Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:The downside (Score 3, Informative) 70

>" We don't have the ability to block HTM5 animation."

Exactly. And I have been warning about this for years, since the concept came up. I knew EXACTLY how it would be used- Ads, banners, stupid crap all over sites. Besides being extremely annoying, it destroys thin clients. It makes slower machines CRAWL. It sucks the battery out of mobile devices.

We used to be able to have relief by just blocking Flash and using adblock. Those days are over. It has spread beyond just ads and now client-side animations are everywhere. Browsers like Firefox need to somehow have some type of way to block (or SLOW) ALL types of animations. It won't be easy to do this without breaking sites. Could possibly be done with something that loads such objects on demand (hiding them/overlaying them) or by detecting tight loops to trigger blocks or slowdowns.

If you don't might blocking just all video/audio/media, that can be done in Firefox with about:config, stuff. But that is an all-or-nothing affair. Here are some examples for those desperate enough (pulled from my thin client configs):

user_pref("webgl.disabled", true);
user_pref("webgl.disable-extensions", true);
user_pref("image.animation_mode", "once");
user_pref("browser.blink_allowed", false);
user_pref("browser.preferences.animateFadeIn", false);
user_pref("browser.tabs.animate", false);
user_pref("toolkit.scrollbox.smoothScroll", false);
user_pref("browser.panorama.animate_zoom", false);
user_pref("browser.fullscreen.animateUp", 0);
user_pref("browser.tabs.maxOpenBeforeWarn", 8);
user_pref("dom.max_script_run_time", 10);
user_pref("layout.css.prefixes.animations", false);
user_pref("browser.download.animateNotifications", true);
user_pref("media.navigator.enabled", false);
user_pref("media.webm.enabled", false);
user_pref("media.encoder.webm.enabled", false);
user_pref("media.autoplay.enabled", false);
user_pref("media.ogg.enabled", false);
user_pref("media.wav.enabled", false);
user_pref("media.wave.enabled", false);
user_pref("media.opus.enabled", false);
user_pref("media.audio_data.enabled", false);
user_pref("media.raw.enabled", false);
user_pref("media.webaudio.enabled", false);
user_pref("media.webspeech.recognition.enable", false);
user_pref("media.webvtt.enable", false);
user_pref("media.peerconnection.enabled", false);
user_pref("media.fragmented-mp4.ffmpeg.enabled", false);
user_pref("media.getusermedia.aec_enabled", false);
user_pref("media.getusermedia.noise_enabled", false);
user_pref("media.gstreamer.enabled", false);
user_pref("media.mediasource.enabled", false);
user_pref("media.video_stats.enabled", false);
user_pref("media.navigator.video.enabled", false);
user_pref("media.fragmented-mp4.enabled", false);
user_pref("media.gmp-gmpopenh264.autoupdate", false);
user_pref("media.gmp-gmpopenh264.enabled", false);
user_pref("media.webvtt.enabled", false);

Comment Scary (Score 1) 89

>"Today we're announcing that during that same time period, the degrees of separation between a typical pair of Facebook users has continued to decrease to 3.57 degrees, down from 3.74 degrees in 2011"

What is scary is how they are able to determine that and with such precision. There are many reasons I have never used Facebook.... this just continues to reinforce that.

>"Are Facebook friends anything like real friends?"

Um, no.

Comment Luddite?? (Score 1) 212

>"Porsche Builds Photovoltaic Pylon, Offsetting Luddite Position On Self-Drive "

Luddite Position? Whose stupid-ass opinion is THAT and why it is in the title? Quite a few people have *NO* interest in self-driving cars, and that is especially true in the higher-end sports-cars markets. It wouldn't make any economic sense for Porsche to pursue a path that doesn't intersect with their goals and customer wishes.

What next? A comment about how Kawasaki has a Luddite Position on not pursing research on self-driving motorcycles??

How about Titleist having a Luddite Position on not pursing research on a self-playing robotic golf club? Or maybe Samsung not wanting to pursue a self-watching TV?

Comment Nope (Score 1) 832

>" Would you rather Twitter shut down no account ever, apply a sort of white-listing policy, or something in the middle?"

Have never used Twitter, and probably never will, so I don't really care. But, free speech and all- nobody is forcing you to listen to anyone you don't want to.

Comment Re:Where is deniability? (Score 2) 391

>"That's the problem. There would be only one way to enforce this type of law and that would be through sting operations. An undercover officer would bring a computer in to be repaired with illicit images somewhere obvious, like the desktop background screen. If no report is filed, the worker is arrested."

