Re: BBC support html5 fully - just not on desktop
Even BBC News? I read lots of complaints that the Agent hack doesn't work there and the site, even on iPad, demands Flash without exception.
8652 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
Even BBC News? I read lots of complaints that the Agent hack doesn't work there and the site, even on iPad, demands Flash without exception.
Let me put it this way. If the average web goer had to choose between security and flying cat videos, the flying cat video wins 9 times out of 10.
They outnumber you by about 100 to 1.
Guess to whom the browser makers are going to cater.
You'd be right, actually. Since 2001, ALL Olympic content originates on the Olympics' own television network: Olympic Broadcasting Services. Those official graphics you see all come from that, not the second-source TV networks like NBC and the BBC.
" in fact it's only the Google devs who continue to update (patch) the linux release of Flash player, Adobe canned it a couple of years ago."
And ONLY by way of an exclusivity contract Google signed with Adobe in order to get the rights to do the job.
Nope. The Enterprise world is stuck with it in the form of control modules for very expensive equipment built to require Flash with no possible replacement unless the company is in the mood to plunk down for NEW very expensive equipment.
Not gonna work. It's like with yacy and freenet. You get hit in the bandwidth costs. AFAIK, efficient decentralized (and possibly anonymous) networking is a physical impossibility because efficiency necessarily creates identifiable traces.
"You guys can go back to writing your own content on A4 paper?"
Last I checked, we don't have matter transporters yet and not everyone has a facsimile machine, so instant global communication that isn't point to point raises issues.
"Or you could start a movement so that everyone pays for access to sites!"
Unless your content is both high-demand and exclusive, paywalls tend to be a downvote for you, history has proven.
"By blocking ads surely your just making this worse?"
Worse to the point they have to make a leap of faith: either go all in or check out.
"You chose to use an ad blocker rather than avoid a site so i doubt that."
Wanna BET? For many, they think the Internet is becoming a cesspit and are checking out of the Internet...COMPLETELY. At least back in reality they just have to deal with cold calls, billboards, and junk mail.
And if the former, meaning blocking the ads blocks the content, meaning you can't get in touch with family overseas where Facebook practically IS the Internet (just go to third-world Asia and see; I have)?
"So yeah, the moment a website tries to force me to remove my adblocker then the effect is very simple: said website will be removed from my favorites list(s) instead. There are tons more websites which can provide me with the same experience, thank you very much."
So you say, but after Kickass went down, no viable alternative appears. If there's only ONE source for the same experience, is it "Walking on the Sun" time?
"But back to my initial comment: this is a disaster just waiting to happen. Because what's going to happen when FB's advertising source gets compromised and its proven that FB has (indirectly) started spreading malware and other junk?"
The option has been open for a long time now: just have Facebook itself and the world's your digital oyster.
Except I believe Facebook paid ABP to get whitelisted.
One problem: ABP is ALSO an ad-slinger, as they WHITELIST certain companies who pay them.
"They claimed that we were slurping data about our users, while I tried to point out that all they were picking up was our users' account names, which were linked to nothing about their actual real identities. He still didn't accept that N0458301942@our.company.co.uk didn't tell anyone anything about the person who the username belonged to, since it wasn't linked to their real name, address, age, sex, political affliation...in short nothing worthwhile."
That's what YOU think. But the beauty about DE-anonymization is that they can build relationships between two seemingly unimportant pieces of data...which in turn get linked to other bits of data UNTIL one of them is linked to an important piece of data. All of a sudden, the entire chain of bits gets connected.
Facebook is the biggest fad of the Internet at this point. And when it comes to ignoring fads, to quote the Smash Mouth hit, "You might as well be Walking on the Sun."
How do they block an element that's in the same domain as the page itself without blocking actual content?
"Ochlocracy, a word I discovered listening to this interesting discussion about Xenophon"
In other words, mob rule, which inevitably degenerates into anarchy as people within the mob vie for power at everyone else's expense.
""People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of the people""
Thing is, the government has nukes, and someone desperate enough will USE them, too.
"All are possible and known spy/surveillance technologies and I don't worry too much about that because it is expensive and time-consuming to do, that alone means it has to be targeted at important stuff."
