Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment The Advertisers can ${verb} themselves (Score 1) 307

${verb} = "blame"

The advertisers can blame themselves for this.

At first there was the web. Unsoiled and uncontaminated by ads. Great websites emerged. Ads came along to help pay the bills.

Then came all of the despicable things that go with advertising.

There are no limits to what advertisers will stoop to. Nothing too low, too slimy, or too shady. There is no shame.

First it started with deceptive 'punch the monkey' type ads. Almost a form of phishing. Try to con the user into clicking the ad. Then that degenerated into ads that looked like windows of a particular popular desktop operating system in order to con people into clicking the ad. When you have to con people with an ad, you're doing something wrong.

Ads for obvious scams. YOUR COMPUTER MAY HAVE BEEN INFECTED! (infected by this ad!)

And there was the tracking. I don't know if advertisers or the government are worse when wanting to observe everything you do.

And why would an advertiser wanting to put pixels in front of my face need to execute code on my computer?

And then came the ads that dominate the entire page. And then there were short articles split on to fifteen pages, each tiny page having a HUGE ad in the middle of it. No thanks. Not even worth reading.

Then came the ad driven pages that pretend to say something useful, but really do not. Did you know that if you write the same bit of code twice that it would be better to write a single routine and call it from the multiple locations where the duplicate code was? Did you know you should not touch hot stoves? If the batteries in the server room catch fire, it would be best, in the interests of time to skip the fire response pre-meeting and get directly to the fire response meeting so that a decision can be made about whether the fire should be extinguished, and if so, how best to do so.

Then came companies who buy useful web sites. Don't understand what they have. Don't understand the visitors. How the site is used by the visitors. And think that the visitors are some kind of 'audience'. In the process they destroy the value of what they bought. Typical of managers always doing this to geeks. It's like the bee keepers thinking they own the bees. The bees can produce valuable honey if the bee boxes are useful, but the bees are also free to leave at any time. But I digress.

If the advertisers don't like the state of ad blocking, they have only themselves to blame. People did not bother to block ads at first. Some, myself included, even welcomed them to a point. Look at that goose that lays golden eggs! Let's put PVC piping through that goose so we can shove in food and get much more golden eggs out the other end!

Comment Re:Precision (Score 2) 64

> You could argue that this technology would let you make 1 super-pill tailored to the individual

All the drugs a person needs. Maybe a custom morning pill, and evening pill.

Next advance: custom print the pills at home using a device you pick up at your pharmacy. Your doctor remotely updates your prescription.

Next advance: hackers remotely update your prescription.

Comment Re:Change the dosage without changing looks... (Score 1) 64

Yeah, I was coming here to say something very similar.

From TFA . . .

If patients needs to increase or decrease their dosage, the hospital can do so without changing the appearance of the pills, which could help those with memory impairments.

I can think of other applications for changing someone's dose without them being aware of it. In fact, you could slip them a custom printed pill that looks just like the rest of the pills in their bottle.

Extra Credit: consider the implications of custom 3D printing Drug A in Drug B's clothing. (Pill for Drug A looks like it is a pill for Drug B.)

We won't even talk about illegal pills that look like they are legal pills. Officer, that is just a bottle of tylenol.

Someone could also take placebos that look just like the real thing.

But don't stop there. Maybe you print a pill so that it looks like a piece of candy.

Comment An observation about using the GPL for Libraries (Score 1) 250

This is NOT a complaint about the GPL, or any other license. An author of a work is free to choose whatever license they want to offer their work under, including a closed source license. Merely an observation.

IMO . . . when someone offers a Library, that is, a black box of code with well defined API that offers some useful capability, and offers it under the GPL, the author is deliberately trying to RESTRICT what the users of that library can do with their own code. The author is effectively saying that I only want authors of other GPL applications to use my library. If the library author were only trying to protect the freedom of his library and nothing more, then he would have used the LGPL. The LGPL protects the freedom of the library, as well as protects the freedom of the user of a closed source application to be able to re-link the application against a newer version of the library without access to the source code of the application.

I'm not saying this is right, or wrong, or anything else. It is merely an observation.

A library author that offers a library under GPL license has an ulterior motive. Usually a commercial motive to ensure they can make money from users of applications that are not under the GPL. This seems to be exactly the opposite of what the GPL was intended to do in spirit. A library offered under the GPL typically offers a "Commercial License" for applications that are not under the GPL.

Never trust an operating system.