>"Autoplaying videos ARE blocked if they contain sound. Muted autoplay is still allowed."
Then that is not "blocking autoplay" it is "blocking some autoplay", which to me, is nowhere good enough.
The video is just as annoying to me as the audio, especially when it "follows me down the page" all the time while I am trying to read something. I don't want the web to be turned into TV, or even muted TV.
>"Google Says Chrome Blocks 'About Half' of Unwanted Autoplays""
Sorry, but simply muting is not "blocking" autoplaying videos. If the video is playing, it is still using bandwidth, using CPU, using power, and is visually extremely annoying.
Fail.
Let us know you when you *actually* block autoplay and when you can do it more like 80+% of the time, like I can do in Firefox right now with the "Disable HTML5 Autoplay" addon.
Yeah, it is amazing how poor some of the Slashdot headlines are now. They are full of grammatical mistakes, unnecessary contractions, inconsistent uppercasing, and often just misleading. This is probably what was meant:
"Russia Launches a Floating Nuclear Power Plant Headed for the Arctic"
This one from several hours ago:
"Comcast Won't Give New Speed Boost To Internet Users Who Don't Buy TV Service"
Uses two negative constructs. Would be far better as:
"Comcast gives new speed boost only to Internet users who also buy TV service"
+1 Bingo. In this case, it is very unclear if the merger would create more or less competition. I don't think any of us on Slashdot could possibly know everything needed to make a really informed decision in that regard.
I am just worried that Sprint merging into T-Mobile will somehow contaminate T-Mobile or drag them down. T-Mobile has been doing things very, very well for many years now.
Unless T-Mobile is nearly 100% in control, I hope it gets blocked. I was a Sprint customer for over 16 years and finally dropped them for T-Mobile 4 years ago and the different is absolutely staggering. Usually lower prices, MUCH more stable network, activation takes seconds- just insert a REAL sim card and done, fantastic customer service, great stores and people in them. I have brought over many family and friends to T-Mobile from Sprint and not a single one has been disappointed. I am terrified this new merged company will be "infected" by Sprint poor planning, customer service, and technology.
>"to reduce the fine proposed last year, calling it disproportionate, in part because most calls went unanswered or resulted in a quick hang-up by consumers"
Really? So, the fact that we didn't answer or did and hung up quickly somehow means we weren't annoyed, or weren't disturbed, or didn't have our privacy invaded?
We need CRIMINAL laws against *all* robocalling (and most other unsolicited spam calls) and an easy way to report them (like dialing a number after a call) AND enforcement. None of the existing "regulations" and "fines" seem to make any difference at all in the problem.
>It had tried back in the days when it was still mailing out DVDs
Um, newsflash. The DVD/Bluray service has never ended. It is still quite popular, and the ONLY way to go if you want any choice in movies from Netflix (or if you have little or metered Internet).
"Iconic since 1998. Celebrate 20 years of movies in your mailbox with behind-the-scenes videos, great movie recommendations, fun trivia, and the chance to win." http://dvd.netflix.com/
>"That revelation, cryptographers and technologists said, undermined the FBI's renewed push for backdoors in consumer encryption products."
To me, it is completely irrelevant whether they can or can't unlock consumer devices. The PRINCIPLE remains the same- the government does not and should not have a "right" to ruin security in the name of "safety". I don't care how inconvenient it this makes it for them to do their job. The statements about not necessarily needing it due to hacking products shouldn't distract from the real thing at stake here- personal privacy and freedom.
There simply is no way to have have it both ways. When you have "back doors" in encryption, there will be no security/privacy anymore.
>"There is no web version of it to use on a computer."
Yep, I came to comments to post that, myself. I can't believe it! A phone app ONLY? If you want to leak ALL your data to some company, forcing an "app" is the best way to do it right now.
Exactly what I was going to write. I mean, really? We are going to take pristine digital audio, convert to analog and THEN stamp it on lossy, low-capacity, hugely space inefficient, inconvenient, wearable, easily damaged, non-portable material? Yeesh.
Every time Google "improves" one of their products with a UI, it typically ends up:
1) Removing useful features 2) Reducing user customization 3) Hiding other features 4) Replacing things with stupid icons that mean nothing 5) Generally making things non-intuitive 6) Includes no help or manual 7) Adding more "social" sh** that I don't want and can't remove
I don't know about the typical user, but don't want "clean", I want "useful", "customization", and "powerful."
