Also me. Every 10 years my domains expire, and I can just pay a few hundred bucks again and forget about it, or I can do a bunch of work to move them somewhere and adjust A records and fuck around with stuff I don't remember and potentially have downtime.
IAM permissions are almost always a pain to get right but they can be so useful when you can create an API key with permissions to do only exactly what it needs to do.
That is because somehow it is OK for the state to have no say in which god to believe in, yet for Dahl it is OK for the state to say what money to believe in.
Exactly and eerily true. At my university there this is a category 2 serious incident; like a fire, flood or epidemic. Any student admitted to emergency medical care due to inebriation, means the Serious Incident Officer is involved. How the SIO is supposed to find out I don't know.
I struggle to understand why relatively high-level management or SIO needs to be paid to get involved in what another 'adult' does out side of lectures/labs and campus.
exactly, not so much as a leak as a release. The presumption that the press (even 100 odd institutions) need to be gatekeepers for this inforamation is offensive. Especially since the mostly sham of an excuse of the snowden documents does not hold in this case.
Except that sending a HTTP request to a server you get copy or version of the content, which is no longer the property of the content creator. Physical store owners enjoy inherent DRM but your analogous physical store owner seems to wish for DMCA like control over digital content. What if lynx/links is used ? There are no legal or moral-rights 'physical store owners' have to decide how a URL is fetched and interpreted on the some one elses property.
As I've said a few times now in different ways, if you received the content as the creator intended and then removed the ads, you would have a perfectly legitimate argument. But that's not what you're doing. You're preventing them from being delivered at all, while still consuming the content at the direct financial expense of the content creator. You are taking advantage of the technological ability to access content without paying the price of admission. It is absolutely immoral behavior, no matter how you would like to spin it.
So what if I'm using Lynx as my browser? Or if I disable images/Javascript (broader scope than blocking ads specifically)?
What if I have a specific ad agency they happen to employ being blocked in my hosts file? Is it my fault they use Google AdSense instead of Yahoo Listings?
The crux of your argument rests on the user knowing what they are requesting before receiving it. The problem with that is they don't know what they are requesting until they have already obtained it. The page they are requesting could be 200kb of plaintext or it could be 26MB full of high-retina images and javascript.
Since they do not know what a page contains until after they download it - it's within their place to preemptively block things like images, javascript, and flash to save bandwidth or for security reasons.
Furthermore, ads are almost always hosted by a 3rd-party. When I visit example.com I am under no obligation to download anything that does not originate from example.com as my intention is to visit example.com not googles-invasive-ad-network.google.com. If I wanted to visit googles-invasive-ad-network.google.com, I'd enter that URL into my browser in place of example.com
I do have some issues with your reasoning for why a user is morally obligated to perform certain actions however.
>You have paid the price of admission by accepting the document as the creator intended. But when you prevent the other content from showing up in the first place, you have entered into the world of immorality.
If downloading what the content creator has on their site is my moral obligation; am I morally obligated to download malware/viruses if they are included on the page? If the answer is "no", why not? [0]
>if you received the content as the creator intended and then removed the ads, you would have a perfectly legitimate argument.
So if I wget/curl the page then remove the ads by editing the .html file before viewing the file, I'm morally in the clear? AFAIK wget/curl does not count as an ad impression for popular ad agencies. I am willing to accept that I could be wrong on this, as I couldn't find any information on it and am relying on years-old memory.
