Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #97530 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-12-04 11:45 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-12-04 18:42 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 107 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Port scan defense Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-12-04 11:45 -0500
Re: Port scan defense Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-12-04 17:14 +0000
Re: Port scan defense Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-12-04 13:09 -0500
Re: Port scan defense Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-12-04 18:49 +0000
Re: Port scan defense JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-12-04 16:18 -0500
Re: Port scan defense Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-12-04 23:34 +0000
Re: Port scan defense David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> - 2016-12-04 19:02 -0600
Re: Port scan defense Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-12-04 20:00 +0000
Re: Port scan defense Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-12-04 15:17 -0500
Re: Port scan defense Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-12-05 17:58 +0000
Re: Port scan defense Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2016-12-05 14:56 -0500
Re: Port scan defense John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2016-12-05 13:01 -0800
Re: Port scan defense Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-12-05 16:18 -0500
Re: Port scan defense Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-12-05 16:18 -0500
Re: Port scan defense Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-12-05 23:10 +0000
Re: Port scan defense Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-12-05 18:18 -0500
Re: Port scan defense Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-12-05 23:34 +0000
Re: Port scan defense Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-12-05 18:45 -0500
Re: Port scan defense Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-12-06 00:34 +0000
Re: Port scan defense Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-12-05 20:11 -0500
Re: Port scan defense Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-12-06 04:28 +0000
Re: Port scan defense Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-12-06 08:40 -0500
Re: Port scan defense Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-12-06 15:17 +0000
Re: Port scan defense Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2016-12-06 11:24 -0500
Re: Port scan defense Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-12-06 16:56 +0000
Re: Port scan defense Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2016-12-07 12:11 -0500
Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-12-08 21:24 +0000
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) Alrescha <alrescha@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 16:46 -0500
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2016-12-09 10:39 -0500
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) Alrescha <alrescha@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 13:03 -0500
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2016-12-10 09:21 +1100
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-12-10 04:36 +0000
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-12-10 19:39 +0000
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-12-10 15:55 -0500
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-12-10 16:05 -0500
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2016-12-09 12:17 +1100
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-12-09 14:18 +0000
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2016-12-09 10:46 -0500
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-12-10 20:11 +0000
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2016-12-10 09:48 +1100
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-12-10 20:42 +0000
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2016-12-11 13:11 +1100
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-12-12 00:06 +0000
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2016-12-12 14:22 +1100
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-12-12 23:41 +0000
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-12 18:59 -0500
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2016-12-13 13:37 +1100
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-12-13 22:03 +0000
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2016-12-14 21:54 +1100
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-12-14 19:48 +0000
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2016-12-15 09:02 +1100
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-12-15 21:45 +0000
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2016-12-16 11:28 +1100
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-12-17 16:06 +0000
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2016-12-18 10:10 +1100
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-12-18 16:22 +0000
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2016-12-19 10:05 +1100
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-12-19 15:38 +0000
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2016-12-24 07:00 +1100
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-12-13 05:35 +0000
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-12-09 18:03 -0500
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-12-09 18:18 -0500
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-09 18:27 -0500
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-12-10 09:33 -0500
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-10 10:24 -0500
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-12-10 12:02 -0500
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-10 12:40 -0500
Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-12-10 12:43 -0500
