>"Funny how you find that scary, and not the fact that someone has physical access to your computers."
Today it is a compromise with physical means. Tomorrow it could be remote.... remember, the ME has access to the network and the host OS, so attack vectors could come from various places.
This Management Engine stuff just gets scarier and scarier. Just like intentional backdoors in encryption WILL be found and exploited, these undocumented "systems" within our systems will be cracked and the result can and will be DEVASTATING. It is hard enough to keep operating systems updated and secure. Firmware-level security is not something that can be easily maintained on running machines, even if Intel and friends can put out patches fast enough. I want my machine to be MINE.
These "infected" machines are making their way into our entire infrastructure- controlling everything from power generation, traffic, government operations, military, healthcare, just about everything. Imagine black-hatters, rogue nations, criminals, or terrorists simply bypassing all normal security and just taking control of the hardware and doing whatever they want.
WE ALL NEED THE ABILITY TO ABSOLUTELY DISABLE ME AT THE BIOS AND/OR HARDWARE LEVEL. And we need it NOW!
Oh, and AMD is doing the same thing as Intel, so don't look to them as some alternative.
Both have intrinsic value. Just like coal, copper, or uranium, or any other actually mined materials have intrinsic value. A "bitcoin" or whatnot, however, has no actual value whatsoever, just a conceptional value that people artificially place on it. It is a lot like actual fiat currency which has no actual value; except fiat money costs very little resources to create.
It is ironic that in a era where most people are talking about:
* Energy efficiency * Energy independence * Emissions reduction * Green power production
we are racing to consume [waste] tons of energy to produce "currency" which doesn't actually produce any goods or services. Imagine consuming megawatts of energy just to produce currency that could then be used to later buy things like, perhaps, more megawatts of energy. Seems insane.
I have been complaining for many years, ever since my State ditched the simple and effective "punch cards" and went to horrible touch-screen computer voting. It removed every trace of auditing capability and introduced a system that not only could be horribly abused or hacked, but also made it easy to track the identity of who voted- clearly violating the principles of confidentiality of voting.
Finally, this November, my State switched to paper ballots. The voter is registered as usual, then given a generic paper ballot, and just marks on the paper what they want, and the voter inserts it into a machine that reads it and stores the sheet of paper securely. Cheap, simple, easy-to-use, 100% verifiable, and anonymous. I only hope that every State follows such an example.
The next challenge is to get ranked/IRV (Instant Runoff Voting). Then things can really start to change for the positive.
>"gotcha. so according to your argument and your sources, the rights of an individual to carry a gun was secured in 2008. by a Supreme Court decision and Scalia."
Wrong. Such rights were partially RE-SECURED back to the way it was before the corruption started. The first barrage was ten years prior in 1997 when the U.S. Supreme Court, in Printz v. United States, declared the background check requirement of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act unconstitutional.
>"wait, what? you mean it was only ten years ago that a conservative leaning court narrowly re-defined the amendment as a political maneuver? huh."
I know that facts can be annoying, but let me help you. During the entire LIVES of the founding fathers, there were ZERO gun control laws, both Federal and State. The Constitution was quite clear. The first attempt was in 1837 when Georgia passed a handgun law and it was immediately ruled unconstitutional and thrown out.
The first gun control law that actually got through that limited the masses from obtaining a weapon was the National Firearms Act of 1934, which regulated the manufacture, sale and possession of fully automatic firearms (machine guns). That was 143 years from the addition of the Bill of Rights. And although this didn't limit "regular" guns in any way, or institute background checks, gun-free zones, secret ban lists, registration schemes, try to define what size magazines are acceptable, etc, etc, it was the beginning of the slippery slope that got us in the fashion of removing gun rights from citizens.
>"i thought you NRA types knew for sure what the FOUNDING FATHERS were thinking in their heads. because that's all i ever hear. "the founding fathers thought..." "the founding fathers wanted..." "the founding fathers intended"."
The majority of historians are pretty clear that the second amendment was meant to be, had been for a very long time, and still is an individual right to obtain, own, and carry arms (which includes firearms). This didn't really start change until 1938 with the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, and was cemented in 1968 with the Gun Control Act of 1968 which was just 49 years ago (in MY lifetime).
