Re-read what the original message in this thread said: "Netflix's deep catalog ended my piracy, since they made it so much easier..." -- sending little plastic-and-metal disks around isn't easier than piracy.
For those who care about being moral/legal, it is.
Oh, well that's sorted then. If content producers could just live in a world where that's the rule rather than the exception, everything would be fine.
Netflix "still" has DVDs and Blu-Rays of everything.. So does RedBox.
Re-read what the original message in this thread said: "Netflix's deep catalog ended my piracy, since they made it so much easier..." -- sending little plastic-and-metal disks around isn't easier than piracy.
Re-read what I said: "...impromptu Friday-night movie nights..." -- sending little plastic-and-metal disks around isn't conducive to this kind of opportunistic moment.
It's not that the DVD/Bluray service is useless, just that it's qualitatively worse than the alternatives of legally streaming or illegally torrenting the same content for most people. And decimating their content catalog is going to push people to one of those two behaviors.
But more to the point: Netflix's stock took a 9% pounding when an independent analysis firm predicted that 2016Q1 subscriber numbers would be 13% lower than Netflix had forecast. I don't see how the next three quarters can be much better for them unless they get their content licensing shit back together. And at some point, a 9% quarter-over-quarter decline will make them a wholly-owned subsidiary of someone else. Or a bankruptcy liquidation.
If netflix ended your piracy, why not keep using netflix?
No, I see it. I've had similar thoughts. It used to be that you could go to Netflix and type in the name of a semi-recent (say, from last summer) popular movie that you didn't see in theaters, and there was a better than even chance that it was right there, ready for you to watch. It made impromptu Friday-night movie nights with the kids easy. Nowadays? Well, the last two times we tried this, literally nothing of interest was available.
Go try it yourself. Inside Out? Nope. Big Hero 5? Nope. Age of Ultron? Nope. Fury Road? Nope. Tomorrowland? Nope. Jurassic world? Nope. Terminator: Genisys? Nope. Minions? Ant-Man? Fantastic Four? Nope. Nope. Nope.
That's not how it used to be. That is very much not how it used to be.
So they're not culling the rare stuff (you can still, for example, watch Primer -- and you should): they're failing to get rights to the big popular stuff that made Netflix popular in the first place. I'll be surprised if they aren't seeing their subscriber numbers plummet.
I'm sure not getting what I want from the service, and am likely to drop it soon. Me? I'll probably pay the $4 per movie to watch it on iTunes or Amazon Prime. I can see how it might drive other people back into the arms of Torrents, though.
I think everything you're proposing can be achived via psuedonymity, which allows you to create a new persona detached from your real one (insulating the real you from persecution), but which allows the rest of use to set the "dipshit" flag on that persona if you're clearly a dipshit. Anonymity encourages assholism. Just reading through the "anonymous cowards" comments on Slashdot should be enough to make that fact evident.
Well, sure. The issue is that add-ons have historically been loaded into the same security context as the rest of the browser code, which means they could literally do anything. The recent move towards having a better-defined API -- one that would prevent the kinds of things you think should be prevented -- is being done in large part to make this a far more tractable problem to deal with.
Of course, as soon as there's any noise about preventing add-ons from doing literally anything they want to your computer, Mozilla is painted as control-freak fascists out to destroy Firefox forever. So it's kind of a rock-and-hard-place situation.
You need to read more carefully. For the kind of add-ons you mention -- that is, ones not hosted on Mozilla's servers -- the signing process is automatic. You can even use a commandline tool to automate submission of the file for signing, and generally get a signed version back within a few seconds.
Assuming the COO is authorized to represent the company's position: 'In a talk entitled "Securing Mobility, Protecting Privacy", BlackBerry Chief Operating Officer Marty Beard told delegates that the company is a strong believer in providing law enforcement agencies with methods to lawfully intercept communications.' http://businessinsights.bitdef...
I've never been too keen on the "with us or against us" rhetoric, but this is math, not politics: systems are either designed to be as secure as they can be, or they are intentionally left with known vulnerabilities. The ability to intercept is, by definition, a known vulnerability.
