I can think of one case where you might actually sorta maybe kinda want this: Media applications.
More specifically, video editing applications. 'ffmpeg' has been a moving target for years. The command line arguments and API to the various libraries is in constant flux. Part of this is good, in that ffmpeg can add new features, refine the quality and reliability of the codecs, and keep up with new developments in digital video. However, it also means that an application can't really rely on the interface to ffmpeg remaining stable. If you code your app to ffmpeg v2.5, but the user upgrades the system copy to v3.0.1, then your app will break. But even if the interfaces don't change, the internal implementation of the codecs may be tweaked or changed completely, meaning that a video that looked fine with a particular collection of settings may look completely different in a newer version.
So, yes, loathe as I am to admit it, there are certain cases where binding to a specific version of a library is actually what you want. However, given that LD_LIBRARY_PATH and LD_PRELOAD still work (not to mention the version range-checked dependencies.deb packages offer), it doesn't explain why you would need a new packaging format to accomplish this.
...it is also an open secret that [Firefox] are running into more and more problems lately with web compatibility.
What are these problems being alluded to? My assumption for over fifteen years has been: If you don't work with Firefox, your Web site is broken. Previously, compatibility issues were mostly down to a bunch of children writing their Web sites using IE-specific features which worked nowhere else. Happily, those days are largely behind us. So what's the alleged problem now?
So, let me get this straight. Brave will either collect money from advertisers and maybe pay some of it to Web site operators based on delivered impressions; or Brave will collect money from users under the guise of a "subscription."
Why does this parse as "scam" to me?
What exactly would I, a "subscriber," be subscribing to? "Look at all this lovely personally identifiable data we've collected. Sure would be a shame if something happened to it..." Yeah, the word "subscription" doesn't properly describe that kind of transaction...
And what's to prevent me from launching a phalanx of Brave browsers and have them randomly surfing the Web and accumulating Bitcoin for watcching ad impressions? Sockpuppetry is still trivial. Hell, why would I need to use the Brave browser at all; I could just emulate the protocol and then install the client on millions of compromised Windows machines...
Seriously, I don't get it. I have a pile of a few thousand (gack!) photos sitting in well-known directories. Except for the ones from a very old phone, they all still have their original filenames and datestamps. Every so often, I let one of these "photo organizers" loose on the lot, and the only evident result is a gallery of thumbnails. Great; now I have double the number of image files to manage (original plus thumbnails).
"Well, you can organize them by category." Okay, how is the initial categorization done? Or do I have to invent (and remember) my own taxonomy of tags, and apply them to each photo in turn? Assuming I go to that trouble, is this metadata portable in the event I decide to change to another organizer?
"Well, you can create custom slideshows by selecting photos by category or individually." Uh, all right, vaguely useful. But given how incredibly rarely I do that, I could accomplish the same thing by launching Geeqie on a directory full of softlinks.
"Well, you can also edit your photos as you review them in the organizer..." Uh, no. Now you're no longer a photo organizer, but an image editor with an index. No thanks; I don't load images into an editor unless I plan on actually editing them. Fewer accidents happen that way.
I guess what I'm really asking is: What sorts of things do you do with your photos that makes a photo organizer an indispensable tool? How do you use the organizer to make your work easier?
Now when it's on my computer, I can do whatever I want with that document. I can delete it, I can edit it, I can keep only parts of it, and then display the result on my screen. You sent me the document, your control of it ends there. I can't republish it or use part of it in another publication of course, but apart from that, as long as it stays on my computer, you have no control as to what I'll do with it.
I share your sentiment. However, as a long-time observer of the Hall of Copyrighted Mirrors, let me tell you how a conscienceless self-serving intellectual "property" attorney might choose to frame the issue:
When you request the document, the server delivers it to you. You have now made a bona-fide copy of the document, and are in violation of the default state of copyright law (copy-never). In order for said copy to be deemed legitimate, you need a license to make it. This usually takes the form of a so-called End-User/shrinkwrap/clickwrap license agreement. This license is valid and enforceable because the vendor says so (seriously: All EULAs exist on nothing more than the vendor's mere assertion).
