Firefox is doing an API lookup here, nothing more.
Firefox could make an "API lookup" transmiting the contents of my bitcoin wallet to criminal enterprise and this "API lookup here, nothing more" comment would be no more or less valid. It's just looking up how much money I have so it can provide a customized shopping experience or some other creative doublespeak.
If you're worried about your WiFi being tied to your location, guess what, that information either is or isn't
My feelings about all of these crowd sourced location databases is not relevant in and of itself.
I fully accept WiFi signal/SSID/MAC data is NOT sent by DEFAULT unless user accepts location prompt. At least it was that way the last time I checked.
Firefox should offer the user a simple blunt lever to exhaustively control all of the calling home shit.
It does. You see Firefox doesn't call home.
These connections to telemetry.mozilla.org and experments.firefox.org are not Firefox calling home. These are not the "API lookups" you are looking for.
Any time some site requests to use that information it asks you. To tie that back to the above, should Firefox ask your permission before it accesses your RAM, before it caches an image, or updates your profile?
When I go to the store and hand the cashier cash in exchange for pancake mix I don't expect cashier to take my picture and post my location and inventory of everything purchased to some database. This behavior is simply not necessary to complete the sale...it's shit the store may well try to do for their own ends and purposes.. purposes that don't mean shit to me personally which I deem to be obnoxious and offensive getting in my face...in my business for no reason I care to classify as acceptable behavior.
Firefox is doing a whole lot of "requesting" for shit simply not necessary to render websites. While interesting I am NOT impressed with breadth of excuses baked into Firefox in order to legitimize what I and many others deem to be unwanted and unacceptable behavior. So much so popular forks with all of the bullshit removed exist. This is undeniable reality. You can't just wave your hand and pretend otherwise or that everyone else is somehow missing "the point".
Nothing is leaking out. Nothing is phoning home.
Up is down, left is right the sky is green with orange polka dots.
One of my all time favorites... "Collection means intentional tasking and/or selection of identified nonpublic communications for subsequent processing aimed at reporting or retention as a file record." ~No Such Agency
And you spectacularly missed my point about freaking out over something you seem unwilling to invest your time in understanding.
I spectacularly don't care. I don't care why Firefox calls some random URL whenever I visit a website or when just sitting idle doing nothing. I don't give a f**k...really not even a little... I don't care even to learn or understand. I just don't want it happening... PERIOD... The only URLs I want the browser following are ones explicitly referenced by the site.
Bottom line Firefox is sending shit to Mozilla not necessary to render web sites and there is no practical way for normal users to say no I would prefer not to have Firefox constantly calling home or looking shit up or however you care to characterize it. You can't just deny that it doesn't exist. Even when all of the available privacy options are maxed out Firefox keeps right on calling home to Mozilla. I have a load of captures that demonstrate this behavior. It is an easily reproducible experiment anyone can conduct on their own and draw their own conclusions from.
There should be a main breaker to give users the ability to turn ALL of the extraneous BS off.
It doesn't hand anything out without your permission (and neither does Chrome). That can all be managed under Settings > Permissions > Location.
Yes it does. Firefox with default settings executes browser.search.geoip without asking.
The worst thing we ever did was give data to those people who are unwilling to take the time to understand it. With the curiosity of what is being sent where you should also add the curiosity of why, how and for what reason. Then you may actually simply turn the relevant setting off instead of panic switching to a whole different product for the wrong reasons
Firefox should offer the user a simple blunt lever to exhaustively control all of the calling home shit.
After installing an outgoing firewall on my laptop I was amazed to see that Firefox was continuously sending updates about the wifi networks I was connected to to a maps.google.com/something address.
I was quite dissapointed, and switched to Waterfox for a while.
Especially after all of the bullshit on their websites over the past year about how much they care about user privacy.
Volume of "excuses" for calling home baked into Firefox is lunacy as are some of the features enabled by default. One in particular I found calling home after installing Firefox normally on a new system is "experiments.enabled". This loads and executes random binary payloads "experiments" into browsers without the user knowing.
Fortunately with a lot of work in about:config you can disable he malware features which makes Firefox better than chrome yet doing so puts these options beyond the reach of most users.
I'm extremely disappointed in the incomplete and intentionally vague and deceptive privacy options in Firefox. If they really gave a f**k about privacy they would provide accessible master options that are unambiguous and easy for everyone to understand such as don't send anything to Mozilla et el without asking first or never send anything.
The use of term "personally identifying" is misleading. It means something very different to the general population than its technical definition and practical implications imply. Specifically unique identifiers and network addresses are **NOT** considered personally identifying even though they enable data to be trivially correlated back to individual users with high confidence. What technically does not count as "personally identifying" renders the term meaningless.
I am not aware of any method whereby a process is guaranteed the ability to defend itself from any and all such attacks at least in Windows.
Sure there are things you can do on the margins yet it's not like third parties doing the injecting are stupid and have not already invested significant resources into their work. I wonder how effective this will actually be in real life or if it will become just another pointless unwinnable evolution between adversaries.
