You still don't get it. If in fact 100% of people don't want to be tracked then... NO HEADER IS NECESSARY it can simply be assumed.
I think you are wrong BTW, informal polling of friends and family who I pointed out the config option - most of them did *not* enable it and seemed apathetic of tracking. You could also consider the enormous number of people using Chrome as a vote for being tracked everywhere, since every keystroke in the URL bar is sent to Google by default, and there is no DNT option in config. Perhaps you could consider Chrome in a UA as saying "Hi! I don't care about privacy at all"
But in fact, Firefox is *sending* a header to *indicate* a desire by someone.
If in fact it is something that 100% of people want and it should be turned on all the time, then it is indeed a complete waste of bytes.
You're certainly entitled to your (wrong) opinion about this, but the reason for Firefox not making it default is completely logical and not based on some mad conspiracy.
And if in fact 100% of people want it, and some law is passed banning tracking, no header is necessary.
So. Let's break this down once more to see if you can get it.
If *your* interpretation of the situation is correct, sending a header is pointless. We should just assume they are acting against our wishes and decide appropriately how to deal with them.
If *my* interpretation of the situation is correct, then choice is critical.
Look, I'm a huge fan of stuff like TOR, private browsing mode, restrictions on information dissemination, NoScript, preventing tracking by cookie, timestamp of cache objects, Flash and HTML5 storage. Not to mention ISPs and data mining by online services. And I'm also a big fan of the same concerns in public life. But just because I'm a fan of privacy, I can still manage to keep a little clarity on this issue, andsee what is actually practical and useful.
If you do not check off "Do Not Track" no header is sent. If a browser always sent "Do Not Track" without the user indicating that was what they want, that would be no different than the browser sending a header saying "Hi! I'm a browser! Herp Derp"
For the header to have *any* meaning at all you have to *choose* to send it. That way you tell the site. Hey site! This is me, that person you're tracking. I don't want you to do it!
It boggles my mind how hard it is for people to grasp this simple concept.
If it was always on, it would be meaningless. Simple as that. Sites would ignore it, and would have a trivial defense for ignoring it if they did.
Rape is illegal, tracking people online is not. But your absurd analogy was humerous all the same.
If browsers defaulted to saying "Do Not Track" then companies could (rightly) argue that the header was nothing more than a waste of bytes, that it did not represent any consumer intent at all.
Mozilla's position completely makes sense, and is the only thing ensuring that my checking of Do Not Track (which I did) cares any weight of intent whatsoever.
If there is to be any laws about honouring the DNT flag, it has to actually have some significance.
??? They do present the choice to the user. Options->Privacy (where you would expect privacy stuff to be) And it is at the very top of the tab. A big checkbox. Tracking: "Tell websites I do not want to be tracked"
"As Do Not Track picks up steam and standardization is well underway in the W3C, people have begun asking, âoeIf Do Not Track is so good for the web, why donâ(TM)t you turn it on by default?â
Frankly, it becomes meaningless if we enable it by default for all our users. Do Not Track is intended to express an individualâ(TM)s choice, or preference, to not be tracked. Itâ(TM)s important that the signal represents a choice made by the person behind the keyboard and not the software maker, because ultimately itâ(TM)s not Firefox being tracked, itâ(TM)s the user.
Mozillaâ(TM)s mission is to give users this choice and control over their browsing experience. We wonâ(TM)t turn on Do Not Track by default because then it would be Mozilla making the choice, not the individual. Since this is a choice for the user to make, we cannot send the signal automatically but will empower them with the tools they need to do it.
Do Not Track is not Mozillaâ(TM)s position on tracking, itâ(TM)s the individualâ(TM)s â" and thatâ(TM)s what makes it great! For that reason we have no plans to turn on Do Not Track by default."
m'k... and how often do these use flash plugins?:)
oh well, apart from (obviously) some custom built device, everything else should have no trouble, right? And there are always new devices that do decode vp8, as well as the option of generic decoding on the GPU, or, in a pinch, using software, which given current generation of smartphones, might not be power efficient for long periods of time, but certainly doable.
