First, I look forward to seeing you flagged as flamebait. Second, way to miss the point. The question is one of privacy. Apparently you can't sort the two out. Mozilla is claiming privacy is a priority when it's an obvious lie. But that doesn't matter to you does it? You like being lied to right? I guess it only makes sense that a foundation that receives millions of dollars (check their 990) and receives free labor through the help of volunteers should get more money from joe public. Try to form a coherent argument next time.
Already use Privacy Badger, but thanks, appreciate the recommendation! There are still scenarios where websites use local storage to enforce super cookies. Publishers tend to be the worst offenders. The Volatile Storage addon in combination with BetterPrivacy were a sort of hackish way to purge the system.
Functionality trumps bugs and performance issues every time. If I have to make a choice between two pieces of software that do roughly the same thing and one does something I need and the other doesn't. I will probably go with the one that does what I need even if it is not as reliable or efficient. Firefox is a perfect case in point. I have Opera, Chrome, Pale Moon, Safari, SRWare Iron, and numerous other forks installed, but I always made Firefox my go to even though Firefox is less stable (probably addon related) because of all the customizations. That was an acceptable cost.
Firefox is frequently slow, crashes, and causes all sorts of heck, but the Firefox addon ecosystem is second to none. Yesterday I had my first taste of the new WebExtension system. The experience was bad. First Stylish broke and all my user styles went kaput. I thought no big deal, should be some easy minor edits. Boy was I wrong. Edits that previously worked nicely in Stylish I had to move to userChrome.css and even then many still didn't cooperate. To make matters worse userChrome.css is going away too according to http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/sh... . Then I started reading Wladimir Palant's comments about the changes coming down the pipe with WebExtensions and I realized every extension in Firefox that I spend time with will likely be catastrophically and permanently broken. The only reason Firefox attracts any market share is because of niche addons users can't find in other browsers. The second all of that goes away is the second Firefox loses all relevance.
The Mozilla Foundation is in full on PR attack mode right now. Look at how they respond to users in the Firefox sub-reddit who dare discuss alternatives to keep legacy addons functional. The Firefox team probably realizes that if FF57 isn't a success the whole organization is sunk. The team is probably terrified they are going to lose a significant number of users and not make it up.
If this was meant for perf and debugging with the PDB, then why would it be linking the.obj file for telemetry_main_invoke_trigger and telemetry_main_return_trigger into a retail executable? The retail executable should have all debug symbols stripped. That is the point of retail, right?
Furthermore logging when executables start and close doesn't seem too useful when investigating performance problems. Carroll say's that the feature was abandoned, so perhaps that's why it seems mostly useless. However this feature is not useless if the purpose is to determine which programs the user runs and for how long. I'm suspicious enough about Windows 10 to suspect that's already happening at other levels.
data about how you use Windows, such as how frequently or how long you use certain features or apps and which apps you use most often
One way to find out if these functions were intentionally meant to explicitly spy on userland programs would be to check whether it is enabled for executables contained within Windows 10. If it is in Win10 exes, and telemetry_main_invoke_trigger is truly useless, I wonder whether it will be removed in the future when Windows gets rebuilt with a newer compiler.
The sad truth is people don't care about the actual morality of data theft. They only care about whether or not the data is personally beneficial to them, and if it is, well,... then it's okay.
Interesting, there is definitely an argument to be made that people can be hypocritical when it comes to protecting their own interests. Not sure why a person with mod points labeled this as flamebait.
Let's see, what culture wants immediate gratification, has an insatiable desire for new technology, and wants instantaneous answers to technical questions (ala Stack Exchange) without any sort of real understanding of the logic or science behind it.
The answer is pretty obvious: Pakleds are 21st century millennials.
Considering I have FOIA'ed hundreds of thousands of government pages (DIA, USAF Oral History, and more) and in some cases waited over a decade to get the paperwork approved for release. I have a pretty good idea of how long it takes.
Want to know what's different with these Department of Labor documents and why it shouldn't be a fairly fast process to redact? The documents are templatized forms. So the fields are strongly typed. Since many of the documents are stored electronically, it wouldn't take a genius to programmatically remove the confidential information.
Here is one solution: use a sharpie and permanently black out the confidential information. I guess the government forgot how to use sharpies to black out people's names and addresses. Lord knows Adobe Acrobat doesn't have any features to help with this. Oh wait... http://www.adobe.com/products/...
