Slashdot Mirror

I agree that not using the system-provided certificate storage is a disadvantage; but I'd be curious to know if you've actively had lousy luck with certutil, or whether it works but is more of a pain than just using group policy to manipulate the Windows-native store?

How's that maildir support coming along? Oh right: https://support.mozilla.org/en...

Are the Mozilla devs not able to deliver any decent technical features in under five years these days?

Even HTTP Public Key Pinning (HPKP) is not a solution against this kind of mess, since intercepting software could alter the Public-Key-Pins header.

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).

UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...

* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)

---

"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).

APK

P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):

"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"

So

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"

... apk

Actually Firefox refuses to use the Windows Root CA Store because there's no way to determine if the data is from the default CA bundle that ships with Windows or if it's from an admin's manual install. Granted that does not prevent the corporate admin from spying on you as in the example above, but it DOES prevent the NSA scenario as described by the GP.

No, an employee agreement that says you can monitor their computer use doesn't get you past the DMCA.

This is the US were talking about. Clickwrap licenses are valid contracts and they prohibit other rights, First Sale for example. I'm sure there is language in their contracts that says the company owns the session you are using to communicate and they reserve the right to snoop in if they desire to, regardless of other legal obligations the user has about preventing any such snooping. (Basically the user is responsible for granting them access, and the user should be held responsible if a lawsuit were to be made over it, because the user should have been more careful about making sure they could uphold their legal obligations.)

Fuck you and all the places that do this. If I were asked to implement such a thing at my job I'd raise all hell and strike.

Then you'd very quickly find yourself out of a job, and be unemployable going forward. Not that I disagree with your sentiment, I'd whole heartedly welcome it, but that kind of anti-corporate anti-spying talk will not get you far as an admin in the current political climate.

Before we all beat ourselves up too much, I just went to check if I had it turned on or off (off, as it happens), and discovered this:

This feature is turned on by default in Nightly, Developer Edition (Aurora), and Beta builds of Firefox to help those users provide feedback to Mozilla. In the general release version of Firefox, this feature is turned off by default.

So in fact it's mainly power-users that they'd be getting telemetry from in the first place...

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla... Not many commits https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla... Many commits (ok it's a newer feature so maybe it's normal) Yeah no I honestly would like to know how many of you use tab groups and how many use Pocket: poll at http://goo.gl/357F3x

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla... Not many commits https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla... Many commits (ok it's a newer feature so maybe it's normal) Yeah no I honestly would like to know how many of you use tab groups and how many use Pocket: poll at http://goo.gl/357F3x

Perhaps this? https://wiki.mozilla.org/Telem...

... making excuses for for ad blockers:

Jul 19, 2015 - For the record, I don't run any ad blockers. Basically, I consider them unethical (the full explanation is longer, but that's the thumbnail).ï

and when someone points out his stupidity:

So going to the bathroom when an ad appears is "unethical" ??? What about going to kitchen?? Because using technology to block ads has the exact same effect. It is not my job to support your broken business model. Furthermore, the last time I checked, my eyes belong to me so kindly fuck off with your bullshit "ethics" justifications.

TL:DR; I guess only stupid people watch ads -- the rest of us are too busy doing something else.

... only to get get censored then this issue is far from settled.

Even Mozilla has this stupid mindset WRT Do Not Track:

The Do Not Track feature is turned off by default. /blockquote

Javascript has been a necessary component of almost every browser exploit over the last decade. Blocking javascript is one of the most effective ways to stop attacks in their tracks and unlike ad-blockers it also protects against the case of a site itself being compromised and made to serve up exploits directly.

Web devs take note -- NoScript is essentially tied for 4th most popular firefox extension. If you aren't using some form of progressive enhancement to make sure your website's core functions work without javascript then you are putting your users at risk.

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).

UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...

* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)

---

"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).

---

YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

I finished YOU WITH IT all above!

APK

P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):

"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"

So

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"

... apk

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).

UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...

* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)

---

"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).

---

YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

I finished YOU WITH IT all above!

APK

P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):

"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"

So

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"

... apk

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).

UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...

* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)

---

"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).

---

YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

I finished YOU WITH IT all above!

APK

P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):

"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"

So

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"

... apk

ahem... https://blog.mozilla.org/secur...

I just did. Alas, I do not wish to download anything that only offers a so-called "web installer".

http://www.palemoon.org/palemoon-win32.shtml
http://www.palemoon.org/palemoon-win64.shtml

Ignore the "web installer" (I've never used it and never will). What you seek is under the "Download" tab.

Next to that, I thought that "pale moon" was ment to adress junk-inclusion issues. In that case, why than does version 25.7.3 (the latest) mention problems with servers offering something called "sync" being shut down ? What has "sync" (or whatever hides behind that name) to do with a webbrowser ? (and if someone thinks he wants/needs to use that feature not use a plugin for it ?)

Sync was some shit that Mozilla put into Firefox before people really gave a shit about bloat, and for whatever reason PaleMoon kept it in, but left it pointed towards the Mozilla servers, which finally got shut down. I've never turned it on, never will.

