No, I'm saying that in the physical world if I walked into a store and some marketing asshole physically tried to attach a tracking tag to me I'd beat him senseless, same if he physically shoved an ad in my face. Just like most people would.
And as a follow on, I'm saying "why the hell should we accept this on the internet if we don't accept it in real life?"
It's an intentionally absurd example, because in the real world, nobody from marketing would ever think it is their right to slap a tracking tag on you. But somehow, on the internet, a dozen web sites all want to set cookies, or run scripts as soon as you enter -- and think it is their right to do it because their business model calls for it.
In the real world they know damned well they'd never be allowed to affix tracking tags to humans.
On the internet, the marketers have no such issue, and do things which if they did in the real world, would get them either criminally charged or physically assaulted.
So, I prevent them from setting cookies and tracking me the exact same way I do in the real world. So when a store asks for my phone number, they get told to piss off.
When an ad company asks to set a cookie or run a script, they also get told to piss off.
I have zero desire for violent conflict. But I consider ad companies harvesting my data and injecting themselves into my life to be as annoying as if they tried the same thing in meatspace.
So, I walk on by and give them a talk to the hand. But if the guy in the kiosk trying to get me to sign up for a credit card follows me and won't stop... well, then we're going to have a different outcome. Only in real life, the marketing people don't do that.
I got tired of seeing the password prompt, and there are other web sites which cross link to them... since I have no intention of signing up for them or allowing them to set cookies, I've just blocked them.
This way I know to press the back button faster.
I don't "oppose" paywalls, in that it's their right to do it. But I don't give a damn enough to try to read their content either.
NYT is now a non-entity for me. I'm sure they're utterly heart-broken.
I believe you've just demonstrated the point.... the ability for random people to review other people without their consent is going to lead to libel and slander.
You can't just say "well, someone reviewed you, tough".
This is going to lead to lawsuits and all sorts of crap. What an idiotic thing to be building. I just don't see this being anything other than a series of bad outcomes, all because someone thinks they have a business model.
Trusting the founder of an app who stands to make money from it telling us this will be used responsibly is like having an oil company tell us there will be no spills.. you simply can't trust them to be doing anything other than serving their own interests.
"positivity app for positive people" is a nice slogan, but it's competely bullshit.
Well, in the mean time, people will be able to have satellite internet now... as opposed to waiting 15-20 years in the hope that someone eventually strings cable to them.
I have an aunt and uncle here in North America.. they're on an old fashioned party line and can't get cable... because they're about 3km past the end of the cabling, and would have to spend HUGE amounts of money to get it ran as far as them. Like pay thousands of dollars for every few hundred feet since the companies don't see it as worth their time.
I know people who can't get internet, but instead rely on a cellular router to be their internet. Again, if they want anything over a wire they have to pay thousands of dollars.
Sometimes, the cost to string cable and all that entails, or the sheer number of years likely to wasted until it happens means that "stop gap" means you can actually see a solution, instead of hoping in 15-20 years you have a solution... which in 15-20 years might still be 15-20 away.
A lot of this stuff never actually seems to happen. So, then it's not a stop-gap, it's the only damned way it will get done.
I'm betting in 15-20 years, a lot of people would still find they're no closer to having it.
Do you thing either the OEMs or the carriers are going to stop doing this?
Brand differentiation, monetization, vendor lock in... all of these things say these companies have no interest in selling a vanilla version of Android. What's in it for them? Samsung has their own store, their own apps and ecosystem, and want people locked into Samsung.
I agree with the sentiment, but if you think it'll happen you're kidding yourself.
Well... you could picket naked outside of their offices... you could post a stern comment on Slashdot... you could send a stern letter to their customer service... or you could simply not buy them.
Except the first one, which might get you some media coverage, the remainder will all have the exact same result... nobody will give a crap.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. But one lone consumer saying they won't buy the product? Sorry, but the net result of that is precisely nil... corporations don't care about one individual, and unless a very large amount of customers do something very vocal, nothing at all will happen.
And those "market solutions" everybody talks about? They don't happen either, because consumers fail to care, or nobody builds the competing version and sells it in order for people to choose it.
