Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Chrome 32 Is Out: Noisy Tabs Indicators, Supervised Users

Posted by Soulskill on from the no-more-hunting-for-that-autoplaying-video-tab dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Google today released Chrome version 32 for Windows, Mac, and Linux. The new version includes tab noise indicators, a new look for Windows 8 Metro mode, and automatic blocking of malware downloads. You can update to the latest release now using the browser's built-in silent updater, or download it directly from google.com/chrome."

141 comments

  1. Make mine block all 3 by tompaulco · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'd like it to block noisy tabs, block metro 8 and block malware. Maybe I should just go back to lynx.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    1. Re:Make mine block all 3 by ackthpt · · Score: 2

      I'd like it to block noisy tabs, block metro 8 and block malware. Maybe I should just go back to lynx.

      Or go back to Gopher.

      and the glory which was telnet

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Make mine block all 3 by noh8rz10 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Google is the panopticon. This is why I don't use chrome and I won't have a nest product.

    3. Re:Make mine block all 3 by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd like it to block noisy tabs, block metro 8 and block malware. Maybe I should just go back to lynx.

      This noisy tabs indicator has been running here for weeks.

      But basically I agree. I don't want to just Know about noisy tabs, I want the noise blocked by default
      until I decide I want to listen.

      So close, Google, but you are still protecting the advertisers at the expense of the users.
      Shut them UP.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    4. Re:Make mine block all 3 by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Google is the panopticon. This is why I don't use chrome and I won't have a nest product.

      As if Apple and Microsoft are better ...

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    5. Re:Make mine block all 3 by dresgarcia · · Score: 3, Informative

      Its called adblock plus. Familiarize yourself and never go back.
      All this cry-baby complaining had me wondering why I don't notice "noisy ads" or, well, ads at all. I realized its because I never see them.

      https://adblockplus.org/

    6. Re:Make mine block all 3 by lgw · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has no social network, nor any general browser habits tracking tied to your identity. Outlook.com will serve you ads based on the content of mail, but AFAIK that's it. MS doesn't track that you read this blog here, and searched for this term there, and shopped for this product over there, and put all that together with what videos you watch and your "real name please". So, yeah, I'd say that's better.

      I suspect Apple is the same way, sans the web mail ads.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:Make mine block all 3 by ahabswhale · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sure buddy...

      http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/10/4823944/microsoft-reportedly-working-to-replace-cookies-ad-tracking

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    8. Re:Make mine block all 3 by noh8rz10 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      two questions - who has the capability and who has the desire?

      Google has the desire. The only way they make money is by tracking everything about you and selling that info. They have the capability - their search is #1, with double-click they can track you on all different sites. Their browser is huge too. Their phone is huge. now they're getting into home equipment too!

      MS has some capability too. They have the browser, although that is trending down. they have the search engine, although that is 2nd and smaller. They have the phone, but it is an also ran. They own the living room with xbox. but I'm not sure they have the desire. Ultimately they make money by selling software, and to a small extent hardware. but they don't seem to know what they want to do these days, so I wouldn't be surprised if they're throwing everything against the wall.

      apple has amazing capability in mobile but they have zero desire. They know that they make %% through hardware sales, to the extent that they're now giving away OS X, iOS, iLife, and iWork.

      I trust apple the most here, because where there's a will there's a way.

    9. Re:Make mine block all 3 by reub2000 · · Score: 2

      Blocking flash (or simply not installing it) achieves that goal.

    10. Re:Make mine block all 3 by icebike · · Score: 1

      And I could not buy a computer at all.
      But there are places I want video. http://www.cnn.com/help/video.html#20
      Listen, I want it my way. My computer, my way.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    11. Re:Make mine block all 3 by reub2000 · · Score: 2

      Chrome/Chromium allows you to create a whitelist of sites that are allowed to use plugins. Flashblock for firefox does the same thing. Since very few ads use the audio or video tags, blocking flash effectively blocks noise.

