Oll Korrect. The only thing is that, in this case, the self-interest of Google goes directly against the interests of its users, so that "Don't Be Evil" is in jeopardy. Then again, this isn't the first time.
This is totally unfair. There are lots of alternative ways to make money off applications. Tons of applications have free Light versions and paid Pro versions (or a full-featured Standard application and a paid Donation version). I think that is a *much* better way: I buy applications all the time. Then there are purchases from inside the application for extra content. Those can be abused by developers, but in plenty of applications they work very well.
Advertisements are a huge waste of everyone's bandwidth, time, attention, and don't forget battery life: it has been proven that ads take up the majority of some application's CPU usage, as with Angry Birds.
Lastly, if you put your application on the Play Store or on the Internet for free, then you have no claim over anybody in any way. If you don't want people to block your ads, then don't put it on the Play Store / Internet.
Most of what you say applies to me too, including Amanda Palmer (except that I do like her music and have actually discovered her through Techdirt).
I don't feel guilty blocking Techdirt's ads because I Flattr the hell out of it. I highly recommend Flattr as a much better alternative to advertising for websites to make some money. I've already thrown more money at Techdirt that way than at any other website (okay, it's still not a huge amount, but probably 100x more than they would have made on me through advertising).
I am losing enjoyment, time, attention, 3G data, you name it, by looking at advertisements.
I am more than willing to pay for applications. Everyone does so in the Play Store. Having a free Lite version and a paid Full version of an application is one of the many other ways developers make many there, and they do so quite successfully. I much prefer that system. If only to encourage the latter and discourage the societal waste that is advertising, one ought to block ads.
Still, the advertisements themselves do not add any value to your experience: they are merely a means to an end that could also be accomplished otherwise, at least in theory, by donating money directly. That's why I block ads but am a huge fan of Flattr. I wish more sites had it.
Not only may this hurt and anger Muslims, but they are also spreading terrorist ideas among those groups deemed most likely to include terrorist. Are they not breeding terrorists besides their specific targets this way? Unwise.
There is some concern as to whether it was necessary to block all magnet links offered on the Pirate Bay, including those referring to legal content and those whose status had not been proven to be illegal, or rather to block only those pages with illegal links on them. Because the latter can be done: you can just block pages per torrent rather than the entire website.
Re: Re: 8 suggestions to improve the American patent system
I didn't say it was going to be easy! The idea is that each of these points may or may not contribute a little bit of sanity to the patent system, and together they may mitigate current problems enough to make the current system workable.
Ad 4: you can license it out, but the shell company can't sue, so all you can license out is the permission to use the invention, not the monopoly, i.e. not the power to enforce it.
Ad 5: By "inventor" I meant whoever applied for the patent in the first place. If that is your company, then they get the monopoly, but they cannot sell it to anyone else. Indeed, they could sell an exclusive license to a troll and try to enforce their monopoly to protect the troll; but that could only happen if they were somehow subverted by the troll while still making products using the patent themselves (or they would run afoul of 4). This would be a lot more complicated than simply selling the patent and the power to enforce it, and nearly impossible in conjunction with 4.
Ad 7: what if panellists were screened case by case, and only the most egregious cases removed? The idea is that they decide together, and perhaps a qualified majority (2/3 in favour) should be required for each patent. If fewer patents are granted this way, then great.