Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Submission + - Mozilla to Remove Hello in Firefox 49 (softpedia.com)

An anonymous reader writes: An entry on Mozilla's issue tracker opened on July 17 reveals ongoing efforts from Mozilla engineers to remove the Hello system add-on from default Firefox installations starting with version 49, set for public release on September 13, 2016.

Mozilla added Hello to Firefox in version 34, released on December 1, 2014, and from the beginning, it was part of the browser's core code, but was moved in December 2015 into a separate add-on, one that came pre-installed with Firefox, making Hello its first ever system add-on.

Mozilla plans to remove Hello from the codebases of Firefox Beta 49, Firefox Developer Edition 50, and Firefox Nightly 51. Based on the currently available information, the deadline for the Hello code removal operations is for this Monday, August 1, after which the first Firefox builds with no Hello integration will be available for testing, and will ship out in the fall with the stable release.

Comment Re:What's the big problem? (Score 1) 501

Hyperbole or not, it appears to offer nothing but hassle to end users, which probably means it's getting unpopular.

Virtually all US credit cards are chip and signature, offering little in improved security. It's slow. Most card readers have a slot but haven't had that feature activated (honestly, the only store around here that allows chip vs swipe is Wal-Mart. Publix, as one major example, doesn't) leading to confusion. The card readers themselves seem to be bug ridden, with some freaking out if you don't insert the card at the exact moment they expect it. Wal-Mart's even, until recently, made a noise like a submarine klaxon when the payment was accepted - someone and completely unnecessarily embarrassing.

Add to that the delays, and you have the least popular technology since GMX.

Comment Terminology (Score 4, Insightful) 67

Can anyone explain why we continue to use the term "ride sharing" when Uber, Lyft, et al, have nothing to do with ride sharing? They're basic car-for-hire services. Ride sharing has always been used to mean "People who share a car to get to a common destination" (eg commuters who work together and live close by saving on gas, that kind of thing), and while Uber started by claiming that this was essentially what they were doing, it became obvious pretty quickly that the service resembles ride sharing in no way whatsoever.

Comment Re:I am with Snowden 100% (Score 1) 160

I agree with most of what you say - though hard evidence is not a bad thing, there was a lot of "He said, she said" stuff before the leak proved the DNC was rotten on this issue - but the Turkey data dump was not a Wikileaks thing, despite early reporting suggesting it was. Snowden's almost certainly talking about the release of private information - credit card numbers, private phone numbers and home addresses of donors - that was also in the leak.

Comment Re:Basic Journalism... (Score 2) 160

What modern-day journalist working for anything resembling a respectable newspaper has published the credit card numbers, home addresses, and private phone numbers of their subjects?

Snowden didn't state specifics, but the scandal around Wikileaks release of the DNC emails has generally focused on two things - the possibility it came from Russia (nothing to do with Wikileaks themselves or editing, so unlikely to have been Snowden's concern), and that it included private information about individual - often blameless - people that could cause them serious harm without having anything to do with holding them to account.

Everyone, to the best of my knowledge, is on board with the idea of Wikileaks leaking an email that says "Hi, DWS here! I need a list of ways in which we can secretly handicap Sander's campaign, but remember guys, technically this is illegal so mum's the word!". Fuck DWS. If she goes to prison over this, then nobody's shedding any tears beyond a few die hard Clinton worshipers.

What we're not on board with is "Oh, Jeff Atl called to donate $100 to the general election fund. Could you handle it? His credit card number is 4111 0291 3839 1212, expires 06/17, CVV 971. Address if you need it is 9821 SE Sunflower Rd, Trenton Gardens, NJ 19281." Even if the full email continues "I let him know that with his donation comes a 30 minute meeting with the Secretary of the Environment so he can deal with that little problem his factory is having with the inspectors", we'd at least expect the credit card details and street part of the address redacted.

Comment Re:Does this surprise anyone? (Score 1) 1005

No, the Time article is perfectly clear. What is not clear is where you get your twisted ideas from. You haven't been able to support them yet.

You're deliberately being obtuse

I suggest you look up the meaning of obtuse. It is not synonymous with questioning, nor is it synonymous with challenging someone's partisan beliefs.

ignorant

I have been asking you questions. You have been failing - repeatedly - to answer them in a factual manner.

I've produced 3 links and at least 2 quotes.

And I have shown how they do not actually support your statements. If these are your only sources, then you are at best spouting nonsense that you cannot support and at worst simply lying.

December 2014: Clinton turns over ~30k "work related" emails that she filtered herself (no third party) and deletes the other ~30k which she has deemed "personal"

You've gone back to your huge assumption, there. In fact, you have multiple huge assumptions in that one statement that you have shown repeatedly you cannot support with facts. You cannot support the claim that the emails were deleted only after the others were turned in, you cannot support the claim that Clinton deleted them herself, you cannot support the claim that she alone decided which emails were and were not personal.

But I've yet to see a single link from you.

You have provided several links that contradict or fail to support your assumptions. Not yet have you provided a single link that supports them.

You really should try reading some time.

Yes, at this point I've produced 3 links, all of which say the same timeline/details.

No , you have not. Had you bothered to read the pages you have linked to, you would know that they do not support your claims. In fact you would have done almost as well to link to goatse.

Are you telling me you leave all your email in your inbox and never delete anything? Maybe you don't get much email, but for those who use email for work that would be a huge volume of email.

No, I do not routinely delete 30,000 emails on a "regular basis".

You really suffer mightily at reading comprehension, here. Try reading what I wrote before you reply to it.

Which is probably why you also missed my statement before that there are a LOT of problems with Hillary. It just so happens that you are obsessing over making up shit about a problem that you cannot demonstrate to be an actual problem. You have a lot of egg on your face now, and throwing silly accusations at me doesn't help clear it.

Comment Re:What the hell? $600K? (Score 1) 59

Just the accounting you'd need to sell the thing to the government would cost you $100K. Oh, and you'd have to pay yourself or someone else to take part in the bidding process or apply for the granted, and that has to be recouped as part of the sale cost. Er... you were planning on paying yourself for your time, weren't you?

Also, there's a big difference between building a prototype from junk you scrounged and building a reproducible product. When you build a product the second copy should be exactly the same as the first but cost less. Duplicating a one-off prototype exactly usually costs more. Why? Proof of concept prototypes are cheap because you make them with surplus stuff you have lying around or can buy for fractions of a penny on the dollar. You can be opportunistic. The problem is any particular set of opportunities (e..g the $10,000 assembly you picked up at auction for $50) aren't reproducible.

I had a colleague whose first job out of school was writing up a detailed specification for a prototype midget submarine a defense research lab built for the Navy. The Navy was pleased at the low cost and so they wanted to be able to build a second one just like it. Well it turned out that a second one would have cost a hundred times as much they'd have had to pay manufacturers to reverse engineer stuff or start up production lines. It was one of the pointless, futile tasks you dump on newbie engineers before you know you can trust their work.

Comment Re:Basic Journalism... (Score 2, Insightful) 160

That's an asinine argument. Other people who should do it don't do it, so I won't do it either.

Wikileaks won't do it because Assange is a chaos-monger posing as a crusader. Wikileaks should do curate its leaks because when you possess information you act responsibly with it, e.g., don't expose people it is about to identity fraud.

Slashdot Top Deals

Real Users are afraid they'll break the machine -- but they're never afraid to break your face.

Working...