Happy Palemoon user here. It's not perfect, but it beats the shit out of the ruination that the UXtards have brought to Firefail.

This is my set of tools/techniques in Windows.

1) I use Windows 8, you now have high contrast themes and full screen magnification together (this wasn't possible on 7 below)

2) Not all, but more and more applications support the built in high contrast themes these days. When I find an application that doesn't I usually email the company/developer and politely ask them to fix it and offer to beta test any changes. Sometimes that helps.

3) I use the built in Windows magnifier combined with an Autohotkey script to give me the ability to zoom with ctrl+alt+mousewheel
3a) Here's my auothotkey script: http://pastebin.com/djAwszRA
ctrl+alt+mousewheel up/down to zoom in /out
ctrl+alt+middleclick to toggle invert colours
windowskey+F12 to hide the bloody magnifier so it doesn't get in my way when alt tabbing :)

4b) Windows 8.1 onwards has a bug where the magnifier jumps/glitches (on all GPUs, Intel, AMD, nVidia) so I've replaced magnify.exe from Win8.0's ISO)

5) I use Altdrag to give me the ability to scroll inactive Windows and resize windows via alt+mouseclicks

6) I use Palemoon (or Firefox) in High Contrast mode (it detects Windows's theme)
6a) I use this plugin to quickly flip between high contrast page rendering and normal colours https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...

I hope that helps the OP and anyone else that may have low vision. I have 20/200 in both eyes, nystagmus, suffer from migraines and many, many other eye issues but this combo, so far, is the best I've found. I'm not needing a screen reader yet, I can still play first person shooters, I mostly just have an issue with small print and cannot tolerate, at all, bright themes but dimming my monitor down does nothing as I have major issues with contrast, so it has to be white on black.

Try: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/... With the screen dimmer extension this is pretty nice: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-... there is a few glitches with GTK + screen dimmer on linux, but it's way better than anything chrome has to offer which keeps blinking like crazy.

Try: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/... With the screen dimmer extension this is pretty nice: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-... there is a few glitches with GTK + screen dimmer on linux, but it's way better than anything chrome has to offer which keeps blinking like crazy.

The only purpose I could see for wanting FF on iOS that has to use WebKit and doesn't support native content blockers would be syncing bookmarks. You can sync bookmarks from FF or Chrome for Windows by using Apple's iCloud extension for Chrome and FF.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...

https://chrome.google.com/webs...

My bookmarks are synced between FF and Chrome for Windows, Safari for iOS and Chrome for iOS.

"The adblock plus lists are... more efficient than having the system parse 500kB+ host files every time there's a dns lookup"- by epyT-R (613989) on Wednesday May 27, 2015 @11:11PM (#49788007)

Tell us how 'efficient' almost all ads blocked is using 4++gb of RAM & 100% CPU -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

OK? You FAIL...

APK

P.S.=> Some 'efficiency' that, along with the fact Deny this too AdBlock's SLOWER than hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...

... apk

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).

UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...

* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)

---

"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).

---

YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

I finished YOU WITH IT all above!

APK

P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):

"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"

So

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"

... apk

"The adblock plus lists are... more efficient than having the system parse 500kB+ host files every time there's a dns lookup"- by epyT-R (613989) on Wednesday May 27, 2015 @11:11PM (#49788007)

Tell us how 'efficient' almost all ads blocked is using 4++gb of RAM & 100% CPU -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

OK? You FAIL...

APK

P.S.=> Some 'efficiency' that, along with the fact Deny this too AdBlock's SLOWER than hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...

... apk

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).

UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...

* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)

---

"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).

---

YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

I finished YOU WITH IT all above!

APK

P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):

"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"

So

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"

... apk

Once upon a time, I donated enough money so that Firefox put my name (and the name of others) in a newspaper ad - a full page.

Dude get over it, the donation was $30 to get your name in that that ad. But it is an example of where monetary donations to open source projects goes wrong, it isnt necessarily used to improve the software. Contract people to do a specific thing or contribute code/documentation.

Phoenix 0.1 was released in September 2002, so that's 13 years, not 17.

Mozilla is working on that:
https://blog.mozilla.org/secur...

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...

Firefox only currently supports DHE with SHA1. Are they going add support for SHA256 DHE when they disable SHA1?

To quote Michael Staruch from the above link:
It looked more like attempts to discredit DHE and push everyone into ECC. And I am not so sure if that's best way to protect our privacy, especially with multiple TLS clients supporting only NSA Suite B curves.

Mozilla, we really need DHE to work with SHA256 and GCM. Sure, fallback to something else (with a second connection, if necessary) if weak dhparams are used by the server.

My experience of these changes is that you'll be forced to click through a warning in your browser even if you installed the certificate (or the root CA signing the certificate). The Microsoft page about no longer trusting SHA1 certs is confusing in this respect because it includes information about signing Windows binaries but it does say

Windows [...] will no longer trust any code that is signed with a SHA-1 code signing certificate and that contains a timestamp value greater than January 1, 2016

That document also says it only applies to certs that are in the Microsoft Root Certificate Program so ones you've manually installed might not be affected.

