> I know I just love having pop-up dialog boxes ever time I try and close a damn program.
It was *an option*, not a must. Isn't that the whole point of customizing *your own* experience? I preferred it that way along with many other people I know. You may not. Now neither of us has that *option* at all.
> And they should never have removed that "Firefox is shutting down" confirmation window, > nor the "Firefox has exited" confirmation window either. > It's less about if the program actually quits or not.... it's about *knowing*... > in a very clear an obvious way... that something to manage a running process is being done.
> You seem to have confused "feel good" with actual results.
Actually your example is a pretty bad one. I don't need a confirmation window to tell me the browser shut down. Because I *see* it.
But if you don't have a confirmation window about the History being cleared on exit, you have no idea. Or do you without looking deep into the preferences?? Right! Besides, that's just one half of it as already explained: Having that window allows you to override your defaults (if you have them set at all...see above).
> Here in 3.6.10 on Windows I've got the option to "Clear History when Firefox closes" > with it's own settings dialogue to customise what gets removed.
I am aware of it. But there used to be the additional option of having that same selection as a pop-up window on exit (closing the browser). This was done away with...dunno...with 3.5+, I think. That's what I mean. Install the BetterPrivacy Plugin to see roughly, what it was about.
> Firefox's built-in Private Browsing already does this.
No, it doesn't. It's, although they overlap, a separate issue altogether.
Private browsing will not save pretty much anything while browsing (and subsequently leave no traces on exit). Certainly not a bad thing but somewhat unnecessary since:
Clearing the history on exit removes everything you check(ed). This gives you much more flexibility in multiple ways. The private browsing mode you mention may only be turned on during parts of the browsing session. So you still have data, and to stay on-topic, cookies from sites you went to while not in private browsing mode. You may also decide to remove only parts of saved information. For example, you may elect to remove cookies but not the browsing history so you still have your blue already visited links. Even if set that way by default you can elect to keep the cookies because you're interrupting a shopping session (is that even possible in private browsing mode?) and want to keep your shopping cart between browser restarts.
> Because in the latest version of 3.6, you can still set it to clear the history on exit in the normal settings.
I am talking about having a visible "Clear History" window pop up on exit. One that has your pre-set choices from the browser preferences already checked, with the option of overriding the defaults.
Yes you still can delete the history automatically, but there is no indication that this actually is taking place. It's less about what's being done or not...it's about *knowing*...in a very clear and obvious way...that something to protect your privacy is being done. I have/had set this feature (never was browser default which is another FAIL IMHO) for everybody I hooked up with Firefox. Everybody loved it and thought it was very nice and helpful for the Firefox people to be concerned about their privacy (this is normal people we're talking about). They even started taking things more serious and checking things I had left out from the default settings (like browsing history). They became *aware* that it's even an issue. Features like that is where the browser and other programs can distinguish themselves. When everybody started hyping IE and its 'private browsing', my friends merely shook their heads and wondered why...
The BetterPrivacy Plugin btw. is a poor replacement since the window is a lot uglier, suffers from sizing issues etc.. Aside from the fact, that people need to first install it to redo functionality that was inexplicably removed from FF.
So basically if you clear your cache, as well as your cookies/LSO's all should be well. At least at the end of the browser session.
Another YAYdiots to the Mozilla Developers, for scrapping one of the best features in FF: Clearing the History window on exit. So sad you need an extra extension now what, as this story demonstrates again, should be an integral and visible part of any browser.
> Do you honestly believe sysadmins, real ones, not people with an old PC in their basement > dick around installing slackware and compiling custom kernels for thousands of servers?
Well, as a real Sysadmin you should know, that an official Slackware kernel (security update) comes as a package just as it does on RHEL or whatever. Of course you COULD compile your own, but then ditto for RHEL etc..
I can see applications for these kind of devices in physio/therapeutic settings, where for example kids with cerebral palsy, spasticity, and incoherent/underdeveloped motor skills in general can learn how to move properly. The device can provide a restrictive function (prevent limbs or torso flailing around uncontrolled...passive devices like braces are already used for that) and simultaneously provide an external "correct" way of moving about. Basically teach the body/brain the proper way of moving (such as walking) through externally-provided motion. In time, the body may get used to it and incorporate it in its own movement muscle programming.
Problem with these kind of things is always, you read about it on the Internet, say wow...great idea...and then at least a decade goes by until things like that show up in actuality anywhere near you. In the meantime you battle stupid smirks by doctors, who've never heard of such things, when you try to talk to them about what you believe to be a very valid therapeutic approach.
Scary story goes here...OMG how can they do this...there should be a law...your own fault if you don't encrypt...encryption is only for paranoid people who have something to hide...minor flames here...encryption is too hard to use...no it's not...yes it is...rinse/repeat...next Slashdot story...back to normal...unencrypted...back to square 1:-)
> Does the government think the populace is going to go crazy and need constant monitoring?
Yes.
> A fear of Zombies?
Yes.
> Why is there a need to keep an eye on us all the time?
Because "Yes, we can!"