This is a shining example of why, if we disagree, we should participate in the RFC process rather than go off on our own. And if we don't get our wishes in the RFC process, we shouldn't stage a rebellion.
I've participated in IETF lists and made it to a few meetings when in country. ICANN is not the IETF. ICANN is driven by money not consensus. A rebellion is exactly what I advocate and very much hope to see happen.
Either "throw the bums out" or raise pain felt by entry of new TLDs by having more operators not blindly delegating everything to root servers.
We need a functioning network.
Which is why it is not ok for bags of slime to intentionally break shit in order to enrich themselves.
Four TLDs are reserved for this..test,.example,.invalid, and.localhost. If.dev should have been a reserved TLD, there were 15 years to get it added from the time RFC2606 was published until.dev became a TLD.
Half the RFCs worth implementing don't even work in the real world out the gate. There is a bunch of tribal knowledge one must have to account for the difference between RFC and what is actually implemented in real world. It isn't ok to simply cite chapter and verse of text and blindly ignore reality. What is or is not written down in some document isn't an excuse. As I said before responsibility is bidirectional. The lack of ".dev" appearing in an RFCs that results in IANA reservations in the GTLD space does not excuse irresponsibility demonstrated in the act of assigning it.
Nor does Google have an excuse for mistaking the ".dev" Internet namespace they own with all namespaces everywhere.
Both instances of irresponsibility exist independent of judgments against individuals for using.dev.
And you will run into "conflict and confusion" if you do this. As I've pointed out already, there was an RFC for this in 1999. The "right" way to do this has been defined for almost two decades. So you can either be self-righteous and declare that it's your local network and you'll do what you want (in which case, you should probably disconnect it from the internet)
This is the whole point.
People who may not even be connected to the Internet and who run their own.dev namespace separate from the global Internet namespace are being hit with a bug in Chrome that assumes ".dev" must always be an Internet name.
RFC2606 was intended to offer some explicit disambiguation between local and Internet namespaces allowing for both to be utilized concurrently.
This necessarily relies on the underlying assumption an Internet namespace is in play or the operator has not otherwise explicitly designated namespace as non Internet DNS.
I'm saying that as standards evolve we are all required to adapt.
What was really hard to intuit or predict is that someone who happened to own a browser would take ownership of a TLD and hard code bogus rules for that TLD into their browser.
People with properly configured DNS who have explicitly delegated.dev namespace to themselves for Internal use rather than Internet use and have better things to do than read Slashdot could not have reasonably predicted something like this would creep up. It's a left field thing that isn't the developers fault to be blindsided by.
The primary sin is an invalid assumption by Google incorrectly equating all names resolved by operating systems name resolution facilities to Internet names. This simply is not a valid assumption to make. There is no standard that declares global Internet owns the whole frigging namespace and everything else is subservient to the Internet or even assumes DNS itself is only to be used in conjunction with the global Internet.
I am not rightly able to apprehend what kind of confusion of ideas could provoke such a statement.
HTTP is plain-text, and easy to read in-flight. There are fewer browser restrictions around cross-domain access to HTTP. Tracking HTTP is easy.
HTTPS is encrypted, and has a lot of browser restrictions to prevent cross-domain access. It's harder to make embedded IFrame tracking bugs work with HTTPS.
There are arguments on both sides. Encryption like most technology is a double edged sword with upsides and downsides.
One of those downsides WRT tracking specifically is ability to exploit properties of layers below HTTP. Session resumption in TLS uses session identifiers sent in the clear allowing third parties to correlate separate requests by user/browser before HTTP is even in the picture and isolate traffic between multiple users sharing the same system/network address.
Given most sites are public the fact they are encrypted does very little to mask activities of users. With an analysis of payload size and timing it has been shown unencrypted URLs can be recovered with high accuracy.
In my view the two biggest issues with HTTPS is lack of transparency and visibility by people that may value these things above message integrity and privacy. With everything encrypted E2E it is more difficult to reason and make value judgments about data even by people who happen to be sitting at one or both ends.
The other issue is having to seek permission/approval by more entities with those with power over you. With http I all I need is an IP address or at least a TCP port on a shared address. With HTTPs I need a DNS name and a certificate. I now have to establish relationships and get permission from two more entities to participate in the network. More entities with the power to shut me up or worse divert my traffic without my users being any wiser if they don't like what I have to say (Thanks to Google's unilateral decision to get rid of PKP)
There are others currently that hopefully will be widely resolved in the future such as burning a round trip on resumption and worries of increased attack surface due to implementation bugs in todays non-trivial TLS stacks.
I personally prefer HTTPS and think on balance it's better than nothing. Yet there are others with different needs and different value judgments for which HTTPS may well be deemed unnecessary or even harmful.
Because you didn't use a reserved TLD you numpty. The same people probably use non-private subnets for their internal networks and then wonder why some websites that had the audacity to use that IP don't work...
While there are times where I would tend to agree this is not one of them. Responsibility is bidirectional.
Opening the TLD floodgates was a predictable, preventable disaster done entirely for selfish reasons at the expense of the network and all its users.
Allowing TLDs like ".dev" to be handed out in the first place was much worse. They knew or should have known how this was being widely used at the time and what the global implications would be yet like TLD floodgates $$$ wins the day.