>"the truth is, the original amendment had little to do with our current world"
Sorry, but that is wrong in so many ways. Here are just two: First, if you think you can just corrupt or invalidate one part of the Constitution because of some arbitrary thinking, then you can invalidate any part that is not "in fashion", like the right to due process, or free speech. The Constitution is a statement of principles that LIMITS the government from infringing on individual rights and prevents the majority de-jour from trampling on the basic rights that define our [different than any other nation] country. If you don't like the founding principles (the Constitution), you can seek to have them amended (changed). And that is a difficult and slow process, by design. Second, there is just as much need for an individual to protect themselves, their family and friends, and property from criminals now, as there was when the country was formed.
>"Since militias are no longer a thing, does that mean the reason for gun ownership is obviated?"
I do not believe so, no. Neither does the SCOTUS.
>" If being in a militia was the reason for individual gun ownership rights"
It is *a* reasoning, not *the* reason. We have to put the phrase in context- it would have been unfathomable to the founders that the government should be allowed to disarm its free citizens.
>"Hell, most US gun-owners haven't formed a militia or neighbourhood watch, which is what the second amendment really guarantees. "
Scholars, historians, legal experts, and the supreme court of the USA have, by majority, agreed that what you just said is wrong. The wording of the 2nd Amendment is odd, for sure, but it means an INDIVIDUAL'S right to [buy, make, keep, and carry] arms. That is what was said, that is what was meant. The "militia" part was an explanation of WHY not who.
>"draw attention away from the real issues like competent gun control "
Bzzzzz. Your first two sentences were perfect and then you had to go and ruin it. Study after study after study proves that "gun control" doesn't prevent such murders. People who want to murder are going to illegally get a gun somehow and use it illegally (and overwhelming against unarmed groups of victims). Or they are going to run 20 people over with a car. Or throw gas on a building and burn a dozen people to death. Or make a pressure cooker bomb and set it off somewhere interesting. "Gun control" does one thing really well- it takes weapons out the hands of law-abiding, GOOD people, who use them to protect themselves and loved ones and frequently stop and deter crime.
Areas in the USA with the highest (most unconstitutional and most draconian) gun control laws have the most gun murders and crime. This is fact. And when those laws get removed, magically, the gun murders and crime start going down and down. Also fact. Most gun murders occur in so-called "gun-free" zones. Yep- fact. Another interesting fact- licensed concealed-carry citizens commit 600% fewer felonies (ANY type of felony) than police officers. And ANOTHER fact- gun murders have been going down for decades. And this is despite there being more guns and more population.
So we can continue to respond emotionally and "do something" about violence by passing more and more gun laws that make the problem worse. OR we can learn from fact and realize that gun laws are not the solution.
>"You also need to get your friends and family on board. And for Pete's sake vote in your primary. It doesn't do any good to vote if everyone running is a right wing "Tough on Crime" politician. "
"Tough on crime" is a perfectly valid goal and platform. But that doesn't and shouldn't necessarily mean:
1) Throwing out the Constitution 2) Mass surveillance 3) Broken encryption
1) It is open source (I suppose you could use Chromium instead, but good luck with that on some platforms).
2) It is community driven (although some times it is hard to tell, but far more than Chrome)
3) It is not Google-burdened in any way (Chrome is a binary blob with who-knows how much spyware, backdoors, data collection, and other "features" inside)
Other thoughts: FF performance is vastly improved and resource usage is on-par with any other browser, but since they "Chrome-ified" it, flexibility and user control in the UI is diminished, however, it still probably has a lot more customizable options than Chrome.
>"I swear, it's like they're TRYING to drive away the last of their customers like me."
+1, they very much need to delay the obsolescence of the existing addons until:
1) Webextensions is stable. 2) Webextensions is proven by developers AND users as working right. 3) Firefox has the vast majority of API's necessary to port the majority of addons- especially those needing access to the UI. 4) Developers have had time after the above they so they can actually port addons, test them, get feedback and API tweaks from Firefox fixed, and fix their own new addons.
My understanding of the situation is that NONE of the above is met. The hell with artificial timelines, THIS STUFF IS VERY IMPORTANT! If it takes an extra 3 months, 6 months, even a year, so be it! The Firefox addon infrastructure is one of its main selling points. Flushing that down the toilet might cause a loss of another half or more of their users.