But just because a tech worked on the computer doesn't mean he/she actually was aware of any porn on there- unless the sting made it so it is nearly impossible to miss (like making it a background image or something stupid). I know when I work on others' computers, I very intentionally try to NOT look at anything not absolutely necessary to do what I am trying to do. Not just from a liability aspect, but it is the professional way to handle the situation.

It is a very dangerous law which might do far more harm than ever do any good.

Comment Re:Where is deniability? (Score 4, Insightful) 391

The summary does say the professional is required to report it IF THEY ENCOUNTER IT, but are not required to search for it. In other words, if in the process of doing work on a computer he/she discovers it (see is and knows what it is) and doesn't report it... that is a crime.

It is a law that would be nearly impossible to enforce.

Comment Re:Press space to wipe and reenable OS verificatio (Score 1) 167

Sorry for the (partially) offtopic reply, but I just saw your question about Trusted Network Connect here.

I haven't been hearing much new news about Trusted Computing or Trusted Network Connect recently. Ordinarily I'd consider that a good sign that it wasn't moving forwards, however it's looking more like a successful slow-quiet-rollout strategy. Both Microsoft and Google make the Trust chip mandatory on phones, and Microsoft has declared that it's mandatory on all desktops and other devices in a few months. all new devices and computers must implement TPM 2.0 and ship with TPM support enabled , starting one year after the Win10 release. (Apparently August of this year.) The whole design of Win10 is to force rolling updates. It could get ugly if Microsoft simply pushes out all sorts of Trusted Computing crap as non-declinable "routine updates".

The phone lockdowns are definitely leading the way. Microsoft says phone manufacturers must prohibit users from turning off secureboot, and it looks like Google is also enforcing enforcing secure boot which (so far) permitting you to then drop to an eternal-nag non-Trusted mode. Sigh. Not good. I wouldn't be surprised if desktops also use a transition step of enforcing an eternal-nag-mode if you try to opt-out of Trusted Computing. At some point support can simply be ended for the nag-mode option. Then there's no opt-out at all.

-

Comment Re:Unconstitutional (Score 1) 545

>"Actually you cherry pick when you claim the Constitution doesn't allow the fed to pass laws that impact the states; any treaty we make impacts the states for example."

No, making treaties is a federal power, as stated in the Constitution. As is defense, coining money, etc.

>" The constant idiotic misrepresentation of states having some sort of limitless right to do anything they want to do is an idiotic purely partisan hack thing that's never been based on reality."

I certainly make no such representation. Not only do the States have to comply with the USA Constitution, they also have to comply with their own State Constitutions... as interpreted by the State courts and possibly the Federal courts (if appealed that high).

Comment Re:Unconstitutional (Score 1) 545

From Wikipedia:

"The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. "

"Section 5, also known as the Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, enables Congress to pass laws enforcing the amendment's other provisions."

I don't see how either could be construed to allowing Federal laws about education or parents not being sued for allowing their kids to walk to school.

Comment Re:Unconstitutional (Score 1) 545

>"So: if a state or locality has decided or later decides to specifically make a law specifically against "unattended kids going to school," that law would take precedence over this act. "States rights" are still in effect here."

Your posting is informative but doesn't refute that it is still not the Federal government's power to pass such laws (based on the Constitution). The States should make the necessary laws regarding such things and the State courts will interpret them and the State Executive branch will enforce them. If there is no State law about it, then that power is left TO THE PEOPLE.

Their passing such a law specifically DOES erode the States' rights to govern their people in a matter not granted the Fed by the Constitution. If the State wanted legislation in that area, it would do so, or is free to do so. In this case, the Federal law might step out of the way if there is a State law about it, but it is still overstepping, it is just doing it in a round-around way... they are setting a default law about something. Quite clever, actually.

Comment Re:Unconstitutional (Score 1) 545

>"Here, you forgot a very important party, the people. I think walking to school is exercise of a people power not a state-granted privilege. Personally, I don't think the federal government has a place in education, K-12 or higher education, except as a sponsor and propagator of educational standards (which I think is a legitimate role of the Commerce Clause). But they do have a role as a protector of the people which I think this law imperfectly attempts."

I do not believe that is what they mean by "the people". They are saying the power is reserved to the States OR THE PEOPLE- meaning that powers not specifically granted the Federal government then go to the States, and if not addressed by the States, the power is not government at all but left freely to people so they can decide what they want to do. That is freedom.

Slashdot Top Deals

10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.

Working...