</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267994520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica</b> -&gt; Philip</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PM<br>internet</p><p>Philip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it. When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus. Here is a copy of my log. I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites. 1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"</p><p>Link to Original Source</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica - &gt; Philiphttp : //slashdot.org/firehose.pl ? op = view&amp;id = 447008 [ slashdot.org ] Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008 , @ 03 : 00PMinternetPhilip writes " It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it .
When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus .
Here is a copy of my log .
I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites .
1/2/2008 2 : 27 : 15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe ( http : //arstechnica.com/index.ars ) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO ( Trojan ) " Link to Original Sourcehttp : //slashdot.org/firehose.pl ? op = view&amp;id = 447008 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica -&gt; Philiphttp://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008 [slashdot.org]Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PMinternetPhilip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it.
When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus.
Here is a copy of my log.
I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites.
1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"Link to Original Sourcehttp://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=447008 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31399192</id>
	<title>Noone is forced here to do anything</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268051580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>- Ars is not forced to hold up the website<br>- We (the reader) are not forced to view the website<br>- If Ars delivers free content (im not talking about the ads here<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-), we are allowed to view it for free<br>- If our efforts to view the content exceed the value, we are not viewing the content</p><p>Summary: If Ars drives away too many readers (by having too many ads, by making it too hard to ignore the ads, by not having enough valuable content, by making too many strange experiments,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...), it will perish</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>- Ars is not forced to hold up the website- We ( the reader ) are not forced to view the website- If Ars delivers free content ( im not talking about the ads here : - ) , we are allowed to view it for free- If our efforts to view the content exceed the value , we are not viewing the contentSummary : If Ars drives away too many readers ( by having too many ads , by making it too hard to ignore the ads , by not having enough valuable content , by making too many strange experiments , ... ) , it will perish</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- Ars is not forced to hold up the website- We (the reader) are not forced to view the website- If Ars delivers free content (im not talking about the ads here :-), we are allowed to view it for free- If our efforts to view the content exceed the value, we are not viewing the contentSummary: If Ars drives away too many readers (by having too many ads, by making it too hard to ignore the ads, by not having enough valuable content, by making too many strange experiments, ...), it will perish</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393254</id>
	<title>Re:Love this comment by Ars</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1267953840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is funny that you say this with some sarcasm, like you are somehow "sticking it to them" by taking them up on their offer. They give content, you give nothing back. You stop visiting... and, how exactly is that bad for them?</p></div><p>I'm not sure the idea is to "stick it to them" here. The content that they have is simply not sufficiently valuable to the OP to deal with the ads, so he/she is okay with not visiting the site anymore. Other people may feel differently and put up with the ads. That's just the way a free market works.</p><p>Speaking only for myself, there is almost no content on the web that I am willing to endure obtrusive advertising to see. The only significant exception that comes to mind is Wikipedia, which I frankly wish would at least run Google ads so Jimmy Wales would stop holding his hand out for donations all the time. (I usually do donate during WP donation drives, just as I did for my local PBS station back when I watched TV.) That said, I suspect I'm not alone in this. There's a whole lot of sites that I visit that I wouldn't bother with if if I had to deal with lots of ads or if they had paywalls. All the web has done is make it easy for people to publish content to a global audience. Creating content that entices people to actually pay for it hasn't gotten any easier.</p><p>It's not like this is unique to the web. When I walk into a store, I don't always buy something. And when I do buy something, it is one product (or a few products) from the thousands or tens of thousands of products in the store. If I had to pay an entry fee just to get into the store, or if every last salesperson on duty interrupts me at least once (this means <i>you</i>, RadioShack) to try to sell me something I'm not remotely interested in, odds are good that I'm not going to visit very often. Unless you're selling necessities like medical care, food, or cars, you just can't get away with annoying the hell out of every customer. Light entertainment -- which is, in the end, what Ars Technica provides -- just isn't worth it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is funny that you say this with some sarcasm , like you are somehow " sticking it to them " by taking them up on their offer .
They give content , you give nothing back .
You stop visiting... and , how exactly is that bad for them ? I 'm not sure the idea is to " stick it to them " here .
The content that they have is simply not sufficiently valuable to the OP to deal with the ads , so he/she is okay with not visiting the site anymore .
Other people may feel differently and put up with the ads .
That 's just the way a free market works.Speaking only for myself , there is almost no content on the web that I am willing to endure obtrusive advertising to see .
The only significant exception that comes to mind is Wikipedia , which I frankly wish would at least run Google ads so Jimmy Wales would stop holding his hand out for donations all the time .
( I usually do donate during WP donation drives , just as I did for my local PBS station back when I watched TV .
) That said , I suspect I 'm not alone in this .
There 's a whole lot of sites that I visit that I would n't bother with if if I had to deal with lots of ads or if they had paywalls .
All the web has done is make it easy for people to publish content to a global audience .
Creating content that entices people to actually pay for it has n't gotten any easier.It 's not like this is unique to the web .
When I walk into a store , I do n't always buy something .
And when I do buy something , it is one product ( or a few products ) from the thousands or tens of thousands of products in the store .
If I had to pay an entry fee just to get into the store , or if every last salesperson on duty interrupts me at least once ( this means you , RadioShack ) to try to sell me something I 'm not remotely interested in , odds are good that I 'm not going to visit very often .
Unless you 're selling necessities like medical care , food , or cars , you just ca n't get away with annoying the hell out of every customer .
Light entertainment -- which is , in the end , what Ars Technica provides -- just is n't worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is funny that you say this with some sarcasm, like you are somehow "sticking it to them" by taking them up on their offer.
They give content, you give nothing back.
You stop visiting... and, how exactly is that bad for them?I'm not sure the idea is to "stick it to them" here.
The content that they have is simply not sufficiently valuable to the OP to deal with the ads, so he/she is okay with not visiting the site anymore.
Other people may feel differently and put up with the ads.
That's just the way a free market works.Speaking only for myself, there is almost no content on the web that I am willing to endure obtrusive advertising to see.
The only significant exception that comes to mind is Wikipedia, which I frankly wish would at least run Google ads so Jimmy Wales would stop holding his hand out for donations all the time.
(I usually do donate during WP donation drives, just as I did for my local PBS station back when I watched TV.
) That said, I suspect I'm not alone in this.
There's a whole lot of sites that I visit that I wouldn't bother with if if I had to deal with lots of ads or if they had paywalls.
All the web has done is make it easy for people to publish content to a global audience.
Creating content that entices people to actually pay for it hasn't gotten any easier.It's not like this is unique to the web.
When I walk into a store, I don't always buy something.
And when I do buy something, it is one product (or a few products) from the thousands or tens of thousands of products in the store.
If I had to pay an entry fee just to get into the store, or if every last salesperson on duty interrupts me at least once (this means you, RadioShack) to try to sell me something I'm not remotely interested in, odds are good that I'm not going to visit very often.
Unless you're selling necessities like medical care, food, or cars, you just can't get away with annoying the hell out of every customer.
Light entertainment -- which is, in the end, what Ars Technica provides -- just isn't worth it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388784</id>
	<title>Re:It's the freeloaders time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267971660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I block everything I can because I don't want to pollute my eyes with crap.</p><p>But, I have never tried to block Google text ads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I block everything I can because I do n't want to pollute my eyes with crap.But , I have never tried to block Google text ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I block everything I can because I don't want to pollute my eyes with crap.But, I have never tried to block Google text ads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390858</id>
	<title>I agree...mostly</title>
	<author>Montezumaa</author>
	<datestamp>1267983360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is difficult for sites to operate when people block their means of income, but it is also the fault of many of these sites that so many block ads.  Some ads are ok; they are minimal and simply a picture that is really a link to the advertising site.  There are others that balance on the line of irritating, then there are other that are bulky and completely maddening.  You then have a rather small number that can be dangerous(no the advertisement, but the place that advertisement takes you).</p><p>If sites would require ads to be minimal and more "professionally produced", then people like me would be more inclined to suffer them(for those that do not know, suffer is not always negative, which is how I am using it).  It is good to see that Ars Technica and Mr. Fisher are not just throwing up and ole ad(or at least they are claiming they are), but there are many sites that do not.  The more sites that respect their readership, the more that readers might migrate to reducing their ad-blocking code use.</p><p>For me, if I like the site and make use of the site frequently, then I will enable the ads on that site.  The moment that the site gets out of control and starts using a bunch of epileptic seizure-inducing ads, that is the moment that their ads get blocked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is difficult for sites to operate when people block their means of income , but it is also the fault of many of these sites that so many block ads .
Some ads are ok ; they are minimal and simply a picture that is really a link to the advertising site .
There are others that balance on the line of irritating , then there are other that are bulky and completely maddening .
You then have a rather small number that can be dangerous ( no the advertisement , but the place that advertisement takes you ) .If sites would require ads to be minimal and more " professionally produced " , then people like me would be more inclined to suffer them ( for those that do not know , suffer is not always negative , which is how I am using it ) .
It is good to see that Ars Technica and Mr. Fisher are not just throwing up and ole ad ( or at least they are claiming they are ) , but there are many sites that do not .
The more sites that respect their readership , the more that readers might migrate to reducing their ad-blocking code use.For me , if I like the site and make use of the site frequently , then I will enable the ads on that site .
The moment that the site gets out of control and starts using a bunch of epileptic seizure-inducing ads , that is the moment that their ads get blocked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is difficult for sites to operate when people block their means of income, but it is also the fault of many of these sites that so many block ads.
Some ads are ok; they are minimal and simply a picture that is really a link to the advertising site.
There are others that balance on the line of irritating, then there are other that are bulky and completely maddening.
You then have a rather small number that can be dangerous(no the advertisement, but the place that advertisement takes you).If sites would require ads to be minimal and more "professionally produced", then people like me would be more inclined to suffer them(for those that do not know, suffer is not always negative, which is how I am using it).
It is good to see that Ars Technica and Mr. Fisher are not just throwing up and ole ad(or at least they are claiming they are), but there are many sites that do not.
The more sites that respect their readership, the more that readers might migrate to reducing their ad-blocking code use.For me, if I like the site and make use of the site frequently, then I will enable the ads on that site.
The moment that the site gets out of control and starts using a bunch of epileptic seizure-inducing ads, that is the moment that their ads get blocked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389394</id>
	<title>Re:My thoughts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267974780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RTFA. It's addressed in there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RTFA .
It 's addressed in there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RTFA.
It's addressed in there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389170</id>
	<title>"not immoral" precedes moral argument</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267973520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On a practical note, I make a point of never clicking on adverts. The only way I interact with an advert is to make a little mental note to reduce my opinion of the advertiser and to make it less likely for me to recommend them. It is more helpful for you if I block your adverts entirely.</p><p>On an Internet's note, if you don't want something  rendered as I please, don't send it via unauthenticated HTTP. As a reasonably technically competent magazine, you should know better.</p><p>On a personal note, I owe you nothing. If you think your content is worth charging for, charge for it. If you provide your content, I will take it, just as I am happy with people taking the fruits of my labour as published on the Internet (and sharing it). Change your business model and try voluntary donations or subscriptions if you want, but don't ask me to be dishonest with your advertisers.</p><p>On a general note, paid advertising is not a good way of raising awareness, and I will take no part in the cycle -- enough essays have been written about this already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On a practical note , I make a point of never clicking on adverts .
The only way I interact with an advert is to make a little mental note to reduce my opinion of the advertiser and to make it less likely for me to recommend them .
It is more helpful for you if I block your adverts entirely.On an Internet 's note , if you do n't want something rendered as I please , do n't send it via unauthenticated HTTP .
As a reasonably technically competent magazine , you should know better.On a personal note , I owe you nothing .
If you think your content is worth charging for , charge for it .
If you provide your content , I will take it , just as I am happy with people taking the fruits of my labour as published on the Internet ( and sharing it ) .
Change your business model and try voluntary donations or subscriptions if you want , but do n't ask me to be dishonest with your advertisers.On a general note , paid advertising is not a good way of raising awareness , and I will take no part in the cycle -- enough essays have been written about this already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a practical note, I make a point of never clicking on adverts.
The only way I interact with an advert is to make a little mental note to reduce my opinion of the advertiser and to make it less likely for me to recommend them.
It is more helpful for you if I block your adverts entirely.On an Internet's note, if you don't want something  rendered as I please, don't send it via unauthenticated HTTP.
As a reasonably technically competent magazine, you should know better.On a personal note, I owe you nothing.
If you think your content is worth charging for, charge for it.
If you provide your content, I will take it, just as I am happy with people taking the fruits of my labour as published on the Internet (and sharing it).
Change your business model and try voluntary donations or subscriptions if you want, but don't ask me to be dishonest with your advertisers.On a general note, paid advertising is not a good way of raising awareness, and I will take no part in the cycle -- enough essays have been written about this already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389610</id>
	<title>Re:It's the freeloaders time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267975920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll allow static non-animated pictures. Anything with flash, javascript, or embedded in iframes is blocked. If you can't communicate your message with a picture, you don't deserve my attention. Oh - and adwords is fine too.</p><p>Advertisers have no morals and no shame. If they could legally send a barker around who breaks into your house and yells at you through a megaphone, they would. The industry would (and currently is attempting to) outlaw any technology that is capable of bypassing ads in any medium. Hell, if they could get away with it, they would outlaw eyelids so you couldn't close your eyes and mandate locking seatbelts that wouldn't allow you to get up and go to the bathroom during commercial breaks.</p><p>Did I mention I hate most ads?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll allow static non-animated pictures .
Anything with flash , javascript , or embedded in iframes is blocked .
If you ca n't communicate your message with a picture , you do n't deserve my attention .
Oh - and adwords is fine too.Advertisers have no morals and no shame .
