... Faux News

You may think you are joking but much of the fear is indeed spread through the media and news channels.

Sometimes I joke that the only reason to watch the news any more is "so I know what I am supposed to be afraid of today."

Try reading between the lines of any newscast. It always goes beyond just reporting facts abut the news. Note the condescending tone in the reporters voice as they talk about some group of people. Notice how they only show bystander interviews that represent their views, such as a parent parroting "You can't be to safe!" rather than the one that says "lets not go overboard worrying about this". Ask yourself if there could be another side to the story, and notice that it is usually missing or poorly represented. Listen carefully as the anchor injects brief commentary at the close of the story such as "very scary stuff". And for broadcast news (such as noon or 5:00pm news on the major networks) flip between the channels and notice that they usually have the exact same stories even when there are no major events going on.

Realize that the vast majority of people don't have time to think about what they hear, even in the off chance they know how to use critical thinking, and you should easily see how this adds up to ladling out fear and misinformation to the masses.

Yep. The youngsters won't remember that, and some of the not-so-young have forgotten it. If Firefox disappeared tomorrow, and we never saw another release, it would have served it's primary purpose.

This.
People may not realize it, but we came dangerously close to a world where Microsoft Internet Explorer was the only accepted web browser. If Mozilla and Firefox had not gained popularity, it is quite probable that IE would have dominated enough market share to push out all other browsers. And nobody would bother creating sites that worked in anything else. Furthermore this would have virtually killed any OSes that Microsoft didn't feel like supporting with IE.

As is is now, we have several open source browsers that are ported to many different OSes, and no dignified web site would even think of only supporting one browser.

Regardless of "what went wrong", you know that the higher ups will just fire some peons, give themselves some big bonuses, and call it a day.

But the BIGGER question I don't see anybody asking, is why is there no apparent fall back or concession to delay requirements due to the problems? ANY significantly complicated computer system can reasonably be expected to encounter problems at deployment. And despite what the talking, drooling, blathering heads on TV seem to think, it is simply IMPOSSIBLE to test a system like this 100.000000000000% against real world scenarios. There will be glitches, there will be people who can't use the systems, there will be all sorts of "people problems" that no technology can fix. They should have been ready with other non webby ways to get people taken care of, and prepared to delay the needs for all of this if they could not get everyone taken care of in time.

it certainly feels pretty unethical for me to block the only way they have to recoup that money.

Does it also feel unethical to have rules about companies not putting up billboards that can induce seizures? Or about where they can put them? Would you just sit there and take it if you woke up one morning and found 100 small advertising sign posts stuck in your yard?

Since there is no regulation on the internet, an adblocker is, in my opinion, a perfectly acceptable thing to for people to use.

If a sites like Slashdot can not get by with just the kinds of things that adblockers block, then that is to damn bad. They do not have a RIGHT to make money off of my visits. I would hope they would try other ways to make money first. But if it is in an annoying or intrusive way then I am out of here. (And if they go to that crappy beta design as-is then I am out of here anyway)

Yep, lots of people on the internet say "but what about the revenue of the sites you use."

If a site can't get by on its own merits then FUCK IT TO HELL.

Real good sites with real content can find some way to make money (such as selling t-shirts, subscriptions, or the occasional equivalent of a paid slashvertisment.). And if not, then just too freaking bad.

Do people realize that even in the real world, advertisers can't just do whatever they want? They can't throw branded rocks at your car while you are driving. They aren't allowed to put up billboard that may induce seizures. They can't tack sticky notes to you to see what branded rock you were interested in last.

Many communities have rules about what can be displayed where, and when. If the advertisers find some new way to be obnoxious then the community can fight back with new rules. Just the other day there was something on the local news about an area that was planning to prohibit stores from displaying large signs in their storefront windows.

So why should "cyberspace" be any different? If a browser has rules about what kind of content is allowed and where from, then who are advertisers to say differently?

Seriously, there are STILL people out there using browsers without ad blockers?! Are they also still using IE 6?

Hint: If you are using Windows 95 or NT 3.51 then SeaMonkey 1.1.19 and Adblock 0.5 or Adblock Plus 1.0.2 do a great job.

