1) The regulators are lazy/incompetent and haven't bothered. 2) The lobbyists for the medical devices industry have asked for it to keep profits higher.
But that there is little or no security in these things should be far more widely reported than it apparently is. Consumer electronics have really bad security; medical devices can't even be said to have security in a lot of cases.
Given what I've heard about the security and frequency of malware on hospital networks, I'm actually surprised there isn't more deaths attributed to the useless security on these things.
only if there is personal pain for the c-levels would anything like this change.
Pretty much this.
None of this tiny little fine and a bullshit promise to not do it again.
The knowledge that if this crap happens on their watch, the executives will be the ones they go after. Because as long as they don't do anything of consequence, there's no incentive for executives to stop doing crap like this. And if that fine is less than they could have sold the data for, they'll just keep doing it.
When corporate greed and stuff like this is just going to lead to a meaningless fine, they'll just keep doing it.
If the c-level executives knew it would be their asses on the line for crap like this, we might finally see some change.
It is unclear whether the browser adheres to a privacy policy
LOL, WTF??? So, malware which rips out your browser, puts itself in its place, and then serves you ads and whatever the hell else it does... and they're asking if it adheres to a damned privacy policy?
Anything which installs itself like that can safely be assumed to not give a flying crap about your damned privacy.
Why the hell they even ponder if something like this follows a privacy policy? It's malware. No, it isn't going to have a privacy policy.
So, if it's us who can get ripped off, they'll do nothing to fix this. If it's them who can get ripped off, they'll try to get lawmakers to outlaw that so they don't have to do anything to fix it.
Should we continue to expect telcos to be inept and indifferent to this, and not give a crap if their customers are getting ripped off?
I think the more likely answer it pretty much anything facing the internet should probably expect to be under fairly constant attack, from lots of different sources, none of which knows what you are.
Years ago it was true that if you took a brand new Windows machine, put it on the internet, it would probably be hacked within 30 minutes. I very much doubt that has changed for the better.
I suspect a lot of this stuff is just purely automated at this point.
The internet isn't really a safe place. You should pretty much assume that someone on the internet is actively trying to hack into machines. In fact, you should probably assume a lot of someones are.
I suspect they don't know or care the function of your machine. It's just a blanket "attack everything and see what happens".
Sorry, but Facebook is an entity who I fully believe will lie to you if it means they can get more information about you.
ZOMG, teh nation states are the hax0rs, give us your cell phone number, three additional email accounts and their passwords, your credit card number, and the names of your parents.
I believe this will be purely FUD and other bullshit, which will somehow benefit Facebook.
So in my lifetime America has gone from "give me liberty or give me death" to a bunch of scared sheep repeating "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear"?
Essentially your liberty and freedom have been traded away to allow your government to watch everything you do as long as they pretend to be keeping you safe?
In 30 years we've gone from Americans making "papers please, comrade" jokes to fully embracing being constantly monitored for their own protection.
That's pretty damned pathetic.
Land of the free, home of the brave... not so much.
Which is about as insightful as saying "people shouldn't commit crimes". It's utterly meaningless, because it ignores the fact that it happens despite your trite statement.
I can give you a huge list of one line Hallmark throwaway statements like "be nice to one another".
They, too, are utterly useless in the real world.
The reality is, people gamble. And in anything where there are winners and losers, someone will always be willing to cheat.
What's most shocking here is that people are acting like this comes as any form of surprise. Because, really, it was kind of inevitable.
It really is simple: if there is money changing hands, or prestige, or pretty much anything else... then it will be worth it for someone to cheat, take a dive, or otherwise engage in fixing the outcome.
It happens in pretty much any endeavor in which people are betting, getting paid, or pretty much anything else which is a reward.
Why the heck would anybody think video games would be any different?
This is pretty much basic human nature. Getting all breathless that it happens in a video game seems kind of stupid. It has happened in every other endeavor, why the hell not this?
You don't go all weepy after you discover it, you start off and say "I bet some crooked bastard cheats". You pass rules about it. You check it. You monitor it.
But you don't suddenly go "zomg, teh cheaterz" and act like nobody saw it coming. Someone somewhere will always find a way to cheat if there is something to be had out of it.
And finally, ** 10 billion dollars ** for a startup
Which is in grossly overvalued like most other damned startups.
It's utterly shocking how often a company with no actual revenues is suddenly valued for billions of dollars.