But... Yes... If you have an infrastructure with pre-purchased hardware *and* it just happens to also use Flash as a fallback *and* the system is completely and utterly incapable of doing a reencoding at any point from a browser implementation to the H.264 the hardware uses (god knows why, it seems that would be utterly trivial to code, since you'd probably have a webserver in between anyway...)... and this system also required linux users to be able to use the flash component... and the linux users could not use gnash or an older version of flash...
then, yes, I guess the only choice would be chromium.
and, for this limited case, I guess flash might still have some small reason for its existence:D
And, for that matter, none of the uses of flash for video conferencing I've run into have been as part of some massive voip infrastructure. Heck, the only use of voip at work didn't use flash at all. Used some proprietary annoying plugin that didn't even *work* under linux.
Ehm. I still don't get it. You're right about not being familiar w/ voip, but data is data. Why would this infrastructure want or need to decode it (assuming that decoding was at all complex or difficult). Any routing of traffic seems like an entirely different matter that should not depend on how the video stream is encoded.
Ok. I'm very confused there. If the browsers have vp8 bundled (and they do). And they are the ones doing the recording and encoding (and they are). Then what the heck do you need the infrastructure for?
A skype-like app can be setup with virtually no server infrastructure at all. Not to mention, I assume since you are comparing this to flash, talking about server infrastructure seems a bit odd. Isn't it doing the same thing?
And, yes, they have quite a bit invested in H.264 and variants, but vp8 is considerably cheaper to license ($0). That ought to help.
I'm not sure how Firefox could even legally *include* H.264 video encoding, without licensing each Firefox user as a video creator.
Anyway, adding encodings is a pretty minor issue if the spec gets nailed down. But I don't expect H.264 to get much traction.
Video/Audio will be possible in HTML5 using WebRTC, although it requires a dev version of Chrome. Development in Firefox is ongoing, apparently - there's a tracking bug, and some initial code in their repo.
There's a bookmarklet out there that removes this. Once Firefox has learned the password, it can keep filling out the field. You can also use firebug to get around it.
You can also go into firefox source, unzip omni, and set _isAutocompleteDisabled to always return false in components/nsLoginManager.js then pack it up again. Since updates to Firefox will clobber this, you might want to script resetting it, or else you might have to do it again every few months.
And I'm fairly happy with it. Performs well, price was and is still good ($350) and, a feature not on the Galaxy Tab, it has standard USB - so you can just plug in any old thumb drive or keyboard you have lying around the house. Heck. We even plugged the iphone into it once to charge it and transfer photos off of it. Haven't tested it with anything but USB keyboard, mouse and mass storage yet.
This works on all my addons, and as a benefit, speeds up whitelisting for the general public.
Luckily stuff like Firebug and NoScript routinely release versions that work even in the nightlies - have for as long as I've used them.
I believe there's some work on trying to make compatibility checks more flexible, but I'm feeling too sick and sleepy to try finding relevant bugs, if any.
Yes, watch it through, there are dramatic jets of flame and explosions. The flame jets seem to have quite a bit of heat.
And of course, you can carry multiple laptop batteries. 1 per laptop + 1 spare. I've routinely carried two portables in the past, so that would presumably have entitled me to 4 of these.
But of course they still want to confiscate my smaller shampoo or lotion.
Not to mention the fact that if they are letting these through, presumably they could be packed with even stronger explosives.
If you point out that they do chemically test laptops for explosive residue, I'd like to note that's hardly foolproof if someone was thorough in cleaning and sealing it, that they hardly ever do it, and, that surely this could apply to my SO's $30 bottle of shampoo that they are about to throw out.
It could also be that the fracking caused slight ground shifts that allowed existing methane on the same level to access a well that it couldn't quite reach before.
But you're right that so far examination of the so-called contaminated wells has shown no evidence of fracking chemicals or deep methane.
Slashdot Mirror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon_(signals_intelligence)#Controversy
A reference, if not a citation.
I'm guessing this is what he was referring to.
You still don't get it.
If in fact 100% of people don't want to be tracked then... NO HEADER IS NECESSARY it can simply be assumed.
I think you are wrong BTW, informal polling of friends and family who I pointed out the config option - most of them did *not* enable it and seemed apathetic of tracking. You could also consider the enormous number of people using Chrome as a vote for being tracked everywhere, since every keystroke in the URL bar is sent to Google by default, and there is no DNT option in config. Perhaps you could consider Chrome in a UA as saying "Hi! I don't care about privacy at all"
But in fact, Firefox is *sending* a header to *indicate* a desire by someone.
If in fact it is something that 100% of people want and it should be turned on all the time, then it is indeed a complete waste of bytes.
You're certainly entitled to your (wrong) opinion about this, but the reason for Firefox not making it default is completely logical and not based on some mad conspiracy.
