because engineers quit > less engineers to do security stuff in general, more holes in apple products > no one trusts apple stops buying them > apple closses
note this is possibly worst case scenario, but still a valid one i think.
imagine, if you will, Apple pulls out of the US phone market because of our govt. 2 things WILL happen.
1) there WILL be such a massive backlash against the govt. that the whole issue will become as toxic, if not more so, than when SOPA was first defeated. NO ONE in the govt is gonna touch that subject with a 20 ft pole.
2) That whole TTP/TTIP issue, and at large ICSID (International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes) Basically, Apple COULD sue the US Govt over lost profits (which is not a small number last I recall) and future profits, because of a govt action against it.
okay so all the Republican presidential nominees want to "make US military great again" and to "Rebuild the US military". Never mind the fact that it is still one of the largest, behind China ofc in terms of numbers. So by incorporating our Civilian law enforcement as Military personnel you both make it great and rebuild it at the same time.
surely NOTHING EVER in the history of the world has gone wrong when a military force controls the civilian population...
Feinsteine in an idiot. no, the system is idiotic.
When WBC can exercise their free speech (though i may disagree with it) is considered an American virtue, but supporting (even loosely) is un-american, there is something VERY VERY VERY wrong with the system.
There is a difference between giving material support, ie. giving material. support. like guns, and bombs, and such, as opposed to giving immaterial support, such as tweets, blog posts, etc.
Sounds like there could be a technicality on that teenager.
and feinstein is an idiot, every time she opens her mouth, she proves it more and more.
hey mike, having thought about it a bit, i have a solution.
they "say" they want a discussion on adblockers, but refuse to actually discuss it with the public, then let us bring that discussion forward.
You could make a list of sites that forces ads, and then discuss why those companies/pages want to harm the internet, your computer, and weaken cyber-security at the same time. We can force this discussion even if they don't want it.
And just think if that kind of article hits Reddit (as often it does)
Re: Re: Way too much entitlement in this thread - making content takes time and money
yes, and no.
part of it is, in fact, we (at least Americans) are fed up with advertisements in general.
But more so for me is the disruptive ads that looks like it should be (or actually ripped from) the beginning of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, voice over ads that is trying to sell me something while I am TRYING to listen/read news, or outright dangerous ads with built in adware/trojans/etc.
Detect - Detect ad-blocking sites Explain - Explain why you are blocking ad-blocking sites Ask - The sites to review their anti-ad-blcoking practice Lift or Limit - links based on *CONSUMER*(KEY WORD) demand
The crux is that the CONSUMERS have already spoken, they are refusing disruptive, unwanted, and hazardous ads. It's the ad companies that still have their heads in the sand.
I would say block them, use alternative sources. When their viewship (readership, clicks) drop, then they might, just MIGHT take another look at it. But it's doubtful.
The NSA is looking less of something to be feared (except for their policy making) and more of a buffoonish cartoon villain. I mean, they are so incompetent that they cannot break UN-ENCRYPTED messages. Now to be fair, This is a US agency, and Americans sometimes have a hard time understanding someone from another country speaking English, let alone a totally foreign language, like French, let alone dialects and slang terms.
And so by extrapolating, the ONLY use the NSA has is to monitor rich white males from the USA. THAT is a scary thought.
they engage in cronyism protectionist laws (such as this) and call it fair competition.
They tried to engage in laws to "preserve religious freedom" until the Mayor of Indy and Gencon, and a few others said, "No, we won't follow this law" or "We will be re-evaluating our future business with the state" (which is not a small amount of business)
On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department
Re:
economic uncertainty?
because engineers quit > less engineers to do security stuff in general, more holes in apple products > no one trusts apple stops buying them > apple closses
note this is possibly worst case scenario, but still a valid one i think.
On the post: Senator Lindsey Graham Finally Talks To Tech Experts, Switches Side In FBI V. Apple Fight
Re:
On the post: Senator Lindsey Graham Finally Talks To Tech Experts, Switches Side In FBI V. Apple Fight
1) there WILL be such a massive backlash against the govt. that the whole issue will become as toxic, if not more so, than when SOPA was first defeated. NO ONE in the govt is gonna touch that subject with a 20 ft pole.
2) That whole TTP/TTIP issue, and at large ICSID (International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes) Basically, Apple COULD sue the US Govt over lost profits (which is not a small number last I recall) and future profits, because of a govt action against it.
