I would rather much like the opposite filter: I would let the website know that I'm not interested in stuff like sports news or royal births, and the website would then not include such things in its content or ads.
Not me... I want a plugin that makes advertisers want to show me stuff for all kinds of shit I'm not interested in. I want them to think I'm a 97 year old lesbian with a penchant for snuff, jasmine tea, and kittens.
And then I want to block their ads and cookies and ignore the fuckers.
It could work; it's not sending any data that couldn't be extracted from your history anyway (which they are largely getting now via blanket tracking) so it's not especially detrimental to the user.
Well, depending on how much you are blocking cookies and trying to keep information out of the hands of advertisers and other internet douchebags, you may feel differently.
If anything, I expect Mozilla to be leading in enabling privacy... but if they're doing this, then they're just going down a road I disagree with.
How about you develop tools to keep my information out of the hands of those 3rd parties? Instead they just seem to be looking to become yet another broker of your information.
Mozilla is proposing that the Firefox browser collects data on users' interests to pass on to websites Tell you what Mozilla, if I want to give information to a web site, I'll give to them myself.
Don't start becoming advertising douchebags and enablers of assholes on the internet -- a web site should receive only what I tell them. I block their ads and cookies so they don't know anything more about me than necessary.
Don't become sellouts to the marketing idiots and people who want to track everything we do.
When I say this, they won't believe it until I remind them that we are at a higher elevation which is cooler
Then I assume what you're describing is purely a result of altitude, no?
I should think anywhere which is equatorial and at sea level is going to be hella hot year round... then again, I've never been south of about 23 degrees North, so I have no idea.
The city planners should have thought about this before deciding to put the town there.
Do you know how most cities got sited? Availability of water, good harbors (very important historically), workable land and other needed resources.
There is almost never a set of city planners that sit down and weigh all the pros and cons of a location... they just tend to initially happen as people find what they need and start laying down roots.
If you live in the North, you take what you can get. These guys are just trying to improve a little on that.
Washington DC used to be a malarial swamp and New Orleans is apparently below sea level. Did the city planners do a piss-poor job? Or were there other features that made it desirable?
Nobody comes along and says "we're going to build a thriving city here" -- well, China has apparently done it, and they're empty. I suspect most cities started in a much more random and organic manner.
Malware writers are increasingly considering the Tor anonymity network as an option for hiding the real location of their command-and-control servers
Isn't it kind of obvious that if you build something designed to try to make you anonymous that people will try to use that anonymity for shady reasons?
I'm not saying we shouldn't have anonymous data, but I don't think this observation is exactly new -- I've always assumed this was the case with Tor.
Well, I believe you said essentially "Proprietary bad, mmkay, Apple shouldn't do that". (And in case you'd like to claim you didn't "Essentially what we see here, yet again, is evidence that proprietary crap is a bad idea, and Apple shouldn't be doing it." is what I quoted)
Since Apple is using bog-standard USB sources to charge their phones (you can take the fat end and feed it from any standard USB connection, it's only the end that goes into the phone which differs)... this has nothing at all to do with anything proprietary, it's about people making crappy USB wall chargers which are dangerous and short out.
we have to assume that was a mistake on your part because literacy
And then I shall attribute your response as an issue of being an asshole and we'll call it even.
... and while it does a good job of charging, it does have a "sparking" habit whenever I plug it in to a wall outlet... I saved a bundle (about 50%) by going with a Chinese knock-off.
If it burns down your house, what have you saved? Because if your insurance company ever finds out you kept using something which tended to spark, you are completely on your own.
Honestly, if this was truly a concern for Apple, they should make their chargers cheaper
Do you really think Apple (or any company) should lower their prices to compete with cheap crap not made to any standard?
That makes no sense at all. I can slap wheels on a cardboard box and call it a car... that doesn't mean BMW should lower their prices.
No, all you have to do is look for the UL / CE / CCIB / whatever competent safety regulator is valid in your part of the world.
Which assumes you have a competent safety regulator.
I've never gotten the impression that China does -- in fact, I get the opposite impression. Either there is no system in place, or it's so ineffective as to achieve the same effect as not having one.
Essentially what we see here, yet again, is evidence that proprietary crap is a bad idea, and Apple shouldn't be doing it.
No, what we have is evidence that Slashdotters don't read the articles, and don't understand that in China you can buy a cheap knock off of pretty much anything which hasn't been tested by anybody.
If you build a cheap ass piece of electronics and don't care about safety or performance, it could be a fire hazard.
If "counterfeit" (i.e. non-Samsung, or whatever) chargers were a problem, wouldn't this happen all the time with Androids?
I'm more inclined to believe that in China when you buy a cheap no-name or a knock-off it's created under absolutely no oversight, and made as cheaply as possible.
I don't think they're saying "3rd party chargers approved by UL will explode", I think they're saying "cheap garbage is a really bad idea".
Sounds like Apple is just taking advantage of the opportunity to scare people into paying the Apple Tax.
Or, people in China will sell you something which is dangerous and not give a damn.
