This, and the tendency for company leadership to feel outsourcing means they can offload all responsibility for project success.
Something I've seen firsthand is companies that are pathologically incapable of making important decisions internally, and that is why they bring in a consultancy. Consultants go around to the various stakeholders (who can't agree on anything), gather requirements from each, then make recommendations. Despite the fact that the recommendations are basically a micro-model of the stakeholders' existing points of view and the result is the same no-win scenario the company was facing to begin with, the recommendations are acted upon, either in whole or in part. When the result is the same mess that would have inevitably happened even before the consultancy was brought in, at least now it's the consultants' fault that their recommendations didn't work out. Managers can then stir up a big stink when it's time to renegotiate the contract, they win some petty, unimportant concessions from the consultancy, and it's time to rinse and repeat.
You know how they say that in ancient times, hunter-gatherer societies used all the parts of an animal? Very soon we can put them to shame.
It is far worse than AT&T bundling free phones with their service, and that got them split up into multiple companies.
If by AT&T you mean Ma Bell, then free phones? When did that ever happen? Under Ma Bell you leased your phone equipment from the phone company. Ma Bell got split up into multiple companies because it was a massive monopoly that maintained this and other predatory pricing practices.
It says a lot about the state of US news consumers if you think an advertisement for a brand loyalty program is "hard news."
Putting advertisements on public transportation is flat-out wrong
On anything owned by the public, in fact. Roads, bridges, busses, anything.
Did we really think companies wouldn't charge money for advertising?
You're talking about end users. Something pops up they just click whatever makes it go away. You think they pay attention to that?
They would if Microsoft hadn't spent 10 years training them otherwise.
Confirmation dialogs are a good thing that has been destroyed by overexposure.
Safe is not a binary yes or no. It's more of a spectrum.
No, it's not. You are safe, or you are compromised. The millisecond you get compromised, you change state hard from one to the other.
There are things that are more or less likely to get you compromised. You apparently confuse that. But there is no confusion. An image has a specific purpose. A scripting language does not. If I allow you to send me an image to display, my intention is clear - I want to see an image. If I allow you to run a script on my machine, my intention is not clear.
GP is correct. Ads need to move back to display-only functionality. All the tracking, malware and other shit is because we have given greedy fuckers too many toys. The horse is out of the stable, we won't get it back in, we will not get any kind of "responsible advertisement". Too late. Static only is the solution. Ad blocking the other. Nothing else will work. Exactly because there is no spectrum. If you give advertisers, who have proven time and time again that they are shady, something that can be exploited, then it will be exploited.
And with that, all the "good advertisers" bullshit is dead. Not just scammy and shady ad networks deliver malware. Advertisement is evil and needs to die, at least the way it is handled right now. The whole thing needs to be made illegal and restarted fresh with a clean slate and the first question should be "what do we, the users, want from advertisement?".
I like product information, for example. I'm a big fan of sites that compare products. These days, there are a thousand mobile phones, or printers, or vacation destinations, or chairs or cars or really anything, and it's not easy to find the one that's perfect for you.
There's also new and interesting stuff coming out all the time, and most of us miss most of it. Something that focusses on these aspects, on the customer desires, that would be wonderful.
As much as I cringe on the mentioning of VB, bad software is made by bad programmers, not by bad languages. I have seen many, many, MANY pieces of really crappy software in C, C++, Java as well as in PHP, Perl, Prolog and a dozen other languages. Some languages are better than others, no doubt about that. But idiots will manage to write shit in any language, and with any tool. The solution is not to give the idiots better tools, but to not allow the idiots to write software.
When they are asked? Hell no! You do that even once, you will be on my list of vendors I will never, ever work with, and recommend every client I consult to not touch with a ten foot pole, either.
When served with a proper court order? That's a different story.
By removing the need for would-be programmers to learn esoteric programming languages, the method has the potential to significantly expand the number of people engaged in programming
Because we really need more amateur programmers fucking things up and creating software with exploitable bugs. Who needs information security anyway...
Hate you already.
Africa exists, I've been there. But China doesn't exist, we all know that.
The steady state of disks is full. -- Ken Thompson