* Posts by Loyal Commenter

5754 publicly visible posts • joined 20 Jul 2010

MPs call for crackdown on pre-paid credit cards

Loyal Commenter Silver badge
Big Brother

I Wonder....

"Labour MP Geraint Davies said the cards were routinely used by paedophiles to hide their identities as he proposed a bill on Wednesday to force credit card companies to act."

I wonder if the Honourable Gentleman has any evidence to support this supposition. I also wonder if the Hon Gent has any ties to any businesses who stand to make a profit by the removal of such pre-paid cards from the market, such as the providers of non-pre-paid cards?

Just wondering. Out loud. As it were...

For some reason, I seem to have developed the nervous habit of never taking anything a politician says at face value any more.

Google discovers Chrome can (really) block ads

Loyal Commenter Silver badge
FAIL

A quick explanation for those who think blocking adverts is evil:

1) Advertisers are usually only interested in click-through rates, not on impressions.

2) People who click through adverts are not the same people who will install an ad blocker.

3) If people who won't click through ads don't see them, then by extension, those adverts that are being shown are more likley to be being shown to people who WILL click through them.

4) This is GOOD for the advertiser who saves on bandwidth. It is also GOOD for the user who doens't want to see them, who also saves on bandwidth.

5) Sites which survive solely on advertising revenue will still attract plenty of users without a blocker installed. Since they usually get paid by click-through rate, rather than per impression, their revenues will not change.

Personally, what I find evil is the idea that not seeing your advert in the first place makes me evil. If I don't want to buy your crap, I don't need to have a garish flash advert telling me about it. if I decide that I DO want to buy something online, then I will do the research as to what it is I want, and find the cheapest retailer. I understand, however, that many people are easily swayed by advertising, which is why the industry still exists, despite its sole purpose being to sell people things they either do not want, or are inferior to another product, which does not require advertising to sell.

Loyal Commenter Silver badge

Why would Google NOT want to have people installing this

The users who will install it are the ones who won't click on adverts in the first place. By removing themselves from the advertising 'ecosystem', Google automatically gets a higher click-rate for those that are left, who will still be the vast majority of clueless users.

Example:

1% of adverts result in a click-through.

90% of users never click through adverts, the reamining 10% are responsible for those click-throughs.

half of users install the ad-blocker. Only users who don't click on ads do this.

You are left with:

50% no ads

40% ads but no click-thorugh

10% click-through

By doing this, you have halved the number of impressions that the advertiser has to make, thus halving their bandwidth costs. At the same time, the number of 'hits' they get has stayed the same, equating to twice the click-through-per-impression rate.

This can only be good for Google.

Yellow alert over Windows shortcut flaw

Loyal Commenter Silver badge
FAIL

You WHAT?

"The Siemens SIMATIC WinCC SCADA systems specially targeted by the Stuxnet Trojan use hard-coded admin username / password combinations that users are told not to change. "

Well, there's your problem right there, they went ahead and designed the system using weapons-grade stupidity.