Comments on: Comments on 8160

Post number 8160

moz — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 08:36:27 -0800

Kottke.org, now with x10 ads. Sad, but true. I don't like them, but I suppose if you need the money... Look in the source for confirmation:

var url = "http://ads.x10.com/bluefish/bf23.htm";
var domain = "kottke.org";

at least the girl in the camera ad is kinda cute.

By: tdstone

tdstone — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 08:55:05 -0800

I experienced this "sad" truth yesterday, but refused to believe it came from Jason's blog and moved on. I wish I could thank you for confirming this in the source for us all, but I preferred my dogged ignorance. Since any regularly updated blog gives a lot and asks little (nothing?)in return I am open-mindedly sympathetic, hopefully Jason will respond. Now I am off to read up on how to turn the damn things off!

By: tallman

tallman — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 08:59:37 -0800

Something seems fishy about this... I can't picture Kottke doing such a thing without even commenting on it. But what do I know?

By: andrew cooke

andrew cooke — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 09:02:05 -0800

Hmm. Would you expect anything better from the kind of person who thinks the best way to spend time in the Louvre is by taking photos ("Oh gee, honey, I must prove I've been to Europe")? (after reading his comments on others doing the same I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere else he also comments that there a lot of popunder ads on the net these days...) Grumble grumble.

By: rodii

rodii — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 09:10:35 -0800

I wouldn't put it past J-Ko just to do this as a chain-yank. You go, J-Ko.

By: luser

luser — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 09:11:16 -0800

This whole popunder thing is puzzling. Why is it only this one ad? And why is it so ubiquitous?

By: almostcool

almostcool — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 09:13:10 -0800

I think the reason he's doing it is probably just to see what sort of discussion he can raise about personal sites having commercial advertisements on their site. Go to it people. Pros versus Cons? Is this a viable way for webloggers to make some money? Is it a pain-in-the-arse? Both?

By: cardboard

cardboard — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 09:17:59 -0800

I think he's saying that we all need to love each other more and help the people in Tibet in their hard struggle for independence from the oppressive neo-Maoists in Beijing. He's saying the web isn't just about stylesheets and javascript: it's about people and making connections with each other for the betterment of humanity.

By: hijinx

hijinx — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 09:22:07 -0800

And there's no better way to do that than with a phone from Cingular Wireless. I saw the Kottke ad this morning and figured it was Yet Another Witty Example Of Why Kottke Is Popular. Keep your eyes on this one, folks - he may be a star someday.

By: ktheory

ktheory — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 09:26:35 -0800

I'm very disappointed. Kottke's selling out. Personal sites should be a labor of love. Cashing out is what separates web people from dot-Com people.

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 09:26:47 -0800

I think I'm the only person in America who finds Kottke.org to be...vaguely interesting at best. Of course, my dark secret is that I find most weblogs to be pretty boring. I now fully expect my MeFi membership to be revoked.

By: bunnyfire

bunnyfire — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 09:31:24 -0800

is it just me or do these ads seem to imply that one could, ahem, film young ladies like the ones in the ad , um, without them knowing it???????

By: luser

luser — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 09:34:48 -0800

do these ads seem to imply that one could, ahem, film young ladies like the ones in the ad , um, without them knowing it??????? Some of them do more than others. Fiddle around with the 2-digit number near the end of the url http://ads.x10.com/bluefish/bf23.htm --> most combinations in the teens and 20s show the same ad, the only difference being the presence or absence of the oh-so-alluring bulletpoint suggesting its use in bedrooms, oh, way too much time...

By: chainring

chainring — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 09:35:35 -0800

Implication is correct. That's the first thing that I thought, but then again I've done that sort of thing before.

By: rebeccablood

rebeccablood — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 09:37:26 -0800

I think kottke's doing this as a joke. on the other hand, I see nothing wrong with anyone supporting themselves with their weblog, given the chance. poverty is not a virtue. getting paid to do what you love is the dream. unfortunately, almost none of us have enough traffic to make advertising worth the heartache; for most of us the most practical advantage to a personal site is its use as a calling card. rcb

By: moz

moz — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 09:43:36 -0800

so, do you guys think that if i bought one of these cameras i could meet myself a hottie? i'll hold off on that second turntable in that case.

