"It[technology] can be set up in a way which is friendly to terrorists and helps them ... and creates challenges for law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Or it can be set up in a way which doesn't do that."
"We all love the benefit of the internet and all the rest of it, but we need their support in making sure that they're doing everything possible to stop their technology being exploited by terrorists. I'm saying that needs to be front and centre of their thinking and for some it is and some it isn't."
-- Unsurprisingly, the main argument here is that creating more surveillance-proof software is essentially the same as being friendly with terrorists.
I beg to differ on that.
Very interesting defense. It seems that it works because the attacking AJAX call is done with content dataType 'script'. I don't think it'll be too hard for the attacker to fix that.
It's either that or call a jsonp endpoint, which could still throw up the alert. CORS protects standard AJAX from requesting anything outside the current domain.
Since you are already on Heroku, NewRelic in combination might be a good idea. Their free tier can monitor DB loads, uptime, exceptions, response times, slow methods and what not.
It should be mentioned that there is a huge bunch of various implementations of the statsd pattern; depending on ones existing infrastructure one may prefer one or the other. Heres a comprehensive list of them: http://www.joemiller.me/2011/09/21/list-of-statsd-server-imp...
"Four Catholic countries—Spain,[18] Portugal, the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, and most of Italy—implemented the new calendar on the date specified by the bull, with Julian Thursday, 4 October 1582, being followed by Gregorian Friday, 15 October 1582."
"Receivers of a GTFO frame MUST NOT open additional streams on the connection, although a new connection can be established for new streams."
Shouldn't that be "a new connection can be established for existing streams"? (Or did I misunderstand something here?)
> The purpose of this frame is to allow an endpoint to gracefully stop accepting new streams (perhaps for a reboot or maintenance), while still finishing processing of previously established streams.
"Google derives most of its value from advertising where it competes primarily with Microsoft, Yahoo and Facebook. . According to our estimates, standard PC search ads account for over 30% of Google’s overall value and 60% of its revenues. However, the recent trend in earnings indicates that the growth in online PC ads revenues is slowing down. Additionally, the company’s market share of the U.S. search marketplace has been stagnant at 67%, according to latest data by comScore."
Primarily ad-funded free websites would make losses, or go paid. Us, the customers, pay for not wanting to see ads.
Of course, this is just my opinion on what might happen.
To me it's more a matter of ad and content providers adjusting to reality than playing pretend. My view on this is that by blocking ads, I am actually helping these providers by telling them a piece of reality: I don't care about your ads, so I block them, because it won't translate into a sale on my end anyways.
If ever blockers are used by a majority of people, content and ad providers will have to deal (rather than whine) with this reality, it's called "market forces".
Now that's just regarding ads, but of course there is another consideration for blockers: privacy. It's creepy to stumble onto a marketing firm bragging to their prospective clients that they will be able to "see absolutely everything your visitors do on your webpage ... See their every mouse move, click and keystroke".
Just to add to my previous reply, one of the venue I would like to see more from content providers is micro-tipping. Provide a way for the readers to micro-tip for an article they liked, etc. There are a lot of new ideas out there with a lot of potential. Let people connect as directly as possible with authors.
"We all love the benefit of the internet and all the rest of it, but we need their support in making sure that they're doing everything possible to stop their technology being exploited by terrorists. I'm saying that needs to be front and centre of their thinking and for some it is and some it isn't."
-- Unsurprisingly, the main argument here is that creating more surveillance-proof software is essentially the same as being friendly with terrorists. I beg to differ on that.