Why does Google know the number of visits to FTP servers from Chrome ?
Because Chrome users have opted into sending anonymous coverage data to Google in exchange for Google developers not deprecating and removing features that the users use on grounds that nobody uses them.
Marking cleartext HTTP as "not secure" is actually the eventual plan, as I understand blog posts by Google, Mozilla, and DigiCert. First documents delivered over HTTP containing a password form was marked not secure. Then documents delivered over HTTP containing any forms. Then documents delivered over HTTP containing scripts. And finally, all documents delivered over HTTP other than from localhost.
you practically need a download manager because the browsers will just choke
I download large files over HTTP using wget.
True, GNU Wget offers more robust resume support than a web browser. But it illustrates guruevi's point because it's a download manager, not a browser.
Usually "academia" has loads of bandwidth including Internet2 availability. Many of my Linux distro's mirrors are.edu domains. I get a lot more than 128kbps on those downloads (usually more like 5-10 MB/s) despite having no affiliation with the university at all. How are you possibly constrained to such a low speed?
Just a guess, but perhaps the high speeds are available only to people who have an affiliation with some university, even if not the same university. Transfers between one university and the other are fast; transfers to or from the "public" are slow.
a system that requires multiple ports with connections established in different directions
A data connection established with PORT does go in the opposite direction of the control connection. But I thought PASV, which runs both connections in the same direction and cooperates better with NAT, had become more common. The exception is so-called "FXP" transfers from one server to another, where the client opens control connections to two servers and sends PASV to one and PORT to the other in order not to have to bounce a file off a residential last mile.
To what extent do common clients and servers for SSH, the session protocol underlying SFTP, support sessions that do not require authenticating with a username and password or username and public key?
iOS isn't even a serious option as long as it forces users to use Apple's repository
Technically, you don't absolutely have to use Apple's repository. Instead, you can download an app's source code to your Mac and use Xcode to build it for testing on your iPod, iPhone, or iPad.
Only because the alternative to upgrade is remote exploitation when an intruder uses a vulnerability in system software that has reached its end of official support on hardware that has reached its end of official support. Or is Lineage OS recommended?
Including Microsoft's purported equivalent to Android? If so, how did you manage your migration from Windows Phone when Microsoft announced its end of life?
Good luck with that when you are out of the house. Many home ISPs block incoming connections through a firewall that the user lacks power to override, such as carrier-grade NAT, or disconnect subscribers who run an Internet-accessible server on a home subscription. Should users in such a situation lease a VPS?
That's not how amazon works. Amazon gives the seller a "credit" for the amount of shipping regardless of what the actual shipping is.
Are you referring to media products (books, music CDs, DVDs, etc.) or non-media products?
It would work much better if the seller could actually set the shipping rate and give discounts for multiple items shipped together like you can on ebay.
Shouldn't shipping be free or at least some low nominal value?
The "low nominal value" is for economy shipping methods, such as Parcel Select or UPS Ground, assuming the total of items from a single seller meets a minimum size. An order that doesn't meet the minimum size incurs a fee because small orders are proportionally more expensive per item to ship. So does one for which a faster shipping method is selected without an annual subscription to faster shipping at that address.
If you buy from a brick and mortar retailer in your city, it has already paid for shipping from the distributor/manufacturer's city to your city.
Did you open the map application for the first time with coarse location sources turned off, see it fail to find an access point in 5 seconds, and close it? If so, the failure is explainable.
If operated with help from coarse location sources, such as the location of a nearby access point, a GPS receiver can request the almanac and ephemeris from a server through the Internet, guess where the satellites are likely to be, and quickly refine the coarse location. Otherwise, it has to trilaterate its position from the satellites' signals from scratch, which involves waiting for the periodic broadcast of the almanac and ephemeris. This may take a minute, or 15 minutes if you haven't turned on the receiver in several months.