So, your only real solution? Buy a Nexus device. Those are the ones which always get updates. Pretty much every proprietary version will get support until the manufacturer moves on to the next model.
Well, either the people who did this are complete morons.. or they've worked out their business model and decided it is viable.
I mean, who is going to string thousands of kilometers of fiber through the outback?
Me, I'm thinking by the time you build and launch the satellites you've give it some thought, and that random comments on the internet aside, have probably concluded it is worth it... by whatever metrics you use to make that decision.
700 ms latency, though. You'll want to have pre-caching turned on in your browser, and don't ever expect to play games outside of simple, single-player Flash based games.
Maybe they plan on using it for more important things than games?
So, a google search for "Australia remotest town" comes up with Telfer, which sounds like it's so far past the arse end of nowhere as to be unimaginable to most of us.
When everything is hours away (if not days), 700ms latency is probably quite a step up.
Sure it is... but I'm sure there's some sufficiently remote places in Australia who would never get it otherwise. I mean, aren't some of these ranches (or whatever they're called) literally thousands of square miles?
Nobody is going to run a cable past your house when your 'driveway' takes hours to drive down, and your nearest neighbor is a few hours away.
So, if your choice is "no internet at all", or "expensive satellite coverage... which are you going to take?
The rules are different when you're so far in the middle of nowhere there's no other option.
Sure, but this tells me they're not eating the same stuff:
Menu: They have a different menu in McDo than in the US and itâ(TM)s far more French. You can buy beer in McDonalds in France, order a McBaguette with French cheese â" a McCamembert! The ingredients are from France. Unlike most other countries where McDonalds operates, when they opened in France it was on the grounds that only French ingredients would be used.
Which makes me wonder what the nutritional value of the French offerings are vs the North American ones... or if France is just eventually going to catch up with us and have the same problems.
I consider that to be a good thing. It tells me the back button is necessary.
At a minimum allowing every site to run arbitrary code is moronic. Which means I need to know if I care enough about your content and have any trust in you before I allow you to run scripts. And I use plugins to severely limit those.
All those 3rd parties embedded in a web page? Sorry, but I trust them not at all. I don't have a trust relationship with them, I don't have a business relationship with them. They're just the parasites lurking in your website... they're the shit on the shoes of the internet.
So, here on Slashdot? As I type this, gstatic.com, amazonws.com, google-analytics.com, googleadservices.com, googletagservices.com, ntv.io, ooyala.com, rpxnow.com, scorecardresearch.com, taboola.com, doubleclick, janrain... absolutely NONE of these are entities I care to allow to monitor where I go. They're ruthlessly blocked pretty much everywhere.
They don't get to set cookies, or run script, or server images, or style sheets... because they are not entities I have a relationship with, other than the fact I want nothing at all to do with them.
So, I'm sorry that companies partner with entities we don't trust as part of their revenue model. But it doesn't mean that I have any obligation at all to allow it.
And, likewise, they're allowed to block me because I won't enable this shit.
But I'll just click the back button and move on. After, of course, adding their crap and any embedded 3rd party crap to my blocked lists.
Same ones who have no qualms stealing movies and music. Sorry to break this to you...grownups pay for stuff.
Well, if a site wants a revenue stream, they have two choices: a subscription, or ads. Some sites choose both.
That you want to pay for your site is not my problem. I understand you have costs, but if you think your need for ad revenue means I'm implicitly consenting to the "privacy" policy of the dozen or so sites embedded in your site collecting my data... too fucking bad.
Sorry, but I don't consent to be tracked and analyzed by the dozens of asshat analytics companies on the internet. If your business model relies on that, that's your problem.
So you can either actively prevent me from reaching your site -- and that's your choice and why I have simply blocked the New York Times for example. Or you can accept that there will be a fraction of people who block your shit. Facebook, for instance, is completely blocked in my browser. It is none of their damned business where I go and what I do. So is Twitter. And DoubleClick. And Scorecard. Basically a whole slew of crap I never consented to being tracked by is totally blocked... no images, no cookies, no script... nothing at all.