Re: Port scan defense Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2016-12-09 07:02 -0500
Re: Port scan defense Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2016-12-09 10:49 -0500
Re: Port scan defense MistahJohnson <null@example.com> - 2016-12-10 07:07 +0000
Re: Port scan defense Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2016-12-09 07:03 -0500
Re: Port scan defense nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-09 10:30 -0500
Re: Port scan defense Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2016-12-09 10:51 -0500
Re: Port scan defense Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2016-12-06 09:30 -0800
Re: Port scan defense nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-06 12:38 -0500
Re: Port scan defense Krzysztof Mitko <invalid@kmitko.dot.list.at.pl> - 2016-12-06 18:50 +0100
Re: Port scan defense nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-06 12:53 -0500
Re: Port scan defense Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2016-12-09 07:07 -0500
Re: Port scan defense nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-09 10:30 -0500
Re: Port scan defense Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2016-12-09 11:00 -0500
Re: Port scan defense nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-09 11:03 -0500
Re: Port scan defense Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2016-12-10 17:21 -0500
Re: Port scan defense nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-10 17:42 -0500
Re: Port scan defense Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2016-12-10 16:53 -0800
Re: Port scan defense "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-12-10 19:28 -0600
Re: Port scan defense nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-11 07:36 -0500
Re: Port scan defense Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-12-11 02:24 +0000
Re: Port scan defense "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-12-06 16:46 -0600
Re: Port scan defense Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-12-06 18:51 -0500
Re: Port scan defense Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-12-07 07:52 +0000
Re: Port scan defense Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-12-09 08:17 -0500
Re: Port scan defense Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-12-06 15:20 +0000
Re: Port scan defense Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-12-06 18:51 -0500
Re: Port scan defense Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-12-07 07:40 +0000
Re: Port scan defense Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2016-12-09 06:55 -0500
Re: Port scan defense Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-12-04 18:44 +0000
Re: Port scan defense Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-12-04 14:23 -0500
Re: Port scan defense Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-12-04 19:51 +0000
Re: Port scan defense Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-12-04 15:15 -0500
Re: Port scan defense JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-12-04 16:23 -0500
Re: Port scan defense Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-12-04 16:36 -0500
Re: Port scan defense JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-12-04 16:47 -0500
Re: Port scan defense Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-12-04 16:52 -0500
Re: Port scan defense Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-12-04 23:36 +0000
Re: Port scan defense Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-12-04 18:51 -0500
Re: Port scan defense "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-12-04 18:42 -0600
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 04:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrno4cfld.1r1t.g.kreme@snow.local> |
| In reply to | #97597 |
In message <4Lmdnbf8keXbjdvFnZ2dnUU7-V-dnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2016-12-05 19:34, Jolly Roger wrote: >> I don't have any such rules, but then I always use AdBlock Plus when >> browsing the net. > I've had to back off of AdBlock for some news sites that require > blockers be removed. I refuse to do that. Especially since the sites insisting are sites that have previously served malicious ads to users. -- "Two years from now, spam will be solved," -- Bill Gates, January, 2004
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 08:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <yuadnTTVVd53ItvFnZ2dnUU7-TGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #97600 |
On 2016-12-05 23:28, Lewis wrote: > In message <4Lmdnbf8keXbjdvFnZ2dnUU7-V-dnZ2d@giganews.com> > Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >> On 2016-12-05 19:34, Jolly Roger wrote: >>> I don't have any such rules, but then I always use AdBlock Plus when >>> browsing the net. > >> I've had to back off of AdBlock for some news sites that require >> blockers be removed. > > I refuse to do that. Especially since the sites insisting are sites that > have previously served malicious ads to users. You'll find more and more sites unresponsive then. -- "If war is God's way of teaching Americans geography, then recession is His way of teaching everyone a little economics." ..Raj Patel, The Value of Nothing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 15:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <eao348FdivqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #97605 |