Honestly, either the people giving these valuations are either grossly incompetent to make them, or know damned well they're part of the ponzi scheme. It's billions and billions of monopoly money, pulled out of their asses, and sold off to unsuspecting customers.
At this point I assume the entire IPO of startups is one of the best run scams ever conceived of. That the people doing these things don't know they're grossly overvalued seems impossible to me.
I would say there's a lot of companies whose 'value' comprises billions and billions of dollars of make-pretend value which has been arrived at through lies, hype, and marketing; and definitely isn't based on any meaningful "finances".
I have never, not once, let somebody's opinion decide if I'm going to not watch a movie
Sometimes it's a good idea.
Sometimes a movie comes along, and you think "if they did this well, it will be great, but if they don't do it it will be complete dreck". And it takes a couple of reviews to figure out which it is. Sometimes the review confirms your fear that, yes, it really is a terrible movie.
Then again, I don't watch a whole lot of movies though I'll probably be suckered into attending one this evening because, you know, female. This one seem particularly fond of movies. Heh... I really need to do an Ask Slashdot. She's about 1/3 my age so I've not yet had sex with her - I've actually said I'd like to wait to get to know one another better and we need to have a huge conversation before that happens, anyhow
???? LOL, either this is the best troll ever, or a desperate cry for help. So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Don't be a predatory douche, but don't assume that being a gentleman won't eventually wear thin and you'll lose your chance. It doesn't need to lead to marriage, but it doesn't need to be a creepy old guy with a younger woman.
She may not be interested in an old fashioned guy, and she may not be laboring under any illusions.
As long as she's of legal age, of sound mind, and not a total innocent -- assume she's an adult and capable of making her own choices. She's probably already made similar choices with people with less honest intentions. And she probably knows this.
The conversation doesn't need to be that huge, because she may not see a shag as that big of a deal.
Sometimes, or so I'm told, a normal guy who is stable and has made good life choices is all it takes. I can't say what you are in the equation, but the fact that you seem to care suggests you are.
If she's down with it, and not being coerced or manipulated into it... at a certain point you have to realize that it's not about you and your hangups.
If the difference is being hit on by some creepy guy her own age who can't afford to buy her dinner, and someone with a little less hair who can buy her dinner... she may know exactly what she wants.
These may be entirely your hangups, and not hers. You obviously want to be a mensch here, but maybe she doesn't need you to be a monk.
How do you propose to solve that problem? It's akin to a server not wanting to accept a connection from anyone that would hack it, but that's not something that can be known with 100% accuracy.
Hold sites and ad networks accountable for the shit they serve. If they're serving malware, penalize them.
You'd have to employ someone to look at any of the content they intend to serve
Yes, exactly.
That's already more work than anyone is willing to put up with just to serve some ads, so no one will bother doing it.
Then we have no choice but to conclude they're a bunch of greedy, self-serving bastards who don't give a damn about our security, privcy, or the perception they're part of the problem.
Which is what we've done, and why we run ad-blockers.
Are you suggesting we should be giving the benefit of the doubt or saying they didn't meant to do it and it isn't their fault if sleazy players delivered malware? Why the hell would we do that?
Sorry, I'm sticking with the conclusion I've already made: I simply refuse to trust the integrity or security of an ad network, and I owe them no obligation to do otherwise, and I don't give a crap about their business model or revenue stream.
If the ad companies won't take responsibility, then they cannot be trusted even a little. And that becomes their own damned problem.
I know if Slashdot started charging for access, we'd start talking about "paywalls" and go somewhere else
Well, here's the other problem with that: we're the product.
See, Slashdot doesn't author any new content. Their value, whether they realize it or not, is in the people who comment.
Slashdot without the comments is a rather pathetic news aggregator. It certainly wouldn't generate nearly as much money as a pay-walled site which just links to other sites. Because nobody would give a damn.
Sites whose primary selling feature is an abundance of crowd-sourced/user contributed data who suddenly think the value is intrinsically independent of those users can get a nasty shock when they start to demand money for the privilege of participating. Experts exchange, being a prime example.
So, Slashdot can sell ads. People may or may not block them. They can also sell subscriptions so we can see "articles in the future" and whatever else that gets you. But, really, the value in a site like Slashdot is its users -- even the crazy ones like the "you're all cows" guy.
But the front-page of Slashdot with no comments and discussions merely linking to other web sites and the odd puff piece from Bennet Haselton or the articles Nerval's Lobster shills for Dice? Yeah, good luck making a business model out of that.
Charging to get links to other people's content? Not so good as a business model if you ask me.