Well said. I think the main issue was and has been, however, that Mozilla hasn't really been listening to what the users (and often developers) are saying. We wouldn't complain about the loss of addons that modify the UI had Mozilla not taken away the native ability for user to control the UI. A classic example is "tabs on bottom." It was HUGELY unpopular when Firefox finally removed that single option. And there was really no good reason to remove it. Addons saved the day, and now that will be gone too. And they added insult to injury by adding stuff that users didn't care about or want, things like screenprint, hello, pocket... things that could have easily been optional or even included addons. Development resources that could have gone to filling that UI-control that users do want, and/or performance, and/or bug fixing.
My example of the "Flash Stopper" addon really is a perfect example of the jam in which people find themselves. It is something the browser should be able to do, natively and correctly. Autoplay of video is a HUGE annoyance to many users. And the built-in feature that Firefox offers to supposedly help control the problem is just broken. Here is the bug report: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s... 2 years and still broken! And now the addon that fixed the problem for perhaps 50,000 users (who managed to find it) will be forever gone because WebExtensions won't allow even third-parties to fix it.
My other example- the Environment Proxy is another perfect example. Up to version XX (forget which), Firefox honored the environment variables for simple proxy control. And one day- BAM, it is just broken. An addon came out to work around the problem, and many years later, there is STILL no native fix. And WebExtensions will take away that solution, too.
So please understand why I am complaining so loudly. It isn't just about not liking change, there are real issues that leave me and others in a real pickle.
I understand their reason and desire to switch to webextension, but the issue is that there are some things that many of us need to do that NO "webextension" addon is going to be allowed to do. This is because these new addons will not be allowed to modify the UI or underlying operation of the browser. Three such examples:
FlashStopper (stops html5 video autoplay) ClassicThemeRestorer (makes the UI bearable) EnvironmentProxy (sets proxy based on environment variables)
I am confident other important addons will be retained- I already see that UblockOrigin, Adblock Plus (as "AdBlock 57+"), and NukeAnything all work. But I can't bear to use the browser without certain other things.
Fingerprint blocking is a good feature, unlike the last unnecessary "screen print" or whatever feature. However, I won't be "upgrading" because half the addons I need won't work.:( I suspect a lot of us will be stuck on older versions of Firefox for quite a while...
Re:A very neat relyable piece of FOSS Software.
on
Audacity 2.2.0 Released
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
+100
It is a great piece of software. They don't ruin it with stupid UI changes, either. It is straight-forward, reliable, fast, and yet very powerful.
>"While there is a microSD card slot for expandable storage, there is no headphone jack, no waterproofing, and no wireless charging.
Companies still are not listening. It seems many of us want:
1) Larger batteries/ removable batteries 2) Larger storage 3) Wireless charging 4) Headphone jack 5) Stock/plain Android (or as close as possible) 6) Water and drop resistance (reliability/robustness) 7) Works on all carriers and unlocked
It sounds like this company got a few things right (large battery and SD slot) but still focus on more useless resolution and more RAM than probably ever needed. Many people also are looking for SMALLER SCREENS (5") but without sacrificing specs (they want a small phone, not an under-powered/under-featured phone).
>"Yes, let's just have cars broadcasting their speed. If you thought red light cameras were bad, this would have been worse."
Exactly. Much, much, much worse. And "about to run a red light" alert, so people can now just feel like running lights without worrying as much? (The law of unintended consequences). I am not anti-technology, but we need to be very, very careful when running into something like this. Perhaps each part needs to be examined individually for relevance, cost, privacy, and abuse potential. What exactly is the "other information" being broadcast? Your VIN number or license plate????
I WOULD be in favor of broadcasting when you put your foot on the brake and HOW HARD the car is decelerating. I am not quite sure how that information could be abused, as long as your vehicle is not logging it. Of course, we are also already doing that- it is called brake lights. The "how hard braking" could be as simple as modulating the lights when passing a certain threshold.
Much of it is redundant, anyway. Sensors for smart cars can already track vehicles around the car, where they are, which direction they are going, speed, etc. My pretty-old 2009 vehicle can already do that with its on-board laser for traffic ahead (it is what is used for the adaptive cruise control system). Many new vehicles already have blind-spot sensors (that work very well) and backup cameras and sensors, etc.
>" In other words the SkyHawk AI is more robust than the standard SkyHawk and transfers data 1.9 per cent faster. Otherwise it seems identical."
