Metropol

Picking up the point, earlier, about magazines. I don't specifically tear any adverts out of a magazine, but I certainly DO always shake a magazine over the bin before I read it, so all the loose-leaf rubbish that gets inserted along the way doesn't annoy me.

The Sky magazine is the worst culprit for loose-leaf anagrams of carp.

I actually do that for customers whilst selling them the mags, if crap falls out I just toss it, nobody has yet complained.

cdd wrote:

marksi wrote:Is it any more unethical than skipping the adverts when watching commercial channels via Sky+ or TiVO?

Aah, but note the fastest it can fast forward is 30X, not very fast if you think about it (you still get a good long time to see the ads). They must have thought that in.

My maths suggest that 30x speed means you'll see a 30" ad in 1 sec. In reality I reckon it's about 2 secs, but even so, it's hardly a "good long time".

But long enough to see what's being advertised . . .

I've nothing against banner adverts because they aren't really intrusive, and I see no need for them to be blocked.

Pop Up ads are highly intrusive, especially ones that bring a new one up when you exit the multitude of extra windows it creates.

I support removal of popups but not banner ads.

James Martin wrote: I've nothing against banner adverts because they aren't really
intrusive, and I see no need for them to be blocked.

I support removal of popups but not banner ads.

Are you absolutely sure about that?

You really don't find certain web ads intrusive?

i support the removal of all kinds of advert; additionally, if there is anyway one can get something for free then why not!

DJGM wrote:

James Martin wrote: I've nothing against banner adverts because they aren't really intrusive, and I see no need for them to be blocked.

I support removal of popups but not banner ads.

Are you absolutely sure about that?

You really don't find certain web ads intrusive?

Is that your final answer?

And with that, James Martin's argument against blocking ad banners, is hereby torpedoed into oblivion!

marksi wrote:

cdd wrote:

marksi wrote:Is it any more unethical than skipping the adverts when watching commercial channels via Sky+ or TiVO?

Aah, but note the fastest it can fast forward is 30X, not very fast if you think about it (you still get a good long time to see the ads). They must have thought that in.

My maths suggest that 30x speed means you'll see a 30" ad in 1 sec. In reality I reckon it's about 2 secs, but even so, it's hardly a "good long time".

Your math suggests right, but I can promise you it never ends up being that fast. Each ad seems to get its own 3 secs at least. Probably the extra time comes from the fact that Sky boxes freeze-frame bits while you're going through.

Nick -- through past experience, I find myself walking around the house with a magazine and finding I've left a trail of adverts in my wake. This is very bad for my privacy, I'm sure you'll agree. And NOBODY should at this point be making completely unfounded assumptions about the types of magazine I read....

cdd wrote:

marksi wrote:

cdd wrote: Aah, but note the fastest it can fast forward is 30X, not very fast if you think about it (you still get a good long time to see the ads). They must have thought that in.

My maths suggest that 30x speed means you'll see a 30" ad in 1 sec. In reality I reckon it's about 2 secs, but even so, it's hardly a "good long time".

Your math suggests right, but I can promise you it never ends up being that fast. Each ad seems to get its own 3 secs at least. Probably the extra time comes from the fact that Sky boxes freeze-frame bits while you're going through.

Nick -- through past experience, I find myself walking around the house with a magazine and finding I've left a trail of adverts in my wake. This is very bad for my privacy, I'm sure you'll agree. And NOBODY should at this point be making completely unfounded assumptions about the types of magazine I read....

Lonely hearts?