Someone with permission to change preferences but not permission to access Chrome Web Store can still activate Firefox tracking protection
Correction in case someone plays the pedant card: "Someone with permission to change preferences but not permission to install extensions from addons.mozilla.org or Chrome Web Store can still activate Firefox tracking protection"
For a Firefox user who can access a search engine but cannot access addons.mozilla.org for whatever reason, turning on tracking protection blocks communication with ad servers and other servers that track users. For a Chrome user who can access a search engine but cannot access Chrome Web Store for whatever reason, how would you go about doing the same?
The difference is plausible deniability. If a feature is built into the web browser, it's a bit harder for an ad network operator to draft a demand letter to cause it to be taken down than if it were in an extension.
So you concede that in a default installation there is no difference in this respect between the two browsers
There is no difference in default behavior between the two browsers. However, there is a difference in the behavior that the user can select without needing to download and install an additional extension. Firefox offers tracking protection as a preference; Chrome requires a trip to the Chrome Web Store.
and that what separates the Savior of the Web from the Great Evil is that one would require a third party extension to change something that the other allows changing via a menu that 99% of users don't even know exists?
Correct. Someone with permission to change preferences but not permission to access Chrome Web Store can still activate Firefox tracking protection after looking up how to do so through a search on DuckDuckGo or Bing.
No, the correct response is to recognise that copyright law is entirely broken
Agreed.
and to act accordingly.
If something is "entirely broken", sitting around and complaining that it is "entirely broken" will fix nothing. "[T]o act accordingly", you will have to instead make a plan to fix that which is "entirely broken". This may involve forming your own distributor so that campaign and PAC contributions from your distributor can outweigh campaign and PAC contributions from other distributors who take advantage of the "entirely broken" situation.
Slashdot Mirror
Why does Google know the number of visits to FTP servers from Chrome ?
Because Chrome users have opted into sending anonymous coverage data to Google in exchange for Google developers not deprecating and removing features that the users use on grounds that nobody uses them.
Marking cleartext HTTP as "not secure" is actually the eventual plan, as I understand blog posts by Google, Mozilla, and DigiCert. First documents delivered over HTTP containing a password form was marked not secure. Then documents delivered over HTTP containing any forms. Then documents delivered over HTTP containing scripts. And finally, all documents delivered over HTTP other than from localhost.
It's a better use of just about anything I can think of to encrypt the file or make a secure hash of it or whatever ONCE, and transmit it in the clear
If you transmit the hash in the clear, a man in the middle can alter the hash in transit.
you practically need a download manager because the browsers will just choke
I download large files over HTTP using wget.
True, GNU Wget offers more robust resume support than a web browser. But it illustrates guruevi's point because it's a download manager, not a browser.
Usually "academia" has loads of bandwidth including Internet2 availability. Many of my Linux distro's mirrors are .edu domains. I get a lot more than 128kbps on those downloads (usually more like 5-10 MB/s) despite having no affiliation with the university at all. How are you possibly constrained to such a low speed?
Just a guess, but perhaps the high speeds are available only to people who have an affiliation with some university, even if not the same university. Transfers between one university and the other are fast; transfers to or from the "public" are slow.
FTP works just fine for moving files around.
But what works fine for ensuring that the file the receiver receives is identical to the file the sender sent?
a system that requires multiple ports with connections established in different directions
A data connection established with PORT does go in the opposite direction of the control connection. But I thought PASV, which runs both connections in the same direction and cooperates better with NAT, had become more common. The exception is so-called "FXP" transfers from one server to another, where the client opens control connections to two servers and sends PASV to one and PORT to the other in order not to have to bounce a file off a residential last mile.
Uploads through the POST method require a server-side script. But I thought a server could handle the PUT method by itself.
To what extent do common clients and servers for SSH, the session protocol underlying SFTP, support sessions that do not require authenticating with a username and password or username and public key?
People have the choice to buy the handset up front and use it with prepaid service.
iOS isn't even a serious option as long as it forces users to use Apple's repository
Technically, you don't absolutely have to use Apple's repository. Instead, you can download an app's source code to your Mac and use Xcode to build it for testing on your iPod, iPhone, or iPad.
You chose to upgrade.
Only because the alternative to upgrade is remote exploitation when an intruder uses a vulnerability in system software that has reached its end of official support on hardware that has reached its end of official support. Or is Lineage OS recommended?