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2016-12-05 23:28, Lewis wrote: >> In message <4Lmdnbf8keXbjdvFnZ2dnUU7-V-dnZ2d@giganews.com> >> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>> On 2016-12-05 19:34, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>> I don't have any such rules, but then I always use AdBlock Plus when >>>> browsing the net. >> >>> I've had to back off of AdBlock for some news sites that require >>> blockers be removed. >> >> I refuse to do that. Especially since the sites insisting are sites that >> have previously served malicious ads to users. > > You'll find more and more sites unresponsive then. Bitch, please. I've been surfing the web since the very beginning, and mandatory advertising was never part of the deal. I control what appears on my screen. If a web site refuses to exist without serving crappy advertising that distracts from actual content and puts my security at risk then I say fuck 'em. They don't deserve my traffic anyway. It's not like these sites who demand to plaster ads on my screen have a monopoly on the information I want. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 11:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <barmar-ADA28E.11244706122016@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #97606 |
In article <eao348FdivqU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > > On 2016-12-05 23:28, Lewis wrote: > >> In message <4Lmdnbf8keXbjdvFnZ2dnUU7-V-dnZ2d@giganews.com> > >> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > >>> On 2016-12-05 19:34, Jolly Roger wrote: > >>>> I don't have any such rules, but then I always use AdBlock Plus when > >>>> browsing the net. > >> > >>> I've had to back off of AdBlock for some news sites that require > >>> blockers be removed. > >> > >> I refuse to do that. Especially since the sites insisting are sites that > >> have previously served malicious ads to users. > > > > You'll find more and more sites unresponsive then. > > Bitch, please. I've been surfing the web since the very beginning, and > mandatory advertising was never part of the deal. I don't remember making any "deal" with web sites. > I control what appears on > my screen. If a web site refuses to exist without serving crappy > advertising that distracts from actual content and puts my security at risk > then I say fuck 'em. They don't deserve my traffic anyway. And they don't need your hits if you're not going to help them pay for the cost of providing the service. I work for a web-based service that gets much of its revenue from advertising. We've talked about checking for ad-blockers, but decided that they're still enough of a fringe that it would be more trouble than it's worth to try to block them, and we don't want the bad PR. But we also have an alternate revenue stream: we have pay features, and every time you use one of them you get a 1-day reprieve from ads. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 16:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <eao8tpFet65U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #97611 |
On 2016-12-06, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > In article <eao348FdivqU1@mid.individual.net>, > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > >> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >> > On 2016-12-05 23:28, Lewis wrote: >> >> In message <4Lmdnbf8keXbjdvFnZ2dnUU7-V-dnZ2d@giganews.com> >> >> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >> >>> On 2016-12-05 19:34, Jolly Roger wrote: >> >>>> I don't have any such rules, but then I always use AdBlock Plus when >> >>>> browsing the net. >> >> >> >>> I've had to back off of AdBlock for some news sites that require >> >>> blockers be removed. >> >> >> >> I refuse to do that. Especially since the sites insisting are sites that >> >> have previously served malicious ads to users. >> > >> > You'll find more and more sites unresponsive then. >> >> Bitch, please. I've been surfing the web since the very beginning, and >> mandatory advertising was never part of the deal. > > I don't remember making any "deal" with web sites. Like I give a shit. >> I control what appears on my screen. If a web site refuses to exist >> without serving crappy advertising that distracts from actual content >> and puts my security at risk then I say fuck 'em. They don't deserve >> my traffic anyway. > > And they don't need your hits Laughable. Ad views and clicks are how most of them get paid. For the overwhelming majority of sites that display ads, it's their *entire* business model. > if you're not going to help them pay for the cost of providing the > service. Their service isn't all that valuable. > I work for a web-based service that gets much of its revenue from > advertising. Given your response, I'm not at all surprised. > We've talked about checking for ad-blockers, but decided that they're > still enough of a fringe that it would be more trouble than it's worth > to try to block them, and we don't want the bad PR. All you will do is drive people away from your site - especially if they can get their information elsewhere, which is almost always the case. > But we also have an alternate revenue stream: we have pay features, > and every time you use one of them you get a 1-day reprieve from ads. "Pay us money, and we won't plaster annoying insecure ads on your screen!" Shit, someone should give you guys a humanitarian award or something. </sarcasm> I'll stick with my ad blockers, thanks. And if you can't make it without ads, you don't deserve to make it. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-07 12:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <barmar-C970B1.12112507122016@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #97612 |
In article <eao8tpFet65U1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > On 2016-12-06, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > We've talked about checking for ad-blockers, but decided that they're > > still enough of a fringe that it would be more trouble than it's worth > > to try to block them, and we don't want the bad PR. > > All you will do is drive people away from your site - especially if they > can get their information elsewhere, which is almost always the case. It's not an information service. It's the most popular online bridge site. Why is it so popular? One reason is probably that the main service is free (our closest competitor charges $100/year). But there's no such thing as a free lunch. If we didn't have ads, we'd have to charge much more for the pay features to make up for it. Is it really fair for the people who want to play the pay games to subsidize the people who play the free games? -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-08 21:24 +0000 |