Exactly. There are a zillion possible useful tools and ways to deal with spam calls and texts.... none of them include just dumping spam calls into voicemail and doing nothing for texts.
Why would I want it to go to voicemail?????? What a pain in the a**. I get a repeating alert that I have new voicemail or a missed call, then I have to open that app, and deal with finding it and deleting it. GIVE US CONTROL, let us choose to send it to an anti-spam announcement-only message or something! More control is better. I would even like an option to have it send calls and texts from unknown sources (those not in my contacts) to an announce-only (or autoreply text) for unknown numbers (those not in my contacts).
Really. I can't imagine anything more ANNOYING and STUPID than a collection of constantly changing/animated "tiles." Reminds me of extremely annoying animated website ads.
>"I don't even have a Facebook account but plenty of my friends do and I'm sure some of them use Facebook on their phone. So how do non-users get their info removed? This is non-public information that I never agreed to share with Facebook."
>"Facebook Scraped Call, Text Message Data For Years From Android Phones"
I still fail to understand why this is a surprise to anyone. All this crap has been in the media for years. Can't use fake name, makes links without permission, makes connections with others without asking, sells your data to other companies, sucks up your history from every site you visit, tracks you everywhere you go, watches everything you do, demands your phone number and Email address and other contact information, and demands your face biometric and will just figures it out anyway if you don't give them, tags you in photos- even if you didn't supply them, refuses to actually let you delete things for real, enables bullying, has back doors for government access (and probably without due process), suppresses your free speech, manipulates "news" and data it gives you, takes political stances, annoys you to death, wields unbelievable power, actually depresses and disconnects people from meaningful [real-world] relationships, destroys attention spans, isolates non-participants, etc, etc. Hello people, welcome to Facebook. "All your base are belong to us."
I don't have a FB account. Never have, never will. It is the ultimate in privacy invading spyware. It invades your privacy even if you have never used it. I hope it dies. My advice is disconnect and wipe what you can and and MOVE ON.
>"Yet you can see a person on a bike. So should have the car."
Yes, I saw the person for maybe 2 seconds in the video. Had it been that second I was checking speed or a mirror, it would have been less. And I might have had time to brake or swerve. And swerving might have made it worse. But just seeing the bike in 2 seconds doesn't make it the vehicle's fault.
Oh, you might think "well, if it were a car in front of you, and you followed the 2 second [following distance] rule, you should be able to stop in time". And I would agree... BUT the car would have tail lights AND probably brake lights and I would have already known it was there and from far, far away. AND it would be in a fairly predictable location with fairly predictable actions. In such a case, yes, I would be at fault as the rear-ender. And yet, same scenario- if that car in front at night had NO lights and NO brake lights, it would immediately shift to being their fault. And that is without that unlit car coming into view at the last few seconds FROM ACROSS A MEDIAN!
But I *do* agree that an autonomous car with lots of high-tech sensors should have been able to "see" what was happening [beyond human visible light] sooner and at least tried to brake. Still doesn't mean the car is at fault.
Exactly what I expected to see.... Someone walking a bike. At night. No streetlights. No backlighting at all. Wearing black top and dark pants. With no lights at all on the bike. No lights on the person. Not in a crosswalk. Apparently not looking. About 2 seconds of visibility.
The pedestrian is almost 100% wrong in every possible way. I don't see how this could be ANY human driver's fault, had a human been driving. As for autonomous, I guess it depends on what sensors. Could their system have had an infrared camera or other sensor that could have seen the wreckless pedestrian sooner than was evident in [human] visible light? That would have been nice. But does that make the pedestrian less at fault? I think not.
>"FTFW. Bernie is still the most popular elected politician in the country -- a fact even Fox News agrees with [businessinsider.com]."
Why would that surprise anyone? When around HALF the country is taking/drawing some type of government handout, and HALF the country also pays ZERO income tax, of course people are going to vote for anything that gets them more "free" stuff from those who work hard AND pay lots of taxes. It is a major conflict of interest of the highest order.
As Benjamin Franklin reportedly said, âoeWhen the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.â
Of course it would be insane and unconstitutional, but it almost makes we wish that if you are on/accept disability, welfare, food stamps, rent control, grants, subsidized insurance, medicaid, or any other handout OR pay no income taxes, you get NO VOTE (primary pensioners excluded). Or perhaps some extreme subset. Well, back to reality now.