MS Office with the type keyboard, using shortcuts, and the trackpad works fine. My only complaint is sometimes the alt key gets stuck. Dragging around graphical items can be somewhat of a pain with the trackpad, but that is what the touch screen is for. There are a couple of older MFC applications I use where the menu items are slightly out of place, but it is not so much of an impediment that the tools are unusable. Gpedit.msc is no different in the latest windows 8.1 update than it is in windows 7. I can code on the Surface using Wing/Visual Studio. Write documents. Read PDFs and other white papers. Do I prefer the Surface over a desktop PC? No. But is it better than an iPad for a programmer / business user? For almost every task, yes. The Surface is basically a tablet plus, laptop minus. Better than my iPad and easier to lug around than my laptop.
I wonder if the Whitehouse really thought the following quote through: "Whitehouse said the documents assert that the president has the power to determine what his constitutional powers are, particularly in a time of war."
It begs the question, if the President enacted a war of aggression without approval from congress - does he still get a blank check?
So let me get this straight, you state as a fact that the US government is incompetent and that because of this incompetence they can't maintain a conspiracy worth dick. If this is your theory what's to make you say that Roswell incident wasn't a royal US fuck-up?
The "RAAF issued a press release stating that personnel from the field's 509th Bomb Group had recovered a crashed 'flying disc' from a ranch near Roswell'." [1] Then later the same day "the Commanding General of the Eighth Air Force stated that, in fact, a weather balloon had been recovered... rather than a flying saucer." [1]
And this isn't the only example. Actually it's impressive how many times the US government has dropped the ball when it's come to UFOs.
Here's a quick-list:
Project Twinkle - In Dec 1948 a strange new phenomenon was repeatedly observed in the southwestern skies of the US near top secret nuclear weapon research sites. The phenomenon consisted of bright green lights moving, generally, horizontally though the night sky and then dropping downward slightly and going out. After these had been observed many times in the late 1948 and early 1949 Dr. Lincoln La Paz, a famous meteoriticist, declared that they weren't normal meteors. He told the Air Force and the FBI that if these weren't special devices resulting from our own US research that they might be Russian and were a potential threat to vital nuclear weapon research installations. An investigation began March 1950 under the direction of Dr. Anthony Mirachi. Over the course of the year, using a series of cinetheodolites, the team was able to determine the objects were traveling at an "altitude of ~150K ft" (or ~28.5 miles high, much higher than any man-made craft could fly at that point in time), were "30 ft in diameter"[2], and traveling at an "undeterminable, yet high speed." A year and a half later the project was no closer to identifying the objects and the project was shelved.
What's interesting is how it was shutdown.
In November, 1951, Dr. Elterman, the new project Director (Mirachi retired in 1950[3]), who also worked at the Atmospheric Physics Laboratory (APL) of the Geophysical Research Division (GRD) of the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratory (AFCRL), wrote the final report.
According to Dr. Elterman's report, Project Twinkle was a dismal failure: "no information was gained." He recommended it be discontinued. His recommendation was accepted. But was it a failure? Was "no information gained?" The data reduction report (now unclassified [2]) tracked and measured four unidentified objects near the White Sands Proving Grounds!
In contrast to Dr. Elterman's report the original director, Dr. Anthony Mirachi, responded to a Feb, 1951 Time's article written in collaboration with Dr. Urner Liddel of the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington D.C. debunking UFOs, saying:
"There was too much evidence in favor of saucers to say they could have all been balloons. 'I was conducting the main investigation. The government had to depend on me or my branch for information.' He said he did not see how the Navy (i.e., Dr Liddel) could say that there had been no concrete evidence on the existence of the phenomena." [4]
Dr. Mirachi, included classified details about Project Twinkle which nearly landed him in very hot water (source contains more details). [5]
This is news? What about John Callahan?
on
UFOs In the News
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I trust radar more than human testimony. This is why I recommend anyone who's interested in serious UFO research (not alien research) google for former FAA head of Accidents and Investigations, John Callahan. (http://tinyurl.com/y5gzpj>)
So the story goes, several years ago, in front of the National Press Club John Callahan claimed to have visual, plane-nose and ground radar proof of a UFO. He brought an audio cassette of the conversation between the ground controllers, a VHS tape of the incident, the November 1986 FAA report, and target readouts to support his case. At the end of his speech, he said he was prepared to testify before congress, under oath, that everything he presented was the truth.
See it for yourself. (http://tinyurl.com/uauzc)
The combination of data and corroborating testimony makes this a case worth following. It's just a shame we know so little about the FAA's investigation and their final conclusions.
Since no one mentioned it, I'm glad to report that there was indeed towel footage!! Though I think one would be hard-pressed to say they were ready for anything at that particular moment.
I find it interesting that this research is just coming to fruition around the same time that Check 21 is being passed in to law. Coincidence? I think not.
