Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Browserball

weareinstrument.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–77 of 77 posts

Re: Browserball

#71

Post by viraptor »

Pxtl wrote: post #67
tambourine_man wrote: post #43

This is amazing. Kind of like when I first dragged a window across multiple monitors in the 90s. We are so used to content being stuck in artificial containers that it's kind of crazy when it transcends them.

There was a clever game called Metal Marines back then that exploited this idea - the game was a 1v1 base-building RTS where each player's "base" was on its own map in its own window. When you fired missiles or launched APCs from one base into the other, the missile would fly out of your base window, over the desktop and into the other window to hit his base. The effect was jaw-dropping even though it was a simple an…

Thank you! I was looking for that game a few days ago, but couldn't remember the name at all! And it looks like there's a reboot of it on Steam: http://store.steampowered.com/app/335940/

Re: Browserball

#72

Post by ahabman »

Security issues aside, has anyone tackled how to intentionally span multiple monitors using similar techniques? e.g. A dedicated four monitor web-based media dashboard.

Re: Browserball

#73

Post by cyphar »

softawre wrote: post #65
cyphar wrote: post #16

I remember playing with this at least 8 years ago. It's really scary that there's enough information disclosure in browsers that it's possible to do this.

> really scary This is really scary to you? I get that you can do fingerprints, and honestly there's a LOT more than just browser window position/size in them, but "really scary"? Maybe we need to stop exaggerating on this sort of stuff if we want people to take us seriously.

Fine. It's scary that browsers allow for so much fingerprinting. This toy webapp is an example of a larger picture of "things that we really shouldn't allow to happen". So "really scary" was referring to the issue of browser fingerprinting as a whole, not just one toy webapp.

Re: Browserball

#74

Post by vacri »

beeboop wrote: post #44
anc84 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually quite the opposite. Most sites will become lightning fast and distraction free.

I have use NoScript consistently for years and I disagree with you. Essentially the only thing NoScript does is make it so when you haven't visited a website before, it doesn't automatically trust it. For the most part every single website I go to needs to have JS enabled for anything to work beyond just reading content. And even then, I would say 70% of the time, some critical piece of content on a website does not…

I've been using NoScript for years as well, and I have to disagree with you. Now that NoScript auto-permits the base domain (which you can switch off), I don't have to do much manual permissioning. There's the occasional bit, but really, 70% is a ridiculously high estimate.

Then there's the occasional 'funny photo' site which won't work until you enable 15 different sources - in which case, I just pop open Chrome if I really want to see that funny photo.

Re: Browserball

#75

Post by vesinisa »

lucideer wrote: post #69
vesinisa wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NoScript is not about disabling JavaScript but allowing only white-listed domains to execute JavaScript. Generally, I trust the domains I visit frequently, and have them white-listed. I explicitly block domains of "analytics" and social networking services, since these do not offer me any value-added content. However, if I follow a link to a domain I have never visited before, I will first see if the content is viewa…

If you're using NoScript in the fine-grained manner you describe, and for privacy reasons (not just security), I wonder have you ever looked at uMatrix[0]. Same deal but a bit more performant, and also covers the whitelisting of other privacy-leaking aspects such as cookies, CSS, tracking pixels, iframes, etc. [0] https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix/wiki/FAQ

Thanks, looks very interesting.

Re: Browserball

#76

Post by _yosefk »

DonHopkins wrote: post #31

I am frustrated that it's 2016, and we still can't tilt windows diagonally.

Drawing programs such as Photoshop and Corel Painter can do it (in fact they tilt the window you paint into while keeping menus etc. straight which is what one wants them to do.) I guess it's a bit harder to do in one's program than it ought to be though, especially with the stellar hardware support provided by the cheapest integrated GPU.

Re: Browserball

#77

Post by digi_owl »

phkahler wrote: post #18
21 wrote: post #4

What's the reason for allowing web pages to get absolute screen coordinates? This is a privacy leak. I have a 24" screen, and I don't keep the browser window maximized because it would be too big. I presume other people do to, and I'm pretty sure most have a preferred size and position.

>> What's the reason for allowing web pages to get absolute screen coordinates? Web developers have always pushed for more access to information about the user and their environment. Browser and tool developers are happy to provide that access. There's always some use case that sounds reasonable, but you're right that it's just a security issue waiting to happen. These holes are also being talked about in the new Way…

> These holes are also being talked about in the new Wayland display server on Linux. Warping a mouse pointer, color picking, knowing your apps place on the desktop are all security violations. They are being very careful with that stuff because it's an insecure free for all with X.

I know the quip about how in IT paranoia is not a sickness but a job requirement, but damn it...

As for web developers pushing for more information. No surprises there, its so they can more precisely fine tune the layout of the "app" (notice how they refer to what used to be called a site with a term that used to denote something running locally).

That it also can be used to fingerprint the computer, and by extension the user, is a side effect, not a goal.

Post reply on HN