It's not about the ads per se. It is entirely about security at this point.
All text ads with no scripting, images etc are generally safe. Anything else is a security risk. Almost every day there are reports of another ad distribution network being compromised and serving up malware. Basically ALL of them serve up malware periodically.
As a non-business Internet user I will not allow ads like that on my computer. If I was a business? I would make sure that nothing from an ad network makes it through the firewalls. The risk is too high by far to take the risk. No matter how hard they try, malware makers come up with new tricks that allow them to distribute their wares. Even Google's Double-click serves it up regularly.
So yes on the adblocking, but I would say that until tested and verified, no on Googles implementation of it. Until then use Adblock Plus or uBlock Origin. Use Ghostery, Privacy Badger and NoScript. It is nonsensical that people will run antivirus software to protect themselves, but then allow malware in through the backdoor.
The numbers are appalling. About 1 in 2 women involved with a cop are abused. Cops are almost never investigated or charged; indeed they almost always continue unscathed in their careers. So next time you see two cops together on the street, just ask yourself (or them if feeling ballsy) which one of them beats their wife?
It amazes me that the US is considered the 18th least corrupt country in the world. The only real difference between the US and Kazakhstan is that the corruption is on open display here. The other truly amazing thing is that our Supreme Court has ruled that there is no real evidence that money influences how idiots like these legislators vote.
This is just more evidence showing that we do indeed live in a kakistocracy.
Considering Tasers decades long time collusion with the police in regards to their stun guns, this does not bode well. Look up "excited delirium taser" and see how many times Taser and the cops have literally gotten away with murder. The United Nations Convention against Torture (which the US HAS signed and ratified) considers tasers torture devices.
It is not just conceivable, but highly probable, that Axon will continue to cater to LEOs violating Americans rights. They have shown they will do almost anything to keep the gravy train rolling.
"I would add a caveat to that. There is no rational basis on *products you own*. It's quite rational to wish to attach it to rented or streamed products, since they come with extra restrictions that need to be enforced."
The problem with that is that it leads inevitably to a future in which you own nothing. Everything will be offered for lease or on a rental basis. You already see it everywhere from coffee makers to tractors to various types of software. The history of DRM is replete with BS from contracts of adhesion to in-built kill switches. It's moved from software to hardware and is only accelerating in uptake by corporations. It is always worth remembering that corporations are by definition sociopathic in nature.
There is no rational basis for DRM, never has been. It has always - and will always - be about control and power over others. Until we outlaw DRM, people will continue to get shafted and never truly own what they have paid for. Unfortunately for everyone the Democrats are owned by the entertainment industry and the Republicans only care about the 1%, God, guns and abortions.
He and Hoover have way too much in common. How long till reports come out that Sessions also dresses in drag? Although considering his own proclivities, I'll lay heavy odds he dresses like Aunt Jemima.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects..." 4th
"No person... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." 5th
In both cases they refer to the people having the rights, not the property. I agree that it is laughable that any court would consider the current asset forfeiture regime to be 'due process'. The word used to describe their arguments is sophistry. Unfortunately, the law is 90% sophistry and 10% pedantic bullshit. That is why a rigged 'due process' system endures. Well that and the fact that most judges act to perpetuate the system due to institutional cowardice. Which starts at the very top. You just can't get five Justices to actually man the fuck up at the same time -on the same case- very often.
Because constitutionally property HAS NO RIGHTS! People do.
The only 'rights' that property can ever have are those granted by Congress as enforced by the other two branches. Yes, due process applies, but only insofar as making sure that the laws are followed properly. Don't necessarily blame the Supreme Court for this fustercluck of laws and regulations that comprise asset forfeiture. If the agencies that use asset forfeiture follow the rules laid down, even if the rules are BS, they can claim that their was due process. Even though the process is rigged.
In the long run, it is probably a GOOD thing that property has no rights. Originally IIRC corporations had no rights, and no obligations, under the law. That meant that they could neither sue or be sued. The courts made them "people" for the limited purpose of allowing them to fully interact with the legal system and be held accountable. We've all seen where that has led. Giving property rights would be a slippery slope under current jurisprudence.
I will admit that I laughed my ass off about this while it was happening. I just kept picturing Captain Crunch blowing a whistle into an old rotary AT&T phone in my head. Which reminds me, I need to dig out my old C-64 and do some phreaking and war-dialing.