IOS devices (iPods, iPads, iPhones) have no JavaScript debugger
-
@morbiuswilters said:
The fact is if you block ads you are stealing.
Disagree.
I'd like to see them bring criminal charges against me.
"The defendant, m'lud, is guilty of the heinous crime of ADVERT-BLOCKING! This is clearly theft! We ought to imprison this dirty felon!"
-
@Cassidy said:
@morbiuswilters said:
The fact is if you block ads you are stealing.
Disagree.
I'd like to see them bring criminal charges against me.
"The defendant, m'lud, is guilty of the heinous crime of ADVERT-BLOCKING! This is clearly theft! We ought to imprison this dirty felon!"
First of all, "m'lud"? What the fuck.
Secondly, the people on this board who have an internalized code of ethics realize that not all unethical behavior is codified by laws. Seriously, do you not have civics classes in whatever backwards-ass country calls judges "m'lud"?
Quick question to gauge the level of your idiocy: do you believe that Wall Street's extremely irresponsible lending behavior leading to the housing crash of 2008 was perfectly fine and dandy? Challenge mode: nothing those companies did was illegal.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Quick question to gauge the level of your idiocy: do you believe that Wall Street's extremely irresponsible lending behavior leading to the housing crash of 2008 was perfectly fine and dandy?
Is 2008 zero-based or one-based there?
-
@Cassidy said:
@morbiuswilters said:
The fact is if you block ads you are stealing.
Disagree.
I'd like to see them bring criminal charges against me.
"The defendant, m'lud, is guilty of the heinous crime of ADVERT-BLOCKING! This is clearly theft! We ought to imprison this dirty felon!"
And, hey, I bet you can get all sorts of free food and clothing if you just pretend to be homeless! And that "Take a penny, leave a penny" thing? Just go to every store in your neighborhood and empty it out without buying a damn thing. All perfectly legal!
-
@blakeyrat said:
Secondly, the people on this board who have an internalized code of ethics realize that not all unethical behavior is codified by laws.
No, that's the entire point. That's why I get so pissed off at these people. Their sense of entitlement is dwarfed only by their shamelessness. "It's MY COMPUTER! You can't make me watch ads on MY COMPUTER that's powered by MY ELECTRICITY!" Yeah, well, then don't fucking look at MY CONTENT you insufferable little shit. What's worse, these people ruin it for the rest of us. The pirates give legitimacy to shit technologies like DRM which only encumber honest users like myself. The ad blockers guarantee that good, "free", independent content isn't a viable business model so the ads either become more intrusive or we end up with all content controlled by a few lame-brain corporations. Hey, let's all fuck over small, independent content creators and go back to the days when everything we watched was made by Disney! Wasn't that awesome??
-
@morbiuswilters said:
And, hey, I bet you can get all sorts of free food and clothing if you just pretend to be homeless! And that "Take a penny, leave a penny" thing? Just go to every store in your neighborhood and empty it out without buying a damn thing. All perfectly legal!
Actually, neither is legal in most jurisdictions. Technically, taking a penny from the 'take a penny' tray is theft. Lying to obtain goods/services is fraud.Anyway, look over there. points It's dhromed's ass.
-
Well, that Asura's Wrath banner I've seen on the PA site is so goddamn annoying and distracting from the textual content, I damn well Firebug the fuck out of it. Same goes for banners that make sound.
That is the limit.
-
@fterfi secure said:
Actually, neither is legal in most jurisdictions. Technically, taking a penny from the 'take a penny' tray is theft. Lying to obtain goods/services is fraud.
This is getting into mighty fine legal territory here, but arguably neither is illegal. That's beside the point, though. I can come up with better examples, like pissing on the toilet seat in a public restroom. Legal? Maybe, maybe not. Unethical? Well, it's MY PENIS and I shouldn't be bound by someone else's expectations when I grace their toilet with the presence of MY URINE.
-
@dhromed said:
Well, that Asura's Wrath banner I've seen on the PA site is so goddamn annoying and distracting from the textual content, I damn well Firebug the fuck out of it. Same goes for banners that make sound.
That is the limit.
