NoScript was the only thing keeping our computers on Firefox.
NoScript has been updated to work on Firefox now but its interface has changed drastically. One really bad thing is that when I search for noscript, I get all sorts of other script management stuff higher in the search results than noscript itself. I suspect that Mozilla just doesn't like "you" (me in this case) having control.
I wonder if NoScript can be effective as it once was with this new API redesign. I suspect it can not be as effective. *sigh*
Why does everyone want to remove my ability to control the software that I use?
yup 100% of the time it will work. except the times where it doesn't like when someone has hidden a camera in a bathroom or hotel room or their bedroom...
Or they accidentally upload the photo to their feed instead of the protection service.
In situations like this, I always ask: "Why do they need the photo itself? Can't they just release some software to upload the hash?"
It's using the strong nuclear force rather than the weak one, but as long as you don't have a free supply of free quarks (you don't) it's not really a power source.
Batteries are not a "power source" and yet we find them quite useful. Perhaps this discovery could lead to a battery that you can keep in your pocket and power your jetpack, personal AI super computers, and such for a lifetime? Sure, it may take an entire star worth of energy to charge that battery, but it could be useful...
Any backdoor basically completely bypasses the security of encryption, because history clearly shows that any such backdoor will likely quickly become common knowledge for hackers.
As much as I agree with you, I have to point out at least two exceptions that I am aware of:
The Intel Management Engine (and the builtin 3g chipset!).
The operating system run by the radio in your smart phone.
These back doors are still secure for now despite huge assaults against them. This is what "officials" are thinking of when they think of "backdooring" encryption.
The only issue here is fairness. If one group gets to take hours a year extra time off to smoke, non smokers should be able to have the same hours available to them.
They do. It is called the water cooler or coffee room or hanging out at my desk annoying the shit out of me while I try to get work done.
To be reasonable, everyone should get up from their desk at least once an hour to get the blood flowing and such. Just don't come over to my desk please.;)
Now, cite even one study that tests for toxicity in perfumes and colognes. THAT is the point. You want e-cigs banned. Fine. I do not care. What I do care about is the reasoning that brought you to wanting them banned.
Why do I care WHY you want them banned? Because I want perfumes and colognes banned. Now prove your perfumes and colognes are less deadly than vaping. ( which still misses the point, but you wanted to go down this road )
Perfumes and colognes are downright evil with how people bathe in them. My nose burns. I sneeze. My eyes water. But no, people want to go off on their high horse how a relatively harmless smell is so terrible (vaping) and then completely ignore that there are MUCH worse things out there that people are sensitive to.
To put it another way: You want to ban drunk driving. I ask why you want drunk driving to be illegal but don't give a fuck about the comatose people on opiods behind the wheel.
Actually, even that is not equivalent because nobody has proven vaping is even bad.
First of all, you have provided zero evidence to support that. How are you measuring toxicity? Who measured what kind of e-cigarette vapor using what kind of device? You might as well be comparing to to unicorn tears with that nebulous claim.
I could ask the same of you: You have provided zero evidence that perfume is non-toxic (or even that vaping is toxic!). Who measured the perfume? Using what kind of device? All I can say is that when people wear perfume or cologne around me, I sneeze, but I do not sneeze when someone is vaping grape juice. Evidence in favor of toxicity for perfume: Close to zero. Evidence in favor of toxicity for vape liquids: Zero. This is why I said "Vaping is as toxic, or even less toxic, than your perfumes and colognes."
Don't be ridiculous. Pretending that they are somehow comparable is absurd.
You are correct. People have actually studied e-cig output and have only been able to create toxic chemicals through using absurd amounts of energy and burning the juice instead of making a vapor. Nobody has ever tested perfume for toxicity or allergies. That means vaping is safer. They are not comparable. One has been scientifically tested and the other has not.
What is hilarious is that you are probably assuming that I vape. I don't. I sneeze. Because of perfumes and colognes. It is even more hilarious that you seem to think you are protecting "others" by prohibiting someone from using a vaping tool and completely disregard the damage you are doing with colognes and perfumes. But keep on keeping on with your Puritanical mindset. I don't care. You will never stop assaulting me with your perfumes and colognes because it is socially acceptable whereas vaping is not.
Did you know that 72% of doctors and 104.3% of economists agree that only 6% of people would benefit from having enough money to live indoors and buy food?