On the post: John Oliver Explains Why You Should Side With Apple Over The FBI Better Than Most Journalists
Re: Re: The perfect counter to a stupid argument
wait wait wait
the USA, (one of) the most powerful nations on earth, with a sizable nuclear stockpile, is making bat-shit insane statements?
THAT should scare the *FUCK* out of any sane person.
On the post: DOJ Officials Hint WhatsApp Likely Next In Line For The Apple Treatment
surely NOTHING EVER in the history of the world has gone wrong when a military force controls the civilian population...
On the post: Senator Feinstein Revives Stupid Idea That Internet Companies Are 'Materially Supporting Terrorism' If ISIS Members Use Their Sites
When WBC can exercise their free speech (though i may disagree with it) is considered an American virtue, but supporting (even loosely) is un-american, there is something VERY VERY VERY wrong with the system.
There is a difference between giving material support, ie. giving material. support. like guns, and bombs, and such, as opposed to giving immaterial support, such as tweets, blog posts, etc.
Sounds like there could be a technicality on that teenager.
and feinstein is an idiot, every time she opens her mouth, she proves it more and more.
also Welcome to the Red Scare 3.0
On the post: What Should We Do About Linking To Sites That Block People Using Ad Blockers?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Way too much entitlement in this thread - making content takes time and money
On the post: What Should We Do About Linking To Sites That Block People Using Ad Blockers?
they "say" they want a discussion on adblockers, but refuse to actually discuss it with the public, then let us bring that discussion forward.
You could make a list of sites that forces ads, and then discuss why those companies/pages want to harm the internet, your computer, and weaken cyber-security at the same time. We can force this discussion even if they don't want it.
And just think if that kind of article hits Reddit (as often it does)
On the post: What Should We Do About Linking To Sites That Block People Using Ad Blockers?
Re: Re: Way too much entitlement in this thread - making content takes time and money
part of it is, in fact, we (at least Americans) are fed up with advertisements in general.
But more so for me is the disruptive ads that looks like it should be (or actually ripped from) the beginning of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, voice over ads that is trying to sell me something while I am TRYING to listen/read news, or outright dangerous ads with built in adware/trojans/etc.
On the post: What Should We Do About Linking To Sites That Block People Using Ad Blockers?
a new deal
Explain - Explain why you are blocking ad-blocking sites
Ask - The sites to review their anti-ad-blcoking practice
Lift or Limit - links based on *CONSUMER*(KEY WORD) demand
The crux is that the CONSUMERS have already spoken, they are refusing disruptive, unwanted, and hazardous ads. It's the ad companies that still have their heads in the sand.
I would say block them, use alternative sources. When their viewship (readership, clicks) drop, then they might, just MIGHT take another look at it. But it's doubtful.
On the post: Full Brief From San Bernardino District Attorney Even More Insane Than Application About 'Dormant Cyber Pathogen'
Re: Re:
On the post: CIA And NSA Directors Blame The Media For Terrorists Using Encryption
And so by extrapolating, the ONLY use the NSA has is to monitor rich white males from the USA. THAT is a scary thought.
On the post: Tesla Fan 'Incivility' Forces Indiana To Back Off Direct Sales Ban... For Now
As a hoosier
they engage in cronyism protectionist laws (such as this) and call it fair competition.
They tried to engage in laws to "preserve religious freedom" until the Mayor of Indy and Gencon, and a few others said, "No, we won't follow this law" or "We will be re-evaluating our future business with the state" (which is not a small amount of business)
On the post: Penis Pump Company Threatens To Report Techdirt To Interpol Because We Wrote About Its Bogus DMCA Demands
Re: More proof...
On the post: Federal Judge Says Recording Police Not Protected By The First Amendment
If they were, The US Constitution, rather the first amendment, it's PURPOSE is to speak out against the govt without reprisal from the govt.
On the post: FBI's Scorched Earth Approach To Apple Means That Tech Companies Now Have Even Less Incentive To Help Feds
Re:
On the post: Pew Asks Stupid Misleading Question About FBI Apple Fight, Gets Stupid Misleading Answers
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Pew Asks Stupid Misleading Question About FBI Apple Fight, Gets Stupid Misleading Answers
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Military Prison Blocks Won't Let Chelsea Manning Read EFF Blog... To Protect EFF's Copyright
On the post: Remember When The FBI & NYPD Told People To Upgrade Their iPhones To Enable Stronger Security?
Re: Isn't it obvious?
"They couldn't access the site cause it didn't have a backdoor to it." Is that right?
Next >>