To be approved for inclusion in pretty much any reputable application, a CA has to conform to the requirements laid out by the CA/Browser forum; see https://cabforum.org/wp-conten... -- you'll note that Section 9.6.3, bullet 5 requires the ability for the domain holder to request revocation. Let's Encrypt conforms to these requirements. While ACME requires specific authentication material to perform automatic revocation, there's a manual process in place.
From https://letsencrypt.org/reposi... : "To report private key compromise, certificate misuse, or other types of fraud, compromise, misuse, inappropriate conduct, or any other matter related to certificates, please email cert-prob-reports@letsencrypt.org."
Basically, all LE's policy says is "We're not going to make a unilateral decision about whether the content someone is hosting on their own domain is legitimate, for that way lies madness. If a domain owner needs a cert revoked, and they can't use the automated tools to revoke it, they need to send an email, and we'll take care of it as soon as we can verify that they're the rightful owner of the domain."
I'm not sure it gets much more reasonable than that.
This was in Arlington, not Dallas. This is like confusing Islip with New York City, Oakland with San Francisco, Yokohoama with Tokyo, or Luton with London.
Also, the Do-Not-Track flag is an utter failure. No ad network listens to the DNT flag. If you don't want to be tracked, you need proactive browser support. Something like: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
And, for what it's worth, the in-browser advertising project ("tiles") in Firefox is being shut down, per a company-wide announcement sent out earlier today. Look for a public announcement soon.
$20? The price of a cheap dinner? For the magic of getting the frickin' Internet as you shoot through the air at 500 miles per hour, 7 miles above the earth's surface?
I'm honestly boggled how they get by charging so little. The fact that they can do it at all is just barely short of a miracle.
Holy craps! Capitalistic systems have a built-in profit motive? And companies succumb to that motive to increase profits? Why did no one ever point this out before?
For certain products, I would find this very convenient. Don't want one? Don't ask for one.
You're technically right that it's born of "ignorance" since I lack any inside information about the matter and I'm speculating.
Sure, but even a lay understanding of the word "profit" and the negating prefix "non" should give you some hint about how non-profit organizations are legally required to operate.
Mozilla, for the love of god, stop breaking APIs, you morons.
That's actually the entire point of this move. The problem is that the current addon "API", such as it is, is literally every class in the entire freaking browser, which is an untenably huge and perpetually changing surface to maintain. The only way to keep the current API and stop breaking stuff constantly is to freeze all development on Firefox now and forever.
That's not really a viable approach.
The alternative is to come up with a more stable API surface, from the ground up, and provide a transition period for add-on developers to move from the large, unsupportable infrastructure to the stable one that won't be -- as you correctly observe -- constantly breaking.
Rather than developing a new API, the add-ons team decided to leverage the work that Chrome has already done in this space, which has the nice side effect of making life much easier for developers who want to write cross-browser add-ons.
One of the things that's getting lost in the noise here is that the portion of the API based on Chrome's current design is just the start. There will be additional API surface to enable some of the things that had been possible with the legacy wild-west-style Add-On approach. Since reading articles is not particularly trendy, I'll quote the relevant passage here:
A major challenge we face is that many Firefox add-ons cannot possibly be built using either WebExtensions or the SDK as they currently exist. Over the coming year, we will seek feedback from the development community, and will continue to develop and extend the WebExtension API to support as much of the functionality needed by the most popular Firefox extensions as possible.
[T]he board of directors decided to just monetize the balls out of Firefox and ride a golden parachute down to its destruction.
The IRS has some pretty rigorously enforced guidelines about executive and employee compensation at 501(c)(3) nonprofits, like Mozilla. It's a complicated topic, but this gives a good introduction to the overall idea: https://www.councilofnonprofit...
The executive summary is that there's nothing anyone can do to make a nontrival personal profit off of anything Mozilla does. So you can sling mud all you want, but accusations that decisions at Mozilla are driven by some kind of profit motive are borne of plain ignorance.
Under FISA he is not allowed to use wistleblowing as a defense.