Presumably because people want evidence what they're paying for works. They want to know so many people saw it, so many people clicked on it, and some percentage actually bought it.
Digital advertising pretends like it is their "right" to know these things, and to track all the places you go so they can better know what to sell you.
The rest of us have decided "no, really, fuck you, where I go and what I do isn't your damned business". Which means we'll block the hell out of these analytics companies as much as possible, because we don't agree with the premise that we've consented to be part of their business model.
So, if a website serves ads, which don't run scripts, and which are served up with their own bandwidth? I might not take extraordinary steps to block them. Start pulling in god knows what from a dozen other sites who all want to set cookies, run scripts, and track me everywhere I go? I'll block that crap all day long.
If your business model is predicated on my participation, you should not be surprised that my participation is neither mandatory, nor beneficial to me.
The problem is the ad companies feel entitled to this information. People are now starting to tell them that's not true.
There's at least 10 external sites on Slashdot. The business model of none of these companies concerns me. The children of the employees of Scorecard Research can starve alone in the streets for all I care; it's not my problem to supply Scorecard Research with any information or be the basis for their revenue stream.
To the people they advertise to, these companies are nothing but parasites on the internet. And that's their damned problem.
a report (PDF) released in August forecasted that U.S. websites will lose US$21.8 billion in ad revenue this year due to ad blockers
Not making the ridiculously over-inflated revenue you feel entitled to, and which is based on bullshit assumptions is not "losing revenue".
Acting like you deserved or earned that money in any way shape or form is your damned problem. Having reality bit you in the ass is also your damned problem.
Sorry, but pulling a number out of your ass and saying you feel entitled to $21 billion dollars has nothing at all to do with reality. Get a real business model and earn your money, don't just decree that you being a parasite embedded on a web page entitles you to a damned thing.
Digital advertising became the foundation of an economic engine that, still now, sustains the free and democratic World Wide Web.
No, no it didn't. A bunch of sleazy assholes selling ads is nothing of the sort.
At the end of the day, a review is a professional opinion.
There are tons of movies the critics loved, but the public hated. Likewise, there's a bunch the critics hated, but the public loved. Then you get movies like Gigli, which everybody hated, and which IMBD says i the 50th worst movie of all time.
You take your tastes, combine it with the reviews of critics and any other sources, and decide if you want to see it or not. Then you figure out how you really thought about it.
Critical review often has nothing to do with box office success.
Know what's astounding? People need to be told this.
And that is why those people calling from "the Microsoft" or all of those other scams are still doing it. Because people apparently lack the ability to know this.
Ratings: 9.0/10 from 1,515,627 users Metascore: 82/100 Reviews: 4,406 user | 636 critic | 39 from Metacritic.com
When 1.5 million people say they liked it, the rating is saying "lots of people liked this film"
Now, contrast that with Shawshank Redemption, which is currently rated #1 on IMDB:
Ratings: 9.3/10 from 1,539,960 users Metascore: 80/100 Reviews: 3,773 user | 192 critic | 19 from Metacritic.com
At least they tell you how they got there.
Like Dark Knight or not, it was a wildly popular movie, which brought a very well known graphic novel to the screen. It also got Heath Ledger an Oscar, if you place any value on that.
If you expect such ratings to 100% match your own opinion, you have an over inflated sense of self importance.;-)
You mean people on the intertubes selling us stuff might not be honest about the reviews of the stuff they're selling us?
IMDB, sure, I mostly trust them. Because a LOT of people review things on IMDB. Rotten tomatoes is an aggregator which includes a lot of sources. I mostly trust them to be independent and coming from real sources.
But, really, ANY review site directly owned by a company trying to sell you stuff should probably a) be required to state their affiliation, and b) assumed to be engaging in a little corporate driven puffery.
From the sounds of it, fandango (which I am admittedly not familiar with) is either more likely to give good reviews, or is deliberately skewing to better reviews to sell product.
Are they uniformly rating all movies better (in which case they're just generally bad at reviews or too easily pleased), or if movies from specific studios get pushed up (in which case it's probably getting into a grey area).
The problem with content on the internet is knowing who paid for it, and what other affiliations they have.
Don't most video game sites also just give overly good reviews, often based on a product they've barely seen or have been prohibited from giving bad reviews?
Oh, no. They'll put the sharks into their space mobility encounter suits.
Earth will be kept safe by circling space-laser sharks. That is, until they decide to take over. Or just move into the oceans of Europa -- because now they'll be able to drill through the ice.
