Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages

Post by justrobert » Sun, Dec 10, 2017, 10:38 PM UTC

phil21 wrote: post #386

throwahey wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a reason they are doing this. After signing up for Xfinity I noticed that the modem we were leasing was broadcasting a public access point with no way to disable it. I purchased my own modem immediately. Then some time later they rolled out their mobile services, which you guessed it, rely’s on those open access points and Sprint as a fall-back. So now customers are paying monthly to host Xfinity mobile serv…

> customers should not be subsidizing the cost. Can you please explain to me how you think this is a thing? Are you really that concerned about the extra watt or so of power usage a virtual SSID uses? Or are you operating under the misconception that this somehow impacts your bandwidth allocation? It's by far the most innovative and awesome thing Comcast has ever done. And they get ultra-hate from people who should a…

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Dec 10, 2017, 10:43 PM UTC

Centime wrote: post #377

paultopia wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait wait WHAT? This standard seems like a terrible mistake. Isn't this exactly what malware creators want? To condition users to click the browser pop up that says "YOUR COMPUTER IS INFECTED WITH MALWARE, CALL THIS NUMBER/INSTALL THIS HORRIBLE THING TO FIX IT?" Why on Earth would anyone issue a standard that says that ISPs should deliver that kind of notification, thus training consumers to believe them?

They're the ones who issued the standard. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6108

Post by tptacek » Sun, Dec 10, 2017, 10:48 PM UTC

pvg wrote: post #380

tptacek wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's the rule? I think the rule is if you're using quotes and it's ambiguous as to whether the person the quotes are attributed to actually said it, then the person better have actually said it. (For what it's worth: this little subthread is about 10x more interesting than the story and the rest of the thread it's attached to).

That's as generous an interpretation of the rule as mine is overly literal. But it's worth comparing it to some of the other rules: Don't be an ass. Don't call other people asses. Don't complain about votes. And then: Some weird thing about quotes we can't even sort out as well-intentioned nerds who love to talk about rules. I don't think that's a good rule. I think what it's trying to address is probably a good rule…

Post by mirimir » Sun, Dec 10, 2017, 10:53 PM UTC

pvg wrote: post #385

mirimir wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm saying what somebody else is saying, in their voice. This goes in quotes, because it's someone else's speech, even if it's my version of their speech. That's fine, when you're writing fiction. But in most online forums, fiction is frowned upon.

I don't think paraphrasing is limited to fiction any more than metaphor or hyperbole or idiom are. And those are in online forums all the durned time!

Post by agar » Sun, Dec 10, 2017, 11:04 PM UTC

pvg wrote: post #292

tptacek wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're rewording something someone else said, even if you're keeping it very close to the original words, don't use quotation marks. Quotes say "this is literally what was said". I got bit by this a bunch when I first got on HN; it was surprising to me how seriously it was taken. But it is, and it's not hard to work around.

That's a weird HN-ism, though, not how writing or paraphrasing works anywhere else. The goal is understandable and laudable but 'redefining the meaning of quotes' is a thing only hardcore lispers can love.