I am not a programmer... but it seems absolutely amazing to me that since this vulnerability has become known (10 years?) nothing has been done to address it. The only two ways to avoid having your history accessed this way, is either to prevent your browser from marking sites as "visited" altogether, or to regularly delete your browsing history.
How is it that Firefox, an open-source browser, still hasn't had this issue fixed in all these years?..
The real problem is the sentencing guidelines. A true child rapist should go away for life in prison. Then this wouldn't be an issue. I am not talking about statutory rapists, I mean the ones who really prey on children.
What does "a true child rapist" mean?
If it means someone who has actually raped a child, then I would agree. But if it means someone convicted of the crime by a jury, then you have to consider how many wrongful convictions are handed out. Actually, wasn't there a story just recently about a teacher who was finally cleared of child sex abuse charges that stemmed from children who were made to testify against her through continued suggestions by the authorities?
Calling for harsher sentences is what gets you labeled as "tough on crime"... but in the real world it is a more complex issue.
You're actually right. Any rapist should go away for life.
Yes, because every person convicted of rape in this country is guilty of willfully violating someone.
I can think of few crimes where guilt or innocence can be as ambiguous post-facto as when concerning rape. Frequently it's a he-said/she-said scenario.
You want to lock up anyone convicted of rape for life? Fine.
But figure something like 2-10% of those people will have committed no crime at all. How many innocent people is it ok to imprison for life? 10000? 1000? 100?
Once you start allowing this sort of action, where's the protection that keeps it from growing into something else?
Are we going to start seeing 18 year-olds locked up forever because they had sex with a girl a few months younger than them?
Undoubtedly. If we can put two 16-year-olds in prison for taping themselves having sex (and not sharing with anyone) as "manufacturers of child pornography", and put at this point hundreds of teenagers on the "sex offender list" for texting each other their private parts, then yes, it is likely that with this decision in the near future we will see teenagers go to prison forever, because they defied their teacher, the cops, or just some prude who couldn't get laid if he/she tried.
Until we figure out a way to legislate in a way that applies some degree of common sense, this sort of thing just can't be allowed.
Well, evidently not only is it allowed, but our highest court agrees also. So I guess you're on the losing side of the issue. Before someone goes through your cache and locates a thumbnail, which has a 17 +364 day old doing naughty things and thus puts you in prison for life, you better get with the program. Cause in a dictatorship of the bureaucracy, you'll find that dissent of any sort will result in the entire collection of laws to be applied to you. And at this point, we've got enough laws to make anyone a criminal, as long as you try hard enough.
Overall, given the reviews of the literature it's still unclear whether there's a potential for long-term health damage.
However, even if there was, I doubt anyone will care. The security theater must be kept up, even if it means that people would be harmed by repeated exposure.
"Sir, we will protect you from yourself, even if it kills you".
The Texas revisionism is a reactionary policy, brought about by the resurgence of the "us-vs-them" mentality. Whether justified or not, they are scared, and are lashing out in reprisal. And the reaction that this evokes, is further vilification of anyone who dares call themselves conservative by the representative of the left.
How can any voice of reason expect to be heard, when they will be labeled a "bleeding heart liberal" by the right, and "extremist right-winger" by the left?
This isn't meant to justify the changes Texas plans to its curriculum - they are atrocious to be sure. But Mr. Lee's response to it simply reeks. He'd like to protect against the conservative revisionism by ensuring the leftist revisionism.
It's not about a "flair for the dramatic", it's about getting votes by creating an enemy against which you can unite the masses. For the Democrats, it's the Republicans. Likewise, for the Republicans, it's the "eastern elites" and "liberals". We can't run the country this way anymore, as it's clear that we're running it into the ground.
Ubuntu Light will not have any traditional file management and it will come with a few applications installed for web, media, mail etc.
This is what really caught my eye.
From the iPhone to the new Ubuntu, the wet dream of Hollywood and RIAA - a closed user-inaccessible file system seems to be making the rounds everywhere, including (evidently) in open source. It seem to be a part of an overall push not just to wring the last bits of control from the hands of the users, but to ensure that the users will be content consumers, not content creators.