    12. Re:Make mine block all 3 by borl · · Score: 2

      About the noisy tab indicator... It would be an far more useful if clicking the indicator presented a volume slider or at least muted the tab. As it is, if you want to continue reading the page sans noise, your options are exactly the same as they were before.

    13. Re:Make mine block all 3 by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      I don't wanna have to block Flash, or java, or anything else. I just want them de-balled so they can't open popups (still happens), play audio ("I created this web site for the purpose of lightening your wallet with seductive patter."), or initiate a download without my permission, especially something ending in .exe, which someone managed to do to my Chrome browser just last week.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    14. Re:Make mine block all 3 by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3

      Google has the desire. The only way they make money is by tracking everything about you and selling that info.

      I'm pretty sure they have other revenue streams. They can make money from advertising because they have so many users seeing them, so it stands to reason that their number one priority must be retaining those users by not pissing them off. Of course they are incompetent sometimes, but they certainly don't sell all your private info to advertisers.

      MS has some capability too.

      You missed the fact that they have the number one OS in the world, on 90% of computers. Obviously any large company is going to be schizophrenic, but aside from the XBOX division they generally seem to be the least privacy invading of the three.

      apple has amazing capability in mobile but they have zero desire.

      Sure they do. They are years behind in mapping, for example, so have a strong desire to collect data from users and car mounted cameras in the same way that Google does. They were already caught logging location data on their phones, deleting your Apple account is impossible (I tried), and they have an active and profitable advertising program that relies on user data the same way that Google's and Microsoft's do.

      to the extent that they're now giving away OS X, iOS, iLife, and iWork.

      Google gives all its software away for free too, including operating systems and productivity software. In fact Google's is often open source. I don't think this really means anything.

      I trust apple the most here

      I trust them the least because they are so secretive, but Google and Microsoft are not much better.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:Make mine block all 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google has the desire. The only way they make money is by tracking everything about you and selling that info.

      I'm pretty sure they have other revenue streams. They can make money from advertising because they have so many users seeing them, so it stands to reason that their number one priority must be retaining those users by not pissing them off. Of course they are incompetent sometimes, but they certainly don't sell all your private info to advertisers.

      MS has some capability too.

      You missed the fact that they have the number one OS in the world, on 90% of computers. Obviously any large company is going to be schizophrenic, but aside from the XBOX division they generally seem to be the least privacy invading of the three.

      Windows is on 90% of traditional Intel PCs, but computers and internet using devices is a very different picture. This says Windows have 15% share of devices (PCs+Tablets+Phones). I think another report with a stricter definition of included devices arrived at around 30% Windows share across "computer devices".

    16. Re:Make mine block all 3 by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      apple has amazing capability in mobile but they have zero desire.

      Sure they do. They are years behind in mapping, for example, so have a strong desire to collect data from users and car mounted cameras in the same way that Google does. They were already caught logging location data on their phones, deleting your Apple account is impossible (I tried), and they have an active and profitable advertising program that relies on user data the same way that Google's and Microsoft's do.

      I agree with every statement but the last. They probably collect data to make their services better but they don't collect data to make money off of advertising. Are you referring to iAds ? At best that's a sop to developers and at worst it's a miserable failure.

    17. Re:Make mine block all 3 by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      So close, Google, but you are still protecting the advertisers at the expense of the users.
      Shut them UP.

      You realize that "protecting the advertisers" really means "protecting Google's revenue stream", right?

      Given Google's got a 95-98% marketshare on online advertising, that ad you're complaining about most likely has been served up by Google or one of the many ad networks they own. Yes, Google, the founder of "ethical" Google Ads, also serves up plenty of popup, popunder ,"rich" (aka noisy) ads, blinking ads, etc.

      So no, Google will NOT jeopardize their revenue stream. It also goes against what keeps Chrome alive.