| Subject | Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) |
| Message-ID | <o2cj27$tf5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #97643 |
For your reference, records indicate that Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > But there's no such thing as a free lunch. If we didn't have ads, we'd > have to charge much more for the pay features to make up for it. Is it > really fair for the people who want to play the pay games to subsidize > the people who play the free games? It may be the *only* fair way to do it. Where your logic is flawed is that you seem to think that the ads are creating value in some way. They may pay for your costs to the extent that some of your users don’t have to, but that money doesn’t grow on trees. Steering it somewhat back on to the topic of Macs, who do you think pays for Apple’s ads? We all do as Apple customers. They may be slick and all, but if I had a choice in the matter I would *much* rather that portion of what I’m paying get used to subsidize other actual, productive Apple users (e.g., educational programs). The whole culture around most advertising is deranged. -- "Also . . . I can kill you with my brain." River Tam, Trash, Firefly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alrescha <alrescha@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-08 16:46 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) |
| Message-ID | <o2ck8m$5p2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #97646 |
On 2016-12-08 21:24:23 +0000, Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> said: > The whole culture around most advertising is deranged. I agree. I regard advertising as a dead weight on the engine of civilization. With regard to ad-supported ventures, it disconnects the product from the payer, throwing yet another wrench into the wheels of progress. A.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 10:39 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) |
| Message-ID | <barmar-127DFE.10394309122016@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #97648 |
In article <o2ck8m$5p2$1@dont-email.me>, Alrescha <alrescha@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2016-12-08 21:24:23 +0000, Doc O'Leary > <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> said: > > > The whole culture around most advertising is deranged. > > I agree. I regard advertising as a dead weight on the engine of > civilization. With regard to ad-supported ventures, it disconnects the > product from the payer, throwing yet another wrench into the wheels of > progress. Ads are a win-win -- they increase the sales of the products being advertised, which means the seller doesn't have to charge as much because of volume, and they create jobs in the advertising industry. They also provide income to the medium where the advertisement is shown: newspapers and magazines would be far more expensive if they didn't devote half their space to ads. The only downside is that they're somewhat annoying. But print ads are easy to ignore, and online ads can be ignored or blocked. Ads on live TV and radio are the most intrusive, but you can often use that time to go to the bathroom, get a snack, do a quick errand, etc.; but with recorded TV you can easily skip over them. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alrescha <alrescha@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 13:03 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) |
| Message-ID | <o2eri7$qkd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #97676 |
On 2016-12-09 15:39:43 +0000, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> said: > Ads are a win-win -- they increase the sales of the products being > advertised, which means the seller doesn't have to charge as much > because of volume, and they create jobs in the advertising industry. I do not think that a short-term win for capitalism is the same thing as a win for civilization and/or progress. I realize that for businesses, advertising "works", but to me that just means that some con-men managed to convince another poor smuck to buy something he didn't want, probably didn't need, and likely can't afford. A.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-10 09:21 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) |
| Message-ID | <do_ray_me-CC94D0.09214210122016@46.sub-75-242-165.myvzw.com> |
| In reply to | #97676 |
In article <barmar-127DFE.10394309122016@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > Ads on live TV > and radio are the most intrusive, but you can often use that time to go > to the bathroom, get a snack, do a quick errand, etc.; but with recorded > TV you can easily skip over them. And you can mute them easily and not bother to look but read or write awhile. You can often sense when the program restarts because the light changes to something steadier. -- dorayme
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-10 04:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) |
| Message-ID | <slrno4n1kj.23eq.g.kreme@snow.local> |
| In reply to | #97676 |
In message <barmar-127DFE.10394309122016@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > The only downside is that they're somewhat annoying. But print ads are > easy to ignore, and online ads can be ignored or blocked. Ads on live TV > and radio are the most intrusive, but you can often use that time to go > to the bathroom, get a snack, do a quick errand, etc.; but with recorded > TV you can easily skip over them. No, online ads are not just annoying, they are often dangerous. -- When the least they could do to you was everything, then the most they could do to you suddenly held no terror. --Small Gods