This is slightly different to the Mozilla's SHA-1 deprecation information:

After January 1, 2017, we plan to show the “Untrusted Connection” error whenever a SHA-1 certificate is encountered in Firefox.

Perhaps this isn't the override you were thinking of but it doesn't sound like a total block.

Download link, Download link for the EME-free version.

I think that they aren’t offering it yet from the main download page because they want to prevent non-tech savvy people from downloading it and finding out that flash doesn’t work. To me, that’s actually a plus.

Download link, Download link for the EME-free version.

I think that they aren’t offering it yet from the main download page because they want to prevent non-tech savvy people from downloading it and finding out that flash doesn’t work. To me, that’s actually a plus.

I just compile Firefox from source since this is a Gentoo system.

The ability to compile Firefox from source isn't exclusive to Gentoo, you can do it on Windows or OSX as well if you want.

For those who invested in the Microsoft ecosystem, I wish them the best of luck.

It's not that hard, just follow the guides here or here.

I just compile Firefox from source since this is a Gentoo system.

The ability to compile Firefox from source isn't exclusive to Gentoo, you can do it on Windows or OSX as well if you want.

For those who invested in the Microsoft ecosystem, I wish them the best of luck.

It's not that hard, just follow the guides here or here.

See how simple it can be when you have source? For those who invested in the Microsoft ecosystem, I wish them the best of luck.

To suggest that Firefox for Windows is not open-source is disingenuous. You can compile Firefox yourself on Windows, too. It's not that difficult and can be done using the free version of Visual Studio.

A few add on suggestions got listed in "Firefox 42 Arrives With Tracking Protection, Tab Audio Indicators" (November 04, 2015)
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
The Fingerprinting wiki https://wiki.mozilla.org/Finge... has some of the more unique methods to track users.
Soon tracking and ads will just be part of the site as functionality. Try and remove ads, tracking and the page, site is reduced to a title. No text, video, comments unless all tracking blockers are removed. Hard work for creators per page, per hour, per day but the consumer is fully tracked.

I wonder how well the tracking protection really works.
Just looking at the huge amounts of ways that your browser can be fingerprinted - https://wiki.mozilla.org/Finge... - it seems virtually impossible. To start with they already have your IP and there's about a dozen other standard parameters the uniquely identify you. Then there's some crazy shit, like checking system clock time skew.

I just used Help/About to update Firefox on this 64-bit Windows 10 machine, and can verify it works.

If you updated from the 32-bit version, you are still running the 32-bit version

To switch to 64-bit, you need to uninstall 32-bit then install 64-bit. get it here:

https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/fi...

https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/fi...

Yeah, audio indicators are a good first step, but can we just block all auto-playing videos outright?

You can try the about:config setting media.autoplay.enabled, but that seemingly-benign feature has it's own long sad story. As of version 41 this setting finally applies to HTML5 video, preventing the video from playing unless there's been "user interaction", but it makes some sites behave a little oddly (for example, YouTube thinks the video is playing even though it's not).

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/... release notes for the nerds.

now if mozilla could only remove the targeted advertisement feature, the video chat, and firefox sync we'd be getting somewhere. Firefox used to have a code of ethics and 10 user rights, but those went right out the window once that sweet sweet Google cash started rolling in.

The builds are available for anyone in the know. Just not yet directed from download page.

Waiting on partner before it gets publicised.

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).

UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...

* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)

---

"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).

---

YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

I finished YOU WITH IT all above!

APK

P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):

"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"

So

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"

... apk

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).

UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...

* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)

---

"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).

---

YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

I finished YOU WITH IT all above!

APK

P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):

"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"

So

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"

... apk

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).

UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...

* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)

---

"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).

---

YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

I finished YOU WITH IT all above!

APK

P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):

"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"

So

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"

... apk

The mailing list is golang-NUTS?? This is a perfect example of cis white male ableism patriarchy! As a non-binary fluid gender attack helicopter, nuts is a very offensive term, and I am a big deal in the North American culture-sphere so my opinion matters. Also as a club footed koala I find the term go ableist. I hope they do enact this CoC so I can join the mailing list and demand that they change the mailing group name to not offend my sensibilities! Golang-nuts, fuck you. http://tech.slashdot.org/story... https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s... //end sarcastic rant

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).

UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...

* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)

---

"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).

---

YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

I finished YOU WITH IT all above!

APK

P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):

"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"

So

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"

... apk

If you are running a utiliy like Convergence or Perspectives to monitor certificates, I'll buy your solution. Otherwise, you're just setting yourself up for a MITM attack.

This pertains to certificates as used by websites, for browsers to authenticate the server.

https://blog.mozilla.org/secur...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

As often is the case on things secure, wikiP leaves a lot to be desired, but Teh Google may work for you, too.

Firefox 42 and later show an indicator for HTML5 audio and video, as does Chrome. If you cannot wait for 42 to leave beta, install Noise Control for Firefox. Set Flash to "click to play".

Firefox 42 and later show an indicator for HTML5 audio and video, as does Chrome. If you cannot wait for 42 to leave beta, install Noise Control for Firefox. Set Flash to "click to play".