Which I think is arguably fair. You're not blocking ads across the board, you're just blacklisting egregiously-behaving ads. I suppose there's room for disagreement there, but I only really get angry at people who insist that because the content is running on THEIR EQUIPMENT that they can do anything they like with it, including stripping out all value for the content provider. I used to run FlashBlock not to block ads but because Flash is a crashy piece of shit, especially on Linux. If I let everything that wanted to play Flash do so my browser wouldn't stay up for 15 minutes. It did have the side benefit of blocking some ads, but it wasn't really my goal.
In general, I hate video/audio ads anyway. But they only become block-worthy if they play when the browser doesn't have focus (seriously, how hard is it to make this work right??) or if they play OVER THE TOP OF THE ACTUAL VIDEO CONTENT I'M TRYING TO VIEW (I've seen this too many times to count).
-
@morbiuswilters said:
That's beside the point, though.
Absolutely. I was trying to troll you into getting sidetracked. I think even having said that if I say something else subtly wrong you still won't be able to resist correcting me.@morbiuswilters said:
I can come up with better examples, like pissing on the toilet seat in a public restroom.
That's a better example? In what way?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
In general, I hate video/audio ads anyway. But they only become block-worthy if they play when the browser doesn't have focus (seriously, how hard is it to make this work right??) or if they play OVER THE TOP OF THE ACTUAL VIDEO CONTENT I'M TRYING TO VIEW (I've seen this too many times to count).
So it's okay to steal content by blocking ads once they become suitably annoying? Thief!
-
@fterfi secure said:
@morbiuswilters said:
I can come up with better examples, like pissing on the toilet seat in a public restroom.
That's a better example? In what way?Well, it's unethical but technically not illegal. Although a court of equity might issue an injunction against your penis; it's really not clear-cut.
-
@Cassidy said:
@morbiuswilters said:
In general, I hate video/audio ads anyway. But they only become block-worthy if they play when the browser doesn't have focus (seriously, how hard is it to make this work right??) or if they play OVER THE TOP OF THE ACTUAL VIDEO CONTENT I'M TRYING TO VIEW (I've seen this too many times to count).
So it's okay to steal content by blocking ads once they become suitably annoying? Thief!
Well, I'm not blocking across-the-board, I'm just blocking in cases where the ads interfere with my ability to actually use the content, or in cases where the ad plays when I'm not even looking at the content in question.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@fterfi secure said:
What if the penis is clear cut?@morbiuswilters said:
I can come up with better examples, like pissing on the toilet seat in a public restroom.
That's a better example? In what way?Well, it's unethical but technically not illegal. Although a court of equity might issue an injunction against your penis; it's really not clear-cut.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
a court of equity might issue an injunction against your penis
Another one? shrug
-
-
That's not stealing, learn your definitions. As a content creator, if you put your content online you're making it available. Ads are just there as a way for you to make some extra revenue from your content, but visitors are under no obligation to even look at those adverts, let alone click on them. If you really want to stop people viewing your content without being subject to ads then put it behind an ad-wall (like a pay wall, but more annoying) and see what your retention rate looks like after.
If ad creators weren't spewing out huge volumes of annoying ads, then this wouldn't be such an issue, and ad blockers wouldn't be so prolific. It's the ad creators who built this situation, not the visitors.
-
@dhromed said:
@El_Heffe said:
What if the penis is clear cut?
What if it's cut clear?
*shocked*
Don't even joke about such things.
-
@erikal said:
@dhromed said:
@El_Heffe said:
What if the penis is clear cut?
What if it's cut clear?
*shocked*
Don't even joke about such things.
CHOP
-
-
@ASheridan said:
If ad creators weren't spewing out huge volumes of annoying ads, then this wouldn't be such an issue, and ad blockers wouldn't be so prolific. It's the ad creators who built this situation, not the visitors.
There isn't just one guy who makes every ad in the universe. On a board where I have to explain concepts like "API contracts" and "modern computers can multitask", I feel I should explain that also. Their are entire networks devoted to hosting only non-annoying ads.
If you want to block annoying ads, I'm ok with that. We've discussed that in past threads. It's not an effective form of creating change, because the content creator doesn't see any impact to their bottom line, so if your goal is to get the site with less annoying ads, it doesn't contribute to that goal. But I'm fine with it still. (Of course, wanting the site to improve would be a non-selfish act, which I suppose the type of people who block ads are incapable of...)
