Hell, they can even say they developed it themselves, as long as they can read what you've coded.
Not true, actually. That would be plagiarism, which is entirely different to using someone else's code. It's the difference between quoting someone in a paper you wrote, and claiming that you were the originator of the quote. It falls under the "Moral Rights" clauses of copyright law, and beyond that under almost any ethics system and human decency.
People that HATE Beck will think it is funny.
People that Love Beck will hate those that think it is funny
Yeah, so what? Those people are full of hate already. Difference made? Zero.
The people that LOVE Beck will see it as proof that the courts are biased and hate them. They will become more politically active and work harder for consertives to get elected.
Say what? That would be great... if only there were any conservatives in America left to elect. I don't see how watching Glenn Beck or subscribing to his beliefs makes one a conservative. Glenn Beck is anything but a conservative. He's a radical hatemonger.
Whenever you like. The Constitution doesn't prevent it. Of course, it's questionable that your White Pride parade doesn't have anything to do with discriminating against non-whites, but it could happen.
By the time an ad network detects misbehavior in live ads, the damage has been done.
So, nothing should be done to prevent it happening again? Even if the damage has been done, if you have been tracking it, you at least have some clues to who to go after. So, you're really preventing future damage, and punishing people who have been performing criminal acts. The ad networks will know who to avoid in future, and for the hosts of the ads, they may be able to pass risk and responsibility on to those actually responsible, rather than paying for it themselves.
Do you really suggest that nobody tries to do anything about this problem because it's "too hard"?
The idea that "the damage is done" is nonsensical in the first place, as if you could have stopped it three days into a malware campaign that could have lasted for weeks or months, you would have prevented a lot of damage.
Our system is also unique in that about 70% of the traffic we see is from devices and not human browsers.
That is highly unusual. Most networks get 100% of their traffic from devices running software. But a massive 30% of your traffic comes from humans you've somehow wired up directly to the network? Where do you work, the CIA? The Dollhouse?
Because there is more than one ad network. If one ad network states "you must be at least this tall to advertise with us", advertisers who do not qualify will flock to other ad networks that specialize in smaller businesses, such as local or regional businesses.
Yeah, so what? The point is not what advertising networks the smaller companies use, it's what advertising network you, as Major Brand Website X chooses to use. the point is that you do lose the advertisers more likely to be malware shells.
There are ad networks that specialize in quality and vet their ads. The Deck, for example. It doesn't bother them that other ad networks are getting the crappy ads. And it's not necessarily about size - most of The Deck's advertisers are small but quality.
For each program P, there exists a program AD whose pseudocode is as follows: "Emulate program P, and when it halts, exhibit malware behavior and then halt."
But why do you have to emulate anything? Just run an actual box (or a bunch of virtual machines) and see if they get infected.
They won't detect the misbehavior until the ad has already gone live because the ad is programmed not to exhibit malware behavior for the first few days or weeks.
Yeah, so what? That's what I've been suggesting all along - track the live ads.
Ad networks sometimes fail to see through the maze of twisty little shell companies that is the malware industry. There are ways to seem more reputable than you are and more American or more Western European than you are
Still, why can't they just restrict themselves to ads from well-known companies (BMW, Nike, McDonalds, etc) rather than accepting ads from companies nobody has ever heard of/
I'll explain in more detail once I know how familiar you are with the halting problem [wikipedia.org].
I can't see how that has any relevance. What would make the program halt? And why couldn't you have a number of machines on different networks sampling the ads for malware? If people are getting it on their computers then it must be possible for it to happen to test machines, too. Don't the virus-tracking companies do a similar thing?
The party responsible for vetting is the operator of the ad network. But the advertisement code has a time bomb implemented in obfuscated ActionScript bytecode (in an SWF ad) or encrypted JavaScript (in a DHTML ad) that activates only once the ad has been active for a while. Discovering whether a given ad triggers a malware download can prove halting-complete.
