They sold the PC business.

They sold the server business.

Basically Lenovo+Lexmark is the IBM we knew after 1981 when the PC was introduced.

What's left of IBM is little more than newer (and smaller) versions of their 1960's mainframe and minicomputers. And "services". Services for what? What do they sell anymore other than warmed over AS/400's?

Basically IBM snuffed itself out.

1. Expand systemd to the point where large swaths of everything depend on it, so that he is controlling as much of the code base as possible.
2. Insult Linus Torvalds for a while to try to undermine his authority.
3. Fork Linux, or demand that Linus give control of Linux over to him, or he will rage-quit and take his code with him.

I don't see it unfolding that way. Remember what happened when BitKeeper tried to get up in his business. Linus, if provoked, could write an init/system management framework in a couple weeks (and probably name it "twerp" or some such). And I suspect he would do so long before things got to stage #3, just to prove the point.

I didn't get my first FM radio (ironically) 6 months before my first computer (1981), so most of my early memories of radio was AM radio, back when AM still had DJ's and played music. I never remembered epic blocks of 10 minutes of straight commercials back then as they do now.

And the drive-by malware. Don't forget about the malware that makes it into even the best of ad networks.

That is one reason I use ad blockers. NONE of the ad networks (including Google) do a fucking thing to keep malware off their networks. They have no standards for content and do no policing whatsoever. And by being so irresponsible they are INVITING the FTC to start forcing regulation on them.

If I said malware was THE reason I use blockers I'd be lying. I hate ads. I do not find ANY advertising to be acceptable. Indeed, I avoid ads on purpose.

Am I stealing by turning down the radio when an ad comes on or changing the station? Am I stealing by leaving the room and muting the TV when the commercials come on?

Actually, I'm doing them a favour by blocking ads, since I'm unlikely to buy their stuff anyway.

Since I don't load their ad to begin with, I'm saving their bandwidth and saving them a page view (do they pay per page view anymore or is it now only per click?)

Obviously people who work for Adblock Plus have mod points.

Adblock Edge is the best version of Adblock (remember Adblock Plus itself is a fork of the original Adblock and isn't an original work either) that I've used on Firefox, and I use it and Firefox both on Windows and Mac.

There are paywalled sites that seem to be doing well enough. If your site is worth something, why not charge for access? If it's worth something to me, something more than a free site that I can adblock, then I'll pay for access. I've done it in the past.

Until accessing your ad infested site (and I use 'infested' on purpose) guarantees I won't get some malware or other drive by load of poo, I will block ads.

By all means, paywall. Sites like the New York Times try it. And they've found that it has made them irrelevant on the Internet, so they are loosening and may eventually drop it.

Fact of the matter is, there aren't any "professional" journalists anymore that do their jobs so well they deserve to be paid to read their crap, OR to put up with blinking, throbbing, pop over, pop under, cover up the content advertisements.

Especially since so-called "professional" journalists and news organizations get scooped by the "amateurs" every time, something that goes back to the 1990's and Matt Drudge (a name I expect to get modded down just for mentioning). But the fact he changed reporting FOREVER cannot be denied.

The Internet was the END of any corporate/politically biased media organization's ability to CONTROL what news is disseminated and what is hidden FOREVER.

I've been using it for years - from very early states - and I know within seconds if adblock is not installed on chrome, firefox and opera and android via adaway.

As an IT professional I see user PC's all the time that don't have adblockers. I don't see how ANYONE can use the internet AT ALL without one! You barely have INFLUENCE over your browser, much less CONTROL with all the crap popping up, taking over the screen, following your mouse pointer, etc...

I'm not particularly interested in the 'sustainability' of the Internet. Google and a couple of other companies that have more money than the Catholic Church can worry about that. I'm interested in my privacy and peace of mind.

I am not going to cry if the commercial ventures on the Internet die. IMHO, the Internet was better back in 1994-5 anyway when it largely was NOT commercial!

Back in those days when you clicked on the DOWNLOAD button, (gasp) a file downloaded! Not prompt you through 6 more screens and clicks. Articles rendered as a single page instead of "click whoring" you through a dozen pages.

If those lowbrow tactics quit yielding money they will stop.

And sites like Amazon which I go to when I WANT to buy something will always be there.

I use Adblock Edge. Used to use Adblock Plus before they started accepting bribes to cripple their own filters.

I use ad blockers because I DO NOT WANT TO SEE ADS. Period. I hate ads. To me there is NO SUCH THING as an acceptable ad.

"We grant you immunity for the contents of your password." Which does not mean that whatever your password is confessing to is now safe, it just means that the password isn't usable as probable cause to investigate it. What's behind the password, on the other hand...

Nope. Immunity would have to cover whatever that password led to.

Otherwise the 5th Amendment "right to remain silent" is meaningless.

"We understand 80 percent of traffic on the Tor network involves child pornography.â - Leslie Caldwell, Ast, Attorney General at the Justice Department

(Drops Mic)

Belief and proof are two different things.

If the government wants to search your person or property THEY HAVE TO HAVE ALREADY DONE AN INVESTIGATION and have obtained sufficient evidence as to demonstrate probable cause to search a SPECIFIC person or a SPECIFIC place and seize a SPECIFIC thing:

4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

First and foremost, a warrant isn't a fishing license. It's permission GAINED BY PROBABLE CAUSE to look for SOMETHING SPECIFIC that the government already knows about. It's not permission to FIND OUT IF THERE IS anything relevant to the crime. They go in already having to KNOW what they are looking for.

What the government is pissed off about is default on hard encryption denies them the ability to CONDUCT fishing expeditions. Sure, it saves time and arguably makes law enforcement EASIER and even more efficient. If the goal of the Founders was to make law enforcement EASY and EFFICIENT, they never would have put the 4th and 5th Amendments into the Constitution. They probably wouldn't have put trial by jury in either. The 3rd probably wouldn't be in either, because if the government can quarter a soldier or a cop in your home, so much the easier to prevent you from committing crimes.

Once you put information into anything except your own head, it's fair game for a subpoena or search warrant. Period. Encryption doesn't matter. You can be compelled to provide keys or passwords, because the keys and passwords themselves aren't evidence against you. They just unlock the evidence that already exists.

Compelled to hand over a PHYSICAL key, I can see that. But a key that exists only in your head? Nope. The 5th Amendment would have to be itself amended to add that.

And I don't see 2/3rds of the States ratifying THAT without some capitol buildings burning to the ground.

It is unsettled law whether the 5th Amendment protects against subpoenaing someone for their disk encryption keys, without giving them immunity for whatever they find. Current case law seems to be leaning toward that it is. [youtube.com]

That is exactly how 5th Amendment law works.

There is only one way you can EVER be compelled to testify and actually ANSWER their questions (you aren't allowed to lie, but you can refuse to answer, the "right to remain silent" applies to your TRIAL as well which is why defendants can't be compelled to testify) and that is you have to be given IMMUNITY. If the prosecution gives your testimony immunity you cannot be prosecuted for what you say (unless you commit perjury and lie).