Don't be fooled into calling this ActiveX 2.0 â" rather than a model of trust and authentication, NaCl is designed to make dangerous code impossible by enforcing a set of a rules at load time that guarantee hostile code simply cannot execute (PDF).
So what you're saying is..
Using just one half of NaCl could be poisonous, but when sprinkled atop the web as one all is well?
The law was found unconstitutional or rejected by five different courts that I'm aware of, but it was still an unnecessary and fruitless burden on online businesses for 11 years while the bill's injunction was in appeals.
notice the referrer id in the affiliate link (using commission junction, a spammers haven) instead of a direct link, way to go with the quality articles Slashdot
That's not a referrer id that will get anyone paid, except for Best Buy. The "refid" in the URL is just so that you're shown the Best Buy Program's info instead of a generic CJ one.
Of course this is fact instead of hyperbole, so, proof [that you didn't provide] provided:
Apologies to MrEricSir, as he posted on this sort of but I wanted to write my own opinion.
This is textbook sampling bias. It's just now getting to the point that the "average user" might be someone who is even using FireFox. There is no way the people that install this addon and submit their usage to Mozilla will be representative of anything useful at all.
Unfortunately, to get the "average user", Mozilla probably need run some "punch the monkey" banners on MySpace - offering people a free iPod and a trip to a tropical destination, in exchange for installing this addon. Maybe they can use some of their Googlefortune.
It's unfortunate that the US has little to no consumer protection, here in Australia there's the TIO (www.tio.gov.au) or the state based Consumer Affairs/Department of Fair Trading that deals with these issues. At the mere mention of these bodies the carriers quickly release you from contract, or prepare for a massive legal battle without any cost to you.
I just visited MTV.com (bleck) from my TWC connection, sure enough, there's a white popup with a red bold heading: ALERT! ALERT! ALERT!
Attention Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks customers, starting tonight, you will lose your favorite MTV shows on TV and online because of a dispute with Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks. You can stop this! Time Warner Cable customers call 1-800-762-3786 and Bright House Networks customers call 1-866-309-3279, AND DEMAND THEY KEEP YOUR CHANNEL! YOU MUST BE AT LEAST 18 YEARS OLD TO CALL.
Amusingly, I refreshed the site to get this text and the box didn't show. Checked my cookies, it sets a cookie called "projxcookie" to "yes". Deleted/refreshed, and here it is again.
I buy these bulbs, at about $1.25 per. Their color temperature seems closest to true daylight to me, and I've tried almost all of the different bulbs marketed as such. I hate the orange-ish glow of the "normal" bulbs now, and hate all of the CFLs' color I've tried too.
The only thing I really don't like about it is that the start bar doesn't have "run" on it the way XP does, but other than that, Vista is better.
That little "search" textbox at the bottom will also run programs with the same context as the run dialog (which is still available via Winkey+R), try doing `ping` or `cmd` to see.
How come everyone assumes people won't accept a tax increase to fund education?
I can tell you that where I spent election day at, virtually all local tax levies for education were defeated. If you're unfamiliar with the system, the basics are that: if you live in the school district, you get to vote on whether to fund or not fund a tax "levy" to provide funding to the schools. This normally increases the tax rate that is assessed on any real property (your house) that you own.
The typical levy I saw that failed this year would have increased a $100k (average) home's taxes by about $500/year.
I think you're probably spot on here about what will actually happen if BT/uTorrent goes forward with this.
VoIP streams only use up a few kBps, even 4 lines going simultaneously will only use about 12 kB/s. I suspect it will be pretty easy for them to implement shaping to handle these issues.
Some net appliance vendor (Sandvine?) is going to make a killing in the next year.
I thought it would be a bit longer before we saw some real world tests of net neutrality issues, perhaps not.
Their target customer "surfs the web", and checks their email.
Their high-maintenance customers, who complain about latency issues, throughput, etc. are the ones who use UDP in any significant volume.
UDP is used for online gaming, VoIP, etc. They will just start to deprioritize UDP, which is bad. 99% of customers won't notice the difference, but we will.
I clicked the first image that caught my eye on that page, which took me here.
This is a Toyota concept car, not in production. The first commenter even suggests its a Toyota-copyright-owned image.
Here are some of the images from that series, attributed to a Toyota press release, in Motor Trend.
