Some of those require changing the internals of Firefox: about:config.
I wish Firefox would just have a big red button, Disable All, instead or requiring me to preform all the tasks listed in the link, when I install Firefox. Or even better, make those choices opt-in, instead of opt-out.
I'm not involved in Mega anymore. Neither in a managing nor in a shareholder capacity. The company has suffered from a hostile takeover by a Chinese investor who is wanted in China for fraud. He used a number of straw-men and businesses to accumulate more and more Mega shares. Recently his shares have been seized by the NZ government. Which means the NZ government is in control. In addition Hollywood has seized all the Megashares in the family trust that was setup for my children. As a result of this and a number of other confidential issues I don't trust Mega anymore. I don't think your data is safe on Mega anymore. But my non-compete clause is running out at the end of the year and I will create a Mega competitor that is completely open source and non-profit, similar to the Wikipedia model. I want to give everyone free, unlimited and encrypted cloud storage with the help of donations from the community to keep things going.
That Kim guy is really always good for a story. I'm impressed. But has anybody seen his documentary? I don't think he's really happy. On the top of his career he had "bunnies" and yacht parties, and a VIP seat in a Formula 1 race. But he never seemed happy, and most of his friends just seemed to be these people who just want to get a share from the money. I don't know, but seeing that I never wanted to exchange my life with his.
I read a quote once from a guy that became very wealthy when his company went public. He too became a magnet for fake friends. He said that the thing with fake friends is they are so much better at acting like friends than real friends. No doubt Kim knows that feeling.
I hope he took from his down swing how to recognize these. That's a huge negative impact on one's life, having such kind of friends. Even on the good days they suck out your energy without you realizing it. And again, I think even as such a friend you don't have a happy life.
I think he (my friend, not Kim) ended up deciding he preferred his fake friends because they were so much better at being "friends". His real friends would call him out and tell him to get real when he started getting too full of himself due to his new wealth. His fake friends were always supportive regardless of how outrageous his behavior became (and it went way over the top). I guess it is kind of a selection bias effect and the same thing that leads to big-headed bosses surrounding themselves with yes men. I wonder if Kim fell into that trap.
Yeah, we all are like that in our naive form. Only through bad experience and the ability to learn from failure we can overcome that. Only few people have that ability, and some are "lucky" and never have such a bad experience until the end, but I would assume they still feel something missing yet never realise what it is.
If Dotcom wanted an open-source community-supported file sharing platform that couldn't be taken over by external forces, why did he create the perfect antithesis to that?
Why did he in fact sign an agreement barring him from competing in that sector?
I can't understand how somebody who wants such a perfect world consistently painted himself into a corner from which he couldn't.
The way I understood it, he just has different priorities now. It's not like he always wanted to do the community supported solution and decided to do the closed source one. He apparently made this decision recently.
It still sounds like he's just reacting to his current situation, rather than doing because of his ideals.
Those addresses are websocket servers that seem to publish wikipedia changes. The app is just subscribing to the changes by opening a websocket connection to the appropriate server.
That's a pretty dismissive attitude. We recently added reCAPTCHA to our sign up flow at Codecademy and it helped combat spam a lot. The site was harder to manage and moderate before we took that little step.
Assuming all websites using reCAPTCHA are not worth using seems ridiculous to me.
This is like the places that make me store my backpack behind the counter while I'm shopping. Yes, I totally get that it's one way to combat theft, but it's also treating me like I might steal something. From a UX perspective, it's hostile. I'm having to do work to solve a problem that I've never been the cause of. So if I have a choice, I don't visit those establishments a second time. They have chosen to put those extra roadblocks in place, and I've chosen to go somewhere where I don't feel like I'm getting punished for someone else's crime. Seems like a win/win to me.
To suggest it's a "dismissive attitude" to not want to be hassled due to some other bad actor implies looking at it from the business perspective, and not necessarily from the perspective of the effect it has on users.
I understand your point, but do you have a better suggestion to solve the spam problem? It's a really hard problem, and CAPTCHAs do a reasonable job of solving it at low cost to the end user.
Note that certain adware/spyware domains, like google-analytics( look at the tags <maybe-spy> and <maybe-ads> ), are commented out, so edit the file as per your needs.
Google's re-capthas are coming from google.com, to block them add:
127.0.0.1 google.com
127.0.0.1 www.google.com
This may be a tough choice to make, depending on how integrated has Google become with your life ( note how I phrased this relationship ).
I tried NoScript for a bit. Obviously most social networks stopped working, but I liked how NYT became free again (since they track you by a cookie) and obviously HN remained solid. Essentially NoScript just means no online socializing, which I think I might grow to become ok with.
I think you misunderstood the intention of this feature. The goal is to identify and/or profile users that themselves use just a regular log-in. This can be then used to improve targeted marketing, selling that information to third-parties for example.
Note how the article mentions that the gender can be determined after a few keystrokes, even though the user never entered that specific information. This is certainly not the only metric that can be identified. The point of the article is to develop a solution to prevent leakage of private/personal information.
> Note how the article mentions that the gender can be determined after a few keystrokes, even though the user never entered that specific information.
Research got median 88% accuracy testing subsets of 98 males and 35 females.
Note that I got 74% accuracy on that data set by guessing male, male, male, male, male...
The original researcher knows in advance what the ratio is, yes, that's my point. I'm illustrating that the research is not very good. They couldn't even identify women to take part in the study. Given the numbers involved, it certainly isn't Facebook-ready.
In general, I don't believe it is possible to distinguish male and female typing patterns.
What you might be recognising is how people learned to type combined with the size of their hands - that might partly but not exactly break along gender lines. Bucketing people on that basis is just a recipe for awkwardness.
Fabricating facts and using ad-hominem is not a very good way of backing up your arguments.
Quote from the paper:
We use the public GREYC keystroke benchmark database for this work. It is one of the largest databases (in term of number of users and sessions) in keystroke dynamics. To out knowledge, no existing database contains more individuals. In order to reduce the bias due to this high quantity of male information, we only kept the first n male samples( where n is the number of female samples).
( Don't bother with your response, I won't be reading it. )
>We use the public GREYC keystroke benchmark database
Yes. That's their own database which they're talking up, the one that they made to do this research. That's what I was talking about.
>In order to reduce the bias due to this high quantity of male information, we only kept the first n male samples( where n is the number of female samples).
It happens that I didn't read this part.
On reflection, what I understand now is far worse than what I originally understood:
- They have 35 females and 98 males, they take many handwriting samples from each.
- Since the participants provided many samples, these samples appear both in the training set data and in the test set data.
- I use the training set data to figure out if I can recognise the handwriting of the 35 female participants.
- Then I look through the test data to see if I can identify those participants again.
Basically what you've shown is you can identify the handwriting of 35 people if you've already seen it - 88% of the time.
Splitting groups into 'female' and 'male' is a red herring. This method would presumably work, even if I split them into two random groups.
Ironically if you want to prevent Firefox to "phone home", you will have performs many obscure tasks:
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/
Some of those require changing the internals of Firefox: about:config.
I wish Firefox would just have a big red button, Disable All, instead or requiring me to preform all the tasks listed in the link, when I install Firefox. Or even better, make those choices opt-in, instead of opt-out.