The fox is in the henhouse, but he brought along a hammer and some nails and he really really doesn't like coyotes, so it's all good. Part of the article was a

The fox is in the henhouse, but he brought along a hammer and some nails and he really really doesn't like coyotes, so it's all good. Part of the article was a bit confusing, though: "According to the Financial Times, Google will allow publishers what it’s calling 'Funding Choices.' The publisher could charge the consumer a set price per page view to use third-party sites that block all advertising. Google would do the tracking of how many pages users view, and then charge them. Users could then 'white list' particular sites, allowing ads to be shown on them and removing the charge. If users decided to pay to block ads, Google would receive a portion of that payment, sharing it with the publisher." Third-party sites that block all advertising? I think the author has this confused with third-party ad blockers. And the part where Google does the tracking means that now is certainly the time to switch to Firefox and keep ajax.googleapis.com, google-syndication.com, google-analytics.com, and all the rest of them firmly on the banned list. At times I almost feel nostalgic for the bad old days of Internet Explorer 6... (But then I remember what IE6 was actually like, and the feeling passes.)