[But who decides whether an ad is "acceptable" or not]
I do. At least for myself. Other people can decide for themselves too.
[and thus qualified for a spot on the software's whitelist)? Well, the company does]
Only if the user allows it to. The "sofware's" whitelist is just that - belongs to the software developer. It doesn't belong to me, and I can negate that by choosing myself what to block and what not to block.
I don't choose to block by "acceptable advertising". I block by website - in it's entirety.
If a website warrants me turning on my adblocker it's because the ads have overtaken the content (ie: more ads than content) or nearly all of the ads "move" in some way, or the page has multiple popups and popunders (which also warrant a blocker) or too many trackers that I can't opt out of.
Just because I use adsense on my site, doesn't mean I'm going to whitelist them. Publishers abuse the numbers of ads frequently. If I have to turn on my adblocker, it's for the site, and not because of specific ads.
And no, I don't have an issue with people using adblockers when visiting my site. I don't find one or two ads annoying, but others might, and that's within their right to choose.
I'm not going to block visitors because of it (the phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face" comes to mind here). Why exchange one ill for another?
The French can, IMO, "aller sucer un cornichon" (excusez mon français) ... highschool was a long time ago.
Personally I prefer books over TV too, although I'm not sure if I consider them a superior form of entertainment.
"Different strokes for different folks".
They are two different mediums. TV is noisy, and sometimes too visual, and most of the time has little of interest in mainstream shows. They get boring pretty quickly (for me anyways).
Take the Walking Dead, okay for the first few seasons after that ... well, you get a little sick of the same old thing. Someone dies, becomes a zombie, bites someone else, then gets killed and it starts all over again.
For people who like that sort of thing, fine.
On the other hand, since there is (IMO) so much garbage that bores me, books are a better choice. There may be garbage books (personally I think there is "garbage" available in all entertainment mediums), but there are millions of books to choose from, while on TV, or even Netflix you are limited to what is available. Less choice, less value. A book can be free (shared, or library), while we pay for our TV privilege, with little in the way of value in return.
If it weren't for my husband who "needs" his sports, I wouldn't likely have TV.
There are enough things available online that for what I feel is watchable, TV isn't (for me) worth the effort or the money.
I have an index card for each site I have a password for (a real paper one, not digital). I store them in a most unlikely place. Where they're stored is written in a letter and kept with my will. That's for my 2 girls (hopefully, long into the future).
Unfortunately, it does mean I have to remember them but then, I don't have passwords for hundreds of sites either. I have only a dozen sites I use regularly where I need a password.
I don't sign up for membership and a lot of random sites. If you can't read or visit a site without signing up, I'll find somewhere else to get the information I need.
When it gets to the point that I can't remember a dozen or so passwords, I'll turn in my computer.
Why do they even think an internet license would stop bullying, or stop internet child abuse? It won't. No more than a driving license stops speeders, or drunk drivers, or people driving without a license.
If such a thing were ever passed, I could easily predict a lot Canadians buying fake documents to use a fake name to get an internet license.
Just what we needed. More crap removing privacy that Canadian citizens are supposed to be entitled to.
Pretty soon, I'll need a license to walk down the street because they don't know who I am.
[quote]What Qentis is proposing is the bulk algorithmic creation of content – music, text, images etc – on such a large scale that in a few years its clients will own the rights to just about anything people might care to create and upload.[/quote]
All this deserves is just a great big smiley ROFL ...
Can't think of anything else that's appropriate to the idea of search engines actually stopping piracy. Nor anyone else for that matter ... 'bout the same as when they tried to stop booze during prohibition. How did that work for them?
"Google has banned similar ad-blocking apps before because they, too, could interfere with other apps. “When we were kicked out, virtually every other ad blocker was kicked out as well,” said Ben Williams a spokesman for Eyeo, maker of Adblock Plus, which was removed from the Play store in March 2013."
Except AdBlock is still available in the google play store. And so is AdBlock+ ... meaning it isn't about adblocker, and an ex-googler ought to know that.
[quote]The likelihood that any ISP is going to agree to hijack their subscribers' browsing experience because some piddly company wants to start cashing more checks is... pretty low.[/quote]
Particularly since ISP subscribers are likely to not pay their ISP fees because the ISP isn't providing the service they paid for. Subscribers aren't paying to have their browsers hijacked by some troll.
[quote] You could, perhaps, make an argument that a site that uses SSL is more likely to be a high quality site, but Google doesn't even appear to be making that argument. [/quote]
Could you though? I've seen a lot of very bad websites created of entirely scraped contents that use SSL. That Google would even consider these as being able to rank even slightly higher in search results due to the use of SSL would be ludicrous.
A bad website is a bad website, whether it uses SSL or not. That being true, then one would hope that Google is smart enough to rank a higher quality site that doesn't use SSL higher than it would rank a bad site that does use SSL.
If their algorithm doesn't do that, then using SSL as even a very minor ranking factor would be a very bad step in my opinion. It needs to be and and/if situation as opposed to "oh, they use SSL so they get a better rank".
I'd assume there is more to it than that, but assumptions often get one in a place they don't want to be.
[quote]“That trip cost me about £2,000 for that monkey shot. Not to mention the £5,000 of equipment I carried, the insurance, the computer stuff I used to process the images. Photography is an expensive profession that’s being encroached upon. They’re taking our livelihoods away,” he said.[/quote]
Well ... perhaps he should have considered that before he gave his equipment to the monkey.