An "opt-in" system seems acceptable (since it's essentially just personally deciding to use an ad-blocker, but outsourcing it), but blocking data by default should not be allowed.
Also, it's deemed OK in Australia because Australia's populace is apparently even more authoritarian than the US's. Net neutrality is an issue in places like India and Europe.
1. How do you propose funding websites, if not with ads?
By letting the hobbyists creating them run them off their home internet connections (which in a sane world, would be fast and symmetric, like Google Fiber), or by uploading them to a distributed system like Freenet.
The same way any other locally-executing program gets it? We're talking about the browser executable itself here, remember, not some web page executing in the Javascript sandbox.
Either content creators can make money *somehow* or the content isn't generated. We could block all kinds of stuff as a society, but it is that content provider that doesn't get paid.
Bullshit. "Content providers" can go fuck themselves; there are plenty of artists and hobbyists who will create stuff without a profit motive to take their place.
Why would it be dangerous for your kids to browse the Play Store (other than them annoying you by whining about how they want you to buy stuff for them)? As long as there isn't a credit card attached to their account, there's no way for them to run up charges. (And if there's a card attached to your account and they're using it, well, stop letting them piggyback on your account and/or disassociate the card!)
Of course, I admit that letting the kids have access to download "free" malware apps that exfiltrate their data is still a problem, but at least it's a different one than running up a large credit card bill.
Mostly held in mutual funds inside 401ks and IRAs, which means they get voted according to board-friendly policies like this instead of the will of the actual individual owners. Individual pass-through proxy voting for shares held in mutual funds is yet another long-overdue Wall Street reform that no politicians (that I know of) are seriously considering...
You claim there's a problem, but nothing you wrote shows one.
There are an infinite number of people willing to host websites for free. If every site that only exists to make a buck shut down forever, nothing of value would be lost!
If they serve a plain <img> from the same domain as the site itself, I'll see it. Otherwise, RequestPolicy and/or NoScript blocks it. Those are my terms; if they don't like it, too bad!
The only good advertising is free advertising -- the word-of-mouth kind that your customers do for you if your product is good enough, and impartial product reviews by publications like Consumer Reports.
Oh really? So y'all have re-engineered Nest not to connect to Google's "cloud" anymore, then? 'Cause for IoT stuff, "security" means nothing less than the owner hosting his own server!
Sure, why not? It's really not that hard to make your own clothes. Similarly, it's not that hard to download Linux and use it.
We're not talking about software, we're talking about hardware. In particular, Linux doesn't help when the entire industry is making products that are uniformly Tivo-ized.
Let me put it this way: show me a thermostat that I can buy at Home Depot or Lowes that I can control over a network without going through a third-party cloud service -- either out-of-the-box or by reflashing with firmware that's no less well-supported than OpenWRT -- and I'll concede your point.
Imagine a world where the only clothes sold were spike heels and leopard-print mini-skirts -- meaning even you were forced to either wear whore clothes or go naked. Would you like to live in such a world?
Me neither. Similarly, the mere existence of these trojaned mal-devices is harmful regardless of whether stupid people "deserve" them or not!
I would like to make three suggestions to the CEO of Yelp
How hopelessly naive are you? Remember, this is Yelp we're talking about. You know, the glorified extortion racket? I gua-ran-fucking-tee the CEO is fully satisfied with his peons getting paid appallingly substandard wages, if indeed he didn't institute the policy personally!
We can be sure as Hell they aren't about to implement any actual security -- that is, the security of allowing the devices to be controlled by the owner's server rather than some bullshit third-party "cloud" service, so that the owner's data isn't spewed everywhere and passed around like a cheap whore.
We don't have enough gainful employment for everyone.
That's an interesting point. In that case, there are only a few solutions:
Overpaying for labor (i.e., the "living wage")
Welfare
Government make-work jobs (e.g. CCC)
Letting people descend into homelessness and die in the street
Given that most of the radical conservative types have been railing against #1 and #2 and (given their support for cuts in government spending) clearly reject #3 as an option... well, it's hard to believe anybody could be so heartless as to prefer option #4, but it's the only one left...
It probably depends on the market. In my LCOL area, cable boxes were $10 each except for the first, which was $0. When I turned in my cable box in favor of a cable card, they started giving me a $2.50 bill credit. (That was a few years ago -- back when they were forcing me to bundle to get the cheapest price -- so YMMV.)
Slashdot Mirror
An "opt-in" system seems acceptable (since it's essentially just personally deciding to use an ad-blocker, but outsourcing it), but blocking data by default should not be allowed.
