blueskin_

11 ms·

61.
by blueskin_ 12y ago
This is why outbound filtering on firewalls is just as important as inbound, especially as manufacturers cram more spy capabilities into everything.
62.
by blueskin_ 12y ago
Never trust the client or the data they send. Talk about a rookie mistake.
63.
by blueskin_ 12y ago
De-paywalled: https://archive.today/UFtBa
64.
by blueskin_ 12y ago
They get thrown under the bus.
65.
by blueskin_ 12y ago
If you read the blog, there won't be. Mozilla ditched any pretence of caring about people with an IQ over 75 long ago.
66.
by blueskin_ 12y ago
Mozilla took the power user out around the back with the shotgun long, long ago, unfortunately; just the latest sacrifice in their futile war to copy everything chrome does (and yet the PHBs making these decisions still wonder why they are
67.
by blueskin_ 12y ago
Coming soon: Firefox Safe Browsing: If you attempt to go to a site that is not on Mozilla's whitelist, it blocks it. Also for 'security' purposes. Mozilla are using 'security' in the same way oppressive politicians
68.
by blueskin_ 12y ago
Because that would be giving their users choice and control rather than apple-style authoritarian dictatorship.
69.
by blueskin_ 12y ago
>the CEO comment was a bit unproductive. That doesn't make it untrue. He was a bigot, and good riddance to him; I hope his reputation remains sufficiently sullied for the foreseeable future.
70.
by blueskin_ 12y ago
http://www.palemoon.org/
71.
by blueskin_ 12y ago
Why not just add a warning to the site to come up if they have malware, with a list of good, trustable links for them to follow?
72.
by blueskin_ 12y ago
No, they aren't. Did you read it? Now they all need to be submitted to mozilla for 'signing' (read: approval).
73.
by blueskin_ 12y ago
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
74.
by blueskin_ 12y ago
>richer clients Please, no. The internet works because it's compatible, and installing a local client for everything just prevents use of a service.
75.
by blueskin_ 12y ago
I'm moving over as soon as this steaming turd mozilla are dropping on us hits ESR.
76.
by blueskin_ 12y ago
Theoretically, we could move to a private key based system, where your browser encrypts/signs with a private key for each site, but there's neither the will to do it, nor the means to make it simple for the room temperature IQs.
77.
by blueskin_ 12y ago
Did that anti-encryption backdoor get put in in the end or not? News reporting on it went quiet a while back...
78.
by blueskin_ 12y ago
Mozilla get scummier every year. Might be time to move to Pale Moon, I think.
79.
by blueskin_ 12y ago
>Dwarf fortress stuff is like that dffd exists for things that aren't github(etc)-appropriate such as tools. No real reason to use anything else unless you're trying to monetise it with adf.ly etc (which might also count as a r
80.
by blueskin_ 12y ago
Well said. This is good usability.
81.
by blueskin_ 12y ago
Never understood why they do this. Surely they should keep junk off removable drives, as they are the most likely to be used in other systems including ones that don't hide data from the user.
82.
by blueskin_ 12y ago
Yeah, it's messed up. Easy enough to avoid by saying you either don't have a TV, or have one but don't use it to watch broadcast TV though.
83.
by blueskin_ 12y ago
In a leadership election, it's in their interest to have a clear winner with a large majority. In a general election, it's in nobody's interest and indeed, counter to the national interest to have a huge majority.
84.
by blueskin_ 12y ago
It can more easily be solved by just not crawling sites that have mandatory javascript, because chances are their content is going to be crap and not worth the time if they are that hostile to basic usability.
85.
by blueskin_ 12y ago
I find that messed up, that anyone can add me without me having to accept. Guess it makes sense in google's ideal panopticon world where privacy is a swearword though. It's just not something I would ever be a part of. Oh, and it
86.
by blueskin_ 12y ago
Yes, unfortunately, although there is growing resentment against it every year and even some high profile celebrities are now refusing to pay. An internet tax would ensure whoever brought it in would not win an election again, especially as
87.
by blueskin_ 12y ago
Yes, it's a system-wide permission (needs admin rights) IIRC.
88.
by blueskin_ 12y ago
I've yet to see any. It used to be necessary for drop down menus, but now CSS does that. When I browse with javascript off, it's only crap sites that break, and often the same ones loaded down with tracking cookies, 3rd party CDNs
89.
by blueskin_ 12y ago
Anyone who hates annoyance will already have disabled the stickykeys shortcut. A more reliable way if you're somewhat prepared is to just use a live linux system and NTPasswd. Any distro that can be installed to a flash drive should ha
90.
by blueskin_ 12y ago
>Pirate Party UK >broadband tax proposal The Pirate Party is supposed to be pro-internet. This is just a perfect example of how shambolic and badly-organised the UK Pirate Party is, and the reason their membership has been dropping si

More ›