Depending on what you mean by 'block', there may or may not be a properly satisfactory answer:

'Block' as in 'make this specific mechanism fail' is the relatively easy question. If the attacker can't manipulate a canvas element and read the result, it won't work. So the usual javascript blockers or more selective breaking of some or all of the canvas element (the TOR browser apparently already does this for methods that can be used to read back the contents of a canvas element, so you can still draw on one but not observe your handiwork) will do the job.

Unfortunately the attacker doesn't actually care about making your browser draw a picture, they care about achieving as accurate a UID as they can. Given that, you might actually make yourself more distinctive if your attempt to break a given fingerprinting mechanism succeeds. In the case of the TOR browser, for instance, attempts to read a canvas will always be handled as though the canvas is all opaque white. This does prevent the attacker from learning anything useful about font rendering peculiarities or other quirks of your environment's canvas implementation; but it's also a behavior that, for the moment at least, only the TOR browser has. Relatively uncommon. Possibly less common than the result that you'd receive from an unmodified browser.

That's the nasty thing about fingerprinting attacks. Fabricating or refusing to return many types of identifying information is relatively easy (at least once you know that attackers are looking for them); but unless you lie carefully, your fake data may actually be less common (and thus more trackable) than your real data.

Yeah, $13.50 a piece for print magazines seems to be quite expensive, especially on a subscription plan. Typically magazines give subscribers big discounts. That doesn't seem to be happening here. For that price, I'll just leaf through it at the book store and only buy it if it has something that particular catches my eye.

I find it a little disingenuous that they are saying that print isn't dying and then go on to say that they only have 3,000 subscribers.

And my biggest problem with print magazines is exactly as you stated. If they have a print and online version, by the time you get your copy in the mail, you could have easily just already read the online version. Unless they purposely delay the online version, which is an equally bad idea. But why stop there. Why even delay individual articles until there's a whole magazine's worth. Why not just publish individual articles online as they become available.

Yeah, especially on tablets and laptops where people generally don't (or can't) update the hardware at all. I would have to say that it's just yet another piece of identifying information. Combine it with all the other pseudo identifiers like user agent strings and font lists and you can narrow down the number of collisions quite quickly. Also, it's probably another thing that varies from time to time, which allows you to double count people and drive up visitor counts to increase your worth to advertisers.

Most likely, by the time 4K becomes popular, h265 will have reached maturity, and you'll be able to fit 4K streams in a 20 Mbps stream. 100 Mbps is still enough to do 5 simultaneous 20 Mbps streams. Also, if we could get away from all this streaming nonsense, and be allowed to download shows before we want to watch them, it would pretty much be a non issue. My computer could download stuff while I'm at work, and have everything ready for the evening when I'm ready to watch.

Citing the site thereligionofpeace.com for anything about muslims is like citing Stormfront for anything about blacks, jews, and sundry non-whites. It makes you a bit of a loony.

Even in more developed countries there are often times more people using cell phones to access the internet than PCs. For instance Japan(article is a bit old, but I don't see the trend reversing). One of the big reasons is that in a lot of countries people don't take work home. If you don't take work home, then there isn't nearly as much of an impetus to buy a PC and use it to access the internet.

This is a general problem with devices that are "paired". How do you securely establish the initial connection, when neither side knows anything about the other?

The secure solutions involve some shared secret between the two devices. This requires a secure transmission path between the devices, such as typing in a generated key (like a WPA2 key) or physically carrying a crypto key carrier to each device (this is how serious cryptosystems work).

Semi-secure systems involve things like creating a short period of temporary vulnerability (as with Bluetooth pairing). There's a scheme for sharing between cellphones where you bump the phones together, and they both sense the deceleration at close to the same time.

Apple's reputation management service is reacting faster now. It used to take them an hour to mod criticism down. Now it only takes 15 minutes. Who are they using?

This may be the backdoor known as DROPOUTJEEP, which was described in some Snowden-leaked documents last year.

Looks like Apple sold out, put in a backdoor, and then lied about it.

I personally don't see what the point of Gigabit speeds at home are. I have 30 Mbit/s internet, and that's fast enough to do at least 3 or 4 video streams at the same time. I don't really see many reasons I would need my internet connection to be 33 times faster than it already is. I think 100 would be the most I could ever forsee needing at home. At that rate, you can stream 5 Blu-Ray quality streams using h264. There's other uses such as downloading games, but the servers hosting the games aren't likely to be able to dedicate 1 Gbit to a single downloaded. Maybe in a decade some new thing will come along and I'll need a gigabit connection, but as it stands now, there isn't really any content on the internet that would benefit from having such a fast connection. At least not where I'd be hosting it out of my house.

This is why I'm seriously considering Windows Phone for my next one. I don't like iPhones because they only have 1 model (ok 2 now) and they are really expensive. Plus the fact that they make it hard to do anything that isn't Apple integrated. Android phones have the problem of you never know if they need to be updated. The only flaw I know about the Windows 8 phones is that there is a lack of apps. But as long as it has the apps so I can do what I want to, what does it matter what the total count is?

Not only that, but 8 MP camera is an easy to understand bullet point on the marketing brochure. UI that doesn't suck is harder to qualify, and doesn't really make sense on the marketing brochure. My biggest beef with Android phones is that many of them don't get updates after they leave the factory. This is especially true on many of the cheaper phones. Unfortunately, you don't see any phones marketed with "we promise to provide timely updates to the latest Android OS for the next 2 years" as a marketing point. And even if they did. There isn't much you can do to hold them to that.

If you think I'm conservative and pro-gun, then you've clearly never read any of my other posts. In fact, if your entire reply is not just an ad hominem, but one attacking views that are diametrically opposed to the ones that I've publicly stated on numerous occasions, I can only assume that you are completely lacking any meaningful responses.

This is (largely) true; but the question is why?. It is expected that cheap phones will suffer from somewhat inferior hardware; but it is less clear why they should suffer from inferior software, doubly so if the very same vendor or the AOSP has software without whatever flavor of broken is causing the issue. It's also particularly weird with something like autocorrect making dumb mistakes: that's far too high level to be a 'well, we went with the cheapest SoC vendor, and you wouldn't believe what total shit their BSP is...' problem, it's not something that the guy buying the expensive phone is going to be spared because he has a faster CPU and more RAM, and it's not something where there's any good reason for the vendor to be trying to roll their own.

I suspect that the thesis about 'hard to quantify' stuff getting squeezed first is true, and one would be foolish to expect market mechanisms to work in the absence of good information, which 'hard to quantify' largely assures; but it still surprises me that cheap hardware (and even some expensive hardware) is routinely shipped with software that actually cost somebody money to make worse than 'stock'. Carrier shitware on cheap phones, I understand, because carriers exert most of the control over what phones will be made available 'free' with contract, and so OEMs will suck it up and preinstall whatever they demand; but any other area where the experience is worse than stock android of the equivalent version just seems weird.