>Hopefully we'll wise up someday and stop caring about the pointless minutiae of each others' lives
We've been scrutinising the minutiae of others lives for millennia; ever since we evolved into social grouping, with all its hierarchical dynamics. It's not going to stop any time soon.
He was joking. He meant it amounts to being illegal - because they persue and persecute anyone who exposes their wrongdoing - and they use the DoJ et al, to do the persecution.
This is why no Briton is in a position to criticism [sic] the US.
Britons are not party to the nefarious shenannigans of the British state (by and large). Britons who oppose such things should be free to criticise them wherever they happen. As should everyone.
Inddeed. "Threat to the national security" was recently used to quash an investigation into corruption and bribery involved in a deal with Saudi Arabia. Important to have the Saudi royal family on your side, apparently. More important than the law or justice; so the "National Security" card was played and everything got dropped.
This move is about stopping people like Edward Snowden. It what we've come to expect from the Britsh State.
Meanwhile, the government gets up to whatever the hell it likes under the utterly, utterly false boilerplate defence that “all of GCHQ’s work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework which ensures that our activities are authorized, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight.”
We live in a country that's little changed from the 18th century in terms of democracy and accountability.
Trolls are provocateurs. There is no proper name for people who just spew bile and hatred.
Because the behaviour of a troll is more nuanced, and the activities of someone engaging in abuse is not, and the latter has no 'internet name' (catchy, unique, widely known) people have misappropriated the word "troll".
What about a written account of a playthough that's published and sold for money? Is that a "derivative work" that's commercialised?
This is the problem with copyright and its continual land-grab of ownership. It has no real-world boundaries and exponentially expands with the greed of a creator being one of its few limiting factors.
Doubtful, but either way you're neglecting the fact that killing all those innocents - regardless of how many higher-ups are killed - is a great recruitment tactic into the ranks of Enemies of the USA.
I know I'm not the only person thinking things are probably worse because of the drone strikes.
I've heard the "oh look Google is being evil, unlike what they said" bandied about a lot over the years and found the reasons given fatuous, to be honest.
This is the first time it's actually struck true for me.
"Nice publicity we're giving you there on Youtube, isn't it? (And getting something out of it in return, I guess.) But it'd be a shame if your exposure on YouTube suddenly went away, wouldn't it?
Now sign on the dotted line, you little fuck."
That said, the music industry's attitude to internet streaming has always struck me as greedy and unworkable. Adding to that, the music industry are grade-A scumbags, by and large, stealing (in the real sense of the word) copyright from hopeful musicians and screwwing them over and leaving them, often enough, with nothing to show but debt.
That Google is joining in the scumbaggery, is a clear betrayal of their 'motto'.
>Neither the government nor the police asked for it. BT decided to develop the system (cleanfeed) pretty much of their own imitative
That assumes nothing is going on behind the scenes, which is quite a large, and if I may say, untenable assumption. People in government talk to people in business and vice versa. Agendas are put in motion and things get done, before being presented as a fait accompli to the proles. Hell, people in government sit on boards in these companies, and even if they're not directly involved in the regulating of a business through a ministry, they can talk to another MP who is and get things done 'in their mutual interests'. Nudge, nudge, say no more.
I don't see the problem with it, myself. It would only have been for new users or new installs and minimal usage would have replaced the tiles with sites visited.
It's also a way for FF to reduce dependency on one big Sugar Daddy (Google) for its finances, which has got to be in FF's best interests, and therefore users best interests.
The can disappear CCTV recordings when it shows they're lying or exposes their fuck-ups, so you can expect the same things with these recordings, should they feel its in their interests.
Remember the CCTV footage of Jean Charles DeMenezes showing him notvaulting the styles at the underground station that contradicted the police testimony that he did?
Unless there is rigorous policy, including real sanction for breaching those proceedures, these cameras will only show what the police find helpful to them, regardless of truth.
>While the "yes" radio-button is pre-selected, users do have to actively accept this choice.
So... on by default, by your own admission.
And there's the rub. DNT might have been a little lame, but it was something of a truce between scumbag advertisers and browser makers based on that one condition: not on my default - and yes, that means not pre-selected as being on, whether that option is shown to the user or not.
Microsoft broke the treaty and now, what little benefit DNT gave, is going, going, gone...
Slashdot Mirror
In 2050 Firefox will be a wood-pulp mill in Finland.
>Hopefully we'll wise up someday and stop caring about the pointless minutiae of each others' lives
We've been scrutinising the minutiae of others lives for millennia; ever since we evolved into social grouping, with all its hierarchical dynamics. It's not going to stop any time soon.
Wat is this utopia of user-slelected privacy controls?
signed,
A reamed-every-which-way-including-Sunday Android user.
I sense a meme...
GoDaddy is to domain registrars what RyanAir is to the low-cost airline industry.
He was joking. He meant it amounts to being illegal - because they persue and persecute anyone who exposes their wrongdoing - and they use the DoJ et al, to do the persecution.
Britons are not party to the nefarious shenannigans of the British state (by and large). Britons who oppose such things should be free to criticise them wherever they happen. As should everyone.