The real world analogy to this would be as you walk into a store some asshole representative from an ad agency runs up and slaps an RFID tag on you so they know what other stores you go to. And in the real world I'd be forced to beat that person senseless.
So, boo fucking hoo, as long as ads and analytics depends on me being spied on across a bunch of sites, then I will treat them as hostile entities.
Because that's exactly what they are. They're parasites who believe they're entitled to my information.
Want to serve an ad from your own host which is generic and doesn't call out to external entities? I probably won't block it. But I'm sure as hell not allowing these tracking sites access to anything.
We pay to be spied on via analytics, and potentially have malware delivered through badly written ad platforms, and as a result we effectively subsidize the profits of ad companies.
At least, I assume it is, NYT is paywalled and I've blocked them in my browser entirely.
Tell you what, let the ad companies pay for all that cellular data and see what they do. Because I assume millions and millions of dollars are used daily to deliver their "product".
Ad blocking is about security, it's about privacy, and it's about making the best use of a metered resource.
So, just to be clear, you're saying that the lawmakers choose the enforcement mechanism that was easier and more likely to win in court because of campaign contributions from the potential losers of the lawsuits?
No, I'm saying that this streamlined civil penalties was selected by the auto industry to ensure they could never be subjected to criminal liability, and was delivered to them by 'tame' politicians who gave them what they wanted. That VW is a foreign corporation benefiting from this law is irrelevant.
I'm saying that laws in the US are subject to the out-in-the-open form of bribery which is campaign donations, and which ensures that no law is passed which the industry it is regulating finds too onerous, because the process has been coopted for corporate interests.
Perhaps I was unclear: this law carries only civil penalties because "allies of the auto industry" paid to ensure it stayed that way, and politicians were happy to oblige.
It's called Regulatory Capture, and it's why the US government allows things like the copyright cartel to write laws to suit their interests, or why the Clean Air Act in the US has no actual teeth other than the expedient civil penalties.
Sorry if I was ambiguous in stating that it's a broken law which I attribute to a political system which is on the payroll of corporations and consistently ensures there are no actual penalties for wrong-doing.
Or, maybe those kids' taste buds are actually signalling them to get the nutritious food first
Except that's not what is happening.
Eating crap like chicken nuggets teaches kids to crave foods with crazy amounts of sugar and salt, and it skews their tastebuds to preferring crap. Chicken nuggets aren't more nutritious. They're full of more crap.
Broccoli is an excellent source of vitamin K, vitamin C, chromium, and folate. It is a very good source of dietary fiber, pantothenic acid, vitamin B6, vitamin E, manganese, phosphorus, choline, vitamin B1, vitamin A (in the form of carotenoids), potassium, and copper. Broccoli is also a good source of vitamin B1, magnesium, omega-3 fatty acids, protein, zinc, calcium, iron, niacin, and selenium.
Broccoli is also concentrated in phytonutrients. In one particular phytonutrient categoryâ"glucosinolatesâ"broccoli is simply outstanding. The isothiocyanates (ITCs) made from broccoli's glucosinolates are the key to broccoli's cancer-preventive benefits.
In other words, it's really really good for you.
There's a reason vegetable gardens used to be wayyyy smaller than the main crops.
Yes, because you were selling your main crop, you were surviving off your vegetable garden.
The problem is we're now on second (or third) generations of kids who have only ever eaten crap food, have been conditioned to find that food tastier, and utterly refuse to eat good food.
Look around, you can see entire families who eat like spoiled children. They won't eat vegetables. They don't cook. It's either fast food, or prepared food.
What I see is a generation of kids who never learned to eat vegetables raising another generation of kids who never will learn to eat vegetables. And I routinely see young kids as fat as I am... and it took me a lot of years to get here.
Some of these kids are going to start keeling over in their 20s and 30s.
Honestly, compared to Happy Meals, sodas, and the general crap North American kids eat... they should be so lucky as to start eating like the French.
There would be far less obese children, less diabetes, and a whole slew of benefits.