By: Karl

Karl — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 10:22:51 -0800

I think I'm the only person in America who finds Kottke.org to be...vaguely interesting at best. Doug: You're not alone. 'Course I always found powazek.com to be trite, too. Guess we're bastards.

By: Mick

Mick — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 10:31:51 -0800

Both fo you, out of the memepool!

By: Mick

Mick — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 10:32:21 -0800

damn dyslexia

By: textist

textist — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 10:36:04 -0800

x10 does offer an opt-out service to block this popunder crap.

By: gsh

gsh — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 10:40:58 -0800

Although quite clearly a (de)constructivist approach to totalitarian memes, this latest text is much more Spivakian in its (re)generation of gender separatist dis(course)/ease. Here we have a self, troubled, split - yearning to reach a Foucault-like extenstion of self awareness in a space itself divided and misidentified. Of course, a pure Lacanian reading would render differently, but this text is too fragmented as it now stands.

By: timothompson

timothompson — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 10:56:21 -0800

A quick comment would eliminate ambiguity, unless the purpose is to encourage ambiguity. Pass the petri dish around for collection.

By: davidmsc

davidmsc — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 10:57:59 -0800

This thread is killing me - with laughter. OF COURSE he's doing it as a gag - whatever flaws Jason might have, lack of humor and/or stupidity is not one of them. When I first saw it early this a.m., I almost convulsed, it was so damn funny. Then I got over it and moved on. Let's go people - can't we find something better to do, like search for the next AYBABTU?

By: PWA_BadBoy

PWA_BadBoy — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 11:05:40 -0800

moz "at least the girl in the camera ad is kinda cute"??!? You got some funny taste in girls

By: moz

moz — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 11:09:27 -0800

yah, i guess. assuming there isn't more than one of the ads of that kind. i think i have funny taste in girls regardless.

By: mikel

mikel — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 11:29:25 -0800

gsh misses Feed already. Obviously.

By: owen

owen — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 12:16:36 -0800

Kottke's really got you guys strung along. People spend so much time putting him down, yet he still manages to spark discussion. Keep it up, J-Ko.

By: john

john — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 12:16:45 -0800

Is it just me or is does every thread about him contain the same kind of odd speculation about his intentions and criticisms about his content.? rodii, I think it should be J Ko as in J Lo. In fact,


<a href="http://www.kottke.org/">J Ko is cooler then J Lo.</a>

5% off the top is all I ask J Ko.

By: jkottke

jkottke — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 12:17:33 -0800

Well, the new New Economy isn't treating me any better than anyone else out there. The free hosting that I've been lucky to have for kottke.org is ending in a couple months and I'm moving it to a new non-free home. Due to the amount of traffic I get (and I'm sure this thread isn't helping any), the hosting is a wee bit expensive and I've had to look at some, shall we say, desperate options. One of these options is the x10 popunder ads. I hate them too, but kottke.org has to start paying for itself now that the free Internet is over with. I don't know if I'm going to keep them or not, but it's an option. Another option I've been talking to potential advertisers about is product placement on kottke.org. I'm in the middle of rewriting my baseball story to include references to Gatorade and Wilson as a sample to show to advertisers. If this works out, I also plan on taking more photos with products in them as well, as seen in this mockup I did earlier this week (compare with the before pic). Free is over, friends, even for personal sites. Embrace the future. Would you expect anything better from the kind of person who thinks the best way to spend time in the Louvre is by taking photos ("Oh gee, honey, I must prove I've been to Europe")? I missed the memo that said no one can take pictures as remembrances of places and experiences anymore. Can someone forward me a copy? Also, time spent in the Louvre: 4 hours. Time spent taking pictures in the Louvre: about 10 minutes. Time spent taking "a whiz" in the Louvre bathroom: 32 seconds. I think I'm the only person in America who finds Kottke.org to be...vaguely interesting at best. Not at all. I myself think it's only vaguely interesting. And the 5,999,932,401 people in the world who have never read my site? They could fucking care less.

By: Outlawyr

Outlawyr — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 12:20:35 -0800

What's all this I hear about funny tasting girls?

