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.
Come on now. Do people really believe that DRM protects products from piracy?
This was the 23rd face transplant carried out since doctors began performing the procedure seven years ago.
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?
Tech Support: Right. What's the program you use to view the 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.
Of course, such a device has to be under the control of the customer. Not the ISP.
This can easily be rolled into a little box that gets updates regularly from its maker, with the current markers for bot traffic, not unlike how we deal with malware on computers already. Just that this time the box is not prone to user idiocy, clicking "yeah, go on" whenever some trojan wants a new home.
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?
What about the TSA? Nobody likes it, but I don't think anyone has a better idea.
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.
The decision doesn't have to be logical; it was unanimous.