Then Google was like...hey we own this TLD and we own a web browser so we'll just leverage our verticals to enforce arbitrary rules over what we own anyway that suits our specific needs.
This is a shining example of what happens when $$$ is allowed to trump reason and why allowing monopolies to get too powerful and start exerting ownership over more and more of the stack is a bad idea. They can and will do whatever they want simply because they can. They can't help themselves nor can they even understand that their needs and goals are not representative of the rest of the world.
Today it is HSTS tomorrow it is waking up to find browsers doing UDP with user land congestion algorithms configured to be twice as aggressive as TCP...oh wait.. that already happened...
Which obviously has a tiny subset of the UI functionality described in the article
Like what? Please be specific. I read TFA, read information for the app on the store and looked at the screenshots. What makes this a tiny subset? It looks to be substantially similar. There is something about partial blocking that sounds a lot like the restrict background on mobile button and something about annotating a chart with WiFi?
Some of those counters are available (certainly Mobile Data used is available at the OS level, and you can set a warning level for it), but this app will allow you to view them better, and to control stuff. For example, if an app that you don't really use is using too much data, you can stop it using mobile data with this app.
Even my ancient android device allows me to restrict mobile "background data" on a per-app basis. What's the difference? What specifically does this app provide that does not already exist?
I'm not advocating a systemd scenario here, but shouldn't this kind of pretty basic thing be built-in the OS itself? It's just three big fucking counters... one for cellular, one for wi-fi and one for bluetooth.
Are you saying this feature does not already exist in Android? How is this app different from per-app I/O statistics already available in Android?
Have always been able to see charting of WiFi and Cellular usage both globally and on a per-app basis over time. From limited screenshots and description looks as if this app is reporting substantially similar information to facilities having existed for years. What is the difference? Is there a more detailed explanation?
It's not like anyone really needs a crummy Google app to collect data. You can use iptables to create an accounting rule to count AND block whatever slice of data you want by any user (app) you want without downloading Google spyware. Not exactly user friendly but this is Slashdot.
The issue at hand is NN and Title II regulation of ISPs not social media. This play is really starting to get tiresome/w everyone attempting to justify or deflect from their actions by pointing out what others are doing as if it's at all relevant to issue at hand or in any way justifies their own behavior.
As a separate matter I more or less agree with his sentiments. The media has basically turned itself into a professional trolling operation caring more about hyperbole and fear than useful information, bad governance (e.g. handing out megaphones to everyone) on sites like Twitter is done on purpose to maximize profit while people with psychology degrees are using their expertise to explicitly maximize addiction of children to social media platforms for profit. To say nothing of the insane aggregation of power over so many eyeballs by so few.
Good for you. IATMve (sorry, I couldn't reproduce the garbage text accurate) tried several times to set up MythTV over the last two or three years and I'll be damned if I can get it working. I'm no fan of subscription services, but if the folks at Plex can make it point-and-click simple, more power to them.
Nearly gave up on software DVR scene until I found tvheadend. Could never get MythTV to work without crashing and the UI is painful to deal with.
Tvheadend is amazing. Came right up with it's own web server and surprisingly well designed usable interface. Instantly found my HDHomeRun did channel scan and populated EPG from OTA during initial setup wizard. Been using tvheadend as a PVR backend ever since with zero issues.
You can add comskip as a post record step if you want.
Tried various incarnations of comskip on and off for years. Best case they unreliably filter out some commercials... worse case the rest of your show is gone.
Please compare to what the US banking & finance industry (including stock markets, brokerage houses, and the like) consume before complaining.
Do you think there isn't a market for bitcoin or bitcoin brokers don't exist? Both assumptions are of course false. What services that apply to traditional currency markets do not apply to bitcoin? If Bitcoin were to become the U.S. + world reserve currency overnight what aspect of Bitcoin specifically would be the source of increased efficiency vs. U.S. dollar? Not "wasting" money on printing presses?
I'd wager that crypto is more efficient.
I'd wager monkeys mashing keys on a keyboard are better at wagering than people guessing.
And that's not factoring in the whole point of crypro - getting the government out of money. There's a lot of value there.
This is a complex political argument very much dependent on the specifics of each government and associated monetary systems. The position government never has a constructive role to play in managing monetary system strikes me as particularly absolutist little different than fools seeking pure capitalistic or socialistic economies due to abstract philosophical ideals divorced from objective reality.
The question itself is almost not worth addressing as every ass backwards dictatorial regime worthy of their reputation has already banned it. What I value in currency is being able to conduct transaction without records of my and everyone else's transactions becoming public knowledge forever. Here bitcoin is uniquely unable to deliver.
All hate groups are growing. You clearly didn't even try. This is not merely an American problem, either. Neo-Nazis are actively recruiting and the downtrodden are ever easy targets.
Please wake me up when you have anything statistically significant to offer showing a statistically significant trend line not dominated by uncertainty, noise and the story of the day.