What? You think having a job entitles you to pay high enough to afford to live indoors and buy food? LOL. Be glad you are being paid at all and stop whining about what that pay will buy you. You are being paid so shut the fuck up. Your statistics are meaningless.
You are getting modded down for mentioning these things in the WRONG FUCKING PLACE.
There are LOTS of people who agree with what you say; however, do it in the right place or get modded down. This is not a story about Trump. Bringing him into this story just makes sure that rational people know that people who hate Trump are irrational. Which is why you are doing this anonymously. You are irrational and nobody will look at the "evidence" because nobody rational has provided them with evidence.
How does it feel to work against your own interests? Dumbass.
Regardless of whether or not your point is correct, it is off topic.
This about the FBI, Hillary Clinton, and whether or not anything inappropriate was done. Trump had nothing to do with this. Whine about Trump in a more appropriate story. There are plenty of them.
Or, more accurately, I blame conservatives. Those who are so horrified about some social agenda that they keep voting for the asshole who enable this in Congress.
Playing the partisan blame game is a losing proposition. The only choices anyone has is between two variations of evil. Sure, you could vote for the "less evil" candidate (whichever one you think that is) but you are STILL VOTING FOR EVIL.
So yeah, conservatives may be to blame in this particular instance; however, evil is evil. Nothing good comes out of it.
When was the last time you watched/listened to broadcast?
Yesterday, and get off my lawn.
Why would you subject yourself to that crap? I hate to be That Onion Guy, but I have not watched broadcast or cable TV in 30 years now. I heard "Friends" was really popular relatively recently. Happy Days, and Fantasy Island used to be popular not that long ago...
Those who are intelligent enough to not smoke this should not be forcibly exposed to the toxic brew that is produces.
Vaping is as toxic, or even less toxic, than your perfumes and colognes. I don't see you fighting for my right to not be exposed to that toxic crap... and yet you want to ban one but not the other. Ban both or be a hypocrite.
You stench may be pleasing to you, but nobody else, and your figurative fist is touching my literal nose. Isn't that the libertarian line in the sand?
And yet, you are likely perfectly fine with assaulting my nose with your perfumes and colognes. If we are going to be banning stuff merely because someone is offended by the smell, add in perfumes and colognes. That shit makes me sneeze non-stop for about 20 minutes after I stop smelling it.
But god forbid your right to assault me be obstructed. (I don't vape but you guys are not rational).
Your rights end in my personal space. Do whatever you want at home or outside, but not next to me in a crowded building.
Then for the love of G*d, please stop bathing in cologne or perfume. I would rather smell your nasty unwashed body odors than continually sneezing because you think the chemicals from vaping are terrible but fail to realize that your perfume and cologne are far more obnoxious, at least to my nose.
If you want to ingest a highly addictive and deadly drug fine by me. Just don't do it in an aerosol form around people who have chosen not to ingest the aforementioned drug.
The perfume that your wife wears is perfectly acceptable to assault me with because... it is not an addictive drug? What about your cologne? Have you tested these things to ensure that other people's health is not effected?
Oh right. Vaping is only for the addictive nicotine. Nobody vapes non-nicotine fluids. Since people don't "need" to vape, there is no harm in banning it.
You do not need cologne either... and, some colognes and perfumes affect my nose very strongly. I can not stop sneezing. Somehow or another, I don't think anyone is going to pass a law regulating chemicals in perfumes and restricting their use in public places just because my nose is sensitive to some of them.
Puritanical thought at its finest. I love the double standards. What is REALLY funny here is that I do not even vape. I just sneeze a lot.
Exactly, there are no studies indicating wether (sic) its harmful or not, therefore i would greatly prefer not to be inhaling a cocktail of chemicals which may have as yet unknown detrimental effects on my health.
Exactly, there are no studies indicating whether or not the chemicals (cologne, anti-perspirant, etc) are harmful or not; therefore, I would greatly prefer not to be inhaling a cocktail of chemicals which may have as yet known detrimental effects on my health.
We assume that cologne is safe but nobody controls for the chemicals found in them. I could sell Zyklon B as a perfume and nobody would say anything until people started dropping dead.
What? Nobody is dropping dead from cologne?
Well, I have not seen anyone drop dead from vaping.
Given that for the most part the choices remain The US, Russia, and China though, the US is still the least distasteful of the bunch.
