Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Still depends on user trusting installer (Score 2) 150

This doesn't seem like a very big vulnerability because it still requires the user to explicitly trust an installer to install executable code. Whether that code is an executable or a DLL that gets loaded into another application, once you've installed malicious software, you're screwed.

Comment Re:Weighed Response (Score 1) 278

The US doesn't have nuclear weapons there now, but did deploy them in South Korea in the 1950s. It even made a point of announcing it, which the North Koreans took rather badly. South Korea is reportedly nuclear-free and has been for decades, but at one point, yeah, there were nuclear weapons present.

Comment Re:Anything NK does is suspicious (Score 3, Interesting) 278

It's more that the US isn't willing to do anything about it because it guarantees thousands to hundreds of thousands of dead allies and unpredictable results for geopolitical balance in the region. By chiding them publicly, it sets up a history of warnings in case something does happen, but lets all those people keep living for now.

Also, South Korea doesn't want to fight over it, preferring to wait until the regime collapses on itself and then figuring out how to clean up that mess, which would be easier than cleaning up that mess plus the leftovers from a war.

Comment Re:Is this really new? (Score 1) 49

It's not a direct read, but the idea is the same. You're thinking of a letter, and your attention goes to the letter on the screen even if your eyes don't move at all (they mention this for use in locked-in syndrome, where there's no voluntary movement at all). The iris responds to a lesser degree than it would if it were to center on the letter, but it still responds to the brightness, an involuntary movement based on a thought.

It's not a direct brain interface, but it makes for an indirect one through. A reading of what the subject is thinking, even at so rudimentary a level as a binary choice like this, without relying on a conscious physical action can be seen as a form of brain interface.

Comment Re:Is this really new? (Score 4, Insightful) 49

Hawking still uses a system activated by a muscle in his cheek, one of the few over which he still has some level of control, which is then detected by an IR sensor in his glasses. Earlier versions used a small joystick while he still had some control over a few fingers (or maybe it was just one), but the system has been adapted as he's lost more and more control.

This system might allow him to continue working even if he loses the last vestiges of control over his facial muscles.

Comment Re:Because Reasons (Score 1) 412

Indeed, I've been looking at uMatrix (in combination with NoScript), and there's a lot to recommend it. As far as cookie management goes, however, it's not as fine-grained as what Firefox had. You can only enable/disable a site's ability to set cookies. You can't inspect/approve every single cookie request itself. Sometimes you can get a site to work by accepting certain cookies and denying all others. FF's facility let you do that.

Comment Re:Because Reasons (Score 1) 412

You're the third person in this sub-thread alone to recommend Self-Destructing Cookies.

While I like the idea of its behavioral detection of tracking cookies, and its stats panel is informative, my ultimate problem is that it allows the cookies to be set in the first place. 99.9% of the cookies shoved at my browser are entirely, provably unnecessary -- the page displays the same regardless. As such, my philosophy is that they should never be accepted in the first place, even temporarily.

The cookie request is also a waste of bandwidth. If you're going to display the same page either way, why clog the pipe with a cookie that you're manifestly not doing anything meaningful with?

Comment Because Reasons (Score 4, Interesting) 412

It occurred to me after submitting the article that the per-cookie approval feature has been part of Firefox since it was called Netscape, so it's been around for a very long time.

Moreover, the allegation that enabling the feature destabilized the browser is pharmaceutically pure bullshit. I've been using the feature since its inception, and have Firefox windows open and running for days at a time without ill effect.

Contrariwise, I just went to check my cookie store, and found a bunch of new, unapproved, unwelcome, provably unnecessary cookies have appeared in just the week since I moved from v43 to v44. Deleting them after the fact is not a solution. Once set, tracking can take place immediately. The damage has already been done.

The proffered reasons for the change are easily shown to be false, so I do not hold out any hope that Mozilla management will have a change of heart on this matter and reinstate the long-standing feature.

Would anyone care to recommend a cookie management add-on?

Submission + - Firefox 44 Deletes Fine-Grained Cookie Management (mozilla.org)

ewhac writes: Among its other desirable features, Firefox included a feature allowing very fine-grained cookie management. When enabled, every time a Web site asked to set a cookie, Firefox would raise a dialog containing information about the cookie requested, which you could then approve or deny. An "exception" list also allowed you to mark selected domains as "Always allow" or "Always deny", so that the dialog would not appear for frequently-visited sites. It was an excellent way to maintain close, custom control over which sites could set cookies, and which specific cookies they could set. It also helped easily identify poorly-coded sites that unnecessarily requested cookies for every single asset, or which would hit the browser with a "cookie storm" — hundreds of concurrent cookie requests.

Mozilla quietly deleted this feature from Firefox 44, with no functional equivalent put in its place. Further, users who had enabled the "Ask before accept" feature have had that preference silently changed to, "Accept normally." The proffered excuse for the removal was that the feature was unmaintained, and that its users were, "probably crashing multiple times a day as a result" (although no evidence was presented to support this assertion). Mozilla's apparent position is that users wishing fine-grained cookie control should be using a third-party add-on instead, and that an "Ask before accept" option was, "not really nice to use on today's Web."

Slashdot Top Deals

All life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities. -- Dawkins

Working...