All of these are necessary and none are a substitute for one-another. And even in concert and combination, they are not 100% effective and never can be.

The fact is, there are people who think the ability to get beyond security measures is tantamount to the "right" to break, enter and utilize. That is the source of the trouble. And until those humans are addressed effectively, there cannot be any progress against the problem. And why isn't that happening? Should be obvious.

With government writing themselves laws exampting themselves from prosecution (and simply ignoring laws, and refusing to prosecute themselves) and business of every kind, everywhere "lobbying" [read: buying] legislation which enables them to legally circumvent personal privacy and security measures while at the same time criminalizing circumvention of playback control measures? Well the picture sure be clear enough. They can't easily go after anyone without potentially offending the people who support them -- their sponsors.

The establishment itself is the problem. The establishment problem is best addressed by a mob of rebellion. Start with simple things: MS Windows for work and Linux/BSD for home. I don't care which flavors of Linux/BSD anyone uses and variety is a great thing -- no one-virus/malware to rule them all. Similarly to "the truth" Open Source will set you free. It's simply harder and less frequent to get malware through in any consistent and predictable way. With Windows and MacOS, consistency and predictability is far greater.

We preach "defensive driving" in motor vehicle traffic. But we ignore it where communications, privacy and data flows are concerned? And of the two, which are presently more important? (Still a contest but it's not about which is "more" important... that's a matter of context)

I'm aware there is malware for all. There are reasons to go with something other than windows:

1. Windows is #1 for known vulnerabilities
2. Windows is #1 for the rate of new vulnerabilities
3. Windows is #1 for the general weakness of the security model which exploits use to excallate themselves
4. Windows is extremely homogenous which means it's far simpler to write one exploit to pwn them all

Those facts alone are more than enough reason -- if they want in, make them work for it.

And the nothing of separating machines by function? It's pretty fundamental. Even if one stays with Windows, separating functions over different machines is just best. And they just aren't as expensive as they once were and "just for internet" requires the least amount of cost imaginable.

Well there you have it. If you're running Windows you get what you deserve. "Oh! but my games! My precious distractions! My fake 'acheivements!'" Yeah. I completely understand. Keep your Windows computers off of the internet for anything other than gaming! No email! No web browsing!

"But the applications I need to run my business!" Okay, I'll definitely go along with that to a degree. Once again, Keep your work machines off of the internet! If your work is important, and I'm sure it is, then keep it safe off of the internet.

Is MacOS safe? Not as long as Apple enjoys a pretty cozy government relationship. Is Linux safe? I wouldn't go that far either. "Safe"-er! yeah. But people need to simply be more aware of what affects them and how. It's like walking through life without washing your hands and not avoiding filth. You wouldn't do that would you?

I was thinking the same thing about restaurants with "all you can eat" deals. :) Mostly because I'm hungry and haven't eaten since lunch time. :)

1) The political push is for getting more women into studies in school they don't want and when they can't get the numbers they want in those schools, they close the programs down. In the workplace, the same sort of numbers games are being played in a way rather similar to race baiters. And women are being "shamed" for not being successful career women. Smart women don't buy into it, but we live in a consumer society -- smart people are increasingly rare.

It's getting late... want to sleep. I think I am happy with this discussion especially as I find many like-minded people who actually see the harms our society is experiencing due to the cost [read "LOSS"] of the family and thus children which are the next workers and leaders of our nation as the years continue to count forward. We seem to be taking a LOT for granted and not the least of which is the importance of women, families and children.

We knew this decades and centuries ago. We have always sought to honor and protect women -- we called it by many names including chivalry. But some whack-job women decided it was "oppression." And as their agenda became adopted into the system, the results have been catastrophic. And if you don't agree that children are our future and that whole families are needed to raise good, strong, healthy sons and daughters, please tell me who and how our society will not become "Idiocracy" any worse than it already is? That's a serious question.

Speaking as a family man who is the sole earner of the house, whose wife is a stay-at-home mom to our little boy, I can say it's a kind of a pinch to live this way. But it also highlights a lot of what we don't need in life. We have given up a LOT to live like this, but also, a vast majority of it was useless to begin with and we're better for giving it up.

My mother was a stay-at-home mom. And my father worked every day. My earliest memories were a mother who cooked and cleaned every day and did things with us. (She had 5 sons) And when my father came home, we all ran to the door and hugged his legs and I used to ride his boot (he was a blue-collar worker) as he walked around like Frankenstein's monster. We loved as a family in the most old fashioned and "out dated" way imaginable.

So your snark is 180 degrees off mark. Seriously. The bitter reality is that you are more likely victim of a broken home.

1. "Improve things"? Really? There are loads of women who would love nothing more than to raise their children instead if having babysitters do it while they work and feel guilty no matter what choice they make. And for those women who feel fine about abandoning their children to "trusted strangers," How is that an improvement?! Desensitized, unloving, unnurturing mothers?? Bad families raise bad children who grow into bad adults. And when they have children (and that's happening now) they have NO idea how to raise them.

2. Not men as a category? You can't be serious. And why "certain specific men"? And why do feminists in high government leadership positions care nothing about the very REAL anti-woman things going on in other nations and instead make up nonsense about pay gaps and all of that? Study after study shows that the reasons for many gaps and limits on upper-leadership and lack of women in certain jobs (funny, they never talk about how few women do "grunt work" like mechanics, plumbing, elentrcians, HVAC, garbage collection, truck drivers and all...yes there are some, but it's overwhelmingly male) has more to do with lack of interest and/or having other/conflicting interests in life... say for example, being a mother.

