The cans of red bull in every phase of the machine, and the carefully edited shots that include stacks of red bull cans in the foreground and background don't say "red bull"? If not, I suppose the video did miss its mark.

Fair enough, it is a pretty neat machine.

I'm totally with you. I think some may be misinterpreting what I'm actually griping about (granted, I didn't leave much to go on). As far as ads go this is relatively benign, I'd much rather see companies taking a subtle approach as opposed to the typical "scream until they buy it" approach. And I can even tolerate…

Really? I would have thought the fact that 90% of the video has multiple Red Bull cans in the frame (watch it again, they're in front of or behind the action when they're not actively part of it) would have been a clue, not to mention the video is called "Red Bull Propelled Vine Machine" published by Red Bull on the…

LOL. Thanks for that independently funded and locally sourced (albeit misguided) rant. I don't have a problem with advertising, and Zach's work is definitely impressive. But this kind of video is a lot less impressive when it's a commissioned "viral" commercial with the resources of a megacorp behind it.

This would be impressive if it wasn't an advertisement.

Yes, I'm familiar with that. As you can see I referenced it above.

I'm not sure where you got that idea. I'm just re-stating what the article said: any standard with a flaw makes that flaw a standard.

That simply isn't true. It uses javascript to alter unencrypted web data, and it sets itself up as a certificate authority on your computer. Neither of those things allow it to break encryption or to intercept encrypted data. When you opt in to Superfish (and you do have the option to allow or deny the program the…

How does that compare in terms of performance?

You can get even more vague than that. "The new [product] is the [superlative] [product] around, and it looks to beat out the [most recent competing product]." And that article has been written around 30 million times in the past 20 years.

Right. The shape is only relevant in its potential to become ubiquitous, and to make the vulnerability just as common.

Yes, the adware that was installed locally on the computer replaced ads. That had nothing to do with encryption, and you're right, it's not that hard to modify how a page is rendered on the client side- a little javascript, a little CSS, viola new ads.

My corporate firewall is doing... what? Breaking the encryption…

I have no doubt there's a massive parallel processing supercomputer in some intelligence agency basement that could conceivably brute-force an eleventy-billion bit encrypted data stream in a few years. Maybe even a quantum computer, or some other kind of radically new architecture that could do it faster. I'm a bit…

So we should self-censor because the government might be listening in? I think you'll find that to be an unpopular opinion, and the reason why someone would inconvenience themselves with encryption.

Or over phone lines, or in the mail. Or communicating in person, since everything is recorded all the time. I guess the only option is to not ever say anything to anyone that you wouldn't say to everyone.

A what?

Step 1: Install ABP
Step 2: Click this link http://visualizing.org/full-screen/50…
Step 3: There is no step 3.

That's not dancing so much as "desperately trying to get a crap-ton of silly string off me".

My god... it's full of stars.