There is just no excuse.

Say what you will, but the Windows 95/NT 4 Windows Explorer is the lightest weight, least cluttered, most consistent, and most sensible version of their user interface of all of them.

It pre-dates all the web "integration" madness so it is not tied to IE under the hood. It provides all the file management and desktop functionality anybody would really need, even in a modern computer.

The newest iteration of Windows has begun rolling out, and is buying positive reviews.

There, fixed that for you.

Does anybody besides the shills really think anybody not paid or threatened with leg breaking would give this a positive review?

But just watch as election time rolls around. Everyone will have forgotten about this mess, likely focusing on some new manufactured crisis. And even then it will still be a choice between Kang and Kodos.

You know, if you or I threatened to shut down the government we would instantly be thrown in Guantanamo or gunned down by capitol police. But somehow these terrorists that occupy the White House can get away with this nonsense and even expect us to praise them for coming to an "agreement" at the last minute?

The shelves will be able to track engagement, monitor how long customer's watch each ad...

Will they also track the frequency at which people "accidentally" smash these things?

But, if being tracked on a card bothers you so much, then simply get some people together and use the same card....

Because over time, especially if enough people do it, - and everyone should - they will make it harder, and harder, and even eventually illegal for you to do this.

And by shopping at places like this you are still saying it is OK for them to tack you and others, even if you have quietly fudged your data a bit.

Also don't be so sure that they will never have the techniques to see through your obfuscation.

"Grocer cards"? "Loyalty cards"? "Discount cards"? Let's call them what they are. TRACKING cards.

Sure, they may not turn the information over to your health insurance provider... yet. But they do use the cards to track purchases in aggregate. That is the entire reason for their existence.

Microsoft usually can see the train coming long before it arrives.

In my reading of its history, Microsoft has spent a good deal of its existence catching up with one train or another. Two notable examples: GUIs and the internet.

That is what it looks like in retrospect, but to put it metaphorically, Microsoft was already on a different train hoping it would take them where THEY wanted to go.

In the case of the Internet, they were on the train headed for making their proprietary MSN service the one true ultimate information service. I think they kind of hoped the Internet would just go away, but that didn't happen. :)

In the case of the GUI, they were already on the train of supporting and enhancing existing DOS software. It wasn't even entirely in their hands as they weren't the ones producing the hardware (How would you do a GUI when you were expected to support IBM monotext video cards?)

And now they are on they are on the tablet craze train, when outside of Apple, that is not where the rest of the world is going.

I'd say never. Why? Because driving on random roads and locations in varying conditions requires *intelligence*.

Most attempts at computer-driven cars so far basically just put cars on an electronic track and throw in a little bit of sensor data and pre-programmed logic.

Yes, 99.9% of driving is just dull "stay between the lines" but it's that .1% of unexpected shit that requires a brain. (not that too many people these days have those)

What happens when some crap falls off a truck and the sensors don't quite pick it up? What happens when someone runs out in the road in front of it? Can it tell the difference between a rectangular dark black flat piece of dangerous metal on the road and dark shadow from an overhead roadway sign? Would a computer even realize you might need to drive off the road in the event of an emergency or special circumstances? There are an almost infinite number of possibilities that you just can't pre-program in or plan for.

Throwing control back to the user probably wouldn't work well in practice, because once a car can drive itself sometimes, people will expect it to drive itself ALL the time.

And when something does go wrong, who will people sue? Right now it is the individual driver of the vehicle. I think car manufacturers would prefer to avoid the risk of being sued and leave responsibility where it is.

So what if someone creates a computer that is really intelligent enough to do that? Well, I'd suggest getting out of its way as it kills all humans. :P

In the modern context of computers "recycling" often means shipping to trash dumps in third world countries where they burn them down for gold.

Anything pre-VLSI can be truly recycled as parts or repaired to a functional condition in the right hands. Or even extended to do new things.

Unfortunately, since software doesn't contain gold or other valuable metals those always seem to wind up in the trash, yet can also be valuable to those operating vintage systems. (database software and manuals can go for quite a bit sometimes)