If they could legally send a barker around who breaks into your house and yells at you through a megaphone , they would .
The industry would ( and currently is attempting to ) outlaw any technology that is capable of bypassing ads in any medium .
Hell , if they could get away with it , they would outlaw eyelids so you could n't close your eyes and mandate locking seatbelts that would n't allow you to get up and go to the bathroom during commercial breaks.Did I mention I hate most ads ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll allow static non-animated pictures.
Anything with flash, javascript, or embedded in iframes is blocked.
If you can't communicate your message with a picture, you don't deserve my attention.
Oh - and adwords is fine too.Advertisers have no morals and no shame.
If they could legally send a barker around who breaks into your house and yells at you through a megaphone, they would.
The industry would (and currently is attempting to) outlaw any technology that is capable of bypassing ads in any medium.
Hell, if they could get away with it, they would outlaw eyelids so you couldn't close your eyes and mandate locking seatbelts that wouldn't allow you to get up and go to the bathroom during commercial breaks.Did I mention I hate most ads?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389704</id>
	<title>Re:How is this different than muting TV commercial</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267976460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article is wrong. Ars claims that there is a difference because TV ads are "potential" based ads, where the advertiser has a stochastic model which tells them how many viewers will actually watch the ad, whereas web-ads don't use a stochastic model because the ad server can simply count the impressions. But of course web advertisers also know that quite a lot of ads are never viewed. They might be below the fold and the user never scrolls. They might be loaded in tabs that are never viewed. The user might have another window blocking his view of that particular part of the browser window. The idea that web advertising has a reliable way of counting impressions is bullshit. What if ad blockers started downloading ads without showing them? Would that satisfy Ars? Following their argument it should, but of course advertisers would simply discount the impression count by the percentage of visitors with ad blockers, just like they discount reach to account for channel hoppers and ad muters in the TV world.</p><p>It's like with the music industry: There was a short time when they profited immensely from the technology which made music creation cheaper while the market price of music had not started to decrease. Publishers have for quite a while profited from the advancements in desktop publishing and online distribution. They've churned out so much bad journalism at pre-online prices just because they could that some of them have forgotten what good journalism looks like. Now literally everybody can reach millions of readers with practically no up-front cost, and this reduces the value of the usual advertising-as-content or two-before-breakfast opinion pieces. Unless they have information which is valuable in and of itself (i.e. not just opinion pieces, press release relays and unboxing stories), they compete against millions of other publishers. No matter how they fight the fight: Their revenue will go down. It's simple market economics. IMHO the quality of information that could support subscription models just isn't there, and of course that is reflected in ad revenue too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article is wrong .
Ars claims that there is a difference because TV ads are " potential " based ads , where the advertiser has a stochastic model which tells them how many viewers will actually watch the ad , whereas web-ads do n't use a stochastic model because the ad server can simply count the impressions .
But of course web advertisers also know that quite a lot of ads are never viewed .
They might be below the fold and the user never scrolls .
They might be loaded in tabs that are never viewed .
The user might have another window blocking his view of that particular part of the browser window .
The idea that web advertising has a reliable way of counting impressions is bullshit .
What if ad blockers started downloading ads without showing them ?
Would that satisfy Ars ?
Following their argument it should , but of course advertisers would simply discount the impression count by the percentage of visitors with ad blockers , just like they discount reach to account for channel hoppers and ad muters in the TV world.It 's like with the music industry : There was a short time when they profited immensely from the technology which made music creation cheaper while the market price of music had not started to decrease .
Publishers have for quite a while profited from the advancements in desktop publishing and online distribution .
They 've churned out so much bad journalism at pre-online prices just because they could that some of them have forgotten what good journalism looks like .
Now literally everybody can reach millions of readers with practically no up-front cost , and this reduces the value of the usual advertising-as-content or two-before-breakfast opinion pieces .
Unless they have information which is valuable in and of itself ( i.e .
not just opinion pieces , press release relays and unboxing stories ) , they compete against millions of other publishers .
No matter how they fight the fight : Their revenue will go down .
It 's simple market economics .
IMHO the quality of information that could support subscription models just is n't there , and of course that is reflected in ad revenue too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article is wrong.
Ars claims that there is a difference because TV ads are "potential" based ads, where the advertiser has a stochastic model which tells them how many viewers will actually watch the ad, whereas web-ads don't use a stochastic model because the ad server can simply count the impressions.
But of course web advertisers also know that quite a lot of ads are never viewed.
They might be below the fold and the user never scrolls.
They might be loaded in tabs that are never viewed.
The user might have another window blocking his view of that particular part of the browser window.
The idea that web advertising has a reliable way of counting impressions is bullshit.
What if ad blockers started downloading ads without showing them?
Would that satisfy Ars?
Following their argument it should, but of course advertisers would simply discount the impression count by the percentage of visitors with ad blockers, just like they discount reach to account for channel hoppers and ad muters in the TV world.It's like with the music industry: There was a short time when they profited immensely from the technology which made music creation cheaper while the market price of music had not started to decrease.
Publishers have for quite a while profited from the advancements in desktop publishing and online distribution.
They've churned out so much bad journalism at pre-online prices just because they could that some of them have forgotten what good journalism looks like.
Now literally everybody can reach millions of readers with practically no up-front cost, and this reduces the value of the usual advertising-as-content or two-before-breakfast opinion pieces.
Unless they have information which is valuable in and of itself (i.e.
not just opinion pieces, press release relays and unboxing stories), they compete against millions of other publishers.
No matter how they fight the fight: Their revenue will go down.
It's simple market economics.
IMHO the quality of information that could support subscription models just isn't there, and of course that is reflected in ad revenue too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390162</id>
	<title>Effectiveness of advertising</title>
	<author>sphealey</author>
	<datestamp>1267979340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Its the advertisers fault. I understand that advertising is all about making<br>&gt; sure your message is heard above the noise but they are the ones who jumped<br>&gt; the shark.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; When it was just banners and the occasional frame with some adds in it, I<br>&gt; never attempted to filter them out other than with my own mental powers.<br>&gt; When they started doing pop-ups and float overs, I even tolerated it. When<br>&gt; they started making adds that pretended to be system messages, virus scanner<br>&gt; alerts, and other applications that really struck me as fraudulent and abusive<br>&gt; and so I started blocking ads and helping others do the same.</p><p>The dirty secret here is that there has never in human history been a reliable way to measure the effectiveness of advertising.  Macy's puts a 4-page spread of children's clothing in the Sunday newspaper and the next week sales of children's clothes go up.  Is that a result of parents reading the ad, absorbing it, and making a purchase as a result?  Is it the result of the ad jogging the parents' memory about the need to buy back to school clothes, but they would have gone to Macy's anyway because they always have?  Or is it just back to school time and the sales would have gone up anyway?  No one ever knew.</p><p>Now there are direct and provable methods to precisely measure the effectiveness of specific ads on the Internet, and a good measure of the effectiveness of advertising overall.  The result?  Advertising turns out to be very INeffective and has very little affect on people's decisions.  The consumer goods industry and the ad-makers are having a really, really difficult time dealing with that.</p><p>sPh</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Its the advertisers fault .
I understand that advertising is all about making &gt; sure your message is heard above the noise but they are the ones who jumped &gt; the shark. &gt; &gt; When it was just banners and the occasional frame with some adds in it , I &gt; never attempted to filter them out other than with my own mental powers. &gt; When they started doing pop-ups and float overs , I even tolerated it .
When &gt; they started making adds that pretended to be system messages , virus scanner &gt; alerts , and other applications that really struck me as fraudulent and abusive &gt; and so I started blocking ads and helping others do the same.The dirty secret here is that there has never in human history been a reliable way to measure the effectiveness of advertising .
Macy 's puts a 4-page spread of children 's clothing in the Sunday newspaper and the next week sales of children 's clothes go up .
Is that a result of parents reading the ad , absorbing it , and making a purchase as a result ?
Is it the result of the ad jogging the parents ' memory about the need to buy back to school clothes , but they would have gone to Macy 's anyway because they always have ?
Or is it just back to school time and the sales would have gone up anyway ?
No one ever knew.Now there are direct and provable methods to precisely measure the effectiveness of specific ads on the Internet , and a good measure of the effectiveness of advertising overall .
The result ?
Advertising turns out to be very INeffective and has very little affect on people 's decisions .
The consumer goods industry and the ad-makers are having a really , really difficult time dealing with that.sPh</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Its the advertisers fault.
I understand that advertising is all about making&gt; sure your message is heard above the noise but they are the ones who jumped&gt; the shark.&gt;&gt; When it was just banners and the occasional frame with some adds in it, I&gt; never attempted to filter them out other than with my own mental powers.&gt; When they started doing pop-ups and float overs, I even tolerated it.
When&gt; they started making adds that pretended to be system messages, virus scanner&gt; alerts, and other applications that really struck me as fraudulent and abusive&gt; and so I started blocking ads and helping others do the same.The dirty secret here is that there has never in human history been a reliable way to measure the effectiveness of advertising.
Macy's puts a 4-page spread of children's clothing in the Sunday newspaper and the next week sales of children's clothes go up.
Is that a result of parents reading the ad, absorbing it, and making a purchase as a result?
Is it the result of the ad jogging the parents' memory about the need to buy back to school clothes, but they would have gone to Macy's anyway because they always have?
Or is it just back to school time and the sales would have gone up anyway?
No one ever knew.Now there are direct and provable methods to precisely measure the effectiveness of specific ads on the Internet, and a good measure of the effectiveness of advertising overall.
The result?
Advertising turns out to be very INeffective and has very little affect on people's decisions.
The consumer goods industry and the ad-makers are having a really, really difficult time dealing with that.sPh</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388872</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmmm</title>
	<author>IceCreamGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1267972140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If the ad blockers would actually follow the links and give the
people the clicks they desire, without displaying the advertisement,
would that help?"</p></div></blockquote><p>
Are you asking if illegal click fraud would help Arstechnica? I think the answer is an unequivocal "no;"</p><blockquote><div><p>...the demographic studies these revenue
sources depending upon the click analysis would fail. How nice.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Why is that nice? Because then you'll see the ads that should have gone to 90-year-old widows instead of the video game ad you would normally see? How nice because Ars would go out of business? What exactly is your point here... because if it's what it seems to be on the surface then it's really dumb.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the ad blockers would actually follow the links and give the people the clicks they desire , without displaying the advertisement , would that help ?
" Are you asking if illegal click fraud would help Arstechnica ?
I think the answer is an unequivocal " no ; " ...the demographic studies these revenue sources depending upon the click analysis would fail .
How nice .
Why is that nice ?
Because then you 'll see the ads that should have gone to 90-year-old widows instead of the video game ad you would normally see ?
How nice because Ars would go out of business ?
What exactly is your point here... because if it 's what it seems to be on the surface then it 's really dumb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the ad blockers would actually follow the links and give the
people the clicks they desire, without displaying the advertisement,
would that help?
"
Are you asking if illegal click fraud would help Arstechnica?
I think the answer is an unequivocal "no;"...the demographic studies these revenue
sources depending upon the click analysis would fail.
How nice.
Why is that nice?
Because then you'll see the ads that should have gone to 90-year-old widows instead of the video game ad you would normally see?
How nice because Ars would go out of business?
What exactly is your point here... because if it's what it seems to be on the surface then it's really dumb.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390816</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267983180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ad blocking stays, as does noscript. I HATE FLASH ADS. So much so that I uninstalled Flash. It's not on my computer.</p><p>Despite that, every few days, some sneaky advertiser decides he wants to slip in a tracking cookie through an LSO. They are promptly dumped. Any flash ad is going to give you an LSO for history tracking purposes. I won't have it. ARS's problem is that the advertiser insists that they will have surfing history through the LSO. Nowhere in all the hubbub is it even mentioned by the staff. It's very carefully stepped around.</p><p>Nor will I allow the web bugs that ARS has.</p><p>Lastly, I won't comment at ARS because in all the responses in that thread are several that said no and got banned.</p><p>If they wanna block those that are not looking at ads, I'm cool with that. I will not remove the malware protection nor adblockers. Too many sites have had crosscripting attacks and dish out malware through ads without the host or the site even being aware of it.</p><p>Thank you but no thank you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ad blocking stays , as does noscript .
I HATE FLASH ADS .
So much so that I uninstalled Flash .
It 's not on my computer.Despite that , every few days , some sneaky advertiser decides he wants to slip in a tracking cookie through an LSO .
They are promptly dumped .
Any flash ad is going to give you an LSO for history tracking purposes .
I wo n't have it .
ARS 's problem is that the advertiser insists that they will have surfing history through the LSO .
Nowhere in all the hubbub is it even mentioned by the staff .
It 's very carefully stepped around.Nor will I allow the web bugs that ARS has.Lastly , I wo n't comment at ARS because in all the responses in that thread are several that said no and got banned.If they wan na block those that are not looking at ads , I 'm cool with that .
I will not remove the malware protection nor adblockers .
Too many sites have had crosscripting attacks and dish out malware through ads without the host or the site even being aware of it.Thank you but no thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ad blocking stays, as does noscript.
I HATE FLASH ADS.
So much so that I uninstalled Flash.
It's not on my computer.Despite that, every few days, some sneaky advertiser decides he wants to slip in a tracking cookie through an LSO.
They are promptly dumped.
Any flash ad is going to give you an LSO for history tracking purposes.
I won't have it.
ARS's problem is that the advertiser insists that they will have surfing history through the LSO.
Nowhere in all the hubbub is it even mentioned by the staff.
It's very carefully stepped around.Nor will I allow the web bugs that ARS has.Lastly, I won't comment at ARS because in all the responses in that thread are several that said no and got banned.If they wanna block those that are not looking at ads, I'm cool with that.
I will not remove the malware protection nor adblockers.
