> Ars is being dishonest with their advertisers, who are paying for attention, not rendering processes. So, once again, fuck'em. No they're not. Advertisers un

> Ars is being dishonest with their advertisers, who are paying for attention, not rendering processes. So, once again, fuck'em. No they're not. Advertisers understand perfectly well that only a fraction of rendered ads actually gain a reader's attention. > Second, if they're paying a tenth of a cent to render a page, they need a better host! This was very obviously a made up number, not the thrust of my argument. Whether it's a tenth of a cent or a thousandth doesnt matter. > Third, I would imagine that the cost they might be trying to cover is the cost of writing the article, not the negligible cost of serving it. Again, probably true, but not the point of my argument. They have to cover costs with revenue, whether those costs are hosting or paying their staff. > In any case, fuck'em. I actually enjoy reading Ars, and therefore, would prefer not to, thanks. Especially when not fucking 'em is as easy as letting their ads render.