    18. Re:Make mine block all 3 by number17 · · Score: 1

      Every time I use somebody else's computer I feel like 3 year old gazing at an advertisement for the first time. Its cool seeing things blinking, ads flying across the screen, and ads with noise.

      After about a minute that goes away and remember why I have adblockplus.

  2. For all google's "evil" doings by fatgraham · · Score: 2

    Noisy tab identification makes up for killing reader. (almost)

    1. Re:For all google's "evil" doings by sunderland56 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why just identify the noisy background tab? Is there a setting to say "only play audio from the visible tab"?

      And if you want evil: the "block malware" is presumably done by sending the name/location of the file you want to download to a google server, where it can be preserved forever and delivered to the government on request.... nice.

    2. Re:For all google's "evil" doings by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I get to uninstall a plugin tonight, and get to enjoy my memory footprint dropping accordingly.

    3. Re:For all google's "evil" doings by LordLimecat · · Score: 5, Informative

      And if you want evil: the "block malware" is presumably done by sending the name/location of the file you want to download to a google server,

      Thats not even a remotely safe assumption. For years now Chrome has created temporary files called "Safe Browsing Bloom" under the profile, which are presumably databases of malicious URLs. They could easily do something similar for malicious files. Either way, its something you can easily turn of with one click of a checkbox, and its something that all browsers do-- but apparently Google is the only one who gets flak for it. Nice.

      where it can be preserved forever and delivered to the government on request.... nice.

      I get that some people dont like Google's core business (info gathering / advertising), but this is about the stupidest reason to be anti-google ever.
      They are the ONLY major search provider who fought against China's requests for data on dissident bloggers
      They are the ONLY ones who arent ambiguous about their own privacy policy (Im looking at you, Bing)
      And unlike almost any of the other major tech companies out there, they very frequently go to bat for user privacy and rights-- for example, refusing to provide US authorities user information without court-orders or warrants, providing info through the EFF's chilling effects pages on takedowns, and fighting lawsuits to indemnify users against patent trolls.

      If this isnt "biting the hand that feeds you", I dont know what is. Have fun with Bing, just hope you arent a dissident in some authoritarian country.

    4. Re:For all google's "evil" doings by LordLimecat · · Score: 5, Informative

      I just did some research; No, they do not submit it to Google. From their docs:
      https://developers.google.com/safe-browsing/

      The Safe Browsing API is an experimental API that enables applications to download an encrypted table for local, client-side lookups of URLs that you would like to check. ...
      The Safe Browsing API v2 has the following advantages:
        * Better privacy: API users exchange data with the server using hashed URLs so the server never knows the actual URLs queried by the clients.

      And of course, you can actually see said database tables under your profile as files beginning,..
      "C:\Users\[USER]\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\User Data\Safe Browsing*"
      And if you were truly paranoid and / or wanted to stop spreading FUD, you could wireshark your connections to confirm that they do not, in fact, send those URLs to google to block malware.

    5. Re:For all google's "evil" doings by chihowa · · Score: 2

      But they're comparing the hash that you send with the hash that they have generated from a list of malicious sites, right? So the server certainly knows which site you are visiting if it's on the "malicious" list. Which is good, because you want a YES or NO on whether the site is malicious.

      So the only thing that Google, indexer of the internet, needs in order to know all of the other sites you visit is a hash of every other URL on the internet. It is not at all unreasonable to assume that they have this, since they probably use it internally (and why would they use a different hashing algorithm for Safe Browsing than they use internally?).

      The Safe Browsing API v2 has the following advantages:
          * Better privacy: API users exchange data with the server using hashed URLs so the server never knows the actual URLs queried by the clients.

      The fact that the doc you quoted specifically mentions protecting your privacy from Google itself is what makes their assurance less comforting. When someone claims to have taken steps to protect you from themselves (and those steps don't seem to offer much protection on further inspection), it's natural to be suspicious.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    6. Re:For all google's "evil" doings by relisher · · Score: 1

      They are the ONLY ones who arent ambiguous about their own privacy policy (Im looking at you, Bing)

      I don't know if you've heard about DuckDuckGo, but --

    7. Re:For all google's "evil" doings by zlogic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Background sound is a big thing for online radio and music players. What would be nice is an option to disallow sites from playing music until they're approved, kind of like Chrome does with webcam access.