A 3rd party charger you buy in North America is likely to have been reviewed and tested. A 3rd party charger you buy in China could be anything, up to an including an empty shell which doesn't do anything.
This is why such services that let users store data in their "cloud" should enable user-specific encryption keys
Or simply not get used.
This has always been a very real risk with "the cloud", your data is not under your control.
I can imagine that a lot of companies are looking at their usage of cloud computing and re-evaluating the risks. If the entities involved can be forced by the NSA to hand over your data, those companies aren't trustworthy, because they aren't the ones you need to worry about trusting.
I think this is being treated as coming from a more reputable source since it's CNET (form your own opinion).
But this shit, is stuff that matters.
They're trying very hard to implement the full-scale Big Brother crap. I don't see this being anything but some very scary shit. There isn't much room for freedom and anonymity when your government can watch everything you do.
And now, rather than admitting that you've been roped in by a drummed up media scare, you still try to defend the ends as justifiable.
Oh, fuck off... I'm not suggesting an end or a means. I'm saying "this might be based on something that actually happened... full stop". I'm not then suggesting we write laws based on that.
I think the censorship is a terrible idea, and I'm not advocating for it.
You are aware that, a couple of centuries ago, anything but the missionary position was regarded as sinful.
Why, no, I had no idea we'd ever stopped believing that -- it's still "lights out and think of England" isn't it?;-)
A few centuries ago, the idea of cunnilingus, fellatio, heterosexual anal intercourse, mutual masturbation and the like would have been viewed as distorted and vile.
And in many places, I'm sure they still are... the screeching puritans still publicly denounce everything, and in some places in the world (and not so long ago even in the US), some of those things will get you thrown in jail.
There will always be people with overly strict interpretations of morality they want to force the rest of us to adhere... and those people, like this MP, I kindly invite to go perform any number of profane acts upon themselves or others and leave me the hell alone.
Having said that, however, I am also willing to concede that if you get your primary sex education from some of the bizarre stuff you can find on the internet, you might be awfully disappointed in life and discover that your expectations/hopes aren't shared by everyone you might partner up with.
I think the onus should be on parents instead of society to shield their kids. Because I sure as hell have no interest in having restrictions put on what I can do because you don't want your kids exposed to something.
We can't dumb down the world for the few people who are too mentally ill to distinguish fantasy from reality
The stupid people are on their own, but the people who aren't old enough to have learned to know the difference... I don't know.
I disagree with the censorship, but I am willing to admit that young kids seeing the entirety of weird shit available on the internet might not be the best idea. At least I'd already graduated high-school before I got to see some of the stuff you can find on the internet... but if I was 13 and some some of that stuff, I have no idea how I would have assimilated that. A baseball bat, or a donkey are one of those "woah" moments.
I think that it should be up to parents to control this, but I'm doubtful that most parents can outwit their teenagers on the technology front. Many of them would likely need their kids help in setting it up.
I do not agree with everyone having to request this be turned off, because then it's in a database of people who have requested access to porn -- and that's going to get abused.
But at the end of the day, I don't give a damn about your kids, and I don't wish to be told I need to fill out a government form indicating I want to exercise my right to see tits.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't wish to see ads, and I block at my router and browser as many other things as possible.
You may think it's nice, but I believe this is a terrible idea -- it should be private by default and require action to make it send anything more.
The last thing I want is Mozilla deciding they're just like Google and Facebook and that my browsing history is their resource to be monetized.
go fsck yourself. ;-)
(OK, I do apologize for that, meant only in jest I assure you =)
Tell you what, build me the "nothing at all", and let absolutely everything else require a positive action from me.
The only think I want sites to see is an http request for the page, and the only thing I want advertisers to see is absolutely nothing.
It's all grep to me.
error: package could not be found
Not me ... I want a plugin that makes advertisers want to show me stuff for all kinds of shit I'm not interested in. I want them to think I'm a 97 year old lesbian with a penchant for snuff, jasmine tea, and kittens.
And then I want to block their ads and cookies and ignore the fuckers.
Well, depending on how much you are blocking cookies and trying to keep information out of the hands of advertisers and other internet douchebags, you may feel differently.
If anything, I expect Mozilla to be leading in enabling privacy ... but if they're doing this, then they're just going down a road I disagree with.
How about you develop tools to keep my information out of the hands of those 3rd parties? Instead they just seem to be looking to become yet another broker of your information.
Not really ... they've always been organizations willing to stomp on your rights and a few laws to achieve their own ends.
This has been true for decades. The only difference is now someone has confirmed it, but nothing at all changed with Snowden's revelations.
Hmmm ... I'm not sure I'd call it a variable then. ;-)
Then I assume what you're describing is purely a result of altitude, no?
I should think anywhere which is equatorial and at sea level is going to be hella hot year round ... then again, I've never been south of about 23 degrees North, so I have no idea.
Do you know how most cities got sited? Availability of water, good harbors (very important historically), workable land and other needed resources.
There is almost never a set of city planners that sit down and weigh all the pros and cons of a location ... they just tend to initially happen as people find what they need and start laying down roots.