Inddeed. "Threat to the national security" was recently used to quash an investigation into corruption and bribery involved in a deal with Saudi Arabia. Important to have the Saudi royal family on your side, apparently. More important than the law or justice; so the "National Security" card was played and everything got dropped.
This move is about stopping people like Edward Snowden. It what we've come to expect from the Britsh State.
Meanwhile, the government gets up to whatever the hell it likes under the utterly, utterly false boilerplate defence that “all of GCHQ’s work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework which ensures that our activities are authorized, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight.”
We live in a country that's little changed from the 18th century in terms of democracy and accountability.
>How about for corruption, embezzlement and all the other ways criminals and terrorists outright destroy the lives of citizens daily?
Yeah, but the politicians themselves are often in on those sort of things, so ...
That's quite the parabolic sentence there. I hope you didn't give yourself whiplash.
Yep.
Trolls are provocateurs.
There is no proper name for people who just spew bile and hatred.
Because the behaviour of a troll is more nuanced, and the activities of someone engaging in abuse is not, and the latter has no 'internet name' (catchy, unique, widely known) people have misappropriated the word "troll".
What about a written account of a playthough that's published and sold for money? Is that a "derivative work" that's commercialised?
This is the problem with copyright and its continual land-grab of ownership. It has no real-world boundaries and exponentially expands with the greed of a creator being one of its few limiting factors.
The City of London is a defacto city state and an actual corporatocracy.
The City of London police are their hired thugs.
Doubtful, but either way you're neglecting the fact that killing all those innocents - regardless of how many higher-ups are killed - is a great recruitment tactic into the ranks of Enemies of the USA.
I know I'm not the only person thinking things are probably worse because of the drone strikes.
I've heard the "oh look Google is being evil, unlike what they said" bandied about a lot over the years and found the reasons given fatuous, to be honest.
This is the first time it's actually struck true for me.
"Nice publicity we're giving you there on Youtube, isn't it? (And getting something out of it in return, I guess.) But it'd be a shame if your exposure on YouTube suddenly went away, wouldn't it?
Now sign on the dotted line, you little fuck."
That said, the music industry's attitude to internet streaming has always struck me as greedy and unworkable. Adding to that, the music industry are grade-A scumbags, by and large, stealing (in the real sense of the word) copyright from hopeful musicians and screwwing them over and leaving them, often enough, with nothing to show but debt.
That Google is joining in the scumbaggery, is a clear betrayal of their 'motto'.
>Neither the government nor the police asked for it. BT decided to develop the system (cleanfeed) pretty much of their own imitative
That assumes nothing is going on behind the scenes, which is quite a large, and if I may say, untenable assumption. People in government talk to people in business and vice versa. Agendas are put in motion and things get done, before being presented as a fait accompli to the proles.
Hell, people in government sit on boards in these companies, and even if they're not directly involved in the regulating of a business through a ministry, they can talk to another MP who is and get things done 'in their mutual interests'. Nudge, nudge, say no more.
Can you imagine if you were in jail on copyright infringement charges and the prison you were in was showing pirated movies?
>Does Firefox's architecture actually get in the way of users eventually pirating the content? Might have to switch browsers if that's the case.
Remember, DRM doesn't just stop 'piracy', it stops fair use of copyright content too.
I have no more mod points, but would like to say that this entirely, and eloquently, sums up my views on this matter. Well said.
Classic Theme Restorer add-on. Works well. Tabs underneath as I type this very message! https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...
I don't see the problem with it, myself. It would only have been for new users or new installs and minimal usage would have replaced the tiles with sites visited.
It's also a way for FF to reduce dependency on one big Sugar Daddy (Google) for its finances, which has got to be in FF's best interests, and therefore users best interests.
The can disappear CCTV recordings when it shows they're lying or exposes their fuck-ups, so you can expect the same things with these recordings, should they feel its in their interests.
Remember the CCTV footage of Jean Charles DeMenezes showing him notvaulting the styles at the underground station that contradicted the police testimony that he did?
Unless there is rigorous policy, including real sanction for breaching those proceedures, these cameras will only show what the police find helpful to them, regardless of truth.
Oops, ignore my other reply, I think I see what you mean. You mean simply moving to another tab but leaving the other one open.
Yeah, there's no way to delete cookies on unfocus. Perhaps contact the add-on author and request the feature?
Addons > Options > Self Destructing Cookies
First option - grace period. Degault is to delete cookies 10 seconds after a tab is closed.
Maybe you can set the option to notify you of cookie destruction (next option down) to test it?
You can white-list sites in Self-Destructing Cookies so their cookies remain untouched.
This site's cookies are destroyed:
1. After you close its tab.
2. After you close the browser.
3 Never.
>While the "yes" radio-button is pre-selected, users do have to actively accept this choice.
So ... on by default, by your own admission.
And there's the rub. DNT might have been a little lame, but it was something of a truce between scumbag advertisers and browser makers based on that one condition: not on my default - and yes, that means not pre-selected as being on, whether that option is shown to the user or not.
Microsoft broke the treaty and now, what little benefit DNT gave, is going, going, gone...