No, the costs are FALLING because it's a whole lot easier than investing vast computing power into cracking encryption algorithms. That's a job best left to sovereign powers for whom money is less an object.
"You are missing the point - we don't generally need "unbreakable" encryption, just hard enough to make mass surveillance impossibly expensive, and difficult enough so that targeted use has to be prioritised to serious crime."
But the thing is encryption is in the end useless because we can't decrypt the stuff in our brains (if we did, we'd be in Ghost in the Shell territory). And since the stuff MUST be decrypted at some point to use, the plods will simply target points "outside the envelope".
It's what the customers want, so what are you going to do?
Besides, 7 times out of 10 they can just do what the SWAT do when they insist of coming in: use brute force to break the hasp or the frame. Because most door frames are made of wood, they don't take as much force as you think (OTOH, many commercial door frames are made of steel), and there's little you can do to stop them, especially when the house is empty (meaning possible countermeasures like door stops can't be used).
In other words, Security hurts sales which is why the only industries that do it regularly are those where it's a prerequisite (such as military industrial). And since there's a sliding scale between security and ease of use, not even laws or insurance pressure can help (because who cares about laws or insurance premiums if your sales tank and you can't stay in business).
"...fired when parked in a mid-floor of a multi-story..."
If you'll recall, KITT's heavily reinforced. I think it's managed to pull off escapes using techniques similar to what you describe, although I'll have to consult my KR collection to be sure.
No, because it's the custom stuff (that makers will insist on for the sake of identity, otherwise why bother with more than one make) that will be the problem. All you do is move the target.
"There are ways to hide the root status from individual apps - I've used one with flawless success. Get xposed and you won't regret it!"
How when SafetyNet checks itself with an encrypted connection back to Google AND can upgrade itself through that same connection? We don't know Google's private key. SafetyNet can even detect /system-less root now.
No, because thanks to SafetyNet, more apps are becoming root-aware. Rooting now has more risks than before, as apps you used before could balk.
Last I heard, it won't make the August patch cycle because it was submitted too late. Meaning September at the earliest.
In which case it's a lost cause as it's proof people CAN'T learn. Twice stung indicates stinging doesn't make them learn.
It could've been worse. There were plenty who lost all their assets when Mt. Gox crashed. And this one could've easily just shut all their doors, turned out the lights, and left you with nothing at all. As they say, better 2/3 of something than 100% of nothing...
So now comes the question. Which would you prefer: anarchy or the police state? Because in today's world, keeping third options is becoming more and more difficult.
"The only 0 days they should be permitted to keep in their arsenal and not inform the vendor about are those they discover themselves."
What makes you think they DON'T discover them themselves and what we're seeing most of the time is parallel efforts to a single goal?
But where are the GAMES?
Meaning turbines are more efficient than Stirling engines?
"At best, it's an inefficient energy STORAGE mechanism. We have pretty good batteries already."
Pretty good? They're not really all that efficient, they don't scale well, they don't really last that long under prolonged use, and many have an issue with spontaneous combustion. We REALLY need something better.
"Sure, there will always be crooks and naive/stupid people. But why being a crook on the Intenet is so easy? Because of technical reasons, or because too many make money from letting the crooks around? Yes, it's a layer 8 issue too - but not the one identified by the researches. Follow the breadcrumbs - and you'll find why it works."
Or maybe because of sovereignty? It's hard to nab a crook if they happen to live in a country hostile to you.
"Clickable links wouldn't be a problem if they moved to the Industry Standard Lubuntu desktop."
They'll find a way. Remember the term "rooting" doesn't come from the Windows world.
Like I said, pervasive cameras (Google cars) and spy satellites (commercial photography satellites).
"And since I'm using a company laptop, try measuring my care level...."
Pretty high, I would say, since they may eventually trace the zero point back to you, you get sacked, maybe charged with criminal negligence resulting in gross damages...
"As Mike said, have the legit e-mailers send harmless mail. Then the phishers can duplicate this to their hearts' content - they'll be sending harmless mail."