I clicked on a few of the links and read some of the data. Noted some KKK and SPLC stats and was thoroughly unimpressed. If you care to site anything specific. Perhaps an impartial academic study of some kind with real data I would gladly consider it. I have no doubt local variations exist over space and time for all manner of localized reasons yet this is quite different from a historical trend line.
Interpreting the past year or two from questionable (e.g. SPLC) sources as a trend is epic stat 101 fail. It's essentially looking at this graph:
Noting a single instance of the red line going up or down and drawing some crackpot conclusion from it.
Nazis are not just pro-murder, pro-racism, they actively perpetrate abuse. Acceptance of abuse is not tolerance, it is only abuse. Nazis are actively doing harm not just by promoting genocide, but by actually engaging in violent and antisocial acts. Anyone who suggests that we accept that is, not to put too fine a point on it, a complete and total piece of shit.
This is a prejudiced statement. Not all Nazi's perpetrate harm or condone murder as a means to getting their way. Being a Nazi more or less means you think you are genetically superior to others and want to be left alone with others of your own "superior" tribe.
Did you know... Not everyone who attends Saudi funded Madrassas are members of Daesh. Not all short people are Chinese and not every Comcast CSR is a lobotomized zombie.
While I may think being a Nazi is lame if someone wants to express their views or march in a stupid parade I'm going to tolerate it because tolerating idiocy is a necessity underwriting all free societies.
Committing murder or otherwise using or plotting violence is obviously a different story. The subset of Nazi's doing this shit need to be fed to the gators roaming Trumps golf courses as far as I'm concerned.
There are people who are so afraid of the spread of ideas they absolutely hate be it a certain religion they vehemently disagree with, growing or shrinking acceptance of abortion or various views for or against certain tribes. So fearful they take it is a moral imperative that action must be taken to stop the spread of x,y and z by any and all means necessary. I say fuck these people. Either grow a pair and work to build consensus for your views or live with the consequences. Refusing to tolerate idiocy of others and shutting down freedom because your scared, unwilling or unable to step up is BS.
Odd. Regulation is remarkably easy and inexpensive given a} the regulations are already published, and b} this kind of regulation doesn't require any actual effort on the FCC's part until one of the mega-ISPs decides to try to weasel those regulations for "value-added-services", a.k.a. more profit. And even then, it's a fairly simple matter of passing a decision.
Title II is not remarkably easy especially for new small ISPs entering the market hoping to bring some much needed competition.
Your first hint of this practically nobody including Wheeler et al wanted Title II. Only after FCC lost in court was it invoked as a means to grant themselves the authority to move on with NN.
Even then many of the Title II regulations were exempted (27 exemptions and over 700 associated regulations) by FCC so they would not be applicable to ISPs. The exemptions exist for a reason. Very few have ever wanted Title II to apply to ISPs and in fact it has NEVER to date been applied to ISPs except in a very superficial manner. The practical result of FCCs actions to date have with some minor exceptions resulted in NN without Title II.
It is possible to concurrently want NN while being against Title II classification of ISPs. This isn't to justify or support a specific course of action. I personally would rather see things stay the way they are at the moment than to see Title II go away... However if by some miracle congress produces meaningful NN legislation not written entirely by corporate shills then hell yes I would support Title II going away.
2) Disc has best picture quality. - 4K streams are a thing outperforming a great many Bluray titles.
There is no substitute for bitrate * codec efficiency. So long as quality is dominated by compression noise resolution will remain an irrelevant gimmick.
There is no Internet streaming service competing with blu ray let alone 4k blu ray on quality. Most 4k content is nothing more than an up-conversion scam from content shot and post produced in 2k.
The rise of fucking Nazis should also concern all of us, but I'm guessing you have some stupid whataboutism primed to post.
Rather than addressing the issue you literally just changed the subject to what about Nazis.
What about Nazis? Statistics I've been able to dig up on historical trendlines of Nazi like outfits are down in the aggregate and a wash/mess dominated by uncertainty otherwise. I was unable to find evidence of Nazi's rising. Perhaps your confused by narrative selection and hyperbole perpetrated by mass media to "optimize" profit? Regardless I fail to see the relevance of the distribution of Nazis over time and space to the issue I raised.
Even in an alternate world awash with Nazis it still wouldn't justify intolerance.
Some people enjoy getting trolled, but I refuse to care about something so nonsensical as fortune. Is it stable? Can it be used to run exploits or escalate privileges? If not, then I don't care. For people who care, fork it or overload with -nohitler parameter.
The rise of the intolerant easily offended sort and social media lynch mobs backing them should concern all of us. The phenomena is detrimental to free societies the world over.
Slashdot Mirror
Firefox is doing an API lookup here, nothing more.
Firefox could make an "API lookup" transmiting the contents of my bitcoin wallet to criminal enterprise and this "API lookup here, nothing more" comment would be no more or less valid. It's just looking up how much money I have so it can provide a customized shopping experience or some other creative doublespeak.
If you're worried about your WiFi being tied to your location, guess what, that information either is or isn't
My feelings about all of these crowd sourced location databases is not relevant in and of itself.
I fully accept WiFi signal/SSID/MAC data is NOT sent by DEFAULT unless user accepts location prompt. At least it was that way the last time I checked.