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-10 19:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) |
| Message-ID | <o2hll5$272$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #97676 |
For your reference, records indicate that Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > Ads are a win-win -- they increase the sales of the products being > advertised, which means the seller doesn't have to charge as much > because of volume, and they create jobs in the advertising industry. Now you are being complicit in a lie. There is no scientific evidence backing your claims. In fact, if what you were saying were anything *close* to the truth, the entire advertising industry would immediately change their compensation model to a commission on sales. But I don’t know of anyone that does that; they all want cash upfront and they offer no guarantees of performance. > They also provide income to the medium where the advertisement is shown: > newspapers and magazines would be far more expensive if they didn't > devote half their space to ads. The money *always* comes from somewhere. Someone is *paying* for the papers to cost less. When it’s the advertisers paying that cost, that means the *products* will have to cost more to make up the difference. With additional overhead to cover the machinery of the advertising industry, of course. The people paying the bills are not winning anything. -- "Also . . . I can kill you with my brain." River Tam, Trash, Firefly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-10 15:55 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) |
| Message-ID | <poSdnXZHkoBH9tHFnZ2dnUU7-bfNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #97724 |
On 2016-12-10 14:39, Doc O'Leary wrote: > For your reference, records indicate that > Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > >> Ads are a win-win -- they increase the sales of the products being >> advertised, which means the seller doesn't have to charge as much >> because of volume, and they create jobs in the advertising industry. > > Now you are being complicit in a lie. There is no scientific evidence > backing your claims. In fact, if what you were saying were anything > *close* to the truth, the entire advertising industry would immediately > change their compensation model to a commission on sales. But I don’t > know of anyone that does that; they all want cash upfront and they > offer no guarantees of performance. Advertising is a service which is why you pay for it by the unit. And I've paid for most of my advertising 30 - 50 days after the advert was run. Some is up front, but that's really penny ante stuff. Advertising companies do not offer to be compensated based on sales because it is too risky for them (they might run a great ad, but the product might actually be crap and word does get around) but mostly because it is notoriously difficult to measure the degree to which the advertising caused a given volume of sales. >> They also provide income to the medium where the advertisement is shown: >> newspapers and magazines would be far more expensive if they didn't >> devote half their space to ads. > > The money *always* comes from somewhere. Someone is *paying* for the > papers to cost less. When it’s the advertisers paying that cost, > that means the *products* will have to cost more to make up the > difference. With additional overhead to cover the machinery of the > advertising industry, of course. The people paying the bills are > not winning anything. Of course those costs are in the price of services and products as they are typically charged to overhead. Advertising is a competitive thing. The company not advertising risks losing sales to the one that does. To not do so where needed would be pretty dumb. That you dislike it is neither here nor there. Your sole recourse is to not buy those products or services and to only subscribe/visit to media where there is no advertising. You can B&M all you like. Advertising is not going away. Newspapers (and their websites) depend on advertising revenue or subscriber revenue or a mix of both. W/o revenue these sites will die. -- "If war is God's way of teaching Americans geography, then recession is His way of teaching everyone a little economics." ..Raj Patel, The Value of Nothing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-10 16:05 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) |
| Message-ID | <poSdnXFHkoCr89HFnZ2dnUU7-bednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #97724 |
On 2016-12-10 14:39, Doc O'Leary wrote: > For your reference, records indicate that > Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > >> Ads are a win-win -- they increase the sales of the products being >> advertised, which means the seller doesn't have to charge as much >> because of volume, and they create jobs in the advertising industry. > > Now you are being complicit in a lie. There is no scientific evidence > backing your claims. In fact, if what you were saying were anything > *close* to the truth, the entire advertising industry would immediately > change their compensation model to a commission on sales. But I don’t > know of anyone that does that; they all want cash upfront and they > offer no guarantees of performance. There are limited areas of performance that results in payment. Indeed the internet has enabled such. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance-based_advertising -- "If war is God's way of teaching Americans geography, then recession is His way of teaching everyone a little economics." ..Raj Patel, The Value of Nothing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 12:17 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) |
| Message-ID | <do_ray_me-8ECE7C.12171409122016@46.sub-75-242-165.myvzw.com> |