This license can contain any term under the sun, including terms that forbid you from hiding, altering, or in any way tampering with the original content, and prescribe remedies the vendor can pursue should you be deemed to violate those restrictions. The vendor can also absolve themselves of any responsibility to you should their content or any affiliate's or partner's content damage your machine. And they can force you into "neutral" (ha ha) arbitration should you choose to pursue damages or in any way contest the "license."
But even if the license were, by some miracle, found to be invalid and void, altering your copy of the downloaded document could be seen as making an unsanctioned derivative work. Derivative works fall under the shadow cast by the copyright on the original work, and you lose again.
This is, unfortunately, all relatively well-established law (in the US, anyway). You personally probably won't get nailed on this line of so-called "reasoning" but, if the advertising industry sees itself backed into a corner, they may decide to make an example of someone -- probably with the full-throated help of that sock-puppet Culture Secretary.
Indeed, I've been looking at uMatrix (in combination with NoScript), and there's a lot to recommend it. As far as cookie management goes, however, it's not as fine-grained as what Firefox had. You can only enable/disable a site's ability to set cookies. You can't inspect/approve every single cookie request itself. Sometimes you can get a site to work by accepting certain cookies and denying all others. FF's facility let you do that.
You're the third person in this sub-thread alone to recommend Self-Destructing Cookies.
While I like the idea of its behavioral detection of tracking cookies, and its stats panel is informative, my ultimate problem is that it allows the cookies to be set in the first place. 99.9% of the cookies shoved at my browser are entirely, provably unnecessary -- the page displays the same regardless. As such, my philosophy is that they should never be accepted in the first place, even temporarily.
The cookie request is also a waste of bandwidth. If you're going to display the same page either way, why clog the pipe with a cookie that you're manifestly not doing anything meaningful with?
Set your cookies to request always and prepare for > 30 of them: [... ]
A mere thirty? Lucky you. That's easily manageable; just lean on the ESC key for a few seconds. I've visited sites that tried assaulting me with nearly a thousand for a single page.
Check the dates in the bug report. The UI and underlying code have been there since it was called Netscape. The "bug" mysteriously appeared over five years ago, but the work to remove the feature was done in late 2015, and was only rolled out in FF44.
It occurred to me after submitting the article that the per-cookie approval feature has been part of Firefox since it was called Netscape, so it's been around for a very long time.
Moreover, the allegation that enabling the feature destabilized the browser is pharmaceutically pure bullshit. I've been using the feature since its inception, and have Firefox windows open and running for days at a time without ill effect.
Contrariwise, I just went to check my cookie store, and found a bunch of new, unapproved, unwelcome, provably unnecessary cookies have appeared in just the week since I moved from v43 to v44. Deleting them after the fact is not a solution. Once set, tracking can take place immediately. The damage has already been done.
The proffered reasons for the change are easily shown to be false, so I do not hold out any hope that Mozilla management will have a change of heart on this matter and reinstate the long-standing feature.
Would anyone care to recommend a cookie management add-on?
Unfortunately, Jim Cooper's district is in California's central valley, between Sacramento and Stockton. Not the middle of nowhere, but not exactly the center of high-tech, either.
Your best bet would be to contact the Assemblyman for your own district, inform them of this odious bill, and instruct them to oppose it.
I dunno; the uMatrix plugin looks very interesting, and seems to have a lot more flexibility than NoScript. NoScript blocks/enables script domains globally, whereas uMatrix will allow script domains to run depending on the domain of the page they're running on. This means you can let Facebook scripts run while viewing Facebook pages, but block them from running on any other site.
uMatrix doesn't offer defenses against Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) exploits, or provide Application Boundary Enforcement (ABE). The consensus among uMatrix users appears to be to install NoScript for its XSS and ABE features, but turn off its script blocking, leaving that task to uMatrix.
I have KB3035583 uninstalled and hidden, which is the systray spammer and download tool for Win 10. As far as anyone knows, will this be enough to keep Win 10 from trying to sneak into my machine?
I run a laboratory. The control software and the equipment are only rated for Windows 7. I have had to be vigilant about this because an upgrade would screw up $400,000 worth of analytical equipment.