Slashdot Mirror
First, I look forward to seeing you flagged as flamebait. Second, way to miss the point. The question is one of privacy. Apparently you can't sort the two out. Mozilla is claiming privacy is a priority when it's an obvious lie. But that doesn't matter to you does it? You like being lied to right? I guess it only makes sense that a foundation that receives millions of dollars (check their 990) and receives free labor through the help of volunteers should get more money from joe public. Try to form a coherent argument next time.
Here you go, I just uploaded a copy of the source and my 1.77 xpi to github.
https://github.com/xtraeme-xt/BetterPrivacy/releases
Already use Privacy Badger, but thanks, appreciate the recommendation! There are still scenarios where websites use local storage to enforce super cookies. Publishers tend to be the worst offenders. The Volatile Storage addon in combination with BetterPrivacy were a sort of hackish way to purge the system.
It now competes head to head in performance and features, and offers an alternative with improved privacy.
The improved privacy is bullshit. WebExtensions breaks a large number of privacy plugins that blocked fingerprinting (Stop Fingerprinting), stopped redirects (NoRedirect), provided control over cross-site requests (RequestPolicy Continued), self-destructed cookies, super-cookie safeguards (BetterPrivacy), and these won't be ported. David Teller of the Mozilla Foundation has stated "some of our priorities with WebExtensions are - improving privacy. ..." Want to guess how he responded when he was asked how these privacy enhancing addons will be reintroduced to FF57? He went silent.
Then there is the Mozilla Cliqz partnership and the October experiment. "In August 2016, Mozilla ... made a strategic investment in Cliqz. Cliqz plans to eventually monetize the software through a program known as Cliqz Offers, which will deliver sponsored offers to users based on their interests and browsing history." "Mozilla is experimenting with including the Cliqz plug-in by default in its open source Firefox browser." Decide for yourself whether or not any of this is in the interest of privacy. Mozilla is drowning in its own bullshit.
Functionality trumps bugs and performance issues every time. If I have to make a choice between two pieces of software that do roughly the same thing and one does something I need and the other doesn't. I will probably go with the one that does what I need even if it is not as reliable or efficient. Firefox is a perfect case in point. I have Opera, Chrome, Pale Moon, Safari, SRWare Iron, and numerous other forks installed, but I always made Firefox my go to even though Firefox is less stable (probably addon related) because of all the customizations. That was an acceptable cost.
Firefox is frequently slow, crashes, and causes all sorts of heck, but the Firefox addon ecosystem is second to none. Yesterday I had my first taste of the new WebExtension system. The experience was bad. First Stylish broke and all my user styles went kaput. I thought no big deal, should be some easy minor edits. Boy was I wrong. Edits that previously worked nicely in Stylish I had to move to userChrome.css and even then many still didn't cooperate. To make matters worse userChrome.css is going away too according to http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/sh... . Then I started reading Wladimir Palant's comments about the changes coming down the pipe with WebExtensions and I realized every extension in Firefox that I spend time with will likely be catastrophically and permanently broken. The only reason Firefox attracts any market share is because of niche addons users can't find in other browsers. The second all of that goes away is the second Firefox loses all relevance.
The Mozilla Foundation is in full on PR attack mode right now. Look at how they respond to users in the Firefox sub-reddit who dare discuss alternatives to keep legacy addons functional. The Firefox team probably realizes that if FF57 isn't a success the whole organization is sunk. The team is probably terrified they are going to lose a significant number of users and not make it up.
Furthermore logging when executables start and close doesn't seem too useful when investigating performance problems. Carroll say's that the feature was abandoned, so perhaps that's why it seems mostly useless. However this feature is not useless if the purpose is to determine which programs the user runs and for how long. I'm suspicious enough about Windows 10 to suspect that's already happening at other levels.
Yep, looks it does: http://winaero.com/blog/how-to...
One way to find out if these functions were intentionally meant to explicitly spy on userland programs would be to check whether it is enabled for executables contained within Windows 10. If it is in Win10 exes, and telemetry_main_invoke_trigger is truly useless, I wonder whether it will be removed in the future when Windows gets rebuilt with a newer compiler.
The sad truth is people don't care about the actual morality of data theft. They only care about whether or not the data is personally beneficial to them, and if it is, well, ... then it's okay.
Interesting, there is definitely an argument to be made that people can be hypocritical when it comes to protecting their own interests. Not sure why a person with mod points labeled this as flamebait.
"Page response time is not limited by your connection speed "
So what are they trying to get at here -- that it's like Akamai? Because this just sounds like marketing drivel.
Well would you look at that: http://i.imgur.com/YsNjWCc.png
Thanks for protecting me AVG. /sarcasm
Let's see, what culture wants immediate gratification, has an insatiable desire for new technology, and wants instantaneous answers to technical questions (ala Stack Exchange) without any sort of real understanding of the logic or science behind it.