Actually, it's worse than that. Two of the counts he's charged with are violations of the Espionage Act, which was intended to prevent US citizens from colluding with US enemies during World War I. Unfortunately, the law provides no room for affirmative defenses at all: if secrets were leaked, you're guilty, and the court isn't allowed to consider even the slightest sliver of the surrounding context. Did you uncover something illegal? Doesn't matter. Is this course of action the only one that would have turned up malfeasance by intelligence agencies? That can't be discussed.
The reason the Obama administration's insistence that Snowden come back to the US to "face a fair trial" is so flagrantly disingenuous is that the act that he's charged under, by virtue of its complete lack of defenses, is explicitly and intentionally designed to result in anything but a fair trial. They're inviting him home for a railroading, and it doesn't matter whether it's done in private or public: he's fucked.
You should watch citizenfour, which spends quite a bit of time on this specific issue of how inappropriate the Espionage Act is for Snowden's actions, and just how unfair is is designed to be.
You don't suppose that the reason IE is slow and crashes on so many sites is precisely *because* it's so promiscuous regarding third-party components that are poorly written, do you? Of course you don't, because that would require admitting that what Google and Mozilla do -- blocking shit that ruins your experience -- is actually the only sane way to be good stewards of Chrome and Firefox. And you've already assumed that they're just doing that to piss you off.
,,,is there an equivalent development program for HTML5? Like, would I really have to code absolutely everything including the x,y positions of literally every shape to grace the screen, or is there something with a drag/drop transform interface to modify shapes directly on the canvas?
Windows 7 and 8 include "compatibility mode" for running applications designed for Windows XP. Heck, Windows 7 Pro even included a coupon for a copy of XP in a virtual machine at no additional charge. What would be the counterpart to compatibility mode for running SWF objects?
Slashdot Mirror
And why does Firefox now install tracking cookies?
[citation needed]
For those who care about being moral/legal, it is.
Oh, well that's sorted then. If content producers could just live in a world where that's the rule rather than the exception, everything would be fine.
Netflix "still" has DVDs and Blu-Rays of everything.. So does RedBox.
Re-read what the original message in this thread said: "Netflix's deep catalog ended my piracy, since they made it so much easier..." -- sending little plastic-and-metal disks around isn't easier than piracy.
Re-read what I said: "...impromptu Friday-night movie nights..." -- sending little plastic-and-metal disks around isn't conducive to this kind of opportunistic moment.
It's not that the DVD/Bluray service is useless, just that it's qualitatively worse than the alternatives of legally streaming or illegally torrenting the same content for most people. And decimating their content catalog is going to push people to one of those two behaviors.
But more to the point: Netflix's stock took a 9% pounding when an independent analysis firm predicted that 2016Q1 subscriber numbers would be 13% lower than Netflix had forecast. I don't see how the next three quarters can be much better for them unless they get their content licensing shit back together. And at some point, a 9% quarter-over-quarter decline will make them a wholly-owned subsidiary of someone else. Or a bankruptcy liquidation.
Huh? You're not being logical.
If netflix ended your piracy, why not keep using netflix?
No, I see it. I've had similar thoughts. It used to be that you could go to Netflix and type in the name of a semi-recent (say, from last summer) popular movie that you didn't see in theaters, and there was a better than even chance that it was right there, ready for you to watch. It made impromptu Friday-night movie nights with the kids easy. Nowadays? Well, the last two times we tried this, literally nothing of interest was available.
Go try it yourself. Inside Out? Nope. Big Hero 5? Nope. Age of Ultron? Nope. Fury Road? Nope. Tomorrowland? Nope. Jurassic world? Nope. Terminator: Genisys? Nope. Minions? Ant-Man? Fantastic Four? Nope. Nope. Nope.
That's not how it used to be. That is very much not how it used to be.
So they're not culling the rare stuff (you can still, for example, watch Primer -- and you should): they're failing to get rights to the big popular stuff that made Netflix popular in the first place. I'll be surprised if they aren't seeing their subscriber numbers plummet.
I'm sure not getting what I want from the service, and am likely to drop it soon. Me? I'll probably pay the $4 per movie to watch it on iTunes or Amazon Prime. I can see how it might drive other people back into the arms of Torrents, though.