    8. Re:For all google's "evil" doings by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      Theyre not comparing anything. Safebrowsing protocol has your computer download their database, and you do the comparison locally. The server never knows anything except that youre using safebrowsing.

      That sort of makes most of your post irrelevant.

    9. Re:For all google's "evil" doings by chihowa · · Score: 2

      In the post that I replied to you quote, "Better privacy: API users exchange data with the server using hashed URLs so the server never knows the actual URLs queried by the clients." This is specifically describing the Safe Browsing Lookup API, which does send hashed URLs to their servers.

      The link you provided says that, "The Safe Browsing Lookup API is a new experimental API that enables applications to simply look up URLs from our Safe Browsing service and get the state of URLs (e.g. phishing, malware) directly."

      So whether you send URLs to their servers depends on whether you choose to use the Lookup API or what they set as the default in Chrome in the future. It's important to actually discuss this and not just pretend that it doesn't exist.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    10. Re:For all google's "evil" doings by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Yes, and that protocol has NOTHING to do with chrome. That is used by websites, if you read their usage examples.

      In fact, the SafeBrowsing2 protocol-- which I described-- specifically mentions that it is used by firefox and chrome.

      You can rightfully mention that the lookup protocol has privacy issues; in fact they specifically go over the privacy implications of that. But to criticize them for merely offering that service is a bit crazy, and its offtopic in a discussion on chrome because it is not used in chrome.

    11. Re:For all google's "evil" doings by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Relax, please. I'm not criticizing your precious Google.

      My post was only intended to "rightfully mention that the lookup protocol has privacy issues", which are not entirely explored in the docs. The Lookup API is certainly related to Chrome, because it will almost certainly be added to Chrome when they're happy with it (why else would they be developing it?).

      Anyway, intentionally or not, you're the one who brought the Lookup API into this conversation.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  3. Popup blocker that works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be so nice if it could actually block popups.

    1. Re:Popup blocker that works by dresgarcia · · Score: 1

      Please see: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4668171&cid=45959933

      (Hint. . its called adblock plus)

  4. Boycott it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google builds DRM into their browser:

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7055403

    Boycott them until they remove it. Mozilla is one of the few browser vendors that can be trusted.

    1. Re:Boycott it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ~2000.. "Microsoft isn't following W3C standards, they are evil! Boycott them"
      ~2014.. "Google _is_ following W3C standards, they are evil! Boycott them"

    2. Re:Boycott it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ~ 2014 - "Google is trying to make W3C adopt standards that enshrine DRM, they are evil!"

      It isn't a standard yet, and if it becomes a standard, then it will be a tragedy.

  5. Chrome 64 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How long until the 64-bit version is released?

    1. Re:Chrome 64 by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How long until the 64-bit version is released?

      A more worthy question!

      The world continues to wait.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Chrome 64 by KiloByte · · Score: 2

      How long until the 64-bit version is released?

      "apt-cache show chromium-browser|grep ^Architecture:" says "amd64" for me.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    3. Re:Chrome 64 by pjbgravely · · Score: 1, Troll

      I have been running 64 bit Chrome browser for years now.

      --
      Star Trek, there maybe hope.
    4. Re:Chrome 64 by donaldm · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How long until the 64-bit version is released?

      On my machine (Fedora 20):

      13:15:29 > file /opt/google/chrome/chrome
      /opt/google/chrome/chrome: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.24, BuildID[sha1]=74ebd85bfc06b9bb44a2dac8f221edef5b09dbcc, stripped

      Been running 64 bit Chrome and Firefox for some years now. As for a 64bit Google Chrome running on a 64 bit Microsoft OS (you can't expect 64 bit binaries to run on a 32 bit OS) I can't say and really don't care.

