Because of this, sane people are conservative in deploying new versions.
Yeah, well, the problem with "new versions" of anything from Microsoft these days is they go to great lengths to not tell you what updates actually contain... they all just say "this fixes issues with Windows", don't highlight that "well, we're really installing telemetry and other shit to force you to Windows 10". You have to go to great pains to find out what an update actually contains (for instance you can't read anything on their site without being redirected through live.com and other crap).
Trusting Microsoft to be honest and forthright with what they're doing these days is increasingly more difficult... so you'll pardon me if them not fessing up to the issue doesn't come as a surprise.
Microsoft has more or less decided they don't give a crap about consumers, and they're going to do whatever they choose. Hopefully they start to realize just how much they're pissing off users these days.
With such an obvious motive I have zero sympathy for the utter losers that rushed their product out the door with inadequate security.
Of course, the problem with that is that the "losers that rushed their product out the door with inadequate security" aren't the people we need to feel sorry for in this case... like every other piece of shit consumer technology with non-existent security, it's the consumer who suffers.
Put the makers of this tech on the hook for paying damages, or throw the CEOs in jail.. then I might give a second though to them.
And, really, even if a CEO could personally face jail time, I still can't give a fuck.
"destroying the relationship" between advertisers and consumers
What fucking "relationship"?
There is no relationship, there are the annoying parasites on the internet who want to inject themselves into what we do. I have never said "gee, I wonder what the assholes over at Double Click are up to these days".
But let's not pretend I gain anything from being tracked by a bunch of idiots who want to sell me something.
On behalf of those of us who have aggressively blocked ads for years, don't pretend there's some "relationship" here. And let's stop pretending that internet exists for the ad companies.
Do this shit without tracking me everywhere and violating my privacy, and I might have less of a problem. Expect me to allow 15 third parties to run scripts and set cookies, and you can fuck off.
You might as well say a guard dog is spoiling your "relationship" with a peeping Tom. Sorry, don't care.
Things like this usually show it's technically feasible, even if impractical. But if the payoff is high enough, it's probably worth someone doing.
Today's "too difficult to replicate" can easily become "tomorrow's hack in the wild". But if someone sees enough possible payoff for doing it, it's just one more thing.
And it seems there's always someone looking to exploit anything just because it's there.
in a 1981 lecture, he mentioned that he had the distinction of being, "the only person to have been fired three times from MIT for insubordination."
If for no other reason than this, this man deserves to be remembered.:-P
one of the fathers of the personal computer... he was the architect of both the TX-0 and TX-2 at Lincoln Labs. He believed that "a computer should be just another piece of lab equipment." At a time when most computers were huge remote machines operated in batch mode, he advocated far more interactive access.
I guess being one of the fathers of the personal computer is pretty cool too.
You can choose to do whatever the hell you want for whatever reasons you choose.
But suggesting we should remove the right for anonymous transactions from all people to allow them to stop crime is just more of the bullshit ass-hattery which is the double-speak of law enforcement these days... it's saying our rights are inconvenient for them, and we should all give up our rights to let them cover a few corner cases.
Fuck that. Anybody who suggests we all give up our hard-earned rights to make their jobs easier is a lying sack of shit who should be shot.
This bullshit security theater which demands we give up our rights to allow law enforcement to protect our rights is just that... fucking bullshit.
This hysterical crap whereby "terrorism", or "save the children", or "stop teh crime" are allowed to bypass every single law and freedom we have has to stop. The many many valid uses for anonymous cash should not be made secondary to the much smaller amount of crime... don't treat us all like fucking criminals because a subset of people are criminals.
That's just idiocy, and the halfwits supporting outlawing of freedom for these lame excuses should not be the ones determining we all give up our rights so they can be idiots who give up all their rights on the pretense of protecting their rights.
I don't give a damn what you do with your money. But I'm not giving up my rights so some scared little idiots can live under the illusion that this is a net benefit to anybody.
This will open the floodgates of making all of these companies be responsible for developing tools for law enforcement to demand access. And then law enforcement will demand they simply be given those tools to avoid the whole pesky court system and due process.
