Why would i want my car to unlock every time my phone is in proximity?
What if someone get my phone?
For one thing, it's new. There are already plenty of proximity locks on the market, but they generally require a specialized fob on your keychain; there are already smartphone-controlled locks too, but they operate by button-press.
When I was a kid, we actually had to put a key in a lock and turn it. Uphill. Both ways. In fifty feet of snow.
As the Internet evolves, so too will the way in which we see ourselves. Social networks will no longer be confined to our screens – laptops, tablets or smartphones. They will be as seamlessly integrated into our daily lives as the Internet itself. In this digital future, it will be much harder to cyberbully and torment people online, because the anonymity of the Internet will give way as we circle back to a world of singular identity – online and off.
And yet the consequences for threats and bullying will be as ubiquitous and serious as ever, what with the exposure of the lives of so many potential victims in a zero-anonymity world. Anonymity is a far larger protection for the innocent and less-advantaged than it is for jerks.
Also, barf on my toaster and everything being net-connected. What a godawful horrible future so many of us have been mocking and fearing since idiots like Gates have been yapping about it. No I don't want my refrigerator ordering milk, or connected just because the vendor demands it be so in order to work at all. Digital Invasion Management, no thanks. Enough faux-progress.
Except it did work, for years. Losing consumers by wasting money on extra junk makes little sense as a business plan. Kind of like shooting yourself in both feet.
I don't know if it was the personal vision of one person or a few, or years of incredibly bad market research (astonishing, I know) but when they're flashing a few seconds of actual weather at me once an hour instead of giving me my local data and access to weather across the States and the rest of the globe that can be useful and important to anyone, they've failed. When before they only had to spend on the core information and had more eyeballs. But if they felt like they just weren't doing as well as they once were on cable, then they should have dropped the model and concentrated on the net.
Blind people have been on computer networks longer than you know, clearly. There are multiple ways for them to receive data, from speech synthesis to Braille displays. I'll take a random guess and say that this has probably been the case longer than you have been alive.
The modern Web is cute and all, but there was a hell of a lot available before there was a Web and before it got turned into the social and commercial dumping ground it has become.There was an Internet before the Web, and networks before that. Lots and lots of text. And as these things "progressed", they became worse for a lot of people. And if we are just looking at visual impairment here, the various types of color-blindness figure in as well, not just complete blindness or legal blindness. Content that was easily available in the past becomes more and more inaccessible as time goes on, because some people like dumbed-down flashy trash designed by corporate morons and people who shouldn't be allowed to code 'Hello world" let alone anything else.
I don't know about the Netflix ruling, but the assumption that a negligible number of people are negligibly affected by the way some people want to design the net is beyond absurd.
Ah, there. There's the appropriate "fuck you" moment.
You know, never mind the ADA or what it may legally applies to, quit acting like business and society are fine as-is with regards to the assumptions about who is a member of society and a consumer. Default mode for entitlement is male, white, straight, able-bodied, average height, and neurotypical. That's an elite group that barely covers anyone yet it is the group everyone else has to fit into a life designed for and by them.
If you make things generally accessible, you don't have to worry so much about specific disabilities. But that would ruin the argument from the privileged side when they want to play the victim card about have to serve inconveniently different groups of other human beings by claiming they are all small and overly privileged groups.
Of course bad laws and regulations are bad. Of course not every single business or person can accommodate every single potential consumer. But the selfishness, privilege, and honking huge sense of entitlement aren't where you'd like to project them.
Did Shaw maybe think it would have been a competitive move to try it before there was a ruling? (Given I realize that this ruling does also affect the content providers that the cable companies have to pay, but still.)
Oddly enough, current events comedy is where you get real coverage of some limited things, with less fluff and 70% of the program spent telling you what they are going to tell you about... eventually, if you manage to sit through it.
the poor ol’ NSA just doesn’t have the “cyber-offensive” capabilities
Never mind they should be doing this, but even as they want to, just what the hell do they think they need?. Pick 10 more jerks, sit them behind a general purpose OS and computer and tell them to have at it.
You's thing there was some super-special network attack school the NSA was barred from attending or something, or really special equipment, and lots of it, needed. Hell, if they even want exploits or malware, they can damn well buy them and rent botnets (and then take them over if they want) out of the huge existing commercial market.
It's all about convenience. They want more money (because they always do), and they want some laws on the books so they can continue to do all the things they already do, but a whistleblower or other exposure will not have individuals in the NSA having to go to some pointless meetings about it (no one likes sitting through those kind of stupid meetings).