By: ericost

ericost — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 12:22:04 -0800

Some of you may not know this, but the "a" in "a-list" actually stands for "ads". I used an IRC spy agent like the one described herein: http://grc.com/dos/grcdos.htm and over-read the following chat session in the ads-list chat room hosted on this very server: mathowie: are you puttin' up ads? calamondin: i'm not puttin up ads. mathowie: hey, let's get j ko! he'll put up anything!

By: tallman

tallman — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 12:31:50 -0800

Why do I get the feeling we're no better off after the explaination than we were before?

By: moz

moz — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 12:35:37 -0800

i wonder how much those x10 ads pay. they're harder to ignore than banner ads. not that i'd be paid anything with my traffic.

By: dhartung

dhartung — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 12:36:31 -0800

Given Simply Porn, I'm surprised this isn't a link to something like XXX10.

By: ronsens

ronsens — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 12:37:41 -0800

I'm sure some of you still thinking he's joking. If the free internet is overm the only alternative is "sponsoring" by ads? My hoster isn't free too, but to run my site is my personal fun, so I pay for it like others for their snowboard or other hobbies.

By: tigger26

tigger26 — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 12:39:07 -0800

hmm? has anyone ever seen j ko and dave eggers together?

By: jbeaumont

jbeaumont — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 12:44:57 -0800

what on earth does that mean?

By: andrew cooke

andrew cooke — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 12:47:10 -0800

I missed the memo that said no one can take pictures as remembrances of places and experiences anymore. You also missed the point of my comment. When you're next in a gallery, and finding it tricky to take a picture because so many others are too, make a mental note to read up on the tragedy of the commons. And consider how the photo you took to remind you of the Louvre didn't include all the ******* tourists taking pictures...

By: mathowie

mathowie — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 12:47:35 -0800

>has anyone ever seen j ko and dave eggers together Yeah, they're doing a buddy cop picture this summer. Their other partner is a dog. And there's a monkey too. Guaranteed hilarious highjinks.

By: mmm

mmm — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 12:50:18 -0800

Yeah, they're doing a buddy cop picture this summer. I heard it was a Spaghetti Western for the Gen Y crowd

By: judith

judith — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 12:52:40 -0800

A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Product Placement.

By: heather

heather — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 12:56:38 -0800

No, it's yet another remake of some remarkable French film that will only suffer a thousand deaths at the hands of Hollywood. Why do you think he went to France?

By: ed

ed — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 12:57:40 -0800

Twenty dollars a month is too much to spend on a site? With a few dollars more for super-bandwidth? I'm sorry, but that smacks of considerable bullshit. If you can pay $10 a month for Tivo (I don't and won't), then surely you can afford a measly Hamilton to maintain a personal website. Besides, why adopt a failed and ineffectual 2000 business model that will ultimately pay nothing in the first place? There are other solutions out there. Either this thing is a complete satirical lark (and I would suspect that it is) or Kottke gives not a good goddam for integrity. But then who the hell really cares?

By: heather

heather — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 13:08:07 -0800

twenty dollars a month with a few dollars more for super-bandwidth? that kind of hosting is a myth. i paid through the nose when a portion of my site was linked from a number of high traffic sites in november and december.

By: ed

ed — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 13:24:04 -0800

Unlimited bandwidth?

By: jpoulos

jpoulos — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 13:27:39 -0800

Due to the amount of traffic I get (and I'm sure this thread isn't helping any), the hosting is a wee bit expensive If it's any consolation, I never visit your site. (Can't stand #DFFF0C, not to mention most of the content.) Just doing my part!

By: heather

heather — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 13:29:45 -0800

"unlimited bandwidth." there's always a catch. when you push these people on what unlimited truly means, well, suddenly things change. i've not dealt with pair or softcomca but i don't believe it.

By: bakiwop

bakiwop — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 13:36:11 -0800

A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Product Placement. Most of this thread has been "A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Get-Over-Kottke's-Site-Being-More-'Popular'-Than-Your-Site". People, he is a guy who runs a site. If you don't like him, you can probably find better ways of showing sending traffic his way. Most of us run sites. Popularity is in the eye of the beholder, baby! Live free and die! Don't worry about what other people think of you! [Insert self-love and/or self-help cliche here] For those of you keeping vote: Yes, I do enjoy his site. Yes, I do think this is a joke.