Firefox should offer the user a simple blunt lever to exhaustively control all of the calling home shit.
It does. You see Firefox doesn't call home.
These connections to telemetry.mozilla.org and experments.firefox.org are not Firefox calling home. These are not the "API lookups" you are looking for.
Any time some site requests to use that information it asks you. To tie that back to the above, should Firefox ask your permission before it accesses your RAM, before it caches an image, or updates your profile?
When I go to the store and hand the cashier cash in exchange for pancake mix I don't expect cashier to take my picture and post my location and inventory of everything purchased to some database. This behavior is simply not necessary to complete the sale...it's shit the store may well try to do for their own ends and purposes.. purposes that don't mean shit to me personally which I deem to be obnoxious and offensive getting in my face...in my business for no reason I care to classify as acceptable behavior.
Firefox is doing a whole lot of "requesting" for shit simply not necessary to render websites. While interesting I am NOT impressed with breadth of excuses baked into Firefox in order to legitimize what I and many others deem to be unwanted and unacceptable behavior. So much so popular forks with all of the bullshit removed exist. This is undeniable reality. You can't just wave your hand and pretend otherwise or that everyone else is somehow missing "the point".
Nothing is leaking out. Nothing is phoning home.
Up is down, left is right the sky is green with orange polka dots.
One of my all time favorites...
"Collection means intentional tasking and/or selection of identified nonpublic communications for subsequent processing aimed at reporting or retention as a file record." ~No Such Agency
And you spectacularly missed my point about freaking out over something you seem unwilling to invest your time in understanding.
I spectacularly don't care. I don't care why Firefox calls some random URL whenever I visit a website or when just sitting idle doing nothing. I don't give a f**k...really not even a little... I don't care even to learn or understand. I just don't want it happening... PERIOD... The only URLs I want the browser following are ones explicitly referenced by the site.
Bottom line Firefox is sending shit to Mozilla not necessary to render web sites and there is no practical way for normal users to say no I would prefer not to have Firefox constantly calling home or looking shit up or however you care to characterize it. You can't just deny that it doesn't exist. Even when all of the available privacy options are maxed out Firefox keeps right on calling home to Mozilla. I have a load of captures that demonstrate this behavior. It is an easily reproducible experiment anyone can conduct on their own and draw their own conclusions from.
There should be a main breaker to give users the ability to turn ALL of the extraneous BS off.
It doesn't hand anything out without your permission (and neither does Chrome). That can all be managed under Settings > Permissions > Location.
Yes it does. Firefox with default settings executes browser.search.geoip without asking.
The worst thing we ever did was give data to those people who are unwilling to take the time to understand it. With the curiosity of what is being sent where you should also add the curiosity of why, how and for what reason. Then you may actually simply turn the relevant setting off instead of panic switching to a whole different product for the wrong reasons
Firefox should offer the user a simple blunt lever to exhaustively control all of the calling home shit.
After installing an outgoing firewall on my laptop I was amazed to see that Firefox was continuously sending updates about the wifi networks I was connected to to a maps.google.com/something address.
I was quite dissapointed, and switched to Waterfox for a while.
Especially after all of the bullshit on their websites over the past year about how much they care about user privacy.
Volume of "excuses" for calling home baked into Firefox is lunacy as are some of the features enabled by default. One in particular I found calling home after installing Firefox normally on a new system is "experiments.enabled". This loads and executes random binary payloads "experiments" into browsers without the user knowing.
Fortunately with a lot of work in about:config you can disable he malware features which makes Firefox better than chrome yet doing so puts these options beyond the reach of most users.
I'm extremely disappointed in the incomplete and intentionally vague and deceptive privacy options in Firefox. If they really gave a f**k about privacy they would provide accessible master options that are unambiguous and easy for everyone to understand such as don't send anything to Mozilla et el without asking first or never send anything.
The use of term "personally identifying" is misleading. It means something very different to the general population than its technical definition and practical implications imply. Specifically unique identifiers and network addresses are **NOT** considered personally identifying even though they enable data to be trivially correlated back to individual users with high confidence. What technically does not count as "personally identifying" renders the term meaningless.
Can you name one corporation that would not kill a billion people for a 0.1% increase in its profits if it knew it could get away with it?
That's easy, here are 15:
Random House
** The Trump Organization
IBM
Ford
Coca-Cola
Bayer
GM
Dow
Volkswagen
Kodak
Hugo
Alcoa
Siemens
Chase
MGM
** Sorry, couldn't resist.
I am not aware of any method whereby a process is guaranteed the ability to defend itself from any and all such attacks at least in Windows.
Sure there are things you can do on the margins yet it's not like third parties doing the injecting are stupid and have not already invested significant resources into their work. I wonder how effective this will actually be in real life or if it will become just another pointless unwinnable evolution between adversaries.
This is a shining example of why, if we disagree, we should participate in the RFC process rather than go off on our own. And if we don't get our wishes in the RFC process, we shouldn't stage a rebellion.
I've participated in IETF lists and made it to a few meetings when in country. ICANN is not the IETF. ICANN is driven by money not consensus. A rebellion is exactly what I advocate and very much hope to see happen.