The really sad part is that anyone who isn't pretty dim KNOWS they are being tracked and will turn off location history, shield it, turn off the phone, or leave it behind when committing a planned crime. So such unconstitutional warrants in those cases are not only ineffective, they target the people most likely to NOT be involved.
Of course, there are a lot of dim criminals out there, and unplanned crimes of passion for which it might work. But where do you draw the line? If it is OK to do in a murder or arson case, then what next? Battery? A non-violent theft? Speeding? Jaywalking? Walking an animal off-leash? Protesting without a license? Loitering? Or even pre-crime?
>"I agree that slashdot has failed, but i think the reason is different. Back in its heyday, stories in the firehose which were voted up made the front page. Today, voting doesn't really matter; the editors find and post stories according to their own agenda (e.g. Trump bashing and SWJ stories). That filter/selection process by the editors far outweighs any moderation."
^^^^ This, 1,000 times over. The editors persist in posting "stories" that are not only NOT about technology and "news for nerds" but worded intentionally to be one-sided or hostile and usually in some political slant. Even technology-related stories still often have a "lean" to them in one way or another. This just polarizes everyone and sets the stage for a s***fest. I guess the editors feel that since the major news outlets do this all the time now, it is the new "norm" rather than impartial reporting of events and facts? It pushes many otherwise good users away.
Other factors matter too, of course, things like: Too much PC, too many users (compared to the by-gone era), too many inflammatory "anonymous cowards", too many shadow accounts, too much down or up voting based on bias and emotion instead of quality of post and information.
Slashdot Mirror
>"Autoplaying videos ARE blocked if they contain sound. Muted autoplay is still allowed."
Then that is not "blocking autoplay" it is "blocking some autoplay", which to me, is nowhere good enough.
The video is just as annoying to me as the audio, especially when it "follows me down the page" all the time while I am trying to read something. I don't want the web to be turned into TV, or even muted TV.
>"Google Says Chrome Blocks 'About Half' of Unwanted Autoplays""
Sorry, but simply muting is not "blocking" autoplaying videos. If the video is playing, it is still using bandwidth, using CPU, using power, and is visually extremely annoying.
Fail.
Let us know you when you *actually* block autoplay and when you can do it more like 80+% of the time, like I can do in Firefox right now with the "Disable HTML5 Autoplay" addon.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...
Far from perfect, but much better (IMHO) than what Chrome does.
Yeah, it is amazing how poor some of the Slashdot headlines are now. They are full of grammatical mistakes, unnecessary contractions, inconsistent uppercasing, and often just misleading. This is probably what was meant:
"Russia Launches a Floating Nuclear Power Plant Headed for the Arctic"
This one from several hours ago:
"Comcast Won't Give New Speed Boost To Internet Users Who Don't Buy TV Service"
Uses two negative constructs. Would be far better as:
"Comcast gives new speed boost only to Internet users who also buy TV service"
+1 Bingo. In this case, it is very unclear if the merger would create more or less competition. I don't think any of us on Slashdot could possibly know everything needed to make a really informed decision in that regard.
I am just worried that Sprint merging into T-Mobile will somehow contaminate T-Mobile or drag them down. T-Mobile has been doing things very, very well for many years now.
>"Sprint and TMo are saying that Sprint does not have the money to roll out 5G network upgrades without the merger."
Then let Sprint die and then sell itself to T-Mobile. That will guarantee T-Mobile, who is doing everything RIGHT will remain 100% in control.
Unless T-Mobile is nearly 100% in control, I hope it gets blocked. I was a Sprint customer for over 16 years and finally dropped them for T-Mobile 4 years ago and the different is absolutely staggering. Usually lower prices, MUCH more stable network, activation takes seconds- just insert a REAL sim card and done, fantastic customer service, great stores and people in them. I have brought over many family and friends to T-Mobile from Sprint and not a single one has been disappointed. I am terrified this new merged company will be "infected" by Sprint poor planning, customer service, and technology.