I think everything you're proposing can be achived via psuedonymity, which allows you to create a new persona detached from your real one (insulating the real you from persecution), but which allows the rest of use to set the "dipshit" flag on that persona if you're clearly a dipshit. Anonymity encourages assholism. Just reading through the "anonymous cowards" comments on Slashdot should be enough to make that fact evident.
Hrm. If there were only some way to search for that kind of thing...
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...
Well, sure. The issue is that add-ons have historically been loaded into the same security context as the rest of the browser code, which means they could literally do anything. The recent move towards having a better-defined API -- one that would prevent the kinds of things you think should be prevented -- is being done in large part to make this a far more tractable problem to deal with.
Of course, as soon as there's any noise about preventing add-ons from doing literally anything they want to your computer, Mozilla is painted as control-freak fascists out to destroy Firefox forever. So it's kind of a rock-and-hard-place situation.
You need to read more carefully. For the kind of add-ons you mention -- that is, ones not hosted on Mozilla's servers -- the signing process is automatic. You can even use a commandline tool to automate submission of the file for signing, and generally get a signed version back within a few seconds.
I've /never/ found a 5.25" or 8" floppy drive with a USB interface
Well, there's this: http://www.deviceside.com/
Assuming the COO is authorized to represent the company's position: 'In a talk entitled "Securing Mobility, Protecting Privacy", BlackBerry Chief Operating Officer Marty Beard told delegates that the company is a strong believer in providing law enforcement agencies with methods to lawfully intercept communications.' http://businessinsights.bitdef...
I've never been too keen on the "with us or against us" rhetoric, but this is math, not politics: systems are either designed to be as secure as they can be, or they are intentionally left with known vulnerabilities. The ability to intercept is, by definition, a known vulnerability.
To be approved for inclusion in pretty much any reputable application, a CA has to conform to the requirements laid out by the CA/Browser forum; see https://cabforum.org/wp-conten... -- you'll note that Section 9.6.3, bullet 5 requires the ability for the domain holder to request revocation. Let's Encrypt conforms to these requirements. While ACME requires specific authentication material to perform automatic revocation, there's a manual process in place.
From https://letsencrypt.org/reposi... : "To report private key compromise, certificate misuse, or other types of fraud, compromise, misuse, inappropriate conduct, or any other matter related to certificates, please email cert-prob-reports@letsencrypt.org."
Basically, all LE's policy says is "We're not going to make a unilateral decision about whether the content someone is hosting on their own domain is legitimate, for that way lies madness. If a domain owner needs a cert revoked, and they can't use the automated tools to revoke it, they need to send an email, and we'll take care of it as soon as we can verify that they're the rightful owner of the domain."
I'm not sure it gets much more reasonable than that.
This was in Arlington, not Dallas. This is like confusing Islip with New York City, Oakland with San Francisco, Yokohoama with Tokyo, or Luton with London.
I wonder in regular firefox is the same Disconnect list used when you set privacy.trackingprotection.enabled?
It is.
Firefox: has telemetry on, Do-Not-Track off, etc. by default. Also has built-in ads that read your browsing history.
You're confused about telemetry:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Telem...
Also, the Do-Not-Track flag is an utter failure. No ad network listens to the DNT flag. If you don't want to be tracked, you need proactive browser support. Something like:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
And, for what it's worth, the in-browser advertising project ("tiles") in Firefox is being shut down, per a company-wide announcement sent out earlier today. Look for a public announcement soon.
My wife once spotted Andy Bell in the crowd at a B.E.F. concert outside of London. Does that count?
$20? The price of a cheap dinner? For the magic of getting the frickin' Internet as you shoot through the air at 500 miles per hour, 7 miles above the earth's surface?
I'm honestly boggled how they get by charging so little. The fact that they can do it at all is just barely short of a miracle.
Holy craps! Capitalistic systems have a built-in profit motive? And companies succumb to that motive to increase profits? Why did no one ever point this out before?