Welcome to the future, where law enforcement wants it to be illegal for you to have information they cannot access, and failure to allow yourself to be spied on is a criminal act. You can't have any freedom and security because they need to remove it to protect your freedom and security.
You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide, citizen.
In Soviet America, phone unlocks you.
But keep telling yourselves you don't live in a surveillance society, one day you'll believe you have always been at war with Eurasia. Failure to comply is now a thoughtcrime.
What happened to those oaths to defend and uphold the Constitution, instead of wiping your ass on it?
When the responses are on the order of "how do we know the vase is broken?" or "prove the vase wouldn't have broken on its own"... there are people who are trying to say "there is no mess, and even if there was a mess you can't prove it was us".
You don't think those companies paying to fund stuff which says "nope, not happening" want to muddy the waters long enough to keep up profits for a while?
I mean, when Exxon scientists identified climate change decades ago, and when Exxon spent huge amounts of money denying climate change, you can bet your ass that the denial of this comes entirely from corporate interests who don't want the source of their profits impacted, and they don't really give a crap how it affects everyone else.
Corporations are, collectively, sociopaths. The longer they can convince you either there is no mess or that they nothing to do with it, the longer they can keep making huge sums of money.
The people denying it's happening have a vested interest in misdirection and deception for as long as they can. Nobody has any other reason to deny it's happening other than the money they're going to make.
This is the standard bullshit of the PR game... keep publicly lying about it to confuse the issue, and pay to discredit the facts to support their own narrative. Complete and utter sociopaths with no regard for anything but themselves.
ack 'in the day' you could easily find books on NT, Windows 2000, or Slackware that went into painstaking detail about every functional aspect of the operating system
Back in the day, people released fully-functional things instead of the on-going beta which is Windows 10 which they're developing as they keep pushing more of it out.
And, back in the day, companies couldn't use the DMCA to claim all this shit was proprietary and deem you not allowed to know it.
I don't see Microsoft as giving a damn if you have such information, or making it easy to get it. You think they're going to fess up to the amount of ads, analytics, telemetry and other crap they're doing without telling you?
In those 15 years you've lost the right to know anything, and the right to "own" your operating system. Due to EULAs and everything else, Windows 10 is whatever the hell Microsoft says it is, and they can change it at will... and you have agreed you're not allowed to get a vote.
I'd be surprised if anybody at Microsoft knew all of this stuff any more.
You do realise the universe doesn't give a flying fuck about what you think about Climate scientists.
Pretty much this. And, moreover, the universe doesn't give a crap about our continued existence, and won't take any special steps to save us.
The problem is we're an exceedingly short-sighted species, and the near term profits of corporations are pretty much driving this process, and they'd rather have big executive bonuses now than give a fuck if there's a habitable planet down the road.
I figure the only people actively denying climate change stand to make money from the status quo. Pretending it's not happening pretty much has no rational basis in anything else, because it doesn't otherwise benefit anybody.
Basically the media companies are going to say encryption is evil because people could use it for piracy, and the security assholes are going to claim encryption is bad because they can't spy on everybody.
Between the two of them they're probably going to convince idiot politicians to undermine all security to give them what they need.
Welcome to a work in which your rights and security are undermined by corporate rights, and people who are lying through their fucking teeth claiming to protect your rights and security. Sorry, but bypassing our rights and security isn't defending them, it's undermining them.
For all other transactions above $5 there's no need for cash, the plastic card and direct bank transactions are fine.
That's your opinion, but it really is just that.
I'm going on vacation soon, and I want to have cash money so that I can lock in the exchange rate, and know how much money I have. If I had to have $20s instead of $100s it would be pretty much impossible to carry without a fat wad of bills. As it is, I have my envelope full of cash which will be my spending money so I know how much I start with and how much I have left.
When I go out to a restaurant I prefer to pay in cash. Same for a bar.