Yeah, so why can't they vet the ads? Why are they allowing ads from Ukraine or Russia, or wherever? Why can't they use a reputable source for ads? And why can't they do tests to see if there is malware on the ads?
To be sure no one is doing anything wrong, every ad will have to be vetted. Do you have any idea how long that would take? It would increase the overhead so much that no one would advertise.
I don't see why they should get off scott-free, just because it's internet advertising. If you advertise on TV, all kinds of vetting goes on, and yet somehow TV advertising still happens.
They typically have no idea what ads they're actually running
Again, aren't they guilty of negligence? If you aren't aware of how a major part of your business operates, then that's a problem. It's like Kellogg being unaware that some of their cornflakes are being manufactured by Columbian drug cartels Not acceptable.
Good luck suing someone who operates out of the former Soviet Union.
So ESPN, TSN, MLB and NFL operate out of the former Soviet Union!? Who knew? It's like those damn commies are conspiring to change the ingredients of apple pie and freedom fries!
At any rate they aren't doing it on purpose and it doesn't happen very often. They are just being lazy.
I never thought they were doing it on purpose, but shouldn't they be held responsible for their negligence for not vetting these third parties? After all, it's not like malware being injected through third-party ads is unheard of, in fact it's widely known. These websites should be well aware of the risks of dealing with such advertising companies.
I think they even came out with a game that deletes 1 file at a time each time you score...I think it was for.......OS X
Whereby "they" you mean a conceptual artist who created that game as an art piece - not some script kiddie or malicious programmer or criminal. And the game was clearly labeled as to what it did.
So, would you care to point to any real problems that have affected users, rather than creating a strawman?
Most of the infections I deal with on a regular basis are coming from AD BANNERS. I have literally had people get a brand new machine, sit down at it, open IE8 and browse to one of the major sports news sites (ESPN, TSN, MLB, NFL, etc.) and get IMMEDIATELY infected by a banner ad!
Hmmm... could a law suit (class-action or otherwise) be an idea here? After all, isn't it illegal to infect someone's computer with malware? How is it that these major websites are getting away with it?
Sorry, but you're using a strawman argument. I never said that all parades are like that.
I never thought you said that. In fact, it's singling out gay parades as being somehow different is what's objectionable.
Show that "they/we are different, and not normal". At least that was the purpose of every gay parade I have seen.
See, that's your own prejudice speaking. Because that's not what the intention is. The intention is to bring gays out into the public sphere, to show that they can be seen in public, just like everybody else.
The funny thing is: Even most gay people don't like those "extremist" gays who always think they have to put themselves in the spotlight and attack people for not being "tolerant" enough.*
I'm not sure who you're talking about here, because that certainly doesn't sound like the people who organize or participate in the parades. I can't think of any parade where the idea was to "attack people for not being tolerant enough," quite the opposite.
I'm just saying, as I pointed out in my original comment, that the other side of the extreme also exists, and is just as bad.:)
Of course, he did say "we are so special" when describing the parades and I'm guessing that's probably what ticked you off.
Well, yeah, that's something that shows his prejudices - because that's not really what the parades are about. Sure, it is about "gay pride" but being proud of who you are is a bit different to saying "I'm special."
Either this applies to all parades, or it doesn't. Take ethnic parades - they are usually seen as a celebration of culture. But I guess they could be taken as "we're so special" events, but that's not usually how they're seen.
So, ultimately is he saying that in an equal society, nobody should be celebrating their culture?
Slashdot Mirror
Hell, they can even say they developed it themselves, as long as they can read what you've coded.
Not true, actually. That would be plagiarism, which is entirely different to using someone else's code. It's the difference between quoting someone in a paper you wrote, and claiming that you were the originator of the quote. It falls under the "Moral Rights" clauses of copyright law, and beyond that under almost any ethics system and human decency.
The "did he kill a girl" satire isn't as powerful as the satire Beck actually uses.
Beck uses satire? Now that would be newsworthy.
The only scary development is the resurgent muttering, on the left, about the actually evil "fairness doctrine."