And if in fact 100% of people want it, and some law is passed banning tracking, no header is necessary.
So. Let's break this down once more to see if you can get it.
If *your* interpretation of the situation is correct, sending a header is pointless. We should just assume they are acting against our wishes and decide appropriately how to deal with them.
If *my* interpretation of the situation is correct, then choice is critical.
Look, I'm a huge fan of stuff like TOR, private browsing mode, restrictions on information dissemination, NoScript, preventing tracking by cookie, timestamp of cache objects, Flash and HTML5 storage. Not to mention ISPs and data mining by online services. And I'm also a big fan of the same concerns in public life. But just because I'm a fan of privacy, I can still manage to keep a little clarity on this issue, andsee what is actually practical and useful.
If you do not check off "Do Not Track" no header is sent.
If a browser always sent "Do Not Track" without the user indicating that was what they want, that would be no different than the browser
sending a header saying "Hi! I'm a browser! Herp Derp"
For the header to have *any* meaning at all you have to *choose* to send it.
That way you tell the site. Hey site! This is me, that person you're tracking. I don't want you to do it!
It boggles my mind how hard it is for people to grasp this simple concept.
If it was always on, it would be meaningless. Simple as that. Sites would ignore it, and would have a trivial defense for ignoring it if they did.
Rape is illegal, tracking people online is not. But your absurd analogy was humerous all the same.
If browsers defaulted to saying "Do Not Track" then companies could (rightly) argue that the header was nothing more than a waste of bytes,
that it did not represent any consumer intent at all.
Mozilla's position completely makes sense, and is the only thing ensuring that my checking of Do Not Track (which I did) cares any weight of intent whatsoever.
If there is to be any laws about honouring the DNT flag, it has to actually have some significance.
??? They do present the choice to the user.
Options->Privacy (where you would expect privacy stuff to be)
And it is at the very top of the tab. A big checkbox.
Tracking:
"Tell websites I do not want to be tracked"
Really. This is just pure nonsense, people.
Insightful? Really?
This keeps coming up...
http://blog.mozilla.com/privacy/2011/11/09/dnt-cannot-be-default/
"As Do Not Track picks up steam and standardization is well underway in the W3C, people have begun asking, âoeIf Do Not Track is so good for the web, why donâ(TM)t you turn it on by default?â
Frankly, it becomes meaningless if we enable it by default for all our users. Do Not Track is intended to express an individualâ(TM)s choice, or preference, to not be tracked. Itâ(TM)s important that the signal represents a choice made by the person behind the keyboard and not the software maker, because ultimately itâ(TM)s not Firefox being tracked, itâ(TM)s the user.
Mozillaâ(TM)s mission is to give users this choice and control over their browsing experience. We wonâ(TM)t turn on Do Not Track by default because then it would be Mozilla making the choice, not the individual. Since this is a choice for the user to make, we cannot send the signal automatically but will empower them with the tools they need to do it.
Do Not Track is not Mozillaâ(TM)s position on tracking, itâ(TM)s the individualâ(TM)s â" and thatâ(TM)s what makes it great! For that reason we have no plans to turn on Do Not Track by default."
m'k... and how often do these use flash plugins? :)
oh well, apart from (obviously) some custom built device, everything else should have no trouble, right?
And there are always new devices that do decode vp8, as well as the option of generic decoding on the GPU, or, in a pinch, using software, which given current generation of smartphones, might not be power efficient for long periods of time, but certainly doable.
But... Yes... If you have an infrastructure with pre-purchased hardware *and* it just happens to also use Flash as a fallback *and* the system is completely and utterly incapable of doing a reencoding at any point from a browser implementation to the H.264 the hardware uses (god knows why, it seems that would be utterly trivial to code, since you'd probably have a webserver in between anyway...)... and this system also required linux users to be able to use the flash component ... and the linux users could not use gnash or an older version of flash...
then, yes, I guess the only choice would be chromium.
and, for this limited case, I guess flash might still have some small reason for its existence :D
And, for that matter, none of the uses of flash for video conferencing I've run into have been as part of some massive voip infrastructure.
Heck, the only use of voip at work didn't use flash at all. Used some proprietary annoying plugin that didn't even *work* under linux.
Ehm. I still don't get it. You're right about not being familiar w/ voip, but data is data.
Why would this infrastructure want or need to decode it (assuming that decoding was at all complex or difficult).