> If you make enough laws, everyone can be considered a criminal but this seems to be a case of severe paranoia.
Yes.
> And of course the private ventures or bureaucrats and politicians with their fingers in the pot appreciate the growth industry that the public's taxes will pay for.
> Most burglaries are crimes of opportunity, not heavy planned. The best defense is simply giving them a reason to pick a different target, > and you might be shocked at how easy and effective a sign of a gun can be.
Well, that might be true. And I am all for methods, incl. deception (like putting up stickers from a security company, even though you may not have one in reality), that might help deter a burglary in the first place. But still I don't think flashing your status regarding weapons is overall good. Sure it might work for some. But might escalate methods with other's. Besides...is a target where the home owner is present one of 'opportunity'?
> I'd rather be sued for 2 years than have to kill someone.
Agree with the basic sentiment of preferably not killing anyone ever. But are you really sure about that? Perhaps when asked again *at the end* of those two years? Or *at the end* of 20 years, when you still have half your pay check seized for the damages awarded to the intruder(s family), even though he went out of his way to mess with you, had the worse outcome of the fight but a better lawyer in court?
> a sticker on the window with a picture of a gun and the text "Never mind the dog -- beware of owner!"
Sounds cute 'n all, but as far as I am concerned it's irresponsible, dangerous or at least rather foolish, gun ownership. IMHO you do not advertise to anyone that you have a gun (or not). Keep people guessing. I don't believe, that it really serves as a deterrent if implemented as above. Whereas the *unexpected* 12-gauge pump actions certainly will.
Slashdot Mirror
> I know I just love having pop-up dialog boxes ever time I try and close a damn program.
It was *an option*, not a must. Isn't that the whole point of customizing *your own* experience? I preferred it that way along with many other people I know. You may not. Now neither of us has that *option* at all.
> And they should never have removed that "Firefox is shutting down" confirmation window,
> nor the "Firefox has exited" confirmation window either.
> It's less about if the program actually quits or not.... it's about *knowing*...
> in a very clear an obvious way... that something to manage a running process is being done.
> You seem to have confused "feel good" with actual results.
Actually your example is a pretty bad one. I don't need a confirmation window to tell me the browser shut down. Because I *see* it.
But if you don't have a confirmation window about the History being cleared on exit, you have no idea. Or do you without looking deep into the preferences?? Right!
Besides, that's just one half of it as already explained: Having that window allows you to override your defaults (if you have them set at all...see above).
> Wow, what a fucking tragedy.
Despite your cynicism, yes it is, when a browser gets worse for no good reason.
> Which version are you using?
3.5.12
> Here in 3.6.10 on Windows I've got the option to "Clear History when Firefox closes"
> with it's own settings dialogue to customise what gets removed.
I am aware of it. But there used to be the additional option of having that same selection as a pop-up window on exit (closing the browser). This was done away with...dunno...with 3.5+, I think. That's what I mean. Install the BetterPrivacy Plugin to see roughly, what it was about.
> Firefox's built-in Private Browsing already does this.
No, it doesn't. It's, although they overlap, a separate issue altogether.
Private browsing will not save pretty much anything while browsing (and subsequently leave no traces on exit). Certainly not a bad thing but somewhat unnecessary since:
Clearing the history on exit removes everything you check(ed). This gives you much more flexibility in multiple ways. The private browsing mode you mention may only be turned on during parts of the browsing session. So you still have data, and to stay on-topic, cookies from sites you went to while not in private browsing mode.
You may also decide to remove only parts of saved information. For example, you may elect to remove cookies but not the browsing history so you still have your blue already visited links. Even if set that way by default you can elect to keep the cookies because you're interrupting a shopping session (is that even possible in private browsing mode?) and want to keep your shopping cart between browser restarts.
Etc..
> Because in the latest version of 3.6, you can still set it to clear the history on exit in the normal settings.
I am talking about having a visible "Clear History" window pop up on exit. One that has your pre-set choices from the browser preferences already checked, with the option of overriding the defaults.
Yes you still can delete the history automatically, but there is no indication that this actually is taking place.
It's less about what's being done or not...it's about *knowing*...in a very clear and obvious way...that something to protect your privacy is being done.
I have/had set this feature (never was browser default which is another FAIL IMHO) for everybody I hooked up with Firefox. Everybody loved it and thought it was very nice and helpful for the Firefox people to be concerned about their privacy (this is normal people we're talking about). They even started taking things more serious and checking things I had left out from the default settings (like browsing history). They became *aware* that it's even an issue.
Features like that is where the browser and other programs can distinguish themselves. When everybody started hyping IE and its 'private browsing', my friends merely shook their heads and wondered why...
The BetterPrivacy Plugin btw. is a poor replacement since the window is a lot uglier, suffers from sizing issues etc.. Aside from the fact, that people need to first install it to redo functionality that was inexplicably removed from FF.
So basically if you clear your cache, as well as your cookies/LSO's all should be well. At least at the end of the browser session.