I see so many young kids who are almost as big around as an overweight adult, if not bigger. And that should be scaring the crap out of people... and then you look at their parents and realize these kids have no chance.
Because the parents won't eat anything but chicken fingers and other garbage either, because they were whiny fussy kids who wouldn't eat vegetables.
The problem is, from the perspective of trying to cram Windows 10 up our asses... there's been an awful lot of what is best called malice.
Microsoft plans on applying this upgrade whether you like it or not, and in a lot of cases, is going to remove your control over subsequent updates... your computer apparently belongs to them.
So, are you suggesting we have stupid malicious assholes who are incompetently pushing out test updates in a fucking sea of unwanted updates they're intentionally obfuscating as to what they really are? Because if that's the case, Microsoft has not only jumped the shark, but they've become an incompetent cancer who have decided they don't give a fuck what they do to your computers.
In which case, turn off Windows Update now and be done with them.
If "some Microsoft engineer accidentally published a test update" he should be shot, drawn and quartered, and charged with criminally tampering with the machines of people.
Shit like this is precisely why I have no trust in them for Windows 10 and am not prepared to take it. They didn't buy my fucking computer, I did. And the choice to upgrade is not theirs to make.
Incompetently publishing a test update and treating me like a beta tester? Not fucking happening.
It's not really a loophole. Instead it was a conscious decision about how to enforce the Clean Air Act by the lawmakers who made it.
Come now, do you think those lawmakers made such a helpful clause without a couple of campaign contributions to grease the wheels? Sorry, but when laws are written like that, you can safely assume it's because someone wanted it that way.
For the exact reason the DMCA has no fangs when corporations misuse it; because they bloody well wanted it that way.
In fact, it would appear Former Rep. John Dingell (D., Mich.), a longtime congressman and auto industry ally gave them exactly what they wanted.
And, once again, corporations buy the laws that suit them best.
I'll tell you my definition of them: If the host in question serves the ad from its own servers, and doesn't use any Javascript or Flash.
Anything which just links to external ad companies, analytics companies, and expects to run code on my machine is blocked. Because expecting me to trust code execution from a 3rd party is simply not happening.
If I can't do that, then I'll pretty much block every form of ads I can.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh god, yes ... I once got the shit scared out of me as some kid made a 90 degree turn, extended his arm, and started walking across the street.
No stop and look. No eye contact. No making sure the driver stops.
Just turn, arm, and walk in one fluid motion.
Whatever clueless idiot taught children that had no idea what they were doing.
And I sure as shit didn't want to have to explain how the kid just turned and started walking, so he scared the life out of me.
Stupidest pedestrian training ever.
No, I'm saying that in the physical world if I walked into a store and some marketing asshole physically tried to attach a tracking tag to me I'd beat him senseless, same if he physically shoved an ad in my face. Just like most people would.
And as a follow on, I'm saying "why the hell should we accept this on the internet if we don't accept it in real life?"
It's an intentionally absurd example, because in the real world, nobody from marketing would ever think it is their right to slap a tracking tag on you. But somehow, on the internet, a dozen web sites all want to set cookies, or run scripts as soon as you enter -- and think it is their right to do it because their business model calls for it.
In the real world they know damned well they'd never be allowed to affix tracking tags to humans.
On the internet, the marketers have no such issue, and do things which if they did in the real world, would get them either criminally charged or physically assaulted.
So, I prevent them from setting cookies and tracking me the exact same way I do in the real world. So when a store asks for my phone number, they get told to piss off.
When an ad company asks to set a cookie or run a script, they also get told to piss off.
I have zero desire for violent conflict. But I consider ad companies harvesting my data and injecting themselves into my life to be as annoying as if they tried the same thing in meatspace.
So, I walk on by and give them a talk to the hand. But if the guy in the kiosk trying to get me to sign up for a credit card follows me and won't stop ... well, then we're going to have a different outcome. Only in real life, the marketing people don't do that.
I got tired of seeing the password prompt, and there are other web sites which cross link to them ... since I have no intention of signing up for them or allowing them to set cookies, I've just blocked them.
This way I know to press the back button faster.