If you live in the North, you take what you can get. These guys are just trying to improve a little on that.
Washington DC used to be a malarial swamp and New Orleans is apparently below sea level. Did the city planners do a piss-poor job? Or were there other features that made it desirable?
Nobody comes along and says "we're going to build a thriving city here" -- well, China has apparently done it, and they're empty. I suspect most cities started in a much more random and organic manner.
Isn't it kind of obvious that if you build something designed to try to make you anonymous that people will try to use that anonymity for shady reasons?
I'm not saying we shouldn't have anonymous data, but I don't think this observation is exactly new -- I've always assumed this was the case with Tor.
Well, I believe you said essentially "Proprietary bad, mmkay, Apple shouldn't do that". (And in case you'd like to claim you didn't "Essentially what we see here, yet again, is evidence that proprietary crap is a bad idea, and Apple shouldn't be doing it." is what I quoted)
Since Apple is using bog-standard USB sources to charge their phones (you can take the fat end and feed it from any standard USB connection, it's only the end that goes into the phone which differs) ... this has nothing at all to do with anything proprietary, it's about people making crappy USB wall chargers which are dangerous and short out.
And then I shall attribute your response as an issue of being an asshole and we'll call it even.
If it burns down your house, what have you saved? Because if your insurance company ever finds out you kept using something which tended to spark, you are completely on your own.
Do you really think Apple (or any company) should lower their prices to compete with cheap crap not made to any standard?
That makes no sense at all. I can slap wheels on a cardboard box and call it a car ... that doesn't mean BMW should lower their prices.
Which assumes you have a competent safety regulator.
I've never gotten the impression that China does -- in fact, I get the opposite impression. Either there is no system in place, or it's so ineffective as to achieve the same effect as not having one.
No, what we have is evidence that Slashdotters don't read the articles, and don't understand that in China you can buy a cheap knock off of pretty much anything which hasn't been tested by anybody.
If you build a cheap ass piece of electronics and don't care about safety or performance, it could be a fire hazard.
I'm more inclined to believe that in China when you buy a cheap no-name or a knock-off it's created under absolutely no oversight, and made as cheaply as possible.
I don't think they're saying "3rd party chargers approved by UL will explode", I think they're saying "cheap garbage is a really bad idea".
Or, people in China will sell you something which is dangerous and not give a damn.
A 3rd party charger you buy in North America is likely to have been reviewed and tested. A 3rd party charger you buy in China could be anything, up to an including an empty shell which doesn't do anything.
Or simply not get used.
This has always been a very real risk with "the cloud", your data is not under your control.
I can imagine that a lot of companies are looking at their usage of cloud computing and re-evaluating the risks. If the entities involved can be forced by the NSA to hand over your data, those companies aren't trustworthy, because they aren't the ones you need to worry about trusting.
I think this is being treated as coming from a more reputable source since it's CNET (form your own opinion).
But this shit, is stuff that matters.
They're trying very hard to implement the full-scale Big Brother crap. I don't see this being anything but some very scary shit. There isn't much room for freedom and anonymity when your government can watch everything you do.
Realistically, it's more like tagging ... "Bob was here, this is my territory"
Short of rooting it, do you have access to the kernel?
I didn't think you did.
Oh, fuck off ... I'm not suggesting an end or a means. I'm saying "this might be based on something that actually happened ... full stop". I'm not then suggesting we write laws based on that.
I think the censorship is a terrible idea, and I'm not advocating for it.
Why, no, I had no idea we'd ever stopped believing that -- it's still "lights out and think of England" isn't it? ;-)
And in many places, I'm sure they still are ... the screeching puritans still publicly denounce everything, and in some places in the world (and not so long ago even in the US), some of those things will get you thrown in jail.
There will always be people with overly strict interpretations of morality they want to force the rest of us to adhere ... and those people, like this MP, I kindly invite to go perform any number of profane acts upon themselves or others and leave me the hell alone.
Having said that, however, I am also willing to concede that if you get your primary sex education from some of the bizarre stuff you can find on the internet, you might be awfully disappointed in life and discover that your expectations/hopes aren't shared by everyone you might partner up with.
I think the onus should be on parents instead of society to shield their kids. Because I sure as hell have no interest in having restrictions put on what I can do because you don't want your kids exposed to something.
The stupid people are on their own, but the people who aren't old enough to have learned to know the difference ... I don't know.
I disagree with the censorship, but I am willing to admit that young kids seeing the entirety of weird shit available on the internet might not be the best idea. At least I'd already graduated high-school before I got to see some of the stuff you can find on the internet ... but if I was 13 and some some of that stuff, I have no idea how I would have assimilated that. A baseball bat, or a donkey are one of those "woah" moments.
I think that it should be up to parents to control this, but I'm doubtful that most parents can outwit their teenagers on the technology front. Many of them would likely need their kids help in setting it up.
I do not agree with everyone having to request this be turned off, because then it's in a database of people who have requested access to porn -- and that's going to get abused.
But at the end of the day, I don't give a damn about your kids, and I don't wish to be told I need to fill out a government form indicating I want to exercise my right to see tits.