As I pointed out above, a restaurant surveillance system is trained on the cash registers to record transactions (or thefts) from them. They don't follow you around the damned place like someone wearing Google Glass can.
Also, the surveillance video cameras are fixed usually on a front counter to record the cash registers and those dealing with it. They aren't following you around the whole damned diner.
Also, please remember that not everyone who uses a computer is an "IT pro". This should not be necessary to avoid shit like this crap.
And there is the problem. People pay hundreds or thousands for a computer and still want to treat it as an appliance like their toaster. Why should I give a shit about their safety if they don't give a shit about it? The real question is when are people going to take responsibility for their own actions? Install crapware and get infested with shit like this. It is that simple. It all comes down to greed. Greed on the part of the producers of shit like this and greed on the part of the user trying to get a free lunch when no such thing exists.
An even better way was stated above. Remove the links as ordered and while they are at it remove any and all links to the complainant's sites. Turn them into the black hole of the Internet.
Which completely ignores not only the other points I made but the market dominance Google has and their influence on other companies. Assuming this application is even on other services, this move by Google will be copied by them in short order. Google also has dominance in the Android store market simply because of the fact that every Android device ships with the store by default much like every copy of Windows ships with Internet Explorer. And just like Internet Explorer, getting those other venues installed requires the double whammy of knowing it is on that other venue AND going through the hassle of installing that other venue.
Although not as restrictive as that iDevice it is still restrictive.
Google deciding not to distribute an application is not akin to making you into their slave. Pointing out that a warranty might be voided if you do certain things is not akin to making you into their slave. All your analogies to "walking off the plantation" do is highlight that you have absolutely no sense of perspective on this matter.
Several problems with your statement there...
1. Google didn't just "point out" that this application may void your warranty. It was already pointed out in large red, bold letters on the play store for the application so no further action on Google's part would be "pointing it out".
2. "Certain conditions" (whatever that means) ignores that in other conditions the application works just fine and has worked fine for thousands, even millions of users. If "certain conditions" was the deciding factor, then literally ALL the applications on the store could void your warranty in "certain conditions". Yet they aren't shutting down the store because of that fact.
3. Although the master / slave imagery is a bit strong you are still sacrificing the freedom to do what you want with the device that you own at Google's will. Google has made itself the gatekeeper by implementing that store and by seeing itself as the total arbiter of what is the best interest of their users.
4. Voiding of the warranty is only an issue where the warranty is in effect in the first place. Google is unilaterally deciding that ALL users, not just those covered by a warranty, should not be allowed access to this application. Although they own the store and have the right to do this, that doesn't make the decision correct.
That's if they know the higher cost is because of the bag. If the cost is hidden in the total grocery bill, then the blame for that cost will be shifted to the store.
Look, most people use these bags because they are there, usually free and they are in a hurry. Until the reusable bags are given away as freely you will continue to see plastic bag usage no matter the cost.
If my kids don't want this, they can buy their own cars and pay their own insurance. If they want to drive my cars... well...
you do know there is no way to distinguish who is driving your car right? You do realize this data will be sold to the highest bidder right? You do know that your driving habits will also be recorded and sold as well right? You do know that anything and everything on the internet is insecure and inherently dangerous to personal data right? You do know that the next step is to have law enforcement send you citations in the mail when it records you went through that stop sign without coming to a full stop or went 2 miles over the posted speed limit right?
And you are still fine with that?!?!?!
To me the real story isn't the attempt to sensationalize on a vulnerability or to single out one user of the technology but that an exploit for that vulnerability has been added to an exploit kit. That means that you probably will see it exploited widely simply because of people turning off windows update for various reasons.
I am not going to comment on the OP's asinine ramblings but will ask you a few different questions...
Why is it that the same procedure in the same town at different hospitals have costs that vary widely as much as thousands of dollars? The training required to provide that service isn't any different and is often preformed by the same doctor. So why the huge disparity in costs?
The one true constant in this world is everyone is going to get sick and die. I put forward that hospitals in particular take advantage of the pain and grief to make the most money possible. People rarely have a choice of which hospital to go to in the ambulance. And when they are in pain, unconscious or otherwise not in a frame of mind to make financial decisions, they are slapped with bills that destroy their lives or the lives of their successors. This is the number one reason many won't even consider going to the hospital usually until it is too late and the costs are far worse.