I don't "oppose" paywalls, in that it's their right to do it. But I don't give a damn enough to try to read their content either.
NYT is now a non-entity for me. I'm sure they're utterly heart-broken.
I believe you've just demonstrated the point .... the ability for random people to review other people without their consent is going to lead to libel and slander.
You can't just say "well, someone reviewed you, tough".
This is going to lead to lawsuits and all sorts of crap. What an idiotic thing to be building. I just don't see this being anything other than a series of bad outcomes, all because someone thinks they have a business model.
Trusting the founder of an app who stands to make money from it telling us this will be used responsibly is like having an oil company tell us there will be no spills .. you simply can't trust them to be doing anything other than serving their own interests.
"positivity app for positive people" is a nice slogan, but it's competely bullshit.
Well, in the mean time, people will be able to have satellite internet now ... as opposed to waiting 15-20 years in the hope that someone eventually strings cable to them.
I have an aunt and uncle here in North America .. they're on an old fashioned party line and can't get cable ... because they're about 3km past the end of the cabling, and would have to spend HUGE amounts of money to get it ran as far as them. Like pay thousands of dollars for every few hundred feet since the companies don't see it as worth their time.
I know people who can't get internet, but instead rely on a cellular router to be their internet. Again, if they want anything over a wire they have to pay thousands of dollars.
Sometimes, the cost to string cable and all that entails, or the sheer number of years likely to wasted until it happens means that "stop gap" means you can actually see a solution, instead of hoping in 15-20 years you have a solution ... which in 15-20 years might still be 15-20 away.
A lot of this stuff never actually seems to happen. So, then it's not a stop-gap, it's the only damned way it will get done.
I'm betting in 15-20 years, a lot of people would still find they're no closer to having it.
It will also force them to find a new platform.
Do you thing either the OEMs or the carriers are going to stop doing this?
Brand differentiation, monetization, vendor lock in ... all of these things say these companies have no interest in selling a vanilla version of Android. What's in it for them? Samsung has their own store, their own apps and ecosystem, and want people locked into Samsung.
I agree with the sentiment, but if you think it'll happen you're kidding yourself.
Well ... you could picket naked outside of their offices ... you could post a stern comment on Slashdot ... you could send a stern letter to their customer service ... or you could simply not buy them.
Except the first one, which might get you some media coverage, the remainder will all have the exact same result ... nobody will give a crap.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. But one lone consumer saying they won't buy the product? Sorry, but the net result of that is precisely nil ... corporations don't care about one individual, and unless a very large amount of customers do something very vocal, nothing at all will happen.
And those "market solutions" everybody talks about? They don't happen either, because consumers fail to care, or nobody builds the competing version and sells it in order for people to choose it.
So, your only real solution? Buy a Nexus device. Those are the ones which always get updates. Pretty much every proprietary version will get support until the manufacturer moves on to the next model.
Well, either the people who did this are complete morons .. or they've worked out their business model and decided it is viable.
I mean, who is going to string thousands of kilometers of fiber through the outback?
Me, I'm thinking by the time you build and launch the satellites you've give it some thought, and that random comments on the internet aside, have probably concluded it is worth it ... by whatever metrics you use to make that decision.
Maybe they plan on using it for more important things than games?
So, a google search for "Australia remotest town" comes up with Telfer, which sounds like it's so far past the arse end of nowhere as to be unimaginable to most of us.
When everything is hours away (if not days), 700ms latency is probably quite a step up.
Sure it is ... but I'm sure there's some sufficiently remote places in Australia who would never get it otherwise. I mean, aren't some of these ranches (or whatever they're called) literally thousands of square miles?
Nobody is going to run a cable past your house when your 'driveway' takes hours to drive down, and your nearest neighbor is a few hours away.
So, if your choice is "no internet at all", or "expensive satellite coverage ... which are you going to take?
The rules are different when you're so far in the middle of nowhere there's no other option.
Sure, but this tells me they're not eating the same stuff:
Which makes me wonder what the nutritional value of the French offerings are vs the North American ones ... or if France is just eventually going to catch up with us and have the same problems.
