Probably the most often requested feature for Google's Chrome web browser was an extensions framework so that users can expand the functionality of Chrome in the same way people currently do for Firefox. Chrome has had an extensions framework for a while now, but it was turned off by default. They've now turned it on by default on the dev channel.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-12-26
Member since:2006-02-05
Dude, you are like the one other person on the whole internet I have ever seen say that.
Consuming content that is subsidized with advertising while blocking the advertising is unethical, plain and simple. Whether or not it is legal or illegal, or if you will get caught or not is completely irrelevant.
Edited 2009-09-11 00:38 UTC
Member since:2006-01-26
Consuming content that is subsidized with advertising while blocking the advertising is unethical, plain and simple. Whether or not it is legal or illegal, or if you will get caught or not is completely irrelevant.
Sorry, I call bullshit.
I suppose you watch every trailer on the movies you buy, and every advertisement on the shows you "tivo" (ok, that one might be a leap, perhaps you don't own a DVR).
If the content providers rely so heavily on their advertisements, perhaps they shouldn't use a medium that is so easy to avoid them with.
All I have to do is blacklist a select few domains (I refuse to accept content from said domains), and I've thwarted their plans. Damn...too bad for them.
Or better yet, all I have to do is disable javascript or flash or images altogether and I've immediately thwarted their plans.
They have no right to tell me I must download the ads, so if they want to prevent me from viewing their content, they better find a different way to do so
I can always whitelist ads on those sites I feel its worth it...
Member since:2007-12-26
Member since:2005-11-10
I don't have Flash installed, does that make me a criminal?
Flash is an optional install. If advertisers choose to use a delivery mechanism that I don't have, that's their problem, not mine.
Flash, and the adverts that use it are a *major* security threat and I won't have it installed on my computer.
Not least that under fair use the bits and bytes that arrive at my computer are mine to interpret and render how I damn well please. There is no legal precedent that a browser *must* render a site in a particular way.
Member since:
2008-03-08
I refuse to install adblock - the whole concept seems unethical to me. If I am enjoying the content of a site, the site owners have every right to try to make some money off me*.
If the ads get annoying, I will simply stop visiting.
Saying that, sites that use popups and popunders should be punished somehow.
*As long as they do not go beyond acceptable limits such as popups, popunders, resizing windows etc.