By: justgary

justgary — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 13:53:15 -0800

And the 5,999,932,401 people in the world who have never read my site? Come on! Only 5,999,932,401 have never read kottke.org? It's GOT to be higher than that. Damn his ego! ;)

By: nedrichards

nedrichards — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 13:54:00 -0800

nobody who saw the pepsi image should think that was anything other than a joke. If he gets paid a bit for his joke, all the better!

By: holgate

holgate — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 14:02:40 -0800

And consider how the photo you took to remind you of the Louvre didn't include all the ******* tourists taking pictures... It's really not worth sharing the email exchange I had with Jason on the way that we both took pictures in the Louvre of people trying to take pictures of things that look better in the postcards and prints anyway, is it? Or that people were complaining about how the Louvre was being ruined by visitors from about Day Two of its opening? Actually, I think the A-list should follow the example of the big museums in Paris, and introduce a Carte des Weblogs, allowing premium ad-free access at a discount. Tcha.

By: scottandrew

scottandrew — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 14:11:24 -0800

Yeah, they're doing a buddy cop picture this summer I heard the part of Eggers was being played by a talking pie.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 14:24:00 -0800

Nedrichards, I think you're on to something, it looks like Pepsi is paying for Kottke afterall.

By: tamim

tamim — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 14:25:43 -0800

Can't link to it, but while on the subway on my way home, I was reading on Wall Street Journal that this is the New new-media merger/partnership subliminal commerce strategy. Analyst Abby Joseph Cohen said that the larger companies are re-evaluating the concepts of word of mouth advertising via microcontent websites. If you had noticed, Jason Kottke has frequently linked to Amazon in his bid to further e-commerce. Using those data aggregated with data from other Amazon affiliates, a new group of companies are moving into this new field of subliminal advertising via microcontent sites. The report also indicated of in-crowd whispers/rumors of both Kottke and RobotWisdom to be acquired by larger media and/or web ad placement companies.

By: heather

heather — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 14:27:51 -0800

you know, meg's been awful quiet lately. do you think that britney has come between them?

By: moz

moz — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 14:27:57 -0800

that's a neat trick

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 14:31:29 -0800

Complaining about someone's personal site irks me. It should never be done, it's that simple.

By: judith

judith — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 14:34:06 -0800

j ko: the new kaycee?

By: CrazyUncleJoe

CrazyUncleJoe — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 14:38:26 -0800

"Live free and die!" Extremist! (or were you just speaking to j ko? in which case "hate monger!")

By: jkottke

jkottke — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 14:41:59 -0800

it looks like Pepsi is paying for Kottke afterall Dammit, they said they weren't going to run that until early next week. Can't trust the media with anything these days.

By: bakiwop

bakiwop — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 14:59:24 -0800

Extremist! (or were you just speaking to j ko? in which case "hate monger!") Try and think of "Live free and die!" as more of a sequential suggestion than a correlational one. :)

By: wackybrit

wackybrit — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 15:11:18 -0800

Free is over, friends, even for personal sites. Embrace the future. Yeah, I'm with ya on that. I recently got into telesales to pay my $50 a month phone bill, cuz that phone bill sure aint paying itself. Pointless sarcasm aside, Jason can do what he wants with his site. It's his. Not all of us have extra money floating around each month to pay for personal projects. So, if the ads turn you off, so be it. I only visit his site once every week/fortnight anyway, so one popunder ad sure aint gunna annoy me.

By: mikel

mikel — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 15:27:48 -0800

I think this is really interesting, actually. I mean how many people came up with the idea of trying to build a personal site upon which one could sell banners (back in the day)? I know I thought about it - just for kicks, mostly, but still, I thought about it. Again back in the day the conversation (usually started by someone who wasn't me, but it happened at least half a dozen times in the mid-90s) started, "I'm thinking of doing a personal site, but selling banners on it! Imagine the controversy - that alone would increase traffic for a while and justify the investment!" The world has changed a whole lot since then, at least on the web. There *are* personal sites that receive considerable traffic now. Free services are dropping like flies. And in that context, I think it's perfectly appropriate to seek out alternate means of support. And more, I think it's a good thing that someone like Jason Kottke is doing it, sticking his toe in and seeing how the water feels. Better him than many, many others I can think of, anyhow. I'm surprised it wasn't Jason Hall though. He's had huge hits for longer than most have had sites, and certainly isn't averse to experimentation.

