[LINK] Freeview Launches In Australia
mikal at stillhq.com
Wed Nov 26 10:25:08 AEDT 2008
Rick Welykochy wrote:
> Michael Still wrote:
>> those technologies seems like a losing battle to me. It was a relevant
>> argument about five years ago, but it seems like you might have to
>> accept that you've lost. I don't see technical reasons that they
>> couldn't be made more discoverable for things like screen readers
>> though, especially given web crawlers can get inside them now...)
> Yeah, let's just throw in the towel and allow these invasive
> (and evasive) technologies take away what little privacy we have left.
> Not to mention how easyily these tools can be used for nefarious purposes.
Ok. Whatever drugs you're on, you need to take a break from them.
> The whining you hear is almost always in protection of our privacy
> and to minimise the attacks that are constantly being hurled at
> us from untrusted sources on the Internet.
I see no privacy impact of Flash (for example), and the privacy impact
implementations. So, fix the implementations.
You argument is like saying that a horse has fewer wheels than a car,
and is therefore safer as its less likely that a wheel will fall off.
because of accessibility issues for the vision impaired.
> A few questions:
> in your email client? how about cookies?
What? We're talking about a website advertising TV networks here, not
email. Did you read the original email? All good email clients should be
some part of the email package's UI).
> (*) would you download and execute *anything* from an untrusted source?
> This is what you are doing when you surf to a new site like freeview.
No, its not. I'm executing code in a well defined sandbox. A sandbox
which has had a significant amount of security research performed on it.
> (*) do you run your internet applications in a safe sandbox?
Yes, it's called my browser.
> (*) are you using Windows? how their IE product with Active X enabled?
No, but again that's not relevant to what was being discussed.
> There are many more such questions to be asked, but they usually fall
> on inadequately educated ears, whose owners would much rather head
> down the info superhighway to the Next Big Thing (tm).
> <tongue location="cheek">
> Your posting highlights one of the great fallacies of argumentative
> discourse: everybody's doing it so it must be right. And it also uses
> an appeal to popularity to make its point.
> e.g. I can find these problems with your statement:
> Argumentum ad populum (Appeal to the people or gallery)
> Dicto simpliciter / Fallacy of accident / Sweeping generalization
> More here:
I think you've missed my point. I'm very happy for people to not like
didn't notice. Would you say that someone who thought the Germans still
had a chance of winning WW2 was a true believer, or just someone who is
More information about the Link