Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Oops (Score 1) 297

unless you think they're sending your viewing habits straight to the NSA.

Which basically boils down to the "why worry if you've got nothing to hide" line of illogic. Moreover, it ignores the fact that if you're allowing third-party scripts to run, they can simply inject additional images all over the place, not to mention acting as vehicles for delivering malware. If you don't recognize that third-party scripts are a bigger problem than the images themselves, then it's doubtful we'll ever see eye-to-eye. Images are a problem, to be sure, but they're not THE problem.

Comment Re:Oops (Score 1) 297

Sure, but what's the point of that? Just run uMatrix and block all third-party images by default if that's all you want. The image is just part of the ad, however, and it's the least offensive part, since it rarely delivers malware, tracks you in a meaningful way, or sends back system information on you like cookies, scripts, and iframes can.

Comment Re:Oops (Score 1) 297

The "jail" you're describing has already been implemented in a number of different ad-blocking extensions, but when you jail an ad (including its scripts) like that and prevent it from sending info back, they'll know you're blocking and can then block you from the site. That's the point I was making. And if you're not preventing them from phoning home, then what's the point?

Comment Re:Oops (Score 2) 297

They can tell the difference, since most of those ad scripts include "phone home" calls to confirm that they're running. If the script is blocked, it'll never phone home and they can tell that you were never served the ad. If the script is run but the ad simply isn't displayed, then they can still track you.

Comment Re:Oops (Score 5, Interesting) 297

There's a very important fourth option that they neglected to mention, yet is entirely in their control: stop delivering ads they don't host and haven't vetted.

If a company is willing to vet their ads and host them on their own servers, it's unlikely I'll go to the bother of blocking them, especially since I no longer need to wonder about who's getting my data, and I can read just one privacy policy to find out how my data is being used. By default, however, I block everything from third-party servers, and that's unlikely to change anytime soon.

Comment Re:Can we get an explanation on who gets mod point (Score 1) 1829

I remember there being a setting many years ago that allowed you to turn off being given mod points. It was for people like me who wanted nothing to do with moderating and instead preferred to just respond. I enabled it years ago, but in looking for it again over the years I've been unable to find it, and I haven't received any mod points in at least 5 years, despite having Excellent karma the entire time. So, I'd assume the setting is still somewhere, but that I just don't know where.

Comment Re:What I want (Score 1) 1829

On a serious note, I actually wouldn't mind a feature that allowed me to indicate I had retracted a post. Not remove it, mind you, since I should have to live with whatever idiocy I posted, but maybe change the green bar's color to a different shade of green or add an icon next to the message ID to indicate I no longer stand by what I said.

I've been corrected more times than I can count by people posting thoughtful comments that contradict what I said, and when that happens, I'd like to point people towards the responses that did the correcting, which is especially true if I've been upmodded but the responses that corrected me have not yet been.

Comment Re:Things that make you go "hmmm..." (Score 2) 150

This sounds suspiciously like a perpetual motion machine.

Only if you ignore the fact that the energy they're re-capturing was generated by the plane's jet engines during flight, rather than by this fuel cell. It's just a form of regenerative braking, no different than the flywheels commonly in use in automobiles today. And they said they'd be using the energy to power the plane on the ground. Water is a natural byproduct of the energy production, rather than the goal.

Comment Re:So... (Score 1) 133

It's like saying IE was the best browser because it was so widely used for a time

Correlation != causation. Contrary to your reading, I neither suggested nor implied that things are good because they're widespread. Rather, I spent a paragraph explaining the differentiating factor for this technology and then suggested that a company stood to gain by getting it to market first. Which is true. Having widespread use is necessary, but by no means is it causative, nor does being widespread mean they're better.

In fact, the reason I specified "widespread" was not because I was making the value judgement that "more = better" (which is what you seem to have inferred), but rather because I was suggesting that "more widespread = more relevant". While you or I may be interested in neat technologies like over-the-air wireless charging, it's utterly irrelevant to Everyday Joes until they can get their hands on it. As such, component companies putting together neat little demos are one thing, but it's something else entirely when the technology is in a device that anyone can buy. That sort of news is worth of a lot more attention in the general media, which is what I was saying.

Comment Re:Twitter shouldn't be shutting anyone down.. (Score 1) 831

Yes and no.

No, I was not thinking merely in terms of prohibitions under law (though I can see why you might think I was, since that's basically all I talked about). Rather, I was narrowly addressing a particular point while avoiding the tangent of "oughtness" or making a moral judgment. Even so, thanks for the refresher on the subject, since it's been a few years since I've reviewed that specific material! And it is something with which I wish more people would familiarize themselves, since you're quite correct that people need to think beyond merely what the law allows/compels. I would assert that the law exists in the service of a higher moral purpose, rather than being an end unto itself, so it's good to review material of this sort occasionally so that a healthy perspective isn't lost.

As for the "yes", yes, you are correct, I was addressing the issue of what happens to our rights if we are being compelled to do something (though, as a quick aside, I was speaking of being compelled in a more general sense, such as if someone has a gun to your head). My comment was intended to point out a simple fact: an obligation, be it externally or internally imposed, to print the words of others will naturally come at the cost of other basic human rights. I never intended to suggest that meant printing the words of others was a bad thing, since I do agree that the right should extend beyond what the government permits. Even so, because of those costs, I also believe that the extent to which the right is extended should be left to the individual to decide. Otherwise, as we agree, it would result in the trampling of rights.

Sorry for the confusion, and I hope my overall thought process is a bit clearer now.

Comment Re:Meet the new boss (Score 1) 1306

This is why I stopped going a few months back. I'm fairly traditionally right-wing (i.e. not extreme), but the commentary and editorializing over there eventually took things so far to the extreme (in both directions) that you couldn't have a reasonable discussion.

Any mention of taxes or large corporations would derail into a shouting match between the types of folks who insist that all taxation is "government theft" and those who think that corporations in the West are broken and that companies as large as Apple or Microsoft should be broken up and have their wealth redistributed to the poor.

With everything derailing so easily and so quickly at the slightest mention of topics that most people would consider mundane and settled, there was little room for reasoned debate. I'm fine with a few loonies, but the whole conversation just went down those lines, every single time, and the upmodding made it clear that that's where the groupthink was for the site too. I eventually just gave up.

Comment Re:So... (Score 4, Insightful) 133

The difference here is that Apple's purported solution requires no physical contact with the device. No mat, no pad, just use your device anywhere within the range of the charger and it'll charge wirelessly, over-the-air.

They certainly didn't invent it, and it isn't innovative at this point, but if they're the first ones to put it into widespread use, they'll likely reap a lot of well-deserved credit in the media.

Comment Re:Twitter shouldn't be shutting anyone down.. (Score 1) 831

Without disagreeing, I'd like to point out that if anyone can compel me to print their words on my platform, I no longer have the right to choose with whom I associate. So, yes, it's a matter of degree, but there's a very good reason why most reasonable people choose to only extend it so far as the government reaches. Anything more, and you begin trampling on other rights. As the saying goes, your rights only extend to the point that they step on someone else's.

I think it's unfair to characterize a typical degree of support for the right to free speech as "not supporting it very much". I'd say that we're supporting it to the maximum extent possible within the constraints imposed by the other basic human rights.

Slashdot Top Deals

When in doubt, mumble; when in trouble, delegate; when in charge, ponder. -- James H. Boren