Why would I want everything I ever do to be tracked, analyzed, reported on, correlated, sold, and provided to any entity who wants it? Even if I'm not doing anything illegal, that is nobody's fucking business. You think tracking is bad on the internet? Try having everything you do in the real world correlated to everything you do on the internet, and the entire picture of your life becomes part of Big Data. Fuck that.
You may have a desire to live in a surveillance society in which everything you do it monitored and tied directly to you, but I sure as hell don't.
It would mean everything you ever buy and the location and time you bought it is tracked and recorded. Which means law enforcement, insurance companies, divorce lawyers, ad companies, marketing companies, and every other asshole in the world who wants more information about what you do will likely have it... it would be pretty much a total erosion of privacy and your right to do something without reporting it to the nanny state and whatever corporations have access to it.
Sorry, I think getting rid of paper notes is a stupid fucking idea, and would so fundamentally change some aspects of society as to be a terrible idea.
The right to do some things anonymously is not one you want to lose. So, you go ahead and plastic, the rest of us wish to remain the choice to not be constantly fucking spied on for everything we do.
Don't give me any of that "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" bullshit, either. It's my fucking privacy, I'll decide on its value.
Of course, any such product will have applications in the usual porn domain... rule #34 always wins.
Anything like, er, "tactile-feedback toilet paper" is trivially applicable to many other naughty things. Wrap it around your willy and let it 'tactile-feedback til happy ending', AND clean you up afterwards. Then it's just another setting on the legendary Japanese toilets -- arigato wank-u kanpai.
I refuse to believe one of those buttons can't already be misused for a little personal gratification.
that people should fear hacking and theft of information
Terrible use of hyphenation aside (it reads... like.. it was...spoken by... Shatner): people should fear such things, because they're very real and present dangers in our lives. It's not some abstract thing, it's a real issue.
Yes, Avast wants to sell you security. But any halfwit who even pays a little attention to the news headlines on tech websites should be able to grasp that, yes, hacking and information theft is a thing, it happens all the time, and isn't something to just ignore and pretend doesn't exist.
Business models aside, the world is full of crooks and thieves.
Don't believe me? Plug your PC into the internet without a firewall, and see just how long before you get hacked. What's the current numbers for a new Windows machine? Under 30 minutes last I saw.
You'd have to be a moron to think that security isn't a daily issue people using technology should be at least somewhat aware of.
It's more of a showcase of what is possible than of a real technology that is useful.
If we waited until we had fully complete technology which solved a very specific problem universally regarded as "useful"... we'd never accomplish a fucking thing.
Nobody is saying this is going to replace drummers, but it is a new and novel application of robotics, with a degree of autonomy and smarts, and is more than just programming it into a drum machine.
If all you're going to do is whine and kvetch it's not as complex as "real drumming", then you've probably missed the fucking point.:-P
So, when you've built your AI drummer, you get to bitch. In the meantime, this likely advances the state of the art in at least a few ways.
You might as well complain that a walking robot can't perform all forms of dance or compete in the Olympics, or that a self driving car can't compete in auto-racing -- if you're taking an all-or-nothing approach, you'll never accomplish anything.
Believe it or not, science is incremental. And stuff like this grows out of what the researchers know and want to look into.
That's backwards. Your bank's web site is authenticated, so your browser can fairly strongly verify that it's legitimate
BULLSHIT!
See, if someone controls the network, they can also trivially do a man in the middle attack. Just like all the other crap.
you can safely do your banking on a hostile network
You should learn more about computer security before you go dishing advice about it.
Because, I'm sorry to tell you, you're utterly wrong -- proxying your bank stuff to skim your credentials and do a MITM is no more difficult than anything else.
If you control the network and have the right stuff, there is nothing which is "safe". And HTTPS falls apart with a malicious actor in the middle who can control your connection and sit in the middle.
Sorry, dude. You're so wrong as to be dangerous. You should fix that.
I find it odd. I don't know anyone who thinks Apple should help the government. I realize this is the definition of anecdote... but still, this seems odd.
It's a self selected sample of 1000 people who didn't tell a pollster to fuck off when they got a random call... do you know how useless this poll is? This kind of poll sounds good, but it is otherwise just noise.