Too many sites have had crosscripting attacks and dish out malware through ads without the host or the site even being aware of it.Thank you but no thank you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393770</id>
	<title>NoScript</title>
	<author>enter to exit</author>
	<datestamp>1267957260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>NoScript blocks nearly all the ads i would have seen. I really only use Ablock for the "elements hiding helper" (does anyone else remove the google chat bar on igoogle?) There is nothing i am willing to do about this.<br> <br>
There is no way in hell i am allowing the likes of doubleclick.com to get through. <br> <br>

If you've put some effort and thought into integrating the ads on your site in a way that doesn't piss everyone off (I.E. not just copy-paste snippets of html/javascript everywere ) adblock will be largely ineffecive. I can think of several sites that render at least <i>some</i> ads even through adblock and NoScript. <br> <br>

These technical sites suffer the most because the readers are geeky enough to bother to install adblock/NoScript. The best bet would be for them to self-host ads that are obfuscated enough to get past adblock. From my experience most adblock users have a respect for ads that manage to circumvent the filter and leave them displayed (and maybe even pity-click it). Pity Click  probably account for the vast majority of the revenues of all the geeky/nerdy sites</htmltext>
<tokenext>NoScript blocks nearly all the ads i would have seen .
I really only use Ablock for the " elements hiding helper " ( does anyone else remove the google chat bar on igoogle ?
) There is nothing i am willing to do about this .
There is no way in hell i am allowing the likes of doubleclick.com to get through .
If you 've put some effort and thought into integrating the ads on your site in a way that does n't piss everyone off ( I.E .
not just copy-paste snippets of html/javascript everywere ) adblock will be largely ineffecive .
I can think of several sites that render at least some ads even through adblock and NoScript .
These technical sites suffer the most because the readers are geeky enough to bother to install adblock/NoScript .
The best bet would be for them to self-host ads that are obfuscated enough to get past adblock .
From my experience most adblock users have a respect for ads that manage to circumvent the filter and leave them displayed ( and maybe even pity-click it ) .
Pity Click probably account for the vast majority of the revenues of all the geeky/nerdy sites</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NoScript blocks nearly all the ads i would have seen.
I really only use Ablock for the "elements hiding helper" (does anyone else remove the google chat bar on igoogle?
) There is nothing i am willing to do about this.
There is no way in hell i am allowing the likes of doubleclick.com to get through.
If you've put some effort and thought into integrating the ads on your site in a way that doesn't piss everyone off (I.E.
not just copy-paste snippets of html/javascript everywere ) adblock will be largely ineffecive.
I can think of several sites that render at least some ads even through adblock and NoScript.
These technical sites suffer the most because the readers are geeky enough to bother to install adblock/NoScript.
The best bet would be for them to self-host ads that are obfuscated enough to get past adblock.
From my experience most adblock users have a respect for ads that manage to circumvent the filter and leave them displayed (and maybe even pity-click it).
Pity Click  probably account for the vast majority of the revenues of all the geeky/nerdy sites</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391300</id>
	<title>Re:Content Creators Just Can't Win</title>
	<author>DreadPiratePizz</author>
	<datestamp>1267985640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sites like Homestar Runner are supported entirely by merchandise. There isn't a single ad on the site, so it can be done.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sites like Homestar Runner are supported entirely by merchandise .
There is n't a single ad on the site , so it can be done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sites like Homestar Runner are supported entirely by merchandise.
There isn't a single ad on the site, so it can be done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31410126</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268072100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Five Stages of Grief:</p><p>1. Denial<br>2. Anger<br>3. Bargaining<br>4. Depression<br>5. Acceptance</p><p>It seems that our friend over here is on stage 3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Five Stages of Grief : 1 .
Denial2. Anger3 .
Bargaining4. Depression5 .
AcceptanceIt seems that our friend over here is on stage 3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Five Stages of Grief:1.
Denial2. Anger3.
Bargaining4. Depression5.
AcceptanceIt seems that our friend over here is on stage 3.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391270</id>
	<title>"Disable advertising"</title>
	<author>SEWilco</author>
	<datestamp>1267985400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This discussion is on a site with a checkbox which invites me to disable advertising, and no option to ask Slashdot to stop nagging me to disable advertising.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This discussion is on a site with a checkbox which invites me to disable advertising , and no option to ask Slashdot to stop nagging me to disable advertising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This discussion is on a site with a checkbox which invites me to disable advertising, and no option to ask Slashdot to stop nagging me to disable advertising.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391984</id>
	<title>Re:How is this different than muting TV commercial</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267989420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's different because TV has popups and banner ads and animations that cannot be blocked because they appear while the show or its credits are running, outside of the once-standard commercial breaks. TV is worse because you can't run your own software on it to control the experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's different because TV has popups and banner ads and animations that can not be blocked because they appear while the show or its credits are running , outside of the once-standard commercial breaks .
TV is worse because you ca n't run your own software on it to control the experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's different because TV has popups and banner ads and animations that cannot be blocked because they appear while the show or its credits are running, outside of the once-standard commercial breaks.
TV is worse because you can't run your own software on it to control the experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832</id>
	<title>Ads suck</title>
	<author>mcelrath</author>
	<datestamp>1267971900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ads are invasive, intrusive, annoying, and I don't want to see them.  ever.  There are laws against sending advertisements over the fax and cold-calling cell phones.  The logic is that the <i>recipient</i> must pay for the unsolicited advertisement (in fax paper, toner, or cell phone minutes).

</p><p>Internet ads are no different.  I pay for bandwidth and connection time, so your ad directly costs me money, and it should be illegal for that reason.  It costs me time too, making your page slower and more annoying.  I don't want to have to hunt for the content among all the cleverly disguised ads.  I don't want to have to examine the links to figure out which ones are ads and which ones are legitimate.

</p><p>I will continue blocking ads until the end of time.  If you can't figure out how to make money without annoying people, that's your problem.  Get creative folks, and stop whining about how you wish people would just be more receptive to being annoyed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ads are invasive , intrusive , annoying , and I do n't want to see them .
ever. There are laws against sending advertisements over the fax and cold-calling cell phones .
The logic is that the recipient must pay for the unsolicited advertisement ( in fax paper , toner , or cell phone minutes ) .
Internet ads are no different .
I pay for bandwidth and connection time , so your ad directly costs me money , and it should be illegal for that reason .
It costs me time too , making your page slower and more annoying .
I do n't want to have to hunt for the content among all the cleverly disguised ads .
I do n't want to have to examine the links to figure out which ones are ads and which ones are legitimate .
I will continue blocking ads until the end of time .
If you ca n't figure out how to make money without annoying people , that 's your problem .
Get creative folks , and stop whining about how you wish people would just be more receptive to being annoyed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ads are invasive, intrusive, annoying, and I don't want to see them.
ever.  There are laws against sending advertisements over the fax and cold-calling cell phones.
The logic is that the recipient must pay for the unsolicited advertisement (in fax paper, toner, or cell phone minutes).
Internet ads are no different.
I pay for bandwidth and connection time, so your ad directly costs me money, and it should be illegal for that reason.
It costs me time too, making your page slower and more annoying.
I don't want to have to hunt for the content among all the cleverly disguised ads.
I don't want to have to examine the links to figure out which ones are ads and which ones are legitimate.
I will continue blocking ads until the end of time.
If you can't figure out how to make money without annoying people, that's your problem.
Get creative folks, and stop whining about how you wish people would just be more receptive to being annoyed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390566</id>
	<title>well then</title>
	<author>sohp</author>
	<datestamp>1267981800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Do not allow ads that popup, cover, dance, wiggle, make noise, or do anything other than sit there, NOT flash or any other plugin techonology.</p><p>2. Do not let the ads overwhelm your design, either by placement or quantity.</p><p>and the biggie...</p><p>3. Never EVER let your business model depend on ad views, click-throughs, or anything else the ad buyers foist on you to "prove" their ad is seen. It's BS anyway. Magazines, TV, newspapers (remember them?), all survived just fine without advertisers ever having proof if anyone gave them business because of the ads. Coupons came along for reason, you know.</p><p>Corollary to 3: Don't let ad revenue be your sole source of income. Consider a mix of strategies, including ads, but also including premium content and features for subscribers; peripheral merchandising (think hats and t-shirts); and various collateral deals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Do not allow ads that popup , cover , dance , wiggle , make noise , or do anything other than sit there , NOT flash or any other plugin techonology.2 .
Do not let the ads overwhelm your design , either by placement or quantity.and the biggie...3 .
Never EVER let your business model depend on ad views , click-throughs , or anything else the ad buyers foist on you to " prove " their ad is seen .
It 's BS anyway .
Magazines , TV , newspapers ( remember them ?
) , all survived just fine without advertisers ever having proof if anyone gave them business because of the ads .
Coupons came along for reason , you know.Corollary to 3 : Do n't let ad revenue be your sole source of income .
Consider a mix of strategies , including ads , but also including premium content and features for subscribers ; peripheral merchandising ( think hats and t-shirts ) ; and various collateral deals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Do not allow ads that popup, cover, dance, wiggle, make noise, or do anything other than sit there, NOT flash or any other plugin techonology.2.
Do not let the ads overwhelm your design, either by placement or quantity.and the biggie...3.
Never EVER let your business model depend on ad views, click-throughs, or anything else the ad buyers foist on you to "prove" their ad is seen.
It's BS anyway.
Magazines, TV, newspapers (remember them?
), all survived just fine without advertisers ever having proof if anyone gave them business because of the ads.
Coupons came along for reason, you know.Corollary to 3: Don't let ad revenue be your sole source of income.
Consider a mix of strategies, including ads, but also including premium content and features for subscribers; peripheral merchandising (think hats and t-shirts); and various collateral deals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390682</id>
	<title>Re:It's *my* CPU you're using</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267982460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And *Their* content.</p><p>So they are perfectly within their rights to block their content from those who block ads.  In fact, given people like you, this is what they *should* do.</p><p>Why should those of us who don't block ads subsidize freeloaders like you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And * Their * content.So they are perfectly within their rights to block their content from those who block ads .
In fact , given people like you , this is what they * should * do.Why should those of us who do n't block ads subsidize freeloaders like you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And *Their* content.So they are perfectly within their rights to block their content from those who block ads.
In fact, given people like you, this is what they *should* do.Why should those of us who don't block ads subsidize freeloaders like you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390342</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Ars, you are animated too</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1267980420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After Ars sold out (kudos to the creators for making money on a very good site) this was inevitable.</p><p>Dear website management everywhere:</p><p>I block what annoys me. I'M the CUSTOMER for your content. I'm all about me. If I like you, because you please me, I will be supportive. If I like the content but your adverts irk me, I will block them and browse anyway. I don't care what you like. Know that.</p><p>Please me or fuck you, that simple. No, I don't really care if your business model fails. That's Capitalism. The market decides. I'm the market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After Ars sold out ( kudos to the creators for making money on a very good site ) this was inevitable.Dear website management everywhere : I block what annoys me .
I 'M the CUSTOMER for your content .
I 'm all about me .
If I like you , because you please me , I will be supportive .
If I like the content but your adverts irk me , I will block them and browse anyway .
I do n't care what you like .
Know that.Please me or fuck you , that simple .
No , I do n't really care if your business model fails .
That 's Capitalism .
The market decides .
I 'm the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After Ars sold out (kudos to the creators for making money on a very good site) this was inevitable.Dear website management everywhere:I block what annoys me.
I'M the CUSTOMER for your content.
I'm all about me.
If I like you, because you please me, I will be supportive.
If I like the content but your adverts irk me, I will block them and browse anyway.
I don't care what you like.
Know that.Please me or fuck you, that simple.
No, I don't really care if your business model fails.
That's Capitalism.
The market decides.
I'm the market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389826</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmmm</title>
	<author>walt-sjc</author>
	<datestamp>1267977180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Are you asking if simulated ad clicking would help Arstechnica? I think the answer is an unequivocal "no;"</i></p><p>There. Fixed that for ya.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you asking if simulated ad clicking would help Arstechnica ?
I think the answer is an unequivocal " no ; " There .
Fixed that for ya .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you asking if simulated ad clicking would help Arstechnica?
I think the answer is an unequivocal "no;"There.
Fixed that for ya.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389280</id>
	<title>Re:My thoughts</title>
	<author>bwalling</author>
	<datestamp>1267974120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You clearly didn't read the article.  That argument is refuted from the outset.  I've got to assume that as the (now former) owner of the site, he at least knows how he gets paid for his ads.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You clearly did n't read the article .
That argument is refuted from the outset .
I 've got to assume that as the ( now former ) owner of the site , he at least knows how he gets paid for his ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You clearly didn't read the article.
That argument is refuted from the outset.
I've got to assume that as the (now former) owner of the site, he at least knows how he gets paid for his ads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392028</id>
	<title>Ars asked nicely</title>
	<author>sh3p</author>
	<datestamp>1267989600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since Ars asked nicely I decided to whitelist their site from my ad blocker. I guess it doesn't really matter how I feel about internet advertising in general; if it's important to them, that's all that really matters, isn't it? I haven't been bothered by the ads in the mean time, so until that changes I'm willing to leave Ars whitelisted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since Ars asked nicely I decided to whitelist their site from my ad blocker .
I guess it does n't really matter how I feel about internet advertising in general ; if it 's important to them , that 's all that really matters , is n't it ?
I have n't been bothered by the ads in the mean time , so until that changes I 'm willing to leave Ars whitelisted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since Ars asked nicely I decided to whitelist their site from my ad blocker.
I guess it doesn't really matter how I feel about internet advertising in general; if it's important to them, that's all that really matters, isn't it?
