That's far too black and white. Nearly nobody wants 100% privacy, and it's entirely possible to use a smartphone while maintaining good control over who gets to learn what about you. At least for Android, where you can avoid Google entirely if you wish, and you can install a firewall to prevent applications from talking to the outside world.
You may think that you're a moral person, but most people have character traits that give them shame.
Perhaps, but shame and morality are only loosely correlated. Most people who feel ashamed of something about themselves are ashamed because of something society in general says should be shameful. Quite often, this is about issues that are morally neutral.
Personally, there is nothing in my life that I'm so ashamed of that it would be a huge deal if it were widely revealed. But privacy is incredibly important to me nonetheless.
I'm not talking about state sponsored spying, I'm talking about people who buy and sell eyeballs. Why do other people give a flying fuck that hearing aid and dental adverts follow me all over the internet?
It's not the ads, it's the database. In this day and age, there is little effective difference between state sponsored spying and corporate spying. If you object to one, you must object to the other, because they both largely are doing the exact same thing (buying data from the aggregators).
if these "guidelines" become enforced, then ublock origin would be removed from the firefox store. You probably won't see this until chrome and firefox can both do it at about the same time, but it definitely looks like we are seeing a slow moving attempt to try to stop actual adblockers from running.
No problem. A requirement I have for any browser I use is that it has the functionality that NoScript provides. If a browser doesn't let me do that sort of thing, then I don't use the browser.
Whether or not that browser is named "Firefox" or "Chrome" or "Jimmy-Bob's Awesome Browser" is irrelevant.
True, consumers don't want to see ads, but if they are given the choice between "see some ads and get the content you want" and "see no ads and get very little content" their disgust of ads abates somewhat.
So it's a good thing that's not actually the choice we have to make.
But if you want a sustainable, awesome web ecosystem -- then start proposing acceptable limitations that nurture the publishers we all love.
For me, this is easy: stop tracking me. I don't mind ads. I despise the tracking that comes with them. Until that stops (which will be never), I will continue to block all ads.
I couldn't care less what principles Mozilla comes up with. I will continue to block all advertising no matter what.
If they've taught us nothing else over the years, advertisers have taught us that they are entirely untrustworthy, and so it's reasonable to avoid trusting them with data about me to the greatest degree I can.
Which world would you rather be in, one where people are going to tell you exactly what they're feeling, good and bad; or one you're afraid of being honest and you don't know anyone else's true feelings either?
This is a false dichotomy. I live in a world where people (mostly) express their true feelings, good and bad, in a way that isn't taking a shit all over everyone else.
You know what? Guys insult each other. It's how we communicate, it's how we bond.
Maybe in your social circle, but my experience is quite different. In my experience, guys who are insulting each other are doing so because they hate each other. Bonding has nothing to do with it. It's the opposite.
It's about the same in startups you get a lot of things done because you dont worry about somebody feelings it's fsking work you get it done and done well, you mark the hacks that may come back and bite ya.
Baloney. I've worked in plenty of startups, but very few have been hostile. And none have been as hostile as the kernel group. It's one thing to be brief and to-the-point. It's an entirely different thing to be abusive and hostile.
You're talking about state of the art VR technology that you would not want to put down and it could transform how you even use computers.
Eventually, maybe. But not in the near future. The only way that VR technology could transform how normal people use computers is if it can be done without a headset (or at least one that isn't much more massive that eyeglasses or a phone headset) and if it is inexpensive enough.
How do you configure a web search engine to filter sites using animated ads or requiring script to view the entire page out of results so that you don't end up wasting time visiting eight sites in a row only to have to click the back button?
I don't bother with all of that. I use NoScript. If I encounter a site that doesn't work right, I just move on. If the site is interesting enough that it seems worth the effort and blocks scripts, I'll start enabling specific ones until either the site starts working or it requires scripts from sites I know I will never allow.
I don't think I've ever run across the case you site, of having a long string of sites that don't work. I encounter them in singles, and relatively rarely. But perhaps we frequent different sorts of sites.
Slashdot Mirror
That's far too black and white. Nearly nobody wants 100% privacy, and it's entirely possible to use a smartphone while maintaining good control over who gets to learn what about you. At least for Android, where you can avoid Google entirely if you wish, and you can install a firewall to prevent applications from talking to the outside world.
as everyone of us who has a penis knows, when we like something, we will chase it to the ends of the earth and do almost anything to get it.
This may be true for some people, but nowhere near "everyone". Not even the majority, at least not for men older than 25 or so.
You may think that you're a moral person, but most people have character traits that give them shame.
Perhaps, but shame and morality are only loosely correlated. Most people who feel ashamed of something about themselves are ashamed because of something society in general says should be shameful. Quite often, this is about issues that are morally neutral.
Personally, there is nothing in my life that I'm so ashamed of that it would be a huge deal if it were widely revealed. But privacy is incredibly important to me nonetheless.