Having said that, there seems to be a trend to a lot of society not giving a rats ass about such things, and as long as the government claims to be keeping them safe they don't give a crap about how it's done or what the implications are.
I think it's safe to say the average American neither knows, nor cares, about why this is a terrible idea.
And the rest of the Western world isn't far behind them... they live in fear, so the last thing they think of is their rights.
On things far less important than this... how many of us have said to the boss "No, that's a stupid idea", only to be cajoled... and how many times has "OK, send me an email demanding this"... you forced me to do it, you authorized it, I no longer give a damn about the outcome.
Now, it's all well and good to say it's obvious... but if you've objected, been over-ruled, and possibly told you'd have some consequences if you didn't comply... I can see how the brain is wired to say "fuck it, that's not on me".
I mean, armies train people to be more willing to kill people... why would anybody be surprised when they actually do it? You've pretty much been told to surrender the authority for certain kinds of moral judgement up the chain of command.
As so often happens, it's common sense after someone actually explains it.:-P
Oh, there will always be more than 3 corporations.. how the hell do you think they'll play shell games with the money to claim they weren't profitable.
You can't do Hollywood accounting if you don't have shell corporations to juggle the money around.
The robotic device is attached to a musician's shoulder and is reported capable of determining the layout of kit components and the direction and proximity of the human arms, thanks to built-in accelerometers, and change playing location accordingly. If the human arm moves to play a hit-hat, for example, the robot arm adjusts to play the ride cymbal, when the player paradiddles on the snare, the attachment moves to the tom at the side.
So, I don't know about paradiddling or the like, bu tit sounds like it's got a little more built in smarts.
It sounds like it's doing some of its own stuff without the user.
This disease infested Olympics brought to you by Coca Cola, McDonald's, and other fine companies who don't give a crap if the Olympians have to compete in crap.
There is no shaping of traffic and this is optional to the user.
Technically, no:
The release indicates that the ad-blocking will not be absolute and non-negotiable, and lays out three goals for the transition: that Three's customers should not pay data charges to receive adverts, the cost of which should instead be borne by the advertiser; that customers need to be protected from mobile ads which mine and exploit customer data without their consent or awareness; that customers should be protected from 'excessive, intrusive, unwanted or irrelevant adverts'.
The amount people pay to deliver the ads is a huge factor here.
The ad companies are using someone else's bandwidth for free, and the consumer pays to receive it. The carrier is saying "yeah, not so much".
But it aint optional.
Roi Carthy, chief marketing officer at Shine, has compared mobile ads to someone siphoning off a dollar of gas when you fill up with $10, as 'smog', and as 'ecosystem in which the cat has been allowed to protect the milk'.
The ad companies feel entitled to both the revenue and having someone else pay for the bandwidth... I agree with the idea that, no, we don't owe them a damned thing, and we also can't trust them. I don't care about their revenue, I'll keep blocking them.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, well, the problem with "new versions" of anything from Microsoft these days is they go to great lengths to not tell you what updates actually contain ... they all just say "this fixes issues with Windows", don't highlight that "well, we're really installing telemetry and other shit to force you to Windows 10". You have to go to great pains to find out what an update actually contains (for instance you can't read anything on their site without being redirected through live.com and other crap).
Trusting Microsoft to be honest and forthright with what they're doing these days is increasingly more difficult ... so you'll pardon me if them not fessing up to the issue doesn't come as a surprise.
Microsoft has more or less decided they don't give a crap about consumers, and they're going to do whatever they choose. Hopefully they start to realize just how much they're pissing off users these days.
Of course, the problem with that is that the "losers that rushed their product out the door with inadequate security" aren't the people we need to feel sorry for in this case ... like every other piece of shit consumer technology with non-existent security, it's the consumer who suffers.
Put the makers of this tech on the hook for paying damages, or throw the CEOs in jail .. then I might give a second though to them.
And, really, even if a CEO could personally face jail time, I still can't give a fuck.
What fucking "relationship"?
There is no relationship, there are the annoying parasites on the internet who want to inject themselves into what we do. I have never said "gee, I wonder what the assholes over at Double Click are up to these days".