I haven't been bothered by the ads in the mean time, so until that changes I'm willing to leave Ars whitelisted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394140</id>
	<title>The internet is full of crap</title>
	<author>janwedekind</author>
	<datestamp>1267959660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ultimately nobody needs advertising. And a lot of articles these days are "content" with the purpose of "generating" advertising revenue. There would still be plenty of stuff to read even if every internet user only wrote a single article about the most important thing in his/her life. The average quality might even benefit.</p><p>I can see at least five articles today about ad blocking. Each of them coming with advertising. It is insane. Everytime a "big" story comes up, hundreds of bloggers pick it up and run with it. And many of them seem to have no prior knowledge about what they are writing about.</p><p>I am only waiting for Ruppert Murdoch to join the debate at this point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ultimately nobody needs advertising .
And a lot of articles these days are " content " with the purpose of " generating " advertising revenue .
There would still be plenty of stuff to read even if every internet user only wrote a single article about the most important thing in his/her life .
The average quality might even benefit.I can see at least five articles today about ad blocking .
Each of them coming with advertising .
It is insane .
Everytime a " big " story comes up , hundreds of bloggers pick it up and run with it .
And many of them seem to have no prior knowledge about what they are writing about.I am only waiting for Ruppert Murdoch to join the debate at this point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ultimately nobody needs advertising.
And a lot of articles these days are "content" with the purpose of "generating" advertising revenue.
There would still be plenty of stuff to read even if every internet user only wrote a single article about the most important thing in his/her life.
The average quality might even benefit.I can see at least five articles today about ad blocking.
Each of them coming with advertising.
It is insane.
Everytime a "big" story comes up, hundreds of bloggers pick it up and run with it.
And many of them seem to have no prior knowledge about what they are writing about.I am only waiting for Ruppert Murdoch to join the debate at this point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394038</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267958940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have been on that site for 5+ years, and they have only run 2-3 of those campaigns ever.  And they were really nothing more then a large non-cycling animation banner on the top of the site, linking to the sidebar.  You pervasive ad-block everything people are very oversensitive, the real world is much more annoying an unwilling to bend to your will.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been on that site for 5 + years , and they have only run 2-3 of those campaigns ever .
And they were really nothing more then a large non-cycling animation banner on the top of the site , linking to the sidebar .
You pervasive ad-block everything people are very oversensitive , the real world is much more annoying an unwilling to bend to your will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been on that site for 5+ years, and they have only run 2-3 of those campaigns ever.
And they were really nothing more then a large non-cycling animation banner on the top of the site, linking to the sidebar.
You pervasive ad-block everything people are very oversensitive, the real world is much more annoying an unwilling to bend to your will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390668</id>
	<title>Re:The other side: Ad abuse and malware</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267982340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Not just because of the annoyance factor, but because it is a significant vector of malicious code attacks.</i></p><p>How about not using IE?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not just because of the annoyance factor , but because it is a significant vector of malicious code attacks.How about not using IE ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not just because of the annoyance factor, but because it is a significant vector of malicious code attacks.How about not using IE?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389276</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes?</title>
	<author>distantbody</author>
	<datestamp>1267974120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Maybe you should rethink that strategy, Ars?</p><blockquote><div><p>Paywall here we come!!!</p></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe you should rethink that strategy , Ars ? Paywall here we come ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe you should rethink that strategy, Ars?Paywall here we come!!
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391616</id>
	<title>Flash Block</title>
	<author>Weezul</author>
	<datestamp>1267987440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've found that FlashBlock under FireFox and ClickToFlash under Safari are extremely effective against the worst ads, without inconveniencing normal browsing and reasonable ads.</p><p>In particular, good sites like thepiratebay.org occasionally use ad servers banned by google for distributing malware.  Google usually blocks the whole site when dangerous ads are loaded.  If you use flash blockers, you instead see a few iframes populated by google's malware warning, but the site itself loads fine.</p><p>I'm sure all this will get far messier when advertisers start preferring HTML5 interactive video over Flash, but HTML5 likely won't pose quite the malware risks.  Also, FireFox could still include a click feature, although Safari might prove more challenging.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've found that FlashBlock under FireFox and ClickToFlash under Safari are extremely effective against the worst ads , without inconveniencing normal browsing and reasonable ads.In particular , good sites like thepiratebay.org occasionally use ad servers banned by google for distributing malware .
Google usually blocks the whole site when dangerous ads are loaded .
If you use flash blockers , you instead see a few iframes populated by google 's malware warning , but the site itself loads fine.I 'm sure all this will get far messier when advertisers start preferring HTML5 interactive video over Flash , but HTML5 likely wo n't pose quite the malware risks .
Also , FireFox could still include a click feature , although Safari might prove more challenging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've found that FlashBlock under FireFox and ClickToFlash under Safari are extremely effective against the worst ads, without inconveniencing normal browsing and reasonable ads.In particular, good sites like thepiratebay.org occasionally use ad servers banned by google for distributing malware.
Google usually blocks the whole site when dangerous ads are loaded.
If you use flash blockers, you instead see a few iframes populated by google's malware warning, but the site itself loads fine.I'm sure all this will get far messier when advertisers start preferring HTML5 interactive video over Flash, but HTML5 likely won't pose quite the malware risks.
Also, FireFox could still include a click feature, although Safari might prove more challenging.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391812</id>
	<title>Re:My thoughts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267988520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are wrong:</p><p>RTFA:</p><p>"There is an oft-stated misconception that if a user never clicks on ads, then blocking them won't hurt a site financially. This is wrong. Most sites, at least sites the size of ours, are paid on a per view basis."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are wrong : RTFA : " There is an oft-stated misconception that if a user never clicks on ads , then blocking them wo n't hurt a site financially .
This is wrong .
Most sites , at least sites the size of ours , are paid on a per view basis .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are wrong:RTFA:"There is an oft-stated misconception that if a user never clicks on ads, then blocking them won't hurt a site financially.
This is wrong.
Most sites, at least sites the size of ours, are paid on a per view basis.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394268</id>
	<title>Re:the problem with ads these days</title>
	<author>Game\_Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1267960200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you been to Ars?  Its ads are none of those, a single banner and 2 block ads (soon to be one).  With the occasional single cycle animated flash ad (ie. the animation stops after a few seconds).  They don't have any in text ads, and don't spread their articles over extra pages to get page views.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you been to Ars ?
Its ads are none of those , a single banner and 2 block ads ( soon to be one ) .
With the occasional single cycle animated flash ad ( ie .
the animation stops after a few seconds ) .
They do n't have any in text ads , and do n't spread their articles over extra pages to get page views .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you been to Ars?
Its ads are none of those, a single banner and 2 block ads (soon to be one).
With the occasional single cycle animated flash ad (ie.
the animation stops after a few seconds).
They don't have any in text ads, and don't spread their articles over extra pages to get page views.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31395370</id>
	<title>Awesome!</title>
	<author>JackAxe</author>
	<datestamp>1267968120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm OK with adds.  If they bother me too much, I'll simply size my browser window to cover them.  The only thing that ticks me off, are those BUBBLE ROLLOVERS, which can not be blocked.  Anyways, much respect to Ars for this experiment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm OK with adds .
If they bother me too much , I 'll simply size my browser window to cover them .
The only thing that ticks me off , are those BUBBLE ROLLOVERS , which can not be blocked .
Anyways , much respect to Ars for this experiment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm OK with adds.
If they bother me too much, I'll simply size my browser window to cover them.
The only thing that ticks me off, are those BUBBLE ROLLOVERS, which can not be blocked.
Anyways, much respect to Ars for this experiment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388974</id>
	<title>Couple of things the submission missed</title>
	<author>bheer</author>
	<datestamp>1267972620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>* The content was blocked without warning, leading many to think Ars was broken<br>* Readers who <a href="http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/09/dois-and-their-discontents.ars?comments=1#comments-bar" title="arstechnica.com">complained</a> [arstechnica.com] were called "leechers" who were "held in contempt".<br>* They use Doubleclick and serve animated Flash ads<br>* Apparently text ads (e.g. Google AdSense) don't pay very well</p><p>Many of us do understand that Ars is more expensive to run than Stack Exchange or (maybe) Slashdot, because Ars has to pay writers. However the fact that web advertising is so inflexible and user-hostile is very sad and says something about the industry. BoingBoing and Daring Fireball seem to be doing well with their homegrown ad networks, maybe someone will take some ideas from them and come up with a non-evil ad network.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* The content was blocked without warning , leading many to think Ars was broken * Readers who complained [ arstechnica.com ] were called " leechers " who were " held in contempt " .
* They use Doubleclick and serve animated Flash ads * Apparently text ads ( e.g .
Google AdSense ) do n't pay very wellMany of us do understand that Ars is more expensive to run than Stack Exchange or ( maybe ) Slashdot , because Ars has to pay writers .
However the fact that web advertising is so inflexible and user-hostile is very sad and says something about the industry .
BoingBoing and Daring Fireball seem to be doing well with their homegrown ad networks , maybe someone will take some ideas from them and come up with a non-evil ad network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* The content was blocked without warning, leading many to think Ars was broken* Readers who complained [arstechnica.com] were called "leechers" who were "held in contempt".
* They use Doubleclick and serve animated Flash ads* Apparently text ads (e.g.
Google AdSense) don't pay very wellMany of us do understand that Ars is more expensive to run than Stack Exchange or (maybe) Slashdot, because Ars has to pay writers.
However the fact that web advertising is so inflexible and user-hostile is very sad and says something about the industry.
BoingBoing and Daring Fireball seem to be doing well with their homegrown ad networks, maybe someone will take some ideas from them and come up with a non-evil ad network.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31395240</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Ars, you are animated too</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1267966920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Intrusive ads and slow-loading 3rd party sites are the real killers for me.</p><p>Hitting me in the face with an ad doesn't make me more likely to buy; quite the reverse. Oh, I might remember it... but I'll make a point of NOT buying that product.</p><p>And forcing me to wait for someone else's slow ad-server (I'm lookin' at YOU, google)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well, at this point I either abort the page-load or give up and go elsewhere. Expecting me to wait 30 seconds for someone else's irrelevant-to-me junk is just BS. Oh, it's only 30 seconds out of my day? Multiply that times 50 or 100 pages a day. NOW how much of my time have you wasted??</p><p>I didn't mind the old-fashioned SILENT banners, even if they had some minor animation -- that only looped ONCE. I didn't mind the original google ads that loaded instantly and sometimes actually were interesting. Go back to that, and maybe I'll look at your ads and your site again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Intrusive ads and slow-loading 3rd party sites are the real killers for me.Hitting me in the face with an ad does n't make me more likely to buy ; quite the reverse .
Oh , I might remember it... but I 'll make a point of NOT buying that product.And forcing me to wait for someone else 's slow ad-server ( I 'm lookin ' at YOU , google ) ... well , at this point I either abort the page-load or give up and go elsewhere .
Expecting me to wait 30 seconds for someone else 's irrelevant-to-me junk is just BS .
Oh , it 's only 30 seconds out of my day ?
Multiply that times 50 or 100 pages a day .
NOW how much of my time have you wasted ?
? I did n't mind the old-fashioned SILENT banners , even if they had some minor animation -- that only looped ONCE .
I did n't mind the original google ads that loaded instantly and sometimes actually were interesting .
Go back to that , and maybe I 'll look at your ads and your site again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intrusive ads and slow-loading 3rd party sites are the real killers for me.Hitting me in the face with an ad doesn't make me more likely to buy; quite the reverse.
Oh, I might remember it... but I'll make a point of NOT buying that product.And forcing me to wait for someone else's slow ad-server (I'm lookin' at YOU, google) ... well, at this point I either abort the page-load or give up and go elsewhere.
Expecting me to wait 30 seconds for someone else's irrelevant-to-me junk is just BS.
Oh, it's only 30 seconds out of my day?
Multiply that times 50 or 100 pages a day.
NOW how much of my time have you wasted?
?I didn't mind the old-fashioned SILENT banners, even if they had some minor animation -- that only looped ONCE.
I didn't mind the original google ads that loaded instantly and sometimes actually were interesting.
Go back to that, and maybe I'll look at your ads and your site again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390402</id>
	<title>Re:Ads suck</title>
	<author>bwcbwc</author>
	<datestamp>1267980840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&lt;i&gt;I pay for bandwidth and connection time, so your ad directly costs me money, and it should be illegal for that reason. &lt;/i&gt;<br><br>And how much have you paid the authors and editors of the sites you visit lately? TANSTAAFL.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I pay for bandwidth and connection time , so your ad directly costs me money , and it should be illegal for that reason .
And how much have you paid the authors and editors of the sites you visit lately ?
TANSTAAFL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I pay for bandwidth and connection time, so your ad directly costs me money, and it should be illegal for that reason.
And how much have you paid the authors and editors of the sites you visit lately?
TANSTAAFL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389300</id>
	<title>Ad blockers are just a business risk.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267974240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, if you're running a web site that makes its money from ads, you have to understand the problems with your own business model. You have to understand that people can and will block ads, and factor that in as a risk to your business. If ad revenues are dropping and you have to lay off staff then let me get out my little violin because that happens for a multitude of reasons across the entire business world. Simply find a way to make it work -- find a different way to make money, cut costs, make it difficult to block your ads, etc. The customer/reader is not beholden in any way to keep you in business by behaving the way that you expect them to. If your web site fails, it's because you're a poor business person and not because of the world around you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , if you 're running a web site that makes its money from ads , you have to understand the problems with your own business model .
You have to understand that people can and will block ads , and factor that in as a risk to your business .
If ad revenues are dropping and you have to lay off staff then let me get out my little violin because that happens for a multitude of reasons across the entire business world .
Simply find a way to make it work -- find a different way to make money , cut costs , make it difficult to block your ads , etc .
The customer/reader is not beholden in any way to keep you in business by behaving the way that you expect them to .