No, the problem is that they can make a harmless-looking e-mail harmful no matter what you try to do. Remember, you can't fix stupid. Even without direct links, you can make a stupid user copy and paste, even hand-type if need be, and use a similar domain the malcontents bought first or hijacked (so no unicode involved and it can't be removed because it was bought from a crooked vendor who can bribe or is immune to the authorities).
Trouble is, sometimes you can exploit a system by feeding it CORRECT inputs, too.
But what's to stop a phisher from duplicating EVERY SINGLE THING the legit e-mail can throw, only to use legit-looking (maybe even Unicode) domain names so that you can't tell the two apart even with a poring of the source? That's how good phishers are getting: the point where the besieger's advantage is becoming harder for the besieged to counter.
Probably also to do with spectrum. American phones need an emphasis on bands 4, 12, and 17 (as those are the LTE bands used by AT&T, T-Mobile, and MetroPCS the main GSM-based carriers, and this trend extends throughout the Americas). They're still pretty international-friendly, though, as they normally support band 3 and at least one other common band (usually 1, 5, or 7). Verizon and Sprint phones use less-common bands so require more customization.
It's one reason I finally decided to retire my S4 for this (used in good condition), as S4 is off the Lollipop list, let alone Marshmallow (OTOH, my S5 is already there). It just took a while for the US carriers to catch up: T-Mobile most recently in June. I think AT&T is the only holdout.
"Watch that first step! It's a doozy!"
As in it's a pretty big one. One with a lot of substance to it. Term based on the old Duesenberg cars that hit their heyday in the 1930's and affectionately coined the phrase, "It's a doozy!" as a way to say, "Now here's a REAL car!"
Because of Stagefright and so on, Google's been forced to pay a lot of attention to security with Android N: particularly the ability to patch core functions of the OS that normally get obfuscated by carriers. In order to avoid getting investigated by governments for still letting hopelessly-vulnerable-and-unpatchable devices be approved, they need to slam that door hard. That's why you have things like seamless updates, which means updates don't take forever to install, and why IINM he core framework is being separated from the user interface (which is what the manufacturers and carriers want to control).
I still haven't heard any call for requiring the use of root-proof tech like ARM TrustZones and Secure Elements; this may have to do with catering to low-end device makers, though.
I wouldn't count on anything to run Android 7 well until after Android 7 itself comes out. This one looks to be a doozy in terms of changing the core functions, if you'll recall, since Google has been forced into a security focus with this update.
"Your thinking like a customer, not a seller. If they make the battery replaceable, how will they sell you the Note 8?"
They can't. I look for a phone that ticks all the boxes, and then find the cheapest one. And for me, a non-replaceable battery (and a lack of microSD) is a deal-breaker based on firsthand past experience.
So until they cater to the customer (which as the adages go is #1 if the law is not involved), I'm not buying.
"As to who should be herding the root servers, I rather suspect that the original principle should be applied vigorously and have them managed by independent agencies hosted in various countries. With all details of the management agencies being publicly available. I certainly would *not* want someone like Erdogan or Un or (some days) Putin or Zuma with their hands on the leashes of more than one of the servers."
How do you avoid puppets then who can in turn be protected by the power of sovereignty?
"It is literally criminal how they get away with blatantly saying "F U" to everyone's face and nobody lifts a finger in retaliation. I would send in the Marines and have them all shot for treason on site, no delay and no discussion."
OK, then. After you sweep ICANN clean, what would you replace it with? And how would you ensure it did its job properly while also preventing it being corrupted or subverted AGAIN?
You see, the big trouble with all these cries of "Throw the Bums Out!" is that no one ever bothers to consider what you're going to do AFTER they're gone. It's not like the Internet runs itself or can completely ignore political entities that can control the physical wires...
"You haven't been downwind of an open tin of Surströmming, have you?"
But at least that at worst only has a local influence. I'm talking international stinks.
"Generate solar electricity in North Africa (where there's a lot more sun than there is in most of Europe), and use low-loss HVDC transmission to ship it across to places in Europe that could make use of the electricity. And as a side benefit, generate a bit of income for the Africans in the picture."
But then politics inevitably gets involved. Who owns what? That's why we can't have a solar satellite in space. That kind of energy means power, political power, and there WILL be fights over it.