My beef is with the people who block every ad everywhere, and the ad blocking tools that default to that setting and are virtually impossible to use any other way. Yes, it's a sliding scale, but that's definitely sliding to the "you're a dick" side.
-
@blakeyrat said:
but that's definitely sliding to the "you're a dick" side.
That sounds clear-cut
-
@blakeyrat said:
There isn't just one guy who makes every ad in the universe.
that's why I used the plural of 'creator' to indicate that I know there are more than one. I'm an atheist, there is no way I'm believing in a single creator of anything!@blakeyrat said:
My beef is with the people who block every ad everywhere, and the ad blocking tools that default to that setting and are virtually impossible to use any other way. Yes, it's a sliding scale, but that's definitely sliding to the "you're a dick" side.
I am on your side with this. I've seen enough good ads that I don't want to block them all, but it's hard to decide what to block and what not to. I tend to block on a site-by-site basis if at all, as some sites just have bad adverts, and there's not a good chance they'll suddenly get better ones. A good rule of thumb is if the ad is in Flash, it is probably shit.
-
@ASheridan said:
That's not stealing, learn your definitions. As a content creator, if you put your content online you're making it available.
Of course it's theft. I never said it's against the law, but apparently you're one of those worthless, immoral bastards who can't be expected to do the right thing ever unless you have somebody pointing a gun at your head. So, by having content "available", it's perfectly fine to steal it? I hope I find out where you work so I can distribute your source code online thus making it "available" to everyone for free.
@ASheridan said:
Ads are just there as a way for you to make some extra revenue from your content, but visitors are under no obligation to even look at those adverts, let alone click on them.
Awesome strawman, you dumbass. Nobody said you're under any obligation to click on ads or even pay attention to them. By blocking them completely you are violating the implicit agreement between yourself and the content creator. Stop pretending your selfish, unethical behavior is anything but what it is.
@ASheridan said:
If you really want to stop people viewing your content without being subject to ads then put it behind an ad-wall (like a pay wall, but more annoying) and see what your retention rate looks like after.
Great, let's make ads even more annoying because of selfish assholes like you.
-
@ASheridan said:
I'm an atheist, there is no way I'm believing in a single creator of anything!
Example #752 of why atheists are such dipshit losers: They can't say five fucking sentences without mentioning their religion. You are seriously worse than any fundamentalist Muslim, Jew or Christian. I would rather be raped by a Bible than spend 1 minute listening to your self-important bullshit. I hope there's a hell just so you can spend eternity being torn apart with hot pokers.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@ASheridan said:
You're all morons on that front, as far as I'm concerned. You should clearly be worshipping me.I'm an atheist, there is no way I'm believing in a single creator of anything!
Example #752 of why atheists are such dipshit losers: They can't say five fucking sentences without mentioning their religion. You are seriously worse than any fundamentalist Muslim, Jew or Christian. I would rather be raped by a Bible than spend 1 minute listening to your self-important bullshit. I hope there's a hell just so you can spend eternity being torn apart with hot pokers.
More seriously, though, I've yet to meet even a hard-core religionist/atheist who could explain to me what the fuck difference it makes to anything whether or not god exists. One of the great things about the Islamo-Judeo-Christian Old Testament is that you can find something in there to support absolutely anything you want - including this.
-
@fterfi secure said:
More seriously, though, I've yet to meet even a hard-core religionist/atheist who could explain to me what the fuck difference it makes to anything whether or not god exists.
You mean none of them ever brought up what happens to you after you die?
-
@boomzilla said:
@fterfi secure said:
They do. But why does that make a difference? After I point out that being scared of going to hell is merely giving into bullying, the theists tend to flounder for a bit.More seriously, though, I've yet to meet even a hard-core religionist/atheist who could explain to me what the fuck difference it makes to anything whether or not god exists.
You mean none of them ever brought up what happens to you after you die?
Oh, I should add that this all assumes that one believes that people should be able to justify their own actions.
-
@fterfi secure said:
They do. But why does that make a difference? After I point out that being scared of going to hell is merely giving into bullying, the theists tend to flounder for a bit.