If your web site fails , it 's because you 're a poor business person and not because of the world around you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, if you're running a web site that makes its money from ads, you have to understand the problems with your own business model.
You have to understand that people can and will block ads, and factor that in as a risk to your business.
If ad revenues are dropping and you have to lay off staff then let me get out my little violin because that happens for a multitude of reasons across the entire business world.
Simply find a way to make it work -- find a different way to make money, cut costs, make it difficult to block your ads, etc.
The customer/reader is not beholden in any way to keep you in business by behaving the way that you expect them to.
If your web site fails, it's because you're a poor business person and not because of the world around you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393574</id>
	<title>Re:It's the freeloaders time</title>
	<author>socsoc</author>
	<datestamp>1267955820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A lot of smaller publishers embed ads in iframes, so for instance if they are calling Google's DFP to serve them they don't slow the load time of the content that you sought.  And they are called via JS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of smaller publishers embed ads in iframes , so for instance if they are calling Google 's DFP to serve them they do n't slow the load time of the content that you sought .
And they are called via JS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of smaller publishers embed ads in iframes, so for instance if they are calling Google's DFP to serve them they don't slow the load time of the content that you sought.
And they are called via JS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31395132</id>
	<title>A different answer: a Basic income</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1267966140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every person should have a right to draw from the industrial commons, and so be able to run such websites for free without ads (Alaska has a partial basic income with the Alaska Permanent Fund); see:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html" title="basicincome.org">http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html</a> [basicincome.org]<br>"""<br>A basic income is an income unconditionally granted to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement. It is a form of minimum income guarantee that differs from those that now exist in various European countries in three important ways:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * it is being paid to individuals rather than households;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * it is paid irrespective of any income from other sources;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * it is paid without requiring the performance of any work or the willingness to accept a job if offered.<br>Liberty and equality, efficiency and community, common ownership of the Earth and equal sharing in the benefits of technical progress, the flexibility of the labour market and the dignity of the poor, the fight against inhumane working conditions, against the desertification of the countryside and against interregional inequalities, the viability of cooperatives and the promotion of adult education, autonomy from bosses, husbands and bureaucrats, have all been invoked in its favour.<br>But it is the inability to tackle unemployment with conventional means that has led in the last decade or so to the idea being taken seriously throughout Europe by a growing number of scholars and organizations. Social policy and economic policy can no longer be conceived separately, and basic income is increasingly viewed as the only viable way of reconciling two of their respective central objectives: poverty relief and full employment.<br>There is a wide variety of proposals around. They differ according to the amounts involved, the source of funding, the nature and size of the reductions in other transfers, and along many other dimensions. As far as short-term proposals are concerned, however, the current discussion is focusing increasingly on so-called partial basic income schemes which would not be full substitutes for present guaranteed income schemes but would provide a low - and slowly increasing - basis to which other incomes, including the remaining social security benefits and means-tested guaranteed income supplements, could be added.<br>Many prominent European social scientists have now come out in favour of basic income - among them two Nobel laureates in economics. In a few countries some major politicians, including from parties in government, are also beginning to stick their necks out in support of it. At the same time, the relevant literature - on the economic, ethical, political and legal aspects - is gradually expanding and those promoting the idea, or just interested in it, in various European countries and across the world have started organizing into an active network.<br>"""</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every person should have a right to draw from the industrial commons , and so be able to run such websites for free without ads ( Alaska has a partial basic income with the Alaska Permanent Fund ) ; see :     http : //www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html [ basicincome.org ] " " " A basic income is an income unconditionally granted to all on an individual basis , without means test or work requirement .
It is a form of minimum income guarantee that differs from those that now exist in various European countries in three important ways :         * it is being paid to individuals rather than households ;         * it is paid irrespective of any income from other sources ;         * it is paid without requiring the performance of any work or the willingness to accept a job if offered.Liberty and equality , efficiency and community , common ownership of the Earth and equal sharing in the benefits of technical progress , the flexibility of the labour market and the dignity of the poor , the fight against inhumane working conditions , against the desertification of the countryside and against interregional inequalities , the viability of cooperatives and the promotion of adult education , autonomy from bosses , husbands and bureaucrats , have all been invoked in its favour.But it is the inability to tackle unemployment with conventional means that has led in the last decade or so to the idea being taken seriously throughout Europe by a growing number of scholars and organizations .
Social policy and economic policy can no longer be conceived separately , and basic income is increasingly viewed as the only viable way of reconciling two of their respective central objectives : poverty relief and full employment.There is a wide variety of proposals around .
They differ according to the amounts involved , the source of funding , the nature and size of the reductions in other transfers , and along many other dimensions .
As far as short-term proposals are concerned , however , the current discussion is focusing increasingly on so-called partial basic income schemes which would not be full substitutes for present guaranteed income schemes but would provide a low - and slowly increasing - basis to which other incomes , including the remaining social security benefits and means-tested guaranteed income supplements , could be added.Many prominent European social scientists have now come out in favour of basic income - among them two Nobel laureates in economics .
In a few countries some major politicians , including from parties in government , are also beginning to stick their necks out in support of it .
At the same time , the relevant literature - on the economic , ethical , political and legal aspects - is gradually expanding and those promoting the idea , or just interested in it , in various European countries and across the world have started organizing into an active network .
" " "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every person should have a right to draw from the industrial commons, and so be able to run such websites for free without ads (Alaska has a partial basic income with the Alaska Permanent Fund); see:
    http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html [basicincome.org]"""A basic income is an income unconditionally granted to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement.
It is a form of minimum income guarantee that differs from those that now exist in various European countries in three important ways:
        * it is being paid to individuals rather than households;
        * it is paid irrespective of any income from other sources;
        * it is paid without requiring the performance of any work or the willingness to accept a job if offered.Liberty and equality, efficiency and community, common ownership of the Earth and equal sharing in the benefits of technical progress, the flexibility of the labour market and the dignity of the poor, the fight against inhumane working conditions, against the desertification of the countryside and against interregional inequalities, the viability of cooperatives and the promotion of adult education, autonomy from bosses, husbands and bureaucrats, have all been invoked in its favour.But it is the inability to tackle unemployment with conventional means that has led in the last decade or so to the idea being taken seriously throughout Europe by a growing number of scholars and organizations.
Social policy and economic policy can no longer be conceived separately, and basic income is increasingly viewed as the only viable way of reconciling two of their respective central objectives: poverty relief and full employment.There is a wide variety of proposals around.
They differ according to the amounts involved, the source of funding, the nature and size of the reductions in other transfers, and along many other dimensions.
As far as short-term proposals are concerned, however, the current discussion is focusing increasingly on so-called partial basic income schemes which would not be full substitutes for present guaranteed income schemes but would provide a low - and slowly increasing - basis to which other incomes, including the remaining social security benefits and means-tested guaranteed income supplements, could be added.Many prominent European social scientists have now come out in favour of basic income - among them two Nobel laureates in economics.
In a few countries some major politicians, including from parties in government, are also beginning to stick their necks out in support of it.
At the same time, the relevant literature - on the economic, ethical, political and legal aspects - is gradually expanding and those promoting the idea, or just interested in it, in various European countries and across the world have started organizing into an active network.
"""</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31397080</id>
	<title>Do ads pay per view, or just per click?</title>
	<author>piojo</author>
	<datestamp>1267980600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do all ads pay per click, nowadays? Because I think I've only clicked one ad in the past year, so I shouldn't feel guilty about bypassing ads.</p><p>On the other hand, if some ads still pay per page-view, then I might want to think about tweaking my ad-blocking so that I don't block ads on a domain until they do something that bothers me (ad with sound, ads that severly slow down a page, inappropriate ad, etc.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do all ads pay per click , nowadays ?
Because I think I 've only clicked one ad in the past year , so I should n't feel guilty about bypassing ads.On the other hand , if some ads still pay per page-view , then I might want to think about tweaking my ad-blocking so that I do n't block ads on a domain until they do something that bothers me ( ad with sound , ads that severly slow down a page , inappropriate ad , etc .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do all ads pay per click, nowadays?
Because I think I've only clicked one ad in the past year, so I shouldn't feel guilty about bypassing ads.On the other hand, if some ads still pay per page-view, then I might want to think about tweaking my ad-blocking so that I don't block ads on a domain until they do something that bothers me (ad with sound, ads that severly slow down a page, inappropriate ad, etc.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392338</id>
	<title>Ads are not a valid income source!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267991100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The value of information is inversely proportional to the amount of people knowing it.<br>If they want money for their information, they<br>1. have to keep it a secret<br>2. have to have information that nobody else has<br>3. ask for money on first release (to X people)<br>and STFU as soon as it&rsquo;s out. Because then it&rsquo;s too late. They just split control with X people.</p><p>If they fail at one single of those points, they can not expect any money.<br>They might get it though... like the change you give someone who makes music in the streets. Or like a donation. Out of respect.<br>But they can not expect it. Let alone demand it.</p><p>Those are the laws of bitspace. And like the laws of physics (on which they are based), they won&rsquo;t go away, if you don&rsquo;t believe in them.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The value of information is inversely proportional to the amount of people knowing it.If they want money for their information , they1 .
have to keep it a secret2 .
have to have information that nobody else has3 .
ask for money on first release ( to X people ) and STFU as soon as it    s out .
Because then it    s too late .
They just split control with X people.If they fail at one single of those points , they can not expect any money.They might get it though... like the change you give someone who makes music in the streets .
Or like a donation .
Out of respect.But they can not expect it .
Let alone demand it.Those are the laws of bitspace .
And like the laws of physics ( on which they are based ) , they won    t go away , if you don    t believe in them .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The value of information is inversely proportional to the amount of people knowing it.If they want money for their information, they1.
have to keep it a secret2.
have to have information that nobody else has3.
ask for money on first release (to X people)and STFU as soon as it’s out.
Because then it’s too late.
They just split control with X people.If they fail at one single of those points, they can not expect any money.They might get it though... like the change you give someone who makes music in the streets.
Or like a donation.
Out of respect.But they can not expect it.
Let alone demand it.Those are the laws of bitspace.
And like the laws of physics (on which they are based), they won’t go away, if you don’t believe in them.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389218</id>
	<title>Whitelist of Ads</title>
	<author>Rivalz</author>
	<datestamp>1267973760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I block all scripts, flash, ads, by default.
Once the website is trusted I whitelist it.
It is a huge pain for me to temporarily allow a site I setup macros to allow certain content.

On TV FCC regulates the content.
On the Web I regulate the content.

I'm sorry if I get to use your site without contributing to your income.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I block all scripts , flash , ads , by default .
Once the website is trusted I whitelist it .
It is a huge pain for me to temporarily allow a site I setup macros to allow certain content .
On TV FCC regulates the content .
On the Web I regulate the content .
I 'm sorry if I get to use your site without contributing to your income .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I block all scripts, flash, ads, by default.
Once the website is trusted I whitelist it.
It is a huge pain for me to temporarily allow a site I setup macros to allow certain content.
On TV FCC regulates the content.
On the Web I regulate the content.
I'm sorry if I get to use your site without contributing to your income.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389138</id>
	<title>It's *my* CPU you're using</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1267973400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*My* RAM. *My* bandwidth.</p><p>I pay for it all, and I don't <i>really</i> care if your site folds (this includes you slashdot), you're just a momentary diversion, don't flatter yourself otherwise. There will be another along in 10 minutes.</p><p>So, i'm going to continue to block images, particularly moving ones. Javascript, flash, and pretty much anything else they come up with. I used to leave google ads alone, they were relevant, textual and just sat there inviting a click, but they blew it as well.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* My * RAM .
* My * bandwidth.I pay for it all , and I do n't really care if your site folds ( this includes you slashdot ) , you 're just a momentary diversion , do n't flatter yourself otherwise .
There will be another along in 10 minutes.So , i 'm going to continue to block images , particularly moving ones .
Javascript , flash , and pretty much anything else they come up with .
I used to leave google ads alone , they were relevant , textual and just sat there inviting a click , but they blew it as well .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>*My* RAM.
*My* bandwidth.I pay for it all, and I don't really care if your site folds (this includes you slashdot), you're just a momentary diversion, don't flatter yourself otherwise.
There will be another along in 10 minutes.So, i'm going to continue to block images, particularly moving ones.
Javascript, flash, and pretty much anything else they come up with.
I used to leave google ads alone, they were relevant, textual and just sat there inviting a click, but they blew it as well.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31403566</id>
	<title>Yes, sometimes we have to accept those ads.</title>
	<author>aaandre</author>
	<datestamp>1268078220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, sometimes you "have" to accept those ads, choosing to put your readership's trust second to profit. And, sometimes your readers "have" to activate their ad blockers because the ads you accepted are unnecesserily distracting and infuriating. It's a simple equation in which you establish trust and don't sell out your relationship with your audience, and *then* request them to disable their ad blockers.</p><p>And maintain the trust.</p><p>If intrusive\_ad\_profit &gt; loss\_from\_intrusive\_ad\_irritation is the only important thing for you, then, well, you're in it for the money only and you have no relationship. Your readers owe you nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , sometimes you " have " to accept those ads , choosing to put your readership 's trust second to profit .
And , sometimes your readers " have " to activate their ad blockers because the ads you accepted are unnecesserily distracting and infuriating .
It 's a simple equation in which you establish trust and do n't sell out your relationship with your audience , and * then * request them to disable their ad blockers.And maintain the trust.If intrusive \ _ad \ _profit &gt; loss \ _from \ _intrusive \ _ad \ _irritation is the only important thing for you , then , well , you 're in it for the money only and you have no relationship .
Your readers owe you nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, sometimes you "have" to accept those ads, choosing to put your readership's trust second to profit.
