Be careful not to confuse marketing with demand.

They are both advertised as IP67 dust- and water-resistant.

Google's marketing claims they're even safe to wear while showering:
https://play.google.com/store/...
https://play.google.com/store/...

Not sure I'd do that if I got one...

My point was that use of DRM is easily excused by saying "pirates", but the real motivation behind it is to limit the rights of paying consumers. Pirates break any DRM, so it doesn't really affect them.

Just hope that you're not allergic to penicillin!

Come on now. Do people really believe that DRM protects products from piracy?

From TFA:

So there's 6 cases that have not yet been reviewed. I wonder why they were excluded from the sample... Too soon after transplant to review?

Tech Support: What web browser are you using?

User: Web.

Tech Support: Right. What's the program you use to view the web?

User: Web.

Nope. Can't see how this would be a problem. Ever.

But I think they were going for the same idea that Microsoft had when they added "Internet" and "Email" links to the start menu in XP. Generic shortcuts that launched whatever program you had setup as your default. At least Microsoft didn't rename the entire programs...

A good review of the issue was documented on the website of yet a different extension: DownThemAll! - Can I trust NoScript any longer?

Basically, NoScript got upset that AdBlock made it possible to block ads on their site. (Note: by default, the NoScript site gets opened on every update.) So NoScript issued an update that crippled AdBlock's ability to block anything. This was discovered and NoScript, under pressure, changed to automatically add a forced white-list for their own site. Eventually, that was changed to allow opt-out, and then removed entirely. But the trust is still damaged; I haven't used NoScript since then.

I stopped taking NoScript seriously when they thought it was a good idea to deliberately disable AdBlock and obfuscate the code that did so.

Whoop-de-damn-doo...

So on the one hand, you say you want to put control into the hands of the user to avoid the ISPs. Then you follow that by saying you want to put control into the hands of the maker to avoid the idiocy of the users.

This doesn't quite make sense to me. Why should we assume the makers of an anti-botnet box are any better than ISPs?

I think most people have a better idea: Do away with it.

It's a giant waste of money/time that offers only "security theater" in place of security.

I share your doubt. Women may lead more democratically, but that doesn't always come out with the best outcome... Different? Yes. Better? Not always. The title tries to twist the words of the summary. I didn't read the article.

You don't actually think the Chinese government goes out of their way to tell the Chinese people that they're being censored, do you? Most Chinese people don't know that they're being censored, and frankly don't care.