I for one welcome our new space-faring, laser-equipped shark overlords.
Slashdot Mirror
I figure there's two possible reasons for this:
1) The regulators are lazy/incompetent and haven't bothered.
2) The lobbyists for the medical devices industry have asked for it to keep profits higher.
But that there is little or no security in these things should be far more widely reported than it apparently is. Consumer electronics have really bad security; medical devices can't even be said to have security in a lot of cases.
Given what I've heard about the security and frequency of malware on hospital networks, I'm actually surprised there isn't more deaths attributed to the useless security on these things.
Pretty much this.
None of this tiny little fine and a bullshit promise to not do it again.
The knowledge that if this crap happens on their watch, the executives will be the ones they go after. Because as long as they don't do anything of consequence, there's no incentive for executives to stop doing crap like this. And if that fine is less than they could have sold the data for, they'll just keep doing it.
When corporate greed and stuff like this is just going to lead to a meaningless fine, they'll just keep doing it.
If the c-level executives knew it would be their asses on the line for crap like this, we might finally see some change.
LOL, WTF??? So, malware which rips out your browser, puts itself in its place, and then serves you ads and whatever the hell else it does ... and they're asking if it adheres to a damned privacy policy?
Anything which installs itself like that can safely be assumed to not give a flying crap about your damned privacy.
Why the hell they even ponder if something like this follows a privacy policy? It's malware. No, it isn't going to have a privacy policy.
So, if it's us who can get ripped off, they'll do nothing to fix this. If it's them who can get ripped off, they'll try to get lawmakers to outlaw that so they don't have to do anything to fix it.
Should we continue to expect telcos to be inept and indifferent to this, and not give a crap if their customers are getting ripped off?
Well, if they promised, then it should have stopped by now, right?
I mean, after all, they promised, and everybody knows that's binding.
Or, alternatively, the shit nations tell one another is pretty much meaningless lip service, and China doesn't give a crap what anybody else things.
I think the more likely answer it pretty much anything facing the internet should probably expect to be under fairly constant attack, from lots of different sources, none of which knows what you are.
Years ago it was true that if you took a brand new Windows machine, put it on the internet, it would probably be hacked within 30 minutes. I very much doubt that has changed for the better.
I suspect a lot of this stuff is just purely automated at this point.
The internet isn't really a safe place. You should pretty much assume that someone on the internet is actively trying to hack into machines. In fact, you should probably assume a lot of someones are.
I suspect they don't know or care the function of your machine. It's just a blanket "attack everything and see what happens".
Sorry, but Facebook is an entity who I fully believe will lie to you if it means they can get more information about you.
ZOMG, teh nation states are the hax0rs, give us your cell phone number, three additional email accounts and their passwords, your credit card number, and the names of your parents.
I believe this will be purely FUD and other bullshit, which will somehow benefit Facebook.
So in my lifetime America has gone from "give me liberty or give me death" to a bunch of scared sheep repeating "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear"?
Essentially your liberty and freedom have been traded away to allow your government to watch everything you do as long as they pretend to be keeping you safe?
In 30 years we've gone from Americans making "papers please, comrade" jokes to fully embracing being constantly monitored for their own protection.
That's pretty damned pathetic.
Land of the free, home of the brave ... not so much.
Which is about as insightful as saying "people shouldn't commit crimes". It's utterly meaningless, because it ignores the fact that it happens despite your trite statement.
I can give you a huge list of one line Hallmark throwaway statements like "be nice to one another".
They, too, are utterly useless in the real world.
The reality is, people gamble. And in anything where there are winners and losers, someone will always be willing to cheat.
What's most shocking here is that people are acting like this comes as any form of surprise. Because, really, it was kind of inevitable.
It really is simple: if there is money changing hands, or prestige, or pretty much anything else ... then it will be worth it for someone to cheat, take a dive, or otherwise engage in fixing the outcome.
It happens in pretty much any endeavor in which people are betting, getting paid, or pretty much anything else which is a reward.
Why the heck would anybody think video games would be any different?
This is pretty much basic human nature. Getting all breathless that it happens in a video game seems kind of stupid. It has happened in every other endeavor, why the hell not this?
You don't go all weepy after you discover it, you start off and say "I bet some crooked bastard cheats". You pass rules about it. You check it. You monitor it.
But you don't suddenly go "zomg, teh cheaterz" and act like nobody saw it coming. Someone somewhere will always find a way to cheat if there is something to be had out of it.
