But you know the scary thing is a lot of doctors only find out about new medicines when the sales guy shows up, gives him the glossies and the samples, and whatever incentive I suspect they give him.
Which means the doctor may not know any more about it than you do.
Honestly, these days it's the rep from the pharma companies suggesting treatments to doctors who know little or nothing about the drug beyond the claims by the company.
I'm in favor of cutting out the direct marketing of drugs like this. Let's get back to letting doctors who know about the patient and the drug be the ones deciding what the treatment should be, and stop letting salespeople and marketing define health care.
Well, apparently now we have to appeal to the emotional side of women, while hiding out Star Wars posters, self castrating with a USB stick, and ensure that all metaphors involve fluffy bunnies and hair products.
Honestly, I've known a fair few women in tech... none of them had to deal with this "no girls allowed crap", none of them hated Star Wars, or otherwise needed to be coddled due to their gender.
I don't know if this is a generational thing which happened recently, or if every attempt to lure women into tech needs to pander to them on such a silly level.
Hell, my wife works in tech -- but she came at it indirectly and worked her way up so she didn't start off as a geek. I can't imagine trying to "appeal to her emotions" to make her sad about her drone or her password. I might get hurt.
Mostly because she's not some fragile flower who needs to have her emotions pandered to.
I don't get it. But then, maybe I'm old and clueless and too set in my sexist ways to know how I'm not proactively generating an environment which appeals to the delicate and sensitive nature of women and ensuring that everything I do is warm and nurturing.
I've known a couple of guys with sensitive egos. And from what I've seen, women have nothing on a whiny nerd who has had his feelings hurt. Those guys just won't let it go.
The reality is, they were trying to do FAR more than port apps:
Microsoft complicated the project by orders of magnitude when it linked the porting of Android apps to Windows 10 with replacing Google's cloud services. Microsoft wrote an app interoperability library that traps and converts Google cloud APIs for things like payments and advertising to Microsoft's APIs. Microsoft's anemic smartphone market share, 2.6% according to IDC, gave the company no choice but to do all the heavy lifting to acquire Android apps, because a developer-intensive port from Android to Windows wouldn't be justified by its tiny market share.
They have no interest in making these things simply run, they want to replace the underlying APIs with Microsoft stuff so they can horn in on the revenue.
They wanted more than just native apps. They wanted to alter how those things worked so they'd get the money.
So what, you ask? Jolla runs sailfish and sailfish contains an Android runtime (VM + glue code + libraries).
In a sense, I just love the irony of the situation!
Which is essentially what I said: instead of trying to write something which re-maps all of the Android stuff to Windows to try to create a native app... implement an Android runtime, or a layer like Mime which allows the Android calls to run without caring it's Windows underneath.
The problem is Microsoft was trying to map it to their own native calls and toolkits.
What I'm saying is unlikely to be achieved is something which automatically takes and piece of software and maps it to Microsoft's stuff as if it was a native app.
My bet is Microsoft was so invested in trying to make native apps they failed to make working apps, because they chose the solution with the highest complexity.
It will become your problem once more and more of the sites on which you rely make the decision to "charge membership" or "starve and close your website".
Possibly. But a lot of sites I only ever visit once because they showed up in a search. Their ads aren't my problem. If I have to sign up for a membership to see if I care, I definitely won't be back. So, New York Times is a site I'll never visit again. And under no circumstances will I enable ad sites I don't trust just for a site I'm mildly interested in.
Without cookies, how would you post as gstoddart rather than Anonymous Coward?
See, not every site am I choosing to log in.. or use a shopping cart.. or participate in discussions. For those sites, I have no need for you to set cookies -- in fact, those sites have no reason whatsoever to know anything about me at all. And I sure as shit don't need your advertisers to set 3rd party cookies or load a web bug just because I visited your site -- something which they all seem to want to do. So shit like scorecard research will always be blocked.
Some sites that I like can set cookies, and run scripts (there's probably fewer than 20)... but only them and not 3rd parties. The rest, nope. Not even a little. They just get blocked from doing it.
I've encountered sites which immediately put up the instructions to enable cookies and javascript. Sorry, but I have no reason to care or trust you. Which means I'll block your site, click the back button, and write you off as a non-entity. That would cover several Australian news agencies who demand cookies and scripts. Oh, sorry, don't give a fuck, not my problem.