And it might actually be identical in every way. This is not uncommon in many industries- to sell identical machines, parts, products, whatever, but with glitzy marketing, different packaging, and a better warranty. In such cases, one is actually just paying more to get a longer warranty.
I am just speculating here, I have no evidence either way with the SkyHawk AI. Perhaps they use better construction, higher quality bearings, improved assembly, or maybe tweaked firmware. But if they don't specifically mention HOW this drive is actually better (what hardware or methods make it different), then I would be very skeptical about it actually being any better (at least as far as MTBF).
>"I solved the overload problem by simply taking all the social media apps off my phone. Now, unless I decide to sit down at a computer I can not get immersed in the cult."
+1 good job! I wish more people would at LEAST do that- get rid of social media on their phones. People can be so incredibly rude and mindless with their eyes constantly glued to a phone all day long.
Myself, I have never even HAD any social media accounts (other than Slashdot and a few forums, which I only access from home on my desktop computer, at a time of my choosing). Why? Because I knew in advance it was something that was full of strife, pettiness, and nonsense coupled with severe privacy invasion and distraction.
And Email- that doesn't go to my phone, either. I have a work account and a few home accounts, and I access them from desktops when I am ready and want to, a few times a day.
I would hate to feel compelled to constantly look at my phone or respond to crap. My sanity is worth more to me than that... looks like it is for you, too.:)
>"Long term, there will be power and a way to fuel the generator. The OP wasn't thinking. Period."
Um, sorry, but the OP *is* thinking. I asked a question if this was temporary or not and that is perfectly valid. You are assuming that it is temporary. What do you base your answer on? A guess?
If they just need temporary power, then all they need is some fuel. That would be a hell of a lot easier/cheaper to get them than a million dollar (?) solar array and battery system.
Slashdot Mirror
>"Funny how you find that scary, and not the fact that someone has physical access to your computers."
Today it is a compromise with physical means. Tomorrow it could be remote.... remember, the ME has access to the network and the host OS, so attack vectors could come from various places.
This Management Engine stuff just gets scarier and scarier. Just like intentional backdoors in encryption WILL be found and exploited, these undocumented "systems" within our systems will be cracked and the result can and will be DEVASTATING. It is hard enough to keep operating systems updated and secure. Firmware-level security is not something that can be easily maintained on running machines, even if Intel and friends can put out patches fast enough. I want my machine to be MINE.
These "infected" machines are making their way into our entire infrastructure- controlling everything from power generation, traffic, government operations, military, healthcare, just about everything. Imagine black-hatters, rogue nations, criminals, or terrorists simply bypassing all normal security and just taking control of the hardware and doing whatever they want.
WE ALL NEED THE ABILITY TO ABSOLUTELY DISABLE ME AT THE BIOS AND/OR HARDWARE LEVEL. And we need it NOW!
Oh, and AMD is doing the same thing as Intel, so don't look to them as some alternative.
>"So ... just like gold or diamond mining."
Both have intrinsic value. Just like coal, copper, or uranium, or any other actually mined materials have intrinsic value. A "bitcoin" or whatnot, however, has no actual value whatsoever, just a conceptional value that people artificially place on it. It is a lot like actual fiat currency which has no actual value; except fiat money costs very little resources to create.
It is ironic that in a era where most people are talking about:
* Energy efficiency
* Energy independence
* Emissions reduction
* Green power production
we are racing to consume [waste] tons of energy to produce "currency" which doesn't actually produce any goods or services. Imagine consuming megawatts of energy just to produce currency that could then be used to later buy things like, perhaps, more megawatts of energy. Seems insane.
I have been complaining for many years, ever since my State ditched the simple and effective "punch cards" and went to horrible touch-screen computer voting. It removed every trace of auditing capability and introduced a system that not only could be horribly abused or hacked, but also made it easy to track the identity of who voted- clearly violating the principles of confidentiality of voting.
Finally, this November, my State switched to paper ballots. The voter is registered as usual, then given a generic paper ballot, and just marks on the paper what they want, and the voter inserts it into a machine that reads it and stores the sheet of paper securely. Cheap, simple, easy-to-use, 100% verifiable, and anonymous. I only hope that every State follows such an example.
The next challenge is to get ranked/IRV (Instant Runoff Voting). Then things can really start to change for the positive.
http://fairvote.org/
>"gotcha. so according to your argument and your sources, the rights of an individual to carry a gun was secured in 2008. by a Supreme Court decision and Scalia."