What the fuck are you talking about? You know you shouldn't believe fairy tales or outright lies, right?
People that HATE Beck will think it is funny.
People that Love Beck will hate those that think it is funny
Yeah, so what? Those people are full of hate already. Difference made? Zero.
The people that LOVE Beck will see it as proof that the courts are biased and hate them. They will become more politically active and work harder for consertives to get elected.
Say what? That would be great... if only there were any conservatives in America left to elect. I don't see how watching Glenn Beck or subscribing to his beliefs makes one a conservative. Glenn Beck is anything but a conservative. He's a radical hatemonger.
It's not politics, it's purely (an attempt to save a failed) business (model).
How is that not politics?
Whenever you like. The Constitution doesn't prevent it. Of course, it's questionable that your White Pride parade doesn't have anything to do with discriminating against non-whites, but it could happen.
By the time an ad network detects misbehavior in live ads, the damage has been done.
So, nothing should be done to prevent it happening again? Even if the damage has been done, if you have been tracking it, you at least have some clues to who to go after. So, you're really preventing future damage, and punishing people who have been performing criminal acts. The ad networks will know who to avoid in future, and for the hosts of the ads, they may be able to pass risk and responsibility on to those actually responsible, rather than paying for it themselves.
Do you really suggest that nobody tries to do anything about this problem because it's "too hard"?
The idea that "the damage is done" is nonsensical in the first place, as if you could have stopped it three days into a malware campaign that could have lasted for weeks or months, you would have prevented a lot of damage.
Our system is also unique in that about 70% of the traffic we see is from devices and not human browsers.
That is highly unusual. Most networks get 100% of their traffic from devices running software. But a massive 30% of your traffic comes from humans you've somehow wired up directly to the network? Where do you work, the CIA? The Dollhouse?
Because there is more than one ad network. If one ad network states "you must be at least this tall to advertise with us", advertisers who do not qualify will flock to other ad networks that specialize in smaller businesses, such as local or regional businesses.
Yeah, so what? The point is not what advertising networks the smaller companies use, it's what advertising network you, as Major Brand Website X chooses to use. the point is that you do lose the advertisers more likely to be malware shells.
There are ad networks that specialize in quality and vet their ads. The Deck, for example. It doesn't bother them that other ad networks are getting the crappy ads. And it's not necessarily about size - most of The Deck's advertisers are small but quality.
For each program P, there exists a program AD whose pseudocode is as follows: "Emulate program P, and when it halts, exhibit malware behavior and then halt."
But why do you have to emulate anything? Just run an actual box (or a bunch of virtual machines) and see if they get infected.
They won't detect the misbehavior until the ad has already gone live because the ad is programmed not to exhibit malware behavior for the first few days or weeks.
Yeah, so what? That's what I've been suggesting all along - track the live ads.
Ad networks sometimes fail to see through the maze of twisty little shell companies that is the malware industry. There are ways to seem more reputable than you are and more American or more Western European than you are
Still, why can't they just restrict themselves to ads from well-known companies (BMW, Nike, McDonalds, etc) rather than accepting ads from companies nobody has ever heard of/
I'll explain in more detail once I know how familiar you are with the halting problem [wikipedia.org].
I can't see how that has any relevance. What would make the program halt? And why couldn't you have a number of machines on different networks sampling the ads for malware? If people are getting it on their computers then it must be possible for it to happen to test machines, too. Don't the virus-tracking companies do a similar thing?
Wow, what a sharp and incisive response!
The party responsible for vetting is the operator of the ad network. But the advertisement code has a time bomb implemented in obfuscated ActionScript bytecode (in an SWF ad) or encrypted JavaScript (in a DHTML ad) that activates only once the ad has been active for a while. Discovering whether a given ad triggers a malware download can prove halting-complete.
Yeah, so why can't they vet the ads? Why are they allowing ads from Ukraine or Russia, or wherever? Why can't they use a reputable source for ads? And why can't they do tests to see if there is malware on the ads?