If there really is going to be some "tail-to-tooth" transfer of spending, it'll be a very welcome change.
However, I am a bit peeved at the mention of "military healthcare". Given the atrocious cuts in services for veterans who've been injured in combat, I think that is the one area where the government needs to do more.
After all, if we ask people to lose limbs for us, it's only fair if we at least take care of them, when they come back from the battlefield with life-altering disabilities. It doesn't really matter what wars they were fighting. They are OUR soldiers, and it's our duty as a nation to support them, regardless of whether we support the politics that brought them to the battlefield.
Why Flamebait? Because I disagree with the direction our government is continuing to pursue, regardless of countless promises to do otherwise? Because I bring to the attention of others the fact that President Obama's administration is pursuing the same destructive policies that were criticized by candidate Obama during the campaign?
So basically I get modded down because I try to bring some reality into the fanclub? Or simply because I disagree?
Federal regulators are endorsing Hollywood's efforts to let cable and satellite TV companies turn off output connections on the back of set-top boxes to prevent illegal copying of movies
Good. Turning off ALL the outputs will certainly prevent those movies from being copied. I've always thought that such an approach will be the ultimately successful DRM the companies are looking for.
That's not "Insightful" in any way. It's a gross straw-man argument.
Dude, slippery slope arguments are stupid. You like to be able to go over the speed limit, and speed cameras make it difficult to do so. Just be honest and say that, don't make some stupid slippery slope argument about privacy.
That's another straw-man. I want to go faster I can now, given the limit, not because I am so eager to break the law, but because they are set too low, in order to generate more revenue for the state/city/municipality etc...
There are many laws, and the fact that something is law, doesn't make it gospel. Just because it's on the books, doesn't mean it's right.
That's pretty shaky ground. Laws are there for a reason. You can't just chop and choose what laws you want to follow. If it isn't gospel, then it shouldn't be a law in the first place.
I concede that you and I don't make the laws, we have to abide by them, but still it's not a defence to say "I don't agree this stupid law."
Actually, the defence of "I didn't agree with the guy who's trying to uphold the law, so I shot him" might be even more tenuous, but that's another kettle of fish:)
Laws are there for a reason. Doesn't mean it's a good reason, and doesn't mean that I can't oppose a law, and aim to have it repealed.
There are many laws, and the fact that something is law, doesn't make it gospel. Just because it's on the books, doesn't mean it's right.
On the highways, away from residential areas, speeding laws are generally solely structured to bring in more income.
In NY, there are areas where highways have 50mph speed limits... or even 45mph... despite a wide, straight (or nearly so) well-paved road.
Ultimately, laws are meant to be the projection of the will of the people, moderated by the Constitutional interpretations of the Supreme Court... and we don't want the speed cameras.
Speed cameras, like any other Big Brother tools, reproduce by binary fission. Usually, once you agree to one, suddenly you find yourself facing down the lens everywhere you go. Just look at the folks across the ocean. They used to be a proud empire, now even their most fervent US-mockers recognize the extent to which their freedom has been curtailed.
The fact that folks in Arizona managed to get rid of the cameras is a testament to the fact that at least some of the U.S. still values their freedom, and that the Big Brother is not yet fully in control.
Also, if you read the article it appears as if that one incident wasn't the chief reason the cameras were scrapped, but rather that it was a contentious issue for the November ballot that they didn't want to deal with.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not a programmer... but it seems absolutely amazing to me that since this vulnerability has become known (10 years?) nothing has been done to address it. The only two ways to avoid having your history accessed this way, is either to prevent your browser from marking sites as "visited" altogether, or to regularly delete your browsing history.
How is it that Firefox, an open-source browser, still hasn't had this issue fixed in all these years?..
The real problem is the sentencing guidelines. A true child rapist should go away for life in prison. Then this wouldn't be an issue. I am not talking about statutory rapists, I mean the ones who really prey on children.
What does "a true child rapist" mean?
If it means someone who has actually raped a child, then I would agree. But if it means someone convicted of the crime by a jury, then you have to consider how many wrongful convictions are handed out. Actually, wasn't there a story just recently about a teacher who was finally cleared of child sex abuse charges that stemmed from children who were made to testify against her through continued suggestions by the authorities?