I wonder: How could an online whiteboard or browser game work without JavaScript?
Don't know, don't care, don't use either. If I am required to use something for work, or ultimately choose that I wish to use it, I will whitelist. But I need a good reason. I don't look at every shiny bauble on the internet and decide that I give a damn,
But on first visit to your site, no way in hell you get to run scripts, or set cookies.
As I said, business models not my concern, my privacy is. Sites I choose to use get to do a limited set of things, nobody ever gets to run plugins or Flash, EVER. The rest, I simply don't feel the need to use.
Life is too short to give a crap about, or trust, the vast majority of the internet; it's an endless pile of pointless junk. When you remember that, it's a whole lot easier to be fairly ruthless in what you block.
Honestly now... did anybody believe this could be achieved? I'm pretty sure lots of people looked at this and thought "yeah, right, never gonna happen".
This is why people have been maintaining cross-platform libraries to solve this problem -- because it's a huge and difficult problem.
Automagically converting apps from Android to use all the Windows stuff? That always sounded like a pipe dream. They'd be better off writing something like a reverse Mime to allow native Android apps to run on Windows.
I am not in the least shocked Microsoft isn't going to create the magic path to putting Android apps on Windows phones. And, honestly, I'm not sure the Android users ever expected to care about this, this was all about trying to lure people to Microsoft's platform.
As usual, Microsoft can only see the world through their own lens, and have yet to demonstrate they know what people are actually looking for.
This is not my problem. This has never been my problem. This never will be my problem.
If your revenue model depends on me allowing third party assholes to set cookies, track me, run scripts, install software, call out to 5 other sites... then you have no hope in hell of me using your site.
So, you can put up a tip jar, you can charge membership, or you can starve and close your website.
These are problems with your business model. And if your business model relies on me being stupid enough to trust your advertisers... then I'm afraid your business model is your damned problem.
Not letting the parasites, trackers, and other advertising assholes infest my computer is my problem. I assure you, I only care about my part of this equation.
So you are free to not give a shit if I stop using your site. You are free to block me from using your site if I don't let you set cookies or run javascript.
And I am free to block your advertisers, and eventually block you. But I don't owe you a damned thing, especially if it's at the expense of my privacy and security.
Prime example... the link you provided embeds references to Facebook. My browser blocks all traffic to Facebook, because I do not consent to the assholes at Facebook tracking me everywhere I go. The same goes for the dozens of other ad companies I outright block.
The longer I am aware of the rules of grammar, and the more I realize I know more of them than a lot of people.. the more I realize they're largely meaningless.
Having known a lot of people who aren't native speakers of English, the more you try to explain the nuances of arcane rules which depend on a lot of exceptions, the less you can explain why it matters.
And some of the best jokes and puns I've ever heard came from people who were slightly abusing the grammar, but doing it form a perspective of doing what seemed sensible in context.
As you say, knowing the rules is good for providing a foundation to be understood. And then there's an infinite number of ways you can convey your message, and not all of them rely on strictly adhering to "rules" which sound like the explanation of Fizbin from Star Trek.
Breaking the rules is often a key to expressing yourself better.
I strongly suggest adding Request Policy, No Script, and Ghostery to that mix on Firefox. ABP covers some, but doesn't cover all of it. You still have scripts and 3rd party beacons and other crap you're not blocking and not even aware of.
If you need multiple browsers, with Chrome I reccomend: Script Safe, Ghostery, HTTP Switchboard, and Disconnect. Some of these are also available for Opera.
The sheer amount of crap in the average web page isn't something you can even see until you are actively blocking it. And then it's alarming just how much junk there is.
On the other hand, I propose that all media cites refuse to serve to people who block ads, as I don't want your assholishness to force me into a pay-first subscription model for content on the internet
Too fucking bad for you.
If you think my privacy and security is a fair price so you can have free stuff... you're the asshole in this scenario.
Sites are free to take measures to block me because I use an ad blocker. In fact, a few do and I just permanently block them. Same for the ones which won't let me in without javascript. No big loss to me.
But if you think the rest of the world should give up privacy and security so you can have free web sites, you're a moron.
Even Mozilla [mozilla.org] has this stupid mindset WRT Do Not Track:
Well, Do Not Track doesn't actually do anything.