I am still waiting for the banks to repay the public for the hundreds of billions of tax dollars spent in "the bailout."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Like that is going to happen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
>"to reduce the fine proposed last year, calling it disproportionate, in part because most calls went unanswered or resulted in a quick hang-up by consumers"
Really? So, the fact that we didn't answer or did and hung up quickly somehow means we weren't annoyed, or weren't disturbed, or didn't have our privacy invaded?
We need CRIMINAL laws against *all* robocalling (and most other unsolicited spam calls) and an easy way to report them (like dialing a number after a call) AND enforcement. None of the existing "regulations" and "fines" seem to make any difference at all in the problem.
>It had tried back in the days when it was still mailing out DVDs
Um, newsflash. The DVD/Bluray service has never ended. It is still quite popular, and the ONLY way to go if you want any choice in movies from Netflix (or if you have little or metered Internet).
"Iconic since 1998. Celebrate 20 years of movies in your mailbox with behind-the-scenes videos, great movie recommendations, fun trivia, and the chance to win." http://dvd.netflix.com/
>"That revelation, cryptographers and technologists said, undermined the FBI's renewed push for backdoors in consumer encryption products."
To me, it is completely irrelevant whether they can or can't unlock consumer devices. The PRINCIPLE remains the same- the government does not and should not have a "right" to ruin security in the name of "safety". I don't care how inconvenient it this makes it for them to do their job. The statements about not necessarily needing it due to hacking products shouldn't distract from the real thing at stake here- personal privacy and freedom.
There simply is no way to have have it both ways. When you have "back doors" in encryption, there will be no security/privacy anymore.
>"There is no web version of it to use on a computer."
Yep, I came to comments to post that, myself. I can't believe it! A phone app ONLY? If you want to leak ALL your data to some company, forcing an "app" is the best way to do it right now.
+1
Exactly what I was going to write. I mean, really? We are going to take pristine digital audio, convert to analog and THEN stamp it on lossy, low-capacity, hugely space inefficient, inconvenient, wearable, easily damaged, non-portable material? Yeesh.
Every time Google "improves" one of their products with a UI, it typically ends up:
1) Removing useful features
2) Reducing user customization
3) Hiding other features
4) Replacing things with stupid icons that mean nothing
5) Generally making things non-intuitive
6) Includes no help or manual
7) Adding more "social" sh** that I don't want and can't remove
I don't know about the typical user, but don't want "clean", I want "useful", "customization", and "powerful."
Oh, and it is not just Google, either...
Exactly. There are a zillion possible useful tools and ways to deal with spam calls and texts.... none of them include just dumping spam calls into voicemail and doing nothing for texts.
Why would I want it to go to voicemail?????? What a pain in the a**. I get a repeating alert that I have new voicemail or a missed call, then I have to open that app, and deal with finding it and deleting it. GIVE US CONTROL, let us choose to send it to an anti-spam announcement-only message or something! More control is better. I would even like an option to have it send calls and texts from unknown sources (those not in my contacts) to an announce-only (or autoreply text) for unknown numbers (those not in my contacts).
Have never used IE, ever. Have always used firefox. Have no love of Google at all. So, you were saying??
Really. I can't imagine anything more ANNOYING and STUPID than a collection of constantly changing/animated "tiles." Reminds me of extremely annoying animated website ads.
>"I don't even have a Facebook account but plenty of my friends do and I'm sure some of them use Facebook on their phone. So how do non-users get their info removed? This is non-public information that I never agreed to share with Facebook."
Answer: You can't
>"Facebook Scraped Call, Text Message Data For Years From Android Phones"
I still fail to understand why this is a surprise to anyone. All this crap has been in the media for years. Can't use fake name, makes links without permission, makes connections with others without asking, sells your data to other companies, sucks up your history from every site you visit, tracks you everywhere you go, watches everything you do, demands your phone number and Email address and other contact information, and demands your face biometric and will just figures it out anyway if you don't give them, tags you in photos- even if you didn't supply them, refuses to actually let you delete things for real, enables bullying, has back doors for government access (and probably without due process), suppresses your free speech, manipulates "news" and data it gives you, takes political stances, annoys you to death, wields unbelievable power, actually depresses and disconnects people from meaningful [real-world] relationships, destroys attention spans, isolates non-participants, etc, etc. Hello people, welcome to Facebook. "All your base are belong to us."