| In reply to | #97646 |
In article <o2cj27$tf5$1@dont-email.me>, Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote: > For your reference, records indicate that > Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > > But there's no such thing as a free lunch. If we didn't have ads, we'd > > have to charge much more for the pay features to make up for it. Is it > > really fair for the people who want to play the pay games to subsidize > > the people who play the free games? > > It may be the *only* fair way to do it. You saying that people paying for games should subsidise people playing for free? That those who play for free be not burdened by cost nor by ads? How would that work? Who would bother to pay then? Or are you saying that it is fair for those who pay *and* those who don't pay but play but that it is not fair to others (like the customers of the purchasers of the ads?) > Where your logic is flawed is > that you seem to think that the ads are creating value in some way. > They may pay for your costs to the extent that some of your users don’t > have to, but that money doesn’t grow on trees. > > Steering it somewhat back on to the topic of Macs, who do you think > pays for Apple’s ads? We all do as Apple customers. So Apple customers or Hollywood film producers or whoever advertises products and services 'subsidise' play for free gamers? Is this a fair use of the word subsidise? The whole economic system is a system of people making and paying money, might have to be careful not to debase the idea of subsidy by widening it to include too much. -- dorayme
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 14:18 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) |
| Message-ID | <o2eeg8$r9l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #97655 |
For your reference, records indicate that dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> wrote: > You saying that people paying for games should subsidise people > playing for free? That those who play for free be not burdened by cost > nor by ads? How would that work? Who would bother to pay then? Whether it’s a game or anything else, the costs can be met by anyone willing and able to meet them. Not everyone on the court needs to buy a basketball to play the game. If I can afford it, and I want people to play a game with me, I’d have to be kind of an asshole if I went out of my way to make the experience less fun for them on purpose. > Or are you saying that it is fair for those who pay *and* those who > don't pay but play but that it is not fair to others (like the > customers of the purchasers of the ads?) I’m not sure I can parse your wording there. My point is that, yes, people paying for a product naturally end up paying for any advertising of that product, and they have essentially no say in how that money is spent. So it is not fair to *anybody* involved in *either* market. I get the psychology that *some* people like to see ads for products they’ve purchased as a reinforcement of their choice. I personally see ads for products I use as a huge waste of the money I’ve spent. We really need new models other than generic blanket advertising, or perhaps we should dust off some old models like sponsorships. > So Apple customers or Hollywood film producers or whoever advertises > products and services 'subsidise' play for free gamers? Is this a fair > use of the word subsidise? The whole economic system is a system of > people making and paying money, might have to be careful not to debase > the idea of subsidy by widening it to include too much. Call it corporate welfare if you like. Use any words you want; it doesn’t change the underlying transactions. The money comes from somewhere. It’d be more sustainable if it came from people who actually gave a damn about the first-order product. Introducing advertising as a mediator creates a dysfunctional relationship. -- "Also . . . I can kill you with my brain." River Tam, Trash, Firefly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 10:46 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) |
| Message-ID | <barmar-BD9D24.10463709122016@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #97672 |
In article <o2eeg8$r9l$1@dont-email.me>, Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote: > For your reference, records indicate that > dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> wrote: > > > You saying that people paying for games should subsidise people > > playing for free? That those who play for free be not burdened by cost > > nor by ads? How would that work? Who would bother to pay then? > > Whether it’s a game or anything else, the costs can be met by anyone > willing and able to meet them. Not everyone on the court needs to > buy a basketball to play the game. If I can afford it, and I want > people to play a game with me, I’d have to be kind of an asshole if > I went out of my way to make the experience less fun for them on > purpose. > > > Or are you saying that it is fair for those who pay *and* those who > > don't pay but play but that it is not fair to others (like the > > customers of the purchasers of the ads?) > > I’m not sure I can parse your wording there. My point is that, > yes, people paying for a product naturally end up paying for any > advertising of that product, and they have essentially no say in > how that money is spent. So it is not fair to *anybody* involved > in *either* market. We also pay for all the other overhead in the company, so what's your point? E.g. even if we never make a support call, we're paying the salaries of all the people in the Customer Support department. Or the people in the R&D department designing products that we'll never buy (or might even turn into actual products). The cost of advertising comes back in increased revenues, so it's not just sunk money. That increased revenue can then be invested in product improvements, which benefits future consumers. Economics is so much more complicated than you make it seem. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-10 20:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) |