Calling for harsher sentences is what gets you labeled as "tough on crime"... but in the real world it is a more complex issue.
You're actually right. Any rapist should go away for life.
Yes, because every person convicted of rape in this country is guilty of willfully violating someone.
I can think of few crimes where guilt or innocence can be as ambiguous post-facto as when concerning rape. Frequently it's a he-said/she-said scenario.
You want to lock up anyone convicted of rape for life? Fine.
But figure something like 2-10% of those people will have committed no crime at all. How many innocent people is it ok to imprison for life? 10000? 1000? 100?
Once you start allowing this sort of action, where's the protection that keeps it from growing into something else?
Are we going to start seeing 18 year-olds locked up forever because they had sex with a girl a few months younger than them?
Undoubtedly. If we can put two 16-year-olds in prison for taping themselves having sex (and not sharing with anyone) as "manufacturers of child pornography", and put at this point hundreds of teenagers on the "sex offender list" for texting each other their private parts, then yes, it is likely that with this decision in the near future we will see teenagers go to prison forever, because they defied their teacher, the cops, or just some prude who couldn't get laid if he/she tried.
Until we figure out a way to legislate in a way that applies some degree of common sense, this sort of thing just can't be allowed.
Well, evidently not only is it allowed, but our highest court agrees also. So I guess you're on the losing side of the issue. Before someone goes through your cache and locates a thumbnail, which has a 17 +364 day old doing naughty things and thus puts you in prison for life, you better get with the program. Cause in a dictatorship of the bureaucracy, you'll find that dissent of any sort will result in the entire collection of laws to be applied to you. And at this point, we've got enough laws to make anyone a criminal, as long as you try hard enough.
Thanks for correcting me. I'm writing my thesis, so my brain is deep-fried.
There's already been studies looking at changes in gene expression following millimeter-wave irradiation of skin: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18302488
Overall, given the reviews of the literature it's still unclear whether there's a potential for long-term health damage.
However, even if there was, I doubt anyone will care. The security theater must be kept up, even if it means that people would be harmed by repeated exposure.
"Sir, we will protect you from yourself, even if it kills you".
Wish I had mod points.
The Texas revisionism is a reactionary policy, brought about by the resurgence of the "us-vs-them" mentality. Whether justified or not, they are scared, and are lashing out in reprisal. And the reaction that this evokes, is further vilification of anyone who dares call themselves conservative by the representative of the left.
How can any voice of reason expect to be heard, when they will be labeled a "bleeding heart liberal" by the right, and "extremist right-winger" by the left?
This isn't meant to justify the changes Texas plans to its curriculum - they are atrocious to be sure. But Mr. Lee's response to it simply reeks. He'd like to protect against the conservative revisionism by ensuring the leftist revisionism.
It's not about a "flair for the dramatic", it's about getting votes by creating an enemy against which you can unite the masses. For the Democrats, it's the Republicans. Likewise, for the Republicans, it's the "eastern elites" and "liberals". We can't run the country this way anymore, as it's clear that we're running it into the ground.
I challenge my 13 yo sister whenever I see her to explore and open her up to new experiences. While she does it under my supervision
That just sounds SOOO wrong.
Big Media translated: "waaah we're too lazy to do our own work so we want the government to shut down Youtube."
Response of customers: "I've had it up to here with DRM, 'copy protection', and all the other anti-consumer shit. Big Media can go fuck themselves."
In addition: most of the stuff I've seen on Youtube should be covered under Fair Use, especially parodies. So double-fuck-you to the MafiAA.
Big media response to the viewers: "See, piracy is affecting out business".
Btw - viewers are very rarely "customers". Certainly for TV programming they are not, the advertisers are.
The customers are those who pay money to receive a product or service. The viewers are consumers.
You missed the third tool - a hammer.
If neither the duct tape nor wd-40 work, use a hammer.
People who can't manage a simple branched hierachy of files, usually aren't doing much "content creation".
Ubuntu Light will not have any traditional file management and it will come with a few applications installed for web, media, mail etc.
This is what really caught my eye.