So then you wouldn't have too much of a problem when I give you nonsensical answers to your questions on your "required" questionnaire? The major difference is in traditional class there is oversight (ethics boards) that is non-existent in MOOC and the ability to opt out of it. As TFA states, students were required to populate a database essentially doing the researcher's work. Again, what is to say that I won't just throw all kinds of garbage in that? Then what value is that research when thousands do the same given the scale MOOC is talking about?
certainly the NRO would whine about it exposing capability
"But...But... They will see the big board!" -- General 'Buck' Turgidson (George C. Scott)
However, your solution, although practical still relies on the first strike which is bad news for those in that strike. It is reactionary and quite active mitigation. No matter how many holes you plug it is impossible to plug them all. A weakness will be found. All you have done is reacted irrationally to a threat that has succeeded and thrown billions of dollars at a ghost. All of our disaster related mitigation programs require a benefit cost analysis which is something lacking in the homeland security grants. Even a cursory glance at the TSA shows it is security theater unlikely to catch real threats.
Since you are in mitigation as well, you should know that the goal of it is to lessen the impacts of risk. It doesn't necessarily eliminate it. In the short term, proximate cause analysis works but the root causes still need to be addressed or you simply wind up chasing that ghost.
its always worth trying to understand why and how and what it would take to prevent it or reduce the risk.
Dealing with risk and mitigating against it is my primary job. So lets examine your comments from a mitigation point of view and see where it leads us...
To mitigate the risk you have to go to the root cause. Namely our foreign policy. The US has been building its empire trying to think of itself as the world's police. We meddle in other countries affairs both political and economic whether they asked for our help or not. We have supported dictatorial regimes as well as provide blind support for allies, especially Israel, whether they were right or wrong. We have invaded countries for natural resources and have economically sanctioned countries that refused to cooperate with the corporate interests of the US. Our belief in American Exceptionalism (the belief that we are somehow superior to everyone else) leads to an attitude that other countries see as arrogance. Our largest export isn't food or energy, it is weapons both advanced and deadly accurate.
So far, all our mitigation efforts have been reactionary to the incident as your comment points out without addressing the root causes. Our reaction to a terrorist with explosives in his shoes? Require everyone to take off their shoes for deep inspection. Our reaction to another terrorist with explosives in his drawers? Invasive pat downs and explicit x-ray machines that display everything under the clothing. Our reaction to the possibility of liquid explosives? Ban liquids on flights.
To truly mitigate this, we need to change our foreign policy to leave other countries alone to fight their own battles. We need to scale back our consumption of resources dramatically and ditch the attitude that we are the best thing since sliced bread. We need to stop the empire building and support of dictators that we use as proxies for that empire building. We need to stifle our corporate overlords in their quest for world domination and exploitation in the "global economy".
Lastly, we need to stop exporting weapons to everyone especially to those same regimes that are committing the worst atrocities whether they are allies or not.
How do you price fairly to beat free?
make things available early
Again, how do you beat those that make it available even before you do as I outlined above.
Make it easy for people to do the right thing.
Doing the right thing involves education to know right from wrong. Circumstances can override that education such as the ease it is in getting the content with little to no repercussions for doing the wrong thing.
Remember that pirated copies are almost never lost sales
Agreed, however they are a dent to your ability to realize sales absent the illegal activity. In short, although they can't be counted as sales lost it can be argued that at least some of those that pirated would have purchased it legally had the illegal avenue not existed.
Maybe in the future, things like crowd-funded software and open-source will take over if it isn't profitable enough.
Ah, but open source software relies on the very same copyright laws to exist. Absent copyright, or more importantly, copyright enforcement, open source itself couldn't exist. Crowd-funded seems more realistic to me to overcome that.
same for entertainment. Perhaps live theatre will make a comeback.
It has been a while since I have seen a live theater show. We have them in town from time to time. Worth seeing but it lacks the special effects that draws the younger crowd to the theaters to begin with. Who knows though...