I'm not talking about state sponsored spying, I'm talking about people who buy and sell eyeballs. Why do other people give a flying fuck that hearing aid and dental adverts follow me all over the internet?
It's not the ads, it's the database. In this day and age, there is little effective difference between state sponsored spying and corporate spying. If you object to one, you must object to the other, because they both largely are doing the exact same thing (buying data from the aggregators).
Unless you lived in a village, where probably everybody know almost everything. Somethings just where not talked about in the open.
True, but that's a lot less problematic than companies and the government spying on you.
Supporting DRM was in no way required to get rid of flash.
Ahh, thank you for the correction!
why would Google or Mozilla decide to make these images work in their browsers? Why would Microsoft or Apple implement it?
I dunno, why did all those guys cave on the DRM added to HTML 5?
Only if you use the print screen functionality that comes with Windows.
They can't affect the screen grab feature in Linux, but patent law can prevent you (legally) writing a DRM compliant image viewer for Linux.
Patent law can't stop you from legally doing this. It can only stop you from distributing the program you wrote.
The DMCA anti-circumvention clause would make this illegal, but who cares? Nobody really pays any attention to that clause anyway.
if these "guidelines" become enforced, then ublock origin would be removed from the firefox store. You probably won't see this until chrome and firefox can both do it at about the same time, but it definitely looks like we are seeing a slow moving attempt to try to stop actual adblockers from running.
No problem. A requirement I have for any browser I use is that it has the functionality that NoScript provides. If a browser doesn't let me do that sort of thing, then I don't use the browser.
Whether or not that browser is named "Firefox" or "Chrome" or "Jimmy-Bob's Awesome Browser" is irrelevant.
True, consumers don't want to see ads, but if they are given the choice between "see some ads and get the content you want" and "see no ads and get very little content" their disgust of ads abates somewhat.
So it's a good thing that's not actually the choice we have to make.
An arms race.
Oh, I forgot to comment on this bit: For me, there's no arms race and never will be. If I can't block ads on a site, I simply stop going to that site.
I'd like it back, please.
Yes yes yes!! Me too. Every day I use the web, it makes me long for the days when it was better.
But if you want a sustainable, awesome web ecosystem -- then start proposing acceptable limitations that nurture the publishers we all love.
For me, this is easy: stop tracking me. I don't mind ads. I despise the tracking that comes with them. Until that stops (which will be never), I will continue to block all ads.
I couldn't care less what principles Mozilla comes up with. I will continue to block all advertising no matter what.
If they've taught us nothing else over the years, advertisers have taught us that they are entirely untrustworthy, and so it's reasonable to avoid trusting them with data about me to the greatest degree I can.
Barnes & Noble still exists???
Which world would you rather be in, one where people are going to tell you exactly what they're feeling, good and bad; or one you're afraid of being honest and you don't know anyone else's true feelings either?
This is a false dichotomy. I live in a world where people (mostly) express their true feelings, good and bad, in a way that isn't taking a shit all over everyone else.
You know what? Guys insult each other. It's how we communicate, it's how we bond.
Maybe in your social circle, but my experience is quite different. In my experience, guys who are insulting each other are doing so because they hate each other. Bonding has nothing to do with it. It's the opposite.
It's about the same in startups you get a lot of things done because you dont worry about somebody feelings it's fsking work you get it done and done well, you mark the hacks that may come back and bite ya.
Baloney. I've worked in plenty of startups, but very few have been hostile. And none have been as hostile as the kernel group. It's one thing to be brief and to-the-point. It's an entirely different thing to be abusive and hostile.
Sarah is exactly right, and what she's talking about is precisely why I don't submit any of my patches and bugfixes to the kernel.
You're talking about state of the art VR technology that you would not want to put down and it could transform how you even use computers.
Eventually, maybe. But not in the near future. The only way that VR technology could transform how normal people use computers is if it can be done without a headset (or at least one that isn't much more massive that eyeglasses or a phone headset) and if it is inexpensive enough.
Oculus Rift was dead to me the instant Facebook bought it.
How do you configure a web search engine to filter sites using animated ads or requiring script to view the entire page out of results so that you don't end up wasting time visiting eight sites in a row only to have to click the back button?
I don't bother with all of that. I use NoScript. If I encounter a site that doesn't work right, I just move on. If the site is interesting enough that it seems worth the effort and blocks scripts, I'll start enabling specific ones until either the site starts working or it requires scripts from sites I know I will never allow.
I don't think I've ever run across the case you site, of having a long string of sites that don't work. I encounter them in singles, and relatively rarely. But perhaps we frequent different sorts of sites.
(and I do know of a few websites off the top of my head that circumvent ad-blocking simply by serving un-targeted, static ads)
If by "untargeted" you mean ads that don't track you, then those are exactly the sort of ads that are perfectly fine with me anyway.