Wrong. Such rights were partially RE-SECURED back to the way it was before the corruption started. The first barrage was ten years prior in 1997 when the U.S. Supreme Court, in Printz v. United States, declared the background check requirement of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act unconstitutional.
>"wait, what? you mean it was only ten years ago that a conservative leaning court narrowly re-defined the amendment as a political maneuver? huh."
I know that facts can be annoying, but let me help you. During the entire LIVES of the founding fathers, there were ZERO gun control laws, both Federal and State. The Constitution was quite clear. The first attempt was in 1837 when Georgia passed a handgun law and it was immediately ruled unconstitutional and thrown out.
The first gun control law that actually got through that limited the masses from obtaining a weapon was the National Firearms Act of 1934, which regulated the manufacture, sale and possession of fully automatic firearms (machine guns). That was 143 years from the addition of the Bill of Rights. And although this didn't limit "regular" guns in any way, or institute background checks, gun-free zones, secret ban lists, registration schemes, try to define what size magazines are acceptable, etc, etc, it was the beginning of the slippery slope that got us in the fashion of removing gun rights from citizens.
>"i thought you NRA types knew for sure what the FOUNDING FATHERS were thinking in their heads. because that's all i ever hear. "the founding fathers thought..." "the founding fathers wanted..." "the founding fathers intended"."
The majority of historians are pretty clear that the second amendment was meant to be, had been for a very long time, and still is an individual right to obtain, own, and carry arms (which includes firearms). This didn't really start change until 1938 with the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, and was cemented in 1968 with the Gun Control Act of 1968 which was just 49 years ago (in MY lifetime).
>"the truth is, the original amendment had little to do with our current world"
Sorry, but that is wrong in so many ways. Here are just two: First, if you think you can just corrupt or invalidate one part of the Constitution because of some arbitrary thinking, then you can invalidate any part that is not "in fashion", like the right to due process, or free speech. The Constitution is a statement of principles that LIMITS the government from infringing on individual rights and prevents the majority de-jour from trampling on the basic rights that define our [different than any other nation] country. If you don't like the founding principles (the Constitution), you can seek to have them amended (changed). And that is a difficult and slow process, by design. Second, there is just as much need for an individual to protect themselves, their family and friends, and property from criminals now, as there was when the country was formed.
>"Since militias are no longer a thing, does that mean the reason for gun ownership is obviated?"
I do not believe so, no. Neither does the SCOTUS.
>" If being in a militia was the reason for individual gun ownership rights"
It is *a* reasoning, not *the* reason. We have to put the phrase in context- it would have been unfathomable to the founders that the government should be allowed to disarm its free citizens.
>"CBS announced that Star Trek: Discovery will return for the second half of the split season on Sunday, November 12th."
On an expensive subscription service that doesn't work on many devices. Yawn. I will continue to watch and enjoy The Orville, like most Trek fans.
>"Hell, most US gun-owners haven't formed a militia or neighbourhood watch, which is what the second amendment really guarantees. "
Scholars, historians, legal experts, and the supreme court of the USA have, by majority, agreed that what you just said is wrong. The wording of the 2nd Amendment is odd, for sure, but it means an INDIVIDUAL'S right to [buy, make, keep, and carry] arms. That is what was said, that is what was meant. The "militia" part was an explanation of WHY not who.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/...
http://www.nationalreview.com/...
>"draw attention away from the real issues like competent gun control "
Bzzzzz. Your first two sentences were perfect and then you had to go and ruin it. Study after study after study proves that "gun control" doesn't prevent such murders. People who want to murder are going to illegally get a gun somehow and use it illegally (and overwhelming against unarmed groups of victims). Or they are going to run 20 people over with a car. Or throw gas on a building and burn a dozen people to death. Or make a pressure cooker bomb and set it off somewhere interesting. "Gun control" does one thing really well- it takes weapons out the hands of law-abiding, GOOD people, who use them to protect themselves and loved ones and frequently stop and deter crime.
Areas in the USA with the highest (most unconstitutional and most draconian) gun control laws have the most gun murders and crime. This is fact. And when those laws get removed, magically, the gun murders and crime start going down and down. Also fact. Most gun murders occur in so-called "gun-free" zones. Yep- fact. Another interesting fact- licensed concealed-carry citizens commit 600% fewer felonies (ANY type of felony) than police officers. And ANOTHER fact- gun murders have been going down for decades. And this is despite there being more guns and more population.