Either "throw the bums out" or raise pain felt by entry of new TLDs by having more operators not blindly delegating everything to root servers.
We need a functioning network.
Which is why it is not ok for bags of slime to intentionally break shit in order to enrich themselves.
Four TLDs are reserved for this. .test, .example, .invalid, and .localhost. If .dev should have been a reserved TLD, there were 15 years to get it added from the time RFC2606 was published until .dev became a TLD.
Half the RFCs worth implementing don't even work in the real world out the gate. There is a bunch of tribal knowledge one must have to account for the difference between RFC and what is actually implemented in real world. It isn't ok to simply cite chapter and verse of text and blindly ignore reality. What is or is not written down in some document isn't an excuse. As I said before responsibility is bidirectional. The lack of ".dev" appearing in an RFCs that results in IANA reservations in the GTLD space does not excuse irresponsibility demonstrated in the act of assigning it.
Nor does Google have an excuse for mistaking the ".dev" Internet namespace they own with all namespaces everywhere.
Both instances of irresponsibility exist independent of judgments against individuals for using .dev.
And you will run into "conflict and confusion" if you do this. As I've pointed out already, there was an RFC for this in 1999. The "right" way to do this has been defined for almost two decades. So you can either be self-righteous and declare that it's your local network and you'll do what you want (in which case, you should probably disconnect it from the internet)
This is the whole point.
People who may not even be connected to the Internet and who run their own .dev namespace separate from the global Internet namespace are being hit with a bug in Chrome that assumes ".dev" must always be an Internet name.
RFC2606 was intended to offer some explicit disambiguation between local and Internet namespaces allowing for both to be utilized concurrently.
This necessarily relies on the underlying assumption an Internet namespace is in play or the operator has not otherwise explicitly designated namespace as non Internet DNS.
Google own Chrome .dev
Google own
How is it weird they apply the same policy to both?
They own .dev in the global Internet DNS system ONLY.
They do not own .dev in all namespaces across every network on planet earth.
The assumption all names are global DNS names is simply not correct.
I'm saying that as standards evolve we are all required to adapt.
What was really hard to intuit or predict is that someone who happened to own a browser would take ownership of a TLD and hard code bogus rules for that TLD into their browser.
People with properly configured DNS who have explicitly delegated .dev namespace to themselves for Internal use rather than Internet use and have better things to do than read Slashdot could not have reasonably predicted something like this would creep up. It's a left field thing that isn't the developers fault to be blindsided by.
The primary sin is an invalid assumption by Google incorrectly equating all names resolved by operating systems name resolution facilities to Internet names. This simply is not a valid assumption to make. There is no standard that declares global Internet owns the whole frigging namespace and everything else is subservient to the Internet or even assumes DNS itself is only to be used in conjunction with the global Internet.
I am not rightly able to apprehend what kind of confusion of ideas could provoke such a statement.
HTTP is plain-text, and easy to read in-flight. There are fewer browser restrictions around cross-domain access to HTTP. Tracking HTTP is easy.
HTTPS is encrypted, and has a lot of browser restrictions to prevent cross-domain access. It's harder to make embedded IFrame tracking bugs work with HTTPS.
There are arguments on both sides. Encryption like most technology is a double edged sword with upsides and downsides.
One of those downsides WRT tracking specifically is ability to exploit properties of layers below HTTP. Session resumption in TLS uses session identifiers sent in the clear allowing third parties to correlate separate requests by user/browser before HTTP is even in the picture and isolate traffic between multiple users sharing the same system/network address.
Given most sites are public the fact they are encrypted does very little to mask activities of users. With an analysis of payload size and timing it has been shown unencrypted URLs can be recovered with high accuracy.
In my view the two biggest issues with HTTPS is lack of transparency and visibility by people that may value these things above message integrity and privacy. With everything encrypted E2E it is more difficult to reason and make value judgments about data even by people who happen to be sitting at one or both ends.
The other issue is having to seek permission/approval by more entities with those with power over you. With http I all I need is an IP address or at least a TCP port on a shared address. With HTTPs I need a DNS name and a certificate. I now have to establish relationships and get permission from two more entities to participate in the network. More entities with the power to shut me up or worse divert my traffic without my users being any wiser if they don't like what I have to say (Thanks to Google's unilateral decision to get rid of PKP)
There are others currently that hopefully will be widely resolved in the future such as burning a round trip on resumption and worries of increased attack surface due to implementation bugs in todays non-trivial TLS stacks.
I personally prefer HTTPS and think on balance it's better than nothing. Yet there are others with different needs and different value judgments for which HTTPS may well be deemed unnecessary or even harmful.
Because you didn't use a reserved TLD you numpty. The same people probably use non-private subnets for their internal networks and then wonder why some websites that had the audacity to use that IP don't work...
While there are times where I would tend to agree this is not one of them. Responsibility is bidirectional.
Opening the TLD floodgates was a predictable, preventable disaster done entirely for selfish reasons at the expense of the network and all its users.