I consider that to be a good thing. It tells me the back button is necessary.
At a minimum allowing every site to run arbitrary code is moronic. Which means I need to know if I care enough about your content and have any trust in you before I allow you to run scripts. And I use plugins to severely limit those.
All those 3rd parties embedded in a web page? Sorry, but I trust them not at all. I don't have a trust relationship with them, I don't have a business relationship with them. They're just the parasites lurking in your website ... they're the shit on the shoes of the internet.
So, here on Slashdot? As I type this, gstatic.com, amazonws.com, google-analytics.com, googleadservices.com, googletagservices.com, ntv.io, ooyala.com, rpxnow.com, scorecardresearch.com, taboola.com, doubleclick, janrain ... absolutely NONE of these are entities I care to allow to monitor where I go. They're ruthlessly blocked pretty much everywhere.
They don't get to set cookies, or run script, or server images, or style sheets ... because they are not entities I have a relationship with, other than the fact I want nothing at all to do with them.
So, I'm sorry that companies partner with entities we don't trust as part of their revenue model. But it doesn't mean that I have any obligation at all to allow it.
And, likewise, they're allowed to block me because I won't enable this shit.
But I'll just click the back button and move on. After, of course, adding their crap and any embedded 3rd party crap to my blocked lists.
Well, if a site wants a revenue stream, they have two choices: a subscription, or ads. Some sites choose both.
That you want to pay for your site is not my problem. I understand you have costs, but if you think your need for ad revenue means I'm implicitly consenting to the "privacy" policy of the dozen or so sites embedded in your site collecting my data ... too fucking bad.
Sorry, but I don't consent to be tracked and analyzed by the dozens of asshat analytics companies on the internet. If your business model relies on that, that's your problem.
So you can either actively prevent me from reaching your site -- and that's your choice and why I have simply blocked the New York Times for example. Or you can accept that there will be a fraction of people who block your shit. Facebook, for instance, is completely blocked in my browser. It is none of their damned business where I go and what I do. So is Twitter. And DoubleClick. And Scorecard. Basically a whole slew of crap I never consented to being tracked by is totally blocked ... no images, no cookies, no script ... nothing at all.
The real world analogy to this would be as you walk into a store some asshole representative from an ad agency runs up and slaps an RFID tag on you so they know what other stores you go to. And in the real world I'd be forced to beat that person senseless.
So, boo fucking hoo, as long as ads and analytics depends on me being spied on across a bunch of sites, then I will treat them as hostile entities.
Because that's exactly what they are. They're parasites who believe they're entitled to my information.
Want to serve an ad from your own host which is generic and doesn't call out to external entities? I probably won't block it. But I'm sure as hell not allowing these tracking sites access to anything.
Wait ... how do you do that? Is this a rooted device or a normal one?
I've got AdBlock on my tablet, but if there's a way to better block all ads I'd love to know it.
We pay to be spied on via analytics, and potentially have malware delivered through badly written ad platforms, and as a result we effectively subsidize the profits of ad companies.
At least, I assume it is, NYT is paywalled and I've blocked them in my browser entirely.
Tell you what, let the ad companies pay for all that cellular data and see what they do. Because I assume millions and millions of dollars are used daily to deliver their "product".
Ad blocking is about security, it's about privacy, and it's about making the best use of a metered resource.
No, I'm saying that this streamlined civil penalties was selected by the auto industry to ensure they could never be subjected to criminal liability, and was delivered to them by 'tame' politicians who gave them what they wanted. That VW is a foreign corporation benefiting from this law is irrelevant.
I'm saying that laws in the US are subject to the out-in-the-open form of bribery which is campaign donations, and which ensures that no law is passed which the industry it is regulating finds too onerous, because the process has been coopted for corporate interests.
Perhaps I was unclear: this law carries only civil penalties because "allies of the auto industry" paid to ensure it stayed that way, and politicians were happy to oblige.
It's called Regulatory Capture, and it's why the US government allows things like the copyright cartel to write laws to suit their interests, or why the Clean Air Act in the US has no actual teeth other than the expedient civil penalties.