For certain products, I would find this very convenient. Don't want one? Don't ask for one.
You're technically right that it's born of "ignorance" since I lack any inside information about the matter and I'm speculating.
Sure, but even a lay understanding of the word "profit" and the negating prefix "non" should give you some hint about how non-profit organizations are legally required to operate.
Mozilla, for the love of god, stop breaking APIs, you morons.
That's actually the entire point of this move. The problem is that the current addon "API", such as it is, is literally every class in the entire freaking browser, which is an untenably huge and perpetually changing surface to maintain. The only way to keep the current API and stop breaking stuff constantly is to freeze all development on Firefox now and forever.
That's not really a viable approach.
The alternative is to come up with a more stable API surface, from the ground up, and provide a transition period for add-on developers to move from the large, unsupportable infrastructure to the stable one that won't be -- as you correctly observe -- constantly breaking.
Rather than developing a new API, the add-ons team decided to leverage the work that Chrome has already done in this space, which has the nice side effect of making life much easier for developers who want to write cross-browser add-ons.
One of the things that's getting lost in the noise here is that the portion of the API based on Chrome's current design is just the start. There will be additional API surface to enable some of the things that had been possible with the legacy wild-west-style Add-On approach. Since reading articles is not particularly trendy, I'll quote the relevant passage here:
A major challenge we face is that many Firefox add-ons cannot possibly be built using either WebExtensions or the SDK as they currently exist. Over the coming year, we will seek feedback from the development community, and will continue to develop and extend the WebExtension API to support as much of the functionality needed by the most popular Firefox extensions as possible.
[T]he board of directors decided to just monetize the balls out of Firefox and ride a golden parachute down to its destruction.
The IRS has some pretty rigorously enforced guidelines about executive and employee compensation at 501(c)(3) nonprofits, like Mozilla. It's a complicated topic, but this gives a good introduction to the overall idea: https://www.councilofnonprofit...
The executive summary is that there's nothing anyone can do to make a nontrival personal profit off of anything Mozilla does. So you can sling mud all you want, but accusations that decisions at Mozilla are driven by some kind of profit motive are borne of plain ignorance.
ObRef: http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jo...
Under FISA he is not allowed to use wistleblowing as a defense.
Actually, it's worse than that. Two of the counts he's charged with are violations of the Espionage Act, which was intended to prevent US citizens from colluding with US enemies during World War I. Unfortunately, the law provides no room for affirmative defenses at all: if secrets were leaked, you're guilty, and the court isn't allowed to consider even the slightest sliver of the surrounding context. Did you uncover something illegal? Doesn't matter. Is this course of action the only one that would have turned up malfeasance by intelligence agencies? That can't be discussed.
The reason the Obama administration's insistence that Snowden come back to the US to "face a fair trial" is so flagrantly disingenuous is that the act that he's charged under, by virtue of its complete lack of defenses, is explicitly and intentionally designed to result in anything but a fair trial. They're inviting him home for a railroading, and it doesn't matter whether it's done in private or public: he's fucked.
You should watch citizenfour, which spends quite a bit of time on this specific issue of how inappropriate the Espionage Act is for Snowden's actions, and just how unfair is is designed to be.
You don't suppose that the reason IE is slow and crashes on so many sites is precisely *because* it's so promiscuous regarding third-party components that are poorly written, do you? Of course you don't, because that would require admitting that what Google and Mozilla do -- blocking shit that ruins your experience -- is actually the only sane way to be good stewards of Chrome and Firefox. And you've already assumed that they're just doing that to piss you off.
,,,is there an equivalent development program for HTML5? Like, would I really have to code absolutely everything including the x,y positions of literally every shape to grace the screen, or is there something with a drag/drop transform interface to modify shapes directly on the canvas?
I think the program you're looking for is called "Adobe Flash Pro CC": http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2...
Windows 7 and 8 include "compatibility mode" for running applications designed for Windows XP. Heck, Windows 7 Pro even included a coupon for a copy of XP in a virtual machine at no additional charge. What would be the counterpart to compatibility mode for running SWF objects?
Shumway: https://developer.mozilla.org/...