The answer is pretty obvious: Pakleds are 21st century millennials.
s/shouldn't/should/g
Considering I have FOIA'ed hundreds of thousands of government pages (DIA, USAF Oral History, and more) and in some cases waited over a decade to get the paperwork approved for release. I have a pretty good idea of how long it takes. Want to know what's different with these Department of Labor documents and why it shouldn't be a fairly fast process to redact? The documents are templatized forms. So the fields are strongly typed. Since many of the documents are stored electronically, it wouldn't take a genius to programmatically remove the confidential information.
Here is one solution: use a sharpie and permanently black out the confidential information. I guess the government forgot how to use sharpies to black out people's names and addresses. Lord knows Adobe Acrobat doesn't have any features to help with this. Oh wait ... http://www.adobe.com/products/...
MS Office with the type keyboard, using shortcuts, and the trackpad works fine. My only complaint is sometimes the alt key gets stuck. Dragging around graphical items can be somewhat of a pain with the trackpad, but that is what the touch screen is for. There are a couple of older MFC applications I use where the menu items are slightly out of place, but it is not so much of an impediment that the tools are unusable. Gpedit.msc is no different in the latest windows 8.1 update than it is in windows 7. I can code on the Surface using Wing/Visual Studio. Write documents. Read PDFs and other white papers. Do I prefer the Surface over a desktop PC? No. But is it better than an iPad for a programmer / business user? For almost every task, yes. The Surface is basically a tablet plus, laptop minus. Better than my iPad and easier to lug around than my laptop.
FFS FSF! rm RMS!
Well that's annoying, "post anonymously" was set by default! FWIW's I wrote the parent post.
Would love peoples comments.
This is pretty interesting stuff ... mod parent up!
I wonder if the Whitehouse really thought the following quote through: "Whitehouse said the documents assert that the president has the power to determine what his constitutional powers are, particularly in a time of war."
It begs the question, if the President enacted a war of aggression without approval from congress - does he still get a blank check?
The "RAAF issued a press release stating that personnel from the field's 509th Bomb Group had recovered a crashed 'flying disc' from a ranch near Roswell'." [1] Then later the same day "the Commanding General of the Eighth Air Force stated that, in fact, a weather balloon had been recovered
And this isn't the only example. Actually it's impressive how many times the US government has dropped the ball when it's come to UFOs.
Here's a quick-list:
What's interesting is how it was shutdown.
In November, 1951, Dr. Elterman, the new project Director (Mirachi retired in 1950[3]), who also worked at the Atmospheric Physics Laboratory (APL) of the Geophysical Research Division (GRD) of the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratory (AFCRL), wrote the final report.
According to Dr. Elterman's report, Project Twinkle was a dismal failure: "no information was gained." He recommended it be discontinued. His recommendation was accepted. But was it a failure? Was "no information gained?" The data reduction report (now unclassified [2]) tracked and measured four unidentified objects near the White Sands Proving Grounds!
In contrast to Dr. Elterman's report the original director, Dr. Anthony Mirachi, responded to a Feb, 1951 Time's article written in collaboration with Dr. Urner Liddel of the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington D.C. debunking UFOs, saying:
"There was too much evidence in favor of saucers to say they could have all been balloons. 'I was conducting the main investigation. The government had to depend on me or my branch for information.' He said he did not see how the Navy (i.e., Dr Liddel) could say that there had been no concrete evidence on the existence of the phenomena." [4]
Dr. Mirachi, included classified details about Project Twinkle which nearly landed him in very hot water (source contains more details). [5]
I trust radar more than human testimony. This is why I recommend anyone who's interested in serious UFO research (not alien research) google for former FAA head of Accidents and Investigations, John Callahan. (http://tinyurl.com/y5gzpj>)
So the story goes, several years ago, in front of the National Press Club John Callahan claimed to have visual, plane-nose and ground radar proof of a UFO. He brought an audio cassette of the conversation between the ground controllers, a VHS tape of the incident, the November 1986 FAA report, and target readouts to support his case. At the end of his speech, he said he was prepared to testify before congress, under oath, that everything he presented was the truth.
See it for yourself. (http://tinyurl.com/uauzc)
The combination of data and corroborating testimony makes this a case worth following. It's just a shame we know so little about the FAA's investigation and their final conclusions.
Since no one mentioned it, I'm glad to report that there was indeed towel footage!! Though I think one would be hard-pressed to say they were ready for anything at that particular moment.
You just described SecondLife. Never heard of it? Most people haven't.
I find it interesting that this research is just coming to fruition around the same time that Check 21 is being passed in to law. Coincidence? I think not.
So you supported the war, but you didn't buy in to their evidence? Care to explain?