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
  6. Why use Mute... by ackthpt · · Score: 2

    When you can do a bunch of code to detect which tab has the auto-page refresh which brought up an auto-play blatherskite advertisement.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Why use Mute... by pjbgravely · · Score: 2

      I just use flash block, nothing makes noise unless I let it.

      --
      Star Trek, there maybe hope.
    2. Re:Why use Mute... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      this.

      flashblock and the other adblockers make 'nosy tabs' 100% unnecessary.

      all flash should be left dormant unless the user clicks on it. and that is exactly what flashblock does.

      I never have my sound card 'connected' to my browser anyway. if I want to play music, I'll unmute the sound output and re-bind it to audio. having a few diff sound devices also helps (the default built in audio is never connected and that's the 'live' audio connection as far as linux or windows is concerned. my real audio 'card' is audio device #2 and you have to select it for any client to bind to it.)

      problem solved, and no need to involve google or their spybrowsers.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:Why use Mute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      flashblock and the other adblockers make 'nosy tabs' 100% unnecessary.

      I disagree with that 100%.

      Start playing a music video (on YouTube, Vimeo, whatever).

      Switch tabs to do other things. Music keeps playing.

      Now you change your mind, want to stop the music, which tab was that again? Your boss just walked in, you want to stop the music...

      Why wouldn't you want a "noisy" indicator to help you find the tab with the audio?

      I'll agree that most of the actual problem is auto-play junk. But I won't agree that this feature is 100% useless.

    4. Re:Why use Mute... by shentino · · Score: 1

      I thought the sandbox was supposed to STOP nosy tabs from snooping on each other.

    5. Re:Why use Mute... by kiddygrinder · · Score: 1

      block plugins until clicked is a menu option in chrome

      --
      This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
    6. Re:Why use Mute... by pjbgravely · · Score: 1

      Where is that found? I searched the whole settings screen.

      --
      Star Trek, there maybe hope.
  7. Only indicators? by StripedCow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Besides an indicator, I'd expect a per-tab _mute_ button.

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    1. Re:Only indicators? by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Simply put, if the offending tab in the window, is not the one to the fore it should clam up.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Only indicators? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I agree. I like to have music running in a background tab in a window I don't necessarily have focused. However, I don't like having random videos/music start up just because I either start my browser or open a tab that I'll check at some point later. Nothing should auto-play unless I intend it to.

    3. Re:Only indicators? by gman003 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I see a lot of people playing music in a Youtube (or whatever) tab while doing other things in the other tabs. Automatically muting any background tabs will break that usage.

    4. Re:Only indicators? by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 2

      Not really. Mute background tabs by default (with a mute icon already "clicked") on the tab, then you can click it if you want sound from that tab if it is in the background. If you don't like it on the actual tab, put it next to the bookmarks/download/home icons

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    5. Re:Only indicators? by gman003 · · Score: 1

      That could work, but I think that might still be too extreme a break in what the user expects. Unmuted by default should probably be the default, for now at least.

      Or perhaps it could default to muted unless you do something to trigger the sound (pushing "play" on a video, for instance). That would cut out the annoying autoplay ads, at least.

    6. Re:Only indicators? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I see a lot of people playing music in a Youtube (or whatever) tab while doing other things in the other tabs. Automatically muting any background tabs will break that usage.

      Yup - I know somebody who went nuts over the fact that he couldn't get his Android tablet to do that no matter what. There was what amounted to a podcast in video form that he wanted to listen to, and the video was superfluous. He wanted to still do other things on the tablet while it was playing. It was impossible, because he couldn't find an app that would let you play a video in the background.

      Granted, this was a few years ago - perhaps the situation has changed since. I haven't gone looking for video players that work in the background on Android.

