And only a few more short years from ads being added to those HUDs.

Ads are always annoying to the person subjected to them. But there are varying degrees of annoying. A banner is annoying if it's drawing your attention by flashing, but you shrug it off. A popup is annoying and you have to close it. And various others require you to click somewhere to close them or get rid of them, but they're just annoying.

It stops being annoying and it starts making people really angry if they have to sit and wait. And that's basically what you have to do when using video ads. You have to sit there and wait. Because if you COULD close it easily, it would fail to deliver its message. Think about it: Consider you only get to see 2-3 Seconds of a TV ad. Would you even know what product is being hawked?

So to make video ads efficient, you not only have to annoy the person seeing it, you have to BORE him. And bored people generally start to think. No, don't come around with "but FB users are too dumb to think", people DO think when they're bored. They are working out a scheme to get rid of their boredom. If they have to click to close something, you're doing something and hence it's not as annoying as sitting there and just waiting.

And every user can open a new window, open the search engine of his choice and enter "how the FUCK do I get rid of those damn ads on facebook".

And from this moment on, he does not only block the video ads, he is blocking ALL ads, hence not only not increasing FBs ad revenue but actually DEcreasing it.

And that's what Zuckerberg is afraid of.

Get past my router if you can.

Admittedly, it's easier if you don't mind blocking FB altogether...

Erh... they can show their potential customers what they want to sell?

Or are you talking about the value for the product? In that case, none. And that's exactly the reason that Zuckerberg is wary of implementing it, his products might run away.

He said he ain't an idiot, not that he ain't greedy.

No need to. We're already pawns.

The difference might be that this isn't about a contract. If it was, the worst that could possibly happen is a cash fine, considering that contract issues are part of the civil, not the criminal, code.

But seriously. Think back a quarter century and ponder what someone would have said if you told him that a US citizen flees to Russia to beg for asylum because he's being prosecuted for telling the truth...

My answer usually is "Depends. May I use Assembler? Then I'll probably be the most productive member of your staff, line-wise"...

As long as the code is always identical, you're right. It is likely, though, that this machine is able to produce vastly different results from minuscle changes in code, resulting in a very easy way to generate an arbitrary amount of copies of your virus code that doesn't look anything like the others to a scanner.

Well, DUH!

Be honest. Imagine you have something like that. Where would you present it?

At a tech conference, where techs are present who can't throw money at you but can crack it?
Or at a management conference where the second part of the above statement is inverted?

As if that has ever been a concern of software makers. "Our Software runs too slowly? Well, get a better machine, your ancient 1 year old crate of course cannot run our superspecialawesome piece of artificially deoptimized code".

Remember, kids, everything that can be applied for good can be applied for ill. And code that is impossible to decipher and analyze is the holy grail of malware.

If you thought the whining of the content industry concerning the illegal copying of imaginary property was loud, this will be deafening.

Sales will pick up instantly as soon as modchips are available.