But let's not pretend I gain anything from being tracked by a bunch of idiots who want to sell me something.
On behalf of those of us who have aggressively blocked ads for years, don't pretend there's some "relationship" here. And let's stop pretending that internet exists for the ad companies.
Do this shit without tracking me everywhere and violating my privacy, and I might have less of a problem. Expect me to allow 15 third parties to run scripts and set cookies, and you can fuck off.
You might as well say a guard dog is spoiling your "relationship" with a peeping Tom. Sorry, don't care.
How much of a potential reward is there?
Things like this usually show it's technically feasible, even if impractical. But if the payoff is high enough, it's probably worth someone doing.
Today's "too difficult to replicate" can easily become "tomorrow's hack in the wild". But if someone sees enough possible payoff for doing it, it's just one more thing.
And it seems there's always someone looking to exploit anything just because it's there.
If for no other reason than this, this man deserves to be remembered. :-P
I guess being one of the fathers of the personal computer is pretty cool too.
You can choose to do whatever the hell you want for whatever reasons you choose.
But suggesting we should remove the right for anonymous transactions from all people to allow them to stop crime is just more of the bullshit ass-hattery which is the double-speak of law enforcement these days ... it's saying our rights are inconvenient for them, and we should all give up our rights to let them cover a few corner cases.
Fuck that. Anybody who suggests we all give up our hard-earned rights to make their jobs easier is a lying sack of shit who should be shot.
This bullshit security theater which demands we give up our rights to allow law enforcement to protect our rights is just that ... fucking bullshit.
This hysterical crap whereby "terrorism", or "save the children", or "stop teh crime" are allowed to bypass every single law and freedom we have has to stop. The many many valid uses for anonymous cash should not be made secondary to the much smaller amount of crime ... don't treat us all like fucking criminals because a subset of people are criminals.
That's just idiocy, and the halfwits supporting outlawing of freedom for these lame excuses should not be the ones determining we all give up our rights so they can be idiots who give up all their rights on the pretense of protecting their rights.
I don't give a damn what you do with your money. But I'm not giving up my rights so some scared little idiots can live under the illusion that this is a net benefit to anybody.
This will open the floodgates of making all of these companies be responsible for developing tools for law enforcement to demand access. And then law enforcement will demand they simply be given those tools to avoid the whole pesky court system and due process.
Welcome to the future, where law enforcement wants it to be illegal for you to have information they cannot access, and failure to allow yourself to be spied on is a criminal act. You can't have any freedom and security because they need to remove it to protect your freedom and security.
You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide, citizen.
In Soviet America, phone unlocks you.
But keep telling yourselves you don't live in a surveillance society, one day you'll believe you have always been at war with Eurasia. Failure to comply is now a thoughtcrime.
What happened to those oaths to defend and uphold the Constitution, instead of wiping your ass on it?
When the responses are on the order of "how do we know the vase is broken?" or "prove the vase wouldn't have broken on its own" ... there are people who are trying to say "there is no mess, and even if there was a mess you can't prove it was us".
You don't think those companies paying to fund stuff which says "nope, not happening" want to muddy the waters long enough to keep up profits for a while?
I mean, when Exxon scientists identified climate change decades ago, and when Exxon spent huge amounts of money denying climate change, you can bet your ass that the denial of this comes entirely from corporate interests who don't want the source of their profits impacted, and they don't really give a crap how it affects everyone else.
Corporations are, collectively, sociopaths. The longer they can convince you either there is no mess or that they nothing to do with it, the longer they can keep making huge sums of money.
The people denying it's happening have a vested interest in misdirection and deception for as long as they can. Nobody has any other reason to deny it's happening other than the money they're going to make.
This is the standard bullshit of the PR game ... keep publicly lying about it to confuse the issue, and pay to discredit the facts to support their own narrative. Complete and utter sociopaths with no regard for anything but themselves.
Back in the day, people released fully-functional things instead of the on-going beta which is Windows 10 which they're developing as they keep pushing more of it out.