Think of it from a theists' point of view: Would you consider being arrested for breaking the law "giving into bullying"?
-
@fterfi secure said:
@boomzilla said:
You mean none of them ever brought up what happens to you after you die?
They do. But why does that make a difference? After I point out that being scared of going to hell is merely giving into bullying, the theists tend to flounder for a bit.So, what you meant to ask was, "Can you guess any reason that would make a difference that I already agree with?" To which the only answer is, "You're a fucking moron who is convinced that he is right and that nothing else matters." Why did you even bother asking the question?
-
@lettucemode said:
@fterfi secure said:
They do. But why does that make a difference? After I point out that being scared of going to hell is merely giving into bullying, the theists tend to flounder for a bit.
Think of it from a theists' point of view: Would you consider being arrested for breaking the law "giving into bullying"?You are comparing apples to oranges, unless you consider religion more flexible than usual people.
-
@fterfi secure said:
They do. But why does that make a difference? After I point out that being scared of going to hell is merely giving into bullying, the theists tend to flounder for a bit.
All I can speak to on this is that, if there is no God, then there have been an amazing number of coincidences in my life. More than can be explained through statistics. The most unlikely situations have turned my way for no logically-explainable reason. I pray and truths become evident to me, truths that I never would've figured out on my own.
Believe what you want. I'm no Bible-thumping, corner-preaching, God-will-damn-you-to-hell zealot. If you want to talk to me, I'll talk. If I try to explain a personal experience, the only explanation I may be able to give is that it happened to me and I can't provide any further explanation beyond a gut feeling. I believe my faith and my belief are the right way, but if you don't, that's really not my issue, and I wish you the best with all sincerity.
But the only real argument I can give would be: what if you're wrong?
-
@lettucemode said:
@fterfi secure said:
Is the state omnipotent? There are reasons why the state should, for example, prevent stealing. Why should an omnipotent being do so, though, instead of giving us all what we want so we have no reason to steal?They do. But why does that make a difference? After I point out that being scared of going to hell is merely giving into bullying, the theists tend to flounder for a bit.
Think of it from a theists' point of view: Would you consider being arrested for breaking the law "giving into bullying"?
-
@boomzilla said:
@fterfi secure said:
Well, isn't it giving into bullying? What's the difference?@boomzilla said:
You mean none of them ever brought up what happens to you after you die?
They do. But why does that make a difference? After I point out that being scared of going to hell is merely giving into bullying, the theists tend to flounder for a bit.So, what you meant to ask was, "Can you guess any reason that would make a difference that I already agree with?" To which the only answer is, "You're a fucking moron who is convinced that he is right and that nothing else matters." Why did you even bother asking the question?
-
@fterfi secure said:
Why should an omnipotent being do so, though, instead of giving us all what we want so we have no reason to steal?
Because then we'd all become selfish, entitled twats.Since when do people want what's good for them?
-
@nonpartisan said:
All I can speak to on this is that, if there is no God, then there have been an amazing number of coincidences in my life.
I really don't have an opinion on whether or not there is a god. I can't see that it matters, so I've stopped worrying.@nonpartisan said:
I believe my faith and my belief are the right way, but if you don't, that's really not my issue
It's not the issue I'm interested in, either. If god doesn't believe your faith and belief are the right way, what would you do? Would you change anything about the way you live?@nonpartisan said:But the only real argument I can give would be: what if you're wrong?
That's the bit I added about how one should be able to justify every action. If I did something wrong, but which was justifiable in the circumstances, with the knowledge and skills I had available, then I'd question why an omnipotent god left me in that situation, rather than allowing him/her/it to judge me.What if god's wrong, in my opinion?
-
@serguey123 said:
@lettucemode said:
Think of it from a theists' point of view: Would you consider being arrested for breaking the law "giving into bullying"?
You are comparing apples to oranges, unless you consider religion more flexible than usual people.
Not really...it's just a matter of scale.
Suppose that I see two young kids, one bullying the other. It's easy for me to tell the bully to go away, and tell the other kid to stand up for himself a little more. The bully's actions have very little effect on me since I'm bigger and stronger, so I can act as I please. I'm outside his rules.
