gress

15 ms·

121.
by gress 11y ago
Who is "between a rock and a hard place"? Google, or the ad networks?
122.
by gress 11y ago
The title is ambiguous on this point and it's irrelevant to the fact that it's an ugly choice of priorities.
123.
by gress 11y ago
Google is not asking for an exception. They are asking developers to disable the security feature entirely. Google can guarantee all third party ads will be TLS enabled simply by not making this request. Edit: true statements of fact dow
124.
by gress 11y ago
For Google, delivering ads takes priority over security best practices and customer privacy. Edit: an unarguably true statement, fully supported by Google's own posting, begins to be downvoted. Google could just as easily tell the ad n
125.
by gress 11y ago
I don't know if you are making a disingenuous argument or you just don't know about liquidity, or indeed the effects of sample size on estimating a changing value, but what you've said here has no relationship with reality.
126.
by gress 11y ago
And I am suggesting that the value created is much lower than the value captured.
127.
by gress 11y ago
Public stock prices are decided by supply-demand balance. In no way does this valuation resemble that mechanism.
128.
by gress 11y ago
You make it sound as though Larry and Sergey personally created all the content on the internet that you consume.
129.
by gress 11y ago
That's because it isn't.
130.
by gress 11y ago
Private companies usually do everything they can to defeat competition - not to engage in it.
131.
by gress 11y ago
Do you have any evidence at all for this movement?
132.
by gress 11y ago
Instead of innuendo - why not just state who you think is behind this and what evidence you have?
133.
by gress 11y ago
You can do everything you need with a Pentium 90 PC running Windows 95. That doesn't make it exciting.
134.
by gress 11y ago
Just because someone insists on something doesn't mean you have to do it.
135.
by gress 11y ago
That might have been true in 1999. Today Google knows: - What you search for - What websites you visit - Who you communicate with - The contents of your email - Your physical location ...and the list goes on.
136.
by gress 11y ago
They are in California.
137.
by gress 11y ago
Google has far more personal information than Facebook.
138.
by gress 11y ago
It does't. Your comment is false.
139.
by gress 11y ago
You keep saying 'there is no way to be the absolutely sure' - but this is a truism that applies to all of human decision making. You are using it to make the situation seem less clear than it is rather than responding to a clearly
140.
by gress 11y ago
Absolutely false. Getting hungry again happens naturally regardless of the choice of food offered by a restaurant. Whether you remain sick, are cured, or get sick again depends significantly on the choice of treatment offered. Healthcare c
141.
by gress 11y ago
That ignores the issue - being hungry is a basic need and it's ok that we keep getting hungry and meeting that need through restaurants. People getting sick is not a basic need unless you are a healthcare company. That's why the
142.
by gress 11y ago
Next we should do away with the Lounge Suit for businesswear.
143.
by gress 11y ago
You keep saying things like 'who is to decide?'. If you really believed that, you would cease posting your opinions here. The point about people not wanting to wait for Apple is valid in that certain people can protect themselves
144.
by gress 11y ago
Very few people.
145.
by gress 11y ago
Warning people isn't the issue. Apple is without question in a position to distribute a patch more rapidly and more widely than anyone else. It has nothing to do with trusting them because they are a 'corp'. There is nothin
146.
by gress 11y ago
If you had been saying before now that this wasn't a severe bug and so we shouldn't be too concerned about disclosure, then you wouldn't have been presented with these strong counterarguments. But that isn't what you&#x2
147.
by gress 11y ago
Nothing says 'irresponsible' like not thinking at all about the impact of releasing information you know people will use for harm. Publishing to github comes after the hacking. If qwertyoruiop had instead come up with plans for m
148.
by gress 11y ago
Your argument that you'd have to be omniscient to make the optimal choice with absolute certainty is true of all human decision making at all times, and therefore doesn't change the argument at all. You say 'given that we don
149.
by gress 11y ago
Telling people about what you have discovered is bad if you can reasonably tell that those people are bad actors who will use the information you are giving them to do harm. That's why it's responsible to tell the people who can
150.
by gress 11y ago
This argument is a general argument for is irresponsible disclosure of 0-days. You don't need omnicience to determine whether the downsides outweigh the potential benefits to a tiny number of jumpy elite who would have to be constantly

More ›