I'm not going to argue with you on this topic. It is a personal choice, which I made based on my personal experience. You are free to have your own opinion, just don't judge others who choose to think otherwise.
I honestly doubt that this is how it works. When I'm not logged in, that data does not appear. Also for the sake of clarity I must bring to light the fact that I have several FB accounts. This might screw their profiling (the profiles have wildly divergent interests and behaviors).
Again, this is only my personal account, so take it with a grain of salt.
The age seems pretty irrelevant. He actually invented an useful contraption, which he intends to produce and sell. This is actually a patent working as it should.
DDoS actually involves very little hacking. There are plenty of tools in the wild which are remarkably effective. With enough script kiddies you can actually accomplish something like this. And to answer your question: No, I've never watched that show, I don't live in US.
I think it has more to do with information availability (most of the data was obtained through SIRPNET) and the bias of news organizations towards US. Nonetheless, I don't dismiss your theory either. The data is simply incomplete to draw any reasonable conclusions
Actually this is less about bills and more about battery life.
This is the Achille's heel when it comes to mobile computing and until more of these breakthroughs are made it will be the one, most important, limiting factor.
While not unlikely, there's a small flaw to this plan. What happens in the long run? You only have your subscribers and no new way (except advertising) to attract new readers. The subscriber base slowly erodes (depending on the quality of the product). Even if you manage an 85% repeat business rate, things will go south pretty fast.
Due to the fact that "The Times" has quite a reputation, in the initial stage the scheme will be a relative success. As time goes by however, the paywall will show its ugly teeth. No more external links driving traffic and no more SERPs in Google.
Paywalls fail not because they make people pay, they fail because they effectively isolate the website from the rest of the web.
No you wouldn't. Usually I'd say RTFA, but given the size of the thing, it would be a bit inappropriate.
Please look over Section 2 (all the options have a similar provision)
Where a traveler's personal baggage contains trademark goods or copyright materials of a non-commercial nature within the limits of the duty-free allowance {Aus: or where the copyright materials or trademark goods are sent in small consignments} and there are no material indications to suggest the goods are part of commercial traffic, Parties may consider such goods to be outside the scope of this Agreement.]
Well, most Windows users login into their OS with admin rights and when they launch the browser they automatically assign these rights. Basically, a browser should start with minimum rights regardless of what type of user launches it. Thank you for helping me clarify my point.
Chrome and IE8 have a combined market share of about 30% according to statcounter. This is indeed the right approach, but until ALL the major players and their most important versions take the route of sandboxing, malvertising will continue to be a reality.
Basically yes. What's to stop a developer to code a browser with an emulator type architecture? You load the environment and in that environment you load the browser, while restricting its rights to the bare minimum.
Most users follow the path of minimal resistance (i.e. they will most likely go with default settings). If these settings mean security by design, most of these problems would disappear.
The way I see it, no browser should be designed to require admin rights. All that it needs is a sandboxed environment for temporary files. When this mantra gets in the developers' heads, such exploits will no longer be possible. Of course, by that time, other type of exploits will be invented, but we'll cross that bridge when we reach it.
It doesn't require such a great leap of imagination. If this is what documented technology can do, imagine what the military grade, secret developments are capable of. Just saying.
Slashdot Mirror
You just had to ruin it, didn't you?
Ok, I'll bite. How do you know that you won't click the ads, if you don't even visualize them?
As for the "owing" part, you have no argument from me, I only see it as a gesture of politeness
I'm not going to argue with you on this topic. It is a personal choice, which I made based on my personal experience. You are free to have your own opinion, just don't judge others who choose to think otherwise.
I honestly doubt that this is how it works. When I'm not logged in, that data does not appear. Also for the sake of clarity I must bring to light the fact that I have several FB accounts. This might screw their profiling (the profiles have wildly divergent interests and behaviors).
Again, this is only my personal account, so take it with a grain of salt.
I've been noticing this some weeks ago when, on cnn.com, a widget informed what my friends like.
I basically developed the habit of logging out of FB every time, it's not that hard.
As for the Adblock/Noscript solution, I refuse to use it. I wore the hat of a webmaster and I know how important advertising is.
Funny? Troll?
Head explodes
Whoops, just saw the posts containing prior art. That kinda throws a wrench into my whole argument.
The age seems pretty irrelevant. He actually invented an useful contraption, which he intends to produce and sell. This is actually a patent working as it should.
That's just shifting the ambivalence towards another term, in this case "civilian"
Are informants civilians? Are diplomats?
I humbly apologize for my unorthodox use of metaphors. All my posts shall contain hereon only /. Approved(TM) memes.
DDoS actually involves very little hacking. There are plenty of tools in the wild which are remarkably effective. With enough script kiddies you can actually accomplish something like this. And to answer your question: No, I've never watched that show, I don't live in US.
I think it has more to do with information availability (most of the data was obtained through SIRPNET) and the bias of news organizations towards US. Nonetheless, I don't dismiss your theory either. The data is simply incomplete to draw any reasonable conclusions
It can be a lot of jesters though. There is strength in numbers you know?
How do you separate one from another? Really, how do you? And who should judge which is which?
That's a bit of a stretch. Plenty of right wingers are pissed on WL and DoS attacks can be easily set up without much geeklore.
Finally the thing shows up and only the military can play with it.
Actually this is less about bills and more about battery life.
This is the Achille's heel when it comes to mobile computing and until more of these breakthroughs are made it will be the one, most important, limiting factor.
While not unlikely, there's a small flaw to this plan. What happens in the long run? You only have your subscribers and no new way (except advertising) to attract new readers. The subscriber base slowly erodes (depending on the quality of the product). Even if you manage an 85% repeat business rate, things will go south pretty fast.
Due to the fact that "The Times" has quite a reputation, in the initial stage the scheme will be a relative success. As time goes by however, the paywall will show its ugly teeth. No more external links driving traffic and no more SERPs in Google.
Paywalls fail not because they make people pay, they fail because they effectively isolate the website from the rest of the web.
No you wouldn't. Usually I'd say RTFA, but given the size of the thing, it would be a bit inappropriate.
Please look over Section 2 (all the options have a similar provision)
Where a traveler's personal baggage contains trademark goods or copyright materials of a non-commercial nature within the limits of the duty-free allowance {Aus: or where the copyright materials or trademark goods are sent in small consignments} and there are no material indications to suggest the goods are part of commercial traffic, Parties may consider such goods to be outside the scope of this Agreement.]
Well, most Windows users login into their OS with admin rights and when they launch the browser they automatically assign these rights. Basically, a browser should start with minimum rights regardless of what type of user launches it. Thank you for helping me clarify my point.
Chrome and IE8 have a combined market share of about 30% according to statcounter. This is indeed the right approach, but until ALL the major players and their most important versions take the route of sandboxing, malvertising will continue to be a reality.
Basically yes. What's to stop a developer to code a browser with an emulator type architecture? You load the environment and in that environment you load the browser, while restricting its rights to the bare minimum.
Most users follow the path of minimal resistance (i.e. they will most likely go with default settings). If these settings mean security by design, most of these problems would disappear.
The way I see it, no browser should be designed to require admin rights. All that it needs is a sandboxed environment for temporary files. When this mantra gets in the developers' heads, such exploits will no longer be possible. Of course, by that time, other type of exploits will be invented, but we'll cross that bridge when we reach it.
It doesn't require such a great leap of imagination. If this is what documented technology can do, imagine what the military grade, secret developments are capable of. Just saying.