So what? A paywall is far more likely to be a rip-off than not. Incidentally, paywalled sites only show up in search results if bypassing the paywall is pretty easy.
Well then you seem to have a defect in your mind. Because "Google sucks" does in no way imply that the current alternatives are better. The royal "we" is also eminently unbecoming.
Can you read? If not, learn it. If you can, then stop asking stupid questions. Hint: Why would I want more competition if I thought DuckDuckGo or Bing was much better than Google?
And in addition, you can stop visiting pages. I recently had a eye-opening experience: Some website had screwed up its ad placement and it covered the whole page and would not go away on some specific browser. I emailed them and threatened them that they would be permanently removed from my bookmarks unless they fixed this. I had an answer with an apology 30 minutes later and the ad was gone.
Turns out the one thing commercial websites are more afraid of than not making ad revenue is that they do not get visited anymore.
Not quite. There was for example mandatory ad consumption of the worst kind every Sunday in Christianity. And even worse in other religions. At least the cretins today only want to sell you something and are fairly easy to ignore. But this type of plague has been with the human race for a long, long time.
The pain from the shock is not the problem. Usually you will not get any lasting damage, but sometimes (rarely) you may end up with a fibrillations and die in your sleep that night. Not good. Incidentally, electricians usually get hurt by falling off the ladder when shocked.
Well, for variable values of "talent". At that age, I had my own completely self-designed frequency/counter meter which I built from simple TTLs. Re-housing an industrially-made clock is a bit less difficult. I think this kid may be in serious trouble if great things are now expected from him.
One far simpler way is to have a tech-report on the web with the same title, and basically the same contents. At least in the CS field, you can more often than not get something very close to the published version by simply googeling the title.
Like certain pictures that will land the person hacked in jail for a long time. No need to find anything actually bad anymore, you can just easily get rid of anybody you do not like. That is how it is done in any self-respecting police-state or fascist state!
Or China. I once was on the phone with a crypto-implementer in China for a very well known US company, and I had to explain basic encryption concepts to him.
At the same time, your argument is completely irrelevant as this is only about protecting data-at-rest, i.e. the OS does the encryption, but it is not running at attack time. Unless the OS screws up the encryption itself, it will be secure.
Probably. Nobody is going to analyze these anyways, far too for expensive. And why have a second design team when you already have one that does fine work?
The researchers managed to break in because of gross design and implementation errors. Even venerable and well-known (and utterly stupid) faults like low-entropy key generation make several appearances, as do possibilities to simply read keys from EEPROM or disk or keys encrypted with a static key and stored on the device itself without the need to do so. The only valid conclusion is that none of the "engineers" involved have any reasonable level of experience and knowledge as to how to implement cryptography right. As a consequence they all fail.
It will find a predictor. Not a strong one, but enough to make politics. And that predictor will only be there because of junk-science or intentional manipulation. But one will be found, as that is the main reason to do such research. Negative results have never ever been used sensibly. They usually were just ignored and the research repeated until the desired results have been found.
Slashdot Mirror
So what? A paywall is far more likely to be a rip-off than not. Incidentally, paywalled sites only show up in search results if bypassing the paywall is pretty easy.
Well then you seem to have a defect in your mind. Because "Google sucks" does in no way imply that the current alternatives are better. The royal "we" is also eminently unbecoming.
Those gaming the search engine will often place lots of Google ads on the pages pushed. Mystery solved.
I see the Google-shills are active as moderators today. Pathetic.
And why would I want more competition if though there actually were better alternatives? Seriously, can you read?
Can you read? If not, learn it. If you can, then stop asking stupid questions.
Hint: Why would I want more competition if I thought DuckDuckGo or Bing was much better than Google?
So, the ad blocker would have to actually recognize ad content in order to block it. Including in images.
Ah, yes? That is what I was talking about? You think this is in any way difficult to do? (Caveat: I have specific experience in that area. It is not.)
Then, there's the ultimate option: Forget advertising and just paywall.
That has worked well in the past. Because it usually makes customers just go nuclear on the site and decide that they do not need it after all.
And in addition, you can stop visiting pages. I recently had a eye-opening experience: Some website had screwed up its ad placement and it covered the whole page and would not go away on some specific browser. I emailed them and threatened them that they would be permanently removed from my bookmarks unless they fixed this. I had an answer with an apology 30 minutes later and the ad was gone.
Turns out the one thing commercial websites are more afraid of than not making ad revenue is that they do not get visited anymore.
Can be blocked, but needs some coordination. My AV updates every few hours, why not my ad-blocker too? _That_ service I would pay for.
Indeed. And their people going to jail for gross negligence when they infect a few 100'000 computers again.
Indeed. They deserve all the pain coming their way and more for that. But I guess GREED has set in at Google just as in any other large corporation.
Well, that comes pretty close to describing my blocking habits. And I even go so far as to block in firewall rules if other things do not work.
Not quite. There was for example mandatory ad consumption of the worst kind every Sunday in Christianity. And even worse in other religions. At least the cretins today only want to sell you something and are fairly easy to ignore. But this type of plague has been with the human race for a long, long time.
Google needs to die.
Indeed. And then we could have competition on the search-engine front again, because Google search frankly sucks.
The pain from the shock is not the problem. Usually you will not get any lasting damage, but sometimes (rarely) you may end up with a fibrillations and die in your sleep that night. Not good. Incidentally, electricians usually get hurt by falling off the ladder when shocked.
Well, for variable values of "talent". At that age, I had my own completely self-designed frequency/counter meter which I built from simple TTLs. Re-housing an industrially-made clock is a bit less difficult. I think this kid may be in serious trouble if great things are now expected from him.
One far simpler way is to have a tech-report on the web with the same title, and basically the same contents. At least in the CS field, you can more often than not get something very close to the published version by simply googeling the title.
Like certain pictures that will land the person hacked in jail for a long time. No need to find anything actually bad anymore, you can just easily get rid of anybody you do not like. That is how it is done in any self-respecting police-state or fascist state!
The NSA is mostly signals intelligence. The attacks here are for physical access to the unplugged device. This does not fit.
Or China. I once was on the phone with a crypto-implementer in China for a very well known US company, and I had to explain basic encryption concepts to him.
At the same time, your argument is completely irrelevant as this is only about protecting data-at-rest, i.e. the OS does the encryption, but it is not running at attack time. Unless the OS screws up the encryption itself, it will be secure.
It would be different, yes. But if the same clueless people did it, I have no doubt they found ways to screw it up.
Probably. Nobody is going to analyze these anyways, far too for expensive. And why have a second design team when you already have one that does fine work?
The researchers managed to break in because of gross design and implementation errors. Even venerable and well-known (and utterly stupid) faults like low-entropy key generation make several appearances, as do possibilities to simply read keys from EEPROM or disk or keys encrypted with a static key and stored on the device itself without the need to do so. The only valid conclusion is that none of the "engineers" involved have any reasonable level of experience and knowledge as to how to implement cryptography right. As a consequence they all fail.
It will find a predictor. Not a strong one, but enough to make politics. And that predictor will only be there because of junk-science or intentional manipulation. But one will be found, as that is the main reason to do such research. Negative results have never ever been used sensibly. They usually were just ignored and the research repeated until the desired results have been found.