There just aren't fights left to fight for "feminism." And the harm it has done to nearly all areas and aspects they have influenced is amazing. Nothing good has happened since the right to vote has been established. (Please cite examples to the contrary) And please. When have feminists EVER demanded equal responsibility to accompany their equal rights? The draft registration is STILL a sexist law and no one cares and if anyone pushed to require women to register you can bet the feminists would be the first to say "no!"

When, thanks to feminism, women have the legal right to walk away from the responsibility of motherhood. Do men? Even if they never knew or saw the child? Nope. There is a need for equality, but equality of RESPONSIBILITY is elephant of hypocrisy in the room.

Nature gives men and women role assignment by gender. Men can't nurse babies without some serious medical modifications. Any and every time "society" thinks it's smarter than nature, and that a political idealism which challenges reality, bad things result. We live in a society where more children have only one parent and either that parent (invariably a woman) is either living on child support and welfare or is working and not taking care of her children. Neglected children cannot POSSIBLY grow up well.

Is feminism really such a great idea?

Kindly explain a version of feminism that doesn't blame men for the problems women experience.

Please at least google the correlation between agressive and violent behavior with higher levels of testosterone? I don't need to make an argument when there is that. That steroid use makes the distinctive results more clear and obvious with clear "before and after" results is a terrific sign post which mere genetic and other natural survey oriented studies can seek to prove or disprove... and HAVE. Unfortunately the ones which show that people of different races have variying levels which may account for their individual potential and historical acheivement are also looked upon badly... due to politics.

So you're saying "not ALL feminists are overtly angry." Nice argument. It also begs the question of when/where feminists find it appropriate to side with the more radical elements and when to abandon them. In actuality, there is no feminism without the blaming of men for their problems. What else IS feminism after all? Society has ALWAYS had laws protecting women specifically and particularly and at no time in history have men rendered choices and decisions which support men -- men are not famous for supporting men at all. Women, on the other hand, are, and it gets worse with feminism whether "mild" in practice or extreme. And to have seen the kinds of hate and even violence against "men's groups" because it is felt that men neither need nor deserve support or protection? I'm sorry, but you've got some history and facts to accumulate to displace your beliefs.

And seriously, even if these examples you know would NEVER do the kinds of things the more "famous" feminists are known for, it's time to change the name which describes their alignment. If they continue to use a term as poisoned as "feminist" then you might look to question their actual motive and intent.

Enforcement presently requires enforcers who are pretty brutal. There's a lot of yin-yang which people only want to see one-half of.

Nice "wisdom" there. But why did you stop thinking there? There IS definitely a link between excessive testosterone and the lowering of sustained logic, reason and mental stability and order. (Just as there is similar evidence liking excessive estrogen with similar behaviors among women) What happens to people, both men and women when they are on steroids? That's been well established in the medical sciences for decades.

So to say correlation/causation is a problem here conveniently missed the established facts and among these the effect of higher testosterone on mental capacity.

I think the recognition of corre-cause fundamental principle is an important aspect of reasoning. But it is not the whole of debunking anything. (And yes, nothing you say disagrees with that statement.) But to simply state "correlation != causation" and walk away as if you've debunked something is pretty commonly expressed in these parts and I find it disturbing.

We're bio-chemical machines. The efficacy of the machines has everything to do with what's in them, what the balances are and especially what we put into them. But even if that balance is essentially natural or origin and basis, the outcome is still an effect of the factors at play. That is to say, groups of people with higher levels than others show predictable results categorically speaking. (But that's "racist" and we're not allowed to talk about that either)

If anything, this "finding" is just another grain of evidence supporting the obvious where human evolution are concerned. As we continue to value intellectual ability over physical ability, those who have better intellectual ability will do better than those that do not. And for societies to evolve in a direction which favors mind power over physical power literally requires and causes a reduction in that which inhibits it the most. Think in terms of rust causing heat which causes more rust and it's not so much corre-cause as it is factors feeding into one another.

No, I don't favor the "men are obsolete" argument as it's ridiculous on its face. Feminism, like so many other hate-focused idealisms, requires an enemy. And the biggest problem with feminism's enemy is that they are the ones who create and maintain pretty much everything. That's why all of the push for "more women in these fields." The push is because as men continue to become disenfranchised, they know there is a need to replace them. The problem is they don't have anyone who WANTS to replace them because cetegorically speaking, women are interested in what women are interested in while men are interested in what interests men. And there's a certain amount of "nature" driving this fact. Deviations are fine and welcome, but attempting to force idealism over nature has NEVER worked in all of history for any sustainable amount of time and has never resulted in happiness, peace or harmony. So let's not take the observation and the apparent conclusions into political space.

Men cannot be obsolete if only because we are half of that biological basis of sustainable reproduction, development and adaptation. We need to be able to breed and cross-breed as a means of continuation. And that requires men and women... until they can effectively create artificial sperm... which yes, I know they're working on even now.

What the ISPs are ACTUALLY afraid of is popular businesses like NetFlix doing what many other content providers have done when presented with higher costs of market participation have done. They simply stop providing content and let their consumers influence the carriers. It's the content providers who provide value to the carriers, not the other way around. And that fact becomes exceedingly clear when content providers push back by pulling out and fans/consumers get upset.

Can you imagine what would happen to even the most powerful ISP if NetFlix refused to send packets to endpoints controlled by such an ISP? Where do you think the consumer outrage would be focused? On NetFlix or the carrier? History suggests the outrage goes to the carrier who threatens and charges the content providers for the priviledge of connecting with consumers.

Adblock doesn't block youtube videos. They are the ONE advertising seller that "gets it." All other ad sellers do not trust the content providers to host or to count the hits on the ads. So Adblock is effective. But then again, Youtube is an ad seller AND a content provider, so the trust is within itself. Heaven help us when content providers are trusted by ad sellers.