Which is in grossly overvalued like most other damned startups.
It's utterly shocking how often a company with no actual revenues is suddenly valued for billions of dollars.
Honestly, either the people giving these valuations are either grossly incompetent to make them, or know damned well they're part of the ponzi scheme. It's billions and billions of monopoly money, pulled out of their asses, and sold off to unsuspecting customers.
At this point I assume the entire IPO of startups is one of the best run scams ever conceived of. That the people doing these things don't know they're grossly overvalued seems impossible to me.
I would say there's a lot of companies whose 'value' comprises billions and billions of dollars of make-pretend value which has been arrived at through lies, hype, and marketing; and definitely isn't based on any meaningful "finances".
Dogsleds aren't used in the Antarctic, just the Arctic. Likewise, no penguins in the Arctic. The Antarctic is pretty barren and inhospitable.
But, yes, never underestimate the bandwidth of a snowmobile-towed sledge works just fine here.
Sometimes it's a good idea.
Sometimes a movie comes along, and you think "if they did this well, it will be great, but if they don't do it it will be complete dreck". And it takes a couple of reviews to figure out which it is. Sometimes the review confirms your fear that, yes, it really is a terrible movie.
???? LOL, either this is the best troll ever, or a desperate cry for help. So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Don't be a predatory douche, but don't assume that being a gentleman won't eventually wear thin and you'll lose your chance. It doesn't need to lead to marriage, but it doesn't need to be a creepy old guy with a younger woman.
She may not be interested in an old fashioned guy, and she may not be laboring under any illusions.
As long as she's of legal age, of sound mind, and not a total innocent -- assume she's an adult and capable of making her own choices. She's probably already made similar choices with people with less honest intentions. And she probably knows this.
The conversation doesn't need to be that huge, because she may not see a shag as that big of a deal.
Sometimes, or so I'm told, a normal guy who is stable and has made good life choices is all it takes. I can't say what you are in the equation, but the fact that you seem to care suggests you are.
If she's down with it, and not being coerced or manipulated into it ... at a certain point you have to realize that it's not about you and your hangups.
If the difference is being hit on by some creepy guy her own age who can't afford to buy her dinner, and someone with a little less hair who can buy her dinner ... she may know exactly what she wants.
These may be entirely your hangups, and not hers. You obviously want to be a mensch here, but maybe she doesn't need you to be a monk.
Shouldn't that rhyme or something?
Now, if only we could think of something which rhymes with "block" ... Once I go block, they can ....
Damn, I was never good at poetry, can anybody finish that for me?? ;-)
Hold sites and ad networks accountable for the shit they serve. If they're serving malware, penalize them.
Yes, exactly.
Then we have no choice but to conclude they're a bunch of greedy, self-serving bastards who don't give a damn about our security, privcy, or the perception they're part of the problem.
Which is what we've done, and why we run ad-blockers.
Are you suggesting we should be giving the benefit of the doubt or saying they didn't meant to do it and it isn't their fault if sleazy players delivered malware? Why the hell would we do that?
Sorry, I'm sticking with the conclusion I've already made: I simply refuse to trust the integrity or security of an ad network, and I owe them no obligation to do otherwise, and I don't give a crap about their business model or revenue stream.
If the ad companies won't take responsibility, then they cannot be trusted even a little. And that becomes their own damned problem.
Well, here's the other problem with that: we're the product.
See, Slashdot doesn't author any new content. Their value, whether they realize it or not, is in the people who comment.
Slashdot without the comments is a rather pathetic news aggregator. It certainly wouldn't generate nearly as much money as a pay-walled site which just links to other sites. Because nobody would give a damn.
Sites whose primary selling feature is an abundance of crowd-sourced/user contributed data who suddenly think the value is intrinsically independent of those users can get a nasty shock when they start to demand money for the privilege of participating. Experts exchange, being a prime example.
So, Slashdot can sell ads. People may or may not block them. They can also sell subscriptions so we can see "articles in the future" and whatever else that gets you. But, really, the value in a site like Slashdot is its users -- even the crazy ones like the "you're all cows" guy.
But the front-page of Slashdot with no comments and discussions merely linking to other web sites and the odd puff piece from Bennet Haselton or the articles Nerval's Lobster shills for Dice? Yeah, good luck making a business model out of that.
Charging to get links to other people's content? Not so good as a business model if you ask me.
Presumably because people want evidence what they're paying for works. They want to know so many people saw it, so many people clicked on it, and some percentage actually bought it.