And, sometimes your readers "have" to activate their ad blockers because the ads you accepted are unnecesserily distracting and infuriating.
It's a simple equation in which you establish trust and don't sell out your relationship with your audience, and *then* request them to disable their ad blockers.And maintain the trust.If intrusive\_ad\_profit &gt; loss\_from\_intrusive\_ad\_irritation is the only important thing for you, then, well, you're in it for the money only and you have no relationship.
Your readers owe you nothing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31397620</id>
	<title>Usability.</title>
	<author>Sunnz</author>
	<datestamp>1267986540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't use ad blockers, but I don't usually have javascript turned on and flash is not installed. If your ad doesn't work without scripting or flash, then your ad has usability problem, it is your ad that is inaccessible rather than me trying to cut your revenue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't use ad blockers , but I do n't usually have javascript turned on and flash is not installed .
If your ad does n't work without scripting or flash , then your ad has usability problem , it is your ad that is inaccessible rather than me trying to cut your revenue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't use ad blockers, but I don't usually have javascript turned on and flash is not installed.
If your ad doesn't work without scripting or flash, then your ad has usability problem, it is your ad that is inaccessible rather than me trying to cut your revenue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389002</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Ars, you are animated too</title>
	<author>tonycheese</author>
	<datestamp>1267972680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CONGRATULATIONS, YOU'VE WON A FREE IPOD NANO!<br>It's been so long since I've heard those words yelled at me through my computer speakers. Not to mention seeing so many huge ads of almost naked women when I'm trying to do something basic on the internet. It takes some effort for people to other to install ad-block and much more effort for someone out there to maintain their list of things to block, so it's clearly in response to something hugely bothersome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CONGRATULATIONS , YOU 'VE WON A FREE IPOD NANO ! It 's been so long since I 've heard those words yelled at me through my computer speakers .
Not to mention seeing so many huge ads of almost naked women when I 'm trying to do something basic on the internet .
It takes some effort for people to other to install ad-block and much more effort for someone out there to maintain their list of things to block , so it 's clearly in response to something hugely bothersome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CONGRATULATIONS, YOU'VE WON A FREE IPOD NANO!It's been so long since I've heard those words yelled at me through my computer speakers.
Not to mention seeing so many huge ads of almost naked women when I'm trying to do something basic on the internet.
It takes some effort for people to other to install ad-block and much more effort for someone out there to maintain their list of things to block, so it's clearly in response to something hugely bothersome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390076</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Ars, you are animated too</title>
	<author>teg</author>
	<datestamp>1267978860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Firefox with flashblock and image.animation\_mode=None (see about:config) fixes most of this, without killing every single ad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox with flashblock and image.animation \ _mode = None ( see about : config ) fixes most of this , without killing every single ad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox with flashblock and image.animation\_mode=None (see about:config) fixes most of this, without killing every single ad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393492</id>
	<title>The "Caesar" clown who wrote the story...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267955340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>


He's been infamous for years for banning anyone on their forums who
mentioned they used an ad-blocker. I was sure 7-8 years ago he planted a
"What's a good adblocker" thread simply to ban the people with the
proper keywords in their answer. The guy is a total self-centered
douchbag all around. That forum used to be a great resource in the early
2000's but turned to crap and a good place to get flamed if you happened
to not be in agreement with the rest of the "Fark never have seen a real
pussy" types that hang around there.


A year ago their login deal was completely broken for a couple months on
end. I simply quit logging on and just lurked. After they fixed it had
been so long I couldn't remember my login name or password so I did what
anyone would do, I created a new account. A month or two later some
loudmouth asshole in a thread questioned my opinion on something and
claimed it meant nothing because I had a very low number of posts. I
replied that post count has nothing to do with ANYONE'S intelligence and
I had been posting there for a good 10 years+ before he got his panties
in a bunch over my "n00b" status.


Next day, stern email banning me as if I commited a crime.


Moral of the story: if you need advice or have questions of a geek
nature about computers, operating systems, etc., you'll be pleasantly
surprised at how helpful and knowledgeable the people at the [H]ard OCP
forum are. If you DARE to ask at Ars forums you will be flamed,
browbeaten, and ridiculed and start an all out flaming session between
the various opinions posting in the thread. Your reasons for starting
the thread will be brought under scrutiny and you may be labeled a troll
or otherwise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's been infamous for years for banning anyone on their forums who mentioned they used an ad-blocker .
I was sure 7-8 years ago he planted a " What 's a good adblocker " thread simply to ban the people with the proper keywords in their answer .
The guy is a total self-centered douchbag all around .
That forum used to be a great resource in the early 2000 's but turned to crap and a good place to get flamed if you happened to not be in agreement with the rest of the " Fark never have seen a real pussy " types that hang around there .
A year ago their login deal was completely broken for a couple months on end .
I simply quit logging on and just lurked .
After they fixed it had been so long I could n't remember my login name or password so I did what anyone would do , I created a new account .
A month or two later some loudmouth asshole in a thread questioned my opinion on something and claimed it meant nothing because I had a very low number of posts .
I replied that post count has nothing to do with ANYONE 'S intelligence and I had been posting there for a good 10 years + before he got his panties in a bunch over my " n00b " status .
Next day , stern email banning me as if I commited a crime .
Moral of the story : if you need advice or have questions of a geek nature about computers , operating systems , etc. , you 'll be pleasantly surprised at how helpful and knowledgeable the people at the [ H ] ard OCP forum are .
If you DARE to ask at Ars forums you will be flamed , browbeaten , and ridiculed and start an all out flaming session between the various opinions posting in the thread .
Your reasons for starting the thread will be brought under scrutiny and you may be labeled a troll or otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>


He's been infamous for years for banning anyone on their forums who
mentioned they used an ad-blocker.
I was sure 7-8 years ago he planted a
"What's a good adblocker" thread simply to ban the people with the
proper keywords in their answer.
The guy is a total self-centered
douchbag all around.
That forum used to be a great resource in the early
2000's but turned to crap and a good place to get flamed if you happened
to not be in agreement with the rest of the "Fark never have seen a real
pussy" types that hang around there.
A year ago their login deal was completely broken for a couple months on
end.
I simply quit logging on and just lurked.
After they fixed it had
been so long I couldn't remember my login name or password so I did what
anyone would do, I created a new account.
A month or two later some
loudmouth asshole in a thread questioned my opinion on something and
claimed it meant nothing because I had a very low number of posts.
I
replied that post count has nothing to do with ANYONE'S intelligence and
I had been posting there for a good 10 years+ before he got his panties
in a bunch over my "n00b" status.
Next day, stern email banning me as if I commited a crime.
Moral of the story: if you need advice or have questions of a geek
nature about computers, operating systems, etc., you'll be pleasantly
surprised at how helpful and knowledgeable the people at the [H]ard OCP
forum are.
If you DARE to ask at Ars forums you will be flamed,
browbeaten, and ridiculed and start an all out flaming session between
the various opinions posting in the thread.
Your reasons for starting
the thread will be brought under scrutiny and you may be labeled a troll
or otherwise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389506</id>
	<title>Privacy</title>
	<author>digitalhermit</author>
	<datestamp>1267975380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's the main problem I have with enabling ads..</p><p>Load NoScript in your browser.. Then load some random sites. Some of them are advertiser sites that are being blocked. Some of these advertiser sites (maybe disguised as a social networking site) can then set/read cookies from your browser.  In their databases they can aggregate your browsing patterns.</p><p>Here's where it's a problem...</p><p>On one social networking site that I use I have many of my co-workers and business associates.  In the past I've already had ads start showing up on non-related sites after browsing new products. For example, I don't have a pet but someone asked me to research some flea medication. Within moments after researching on one site, I started noticing flea powders being advertised on another site.  Coincidence?  What would you think?</p><p>I don't want my personal life to start spilling into my public/work life. The problem with these ad sites is that I do not know what information they are storing about me. I don't know if their revenues one day start to decline so they start opening up my records to seedy advertisers. What if Facebook modifies their policy or some seedy advertiser exploits a bug in the Facebook API and starts posting on my home page?  What if my co-workers start seeing "Holley 4-Barrel Carbs and the Men Who Love Them" on my page and get the wrong impression?  What if LinuxJournal posts "Finger, mount, fsck and sleep" on my wall (and say I work at Microsoft)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the main problem I have with enabling ads..Load NoScript in your browser.. Then load some random sites .
Some of them are advertiser sites that are being blocked .
Some of these advertiser sites ( maybe disguised as a social networking site ) can then set/read cookies from your browser .
In their databases they can aggregate your browsing patterns.Here 's where it 's a problem...On one social networking site that I use I have many of my co-workers and business associates .
In the past I 've already had ads start showing up on non-related sites after browsing new products .
For example , I do n't have a pet but someone asked me to research some flea medication .
Within moments after researching on one site , I started noticing flea powders being advertised on another site .
Coincidence ? What would you think ? I do n't want my personal life to start spilling into my public/work life .
The problem with these ad sites is that I do not know what information they are storing about me .
I do n't know if their revenues one day start to decline so they start opening up my records to seedy advertisers .
What if Facebook modifies their policy or some seedy advertiser exploits a bug in the Facebook API and starts posting on my home page ?
What if my co-workers start seeing " Holley 4-Barrel Carbs and the Men Who Love Them " on my page and get the wrong impression ?
What if LinuxJournal posts " Finger , mount , fsck and sleep " on my wall ( and say I work at Microsoft ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the main problem I have with enabling ads..Load NoScript in your browser.. Then load some random sites.
Some of them are advertiser sites that are being blocked.
Some of these advertiser sites (maybe disguised as a social networking site) can then set/read cookies from your browser.
In their databases they can aggregate your browsing patterns.Here's where it's a problem...On one social networking site that I use I have many of my co-workers and business associates.
In the past I've already had ads start showing up on non-related sites after browsing new products.
For example, I don't have a pet but someone asked me to research some flea medication.
Within moments after researching on one site, I started noticing flea powders being advertised on another site.
Coincidence?  What would you think?I don't want my personal life to start spilling into my public/work life.
The problem with these ad sites is that I do not know what information they are storing about me.
I don't know if their revenues one day start to decline so they start opening up my records to seedy advertisers.
What if Facebook modifies their policy or some seedy advertiser exploits a bug in the Facebook API and starts posting on my home page?
What if my co-workers start seeing "Holley 4-Barrel Carbs and the Men Who Love Them" on my page and get the wrong impression?
What if LinuxJournal posts "Finger, mount, fsck and sleep" on my wall (and say I work at Microsoft)?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392164</id>
	<title>Lack of TV</title>
	<author>KlausBreuer</author>
	<datestamp>1267990140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, chaps - I've been blocking ads from the moment it was possible.</p><p>It's not just security. It's not just CPU speed loss thanks to Flash. It's not just the irritating distraction of bouncy whatevers making irritating sounds... it's adverts themselves.<br>See, I don't have a TV. Or a radio. Secondary reason is the lack of content (I *do* buy DVDs to watch on my largish monitors), but primarily it's the adverts. Always keep in mind that 50\% of all humans are of sub-average intelligence. Add to this that many watch TV tired and with their minds turned off. The logical conclusion is to create adverts aimed at these people. Aimed at idiots.</p><p>Sounds massively arrogant, I know. Sorry. But over 95\% of all adverts (TV, radio, newspapers, roadsigns, internet) seem to be aimed at people who do not ask any questions, who simply believe.</p><p>Mind you, I am quite willing to support a good web site. Their data is valuable to me, so you're actually welcome to make Google-like ads: a simple bold header text, followed by one, max. two (short) lines of text, complete with a link. Just text, no more. Does not desperately try to attract my attention, does not irritate me, does not distract me, does not eat up my screen space... go ahead. I might even sniff on them (yup, actually happened to me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>But any of this animated, colorful, flashy, noisy crap, and the adblock goes right up again... and if your survival depends on such crap, well, good bye then.</p><p>PS: So ars technica is complaining? Follow that forum link. Turn off the ad blocker. First thing you'll notice are two animated, very colorful ads at the top, which instantly caused me to loose the last drop of sorry I might have felt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , chaps - I 've been blocking ads from the moment it was possible.It 's not just security .
It 's not just CPU speed loss thanks to Flash .
It 's not just the irritating distraction of bouncy whatevers making irritating sounds... it 's adverts themselves.See , I do n't have a TV .
Or a radio .
Secondary reason is the lack of content ( I * do * buy DVDs to watch on my largish monitors ) , but primarily it 's the adverts .
Always keep in mind that 50 \ % of all humans are of sub-average intelligence .
Add to this that many watch TV tired and with their minds turned off .
The logical conclusion is to create adverts aimed at these people .
Aimed at idiots.Sounds massively arrogant , I know .
Sorry. But over 95 \ % of all adverts ( TV , radio , newspapers , roadsigns , internet ) seem to be aimed at people who do not ask any questions , who simply believe.Mind you , I am quite willing to support a good web site .
Their data is valuable to me , so you 're actually welcome to make Google-like ads : a simple bold header text , followed by one , max .
two ( short ) lines of text , complete with a link .
Just text , no more .
Does not desperately try to attract my attention , does not irritate me , does not distract me , does not eat up my screen space... go ahead .
I might even sniff on them ( yup , actually happened to me ; ) But any of this animated , colorful , flashy , noisy crap , and the adblock goes right up again... and if your survival depends on such crap , well , good bye then.PS : So ars technica is complaining ?
Follow that forum link .
Turn off the ad blocker .
First thing you 'll notice are two animated , very colorful ads at the top , which instantly caused me to loose the last drop of sorry I might have felt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, chaps - I've been blocking ads from the moment it was possible.It's not just security.
It's not just CPU speed loss thanks to Flash.