By: SpecialK

SpecialK — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 15:28:41 -0800

Can't stand #DFFF0C I'm painting my home office in #DFFF0C.

By: owillis

owillis — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 15:33:35 -0800

I don't see much of a problem with personal homepages selling advertising. If the site provides good content, why shouldn't the user be paid? I'd much prefer they get the money on a site they own than give Yahoo/Geocities/Angelfire/Tripod money for hosting their sites. But of course, I'm a capitalistic bastard. [Coca-Cola is the official sponsor of owillis' comments, Enjoy]

By: dincognito

dincognito — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 15:39:25 -0800

Hrmph. I actually check Jason's site on occasion and I actually originally stumbled upon it because of osil8. But let's not get our collective panties in a bunch over pop-up ads. People have to make money, and if Jason can put an extra $5-10 in his pocket then so be it. Plus, having a pop-up window killer program running background makes this matter less. Jason, keep doing what you've got to do. People do enjoy your work. -boogah

By: alan

alan — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 15:42:21 -0800

Risking a slight veer back towards the serious, pair.com doesn't offer unlimited bandwidth. They just spell out up front what your bandwidth limits are. (i.e. a 'Webmaster' account lets you have 400/MB a day or about 12 Gigs a month). You may now continue with the krazy kottke kamera klicking katastrophies.

By: ed

ed — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 15:46:40 -0800

New Economy, New Blogging: Had breakfast today. Enjoyed a luscious glass of Minute Maid Orange Juice, without the pulp, came in a carton for only $1.99. It smacked against my lips, tasting scrumptuous with my Noah's Bagel, onion with tomato spread and toasted, the kind of bagel that mom could have made if she knew how to bake, available in over 100 locations in the Bay Area! posted by ed at 8:37 a.m. on June 8 What's the point of blogging like a Sunday newspaper advertising insert? Is this the kind of thing that happens regularly under the Bush Administration?

By: annathea

annathea — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 15:54:20 -0800

Speaking of Pair.com and bandwidth, they have always been very fair with posting upfront their bandwidth limitations. Hell, I went over a few times, and they waived the charges for me (probably because I only racked up about $10 worth of extra mb.) As for the X10 thing - joke or not, it's still $20 a referral if someone buys through Jason's site. Not bad, eh?

By: CrayDrygu

CrayDrygu — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 16:32:55 -0800

Re: mathowie and that fake CNN link... I *love* Opera.

By: y6y6y6

y6y6y6 — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 16:57:36 -0800

"What's the point of blogging like a Sunday newspaper advertising insert?" I think you are missing the point of having a personal web log. It's not to tell stories and post nice links. The whole point is to be famous and have lots of people link to you. The commentary is just filler anyway.

By: Mrmuhnrmuh

Mrmuhnrmuh — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 16:58:47 -0800

Opera's such a spoilsport.

By: barbelith

barbelith — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 17:02:58 -0800

As said above: "Risking a slight veer back towards the serious, pair.com doesn't offer unlimited bandwidth. They just spell out up front what your bandwidth limits are. (i.e. a 'Webmaster' account lets you have 400/MB a day or about 12 Gigs a month)." Agreed - but that's a hell of a lot for most people's purposes - particularly for a personal site. I run both http://www.barbelith.com and http://www.plasticbag.org off a pair webmaster account. Most of the stuff I do doesn't get that much traffic at all, but the server intensive UBB software (plus my fairly small community of regulars) does/do. With nearly 300,000 page views a month it's only just started pushing me regularly over my 400Mb a day account. Is Jason really getting 10,000 impressions a day just for kottke.org? Having said that, I'm getting a bit stuck now as well. The gap between pair's $30 package and the one above ($130) seems a little steep to me...

By: alan

alan — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 17:22:25 -0800

Agreed - but that's a hell of a lot for most people's purposes - particularly for a personal site. Definitely. That's what I was trying to say. With the exception of their screwy invoices, I love pair. (And they really only get screwy when, you're, um, a little late with your payments).

By: justgary

justgary — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 17:30:13 -0800

Ok, ok pair is the best host in the freakin world. I'm sure they love the free advertising:) But couldn't we get back to kottke selling out to the man?