If anything, it just gives one more piece of information for sites to collect... that you are stupid enough to believe DNT has any impact on you being tracked.
DNT is a voluntary program, mostly ignored, and which has no authority behind it. It was an attempt to short circuit someone imposing regulations on them.
I don't use DNT, because it serves no purpose. I just use privacy extensions to block traffic to them in the first place.
Turn it on, turn it off... not a damned thing happens any differently when you surf the web. DNT is a complete joke, and an utter failure -- it is there to give you the illusion you can click a checkbox and not get tracked.
That, unfortunately is at best delusional. Because that's not what really happens.
Well, if they server their own ads, fine... but if it's the same list of companies I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw their CEO off a cliff, then there is no way in hell.
As soon as you start adding the oily bastards and tracking companies into the mix, no matter for what website, it defeats the purpose entirely of blocking them.
So, while you might think Spanky's House of Leather is a deserving site, if they pull in a dozen or so tracking companies that you would otherwise block... what the hell is the point of enabling ads for them?
It's the 3rd parties we can't trust. Temporarily pretending we can trust them because we like the site they're on is a terrible idea.
Let companies get back to serving their own ads, from their own servers, using their own bandwidth and maybe we won't block them. But I won't pretend like I trust any of these ad companies for that one site. Not now not ever. Because to do that you have to let the very sites you know you don't trust run.
The problem is these ad companies and tracking sites are everywhere. Which means you pretty much should trust them nowhere.
The whole mess can't be trusted. And that's the problem.
What do you care about what the people who want to show you ads think about your decision to block them?
Flash is a security hole, because Flash has always been a security hole, and it always will be a security hole -- I don't even have it enabled in any browser I control. Letting 10-20 external entities on a web site track you on every page is stupid (there's 10 on Slashdot as I type this, all of which I block). Letting any random website run javascript is also stupid, because you have no idea if you can trust them and all their partners.
If a website wants to serve its own ads, I probably won't go to great lengths to block them.
But double click, and score card research, and the literally dozens and dozens of other entities embedded into so many webpages... those are entities I don't trust, don't have a voluntary relationship with, and do not benefit from being spied on.
Those I ruthlessly block with privacy extensions, or adding exclusions directly to my browser. Because it's all crap which wants to violate my privacy. Same goes for Facebook and Twitter -- sorry your business model says you want to track me on every site I go to. But I don't care.
So, boo hoo, say the site owners... too bad say I. If your revenue involves selling my privacy for your gain, then I will not participate in your revenue. If you get to the point of outright stopping me, then I'll just block your entire site and not come back.
The fact of the matter is, we simply cannot trust the ad companies to vet the ads, or give a damn about our privacy and security. Which means we need to treat the ad companies as hostile entities and block the shit out of them.
The longer I run several privacy addons in all my browsers, the more I see on a daily basis how some sites can have 20+ external call-outs, none of which actually add any value to me. Which means I don't give a crap about them.
In fact, I will do everything I can to block them completely.
E.g. having a university degree is "overqualified" for a barista job.
Well, part of the problem is the economy has been changing.
Employment trends have been losing full-time jobs, and people have been moving to more and more part time jobs.
Because companies are downsizing and offshoring, and generally not hiring people with skills any more.
Essentially since 2008, economies have been cannibalizing themselves, and more and more jobs are getting crappier and crappier.
So, ask yourself why those people are working as baristas... the answer is MBAs and CEOs have been carving the jobs out of the economy to turn it into "shareholder value" and "cost savings".
This has nothing to do with university acceptance policies, and everything to do with globalization gutting jobs and leaving very little skilled work domestically. Because we've been following the idiotic policies of cutting corporate taxes in the hopes they'll create jobs, and not tying to cuts to actually driving the economy instead of gutting it.
And the jobs which do exist are being driven down in value to 'temporary foreign workers'. We've given corporations everything they want, and in return they've fucked all of us.
Welcome to the New Fucking World Order, bitches. It's all downhill from here.
Please, you seem to be insinuating some organized campaign on behalf of Slashdot.
I'm sorry, but Slashdot posts articles written by other companies. I'm sure if this appears cyclically it's because the rest of the media covers it cyclically.
Suggesting a coherent editorial policy? Not buying it.