We use Microsoft's equivalents
Including Microsoft's purported equivalent to Android? If so, how did you manage your migration from Windows Phone when Microsoft announced its end of life?
my home server
Good luck with that when you are out of the house. Many home ISPs block incoming connections through a firewall that the user lacks power to override, such as carrier-grade NAT, or disconnect subscribers who run an Internet-accessible server on a home subscription. Should users in such a situation lease a VPS?
If you think you can tax revenue, your smoking something good. What would your tax rate be?
A typical value added tax in a European country is in the neighborhood of 20 percent.
That's not how amazon works. Amazon gives the seller a "credit" for the amount of shipping regardless of what the actual shipping is.
Are you referring to media products (books, music CDs, DVDs, etc.) or non-media products?
It would work much better if the seller could actually set the shipping rate and give discounts for multiple items shipped together like you can on ebay.
Amazon works this way for professional sellers of non-media products. This R/C car dealer in Fort Wayne, Indiana, gave discounts for combined shipping last I checked.
Shouldn't shipping be free or at least some low nominal value?
The "low nominal value" is for economy shipping methods, such as Parcel Select or UPS Ground, assuming the total of items from a single seller meets a minimum size. An order that doesn't meet the minimum size incurs a fee because small orders are proportionally more expensive per item to ship. So does one for which a faster shipping method is selected without an annual subscription to faster shipping at that address.
If you buy from a brick and mortar retailer in your city, it has already paid for shipping from the distributor/manufacturer's city to your city.
But not to your door.
Did you open the map application for the first time with coarse location sources turned off, see it fail to find an access point in 5 seconds, and close it? If so, the failure is explainable.
If operated with help from coarse location sources, such as the location of a nearby access point, a GPS receiver can request the almanac and ephemeris from a server through the Internet, guess where the satellites are likely to be, and quickly refine the coarse location. Otherwise, it has to trilaterate its position from the satellites' signals from scratch, which involves waiting for the periodic broadcast of the almanac and ephemeris. This may take a minute, or 15 minutes if you haven't turned on the receiver in several months.
Someone with permission to change preferences but not permission to access Chrome Web Store can still activate Firefox tracking protection
Correction in case someone plays the pedant card: "Someone with permission to change preferences but not permission to install extensions from addons.mozilla.org or Chrome Web Store can still activate Firefox tracking protection"
For a Firefox user who can access a search engine but cannot access addons.mozilla.org for whatever reason, turning on tracking protection blocks communication with ad servers and other servers that track users. For a Chrome user who can access a search engine but cannot access Chrome Web Store for whatever reason, how would you go about doing the same?
The difference is plausible deniability. If a feature is built into the web browser, it's a bit harder for an ad network operator to draft a demand letter to cause it to be taken down than if it were in an extension.
So you concede that in a default installation there is no difference in this respect between the two browsers
There is no difference in default behavior between the two browsers. However, there is a difference in the behavior that the user can select without needing to download and install an additional extension. Firefox offers tracking protection as a preference; Chrome requires a trip to the Chrome Web Store.
and that what separates the Savior of the Web from the Great Evil is that one would require a third party extension to change something that the other allows changing via a menu that 99% of users don't even know exists?
Correct. Someone with permission to change preferences but not permission to access Chrome Web Store can still activate Firefox tracking protection after looking up how to do so through a search on DuckDuckGo or Bing.
How much does it cost to prepare and file a trademark registration in all countries of the world?
No, the correct response is to recognise that copyright law is entirely broken
Agreed.
and to act accordingly.
If something is "entirely broken", sitting around and complaining that it is "entirely broken" will fix nothing. "[T]o act accordingly", you will have to instead make a plan to fix that which is "entirely broken". This may involve forming your own distributor so that campaign and PAC contributions from your distributor can outweigh campaign and PAC contributions from other distributors who take advantage of the "entirely broken" situation.
I wasn't asking for Restore Previous Session to restore my form data. I want Firefox not to close when I accidentally press Ctrl+Q.
It isn't their trademark until they start doing business in the country
The Kodi project has distributed its software to users in other countries. What is "doing business"?