So we can continue to respond emotionally and "do something" about violence by passing more and more gun laws that make the problem worse. OR we can learn from fact and realize that gun laws are not the solution.
>"You also need to get your friends and family on board. And for Pete's sake vote in your primary. It doesn't do any good to vote if everyone running is a right wing "Tough on Crime" politician. "
"Tough on crime" is a perfectly valid goal and platform. But that doesn't and shouldn't necessarily mean:
1) Throwing out the Constitution
2) Mass surveillance
3) Broken encryption
"What's good for the goose is good for the gander."
>"why shouldn't I just switch to Chrome anyhow?"
Well, the remaining reasons are:
1) It is open source (I suppose you could use Chromium instead, but good luck with that on some platforms).
2) It is community driven (although some times it is hard to tell, but far more than Chrome)
3) It is not Google-burdened in any way (Chrome is a binary blob with who-knows how much spyware, backdoors, data collection, and other "features" inside)
Other thoughts: FF performance is vastly improved and resource usage is on-par with any other browser, but since they "Chrome-ified" it, flexibility and user control in the UI is diminished, however, it still probably has a lot more customizable options than Chrome.
>"I swear, it's like they're TRYING to drive away the last of their customers like me."
It does feel that way sometimes.
+1, they very much need to delay the obsolescence of the existing addons until:
1) Webextensions is stable.
2) Webextensions is proven by developers AND users as working right.
3) Firefox has the vast majority of API's necessary to port the majority of addons- especially those needing access to the UI.
4) Developers have had time after the above they so they can actually port addons, test them, get feedback and API tweaks from Firefox fixed, and fix their own new addons.
My understanding of the situation is that NONE of the above is met. The hell with artificial timelines, THIS STUFF IS VERY IMPORTANT! If it takes an extra 3 months, 6 months, even a year, so be it! The Firefox addon infrastructure is one of its main selling points. Flushing that down the toilet might cause a loss of another half or more of their users.
Well said. I think the main issue was and has been, however, that Mozilla hasn't really been listening to what the users (and often developers) are saying. We wouldn't complain about the loss of addons that modify the UI had Mozilla not taken away the native ability for user to control the UI. A classic example is "tabs on bottom." It was HUGELY unpopular when Firefox finally removed that single option. And there was really no good reason to remove it. Addons saved the day, and now that will be gone too. And they added insult to injury by adding stuff that users didn't care about or want, things like screenprint, hello, pocket... things that could have easily been optional or even included addons. Development resources that could have gone to filling that UI-control that users do want, and/or performance, and/or bug fixing.
My example of the "Flash Stopper" addon really is a perfect example of the jam in which people find themselves. It is something the browser should be able to do, natively and correctly. Autoplay of video is a HUGE annoyance to many users. And the built-in feature that Firefox offers to supposedly help control the problem is just broken. Here is the bug report: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s... 2 years and still broken! And now the addon that fixed the problem for perhaps 50,000 users (who managed to find it) will be forever gone because WebExtensions won't allow even third-parties to fix it.
My other example- the Environment Proxy is another perfect example. Up to version XX (forget which), Firefox honored the environment variables for simple proxy control. And one day- BAM, it is just broken. An addon came out to work around the problem, and many years later, there is STILL no native fix. And WebExtensions will take away that solution, too.
So please understand why I am complaining so loudly. It isn't just about not liking change, there are real issues that leave me and others in a real pickle.
I understand their reason and desire to switch to webextension, but the issue is that there are some things that many of us need to do that NO "webextension" addon is going to be allowed to do. This is because these new addons will not be allowed to modify the UI or underlying operation of the browser. Three such examples:
FlashStopper (stops html5 video autoplay)
ClassicThemeRestorer (makes the UI bearable)
EnvironmentProxy (sets proxy based on environment variables)
I am confident other important addons will be retained- I already see that UblockOrigin, Adblock Plus (as "AdBlock 57+"), and NukeAnything all work. But I can't bear to use the browser without certain other things.
Fingerprint blocking is a good feature, unlike the last unnecessary "screen print" or whatever feature. However, I won't be "upgrading" because half the addons I need won't work. :( I suspect a lot of us will be stuck on older versions of Firefox for quite a while...