Allowing TLDs like ".dev" to be handed out in the first place was much worse. They knew or should have known how this was being widely used at the time and what the global implications would be yet like TLD floodgates $$$ wins the day.
Then Google was like...hey we own this TLD and we own a web browser so we'll just leverage our verticals to enforce arbitrary rules over what we own anyway that suits our specific needs.
This is a shining example of what happens when $$$ is allowed to trump reason and why allowing monopolies to get too powerful and start exerting ownership over more and more of the stack is a bad idea. They can and will do whatever they want simply because they can. They can't help themselves nor can they even understand that their needs and goals are not representative of the rest of the world.
Today it is HSTS tomorrow it is waking up to find browsers doing UDP with user land congestion algorithms configured to be twice as aggressive as TCP...oh wait.. that already happened...
Which obviously has a tiny subset of the UI functionality described in the article
Like what? Please be specific. I read TFA, read information for the app on the store and looked at the screenshots. What makes this a tiny subset? It looks to be substantially similar. There is something about partial blocking that sounds a lot like the restrict background on mobile button and something about annotating a chart with WiFi?
Some of those counters are available (certainly Mobile Data used is available at the OS level, and you can set a warning level for it), but this app will allow you to view them better, and to control stuff. For example, if an app that you don't really use is using too much data, you can stop it using mobile data with this app.
Even my ancient android device allows me to restrict mobile "background data" on a per-app basis. What's the difference? What specifically does this app provide that does not already exist?
Not accessible to the user, meaning no nice UI to display and manage it all.
There is... Settings / Wireless & Network / Data Usage
Clearly the app can't add any fundamental OS capabilities; everything needed to track and control usage has to already be in the system.
Depending on access rights granted an app could use pcap interface to implement it's own data collector.
I'm not advocating a systemd scenario here, but shouldn't this kind of pretty basic thing be built-in the OS itself? It's just three big fucking counters... one for cellular, one for wi-fi and one for bluetooth.
Are you saying this feature does not already exist in Android? How is this app different from per-app I/O statistics already available in Android?
Have always been able to see charting of WiFi and Cellular usage both globally and on a per-app basis over time. From limited screenshots and description looks as if this app is reporting substantially similar information to facilities having existed for years. What is the difference? Is there a more detailed explanation?
It's not like anyone really needs a crummy Google app to collect data. You can use iptables to create an accounting rule to count AND block whatever slice of data you want by any user (app) you want without downloading Google spyware. Not exactly user friendly but this is Slashdot.
The issue at hand is NN and Title II regulation of ISPs not social media. This play is really starting to get tiresome /w everyone attempting to justify or deflect from their actions by pointing out what others are doing as if it's at all relevant to issue at hand or in any way justifies their own behavior.
As a separate matter I more or less agree with his sentiments. The media has basically turned itself into a professional trolling operation caring more about hyperbole and fear than useful information, bad governance (e.g. handing out megaphones to everyone) on sites like Twitter is done on purpose to maximize profit while people with psychology degrees are using their expertise to explicitly maximize addiction of children to social media platforms for profit. To say nothing of the insane aggregation of power over so many eyeballs by so few.
Good for you. IATMve (sorry, I couldn't reproduce the garbage text accurate) tried several times to set up MythTV over the last two or three years and I'll be damned if I can get it working. I'm no fan of subscription services, but if the folks at Plex can make it point-and-click simple, more power to them.
Nearly gave up on software DVR scene until I found tvheadend. Could never get MythTV to work without crashing and the UI is painful to deal with.
Tvheadend is amazing. Came right up with it's own web server and surprisingly well designed usable interface. Instantly found my HDHomeRun did channel scan and populated EPG from OTA during initial setup wizard. Been using tvheadend as a PVR backend ever since with zero issues.
You can add comskip as a post record step if you want.
Tried various incarnations of comskip on and off for years. Best case they unreliably filter out some commercials... worse case the rest of your show is gone.
Please compare to what the US banking & finance industry (including stock markets, brokerage houses, and the like) consume before complaining.
Do you think there isn't a market for bitcoin or bitcoin brokers don't exist? Both assumptions are of course false. What services that apply to traditional currency markets do not apply to bitcoin? If Bitcoin were to become the U.S. + world reserve currency overnight what aspect of Bitcoin specifically would be the source of increased efficiency vs. U.S. dollar? Not "wasting" money on printing presses?
I'd wager that crypto is more efficient.
I'd wager monkeys mashing keys on a keyboard are better at wagering than people guessing.
And that's not factoring in the whole point of crypro - getting the government out of money. There's a lot of value there.
This is a complex political argument very much dependent on the specifics of each government and associated monetary systems. The position government never has a constructive role to play in managing monetary system strikes me as particularly absolutist little different than fools seeking pure capitalistic or socialistic economies due to abstract philosophical ideals divorced from objective reality.
The question itself is almost not worth addressing as every ass backwards dictatorial regime worthy of their reputation has already banned it. What I value in currency is being able to conduct transaction without records of my and everyone else's transactions becoming public knowledge forever. Here bitcoin is uniquely unable to deliver.