Now let's take this concept and expand it. Let's suppose that I live in America and want to sell crack. Unfortunately, those coppas are always on my grill for selling crack because it's illegal. America is bigger and stronger than me in this case. Now, it's much more difficult for me to escape that set of rules - I have to leave the country. Then from my happy home in Bolivia or wherever crack sellers go, I can point and laugh at those silly American crack sellers for giving into something as absurd as authority, because I don't have to recognize any authority over my ability to sell crack.
Now let's expand this even further. Suppose that there is a divine, all-powerful being who created the universe, the plants, physics, animals, human beings, everything. This divine being has a set of rules that he wants me to follow. Not following his rules is illegal and is punishable by something called Hell. How do I escape this set of rules? It's much harder than becoming stronger than the child bully, or leaving his area of jurisdiction. In fact, escape is impossible because this divine being can sent me wherever he wants even after death. In this case, since there is no escape, the only thing I can do if I value my person is follow his rules.
This is why I'm convinced that most people don't like theism (or religion in general). Theism claims that there is a God who judges everyone and has rules that you must follow. They also claim that there is no escape from these rules since the reward or punishment comes after you die. People want to do their own thing, so they understandably don't like this. But how do you escape a set of rules that is inescapable? Simple - just don't believe they exist.
-
@fterfi secure said:
@lettucemode said:
@fterfi secure said:
They do. But why does that make a difference? After I point out that being scared of going to hell is merely giving into bullying, the theists tend to flounder for a bit.
Think of it from a theists' point of view: Would you consider being arrested for breaking the law "giving into bullying"?
Is the state omnipotent? There are reasons why the state should, for example, prevent stealing. Why should an omnipotent being do so, though, instead of giving us all what we want so we have no reason to steal?
You're confusing "why getting imprisoned matters" with "do I care enough about being imprisoned to not steal." The argument that you are actually making is that being imprisoned or not will not make any difference in your life. Do you really believe that?
-
@Sutherlands said:
Do you know what a rhetorical question is?@fterfi secure said:
Why should an omnipotent being do so, though, instead of giving us all what we want so we have no reason to steal?
Because then we'd all become selfish, entitled twats.Since when do people want what's good for them?
I assumed that you'd be able to fill in the missing logical steps there yourself, but perhaps not. The point is that any answers to the rhetorical question beg further questions which lead to the conclusion that each action must be justified individually. Which is my point. Do you have to justify yourself to yourself, or to some other being?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Well, I'm not blocking across-the-board, I'm just blocking in cases where the ads interfere with my ability to actually use the content, or in cases where the ad plays when I'm not even looking at the content in question.
Damn, I fail at trolling. You didn't bite.
@fterfi secure said:
@morbiuswilters said:
a court of equity might issue an injunction against your penis
Another one? *shrug*Eh? How many penisus (penii?) do you have?
-
@Cassidy said:
@fterfi secure said:
@morbiuswilters said:
a court of
Another one?
equity might issue an injunction against your penis
shrugEh? How many penisus (penii?) do you have?
Do you not know who this is? This is fterfi secure; the number of injunctions against his wang are legendary.
-
@fterfi secure said:
Do you have to justify yourself to yourself, or to some other being?
You know, it's rare to reach the heart of an issue so quickly on the internet. I like this forum.
I assume that you value the former over the latter, despite any consequences? (getting arrested, for example)
-
@fterfi secure said:
@Sutherlands said:
What? Oh, you're trolling. Good one! 7/10
Do you know what a rhetorical question is?@fterfi secure said:
Why should an omnipotent being do so, though, instead of giving us all what we want so we have no reason to steal?
Because then we'd all become selfish, entitled twats.Since when do people want what's good for them?
I assumed that you'd be able to fill in the missing logical steps there yourself, but perhaps not. The point is that any answers to the rhetorical question beg further questions which lead to the conclusion that each action must be justified individually. Which is my point. Do you have to justify yourself to yourself, or to some other being?
-
@fterfi secure said:
It's not the issue I'm interested in, either. If god doesn't believe your faith and belief are the right way, what would you do? Would you change anything about the way you live?
If it would require a radical change in beliefs and behavior, I'd have to pray and reflect on what it was I thought He really wanted. I can't categorically say that I would or would not make such changes in my life. I suspect I would, but I honestly can't say.