+100
It is a great piece of software. They don't ruin it with stupid UI changes, either. It is straight-forward, reliable, fast, and yet very powerful.
>"While there is a microSD card slot for expandable storage, there is no headphone jack, no waterproofing, and no wireless charging.
Companies still are not listening. It seems many of us want:
1) Larger batteries/ removable batteries
2) Larger storage
3) Wireless charging
4) Headphone jack
5) Stock/plain Android (or as close as possible)
6) Water and drop resistance (reliability/robustness)
7) Works on all carriers and unlocked
It sounds like this company got a few things right (large battery and SD slot) but still focus on more useless resolution and more RAM than probably ever needed. Many people also are looking for SMALLER SCREENS (5") but without sacrificing specs (they want a small phone, not an under-powered/under-featured phone).
>"Yes, let's just have cars broadcasting their speed. If you thought red light cameras were bad, this would have been worse."
Exactly. Much, much, much worse. And "about to run a red light" alert, so people can now just feel like running lights without worrying as much? (The law of unintended consequences). I am not anti-technology, but we need to be very, very careful when running into something like this. Perhaps each part needs to be examined individually for relevance, cost, privacy, and abuse potential. What exactly is the "other information" being broadcast? Your VIN number or license plate????
I WOULD be in favor of broadcasting when you put your foot on the brake and HOW HARD the car is decelerating. I am not quite sure how that information could be abused, as long as your vehicle is not logging it. Of course, we are also already doing that- it is called brake lights. The "how hard braking" could be as simple as modulating the lights when passing a certain threshold.
Much of it is redundant, anyway. Sensors for smart cars can already track vehicles around the car, where they are, which direction they are going, speed, etc. My pretty-old 2009 vehicle can already do that with its on-board laser for traffic ahead (it is what is used for the adaptive cruise control system). Many new vehicles already have blind-spot sensors (that work very well) and backup cameras and sensors, etc.
>"These ones are from the one factory where none of the laborers have killed themselves by jumping into the machine since the last maintenance cycle."
LOL (although I shouldn't)!
OK, I can't resist: these models are "cruelty-free"
>" In other words the SkyHawk AI is more robust than the standard SkyHawk and transfers data 1.9 per cent faster. Otherwise it seems identical."
And it might actually be identical in every way. This is not uncommon in many industries- to sell identical machines, parts, products, whatever, but with glitzy marketing, different packaging, and a better warranty. In such cases, one is actually just paying more to get a longer warranty.
I am just speculating here, I have no evidence either way with the SkyHawk AI. Perhaps they use better construction, higher quality bearings, improved assembly, or maybe tweaked firmware. But if they don't specifically mention HOW this drive is actually better (what hardware or methods make it different), then I would be very skeptical about it actually being any better (at least as far as MTBF).
>"I solved the overload problem by simply taking all the social media apps off my phone. Now, unless I decide to sit down at a computer I can not get immersed in the cult."
+1 good job! I wish more people would at LEAST do that- get rid of social media on their phones. People can be so incredibly rude and mindless with their eyes constantly glued to a phone all day long.
Myself, I have never even HAD any social media accounts (other than Slashdot and a few forums, which I only access from home on my desktop computer, at a time of my choosing). Why? Because I knew in advance it was something that was full of strife, pettiness, and nonsense coupled with severe privacy invasion and distraction.
And Email- that doesn't go to my phone, either. I have a work account and a few home accounts, and I access them from desktops when I am ready and want to, a few times a day.
I would hate to feel compelled to constantly look at my phone or respond to crap. My sanity is worth more to me than that... looks like it is for you, too. :)
>>AMD has similar features in theirs as well.
>Do you have any evidence of this? I'd like to learn more about that
A link or two would be nice.
Platform Security Processor (PSP); it is exactly the same as Intel's backdoor- hardware based, secret, non-controllable.
https://hothardware.com/news/a...
https://www.techpowerup.com/23...
https://libreboot.org/amd-libr...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
>"Long term, there will be power and a way to fuel the generator. The OP wasn't thinking. Period."
Um, sorry, but the OP *is* thinking. I asked a question if this was temporary or not and that is perfectly valid. You are assuming that it is temporary. What do you base your answer on? A guess?
If they just need temporary power, then all they need is some fuel. That would be a hell of a lot easier/cheaper to get them than a million dollar (?) solar array and battery system.