And, back in the day, companies couldn't use the DMCA to claim all this shit was proprietary and deem you not allowed to know it.
I don't see Microsoft as giving a damn if you have such information, or making it easy to get it. You think they're going to fess up to the amount of ads, analytics, telemetry and other crap they're doing without telling you?
In those 15 years you've lost the right to know anything, and the right to "own" your operating system. Due to EULAs and everything else, Windows 10 is whatever the hell Microsoft says it is, and they can change it at will ... and you have agreed you're not allowed to get a vote.
I'd be surprised if anybody at Microsoft knew all of this stuff any more.
Pretty much this. And, moreover, the universe doesn't give a crap about our continued existence, and won't take any special steps to save us.
The problem is we're an exceedingly short-sighted species, and the near term profits of corporations are pretty much driving this process, and they'd rather have big executive bonuses now than give a fuck if there's a habitable planet down the road.
I figure the only people actively denying climate change stand to make money from the status quo. Pretending it's not happening pretty much has no rational basis in anything else, because it doesn't otherwise benefit anybody.
Basically the media companies are going to say encryption is evil because people could use it for piracy, and the security assholes are going to claim encryption is bad because they can't spy on everybody.
Between the two of them they're probably going to convince idiot politicians to undermine all security to give them what they need.
Welcome to a work in which your rights and security are undermined by corporate rights, and people who are lying through their fucking teeth claiming to protect your rights and security. Sorry, but bypassing our rights and security isn't defending them, it's undermining them.
That's your opinion, but it really is just that.
I'm going on vacation soon, and I want to have cash money so that I can lock in the exchange rate, and know how much money I have. If I had to have $20s instead of $100s it would be pretty much impossible to carry without a fat wad of bills. As it is, I have my envelope full of cash which will be my spending money so I know how much I start with and how much I have left.
When I go out to a restaurant I prefer to pay in cash. Same for a bar.
Why would I want everything I ever do to be tracked, analyzed, reported on, correlated, sold, and provided to any entity who wants it? Even if I'm not doing anything illegal, that is nobody's fucking business. You think tracking is bad on the internet? Try having everything you do in the real world correlated to everything you do on the internet, and the entire picture of your life becomes part of Big Data. Fuck that.
You may have a desire to live in a surveillance society in which everything you do it monitored and tied directly to you, but I sure as hell don't.
It would mean everything you ever buy and the location and time you bought it is tracked and recorded. Which means law enforcement, insurance companies, divorce lawyers, ad companies, marketing companies, and every other asshole in the world who wants more information about what you do will likely have it ... it would be pretty much a total erosion of privacy and your right to do something without reporting it to the nanny state and whatever corporations have access to it.
Sorry, I think getting rid of paper notes is a stupid fucking idea, and would so fundamentally change some aspects of society as to be a terrible idea.
The right to do some things anonymously is not one you want to lose. So, you go ahead and plastic, the rest of us wish to remain the choice to not be constantly fucking spied on for everything we do.
Don't give me any of that "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" bullshit, either. It's my fucking privacy, I'll decide on its value.
Of course, any such product will have applications in the usual porn domain ... rule #34 always wins.
Anything like, er, "tactile-feedback toilet paper" is trivially applicable to many other naughty things. Wrap it around your willy and let it 'tactile-feedback til happy ending', AND clean you up afterwards. Then it's just another setting on the legendary Japanese toilets -- arigato wank-u kanpai.
I refuse to believe one of those buttons can't already be misused for a little personal gratification.
Terrible use of hyphenation aside (it reads ... like .. it was ...spoken by ... Shatner): people should fear such things, because they're very real and present dangers in our lives. It's not some abstract thing, it's a real issue.
Yes, Avast wants to sell you security. But any halfwit who even pays a little attention to the news headlines on tech websites should be able to grasp that, yes, hacking and information theft is a thing, it happens all the time, and isn't something to just ignore and pretend doesn't exist.
Business models aside, the world is full of crooks and thieves.
Don't believe me? Plug your PC into the internet without a firewall, and see just how long before you get hacked. What's the current numbers for a new Windows machine? Under 30 minutes last I saw.