      In any case, seems like the defaults should be configurable. There should be a default on-vs-off setting, and a default for what happens when you switch tabs. Then there should be the ability to override any of this for any site.

    7. Re:Only indicators? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Not really. Mute background tabs by default (with a mute icon already "clicked") on the tab, then you can click it if you want sound from that tab if it is in the background. If you don't like it on the actual tab, put it next to the bookmarks/download/home icons

      Except Safari on Mac used to do something similar. In an effort to save CPU cycles and give a better user experience, when a tab was idle, Safari stopped running plugins.

      It lasted for all of a few months because feedback was immediate - people were using idle tabs and windows to listen to internet radio and other stuff in the background.

      So unfortunately, most users expect noisy tabs by default because they're using it for pandora or spotify or whatever else. It's just that one tab that's playing an annoying ad that can be the issue

      Perhaps the default should be if no tab is making noise, the first one that does keeps making noise, and new tabs are auto-muted until the noisy tab stops playing (then the next tab open is unmuted - i.e., if there's something playing, all new tabs are muted. If there's nothing playing, all new tabs are not muted).

      But I suppose the nicest thing would be to have no plugins run or the ability to stop a plugin. Namely how YouTube always is set to autoplay if you de-embed a video (lots of reasons why - e.g., that website is horrible and busy and consumes too much CPU, etc). If someone can fix YouTube so it doesn't autoplay... (or is there a ClickToFlash extension now?)

    8. Re:Only indicators? by Megol · · Score: 1

      You are assuming that your preference is the common one. It isn't mine and it sure isn't for all normal people I've interacted with (judging by use patterns).

    9. Re:Only indicators? by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      There's enough people using browser based music players (Google Music, Amazon) or podcasts that this is just too much of a hassle. Honestly I legitimately listen to something from a background tab far more frequently than random stuff starts playing and that's the case for more and more people as applications become more web based.

      I'll agree that it should be a configurable option, but the default should be to play with the option to mute.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    10. Re:Only indicators? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried to do the same with playing music from a YouTube video on Android recently. I forget if I managed to get any of the workarounds to work, but I didn't try all that hard. I assume it's intentional because using YouTube playlists to listen to music is probably something Google wants to discourage (as opposed to actually buying the music, possibly from the Google Play store).

    11. Re:Only indicators? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firefox with the following add-ons: Bar Tab Heavy, ReloadEvery, Reload Plus.

  8. Noise indicators nice. Mute / Stop buttons nicer. by jerryasher · · Score: 1

    The noise indicators are nice, I would have preferred a small control to stop playing, stop recording.

  9. Automatic? by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

    How are they automatically blocking malware without submitting every link you try and download from to Google's servers first?

    I personally turn off all the intrusive features I find on any browser and this seems like another one.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:Automatic? by LordLimecat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Id imagine they download the file into "C:\Users\[USER]\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\User Data\Safe Browsing Download" like theyve done with the rest of their safe-browsing features for the last 5 years.

      But hey-- why be informed when you can complain about issues that dont exist?

    2. Re:Automatic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why be civil when you can be a douchenozzle instead!

  10. Wrong approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would any web browser begin autoplaying audio, video or flash content? Only user whitelisted sites should be able to do so.

    1. Re:Wrong approach by mythosaz · · Score: 2

      Seems a reasonable thing to do if you, say, go a page with a song or video on it.

    2. Re:Wrong approach by istartedi · · Score: 1

      Amen. I'd also like to see it give high priority to media when the user permits it. I don't mind if my text takes a few extra seconds to render while music is playing in the background. I do mind if the music burps because I've loaded a new document.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    3. Re:Wrong approach by Arker · · Score: 2

      No, actually, it does not seem reasonable at all.

      If I go to a page with a song or video on it, the browser should ideally give me a visible control that indicates the media file and gives me an *option* to start playing it, or to save it. It should under no circumstances whatsoever simply start playing the file.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    4. Re:Wrong approach by MurukeshM · · Score: 1

      It's usually called "Click-to-play". You can whitelist/blacklist sites as you like. The feature is supported in Chrome since forever and I use it. Since the majority of users just want youtube to start playing without added clicks, it's a sane default to allow auto-play.