Briefly, a kid in Norway named Jon Johansen, along with other programmers in Germany, reverse-engineered the Xing DVD player, and published DeCSS, an independent implementation of the Contents Scrambling System (CSS) that was used on DVDs to deter unsanctioned copying, allowing Linux users for the first time to view DVDs on their computers. Subsequent research among crypto experts yielded more general solutions, and now CSS is effectively a no-op.
The DVD Copy Control Association -- DVD-CCA, the organization that licenses the creation of Hollywood-sanctioned DVD players -- tried to sue DeCSS out of existence in a California court. Their primary argument? That CSS was a trade secret that Johansen had improperly obtained and disclosed.
What was "improper" about it? His reverse-engineering violated the (*snicker*) "license agreement" attached to the Xing player.
Further, the DVD-CCA (incorrectly) argued, everyone who came in contact with DeCSS "knew or should have known" that CSS was a trade secret, and not to traffic in it, and asked the judge to put a restraining order on the Internet to prevent further distribution. (DVD-CCA also tried to argue that reverse-engineering is never proper or appropriate.)
Although the DVD-CCA's case was never resolved, CSS today is effectively useless as a copy protection mechanism, and DeCSS or its functional equivalent is widely available.
This legislation from Microsoft would appear to be an attempt to defend against such activity, and prevent people from ever inspecting or exercising control over their computers again.
Trade secrets are a weird edge case in intellectual property. They are not explicitly called out in the Constitution (as are copyrights and patents), but enjoy recognition in the courts. Unlike trademarks and patents, however, trade secrets do not need to be registered -- they exist solely by fiat (i.e. they exist because the company declares they exist). Trade secrets also do not have a formally defined "limited time" as Constitutionally required of copyrights and patents -- the inherent fragility of maintaining any kind of secret indirectly establishes the trade secret's limited lifetime.
Microsoft's proposal would greatly extend the reach and lifetime of trade secrets beyond their traditional scope.
Because package versioning is not a language issue. It's a build issue, and should be part of your build system.
"But go get... reaches out and..." Stop. go get isn't part of the Go langauge; it's the default Go build environment. And yes, it lacks many features you'd want in a so-called "professional" build system (whatever that means this week).
I get the impression that Go was perhaps intended to be used with repo, a tool principally used for managing the Android project, but also used elsewhere inside Google to manage large numbers of independent Git repositories. With repo, you establish a common branch or tag name across all the repositories that comprise your project, then "repo sync" to them. Poof! Build and version management. (Sorta.)
I'm sorry; tunneling will only be available in SSH for Windows Server 2012 Enterprise (7 connections max; see your Microsoft rep for additional connection licenses).
Slashdot Mirror
False dilemma.
You're thinking of Boost Mobile.
More specifically, video editing applications. 'ffmpeg' has been a moving target for years. The command line arguments and API to the various libraries is in constant flux. Part of this is good, in that ffmpeg can add new features, refine the quality and reliability of the codecs, and keep up with new developments in digital video. However, it also means that an application can't really rely on the interface to ffmpeg remaining stable. If you code your app to ffmpeg v2.5, but the user upgrades the system copy to v3.0.1, then your app will break. But even if the interfaces don't change, the internal implementation of the codecs may be tweaked or changed completely, meaning that a video that looked fine with a particular collection of settings may look completely different in a newer version.
So, yes, loathe as I am to admit it, there are certain cases where binding to a specific version of a library is actually what you want. However, given that LD_LIBRARY_PATH and LD_PRELOAD still work (not to mention the version range-checked dependencies .deb packages offer), it doesn't explain why you would need a new packaging format to accomplish this.
What are these problems being alluded to? My assumption for over fifteen years has been: If you don't work with Firefox, your Web site is broken. Previously, compatibility issues were mostly down to a bunch of children writing their Web sites using IE-specific features which worked nowhere else. Happily, those days are largely behind us. So what's the alleged problem now?
And Friendster.com. And Tribe.net. And Orkut.com. And Livejournal.com...
Why does this parse as "scam" to me?
What exactly would I, a "subscriber," be subscribing to? "Look at all this lovely personally identifiable data we've collected. Sure would be a shame if something happened to it..." Yeah, the word "subscription" doesn't properly describe that kind of transaction...