Sadly, as written, the DMCA relives them from any burden of proof.
Merely that they "believed" something. Even though it's supposed to be perjury to make a false claim, all they have to do is say "oops".
What they want to be able to do is say anybody using a specific protocol must be infringing, that way they can skip the pesky step of having facts and evidence.
Polygraph operators can't detect that the magic devices they claim work are nothing but voodoo.
The stunning lack of science and empirical evidence for a lie detector "fails to offer any coherent strategy" for this being real in any meaningful sense of the word.
There's a reason it's not admissible in court.
Ominously, the leaked document avers that an examinee's stated lack of belief in polygraphy is a marker of deception.
And what they're trying to do is suggesting their useless tool is an utterly useless tool is evidence that you are being deceptive. So, it's saying "I think your lie detector is crap" is being equated with being dishonest.
Tell you what, prove the fucking thing works first. What's that? You can't?
Then piss off and stop blaming your own incompetence and reliance on bogus technology on the rest of us.
Basically this is a tool, which doesn't work as advertised, which is used to bully people into giving the answer you have decided they should be giving. It in no way has anything at all to do with detecting the truth, and never has.
More importantly, it's not the DMV's place to determine if it's sincerely held, real, or not otherwise silly.
It's none of their damned business.
The point is, some religions have some built-in absurdity. And my absurdity is as valid as your absurdity, and as soon as the state tries to determine whose religion is OK and whose isn't... then suddenly the state is in the business of vetting religions.
So, if one religion wants to teach that the world is 6000 years old, was created in 7 days, and that evolution didn't happen despite evidence to the contrary... and they want that taught in school... then pretty much any stupid shit anybody makes up is fair game to be "religion".
The FSM is as unassailable and irrefutable as the claims by any other religion.
Are you suggesting that if any preacher were to go against what he teaches his religion should be investigated and they be charged with fraud? Or are you suggesting that some religions get to have more leeway with being bullshit just because its followers say so?
Slashdot Mirror
But you know the scary thing is a lot of doctors only find out about new medicines when the sales guy shows up, gives him the glossies and the samples, and whatever incentive I suspect they give him.
Which means the doctor may not know any more about it than you do.
Honestly, these days it's the rep from the pharma companies suggesting treatments to doctors who know little or nothing about the drug beyond the claims by the company.
I'm in favor of cutting out the direct marketing of drugs like this. Let's get back to letting doctors who know about the patient and the drug be the ones deciding what the treatment should be, and stop letting salespeople and marketing define health care.
For years now ... precisely to prune out the crazies.
OK, I've been trolled and memed by this in one day ... is this like the poop guy? The timecube guy?
Yarg, teh security or something.
Well, apparently now we have to appeal to the emotional side of women, while hiding out Star Wars posters, self castrating with a USB stick, and ensure that all metaphors involve fluffy bunnies and hair products.
Honestly, I've known a fair few women in tech ... none of them had to deal with this "no girls allowed crap", none of them hated Star Wars, or otherwise needed to be coddled due to their gender.
I don't know if this is a generational thing which happened recently, or if every attempt to lure women into tech needs to pander to them on such a silly level.
Hell, my wife works in tech -- but she came at it indirectly and worked her way up so she didn't start off as a geek. I can't imagine trying to "appeal to her emotions" to make her sad about her drone or her password. I might get hurt.
Mostly because she's not some fragile flower who needs to have her emotions pandered to.
I don't get it. But then, maybe I'm old and clueless and too set in my sexist ways to know how I'm not proactively generating an environment which appeals to the delicate and sensitive nature of women and ensuring that everything I do is warm and nurturing.
I've known a couple of guys with sensitive egos. And from what I've seen, women have nothing on a whiny nerd who has had his feelings hurt. Those guys just won't let it go.
Yes, well, and what was the accuracy rate of anonymous?
It's all well and good to say they've done something ... it's another to know how good of a job they've done at it.
If they shut down thousands of accounts, and 99% of them had nothing to do with ISIS, that's hardly some great success now is it?
Those "necessary distinctions" have yet to be validated as anything other than Anonymous saying they've done so.
The proof is in the proof, not in the press release.
Well, the reality is, many of them ignore it now.
Do Not Track has absolutely zero value, doesn't do anything, and is entirely voluntary if anybody obeys it.