This may be true, but the pervasive surveillance still makes America below the "acceptable" line. At this point, it does not matter if your "master" is Putin or the American Military Industrial complex, you still have a master and you are still not free. Your thoughts will be evaluated and your experience will be altered based on those thoughts. Enjoy.:)
The gun debate is a prime example. Americans want to protect their person and their property, while the rest of us shake our head because we realize that its really a tragedy of the commons in disguise. Every individual is choosing to arm themselves for their own (vaguely) good reasons, but at the end of the day you just end up with a society that, as a whole, just has a hell of a lot of killing tools, most of which will never actually be used for their theoretical defensive purposes and exist in the world purely as a risk factor.
When the only people who have killing tools are people who are legally exercising authority over you, they no longer need to consider how their authority effects you. With no non-negotiable feedback mechanisms in place, the laws become about what is convenient for the lawmaker.
Elections can be suspended, votes can be ignored, but a bullet between the eyes is non-negotiable. Feel free to trust others to have ultimate power over you. No government in the history of the world has ever gone from serving the people who make up the country to seeing those same people as subjects and disposable.
Go ahead and tell me how the government is always more powerful than me and how my little pea shooter has no effects on tanks and jets. All I have to say to that is that someone must enter my house to force me to their will at some point. At that point, a bullet between the eyes is quite effective. If each citizen owned a gun, killing even one government agent before dying would be MORE than sufficient to end the threat pretty damn quick as there will not be enough government agents to control the whole population.
But go ahead and mandate that everyone give up their last means of defense. What could go wrong? Criminals will be our last defense against an overbearing government? lol
(yes, the CAPTCHA was "founding". Amazing at how prescient the CAPTCHAs are sometimes.)
There isn't any way to incorporate ether into today's extensive array of experimental results other than "luminiferous ether, if it exists, is completely unobservable."
And yeah, I still don't trust them, but everyone has to admit, they have taken some steps to move in the right direction.
Right direction?! Really?
I do not care about their internal culture or whatever you think is moving in the right direction. Spying on EVERYONE who uses their software is downright Orwellian.
The complete stripping of privacy by this company is such a profound thing that they could have invented strong AI or solved the Halting Problem and I would still not agree they are "moving in the right direction".
Are you a shill or something? Just wow!. Moving in the right direction... my ass. Microsoft needs to be torn to shreds and no part of it should survive. Its dismemberment should leave such a charred hole in history that nobody EVER dares to walk down that road again. No. What they are doing now is FAR worse than the abuse of monopoly they previously enjoyed.
I would mod you up if I could, but you are at +5 already.
Long story short, this whole "fake news" thing makes me suspicious. It could be an "inside job" to create the false need for the government to react. Of course, we all know how they will react.
This is the same reason many people thought 9/11 was an inside job: The government reacted by giving itself more power. What people fail to understand, is that this outcome was the explicit goal of Bin Laden. And he succeeded.
When the government reacts to this "fake news" shit, it will be to grant itself even more power. Censorship is the obvious power, but I am more worried about what other powers they will grant themselves.
If I query Google for information, I am not interested in falsehoods just because they are popular.
Google can not, and should not be, expected to know what is true or false. All it can do is show you what is popular. It is up to you to determine what is true or false.
If you think such a thing is "easy", then you are free to set up your own "truth" search engine, using Google as the backend to do all the heavy lifting that you likely can not do yourself (spidering websites etc).
It is unrealistic to expect Google or Facebook to know the "truth". Even if it were possible, they do not claim to tell you the truth. They only claim to tell you what is popular. Your expectations do not create reality.
But of course "evil corporations are corrupting the internet" does SOUND better than "EME helps you migrate from Flash."
We all know Flash is bad. A new vulnerability every month. What I want to ask you is this: What makes you think that the corporations will implement a good quality, no vulnerabilities, DRM to replace Flash? I fully expect all implementations to be as crappy as Flash because the emphasis is on the protection of the content and little thought will be given to the correctness of the programming.
This shit is just evil growing out of greed. There is no balance here. I am bored. I can't wait for "standardized" DRM modules that force entire websites down your throat.
I can survive in a command line only environment but the rest of the world is fucked. Thank god there are ports other than 80/443 to create and share information.
Then the media is doing its job effectively. You are NOT the only one. Making people who care about a subject feel isolated from each other is how you stop a revolution before it starts.
Again, you are NOT the only one who cares about the surveillance.
Slashdot Mirror
NoScript was the only thing keeping our computers on Firefox.