Another YAYdiots to the Mozilla Developers, for scrapping one of the best features in FF: Clearing the History window on exit. So sad you need an extra extension now what, as this story demonstrates again, should be an integral and visible part of any browser.
> RHEL/CentOS wasn't affected, so they really don't have to release a fix.
You're wrong. RHEL 5x (64-bit) IS affected. RHEL 4 and 3 are not.
> Do you honestly believe sysadmins, real ones, not people with an old PC in their basement
> dick around installing slackware and compiling custom kernels for thousands of servers?
Well, as a real Sysadmin you should know, that an official Slackware kernel (security update) comes as a package just as it does on RHEL or whatever. Of course you COULD compile your own, but then ditto for RHEL etc..
> I used to have a 4 digit UID, but it was stolen by Ac1db1tch3z.
You mean 64-digit UID... :-)
I can see applications for these kind of devices in physio/therapeutic settings, where for example kids with cerebral palsy, spasticity, and incoherent/underdeveloped motor skills in general can learn how to move properly. The device can provide a restrictive function (prevent limbs or torso flailing around uncontrolled...passive devices like braces are already used for that) and simultaneously provide an external "correct" way of moving about. Basically teach the body/brain the proper way of moving (such as walking) through externally-provided motion. In time, the body may get used to it and incorporate it in its own movement muscle programming.
Problem with these kind of things is always, you read about it on the Internet, say wow...great idea...and then at least a decade goes by until things like that show up in actuality anywhere near you. In the meantime you battle stupid smirks by doctors, who've never heard of such things, when you try to talk to them about what you believe to be a very valid therapeutic approach.
I still have an old Caldera T-Shirt (Linux Expo 2000 or so) and it has the slogan:
"Caldera - Unifying Unix and Linux for Business"
With all that went down after that shirt, it is nothing short of a remarkable sentence. Still get a kick out of it each time I look at it :-)
Scary story goes here...OMG how can they do this...there should be a law...your own fault if you don't encrypt...encryption is only for paranoid people who have something to hide...minor flames here...encryption is too hard to use...no it's not...yes it is...rinse/repeat...next Slashdot story...back to normal...unencrypted...back to square 1 :-)
> What part of heaven is most popular?
> ...the fucking Cloud.
Is this where the Good or the Bad people go? :-)
> > but on other websites people will be looking through "private" data when they're bored
> I disagree. I know people that "don't look" and I have never looked myself. I know people that do though.
"Gentlemen don't read other Gentlemen's mail!"
We need more of those in the world! As always...start with yourself ;-)
> My question is simply this.
> Why?
Because "Yes, we can!"
> Does the government think the populace is going to go crazy and need constant monitoring?
Yes.
> A fear of Zombies?
Yes.
> Why is there a need to keep an eye on us all the time?
Because "Yes, we can!"
> If you make enough laws, everyone can be considered a criminal but this seems to be a case of severe paranoia.
Yes.
> And of course the private ventures or bureaucrats and politicians with their fingers in the pot appreciate the growth industry that the public's taxes will pay for.
Yes.
Glad to be of help :-)
Likes this!
thisreallyisnotfacebook.com
In Soviet Russia digital devices....AHAHAHAHAHA...ROFL!!
> Seriously, there are more "guns" solutions than there are high-tech solutions. Where are the geeks?
On the shooting range...
> > German Shepherds, and a 12-gauge shotgun
> the first thing I thought of on reading this was Wolfenstein3d. Except with burglars.
Well, it'd be cool if burglars try to enter my place, only to scream in horror: "MEIN LEBEN!!!" :-)
> Most burglaries are crimes of opportunity, not heavy planned. The best defense is simply giving them a reason to pick a different target,
> and you might be shocked at how easy and effective a sign of a gun can be.
Well, that might be true. And I am all for methods, incl. deception (like putting up stickers from a security company, even though you may not have one in reality), that might help deter a burglary in the first place. But still I don't think flashing your status regarding weapons is overall good. Sure it might work for some. But might escalate methods with other's. Besides...is a target where the home owner is present one of 'opportunity'?
> I'd rather be sued for 2 years than have to kill someone.
Agree with the basic sentiment of preferably not killing anyone ever. But are you really sure about that? Perhaps when asked again *at the end* of those two years? Or *at the end* of 20 years, when you still have half your pay check seized for the damages awarded to the intruder(s family), even though he went out of his way to mess with you, had the worse outcome of the fight but a better lawyer in court?
> a sticker on the window with a picture of a gun and the text "Never mind the dog -- beware of owner!"
Sounds cute 'n all, but as far as I am concerned it's irresponsible, dangerous or at least rather foolish, gun ownership. IMHO you do not advertise to anyone that you have a gun (or not). Keep people guessing. I don't believe, that it really serves as a deterrent if implemented as above. Whereas the *unexpected* 12-gauge pump actions certainly will.
> 2) motion-detection system with an alarm.
> 3) A dog would work in the same way, but that's a lot of upkeep.
I'd imagine, these two are mutually exclusive anyway, unless they cover completely separate areas.