Do Not Track is a big lie.
The only real solution is to actively block the tracking sites, instead of relying on the goodwill of greedy assholes to not track you.
There is no spoon, and none of these companies give a shit that you don't want to be tracked.
Stop pretending that Do Not Track has ever been anything except a misdirection to keep someone else from imposing regulations on them.
It never has worked, and it never will.
The reality is, they were trying to do FAR more than port apps:
They have no interest in making these things simply run, they want to replace the underlying APIs with Microsoft stuff so they can horn in on the revenue.
They wanted more than just native apps. They wanted to alter how those things worked so they'd get the money.
Which is essentially what I said: instead of trying to write something which re-maps all of the Android stuff to Windows to try to create a native app ... implement an Android runtime, or a layer like Mime which allows the Android calls to run without caring it's Windows underneath.
The problem is Microsoft was trying to map it to their own native calls and toolkits.
What I'm saying is unlikely to be achieved is something which automatically takes and piece of software and maps it to Microsoft's stuff as if it was a native app.
My bet is Microsoft was so invested in trying to make native apps they failed to make working apps, because they chose the solution with the highest complexity.
Possibly. But a lot of sites I only ever visit once because they showed up in a search. Their ads aren't my problem. If I have to sign up for a membership to see if I care, I definitely won't be back. So, New York Times is a site I'll never visit again. And under no circumstances will I enable ad sites I don't trust just for a site I'm mildly interested in.
See, not every site am I choosing to log in .. or use a shopping cart .. or participate in discussions. For those sites, I have no need for you to set cookies -- in fact, those sites have no reason whatsoever to know anything about me at all. And I sure as shit don't need your advertisers to set 3rd party cookies or load a web bug just because I visited your site -- something which they all seem to want to do. So shit like scorecard research will always be blocked.
Some sites that I like can set cookies, and run scripts (there's probably fewer than 20)... but only them and not 3rd parties. The rest, nope. Not even a little. They just get blocked from doing it.
I've encountered sites which immediately put up the instructions to enable cookies and javascript. Sorry, but I have no reason to care or trust you. Which means I'll block your site, click the back button, and write you off as a non-entity. That would cover several Australian news agencies who demand cookies and scripts. Oh, sorry, don't give a fuck, not my problem.
Don't know, don't care, don't use either. If I am required to use something for work, or ultimately choose that I wish to use it, I will whitelist. But I need a good reason. I don't look at every shiny bauble on the internet and decide that I give a damn,
But on first visit to your site, no way in hell you get to run scripts, or set cookies.
As I said, business models not my concern, my privacy is. Sites I choose to use get to do a limited set of things, nobody ever gets to run plugins or Flash, EVER. The rest, I simply don't feel the need to use.
Life is too short to give a crap about, or trust, the vast majority of the internet; it's an endless pile of pointless junk. When you remember that, it's a whole lot easier to be fairly ruthless in what you block.
Honestly now ... did anybody believe this could be achieved? I'm pretty sure lots of people looked at this and thought "yeah, right, never gonna happen".
This is why people have been maintaining cross-platform libraries to solve this problem -- because it's a huge and difficult problem.
Automagically converting apps from Android to use all the Windows stuff? That always sounded like a pipe dream. They'd be better off writing something like a reverse Mime to allow native Android apps to run on Windows.
I am not in the least shocked Microsoft isn't going to create the magic path to putting Android apps on Windows phones. And, honestly, I'm not sure the Android users ever expected to care about this, this was all about trying to lure people to Microsoft's platform.
As usual, Microsoft can only see the world through their own lens, and have yet to demonstrate they know what people are actually looking for.
This is not my problem. This has never been my problem. This never will be my problem.
If your revenue model depends on me allowing third party assholes to set cookies, track me, run scripts, install software, call out to 5 other sites ... then you have no hope in hell of me using your site.
So, you can put up a tip jar, you can charge membership, or you can starve and close your website.
These are problems with your business model. And if your business model relies on me being stupid enough to trust your advertisers ... then I'm afraid your business model is your damned problem.
Not letting the parasites, trackers, and other advertising assholes infest my computer is my problem. I assure you, I only care about my part of this equation.
So you are free to not give a shit if I stop using your site. You are free to block me from using your site if I don't let you set cookies or run javascript.