All hate groups are growing. You clearly didn't even try. This is not merely an American problem, either. Neo-Nazis are actively recruiting and the downtrodden are ever easy targets.
Please wake me up when you have anything statistically significant to offer showing a statistically significant trend line not dominated by uncertainty, noise and the story of the day.
I clicked on a few of the links and read some of the data. Noted some KKK and SPLC stats and was thoroughly unimpressed. If you care to site anything specific. Perhaps an impartial academic study of some kind with real data I would gladly consider it. I have no doubt local variations exist over space and time for all manner of localized reasons yet this is quite different from a historical trend line.
Interpreting the past year or two from questionable (e.g. SPLC) sources as a trend is epic stat 101 fail. It's essentially looking at this graph:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/...
Noting a single instance of the red line going up or down and drawing some crackpot conclusion from it.
Nazis are not just pro-murder, pro-racism, they actively perpetrate abuse. Acceptance of abuse is not tolerance, it is only abuse. Nazis are actively doing harm not just by promoting genocide, but by actually engaging in violent and antisocial acts. Anyone who suggests that we accept that is, not to put too fine a point on it, a complete and total piece of shit.
This is a prejudiced statement. Not all Nazi's perpetrate harm or condone murder as a means to getting their way. Being a Nazi more or less means you think you are genetically superior to others and want to be left alone with others of your own "superior" tribe.
Did you know... Not everyone who attends Saudi funded Madrassas are members of Daesh. Not all short people are Chinese and not every Comcast CSR is a lobotomized zombie.
While I may think being a Nazi is lame if someone wants to express their views or march in a stupid parade I'm going to tolerate it because tolerating idiocy is a necessity underwriting all free societies.
Committing murder or otherwise using or plotting violence is obviously a different story. The subset of Nazi's doing this shit need to be fed to the gators roaming Trumps golf courses as far as I'm concerned.
There are people who are so afraid of the spread of ideas they absolutely hate be it a certain religion they vehemently disagree with, growing or shrinking acceptance of abortion or various views for or against certain tribes. So fearful they take it is a moral imperative that action must be taken to stop the spread of x,y and z by any and all means necessary. I say fuck these people. Either grow a pair and work to build consensus for your views or live with the consequences. Refusing to tolerate idiocy of others and shutting down freedom because your scared, unwilling or unable to step up is BS.
World currently burns more than 2% of total U.S. residential energy consumption on the childish pursuit of bitcoin "mining".
For what? A currency system with the worst privacy story imaginable?
Personally I couldn't care less who invented it. My view the world is better off without it.
Odd. Regulation is remarkably easy and inexpensive given a} the regulations are already published, and b} this kind of regulation doesn't require any actual effort on the FCC's part until one of the mega-ISPs decides to try to weasel those regulations for "value-added-services", a.k.a. more profit. And even then, it's a fairly simple matter of passing a decision.
Title II is not remarkably easy especially for new small ISPs entering the market hoping to bring some much needed competition.
Your first hint of this practically nobody including Wheeler et al wanted Title II. Only after FCC lost in court was it invoked as a means to grant themselves the authority to move on with NN.
Even then many of the Title II regulations were exempted (27 exemptions and over 700 associated regulations) by FCC so they would not be applicable to ISPs. The exemptions exist for a reason. Very few have ever wanted Title II to apply to ISPs and in fact it has NEVER to date been applied to ISPs except in a very superficial manner. The practical result of FCCs actions to date have with some minor exceptions resulted in NN without Title II.
It is possible to concurrently want NN while being against Title II classification of ISPs. This isn't to justify or support a specific course of action. I personally would rather see things stay the way they are at the moment than to see Title II go away... However if by some miracle congress produces meaningful NN legislation not written entirely by corporate shills then hell yes I would support Title II going away.
2) Disc has best picture quality.
- 4K streams are a thing outperforming a great many Bluray titles.
There is no substitute for bitrate * codec efficiency. So long as quality is dominated by compression noise resolution will remain an irrelevant gimmick.
There is no Internet streaming service competing with blu ray let alone 4k blu ray on quality. Most 4k content is nothing more than an up-conversion scam from content shot and post produced in 2k.
The rise of fucking Nazis should also concern all of us, but I'm guessing you have some stupid whataboutism primed to post.
Rather than addressing the issue you literally just changed the subject to what about Nazis.
What about Nazis? Statistics I've been able to dig up on historical trendlines of Nazi like outfits are down in the aggregate and a wash/mess dominated by uncertainty otherwise. I was unable to find evidence of Nazi's rising. Perhaps your confused by narrative selection and hyperbole perpetrated by mass media to "optimize" profit? Regardless I fail to see the relevance of the distribution of Nazis over time and space to the issue I raised.
Even in an alternate world awash with Nazis it still wouldn't justify intolerance.
Some people enjoy getting trolled, but I refuse to care about something so nonsensical as fortune. Is it stable? Can it be used to run exploits or escalate privileges? If not, then I don't care. For people who care, fork it or overload with -nohitler parameter.
The rise of the intolerant easily offended sort and social media lynch mobs backing them should concern all of us. The phenomena is detrimental to free societies the world over.