And what's to prevent me from launching a phalanx of Brave browsers and have them randomly surfing the Web and accumulating Bitcoin for watcching ad impressions? Sockpuppetry is still trivial. Hell, why would I need to use the Brave browser at all; I could just emulate the protocol and then install the client on millions of compromised Windows machines...
This strikes me as really goddamned dumb...
What is a photo organizer for?
"For organizing your photos, you dullard."
Yeah, but what's it for ?
Seriously, I don't get it. I have a pile of a few thousand (gack!) photos sitting in well-known directories. Except for the ones from a very old phone, they all still have their original filenames and datestamps. Every so often, I let one of these "photo organizers" loose on the lot, and the only evident result is a gallery of thumbnails. Great; now I have double the number of image files to manage (original plus thumbnails).
"Well, you can organize them by category." Okay, how is the initial categorization done? Or do I have to invent (and remember) my own taxonomy of tags, and apply them to each photo in turn? Assuming I go to that trouble, is this metadata portable in the event I decide to change to another organizer?
"Well, you can create custom slideshows by selecting photos by category or individually." Uh, all right, vaguely useful. But given how incredibly rarely I do that, I could accomplish the same thing by launching Geeqie on a directory full of softlinks.
"Well, you can also edit your photos as you review them in the organizer..." Uh, no. Now you're no longer a photo organizer, but an image editor with an index. No thanks; I don't load images into an editor unless I plan on actually editing them. Fewer accidents happen that way.
I guess what I'm really asking is: What sorts of things do you do with your photos that makes a photo organizer an indispensable tool? How do you use the organizer to make your work easier?
I share your sentiment. However, as a long-time observer of the Hall of Copyrighted Mirrors, let me tell you how a conscienceless self-serving intellectual "property" attorney might choose to frame the issue:
When you request the document, the server delivers it to you. You have now made a bona-fide copy of the document, and are in violation of the default state of copyright law (copy-never). In order for said copy to be deemed legitimate, you need a license to make it. This usually takes the form of a so-called End-User/shrinkwrap/clickwrap license agreement. This license is valid and enforceable because the vendor says so (seriously: All EULAs exist on nothing more than the vendor's mere assertion).
This license can contain any term under the sun, including terms that forbid you from hiding, altering, or in any way tampering with the original content, and prescribe remedies the vendor can pursue should you be deemed to violate those restrictions. The vendor can also absolve themselves of any responsibility to you should their content or any affiliate's or partner's content damage your machine. And they can force you into "neutral" (ha ha) arbitration should you choose to pursue damages or in any way contest the "license."
But even if the license were, by some miracle, found to be invalid and void, altering your copy of the downloaded document could be seen as making an unsanctioned derivative work. Derivative works fall under the shadow cast by the copyright on the original work, and you lose again.
This is, unfortunately, all relatively well-established law (in the US, anyway). You personally probably won't get nailed on this line of so-called "reasoning" but, if the advertising industry sees itself backed into a corner, they may decide to make an example of someone -- probably with the full-throated help of that sock-puppet Culture Secretary.
Indeed, I've been looking at uMatrix (in combination with NoScript), and there's a lot to recommend it. As far as cookie management goes, however, it's not as fine-grained as what Firefox had. You can only enable/disable a site's ability to set cookies. You can't inspect/approve every single cookie request itself. Sometimes you can get a site to work by accepting certain cookies and denying all others. FF's facility let you do that.
While I like the idea of its behavioral detection of tracking cookies, and its stats panel is informative, my ultimate problem is that it allows the cookies to be set in the first place. 99.9% of the cookies shoved at my browser are entirely, provably unnecessary -- the page displays the same regardless. As such, my philosophy is that they should never be accepted in the first place, even temporarily.
The cookie request is also a waste of bandwidth. If you're going to display the same page either way, why clog the pipe with a cookie that you're manifestly not doing anything meaningful with?
A mere thirty? Lucky you. That's easily manageable; just lean on the ESC key for a few seconds. I've visited sites that tried assaulting me with nearly a thousand for a single page.
