Here we have Hobo Joe wearing this season's HOTTEST Celvin Klone overcoat with Arenotme pants made in the finest sweat shops in Taiwan. Be sure to stay up on the latest fashion trends from the streets and gutters of New York's trendiest alleys.
"Do we take away people's access to driving after they commit driving offenses? "
But you are still allowed to use the street system. You can ride a bike, an under 50cc scooter (many places don't require a license or registration), a Segway, pay for a taxi, take public transportation, walk.
In relation to removing Internet access would be closer to saying: you have been accused of speeding 3 times, you are under house arrest.
"but the public schools are in competition with private/charter schools."
Not true, because I pay for other people's kids to go to public school whether or not they go to private school. So, I pay for other people's kids to have a spot at a public school, whether or not that spot is used. They are not competing, because they steal their money. Private schools have to earn their money.
Public schools being forced to share their lesson plans for free would be a good deal to getting some value out of my forcibly stolen tax money.
"let's send all the policemen back to the station, save all that money by not having cars on patrol. Let's get rid of those pesky boarder guards too, they just collect tons of useless information."
FINALLY, something intelligent comes out of your mouth.
Their music is lost in the noise now. How many musical groups are in the world right now? How many make enough money off of record contracts to live? A very very very very very small percentage.
So, essentially, we should be upset because crappy bands still can't make money?
Or that 1 single copy of a song can turn into ... a single copy of the song. If no one downloads it, even if it's available, and there are no damages, should that person still be liable for non-existent damages?
"This is a pretty interesting opinion for a guy working in a company that is entirely dependent on advertising (specifically click rate advertising)."
I would say it's particularly intelligent. They are advertising to people ... if people aren't receptive, then their advertising is useless. Getting people to see an ad isn't the main purpose of advertising, it's getting to people to ACT (to get off the sofa or computer chair and do something, either purchasing a product, ordering a service, participating in an event, etc).
If the answer is to stop ad-blocking software, then they may force more people to view their ads, but they aren't doing anything to make people ACT on the ads. The solution they prefer is the right one ... make the ads compelling to people so that they are called into action instead of forcing people to view an ad just to get another pair of eyeballs on it to say you did.
You also have to realize intentions. Someone who actively installs an ad-blocker isn't going to be receptive to ads in general. They've consciously made the decision to not care for ads. Forcing them to view an ad isn't going to force them to act on an ad, and in fact they are more likely to resist and act defiantly to direct advertising.
So, in essence, Google has it right. Don't fight ad-blockers, fight crappy ads. Make ads more compelling and interesting and give users a reason to want to view the ads because they are getting entertainment out of it, or information, or whatever it is that is missing and driving them to not want to be exposed to any more marketing messages at all.
On the post: NY Police Destroy Counterfeit Clothes Rather Than Giving Them To The Homeless
On the post: If Banning The Internet For Sex Offenders Is Unfair, Is Banning The Internet For Copyright Infringers Fair?
Re:
"Do we take away people's access to driving after they commit driving offenses? "
But you are still allowed to use the street system. You can ride a bike, an under 50cc scooter (many places don't require a license or registration), a Segway, pay for a taxi, take public transportation, walk.
In relation to removing Internet access would be closer to saying: you have been accused of speeding 3 times, you are under house arrest.
On the post: If Banning The Internet For Sex Offenders Is Unfair, Is Banning The Internet For Copyright Infringers Fair?
Re:
But you are still allowed to use the street system. You can ride a bike, a
On the post: AP Summarizes Other Journalists' Article; Isn't That What The AP Says Violates The Law?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: FTC's Disclosure Rules Apply To Bloggers... But Not Celebrities?
Re: Re: Re: Desk regulations
On the post: School Wants To Claim Copyright Over Any Lesson Plans Created By Teachers
Re:
Not true, because I pay for other people's kids to go to public school whether or not they go to private school. So, I pay for other people's kids to have a spot at a public school, whether or not that spot is used. They are not competing, because they steal their money. Private schools have to earn their money.
Public schools being forced to share their lesson plans for free would be a good deal to getting some value out of my forcibly stolen tax money.
On the post: School Wants To Claim Copyright Over Any Lesson Plans Created By Teachers
Re:
Yeah, the point.
On the post: School Wants To Claim Copyright Over Any Lesson Plans Created By Teachers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: More Surveillance Can Make Us Less Safe
Re: Re: Socialism
On the post: More Surveillance Can Make Us Less Safe
Re:
FINALLY, something intelligent comes out of your mouth.
On the post: Google Explains Why Ad Blockers Aren't A Problem
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Google Explains Why Ad Blockers Aren't A Problem
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So?
On the post: Rednex Release New Single On Pirate Bay, Explain Why Record Labels Will Die
Re:
So, essentially, we should be upset because crappy bands still can't make money?
On the post: Chicago Prosecutor's Office Leaks Old, Unsubstantiated, Discredited Internal Memo To Smear Innocence Project Founder
On the post: More Surveillance Can Make Us Less Safe
- Benjamin Franklin (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin)
On the post: Lord Lucas Proposes That Copyright Holders Detail Actual Damages From Infringement Under Mandelson Bill
Re:
On the post: Google Explains Why Ad Blockers Aren't A Problem
Re: So?
On the post: Google Explains Why Ad Blockers Aren't A Problem
Re:
I would say it's particularly intelligent. They are advertising to people ... if people aren't receptive, then their advertising is useless. Getting people to see an ad isn't the main purpose of advertising, it's getting to people to ACT (to get off the sofa or computer chair and do something, either purchasing a product, ordering a service, participating in an event, etc).
If the answer is to stop ad-blocking software, then they may force more people to view their ads, but they aren't doing anything to make people ACT on the ads. The solution they prefer is the right one ... make the ads compelling to people so that they are called into action instead of forcing people to view an ad just to get another pair of eyeballs on it to say you did.
You also have to realize intentions. Someone who actively installs an ad-blocker isn't going to be receptive to ads in general. They've consciously made the decision to not care for ads. Forcing them to view an ad isn't going to force them to act on an ad, and in fact they are more likely to resist and act defiantly to direct advertising.
So, in essence, Google has it right. Don't fight ad-blockers, fight crappy ads. Make ads more compelling and interesting and give users a reason to want to view the ads because they are getting entertainment out of it, or information, or whatever it is that is missing and driving them to not want to be exposed to any more marketing messages at all.
On the post: Google Explains Why Ad Blockers Aren't A Problem
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: France's Latest Plan: Tax Google, Microsoft And Yahoo To Fund Record Labels
Re: and the french govt can can hire people
Next >>