    5. Re:Wrong approach by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

      ...and perhaps the option to play it takes you to a page that plays the file "automatically."

      People can't have this both ways. Endlessly they argue that people can have their web server serve what they want, and it's your client, so you can interpret that HTML data whatever way you want -- by discarding ads, or rearranging the layout of Facebook. Some people like to write HTML pages that, when you land on that page, play a video.

      What next? You want spoiler tags between every paragraph so you don't have to "automatically" see text?

      If it bugs you, don't visit the site. To each their own.

    6. Re:Wrong approach by Arker · · Score: 1

      You are missing the entire point of the web. To be able to open arbitrary data files from arbitrary, untrusted sources is a big part of it - and it's absolutely ridiculous that we have browsers that miss the point so badly that we have 'drive-by' infections where the victim never even has to be tricked to allow the infection, it just happens automatically. You say "dont visit the website" but that's stupid on many levels - you dont know what is on the website until you go! A browser that will not allow me to view arbitrary websites without being infected is broken.

      Text, with semantic markup, will never enable that. Autoplay of arbitrary files does.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    7. Re:Wrong approach by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      The HTML iframe that embeds, for example, a YouTube video embeds the YouTube player. It's a feature of the YouTube player to decide what behavior to take when it starts. Your browser doesn't determine how to handle YouTube's code. It takes it at face value.

      Let me give you my real-world case. I have an RFID enabled poker table -- cards placed on the table get read and a video system auto-produces your own realtime WSOP-like poker production, with hole-cards and percentages overlaid onto your table video. I run a website that discusses our poker league, and includes a link to a live camera of the table. If we're playing a game at my house, we're broadcasting that game to the internet.

      When someone clicks on the LIVE CAM link, I want the video on that page to start automatically.

    8. Re:Wrong approach by Arker · · Score: 1

      I understand how it works very well, and I also understand why it should never have been done this way.

      "The HTML iframe that embeds, for example, a YouTube video embeds the YouTube player. It's a feature of the YouTube player to decide what behavior to take when it starts. Your browser doesn't determine how to handle YouTube's code. It takes it at face value."

      Actually, that's not true at all. I get a nice little box where youtube wants their player to show up. Only if I click it and explicitly permit it, does my browser execute their player. This is as it should be.

      What's not as it should be is that my browser has had to be customized to behave this way, and the developers like to keep breaking the customizations. This means that while I, as a technically advanced user, can somewhat defend myself here, the people that need help the worst, the least technical users, are effectively locked out from exercising their rights.

      'When someone clicks on the LIVE CAM link, I want the video on that page to start automatically."

      When we are talking about MY browser on MY computer, your wishes are and should be entirely besides the point. If you dont want the person clicking on the link to have the power to determine how that link is interpreted, you should not be on the web, because that is simply the way it works.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    9. Re:Wrong approach by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      I said it once, and I'll say it again:

      Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

      You can instruct your browser to prompt you for every app and script, and to specifically request your permission before displaying upper-case characters if that's your thing. ...but when the applet is given the go-ahead to run, it either plays video or it doesn't. You only chose if you're going to execute it, and it's execution is at face value.

      In short, it makes sense in, like, my opinion, man. to have a link to LIVE CAMERA actually have moving pictures behind it.

    10. Re:Wrong approach by Arker · · Score: 1

      "You can instruct your browser to prompt you for every app and script, and to specifically request your permission before displaying upper-case characters if that's your thing. ...but when the applet is given the go-ahead to run, it either plays video or it doesn't. You only chose if you're going to execute it, and it's execution is at face value."

      Again, not true. I can actually inspect the code and determine the URL to the media file myself, then download it and do whatever I want with it. AS IT SHOULD BE.