Check the dates in the bug report. The UI and underlying code have been there since it was called Netscape. The "bug" mysteriously appeared over five years ago, but the work to remove the feature was done in late 2015, and was only rolled out in FF44.
Moreover, the allegation that enabling the feature destabilized the browser is pharmaceutically pure bullshit. I've been using the feature since its inception, and have Firefox windows open and running for days at a time without ill effect.
Contrariwise, I just went to check my cookie store, and found a bunch of new, unapproved, unwelcome, provably unnecessary cookies have appeared in just the week since I moved from v43 to v44. Deleting them after the fact is not a solution. Once set, tracking can take place immediately. The damage has already been done.
The proffered reasons for the change are easily shown to be false, so I do not hold out any hope that Mozilla management will have a change of heart on this matter and reinstate the long-standing feature.
Would anyone care to recommend a cookie management add-on?
I want the power to decide who lives and who dies.
You left out Hot Grits and Natalie Portman.
But yes, "performance art" has been a part of Slashdot's history for a very long time.
Your best bet would be to contact the Assemblyman for your own district, inform them of this odious bill, and instruct them to oppose it.
uMatrix doesn't offer defenses against Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) exploits, or provide Application Boundary Enforcement (ABE). The consensus among uMatrix users appears to be to install NoScript for its XSS and ABE features, but turn off its script blocking, leaving that task to uMatrix.
I have KB3035583 uninstalled and hidden, which is the systray spammer and download tool for Win 10. As far as anyone knows, will this be enough to keep Win 10 from trying to sneak into my machine?
I hope you have mounted scratch monkeys...
Briefly, a kid in Norway named Jon Johansen, along with other programmers in Germany, reverse-engineered the Xing DVD player, and published DeCSS, an independent implementation of the Contents Scrambling System (CSS) that was used on DVDs to deter unsanctioned copying, allowing Linux users for the first time to view DVDs on their computers. Subsequent research among crypto experts yielded more general solutions, and now CSS is effectively a no-op.
The DVD Copy Control Association -- DVD-CCA, the organization that licenses the creation of Hollywood-sanctioned DVD players -- tried to sue DeCSS out of existence in a California court. Their primary argument? That CSS was a trade secret that Johansen had improperly obtained and disclosed.
What was "improper" about it? His reverse-engineering violated the (*snicker*) "license agreement" attached to the Xing player.
Further, the DVD-CCA (incorrectly) argued, everyone who came in contact with DeCSS "knew or should have known" that CSS was a trade secret, and not to traffic in it, and asked the judge to put a restraining order on the Internet to prevent further distribution. (DVD-CCA also tried to argue that reverse-engineering is never proper or appropriate.)
Although the DVD-CCA's case was never resolved, CSS today is effectively useless as a copy protection mechanism, and DeCSS or its functional equivalent is widely available.
This legislation from Microsoft would appear to be an attempt to defend against such activity, and prevent people from ever inspecting or exercising control over their computers again.
Trade secrets are a weird edge case in intellectual property. They are not explicitly called out in the Constitution (as are copyrights and patents), but enjoy recognition in the courts. Unlike trademarks and patents, however, trade secrets do not need to be registered -- they exist solely by fiat (i.e. they exist because the company declares they exist). Trade secrets also do not have a formally defined "limited time" as Constitutionally required of copyrights and patents -- the inherent fragility of maintaining any kind of secret indirectly establishes the trade secret's limited lifetime.
Microsoft's proposal would greatly extend the reach and lifetime of trade secrets beyond their traditional scope.
Are mrxvt and urxvt (RXVT with Unicode support) mutually exclusive?
Geez...
"But go get ... reaches out and..." Stop. go get isn't part of the Go langauge; it's the default Go build environment. And yes, it lacks many features you'd want in a so-called "professional" build system (whatever that means this week).
I get the impression that Go was perhaps intended to be used with repo, a tool principally used for managing the Android project, but also used elsewhere inside Google to manage large numbers of independent Git repositories. With repo, you establish a common branch or tag name across all the repositories that comprise your project, then "repo sync" to them. Poof! Build and version management. (Sorta.)
</SNARK>
http://usa.streetsblog.org/201...
...You were saying?