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?
Set your cookies to request always and prepare for > 30 of them: [
A mere thirty? Lucky you. That's easily manageable; just lean on the ESC key for a few seconds. I've visited sites that tried assaulting me with nearly a thousand for a single page.
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?
Honestly, given Slashdot's history of trolling -- goatse, gnaa, penis bird, systemd [
You left out Hot Grits and Natalie Portman.
But yes, "performance art" has been a part of Slashdot's history for a very long time.
Your best bet would be to contact the Assemblyman for your own district, inform them of this odious bill, and instruct them to oppose it.
uMatrix doesn't offer defenses against Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) exploits, or provide Application Boundary Enforcement (ABE). The consensus among uMatrix users appears to be to install NoScript for its XSS and ABE features, but turn off its script blocking, leaving that task to uMatrix.
I run a laboratory. The control software and the equipment are only rated for Windows 7. I have had to be vigilant about this because an upgrade would screw up $400,000 worth of analytical equipment.
I hope you have mounted scratch monkeys...
Briefly, a kid in Norway named Jon Johansen, along with other programmers in Germany, reverse-engineered the Xing DVD player, and published DeCSS, an independent implementation of the Contents Scrambling System (CSS) that was used on DVDs to deter unsanctioned copying, allowing Linux users for the first time to view DVDs on their computers. Subsequent research among crypto experts yielded more general solutions, and now CSS is effectively a no-op.
The DVD Copy Control Association -- DVD-CCA, the organization that licenses the creation of Hollywood-sanctioned DVD players -- tried to sue DeCSS out of existence in a California court. Their primary argument? That CSS was a trade secret that Johansen had improperly obtained and disclosed.
What was "improper" about it? His reverse-engineering violated the (*snicker*) "license agreement" attached to the Xing player.
Further, the DVD-CCA (incorrectly) argued, everyone who came in contact with DeCSS "knew or should have known" that CSS was a trade secret, and not to traffic in it, and asked the judge to put a restraining order on the Internet to prevent further distribution. (DVD-CCA also tried to argue that reverse-engineering is never proper or appropriate.)
Although the DVD-CCA's case was never resolved, CSS today is effectively useless as a copy protection mechanism, and DeCSS or its functional equivalent is widely available.
This legislation from Microsoft would appear to be an attempt to defend against such activity, and prevent people from ever inspecting or exercising control over their computers again.
Trade secrets are a weird edge case in intellectual property. They are not explicitly called out in the Constitution (as are copyrights and patents), but enjoy recognition in the courts. Unlike trademarks and patents, however, trade secrets do not need to be registered -- they exist solely by fiat (i.e. they exist because the company declares they exist). Trade secrets also do not have a formally defined "limited time" as Constitutionally required of copyrights and patents -- the inherent fragility of maintaining any kind of secret indirectly establishes the trade secret's limited lifetime.
Microsoft's proposal would greatly extend the reach and lifetime of trade secrets beyond their traditional scope.
Unfortunately it doesn't support modern typography like UTF8.
Are mrxvt and urxvt (RXVT with Unicode support) mutually exclusive?
Getting the job done is no excuse for not following the rules. Corollary: Following the rules will not get the job done.