NoScript has been updated to work on Firefox now but its interface has changed drastically. One really bad thing is that when I search for noscript, I get all sorts of other script management stuff higher in the search results than noscript itself. I suspect that Mozilla just doesn't like "you" (me in this case) having control.
I wonder if NoScript can be effective as it once was with this new API redesign. I suspect it can not be as effective. *sigh*
Why does everyone want to remove my ability to control the software that I use?
yup 100% of the time it will work. except the times where it doesn't like when someone has hidden a camera in a bathroom or hotel room or their bedroom...
Or they accidentally upload the photo to their feed instead of the protection service.
In situations like this, I always ask: "Why do they need the photo itself? Can't they just release some software to upload the hash?"
It's using the strong nuclear force rather than the weak one, but as long as you don't have a free supply of free quarks (you don't) it's not really a power source.
Batteries are not a "power source" and yet we find them quite useful. Perhaps this discovery could lead to a battery that you can keep in your pocket and power your jetpack, personal AI super computers, and such for a lifetime? Sure, it may take an entire star worth of energy to charge that battery, but it could be useful...
Any backdoor basically completely bypasses the security of encryption, because history clearly shows that any such backdoor will likely quickly become common knowledge for hackers.
As much as I agree with you, I have to point out at least two exceptions that I am aware of:
The Intel Management Engine (and the builtin 3g chipset!).
The operating system run by the radio in your smart phone.
These back doors are still secure for now despite huge assaults against them. This is what "officials" are thinking of when they think of "backdooring" encryption.
A shame Snowden did not reveal those secrets.
The only issue here is fairness. If one group gets to take hours a year extra time off to smoke, non smokers should be able to have the same hours available to them.
They do. It is called the water cooler or coffee room or hanging out at my desk annoying the shit out of me while I try to get work done.
To be reasonable, everyone should get up from their desk at least once an hour to get the blood flowing and such. Just don't come over to my desk please. ;)
You are missing the point, but you want it: http://annals.org/aim/article/...
Now, cite even one study that tests for toxicity in perfumes and colognes. THAT is the point. You want e-cigs banned. Fine. I do not care. What I do care about is the reasoning that brought you to wanting them banned.
Why do I care WHY you want them banned? Because I want perfumes and colognes banned. Now prove your perfumes and colognes are less deadly than vaping. ( which still misses the point, but you wanted to go down this road )
Perfumes and colognes are downright evil with how people bathe in them. My nose burns. I sneeze. My eyes water. But no, people want to go off on their high horse how a relatively harmless smell is so terrible (vaping) and then completely ignore that there are MUCH worse things out there that people are sensitive to.
To put it another way: You want to ban drunk driving. I ask why you want drunk driving to be illegal but don't give a fuck about the comatose people on opiods behind the wheel.
Actually, even that is not equivalent because nobody has proven vaping is even bad.
Do you understand now?
First of all, you have provided zero evidence to support that. How are you measuring toxicity? Who measured what kind of e-cigarette vapor using what kind of device? You might as well be comparing to to unicorn tears with that nebulous claim.
I could ask the same of you: You have provided zero evidence that perfume is non-toxic (or even that vaping is toxic!). Who measured the perfume? Using what kind of device? All I can say is that when people wear perfume or cologne around me, I sneeze, but I do not sneeze when someone is vaping grape juice. Evidence in favor of toxicity for perfume: Close to zero. Evidence in favor of toxicity for vape liquids: Zero. This is why I said "Vaping is as toxic, or even less toxic, than your perfumes and colognes."
Don't be ridiculous. Pretending that they are somehow comparable is absurd.
You are correct. People have actually studied e-cig output and have only been able to create toxic chemicals through using absurd amounts of energy and burning the juice instead of making a vapor. Nobody has ever tested perfume for toxicity or allergies. That means vaping is safer. They are not comparable. One has been scientifically tested and the other has not.
What is hilarious is that you are probably assuming that I vape. I don't. I sneeze. Because of perfumes and colognes. It is even more hilarious that you seem to think you are protecting "others" by prohibiting someone from using a vaping tool and completely disregard the damage you are doing with colognes and perfumes. But keep on keeping on with your Puritanical mindset. I don't care. You will never stop assaulting me with your perfumes and colognes because it is socially acceptable whereas vaping is not.
Did you know that 72% of doctors and 104.3% of economists agree that only 6% of people would benefit from having enough money to live indoors and buy food?