Digital advertising pretends like it is their "right" to know these things, and to track all the places you go so they can better know what to sell you.
The rest of us have decided "no, really, fuck you, where I go and what I do isn't your damned business". Which means we'll block the hell out of these analytics companies as much as possible, because we don't agree with the premise that we've consented to be part of their business model.
So, if a website serves ads, which don't run scripts, and which are served up with their own bandwidth? I might not take extraordinary steps to block them. Start pulling in god knows what from a dozen other sites who all want to set cookies, run scripts, and track me everywhere I go? I'll block that crap all day long.
If your business model is predicated on my participation, you should not be surprised that my participation is neither mandatory, nor beneficial to me.
The problem is the ad companies feel entitled to this information. People are now starting to tell them that's not true.
There's at least 10 external sites on Slashdot. The business model of none of these companies concerns me. The children of the employees of Scorecard Research can starve alone in the streets for all I care; it's not my problem to supply Scorecard Research with any information or be the basis for their revenue stream.
To the people they advertise to, these companies are nothing but parasites on the internet. And that's their damned problem.
Not making the ridiculously over-inflated revenue you feel entitled to, and which is based on bullshit assumptions is not "losing revenue".
Acting like you deserved or earned that money in any way shape or form is your damned problem. Having reality bit you in the ass is also your damned problem.
Sorry, but pulling a number out of your ass and saying you feel entitled to $21 billion dollars has nothing at all to do with reality. Get a real business model and earn your money, don't just decree that you being a parasite embedded on a web page entitles you to a damned thing.
No, no it didn't. A bunch of sleazy assholes selling ads is nothing of the sort.
Yeah, absolutely, I just bought my first internets today at the corner store.
At the end of the day, a review is a professional opinion.
There are tons of movies the critics loved, but the public hated. Likewise, there's a bunch the critics hated, but the public loved. Then you get movies like Gigli, which everybody hated, and which IMBD says i the 50th worst movie of all time.
You take your tastes, combine it with the reviews of critics and any other sources, and decide if you want to see it or not. Then you figure out how you really thought about it.
Critical review often has nothing to do with box office success.
Know what's astounding? People need to be told this.
And that is why those people calling from "the Microsoft" or all of those other scams are still doing it. Because people apparently lack the ability to know this.
Well, look closely at that:
When 1.5 million people say they liked it, the rating is saying "lots of people liked this film"
Now, contrast that with Shawshank Redemption, which is currently rated #1 on IMDB:
At least they tell you how they got there.
Like Dark Knight or not, it was a wildly popular movie, which brought a very well known graphic novel to the screen. It also got Heath Ledger an Oscar, if you place any value on that.
If you expect such ratings to 100% match your own opinion, you have an over inflated sense of self importance. ;-)
Well, in part you need to remember these reviews are done by the entire movie-going public, and not just nerds.
So, it is entirely possible that you disagree with the movie-going public. But I don't think that means the reviews aren't honest.
I'm pretty sure TFA even says that both Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB consistently come out pretty close to one another.
I trust both Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB, because I've actually seen movies which are terribly reviewed, and which should have been.
But assessing your opinion of the Trek reboots vs the general opinion of them isn't really the point.
You mean people on the intertubes selling us stuff might not be honest about the reviews of the stuff they're selling us?
IMDB, sure, I mostly trust them. Because a LOT of people review things on IMDB. Rotten tomatoes is an aggregator which includes a lot of sources. I mostly trust them to be independent and coming from real sources.
But, really, ANY review site directly owned by a company trying to sell you stuff should probably a) be required to state their affiliation, and b) assumed to be engaging in a little corporate driven puffery.
From the sounds of it, fandango (which I am admittedly not familiar with) is either more likely to give good reviews, or is deliberately skewing to better reviews to sell product.
Are they uniformly rating all movies better (in which case they're just generally bad at reviews or too easily pleased), or if movies from specific studios get pushed up (in which case it's probably getting into a grey area).
The problem with content on the internet is knowing who paid for it, and what other affiliations they have.
Don't most video game sites also just give overly good reviews, often based on a product they've barely seen or have been prohibited from giving bad reviews?
Oh, no. They'll put the sharks into their space mobility encounter suits.
Earth will be kept safe by circling space-laser sharks. That is, until they decide to take over. Or just move into the oceans of Europa -- because now they'll be able to drill through the ice.
I for one welcome our new space-faring, laser-equipped shark overlords.