The best solution I see to the "no IE9 for windows xp" problem if were not counting on Microsoft to do something is Chrome frame; but I think some big player (youtube, facebook etc..) would have to almost force it on users for it to cut down on those big percentages
Yes, but there are plenty of other browsers such as Firefox and Chrome that work in XP. Unless you're talking about accessing sites that will work only in IE.
Cookies have this problem, too (anyone from the same domain sees your cookies, and you can't really count on the cookie path). So does XMLHTTPRequest. Same origin[1] is pretty much the governing rule here; there wasn't any point in making pushState any more secure than the rest of the system.
It's not just horrifying URL schemes, it would make the feature useless for any "web app" - take Grooveshark for example. A user can go from /artist/x/1234 to /song/x/1234 which seems pretty reasonable and not very horrifying.
supporting the fork with updates to the opt outs is good, but the change to the add-on seems gratuitous.
a more user friendly approach would have been to give them the 'downgrade' update, and opened a tab offering the 'enhanced' abine privacy add-on. the update behaviour feels more appropriate for a scammy toolbar, than a useful privacy extension. among their target audience wouldn't this be a turn off?
They should have made their new version a new extension. I think they were trying to take advantage of the previous user install base without realizing this is really a power-user addon.
I'm impressed that they are willing to help while they try and get a handle.
Ideally they would do what you said and issue a "roll-back" to v2.0 with a link to the enhanced add on.
I applaud them for their openness and responsiveness, not their marketing tactics. We'll see where it goes from here.
How do you know that IT pros are less likely to implement a workaround than hackers are to exploit it?
How prevalent is deploying workarounds and mitigations versus deploying patches? I don't know of any research in this area; it would be very interesting to know.
Based on history. There have been several known exploits that have been exploited where a Windows Update patch has been available for months, and admins didn't update.
Now, take it a step further and now you have an exploit where is no Windows Update package, but each server has to be manually updated following a procedure from a webpage.
This is a no-brainer to me. Of course if you're looking for double-blind randomized control studies to prove this, well I'm afraid you're in the wrong field.
Increasing testing requirements on what? I meant adding it to the browser (or the window manager/X/whatever), which would not require a massive effort to test. The websites themselves already have to support (at least) three modes of interaction if they want to have all main browsers supported (mouse, touch, keyboard).
The important questions are how much value is derived from:
- Privacy
- Limited Sharing
- Unlimited Sharing
for both Facebook and the user. This can then be counterbalanced by the costs experienced by the user and Facebook, such as loss of privacy or spam from applications or adverts (a cost of attention/time)
If you do not derive a greater value from sharing your information than the cost, then do not share. It doesn't really matter to this whether Facebook is deriving value, only if you are incurring costs greater than the value received. I don't see how this is sharecropping.
Interesting technique, although I think a domain specific extension of Haskell for analysing log records might be more useful.
I'm sure there are more complex examples, but all the tasks in the screencast could be done easily with Splunk. It might, if you want to develop the idea of log analysis further to look at their search cheatsheet. http://www.splunk.com/base/Documentation/latest/SearchRefere...
I've used and developed on Splunk at work and you're completely correct. You can also get this information using AWStats or something similar to analyze Apache log files. It's not surprising that software marketed for the task of log analysis can do better.
The point of the post is to demonstrate how a practical task can be done easily in a programming language that has been accused of being too academic and impractical.
It's questioning the idea of work for wages, not the idea of producing in order to consume.
An alternative system could be co-operatives or contract working, for example.
In which either "work" is being done for "wages", or "no work" is being done for "wages".
There really isn't a way out of it. The first is isomorphic to what we have, the second utterly fails as an economic system.
The third alternative is to break wages, but as money is already essentially as powerful as it can be, all you can do is break its power down, and that's just "company scrip" again, which most people consider not so much a good thing.
TANSTAAFL.
Contract working isn't an out, either. Either we have the opportunity to do contracts already and some of us choose to work for wages, in which case we are not wage slaves because we have chosen it and you lose the right to complain about how we are wage slaves, or contract workers are themselves just disguised wage slaves. Either way, contracts can not be a solution to a problem we currently have; either we do not have the problem, or contracts are not the solution.
Some 60% [2] of the market share is Windows XP. IE 6 - 8 are going to be with us for some time.
[1] http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/info/FrequentlyAskedQuesti...
[2] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Microsoft_Win...