Sorry if I was ambiguous in stating that it's a broken law which I attribute to a political system which is on the payroll of corporations and consistently ensures there are no actual penalties for wrong-doing.
Except that's not what is happening.
Eating crap like chicken nuggets teaches kids to crave foods with crazy amounts of sugar and salt, and it skews their tastebuds to preferring crap. Chicken nuggets aren't more nutritious. They're full of more crap.
Quite a lot, actually
In other words, it's really really good for you.
Yes, because you were selling your main crop, you were surviving off your vegetable garden.
The problem is we're now on second (or third) generations of kids who have only ever eaten crap food, have been conditioned to find that food tastier, and utterly refuse to eat good food.
Look around, you can see entire families who eat like spoiled children. They won't eat vegetables. They don't cook. It's either fast food, or prepared food.
What I see is a generation of kids who never learned to eat vegetables raising another generation of kids who never will learn to eat vegetables. And I routinely see young kids as fat as I am ... and it took me a lot of years to get here.
Some of these kids are going to start keeling over in their 20s and 30s.
Honestly, compared to Happy Meals, sodas, and the general crap North American kids eat ... they should be so lucky as to start eating like the French.
There would be far less obese children, less diabetes, and a whole slew of benefits.
I see so many young kids who are almost as big around as an overweight adult, if not bigger. And that should be scaring the crap out of people ... and then you look at their parents and realize these kids have no chance.
Because the parents won't eat anything but chicken fingers and other garbage either, because they were whiny fussy kids who wouldn't eat vegetables.
So, you mean they've now formed a cartel designed to abuse their combined market power to keep other players out of the industry?
Say it isn't so. I'm shocked, shocked I tell 'ya.
Anti-competitive behavior in the free market? Why that seems so unlikely.
No, wait, the other one ... big players will always for cartels to collude to fuck everybody else over, that's right.
The problem is, from the perspective of trying to cram Windows 10 up our asses ... there's been an awful lot of what is best called malice.
Microsoft plans on applying this upgrade whether you like it or not, and in a lot of cases, is going to remove your control over subsequent updates ... your computer apparently belongs to them.
So, are you suggesting we have stupid malicious assholes who are incompetently pushing out test updates in a fucking sea of unwanted updates they're intentionally obfuscating as to what they really are? Because if that's the case, Microsoft has not only jumped the shark, but they've become an incompetent cancer who have decided they don't give a fuck what they do to your computers.
In which case, turn off Windows Update now and be done with them.
If "some Microsoft engineer accidentally published a test update" he should be shot, drawn and quartered, and charged with criminally tampering with the machines of people.
Shit like this is precisely why I have no trust in them for Windows 10 and am not prepared to take it. They didn't buy my fucking computer, I did. And the choice to upgrade is not theirs to make.
Incompetently publishing a test update and treating me like a beta tester? Not fucking happening.
Come now, do you think those lawmakers made such a helpful clause without a couple of campaign contributions to grease the wheels? Sorry, but when laws are written like that, you can safely assume it's because someone wanted it that way.
For the exact reason the DMCA has no fangs when corporations misuse it; because they bloody well wanted it that way.
In fact, it would appear Former Rep. John Dingell (D., Mich.), a longtime congressman and auto industry ally gave them exactly what they wanted.
And, once again, corporations buy the laws that suit them best.
Wondering how you whiny little punks all survived to adulthood while believing people give a crap about your opinions.
Right up until they decide that some classes of ads will always bypass the stuff, and then it becomes a problem.
Short answer: don't run one single ad blocked/privacy extension. Run a bunch, block as much crap as you can.
I'll tell you my definition of them: If the host in question serves the ad from its own servers, and doesn't use any Javascript or Flash.
Anything which just links to external ad companies, analytics companies, and expects to run code on my machine is blocked. Because expecting me to trust code execution from a 3rd party is simply not happening.
If I can't do that, then I'll pretty much block every form of ads I can.
No way, opening links and viewing youtube videos is how you get exploited in the first place ... and it's sinful and could lead to dancing.