By: bryanboyer

bryanboyer — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 17:42:28 -0800

jkottke (who is that, anyway?), I'm so sorry to hear your cat died!

By: Spanktacular

Spanktacular — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 18:23:12 -0800

I thought that x10 hack from a few days ago was supposed to prevent me from seeing those damned pop-unders for something like ten years? Guess not...

By: Hackworth

Hackworth — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 19:25:45 -0800

Wow, my head is spinning.

By: ZachsMind

ZachsMind — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 21:36:20 -0800

"I think you are missing the point of having a personal web log. It's not to tell stories and post nice links. The whole point is to be famous and have lots of people link to you. The commentary is just filler anyway." OH! So THAT'S what I been doing wrong! I'm supposed to try to be POPULAR! Ack! *hits self in head with fist* I coulda had a V-8! This ZachsMind Moment brought to you by V8 Tropical Blend Splash! Now available in diet, too!

By: alan

alan — Fri, 08 Jun 2001 22:40:07 -0800

pair pair pair

By: EricBrooksDotCom

EricBrooksDotCom — Sat, 09 Jun 2001 03:30:02 -0800

Time spent taking "a whiz" in the Louvre bathroom: 32 seconds. Oh... that was my *next* question. Nevermind. :0) Can someone forward me the memo where personal sites *aren't* supposed to have banner ads? I see them all the time... it's nice to know that whatever Kottke makes on click-thru's or sales will actually go to him, as opposed to a corner office at Angelfire, Hypermart or Geocities (like most people's sites).

By: jyoung

jyoung — Sat, 09 Jun 2001 07:46:52 -0800

I mean how many people came up with the idea of trying to build a personal site upon which one could sell banners (back in the day)? it's nice to know that whatever Kottke makes on click-thru's or sales will actually go to him, as opposed to a corner office at Angelfire, Hypermart or Geocities (like most people's sites). i am continually 'encouraged' to get my own domain rather than host my writing at geocities. however, my ego has never won over my pocketbook. free is free. jason probably does have bandwidth issues. as for the pop up ads, i don't consider them a quality of life issue. if anything on the internet is causing an emotional issue for you, TIME TO GO OUTSIDE. plus, andre has a popup remedy at www.torrez.org

By: GirlFriday

GirlFriday — Sat, 09 Jun 2001 09:56:15 -0800

Hell, at least he gets paid for his ads - the people who have the suffer through with me at Tripod just get a cute little banner at the top of the page. Damn society.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Sat, 09 Jun 2001 12:29:03 -0800

How much is offered for this type of "sponsorship deal"? I want to know what to expect what I launch LostSockLand.com (not to be confused with pair.com--the domain name I tried to buy). Also, who would buy a camera based on those popunders?

By: davidmsc

davidmsc — Sat, 09 Jun 2001 21:06:07 -0800

ParisParamus: I would...but only if the girl was included. She is pretty cute. But seriously, does anyone know if these cameras actually work?

By: crunchland

crunchland — Sun, 10 Jun 2001 06:06:01 -0800

I've heard they work pretty well. A friend of mine bought one and put it inside a model railroad engine, so he could look at his layout from the perspective of the engineer. This is the same guy who said that once he did buy one, he was spammed to death by the marketing geniuses at X10, to the tune of up to 5 emails a day.

By: FPN

FPN — Sun, 10 Jun 2001 06:45:03 -0800

From the site it appears that sign-up-at-the-site affiliates get $20 in X10 merch for each sale. Am I misreading it?

By: pracowity

pracowity — Sun, 10 Jun 2001 07:35:24 -0800

> But seriously, does anyone know if these cameras > actually work? I would bet many are being sold to would-be peepers who look at the girl in the (damned annoying) ads, think about a concealably small camera (and wireless means hard to trace if someone finds it), and suddenly decide their homes or offices sure could use secret security surveillance. Here are some of the recommended uses: "Monitor children or pets! (See who has been stealing those cookies while Mom is not looking.) Domestic surveillance Transmit live video footage of your parties all over the house! Have guests watch themselves on TV! Bring a little spice into your romance... (need we say more?) " Only the densest of peepers would fail to take these hints and realize that the thing can be secretly installed in bathrooms and bedrooms, on window ledges and in ceiling tiles, with no incriminating wire leading back to the one-handed typist at the PC.