I don't have a FB account. Never have, never will. It is the ultimate in privacy invading spyware. It invades your privacy even if you have never used it. I hope it dies. My advice is disconnect and wipe what you can and and MOVE ON.
>"Yet you can see a person on a bike. So should have the car."
Yes, I saw the person for maybe 2 seconds in the video. Had it been that second I was checking speed or a mirror, it would have been less. And I might have had time to brake or swerve. And swerving might have made it worse. But just seeing the bike in 2 seconds doesn't make it the vehicle's fault.
Oh, you might think "well, if it were a car in front of you, and you followed the 2 second [following distance] rule, you should be able to stop in time". And I would agree... BUT the car would have tail lights AND probably brake lights and I would have already known it was there and from far, far away. AND it would be in a fairly predictable location with fairly predictable actions. In such a case, yes, I would be at fault as the rear-ender. And yet, same scenario- if that car in front at night had NO lights and NO brake lights, it would immediately shift to being their fault. And that is without that unlit car coming into view at the last few seconds FROM ACROSS A MEDIAN!
But I *do* agree that an autonomous car with lots of high-tech sensors should have been able to "see" what was happening [beyond human visible light] sooner and at least tried to brake. Still doesn't mean the car is at fault.
Exactly what I expected to see....
Someone walking a bike.
At night.
No streetlights.
No backlighting at all.
Wearing black top and dark pants.
With no lights at all on the bike.
No lights on the person.
Not in a crosswalk.
Apparently not looking.
About 2 seconds of visibility.
The pedestrian is almost 100% wrong in every possible way. I don't see how this could be ANY human driver's fault, had a human been driving. As for autonomous, I guess it depends on what sensors. Could their system have had an infrared camera or other sensor that could have seen the wreckless pedestrian sooner than was evident in [human] visible light? That would have been nice. But does that make the pedestrian less at fault? I think not.
>"FTFW. Bernie is still the most popular elected politician in the country -- a fact even Fox News agrees with [businessinsider.com]."
Why would that surprise anyone? When around HALF the country is taking/drawing some type of government handout, and HALF the country also pays ZERO income tax, of course people are going to vote for anything that gets them more "free" stuff from those who work hard AND pay lots of taxes. It is a major conflict of interest of the highest order.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/m...
As Benjamin Franklin reportedly said, âoeWhen the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.â
Of course it would be insane and unconstitutional, but it almost makes we wish that if you are on/accept disability, welfare, food stamps, rent control, grants, subsidized insurance, medicaid, or any other handout OR pay no income taxes, you get NO VOTE (primary pensioners excluded). Or perhaps some extreme subset. Well, back to reality now.
The really sad part is that anyone who isn't pretty dim KNOWS they are being tracked and will turn off location history, shield it, turn off the phone, or leave it behind when committing a planned crime. So such unconstitutional warrants in those cases are not only ineffective, they target the people most likely to NOT be involved.
Of course, there are a lot of dim criminals out there, and unplanned crimes of passion for which it might work. But where do you draw the line? If it is OK to do in a murder or arson case, then what next? Battery? A non-violent theft? Speeding? Jaywalking? Walking an animal off-leash? Protesting without a license? Loitering? Or even pre-crime?
>""As always, we look forward to feedback from our WIP community," says Microsoft's Dona Sarkar "
Be careful what you ask for....
Flip the middle finger at your users, AGAIN, for the zillionth time, and expect what? A "thanks, this is great!"?
>"I agree that slashdot has failed, but i think the reason is different. Back in its heyday, stories in the firehose which were voted up made the front page. Today, voting doesn't really matter; the editors find and post stories according to their own agenda (e.g. Trump bashing and SWJ stories). That filter/selection process by the editors far outweighs any moderation."
^^^^
This, 1,000 times over. The editors persist in posting "stories" that are not only NOT about technology and "news for nerds" but worded intentionally to be one-sided or hostile and usually in some political slant. Even technology-related stories still often have a "lean" to them in one way or another. This just polarizes everyone and sets the stage for a s***fest. I guess the editors feel that since the major news outlets do this all the time now, it is the new "norm" rather than impartial reporting of events and facts? It pushes many otherwise good users away.
Other factors matter too, of course, things like: Too much PC, too many users (compared to the by-gone era), too many inflammatory "anonymous cowards", too many shadow accounts, too much down or up voting based on bias and emotion instead of quality of post and information.