You'd have to be a moron to think that security isn't a daily issue people using technology should be at least somewhat aware of.
If we waited until we had fully complete technology which solved a very specific problem universally regarded as "useful" ... we'd never accomplish a fucking thing.
Nobody is saying this is going to replace drummers, but it is a new and novel application of robotics, with a degree of autonomy and smarts, and is more than just programming it into a drum machine.
If all you're going to do is whine and kvetch it's not as complex as "real drumming", then you've probably missed the fucking point. :-P
So, when you've built your AI drummer, you get to bitch. In the meantime, this likely advances the state of the art in at least a few ways.
You might as well complain that a walking robot can't perform all forms of dance or compete in the Olympics, or that a self driving car can't compete in auto-racing -- if you're taking an all-or-nothing approach, you'll never accomplish anything.
Believe it or not, science is incremental. And stuff like this grows out of what the researchers know and want to look into.
BULLSHIT!
See, if someone controls the network, they can also trivially do a man in the middle attack. Just like all the other crap.
You should learn more about computer security before you go dishing advice about it.
Because, I'm sorry to tell you, you're utterly wrong -- proxying your bank stuff to skim your credentials and do a MITM is no more difficult than anything else.
If you control the network and have the right stuff, there is nothing which is "safe". And HTTPS falls apart with a malicious actor in the middle who can control your connection and sit in the middle.
Sorry, dude. You're so wrong as to be dangerous. You should fix that.
It's a self selected sample of 1000 people who didn't tell a pollster to fuck off when they got a random call ... do you know how useless this poll is? This kind of poll sounds good, but it is otherwise just noise.
Having said that, there seems to be a trend to a lot of society not giving a rats ass about such things, and as long as the government claims to be keeping them safe they don't give a crap about how it's done or what the implications are.
I think it's safe to say the average American neither knows, nor cares, about why this is a terrible idea.
And the rest of the Western world isn't far behind them ... they live in fear, so the last thing they think of is their rights.
Probably because almost nobody is paranoid enough to care ... and the paranoid people who do care probably don't have smartphones.
I'm so paranoid about my data I'm going to have a dead-man's switch ... oooh, Facebook updates.
Then again, who the hell knows what silly things people do.
On things far less important than this ... how many of us have said to the boss "No, that's a stupid idea", only to be cajoled ... and how many times has "OK, send me an email demanding this" ... you forced me to do it, you authorized it, I no longer give a damn about the outcome.
Now, it's all well and good to say it's obvious ... but if you've objected, been over-ruled, and possibly told you'd have some consequences if you didn't comply ... I can see how the brain is wired to say "fuck it, that's not on me".
I mean, armies train people to be more willing to kill people ... why would anybody be surprised when they actually do it? You've pretty much been told to surrender the authority for certain kinds of moral judgement up the chain of command.
As so often happens, it's common sense after someone actually explains it. :-P
Oh, there will always be more than 3 corporations .. how the hell do you think they'll play shell games with the money to claim they weren't profitable.
You can't do Hollywood accounting if you don't have shell corporations to juggle the money around.
So, I don't know about paradiddling or the like, bu tit sounds like it's got a little more built in smarts.
It sounds like it's doing some of its own stuff without the user.
This disease infested Olympics brought to you by Coca Cola, McDonald's, and other fine companies who don't give a crap if the Olympians have to compete in crap.
Yeah, about that:
Turn that to "general public", and you see where we're at.
These things work because people do fall for them.
One wonder if the editors have a preview button ... seeing those characters in the summaries is new.
Fix the editors.
Technically, no:
The amount people pay to deliver the ads is a huge factor here.
The ad companies are using someone else's bandwidth for free, and the consumer pays to receive it. The carrier is saying "yeah, not so much".
But it aint optional.
The ad companies feel entitled to both the revenue and having someone else pay for the bandwidth ... I agree with the idea that, no, we don't owe them a damned thing, and we also can't trust them. I don't care about their revenue, I'll keep blocking them.