What? You think having a job entitles you to pay high enough to afford to live indoors and buy food? LOL. Be glad you are being paid at all and stop whining about what that pay will buy you. You are being paid so shut the fuck up. Your statistics are meaningless.
(sarcasm?)
You are getting modded down for mentioning these things in the WRONG FUCKING PLACE.
There are LOTS of people who agree with what you say; however, do it in the right place or get modded down. This is not a story about Trump. Bringing him into this story just makes sure that rational people know that people who hate Trump are irrational. Which is why you are doing this anonymously. You are irrational and nobody will look at the "evidence" because nobody rational has provided them with evidence.
How does it feel to work against your own interests? Dumbass.
Regardless of whether or not your point is correct, it is off topic.
This about the FBI, Hillary Clinton, and whether or not anything inappropriate was done. Trump had nothing to do with this. Whine about Trump in a more appropriate story. There are plenty of them.
Or, more accurately, I blame conservatives. Those who are so horrified about some social agenda that they keep voting for the asshole who enable this in Congress.
Playing the partisan blame game is a losing proposition. The only choices anyone has is between two variations of evil. Sure, you could vote for the "less evil" candidate (whichever one you think that is) but you are STILL VOTING FOR EVIL.
So yeah, conservatives may be to blame in this particular instance; however, evil is evil. Nothing good comes out of it.
When was the last time you watched/listened to broadcast?
Yesterday, and get off my lawn.
Why would you subject yourself to that crap? I hate to be That Onion Guy, but I have not watched broadcast or cable TV in 30 years now. I heard "Friends" was really popular relatively recently. Happy Days, and Fantasy Island used to be popular not that long ago...
Those who are intelligent enough to not smoke this should not be forcibly exposed to the toxic brew that is produces.
Vaping is as toxic, or even less toxic, than your perfumes and colognes. I don't see you fighting for my right to not be exposed to that toxic crap... and yet you want to ban one but not the other. Ban both or be a hypocrite.
You stench may be pleasing to you, but nobody else, and your figurative fist is touching my literal nose. Isn't that the libertarian line in the sand?
And yet, you are likely perfectly fine with assaulting my nose with your perfumes and colognes. If we are going to be banning stuff merely because someone is offended by the smell, add in perfumes and colognes. That shit makes me sneeze non-stop for about 20 minutes after I stop smelling it.
But god forbid your right to assault me be obstructed. (I don't vape but you guys are not rational).
Your rights end in my personal space. Do whatever you want at home or outside, but not next to me in a crowded building.
Then for the love of G*d, please stop bathing in cologne or perfume. I would rather smell your nasty unwashed body odors than continually sneezing because you think the chemicals from vaping are terrible but fail to realize that your perfume and cologne are far more obnoxious, at least to my nose.
If you want to ingest a highly addictive and deadly drug fine by me. Just don't do it in an aerosol form around people who have chosen not to ingest the aforementioned drug.
The perfume that your wife wears is perfectly acceptable to assault me with because... it is not an addictive drug? What about your cologne? Have you tested these things to ensure that other people's health is not effected?
Oh right. Vaping is only for the addictive nicotine. Nobody vapes non-nicotine fluids. Since people don't "need" to vape, there is no harm in banning it.
You do not need cologne either... and, some colognes and perfumes affect my nose very strongly. I can not stop sneezing. Somehow or another, I don't think anyone is going to pass a law regulating chemicals in perfumes and restricting their use in public places just because my nose is sensitive to some of them.
Puritanical thought at its finest. I love the double standards. What is REALLY funny here is that I do not even vape. I just sneeze a lot.
Exactly, there are no studies indicating wether (sic) its harmful or not, therefore i would greatly prefer not to be inhaling a cocktail of chemicals which may have as yet unknown detrimental effects on my health.
Exactly, there are no studies indicating whether or not the chemicals (cologne, anti-perspirant, etc) are harmful or not; therefore, I would greatly prefer not to be inhaling a cocktail of chemicals which may have as yet known detrimental effects on my health.
We assume that cologne is safe but nobody controls for the chemicals found in them. I could sell Zyklon B as a perfume and nobody would say anything until people started dropping dead.
What? Nobody is dropping dead from cologne?
Well, I have not seen anyone drop dead from vaping.
Fair is fair. No?
Given that for the most part the choices remain The US, Russia, and China though, the US is still the least distasteful of the bunch.