It's not just the irritating distraction of bouncy whatevers making irritating sounds... it's adverts themselves.See, I don't have a TV.
Or a radio.
Secondary reason is the lack of content (I *do* buy DVDs to watch on my largish monitors), but primarily it's the adverts.
Always keep in mind that 50\% of all humans are of sub-average intelligence.
Add to this that many watch TV tired and with their minds turned off.
The logical conclusion is to create adverts aimed at these people.
Aimed at idiots.Sounds massively arrogant, I know.
Sorry. But over 95\% of all adverts (TV, radio, newspapers, roadsigns, internet) seem to be aimed at people who do not ask any questions, who simply believe.Mind you, I am quite willing to support a good web site.
Their data is valuable to me, so you're actually welcome to make Google-like ads: a simple bold header text, followed by one, max.
two (short) lines of text, complete with a link.
Just text, no more.
Does not desperately try to attract my attention, does not irritate me, does not distract me, does not eat up my screen space... go ahead.
I might even sniff on them (yup, actually happened to me ;)But any of this animated, colorful, flashy, noisy crap, and the adblock goes right up again... and if your survival depends on such crap, well, good bye then.PS: So ars technica is complaining?
Follow that forum link.
Turn off the ad blocker.
First thing you'll notice are two animated, very colorful ads at the top, which instantly caused me to loose the last drop of sorry I might have felt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389746</id>
	<title>Ars's content looks like traditional ad boxes...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267976700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>fighting for the reader by lowering the barrier of delineation between content and ads?  hmmm... that seems to help the advertisers more than the reader.</p><p>Let's be real.  The advertising model is broken.  Micro-payments is the only way forward.  There is no justification for ads.  Ars = commercial business.  Art</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fighting for the reader by lowering the barrier of delineation between content and ads ?
hmmm... that seems to help the advertisers more than the reader.Let 's be real .
The advertising model is broken .
Micro-payments is the only way forward .
There is no justification for ads .
Ars = commercial business .
Art</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fighting for the reader by lowering the barrier of delineation between content and ads?
hmmm... that seems to help the advertisers more than the reader.Let's be real.
The advertising model is broken.
Micro-payments is the only way forward.
There is no justification for ads.
Ars = commercial business.
Art</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391402</id>
	<title>Don't want adds blocked?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267986420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't want adds blocked?  Then make the adds static text.  Make them standard black text on a white background.  The reason that most people block adds is that the adds are obnoxious!  Using Flash, flashing graphics, and having more adds than content is obnoxious and highly annoying!  Besides, most of us who block adds are people who would ignore the adds anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't want adds blocked ?
Then make the adds static text .
Make them standard black text on a white background .
The reason that most people block adds is that the adds are obnoxious !
Using Flash , flashing graphics , and having more adds than content is obnoxious and highly annoying !
Besides , most of us who block adds are people who would ignore the adds anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't want adds blocked?
Then make the adds static text.
Make them standard black text on a white background.
The reason that most people block adds is that the adds are obnoxious!
Using Flash, flashing graphics, and having more adds than content is obnoxious and highly annoying!
Besides, most of us who block adds are people who would ignore the adds anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392034</id>
	<title>Re:It's *my* CPU you're using</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267989600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's how you can even out the agreement then: stop using their CPU and bandwidth.  Interestingly enough the reciprocation is immediate.</p><p>I'm not entirely unsympathetic.  I used to block ads at DailyKos (yes, I'm one of those flaming liberal types) until they asked that I didn't.  But within the last several months, they've overplayed their hand on ads so much, I've gone back to blocking nearly all of them again and actively getting *around* the adblock detector.</p><p>When DK4 comes out and if it lives up to the community tools it advertises, I might just drop a benjamin and get a lifetime subscription and take out the ads, but til then, I'll block what I damn well please.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's how you can even out the agreement then : stop using their CPU and bandwidth .
Interestingly enough the reciprocation is immediate.I 'm not entirely unsympathetic .
I used to block ads at DailyKos ( yes , I 'm one of those flaming liberal types ) until they asked that I did n't .
But within the last several months , they 've overplayed their hand on ads so much , I 've gone back to blocking nearly all of them again and actively getting * around * the adblock detector.When DK4 comes out and if it lives up to the community tools it advertises , I might just drop a benjamin and get a lifetime subscription and take out the ads , but til then , I 'll block what I damn well please .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's how you can even out the agreement then: stop using their CPU and bandwidth.
Interestingly enough the reciprocation is immediate.I'm not entirely unsympathetic.
I used to block ads at DailyKos (yes, I'm one of those flaming liberal types) until they asked that I didn't.
But within the last several months, they've overplayed their hand on ads so much, I've gone back to blocking nearly all of them again and actively getting *around* the adblock detector.When DK4 comes out and if it lives up to the community tools it advertises, I might just drop a benjamin and get a lifetime subscription and take out the ads, but til then, I'll block what I damn well please.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389376</id>
	<title>Re:My thoughts</title>
	<author>rel4x</author>
	<datestamp>1267974660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't internet ads generate their revenue through the amount of clicks they incur? I know Google's ads do this.

By using adblock, what I'm saying is: I'm never going to be clicking on any of the ads on your website.

If I didn't use it, I still wouldn't be clicking on any ads on your website and they will also annoy me.

It's most likely that the people using ad blocking don't care about the ads you display and won't be clicking on them anyway.</p></div><p>Small text ads are generally pay per click, large banners are generally pay per 1000 views.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct me if I 'm wrong , but do n't internet ads generate their revenue through the amount of clicks they incur ?
I know Google 's ads do this .
By using adblock , what I 'm saying is : I 'm never going to be clicking on any of the ads on your website .
If I did n't use it , I still would n't be clicking on any ads on your website and they will also annoy me .
It 's most likely that the people using ad blocking do n't care about the ads you display and wo n't be clicking on them anyway.Small text ads are generally pay per click , large banners are generally pay per 1000 views .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't internet ads generate their revenue through the amount of clicks they incur?
I know Google's ads do this.
By using adblock, what I'm saying is: I'm never going to be clicking on any of the ads on your website.
If I didn't use it, I still wouldn't be clicking on any ads on your website and they will also annoy me.
It's most likely that the people using ad blocking don't care about the ads you display and won't be clicking on them anyway.Small text ads are generally pay per click, large banners are generally pay per 1000 views.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389104</id>
	<title>If only they were safe.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267973220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with this is, the advertisements themselves can not be trusted. Beyond the issue of the sound and animation, advertisements are a malware vector. I'm having a huge problem with 'Antispyware 2010' and its variants. One idiot claims he got his from Microsoft, because it says Microsoft on it. If they were less hazardous, I'd block them less. I turned off blocking for Project Wonderful and for Google's text ads, after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with this is , the advertisements themselves can not be trusted .
Beyond the issue of the sound and animation , advertisements are a malware vector .
I 'm having a huge problem with 'Antispyware 2010 ' and its variants .
One idiot claims he got his from Microsoft , because it says Microsoft on it .
If they were less hazardous , I 'd block them less .
I turned off blocking for Project Wonderful and for Google 's text ads , after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with this is, the advertisements themselves can not be trusted.
Beyond the issue of the sound and animation, advertisements are a malware vector.
I'm having a huge problem with 'Antispyware 2010' and its variants.
One idiot claims he got his from Microsoft, because it says Microsoft on it.
If they were less hazardous, I'd block them less.
I turned off blocking for Project Wonderful and for Google's text ads, after all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391078</id>
	<title>Re:I have ad block in because of facebook</title>
	<author>KPU</author>
	<datestamp>1267984560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem with facebook is it allows ads that look exactly like facebook apps.</p></div><p>The problem here is that the vast majority of facebook apps are advertisements.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with facebook is it allows ads that look exactly like facebook apps.The problem here is that the vast majority of facebook apps are advertisements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with facebook is it allows ads that look exactly like facebook apps.The problem here is that the vast majority of facebook apps are advertisements.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388840</id>
	<title>Sometimes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267971960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If sometimes you 'have to accept those ads' then I have to block your ads totally.  Maybe you should rethink that strategy, Ars?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If sometimes you 'have to accept those ads ' then I have to block your ads totally .
Maybe you should rethink that strategy , Ars ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If sometimes you 'have to accept those ads' then I have to block your ads totally.
Maybe you should rethink that strategy, Ars?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388866</id>
	<title>Block content and...</title>
	<author>Deorus</author>
	<datestamp>1267972080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You won't be indexed by search engines, so you lose more than if you don't block it.  Furthermore I stay clear of any website forcing me to add exceptions to NoScript that would allow third party advertisers to run any kind of code on my browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You wo n't be indexed by search engines , so you lose more than if you do n't block it .
Furthermore I stay clear of any website forcing me to add exceptions to NoScript that would allow third party advertisers to run any kind of code on my browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You won't be indexed by search engines, so you lose more than if you don't block it.
Furthermore I stay clear of any website forcing me to add exceptions to NoScript that would allow third party advertisers to run any kind of code on my browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389694</id>
	<title>I block to protect my privacy, remove distractions</title>
	<author>H4x0r Jim Duggan</author>
	<datestamp>1267976400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I started using an ad blocker just a few months ago, and my use has nothing to do with advertisements.</p><p>* One, my privacy is harmed because ad providers like Google/DoubleClick are logging my use of most of the websites I use.</p><p>* Two, some sites use flashing images for ads, and that interferes with my reading.</p><p>Print and TV ads never did either of these to me.  Ars, any thoughts on these issues?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I started using an ad blocker just a few months ago , and my use has nothing to do with advertisements .
* One , my privacy is harmed because ad providers like Google/DoubleClick are logging my use of most of the websites I use .
* Two , some sites use flashing images for ads , and that interferes with my reading.Print and TV ads never did either of these to me .
Ars , any thoughts on these issues ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I started using an ad blocker just a few months ago, and my use has nothing to do with advertisements.
* One, my privacy is harmed because ad providers like Google/DoubleClick are logging my use of most of the websites I use.
* Two, some sites use flashing images for ads, and that interferes with my reading.Print and TV ads never did either of these to me.
Ars, any thoughts on these issues?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31395004</id>
	<title>Ars is barking up the wrong tree</title>
	<author>tommy</author>
	<datestamp>1267965300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ad blocking users will not magically start clicking ads because someone coerces them into disabling their ad blocker.</p><p>Content providers should really focus their efforts where there is at least the possibility they will benefit from the effort.  In this case, not only will unblocking ads lower the overall "quality" of the eyeballs on the ads, but it will piss off consumers.  Smart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ad blocking users will not magically start clicking ads because someone coerces them into disabling their ad blocker.Content providers should really focus their efforts where there is at least the possibility they will benefit from the effort .
In this case , not only will unblocking ads lower the overall " quality " of the eyeballs on the ads , but it will piss off consumers .
Smart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ad blocking users will not magically start clicking ads because someone coerces them into disabling their ad blocker.Content providers should really focus their efforts where there is at least the possibility they will benefit from the effort.
In this case, not only will unblocking ads lower the overall "quality" of the eyeballs on the ads, but it will piss off consumers.
Smart.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389564</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Ars, you are animated too</title>
	<author>Jeff DeMaagd</author>
	<datestamp>1267975680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My general policy is the ad media type must match the content media type.  If the content is video &amp; sound, then the ad may be video and sound.  If the content is a text article, the ad may be text.  Motion, sound &amp; animated ads for still content is out of bounds as far as I'm concerned.  Ad networks and sites that aren't content sensitive don't earn my pity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My general policy is the ad media type must match the content media type .
If the content is video &amp; sound , then the ad may be video and sound .
If the content is a text article , the ad may be text .
Motion , sound &amp; animated ads for still content is out of bounds as far as I 'm concerned .
Ad networks and sites that are n't content sensitive do n't earn my pity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My general policy is the ad media type must match the content media type.
If the content is video &amp; sound, then the ad may be video and sound.
If the content is a text article, the ad may be text.
Motion, sound &amp; animated ads for still content is out of bounds as far as I'm concerned.
Ad networks and sites that aren't content sensitive don't earn my pity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391106</id>
	<title>Surely it's what type of Ad you're blocking?</title>
	<author>Tomsk70</author>
	<datestamp>1267984680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are two types of adverts. Those that intrude and those that don't. Noise, or graphics covering what I was actually trying to read count as those that do.</p><p>If I have to run an Ad-blocker to stop them, then that's the way it shall be - maybe it's time to talk to the sites that pretend that this sort of advertising is acceptable, so that people like me *don't have to run ad-blockers in the first place*. And the article also seems to ignore how many people don't run ad-blockers - because after one pop-up advert, they *never visit the site again*.</p><p>The quote also reads like someone's now upset that they've been getting away with unnacceptable practices and can't now generate the revenue that they *shouldn't have been generating in that manner to begin with*</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are two types of adverts .
Those that intrude and those that do n't .
Noise , or graphics covering what I was actually trying to read count as those that do.If I have to run an Ad-blocker to stop them , then that 's the way it shall be - maybe it 's time to talk to the sites that pretend that this sort of advertising is acceptable , so that people like me * do n't have to run ad-blockers in the first place * .
And the article also seems to ignore how many people do n't run ad-blockers - because after one pop-up advert , they * never visit the site again * .The quote also reads like someone 's now upset that they 've been getting away with unnacceptable practices and ca n't now generate the revenue that they * should n't have been generating in that manner to begin with *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are two types of adverts.
Those that intrude and those that don't.
Noise, or graphics covering what I was actually trying to read count as those that do.If I have to run an Ad-blocker to stop them, then that's the way it shall be - maybe it's time to talk to the sites that pretend that this sort of advertising is acceptable, so that people like me *don't have to run ad-blockers in the first place*.
