Just because that's the way it is, doesn't mean it's the way it should be.
If you know you will be ambushed and robbed on your way through the forest, would you also say "well, that cannot be helped, people know that when they enter the forest" (excuse me for the rather harsh analogy, it's the best I could spontaneously come up with).
Thus my acknowledgement of the bad analogy. The point I was trying to make is that even if you know in advance that something undesirable will happen, that's still not a justification for said undesirable thing.
I respectfully disagree. I understand a good portion of hackers find the entire concept of advertising to be distasteful, but why this melodrama? "Ambush"? Likening it to robbery? Really..?
It's a few hundred pixel banner that's trying to convince you to buy something. Not a requirement that you sacrifice your firstborn.
>It's a few hundred pixel banner that's trying to convince you to buy something.
Yes, and that's undesirable to a lot of people. It's distracting and, depending on the intrusiveness of the ad(s), annoying to outright rude. It's gotten to the point that it's hard for me to use the internet when I'm on a computer without a decent ad-blocker. Imagine trying to read a book while a bunch of persons are screaming inane stuff at you; that's what it feels like.
Actually, I long for the day when display goggles and computer vision have advanced far enough for a "real-life ad-blocker". The world would be a much better place.
I didn't intend to liken displaying ads to heinous acts of infanticide or anything of the sort.
If you know you will be ambushed and robbed on your way through the forest, would you also say "well, that cannot be helped, people know that when they enter the forest" (excuse me for the rather harsh analogy, it's the best I could spontaneously come up with).