It'd be great if Google themselves come with a free solution.
Those spy agencies can always see which server one connects to. No encryption can hide the actual connection, the IP address you talk to. That "metadata" tells spies what you're looking for.
If implementation were easier, much easier, and without having to go through the trouble of remembering renewals or break your site, I'd probably have implemented it already, as it won't hurt.
How about: "rely on the national security services to do their job, and make sure the screenings can go ahead safely"?
I'm operating a small web site, mostly to promote my business. It's there, it works, I don't do much about it.
I've considered https, but it's too hard for me as a small web site owner: first I have to manage to get an SSL certificate (costs serious effort and money), then I have to figure out how to install it correctly (tried it before with a self-issued certificate and failed; while I'm fairly computer savvy), finally I have to somehow remember to renew it every few years or so - which is an interval way long enough to completely forget how the installation worked, so I have to start all over again.
Now it seems Google gives higher ranking to https sites - meaning my site gets a lower ranking, that's bad. Next Google is starting to warn people to stay away from my site as it's not secure: why should I want to encrypt what is otherwise public information, like event schedules and itineraries? I put that information on my web site with the express purpose of reaching as many people as possible.
There are many people like me, who put up a web site just for promoting their business. It doesn't make sense to encrypt this info, at all. It doesn't make sense to downgrade ranking for that reason. Very bad move by Google.
Yes, yes... and I took care already not to call it "massive quantities"...
That it is the easiest explanation, doesn't mean it's the correct explanation, or that us non-believers so to say would support one of the other theories.
To me it's indeed very much a kludge, it seems to work, but I have the strong feeling that there is something else at play. Just no idea what that something else could possibly be.
Smashing two galaxies together is not that easy
The thing that bugs me most with dark matter is that it is seemingly absent on small scales (e.g. the solar system), yet somehow shows up in immense quantities on large scale. It just doesn't add up to me.
I totally agree with you. Sooner or later we will find out what it is, and that 80% of matter that constitutes dark matter isn't there after all.
I always hear about dark matter when they're talking in terms of clusters of galaxies. Huge amounts of matter, immense distances. However this dark matter, four times as much as the rest of the universe, is supposed to be everywhere, have mass, but only interact through the force of gravity. However, for some reason unknown to me, the visible matter in our solar system perfectly describes how the planets orbit the sun, how the moon orbits the earth, and how hard I hit the ground when I try to fly. So where is this dark matter, all this extra gravity? Shouldn't I hit the ground a lot harder than we can explain just based on the mass of our planet?
Indeed there is probably something going on at large scales, where gravity doesn't work as it does on small scales. Or indeed as you suggest the speed of light is not as constant as we believe it is, and our observations are simply distorted because of that. It's going to be tricky to find all that out, as the scales involved are so huge. On the other hand, the moment scientists find out what gravity really is by looking at the tiniest bits like the Higgs boson, we may be able to understand how the universe works at large scales.
I'm looking forward to the first theories that really explain this gravity anomaly (which is what "dark matter' really is, as I understand it: seemingly too much gravity). It may throw our understanding of the universe upside down.
Doesn't work. Most of advertising is not to generate a direct sale; it is to get your name out. To get your brand image in potential customer's minds, so that when later they're in a shop they gear toward the know, i.e. your, brand. It's impressions that really count for most advertising, not click-through rates, though the latter (with the increased number of visitors on your web site) do give you a nice, warm, fuzzy feeling.
I was thinking the other way around: bots click many ads, so they appear to be interested in looking at ads, and that is what makes them look like a high value customer.
After all, people like me (AdBlock installed; for that reason alone won't ever click on an ad, not even accidentally) have no value for online advertisers, no matter how rich I am or how much stuff I buy.
That's going to be a million to one.
On top of that, I'm sure the majority of the already low number of direct clicks on ads, is made up of accidental clicks. I see ads all the time in apps on my phone; and really the only clicks they have from me are accidental. Which happens quite frequently (and is quite annoying in its own right as it disturbs whatever I'm doing - I know, I should look for an adblocker).
Thanks! Going to check that one out.
Recently I found out I had to allow third-party cookies to get a very useful extension to work... had it disabled to at least make tracking a lot harder.
Cookies certainly have their purpose, e.g. to remember my language choice for a site. Don't want to completely disable them. Keeping some cookies alive that the site that I visit uses is fine; third parties tracking me across sites definitely not.
Have quality, non-annoying, fast loading ads, relevant to the content, placed on quality content/sites, [...]
This part I wholeheartedly agree with. Most of the ads are so irrelevant, so totally unrelated to whatever you're looking at, they're useless. For some reasons the advertisers like to look at all the info they can get about you, like your past interests and so, and serve ads based on that. Instead of simply looking at the page you're browsing, and serving ads that are relevant to the content of that page.
The only one that I know that's doing this, is Google on their own search page. Search for something, and you get ads directly related to it.
[...]and I will be much more likely to not block them, and in some cases I may actually look at them.
Not likely, as the damage has been done already.
Like me, I suppose you're running an ad blocker. This I installed as I got too irritated by ads - first it was FlashBlock as mostly flash ads were the culprit, but the animated gifs aren't much better so it was ABP. I never looked back. I'm not going to "test" whether a site has improved and is worthy of unblocking. When blocked, ads are gone, and I for one doesn't miss them. If they're there, unobtrusive and relevant, that's totally fine with me - but that won't happen, as it's simply blocked already. When installing a new system, ABP and FlashBlock are among the first add-ons to install, it's like a habit.
For the advertisers, the damage has been done, they've completely lost my eyeballs. Sorry guys, it's your own fault by seriously irritating me.
Does Windows (last time I checked still by far the #1 operating system in use) already have anything resembling a software repository?
It would work well for things that require very little force, like reorienting the solar panels or aiming the antenna
Maybe you should look into this natural phenomena called "wind". It's there in many parts of the world. It's something that can put massive forces on things like solar panels, and to a lesser extent antennas.