> It's affecting the quality of the web that you, as a user, are browsing.
Any numbers to back this up?
(also while I'm asking for numbers how about "There is no doubt that this has affected the revenue for website owners negatively regardless of the size of the website." ?)
>The proposed solution is to maintain a global whitelist that each ad blocker is forced to respect.
I personally can't think of an effective way this could be achieved.
Getting even a small proportion of the world to agree on a single whitelist would be difficult if not impossible; who would maintain it, who would decide what was whitelisted and what was blocked? not to mention any actual legal issues across any sort of jurisdiction.
But assuming you could, what mechanism could be used to stop people loading extensions and apps into their browser?
Then, for the more technically savvy users, how do you propose to block the use of something like a pihole (https://pi-hole.net/) or equivalents ?
This all assumes that blocking the ads is even a problem (for the quality and stability of the web) in the first place and without a solid range of evidence to back it up, it's anecdotal at best.
Pure conjecture, but i'd guess there is probably evidence to support declining advertising revenue that might possibly be partially attributed to adblockers, but I doubt its the only factor( or even the biggest ).
> It's affecting the quality of the web that you, as a user, are browsing.
You know what affects the quality of the web I, a user, am browsing? A bunch of damn videos I can't get to go away, a bunch of flickering GIFs, and a bunch of horrid banners. That's a very, very direct effect. The "reduced" quality is at best a second order effect.
There's also all the malvertising, the malware spread by ad networks. I grant that this, too, is a second order effect, but if we're going to worry that web quality is reduced by some ads not getting clicked, we should worry just as much about the malvertising.
There isn't enough info to automatically close accounts just because they use the same name and profile photo as other users (keep in mind that profile pictures can be of anything such as a flag found through Google Images).
They probably only investigate and close imposters if they receive complaints from other users.
Another theory that I read was that Sloot had somehow linked analog and digital (he was supposedly a TV technician before) and that he was parameterizing data from an analog signal using a small amount of data.
Now conspiracy theory or not; one can't claim that it's not an interesting read since he privately demonstrated it to at least 20 people and was also able to get Philips to work with him.
This sounds more like encryption than compression and I don't understand how it could save space the majority of the unique data is still needed for each movie.
I hate to say it and I would love to be proved wrong, but my theory is that it was a hoax (an impressive one as he was able to convince big names) and I think he did it with encryption. Here's what I think: what's fairly established is that Sloot used "shared resources" which each user of the system was required to have in order to decompress/view the movies (here's a picture of the box with the shared resources: http://www.nethwork.nl/images/kastjesloot.jpg).
Now this box had one or multiple storage devices which stored encrypted copies of the hundreds of movies that he used for the demos (with perhaps some RLE to save space). The chipcard contained the secret key for each movie and here is how I think it worked:
1. The chipcard (8 KB in size) containing a secret key is inserted into the machine.
2. The source code is decrypted using the key and compiled for each run (this would explain why no one was able to get their hands on the source code).
3. The movie is extracted/decrypted from the shared resources by following the sequence provided by the secret key.
In other words, he got away with storing the full sized movies on the disks simply by saying that they were shared resources.
Once they got a few days away from the release the realization that he be exposed, caused the stress that lead to his unfortunate death.
Nearly everything that you do on a page is trackable if you have JS enabled including how you moved your mouse on the page (https://api.jquery.com/mousemove/).
To keep the technical details short: the events are logged with JS and sent over either ajax or a websocket in the background as you navigate the site.
If you want to add a huge improvement for this, then listen for the hash changes, and switch to the correct tab once changed so that they change when the back/forward buttons are pressed.
SMTP ports are blocked and we recommend using a transactional mail service if your server needs to send mail.
We're implementing a number of things to profile abusers and prevent abuse on the platform and will be strictly enforcing policies against abuse. The lack of an API and prohibition on automating the creation of servers combined with required Github profile for ssh keys help to make the service unattractive for most abuse cases. Our goal is to use these methods to prevent abuse while keeping a very low barrier to entry for legitimate users.
This is fun gag to play.
But something that would really awesome would be if you could call your script if an unknown command is run and have the script look for a command that's most similar to the misspelled one and ask if that's what the use meant (or even auto run the corrected command).
With a dev license you can install pretty much anything on your device through XCode. And if you do not want to compile but wanna collaborate on the project, we offer the possibility to become a tester of our RAW branch :)
It's actually quite easy. You open up the project in Xcode, plug your telephone in and select it as the build-target. Then you click "run" and fix all the problems that come up. You need a Team (you AppleId will suffice), you need to change the bundle-name because the current name is of course owned by another team (the blink shell team). You can change it to something random like com.idontcare123.Blink. Click run again and the App will magically appear on your device.
It's affecting the quality of the web that you, as a user, are browsing.
> The proverbial cat is out of the bag, and you're not getting him back in.
The proposed solution is to maintain a global whitelist that each ad blocker is forced to respect.