Any routing of traffic seems like an entirely different matter that should not depend on how the video stream is encoded.
Ok. I'm very confused there.
If the browsers have vp8 bundled (and they do).
And they are the ones doing the recording and encoding (and they are).
Then what the heck do you need the infrastructure for?
A skype-like app can be setup with virtually no server infrastructure at all.
Not to mention, I assume since you are comparing this to flash, talking about server infrastructure seems a bit odd.
Isn't it doing the same thing?
And, yes, they have quite a bit invested in H.264 and variants, but vp8 is considerably cheaper to license ($0).
That ought to help.
I'm not sure how Firefox could even legally *include* H.264 video encoding, without licensing each Firefox user as a video creator.
Anyway, adding encodings is a pretty minor issue if the spec gets nailed down. But I don't expect H.264 to get much traction.
Video/Audio will be possible in HTML5 using WebRTC, although it requires a dev version of Chrome.
Development in Firefox is ongoing, apparently - there's a tracking bug, and some initial code in their repo.
Er. Firefox installation, not firefox source.
There's a bookmarklet out there that removes this. Once Firefox has learned the password, it can keep filling out the field.
You can also use firebug to get around it.
You can also go into firefox source, unzip omni, and set _isAutocompleteDisabled to always return false in components/nsLoginManager.js then pack it up again.
Since updates to Firefox will clobber this, you might want to script resetting it, or else you might have to do it again every few months.
https://github.com/kripken/emscripten
w/ emscripten, if you can output llvm from your language, you can run it in javascript.
Emscripten author claims 2-3x of optimised C.
http://hackademix.net/2011/12/07/hulk-want-pdfjs/
?
And I'm fairly happy with it.
Performs well, price was and is still good ($350) and, a feature not on the Galaxy Tab, it has standard USB - so you can just plug in any old thumb drive or keyboard you have lying around the house. Heck. We even plugged the iphone into it once to charge it and transfer photos off of it. Haven't tested it with anything but USB keyboard, mouse and mass storage yet.
Ugh. I always forget /. does not escape tags by default.
/. post)
Well. Let's see:
If I type:
r<tab><enter>
it opens http://www.raspberrypi.org/
(or r<tab>^C to copy it to paste into a
If I type:
g foo
It googles for foo because I added g as my shortcut for google under Manage Search Engines.
If I type:
w foo
It opens foo in wikipedia for the same reason.
And the only time anything I typed was sent to google was when I explicitly requested it w/ "g foo"
Yay!
Well. Let's see:
If I type:
r
it opens http://www.raspberrypi.org/
(or r^C to copy it to paste into a /. post)
If I type:
g foo
It googles for foo because I added g as my shortcut for google under Manage Search Engines.
If I type:
w foo
It opens foo in wikipedia for the same reason.
And the only time anything I typed was sent to google was when I explicitly requested it w/ "g foo"
Yay!
Specifically, GameboyRMH here is referring to comment #10
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=21932#c10
http://wizardofodds.com/games/video-poker/
"Full-Pay Deuces Wild optimal strategy (return of 100.76%)"
Addon compatibility reporter is more convenient/flexible IMO.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-on-compatibility-reporter/
This works on all my addons, and as a benefit, speeds up whitelisting for the general public.
Luckily stuff like Firebug and NoScript routinely release versions that work even in the nightlies - have for as long as I've used them.
I believe there's some work on trying to make compatibility checks more flexible, but I'm feeling too sick and sleepy to try finding relevant bugs, if any.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pizFsY0yjss
Yes, watch it through, there are dramatic jets of flame and explosions.
The flame jets seem to have quite a bit of heat.
And of course, you can carry multiple laptop batteries. 1 per laptop + 1 spare. I've routinely carried two portables in the past, so that would presumably have entitled me to 4 of these.
But of course they still want to confiscate my smaller shampoo or lotion.
Not to mention the fact that if they are letting these through, presumably they could be packed with even stronger explosives.
If you point out that they do chemically test laptops for explosive residue, I'd like to note that's hardly foolproof if someone was thorough in cleaning and sealing it, that they hardly ever do it, and, that surely this could apply to my SO's $30 bottle of shampoo that they are about to throw out.
Carbon emissions in the US dropped in that period because the economy tanked.
It could also be that the fracking caused slight ground shifts that allowed existing methane on the same level to access a well that it couldn't quite reach before.
But you're right that so far examination of the so-called contaminated wells has shown no evidence of fracking chemicals or deep methane.