| Message-ID | <o2hnh8$272$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #97678 |
For your reference, records indicate that Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > We also pay for all the other overhead in the company, so what's your > point? E.g. even if we never make a support call, we're paying the > salaries of all the people in the Customer Support department. Or the > people in the R&D department designing products that we'll never buy (or > might even turn into actual products). The point is that those other expenses *do* have to do with a company and the products it makes. Even if I don’t personally make a support call, a *customer* does. Even if *every* product they dream up doesn’t make it to the shelf and I can’t personally buy it, it is all done for the products that *do* get sold to customers. It is all done internally in a way a company can account for it. Advertising, on the other hand, goes out of its way to keep people from knowing how well or how poorly it works. It’s like engaging in the Prisoner’s Dilemma but not knowing whether or not you actually got cooperation or cheating. Not all marketing is like that, mind you, but what we’re talking about here is blanket *advertising*. > Economics is so much more complicated than you make it seem. It doesn’t always have to be. When it becomes as convoluted as it has, it can lead to paradoxes and problems with diminishing returns. But the fact remains that *someone* always pays. If you *really* appreciate the complexity of economics, you should be willing to track the flow of money to find out who your *actual* customers are. -- "Also . . . I can kill you with my brain." River Tam, Trash, Firefly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-10 09:48 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Apple Ads (Re: Port scan defense) |
| Message-ID | <do_ray_me-4C974D.09480710122016@46.sub-75-242-165.myvzw.com> |
| In reply to | #97672 |
In article <o2eeg8$r9l$1@dont-email.me>, Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote: > For your reference, records indicate that > dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> wrote: > > > You saying that people paying for games should subsidise people > > playing for free? That those who play for free be not burdened by cost > > nor by ads? How would that work? Who would bother to pay then? > > Whether it’s a game or anything else, the costs can be met by anyone > willing and able to meet them. Not everyone on the court needs to > buy a basketball to play the game. If I can afford it, and I want > people to play a game with me, I’d have to be kind of an asshole if > I went out of my way to make the experience less fun for them on > purpose. > Just trying to get clear on what exactly you are saying. Not sure if it is a yes or a no to "You saying that people paying for games should subsidise people playing for free? That those who play for free be not burdened by cost nor by ads?" Do you think there should be no free games if it means they cannot be supplied without ads? > > Or are you saying that it is fair for those who pay *and* those who > > don't pay but play but that it is not fair to others (like the > > customers of the purchasers of the ads?) > > I’m not sure I can parse your wording there. My point is that, > yes, people paying for a product naturally end up paying for any > advertising of that product, and they have essentially no say in > how that money is spent. So it is not fair to *anybody* involved > in *either* market. > The idea of fairness here is not very clear unless you are making some sort of claim that whenever anyone spends money they should know the details of how their money will be used after it has left their hands? Or *explitly* agree that the new owner can do as he likes? But if the latter, surely a main deciding factor for the payer is: is it personally worth it to him to hand over his hard-earned for what he gets (a game or whatever)? Sure, there may be some objections and road-blocks, like knowing in advance the money handed over is to be used for very bad purposes. Am just saying, trying to understand your point... > ... I > personally see ads for products I use as a huge waste of the money > I’ve spent. We really need new models other than generic blanket > advertising, or perhaps we should dust off some old models like > sponsorships. > As you have said, money does not grow on trees, how do you think sponsors have made enough money in the first place to be able to afford to sponsor? > > So Apple customers or Hollywood film producers or whoever advertises > > products and services 'subsidise' play for free gamers? Is this a fair > > use of the word subsidise? The whole economic system is a system of > > people making and paying money, might have to be careful not to debase > > the idea of subsidy by widening it to include too much. > > Call it corporate welfare if you like. Use any words you want; it > doesn’t change the underlying transactions. The money comes from > somewhere. It’d be more sustainable if it came from people who > actually gave a damn about the first-order product. Introducing > advertising as a mediator creates a dysfunctional relationship. Words matter to get ideas across clearly. People who buy games (for unlocked features and no ads) give a damn, surely? There is surely a lot wrong with advertising, but I am not sure what quite you are finding wrong with it. A clear thing wrong is how tobacco companies were allowed to advertise their products in the way they did (in Australia, there are very severe restrictions). But you are not making points like this, rather something else. -- dorayme
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web