This may be true, but the pervasive surveillance still makes America below the "acceptable" line. At this point, it does not matter if your "master" is Putin or the American Military Industrial complex, you still have a master and you are still not free. Your thoughts will be evaluated and your experience will be altered based on those thoughts. Enjoy. :)
The gun debate is a prime example. Americans want to protect their person and their property, while the rest of us shake our head because we realize that its really a tragedy of the commons in disguise. Every individual is choosing to arm themselves for their own (vaguely) good reasons, but at the end of the day you just end up with a society that, as a whole, just has a hell of a lot of killing tools, most of which will never actually be used for their theoretical defensive purposes and exist in the world purely as a risk factor.
When the only people who have killing tools are people who are legally exercising authority over you, they no longer need to consider how their authority effects you. With no non-negotiable feedback mechanisms in place, the laws become about what is convenient for the lawmaker.
Elections can be suspended, votes can be ignored, but a bullet between the eyes is non-negotiable. Feel free to trust others to have ultimate power over you. No government in the history of the world has ever gone from serving the people who make up the country to seeing those same people as subjects and disposable.
Go ahead and tell me how the government is always more powerful than me and how my little pea shooter has no effects on tanks and jets. All I have to say to that is that someone must enter my house to force me to their will at some point. At that point, a bullet between the eyes is quite effective. If each citizen owned a gun, killing even one government agent before dying would be MORE than sufficient to end the threat pretty damn quick as there will not be enough government agents to control the whole population.
But go ahead and mandate that everyone give up their last means of defense. What could go wrong? Criminals will be our last defense against an overbearing government? lol
(yes, the CAPTCHA was "founding". Amazing at how prescient the CAPTCHAs are sometimes.)
There isn't any way to incorporate ether into today's extensive array of experimental results other than "luminiferous ether, if it exists, is completely unobservable."
It sounds like you just found Dark Matter! ;)
And yeah, I still don't trust them, but everyone has to admit, they have taken some steps to move in the right direction.
Right direction?! Really?
I do not care about their internal culture or whatever you think is moving in the right direction. Spying on EVERYONE who uses their software is downright Orwellian.
The complete stripping of privacy by this company is such a profound thing that they could have invented strong AI or solved the Halting Problem and I would still not agree they are "moving in the right direction".
Are you a shill or something? Just wow!. Moving in the right direction... my ass. Microsoft needs to be torn to shreds and no part of it should survive. Its dismemberment should leave such a charred hole in history that nobody EVER dares to walk down that road again. No. What they are doing now is FAR worse than the abuse of monopoly they previously enjoyed.
I would mod you up if I could, but you are at +5 already.
Long story short, this whole "fake news" thing makes me suspicious. It could be an "inside job" to create the false need for the government to react. Of course, we all know how they will react.
This is the same reason many people thought 9/11 was an inside job: The government reacted by giving itself more power. What people fail to understand, is that this outcome was the explicit goal of Bin Laden. And he succeeded.
When the government reacts to this "fake news" shit, it will be to grant itself even more power. Censorship is the obvious power, but I am more worried about what other powers they will grant themselves.
If I query Google for information, I am not interested in falsehoods just because they are popular.
Google can not, and should not be, expected to know what is true or false. All it can do is show you what is popular. It is up to you to determine what is true or false.
If you think such a thing is "easy", then you are free to set up your own "truth" search engine, using Google as the backend to do all the heavy lifting that you likely can not do yourself (spidering websites etc).
It is unrealistic to expect Google or Facebook to know the "truth". Even if it were possible, they do not claim to tell you the truth. They only claim to tell you what is popular. Your expectations do not create reality.
But of course "evil corporations are corrupting the internet" does SOUND better than "EME helps you migrate from Flash."
We all know Flash is bad. A new vulnerability every month. What I want to ask you is this: What makes you think that the corporations will implement a good quality, no vulnerabilities, DRM to replace Flash? I fully expect all implementations to be as crappy as Flash because the emphasis is on the protection of the content and little thought will be given to the correctness of the programming.
This shit is just evil growing out of greed. There is no balance here. I am bored. I can't wait for "standardized" DRM modules that force entire websites down your throat.
I can survive in a command line only environment but the rest of the world is fucked. Thank god there are ports other than 80/443 to create and share information.
... but I seem to be the only one.
Then the media is doing its job effectively. You are NOT the only one. Making people who care about a subject feel isolated from each other is how you stop a revolution before it starts.
Again, you are NOT the only one who cares about the surveillance.