Also, it's deemed OK in Australia because Australia's populace is apparently even more authoritarian than the US's. Net neutrality is an issue in places like India and Europe.
Don't think 2006, think 1996.
By letting the hobbyists creating them run them off their home internet connections (which in a sane world, would be fast and symmetric, like Google Fiber), or by uploading them to a distributed system like Freenet.
A router hosts file, or something more sophisticated?
The same way any other locally-executing program gets it? We're talking about the browser executable itself here, remember, not some web page executing in the Javascript sandbox.
Bullshit. "Content providers" can go fuck themselves; there are plenty of artists and hobbyists who will create stuff without a profit motive to take their place.
Why would it be dangerous for your kids to browse the Play Store (other than them annoying you by whining about how they want you to buy stuff for them)? As long as there isn't a credit card attached to their account, there's no way for them to run up charges. (And if there's a card attached to your account and they're using it, well, stop letting them piggyback on your account and/or disassociate the card!)
Of course, I admit that letting the kids have access to download "free" malware apps that exfiltrate their data is still a problem, but at least it's a different one than running up a large credit card bill.
Mostly held in mutual funds inside 401ks and IRAs, which means they get voted according to board-friendly policies like this instead of the will of the actual individual owners. Individual pass-through proxy voting for shares held in mutual funds is yet another long-overdue Wall Street reform that no politicians (that I know of) are seriously considering...
You claim there's a problem, but nothing you wrote shows one.
There are an infinite number of people willing to host websites for free. If every site that only exists to make a buck shut down forever, nothing of value would be lost!
If they serve a plain <img> from the same domain as the site itself, I'll see it. Otherwise, RequestPolicy and/or NoScript blocks it. Those are my terms; if they don't like it, too bad!
The only good advertising is free advertising -- the word-of-mouth kind that your customers do for you if your product is good enough, and impartial product reviews by publications like Consumer Reports.
That is wildly optimistic. It's more on the order of several hundred quindecillion years (i.e., ~10^50 years).
Population, criminals -- same difference! (From an authoritarian point of view, anyway.)
Oh really? So y'all have re-engineered Nest not to connect to Google's "cloud" anymore, then? 'Cause for IoT stuff, "security" means nothing less than the owner hosting his own server!
We're not talking about software, we're talking about hardware. In particular, Linux doesn't help when the entire industry is making products that are uniformly Tivo-ized.
Let me put it this way: show me a thermostat that I can buy at Home Depot or Lowes that I can control over a network without going through a third-party cloud service -- either out-of-the-box or by reflashing with firmware that's no less well-supported than OpenWRT -- and I'll concede your point.
GOP started it; Democrats failed to stop it. They both need lined up against the proverbial wall.
The US Constitution guarantees that the NSA would not fucking spy on everyone too, but we all see how that worked out!
Imagine a world where the only clothes sold were spike heels and leopard-print mini-skirts -- meaning even you were forced to either wear whore clothes or go naked. Would you like to live in such a world?
Me neither. Similarly, the mere existence of these trojaned mal-devices is harmful regardless of whether stupid people "deserve" them or not!
How hopelessly naive are you? Remember, this is Yelp we're talking about. You know, the glorified extortion racket? I gua-ran-fucking-tee the CEO is fully satisfied with his peons getting paid appallingly substandard wages, if indeed he didn't institute the policy personally!
We can be sure as Hell they aren't about to implement any actual security -- that is, the security of allowing the devices to be controlled by the owner's server rather than some bullshit third-party "cloud" service, so that the owner's data isn't spewed everywhere and passed around like a cheap whore.
That's an interesting point. In that case, there are only a few solutions:
Given that most of the radical conservative types have been railing against #1 and #2 and (given their support for cuts in government spending) clearly reject #3 as an option... well, it's hard to believe anybody could be so heartless as to prefer option #4, but it's the only one left...
In any sane society, there is no fucking way a civil contract should ever be allowed to supersede a subpoena.
I congratulate you for having successfully avoided '90s pop culture and therefore remaining ignorant of the zip code for Beverly Hills.
It probably depends on the market. In my LCOL area, cable boxes were $10 each except for the first, which was $0. When I turned in my cable box in favor of a cable card, they started giving me a $2.50 bill credit. (That was a few years ago -- back when they were forcing me to bundle to get the cheapest price -- so YMMV.)
That's not a reasonable position to take, given that our freedom is collateral damage!