Now, I think it is rather stupid of Toyota to destroy free PR and goodwill, but this is not a case of people taking pics of their cars in their driveway.
This has been done, but Google now makes seemingly random subsequent visits from cloaked user agents and non-obvious IP blocks, so this vector's effectiveness is very limited now.
What if there's a 10-second delay before the redirect? If your spider leaves the site too soon, it'll never know. In contrast, many users would likely still be on the page after 10 seconds.
Just about any setTimeout()-delivered attack would be effective. Spiders execute a very, very limited subset of JavaScript. And that's only recently, many don't execute any at all still.
There are plenty of rumors that Google is using automated, modified Gecko engines for certain types of spidering. This would allow them to properly execute JavaScript for purposes like this.
This is not nearly as efficient as their normal spider, for obvious reasons, but I think we'll start to see more of it as "blackhat" marketers become more creative in hiding nefarious deeds.
Maybe someone should create a Firefox extension that allows you to optionally hide your referrer only when it would expose a 3rd-party URL.
i.e. you pass a normal referrer if you're clicking from one page to another within the same domain/site, but it's scrubbed if you're coming from one domain to the other. This would fix most of the hotlinking concerns, and still allow a modicum of user privacy.
Marketers (including myself) won't like it, but I'm pro-privacy before pro-marketing.
Slashdot Mirror
So what happens if someone hacks your player^W bank account and takes out a mortgage on your house?
MICHAEL
May-maybe we launder the money.
PETER
That's a great idea. Ok, how do we do that?
MICHAEL
I don't know, I don't know. I don't even know what it means. It's
something I think, I think coke dealers do.
Don't be fooled into calling this ActiveX 2.0 â" rather than a model of trust and authentication, NaCl is designed to make dangerous code impossible by enforcing a set of a rules at load time that guarantee hostile code simply cannot execute (PDF).
So what you're saying is..
Using just one half of NaCl could be poisonous, but when sprinkled atop the web as one all is well?
And how is that different from being forced to pay for closed source development?
Umm, it's not. But insofar the government hasn't mandated us taxpayers to fund closed-source development, either.
I like how you managed to politicize something that isn't partisan at all.
Both parties want tighter control over the internet and will use the "think of the children" crap to garner support for it.
Since Bush's actions are fresh in everyone's minds, lets consider what infamous bill in this area passed under Clinton's watch:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Online_Protection_Act
The law was found unconstitutional or rejected by five different courts that I'm aware of, but it was still an unnecessary and fruitless burden on online businesses for 11 years while the bill's injunction was in appeals.
Once a judgment is collected in a lawsuit, garnishment of wages or liens against assets is generally a viable option for the plaintiff.
IANAL
No one is mandated to buy anything.
notice the referrer id in the affiliate link (using commission junction, a spammers haven) instead of a direct link,
way to go with the quality articles Slashdot
That's not a referrer id that will get anyone paid, except for Best Buy. The "refid" in the URL is just so that you're shown the Best Buy Program's info instead of a generic CJ one.
Of course this is fact instead of hyperbole, so, proof [that you didn't provide] provided:
https://signup.cj.com/member/brandedPublisherSignUp.do?air_refmerchantid=2045991&h=488
https://signup.cj.com/member/brandedPublisherSignUp.do?h=488
This is an interesting point. I guess it just depends on what their goals are.
The way I parsed the summary (this is /.), they were looking to figure out how people "use the internet", in loose terms.
Anyway, good call. We'll see.
Apologies to MrEricSir, as he posted on this sort of but I wanted to write my own opinion.
This is textbook sampling bias. It's just now getting to the point that the "average user" might be someone who is even using FireFox. There is no way the people that install this addon and submit their usage to Mozilla will be representative of anything useful at all.
Unfortunately, to get the "average user", Mozilla probably need run some "punch the monkey" banners on MySpace - offering people a free iPod and a trip to a tropical destination, in exchange for installing this addon. Maybe they can use some of their Googlefortune.
It's unfortunate that the US has little to no consumer protection, here in Australia there's the TIO (www.tio.gov.au) or the state based Consumer Affairs/Department of Fair Trading that deals with these issues. At the mere mention of these bodies the carriers quickly release you from contract, or prepare for a massive legal battle without any cost to you.
www.fcc.gov and www.ftc.gov, respectively.
Of course, its' name could have come from something more benign. Like, say, a celestial body somewhere deep in space.