@fterfi secure said:
That's the bit I added about how one should be able to justify every action. If I did something wrong, but which was justifiable in the circumstances, with the knowledge and skills I had available, then I'd question why an omnipotent god left me in that situation, rather than allowing him/her/it to judge me.
What if god's wrong, in my opinion?
Everything can be justified, even if it turns out to be wrong. I can behave as a proper member of society every day, but if I don't like doing it and don't really believe in it, then the actions themselves are superficial, perhaps hypocritical to some degree if I don't really believe in what I'm doing. As for what if God's wrong, in your opinion . . . well, I just don't think that's going to matter in the long term, since God is above any of us. If I'm wrong and there is no God? No harm done. If I'm wrong, there is a God, and I didn't follow His expectations? Well, I did the best I could with a sincere heart. If that gets me to eternal damnation, not much I can do at that point.
-
@fterfi secure said:
@boomzilla said:
@fterfi secure said:
@boomzilla said:
You mean none of them ever brought up what happens to you after you die?
They do. But why does that make a difference? After I point out that being scared of going to hell is merely giving into bullying, the theists tend to flounder for a bit.So, what you meant to ask was, "Can you guess any reason that would make a difference that I already agree with?" To which the only answer is, "You're a fucking moron who is convinced that he is right and that nothing else matters." Why did you even bother asking the question?
Well, isn't it giving into bullying? What's the difference?
The concept of "giving in" does not apply. I guess the imprisonment analogy would be a guilty vs non guilty plea (plus the ensuing trial). How does your plea change the nature of imprisonment (OBPedanticDickweed: aside from "giving in" possibly resulting in a shorter sentence)? Again, you may believe or disbelieve, but that's completely besides the point of the question you asked. For example:
Gallant: Are there any security implications of running random Windows screensavers that a kind stranger emailed to me?
Doofusfterfi secure: It doesn't matter, because I only use myspace to communicate!
-
@nonpartisan said:
Everything can be justified, even if it turns out to be wrong. I can behave as a proper member of society every day, but if I don't like doing it and don't really believe in it, then the actions themselves are superficial, perhaps hypocritical to some degree if I don't really believe in what I'm doing. As for what if God's wrong, in your opinion . . . well, I just don't think that's going to matter in the long term, since God is above any of us. If I'm wrong and there is no God? No harm done. If I'm wrong, there is a God, and I didn't follow His expectations? Well, I did the best I could with a sincere heart. If that gets me to eternal damnation, not much I can do at that point.
But what if you choose the wrong god?
I think the way the ancient romans approached the problem is the best so far
-
@lettucemode said:
This is why I'm convinced that most people don't like theism (or religion in general). Theism claims that there is a God who judges everyone and has rules that you must follow. They also claim that there is no escape from these rules since the reward or punishment comes after you die. People want to do their own thing, so they understandably don't like this. But how do you escape a set of rules that is inescapable? Simple - just don't believe they exist.
Also why would god care about this? Is it that boring being god?
-
@serguey123 said:
@lettucemode said:
This is why I'm convinced that most people don't like theism (or religion in general). Theism claims that there is a God who judges everyone and has rules that you must follow. They also claim that there is no escape from these rules since the reward or punishment comes after you die. People want to do their own thing, so they understandably don't like this. But how do you escape a set of rules that is inescapable? Simple - just don't believe they exist.
Also why would god care about this? Is it that boring being god?
I don't know if there's a good answer to that question. Maybe it is that boring!
-
@serguey123 said:
Hey look, it's an argument from incredulity! Let's see how many logical fallacies we can see come out in the rest of the thread. I bet this one comes out a few more times.Also why would god care about this? Is it that boring being god?
-
@Cassidy said:
Damn, I fail at trolling. You didn't bite.
Real trolling is being able to turn a thread on Javascript debugging/W3C stupidity/immorality of ad blocking into a thread about religion with one comment. For my next topic for this thread I'm thinking of going with: "America: Why is it so much better than all of the other sissy nations?"
I'm not actually trolling, but I was born blessed/cursed with the ability to derail threads. Oh, Allah, the One True God Who Smites All Infidels, why have you chosen me for this power???