And I am free to block your advertisers, and eventually block you. But I don't owe you a damned thing, especially if it's at the expense of my privacy and security.
Prime example ... the link you provided embeds references to Facebook. My browser blocks all traffic to Facebook, because I do not consent to the assholes at Facebook tracking me everywhere I go. The same goes for the dozens of other ad companies I outright block.
The longer I am aware of the rules of grammar, and the more I realize I know more of them than a lot of people .. the more I realize they're largely meaningless.
Having known a lot of people who aren't native speakers of English, the more you try to explain the nuances of arcane rules which depend on a lot of exceptions, the less you can explain why it matters.
And some of the best jokes and puns I've ever heard came from people who were slightly abusing the grammar, but doing it form a perspective of doing what seemed sensible in context.
As you say, knowing the rules is good for providing a foundation to be understood. And then there's an infinite number of ways you can convey your message, and not all of them rely on strictly adhering to "rules" which sound like the explanation of Fizbin from Star Trek.
Breaking the rules is often a key to expressing yourself better.
I strongly suggest adding Request Policy, No Script, and Ghostery to that mix on Firefox. ABP covers some, but doesn't cover all of it. You still have scripts and 3rd party beacons and other crap you're not blocking and not even aware of.
If you need multiple browsers, with Chrome I reccomend: Script Safe, Ghostery, HTTP Switchboard, and Disconnect. Some of these are also available for Opera.
The sheer amount of crap in the average web page isn't something you can even see until you are actively blocking it. And then it's alarming just how much junk there is.
Too fucking bad for you.
If you think my privacy and security is a fair price so you can have free stuff ... you're the asshole in this scenario.
Sites are free to take measures to block me because I use an ad blocker. In fact, a few do and I just permanently block them. Same for the ones which won't let me in without javascript. No big loss to me.
But if you think the rest of the world should give up privacy and security so you can have free web sites, you're a moron.
Well, Do Not Track doesn't actually do anything.
If anything, it just gives one more piece of information for sites to collect ... that you are stupid enough to believe DNT has any impact on you being tracked.
DNT is a voluntary program, mostly ignored, and which has no authority behind it. It was an attempt to short circuit someone imposing regulations on them.
I don't use DNT, because it serves no purpose. I just use privacy extensions to block traffic to them in the first place.
Turn it on, turn it off ... not a damned thing happens any differently when you surf the web. DNT is a complete joke, and an utter failure -- it is there to give you the illusion you can click a checkbox and not get tracked.
That, unfortunately is at best delusional. Because that's not what really happens.
Well, if they server their own ads, fine ... but if it's the same list of companies I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw their CEO off a cliff, then there is no way in hell.
As soon as you start adding the oily bastards and tracking companies into the mix, no matter for what website, it defeats the purpose entirely of blocking them.
So, while you might think Spanky's House of Leather is a deserving site, if they pull in a dozen or so tracking companies that you would otherwise block ... what the hell is the point of enabling ads for them?
It's the 3rd parties we can't trust. Temporarily pretending we can trust them because we like the site they're on is a terrible idea.
Let companies get back to serving their own ads, from their own servers, using their own bandwidth and maybe we won't block them. But I won't pretend like I trust any of these ad companies for that one site. Not now not ever. Because to do that you have to let the very sites you know you don't trust run.
The problem is these ad companies and tracking sites are everywhere. Which means you pretty much should trust them nowhere.
The whole mess can't be trusted. And that's the problem.
What do you care about what the people who want to show you ads think about your decision to block them?
Flash is a security hole, because Flash has always been a security hole, and it always will be a security hole -- I don't even have it enabled in any browser I control. Letting 10-20 external entities on a web site track you on every page is stupid (there's 10 on Slashdot as I type this, all of which I block). Letting any random website run javascript is also stupid, because you have no idea if you can trust them and all their partners.
If a website wants to serve its own ads, I probably won't go to great lengths to block them.
But double click, and score card research, and the literally dozens and dozens of other entities embedded into so many webpages ... those are entities I don't trust, don't have a voluntary relationship with, and do not benefit from being spied on.
Those I ruthlessly block with privacy extensions, or adding exclusions directly to my browser. Because it's all crap which wants to violate my privacy. Same goes for Facebook and Twitter -- sorry your business model says you want to track me on every site I go to. But I don't care.