From the iPhone to the new Ubuntu, the wet dream of Hollywood and RIAA - a closed user-inaccessible file system seems to be making the rounds everywhere, including (evidently) in open source. It seem to be a part of an overall push not just to wring the last bits of control from the hands of the users, but to ensure that the users will be content consumers, not content creators.
Indeed.
If there really is going to be some "tail-to-tooth" transfer of spending, it'll be a very welcome change.
However, I am a bit peeved at the mention of "military healthcare". Given the atrocious cuts in services for veterans who've been injured in combat, I think that is the one area where the government needs to do more.
After all, if we ask people to lose limbs for us, it's only fair if we at least take care of them, when they come back from the battlefield with life-altering disabilities. It doesn't really matter what wars they were fighting. They are OUR soldiers, and it's our duty as a nation to support them, regardless of whether we support the politics that brought them to the battlefield.
Why Flamebait? Because I disagree with the direction our government is continuing to pursue, regardless of countless promises to do otherwise? Because I bring to the attention of others the fact that President Obama's administration is pursuing the same destructive policies that were criticized by candidate Obama during the campaign?
So basically I get modded down because I try to bring some reality into the fanclub? Or simply because I disagree?
Apparently, for some Slashdot readers, political sanity means supporting a fully-Goldman Sachs administration.
Is that enough change for you? Cause it certainly doesn't inspire much hope in me.
Federal regulators are endorsing Hollywood's efforts to let cable and satellite TV companies turn off output connections on the back of set-top boxes to prevent illegal copying of movies
Good. Turning off ALL the outputs will certainly prevent those movies from being copied. I've always thought that such an approach will be the ultimately successful DRM the companies are looking for.
That's actually where our societies are going.
(Unless of course you actually are a terrorist, in which case, I hope a camera catches you the same way the one in times square got caught.)
Except of course the camera had nothing to do with his apprehension.
But don't let facts ruin your ridiculous ad-hominem tirade.
That's not "Insightful" in any way. It's a gross straw-man argument.
Dude, slippery slope arguments are stupid. You like to be able to go over the speed limit, and speed cameras make it difficult to do so. Just be honest and say that, don't make some stupid slippery slope argument about privacy.
That's another straw-man. I want to go faster I can now, given the limit, not because I am so eager to break the law, but because they are set too low, in order to generate more revenue for the state/city/municipality etc...
There are many laws, and the fact that something is law, doesn't make it gospel. Just because it's on the books, doesn't mean it's right.
That's pretty shaky ground. Laws are there for a reason. You can't just chop and choose what laws you want to follow. If it isn't gospel, then it shouldn't be a law in the first place.
I concede that you and I don't make the laws, we have to abide by them, but still it's not a defence to say "I don't agree this stupid law."
Actually, the defence of "I didn't agree with the guy who's trying to uphold the law, so I shot him" might be even more tenuous, but that's another kettle of fish :)
Laws are there for a reason. Doesn't mean it's a good reason, and doesn't mean that I can't oppose a law, and aim to have it repealed.
There are many laws, and the fact that something is law, doesn't make it gospel. Just because it's on the books, doesn't mean it's right.
On the highways, away from residential areas, speeding laws are generally solely structured to bring in more income.
In NY, there are areas where highways have 50mph speed limits... or even 45mph... despite a wide, straight (or nearly so) well-paved road.
Ultimately, laws are meant to be the projection of the will of the people, moderated by the Constitutional interpretations of the Supreme Court... and we don't want the speed cameras.
Speed cameras, like any other Big Brother tools, reproduce by binary fission. Usually, once you agree to one, suddenly you find yourself facing down the lens everywhere you go. Just look at the folks across the ocean. They used to be a proud empire, now even their most fervent US-mockers recognize the extent to which their freedom has been curtailed.
The fact that folks in Arizona managed to get rid of the cameras is a testament to the fact that at least some of the U.S. still values their freedom, and that the Big Brother is not yet fully in control.
Also, if you read the article it appears as if that one incident wasn't the chief reason the cameras were scrapped, but rather that it was a contentious issue for the November ballot that they didn't want to deal with.
We're not the UK yet, we don't need this crap here.
/puts on sunglasses
YEAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!
Better than nothing, no?