And the article also seems to ignore how many people don't run ad-blockers - because after one pop-up advert, they *never visit the site again*.The quote also reads like someone's now upset that they've been getting away with unnacceptable practices and can't now generate the revenue that they *shouldn't have been generating in that manner to begin with*
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389522</id>
	<title>Aside from annoying</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1267975440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Besides annoying, a lot of these things slow your browser ( or entire computer ) down and is just uncalled for. Its bad enough to have the ad, but if i have to suffer because of it? F-off!</p><p>While I'm just one person and I wont make or break a company, i still make a point of NOT buying products from companies that use offensive ads in my face like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides annoying , a lot of these things slow your browser ( or entire computer ) down and is just uncalled for .
Its bad enough to have the ad , but if i have to suffer because of it ?
F-off ! While I 'm just one person and I wont make or break a company , i still make a point of NOT buying products from companies that use offensive ads in my face like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides annoying, a lot of these things slow your browser ( or entire computer ) down and is just uncalled for.
Its bad enough to have the ad, but if i have to suffer because of it?
F-off!While I'm just one person and I wont make or break a company, i still make a point of NOT buying products from companies that use offensive ads in my face like this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388990</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Ars, you are animated too</title>
	<author>jhoegl</author>
	<datestamp>1267972680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dont forget the viruses transmitted by Ads. Sure this only happened a few times through large internet ad agencies, but its only a mater of time before it happens again<br>
Ads would be the #1 way to saturate a lot of computers in a short amount of time.  Ill never remove ad blockers.<br>
That being said I am sure website developers can come up with a solution which checks if their ads are being blocked and if so, deny access to the site.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dont forget the viruses transmitted by Ads .
Sure this only happened a few times through large internet ad agencies , but its only a mater of time before it happens again Ads would be the # 1 way to saturate a lot of computers in a short amount of time .
Ill never remove ad blockers .
That being said I am sure website developers can come up with a solution which checks if their ads are being blocked and if so , deny access to the site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dont forget the viruses transmitted by Ads.
Sure this only happened a few times through large internet ad agencies, but its only a mater of time before it happens again
Ads would be the #1 way to saturate a lot of computers in a short amount of time.
Ill never remove ad blockers.
That being said I am sure website developers can come up with a solution which checks if their ads are being blocked and if so, deny access to the site.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389050</id>
	<title>Re:I have ad block in because of facebook</title>
	<author>DarkOx</author>
	<datestamp>1267972920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its the advertisers fault.  I understand that advertising is all about making sure your message is heard above the noise but they are the ones who jumped the shark.</p><p>When it was just banners and the occasional frame with some adds in it, I never attempted to filter them out other than with my own mental powers.  When they started doing pop-ups and float overs, I even tolerated it.  When they started making adds that pretended to be system messages, virus scanner alerts, and other applications that really struck me as fraudulent and abusive and so I started blocking ads and helping others do the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its the advertisers fault .
I understand that advertising is all about making sure your message is heard above the noise but they are the ones who jumped the shark.When it was just banners and the occasional frame with some adds in it , I never attempted to filter them out other than with my own mental powers .
When they started doing pop-ups and float overs , I even tolerated it .
When they started making adds that pretended to be system messages , virus scanner alerts , and other applications that really struck me as fraudulent and abusive and so I started blocking ads and helping others do the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its the advertisers fault.
I understand that advertising is all about making sure your message is heard above the noise but they are the ones who jumped the shark.When it was just banners and the occasional frame with some adds in it, I never attempted to filter them out other than with my own mental powers.
When they started doing pop-ups and float overs, I even tolerated it.
When they started making adds that pretended to be system messages, virus scanner alerts, and other applications that really struck me as fraudulent and abusive and so I started blocking ads and helping others do the same.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389226</id>
	<title>My counter argument</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1267973820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not blocking ads can be devastating to users' computers.</p><p>Blocking ads is more than just a means to cut down on the annoying clutter on the screen.  It is a security measure.  And the fact is, "respect" is and should be a two-way street.  Advertisers do not respect the audience.  They will place as many ads "...as the market can bear" or will tolerate.  They want attention and will use seizure-inducing colors and flashing to get it.  Further, hidden among the many redirects, there are scripts and other exploits designed to turn a user's computer into a bot or worse.</p><p>If advertisers used only the most respectful methods, the need for ad blockers would not exist and neither would the ad blockers themselves.</p><p>As things stand, even on the most legitimate of sites, users are at risk due to the methods advertisers use when enlisting and deploying advertising campaigns.</p><p>Lower my defenses so you can earn money from my eyes?  Burn in hell!</p><p>1. Pay respect to your audience<br>2. Use methods that do not require "web client cooperation" and trust the sites hosting your ads.  (Use scripts to inject text based ads into the articles originating from the site being read, not from external sites!  There is a problem of trust that everyone needs to overcome.)</p><p>I don't leave my windows and doors open to allow advertisers to walk into my home because OTHER people will enter as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not blocking ads can be devastating to users ' computers.Blocking ads is more than just a means to cut down on the annoying clutter on the screen .
It is a security measure .
And the fact is , " respect " is and should be a two-way street .
Advertisers do not respect the audience .
They will place as many ads " ...as the market can bear " or will tolerate .
They want attention and will use seizure-inducing colors and flashing to get it .
Further , hidden among the many redirects , there are scripts and other exploits designed to turn a user 's computer into a bot or worse.If advertisers used only the most respectful methods , the need for ad blockers would not exist and neither would the ad blockers themselves.As things stand , even on the most legitimate of sites , users are at risk due to the methods advertisers use when enlisting and deploying advertising campaigns.Lower my defenses so you can earn money from my eyes ?
Burn in hell ! 1 .
Pay respect to your audience2 .
Use methods that do not require " web client cooperation " and trust the sites hosting your ads .
( Use scripts to inject text based ads into the articles originating from the site being read , not from external sites !
There is a problem of trust that everyone needs to overcome .
) I do n't leave my windows and doors open to allow advertisers to walk into my home because OTHER people will enter as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not blocking ads can be devastating to users' computers.Blocking ads is more than just a means to cut down on the annoying clutter on the screen.
It is a security measure.
And the fact is, "respect" is and should be a two-way street.
Advertisers do not respect the audience.
They will place as many ads "...as the market can bear" or will tolerate.
They want attention and will use seizure-inducing colors and flashing to get it.
Further, hidden among the many redirects, there are scripts and other exploits designed to turn a user's computer into a bot or worse.If advertisers used only the most respectful methods, the need for ad blockers would not exist and neither would the ad blockers themselves.As things stand, even on the most legitimate of sites, users are at risk due to the methods advertisers use when enlisting and deploying advertising campaigns.Lower my defenses so you can earn money from my eyes?
Burn in hell!1.
Pay respect to your audience2.
Use methods that do not require "web client cooperation" and trust the sites hosting your ads.
(Use scripts to inject text based ads into the articles originating from the site being read, not from external sites!
There is a problem of trust that everyone needs to overcome.
)I don't leave my windows and doors open to allow advertisers to walk into my home because OTHER people will enter as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388882</id>
	<title>Fake virus scanner</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267972140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tell that to the girl who got that stupid fake virus scanner that I cleaned off her computer friday.  Came from a served ad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell that to the girl who got that stupid fake virus scanner that I cleaned off her computer friday .
Came from a served ad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell that to the girl who got that stupid fake virus scanner that I cleaned off her computer friday.
Came from a served ad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389508</id>
	<title>Re:My thoughts</title>
	<author>smd75</author>
	<datestamp>1267975380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good job not reading the article. The author specifically states that they are paid per view, not only clicks. If it were clicks, they wouldnt be making very much money anyway.</p><p>He also mentions that advertisers for tv are paying to reach a large guaranteed audience, websites can't guarantee an audience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good job not reading the article .
The author specifically states that they are paid per view , not only clicks .
If it were clicks , they wouldnt be making very much money anyway.He also mentions that advertisers for tv are paying to reach a large guaranteed audience , websites ca n't guarantee an audience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good job not reading the article.
The author specifically states that they are paid per view, not only clicks.
If it were clicks, they wouldnt be making very much money anyway.He also mentions that advertisers for tv are paying to reach a large guaranteed audience, websites can't guarantee an audience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390436</id>
	<title>Re:How is this different than muting TV commercial</title>
	<author>drooling-dog</author>
	<datestamp>1267981020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was a time when the FCC limited advertising on commercial television to something like 7 or 8 minutes of advertising per hour. With deregulation, that's now up to around 19, or nearly a third of program time. Broadcasters can do that because there apparently are enough people who are willing to sit catatonically through them all without complaint. Of course, you can take a bathroom break, visit the fridge, or take the dog out during the commercial breaks, but that would be wrong because it only hurts the people who bring you all of that fine free programming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a time when the FCC limited advertising on commercial television to something like 7 or 8 minutes of advertising per hour .
With deregulation , that 's now up to around 19 , or nearly a third of program time .
Broadcasters can do that because there apparently are enough people who are willing to sit catatonically through them all without complaint .
Of course , you can take a bathroom break , visit the fridge , or take the dog out during the commercial breaks , but that would be wrong because it only hurts the people who bring you all of that fine free programming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a time when the FCC limited advertising on commercial television to something like 7 or 8 minutes of advertising per hour.
With deregulation, that's now up to around 19, or nearly a third of program time.
Broadcasters can do that because there apparently are enough people who are willing to sit catatonically through them all without complaint.
Of course, you can take a bathroom break, visit the fridge, or take the dog out during the commercial breaks, but that would be wrong because it only hurts the people who bring you all of that fine free programming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393898</id>
	<title>I respect his position, however...</title>
	<author>peacefinder</author>
	<datestamp>1267958100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like ad-supported sites, I really do. It's a good business model for making lots of content available free to the end user, and I think that goal is worth a certain amount of bother from advertisers. That's why - until very recently - I have not run ad blockers.</p><p>But two things have happened recently which have forced me into it. One, on my home Mac my kid started complaining about the sexualized content of ads on the otherwise benign sites he visits. Okay, kid, here's adblockplus for firefox.</p><p>Two, ads appear to have become a significant vector for windows malware. Yes it is silly that I have to use windows at all at work, but that said the fact remains: advertising systems do not vet their content well enough to be trustworthy.  Therefore, purely as a matter of self defense, I am obliged to block ads on the Windows browser I use.</p><p>I would like to let arstechnica have all their ad revenue, I really would. They're a very fine publication. But unless they can demonstrate a chain of trust in their advertising, I can't whitelist them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like ad-supported sites , I really do .
It 's a good business model for making lots of content available free to the end user , and I think that goal is worth a certain amount of bother from advertisers .
That 's why - until very recently - I have not run ad blockers.But two things have happened recently which have forced me into it .
One , on my home Mac my kid started complaining about the sexualized content of ads on the otherwise benign sites he visits .
Okay , kid , here 's adblockplus for firefox.Two , ads appear to have become a significant vector for windows malware .
Yes it is silly that I have to use windows at all at work , but that said the fact remains : advertising systems do not vet their content well enough to be trustworthy .
Therefore , purely as a matter of self defense , I am obliged to block ads on the Windows browser I use.I would like to let arstechnica have all their ad revenue , I really would .
They 're a very fine publication .
But unless they can demonstrate a chain of trust in their advertising , I ca n't whitelist them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like ad-supported sites, I really do.
It's a good business model for making lots of content available free to the end user, and I think that goal is worth a certain amount of bother from advertisers.
That's why - until very recently - I have not run ad blockers.But two things have happened recently which have forced me into it.
One, on my home Mac my kid started complaining about the sexualized content of ads on the otherwise benign sites he visits.
Okay, kid, here's adblockplus for firefox.Two, ads appear to have become a significant vector for windows malware.
Yes it is silly that I have to use windows at all at work, but that said the fact remains: advertising systems do not vet their content well enough to be trustworthy.
Therefore, purely as a matter of self defense, I am obliged to block ads on the Windows browser I use.I would like to let arstechnica have all their ad revenue, I really would.
They're a very fine publication.
But unless they can demonstrate a chain of trust in their advertising, I can't whitelist them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_173</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31396854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_135</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_159</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_145</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_153</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31395178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_164</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_132</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_140</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_169</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_177</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_175</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31415506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31398968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31395582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31395338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_151</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_162</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31398744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_172</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_148</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_134</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_180</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_158</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31407860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_142</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_152</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_129</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_161</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31399524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_179</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31396778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_137</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31407228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31397870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_147</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_131</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31396984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_155</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_166</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_141</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_176</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_174</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_182</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_150</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_165</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31396270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_163</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_139</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_171</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_149</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_181</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_157</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_168</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_178</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_136</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31408094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_144</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_130</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31403394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_154</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31406578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_167</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_133</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31395240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_143</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_128</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_160</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_138</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_170</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_146</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_156</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0319253_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389096
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391238
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392092
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390514
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31396778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31395316
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31407228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388784
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31395338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389676
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388796
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389302
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389610
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393884
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393110
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392944
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393574
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392986
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31395582
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394050
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391668
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31399524
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392670
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388774
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389864
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390644
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392784
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394040
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390162
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393100
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389612
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392880
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388928
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31395594
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392382
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389614
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389324
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31395178
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31397870
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392542
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391734
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391904
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392708
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392150
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389144
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388980
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390078
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391824
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31398968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393800
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31396854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389454
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392338
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389138
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392248
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389762
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390682
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391872
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392034
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389262
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31403394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393984
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31395240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391776
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391314
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389500
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31406578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31408094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394590
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31396984
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390714
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392898
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388872
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31395172
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392164
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31393368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392702
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390348
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390696
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31396270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31391300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31394048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31407860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31390124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31395492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31389412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31392176
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0319253.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31388974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31398744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0319253.31415506
</commentlist>
</conversation>