The only rivals that are completely unlocked are Palm OS (which is a joke,)
Windows Mobile (which is a joke), and Maemo (which is a joke).
The whole mobile OS landscape seems to be a stand-up comedy club.
To whom should we assign liability if neither the web site nor the ad network can reasonably vet the ads?
Why can't the advertiser or website vet the ads?
To be sure no one is doing anything wrong, every ad will have to be vetted. Do you have any idea how long that would take? It would increase the overhead so much that no one would advertise.
I don't see why they should get off scott-free, just because it's internet advertising. If you advertise on TV, all kinds of vetting goes on, and yet somehow TV advertising still happens.
They typically have no idea what ads they're actually running
Again, aren't they guilty of negligence? If you aren't aware of how a major part of your business operates, then that's a problem. It's like Kellogg being unaware that some of their cornflakes are being manufactured by Columbian drug cartels Not acceptable.
Good luck suing someone who operates out of the former Soviet Union.
So ESPN, TSN, MLB and NFL operate out of the former Soviet Union!? Who knew? It's like those damn commies are conspiring to change the ingredients of apple pie and freedom fries!
So who's really at fault? The major websites, or the outsourced ad site providers?
Both. The major websites deliberately chose not to vet the advertising providers, so should share some of the blame, if not the lion's share of it.
At any rate they aren't doing it on purpose and it doesn't happen very often. They are just being lazy.
I never thought they were doing it on purpose, but shouldn't they be held responsible for their negligence for not vetting these third parties? After all, it's not like malware being injected through third-party ads is unheard of, in fact it's widely known. These websites should be well aware of the risks of dealing with such advertising companies.
But the major sites choose to run those ad servers, so aren't they somewhat complicit in this?
I think they even came out with a game that deletes 1 file at a time each time you score...I think it was for.......OS X
Whereby "they" you mean a conceptual artist who created that game as an art piece - not some script kiddie or malicious programmer or criminal. And the game was clearly labeled as to what it did.
So, would you care to point to any real problems that have affected users, rather than creating a strawman?
Most of the infections I deal with on a regular basis are coming from AD BANNERS. I have literally had people get a brand new machine, sit down at it, open IE8 and browse to one of the major sports news sites (ESPN, TSN, MLB, NFL, etc.) and get IMMEDIATELY infected by a banner ad!
Hmmm... could a law suit (class-action or otherwise) be an idea here? After all, isn't it illegal to infect someone's computer with malware? How is it that these major websites are getting away with it?
We however don't typically have parades for genetic based parts of humanity.
What about ethnic parades? And how is a gay parade a "genetic-based" parade, anyway?
Sorry, but you're using a strawman argument. I never said that all parades are like that.
I never thought you said that. In fact, it's singling out gay parades as being somehow different is what's objectionable.
Show that "they/we are different, and not normal". At least that was the purpose of every gay parade I have seen.
See, that's your own prejudice speaking. Because that's not what the intention is. The intention is to bring gays out into the public sphere, to show that they can be seen in public, just like everybody else.
The funny thing is: Even most gay people don't like those "extremist" gays who always think they have to put themselves in the spotlight and attack people for not being "tolerant" enough.*
I'm not sure who you're talking about here, because that certainly doesn't sound like the people who organize or participate in the parades. I can't think of any parade where the idea was to "attack people for not being tolerant enough," quite the opposite.
I'm just saying, as I pointed out in my original comment, that the other side of the extreme also exists, and is just as bad. :)
But what does that have to do with the parades?
Of course, he did say "we are so special" when describing the parades and I'm guessing that's probably what ticked you off.
Well, yeah, that's something that shows his prejudices - because that's not really what the parades are about. Sure, it is about "gay pride" but being proud of who you are is a bit different to saying "I'm special."
Either this applies to all parades, or it doesn't. Take ethnic parades - they are usually seen as a celebration of culture. But I guess they could be taken as "we're so special" events, but that's not usually how they're seen.
So, ultimately is he saying that in an equal society, nobody should be celebrating their culture?
You mean, like sports parades?