So, boo hoo, say the site owners ... too bad say I. If your revenue involves selling my privacy for your gain, then I will not participate in your revenue. If you get to the point of outright stopping me, then I'll just block your entire site and not come back.
The fact of the matter is, we simply cannot trust the ad companies to vet the ads, or give a damn about our privacy and security. Which means we need to treat the ad companies as hostile entities and block the shit out of them.
The longer I run several privacy addons in all my browsers, the more I see on a daily basis how some sites can have 20+ external call-outs, none of which actually add any value to me. Which means I don't give a crap about them.
In fact, I will do everything I can to block them completely.
Bah, turn on Flash and IE and it'll be 2 minutes and glowing white. ;-)
So, somewhere someone at AMD is going "fuck it, we're going to 128 cores".
Damn ... that's a crap pile of cores ... that's like, Skynet in a box or something.
The mind reels.
Well, part of the problem is the economy has been changing.
Employment trends have been losing full-time jobs, and people have been moving to more and more part time jobs.
Because companies are downsizing and offshoring, and generally not hiring people with skills any more.
Essentially since 2008, economies have been cannibalizing themselves, and more and more jobs are getting crappier and crappier.
So, ask yourself why those people are working as baristas ... the answer is MBAs and CEOs have been carving the jobs out of the economy to turn it into "shareholder value" and "cost savings".
This has nothing to do with university acceptance policies, and everything to do with globalization gutting jobs and leaving very little skilled work domestically. Because we've been following the idiotic policies of cutting corporate taxes in the hopes they'll create jobs, and not tying to cuts to actually driving the economy instead of gutting it.
And the jobs which do exist are being driven down in value to 'temporary foreign workers'. We've given corporations everything they want, and in return they've fucked all of us.
Welcome to the New Fucking World Order, bitches. It's all downhill from here.
Please, you seem to be insinuating some organized campaign on behalf of Slashdot.
I'm sorry, but Slashdot posts articles written by other companies. I'm sure if this appears cyclically it's because the rest of the media covers it cyclically.
Suggesting a coherent editorial policy? Not buying it.
Is there some reason you don't redline your car before you pull away from a stop light?
Having pilots who don't know how to do anything other that "rev it up to full speed and let 'er rip" sounds like a terrible idea to me.
Both for maximizing fuel and not abusing the engines, doing it based on real numbers makes more sense than the equivalent of flooring it.
Sadly, as written, the DMCA relives them from any burden of proof.
Merely that they "believed" something. Even though it's supposed to be perjury to make a false claim, all they have to do is say "oops".
What they want to be able to do is say anybody using a specific protocol must be infringing, that way they can skip the pesky step of having facts and evidence.
Polygraph operators can't detect that the magic devices they claim work are nothing but voodoo.
The stunning lack of science and empirical evidence for a lie detector "fails to offer any coherent strategy" for this being real in any meaningful sense of the word.
There's a reason it's not admissible in court.
And what they're trying to do is suggesting their useless tool is an utterly useless tool is evidence that you are being deceptive. So, it's saying "I think your lie detector is crap" is being equated with being dishonest.
Tell you what, prove the fucking thing works first. What's that? You can't?
Then piss off and stop blaming your own incompetence and reliance on bogus technology on the rest of us.
Basically this is a tool, which doesn't work as advertised, which is used to bully people into giving the answer you have decided they should be giving. It in no way has anything at all to do with detecting the truth, and never has.
More importantly, it's not the DMV's place to determine if it's sincerely held, real, or not otherwise silly.
It's none of their damned business.
The point is, some religions have some built-in absurdity. And my absurdity is as valid as your absurdity, and as soon as the state tries to determine whose religion is OK and whose isn't ... then suddenly the state is in the business of vetting religions.
So, if one religion wants to teach that the world is 6000 years old, was created in 7 days, and that evolution didn't happen despite evidence to the contrary ... and they want that taught in school ... then pretty much any stupid shit anybody makes up is fair game to be "religion".
The FSM is as unassailable and irrefutable as the claims by any other religion.
Are you suggesting that if any preacher were to go against what he teaches his religion should be investigated and they be charged with fraud? Or are you suggesting that some religions get to have more leeway with being bullshit just because its followers say so?