Or in our own solar system.
Everyone start defending this decision.
It sickens me how blinded people are by partisan politics.
I just visited MTV.com (bleck) from my TWC connection, sure enough, there's a white popup with a red bold heading:
ALERT! ALERT! ALERT!
Attention Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks customers, starting tonight, you will lose your favorite MTV shows on TV and online because of a dispute with Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks. You can stop this! Time Warner Cable customers call 1-800-762-3786 and Bright House Networks customers call 1-866-309-3279, AND DEMAND THEY KEEP YOUR CHANNEL! YOU MUST BE AT LEAST 18 YEARS OLD TO CALL.
Amusingly, I refreshed the site to get this text and the box didn't show. Checked my cookies, it sets a cookie called "projxcookie" to "yes". Deleted/refreshed, and here it is again.
Project X, indeed.
I buy these bulbs, at about $1.25 per. Their color temperature seems closest to true daylight to me, and I've tried almost all of the different bulbs marketed as such. I hate the orange-ish glow of the "normal" bulbs now, and hate all of the CFLs' color I've tried too.
The only thing I really don't like about it is that the start bar doesn't have "run" on it the way XP does, but other than that, Vista is better.
That little "search" textbox at the bottom will also run programs with the same context as the run dialog (which is still available via Winkey+R), try doing `ping` or `cmd` to see.
How come everyone assumes people won't accept a tax increase to fund education?
I can tell you that where I spent election day at, virtually all local tax levies for education were defeated. If you're unfamiliar with the system, the basics are that: if you live in the school district, you get to vote on whether to fund or not fund a tax "levy" to provide funding to the schools. This normally increases the tax rate that is assessed on any real property (your house) that you own.
The typical levy I saw that failed this year would have increased a $100k (average) home's taxes by about $500/year.
I think you're probably spot on here about what will actually happen if BT/uTorrent goes forward with this.
VoIP streams only use up a few kBps, even 4 lines going simultaneously will only use about 12 kB/s. I suspect it will be pretty easy for them to implement shaping to handle these issues.
Some net appliance vendor (Sandvine?) is going to make a killing in the next year.
I thought it would be a bit longer before we saw some real world tests of net neutrality issues, perhaps not.
Except that probably isn't what will happen.
Let's use Comcast as an example.
Their target customer "surfs the web", and checks their email.
Their high-maintenance customers, who complain about latency issues, throughput, etc. are the ones who use UDP in any significant volume.
UDP is used for online gaming, VoIP, etc. They will just start to deprioritize UDP, which is bad. 99% of customers won't notice the difference, but we will.
http://cars.desktopnexus.com/cat/toyota/
I clicked the first image that caught my eye on that page, which took me here.
This is a Toyota concept car, not in production. The first commenter even suggests its a Toyota-copyright-owned image.
Here are some of the images from that series, attributed to a Toyota press release, in Motor Trend.
Now, I think it is rather stupid of Toyota to destroy free PR and goodwill, but this is not a case of people taking pics of their cars in their driveway.
This has been done, but Google now makes seemingly random subsequent visits from cloaked user agents and non-obvious IP blocks, so this vector's effectiveness is very limited now.
What if there's a 10-second delay before the redirect? If your spider leaves the site too soon, it'll never know. In contrast, many users would likely still be on the page after 10 seconds.
Just about any setTimeout()-delivered attack would be effective. Spiders execute a very, very limited subset of JavaScript. And that's only recently, many don't execute any at all still.
There are plenty of rumors that Google is using automated, modified Gecko engines for certain types of spidering. This would allow them to properly execute JavaScript for purposes like this.
This is not nearly as efficient as their normal spider, for obvious reasons, but I think we'll start to see more of it as "blackhat" marketers become more creative in hiding nefarious deeds.
Maybe someone should create a Firefox extension that allows you to optionally hide your referrer only when it would expose a 3rd-party URL.
i.e. you pass a normal referrer if you're clicking from one page to another within the same domain/site, but it's scrubbed if you're coming from one domain to the other. This would fix most of the hotlinking concerns, and still allow a modicum of user privacy.
Marketers (including myself) won't like it, but I'm pro-privacy before pro-marketing.
Do you believe every salesman that comes to your door?
Of course I do. Just last week I got a great deal on some volcano insurance.
I was WOOSHing the parent. =(