      "In short, it makes sense in, like, my opinion, man. to have a link to LIVE CAMERA actually have moving pictures behind it."

      Yes, it does, so why not do that?

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  11. Re:Why does anyone use this spyware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because firefox used to be good, now it sucks (although you can restore functionality using ~10 addons and infinite settings tweaks making firefox handle like a hog). With chromium I need 2 and works like a charm.

  12. it also breaks startpage.com by meeotch · · Score: 1

    If you're a user of startpage.com (google-based search that doesn't track you), you'll no longer be able to use the "POST vs GET" option, which I believe is the default, and which keeps websites from tracking your search terms.

    For whatever reason, chrome 32 with POST vs GET will cause startpage searches to redirect back to the startpage.com home page with no results.

    To use the previous version of chrome on Windows, look in your %APPDATA%/Local/Google directory. There should be an old_chrome.exe that you can run that links to the previous version.

    Of course, when chrome auto-updates again, you'll lose that version. I've disabled the update plugin in about:plugins, but I'm not sure if that's sufficient to prevent updates.

    1. Re:it also breaks startpage.com by icebike · · Score: 1

      So how is startpage.com (acting like a proxy and therefore tracking you any better than Google tracking ?

      I know what Google is going to do with the tracking.
      I have no idea what startpage might do. Their Privacy policy is no more impressive then Google's.

      There is also http://www.epicbrowser.com/ they beat google with google's own stick. (they support either a direct mode or a proxy mode, and you can switch with one click).

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:it also breaks startpage.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Websites? The only website that can see your POST/GET request is the one you send the request to. Although if you mean intermediate network devices, then both GET and POST are equally visible to anyone who is in position to intercept your network traffic.

      Of course, this only applies if you aren't visiting an encrypted page. HTTPS completely obfuscates all headers and content, including the request path.

    3. Re:it also breaks startpage.com by foobar+bazbot · · Score: 1

      It's a referer thing.

      If you use GET, the search query is in the URL, thus when you click a link on the result page, the website can get the search query from the referer header (at least in typically-configured browsers -- naturally if you turn off referer sending, this doesn't happen). If you use POST, the search query is in a field, thus it's not available via the referer header.

  13. But the ONE thing I want... by Jethro · · Score: 1

    PLEASE let me have the options of deciding how long I want cookies saved for. Firefox has an "Ask me everytime" options for cookies - I want and need it. Chrome for some reason still doesn't have that (to the best of my knowledge - I check from time to time after updates).

    Haven't been able to find any plugins that add that functionality, either.

    I really want to switch to Chrome. It's so much zippier that Firefox. But not without my per-session cookie settings...

    --


    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    1. Re:But the ONE thing I want... by Kelson · · Score: 1

      Do you actually need that question *every* time, or do you just want to build a list of sites that are allowed to persist cookies and let the rest drop off at the end of your browsing session?

      Chrome doesn't have the ask-every-time option, but you can set it to only keep cookies until you close your browser, then add exceptions for the sites you want to persist. It's a bit clunkier to build up the list, but unless you're adding to it frequently, once you have the list it'll just stay out of your way and work.

    2. Re:But the ONE thing I want... by Jethro · · Score: 1

      It's a heck of a lot clunkier, so yeah, I'd prefer to be prompted every time. Especially since that's how I set it up for less technologically inclined people, and I can't really put them in charge of whitelisting stuff...

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    3. Re:But the ONE thing I want... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You set up less technically people's browser to prompt every time for cookies? Am I understanding that right?

    4. Re:But the ONE thing I want... by nyquil+superstar · · Score: 1

      Oops, that was me. Wasn't logged in.

    5. Re:But the ONE thing I want... by Jethro · · Score: 1

      Yes. Disable all 3rd party cookies, ask about the rest. "If you see this question and it's a website you KNOW, USE REGULARLY and need to be logged in to use, say YES. If it's a website you DON'T KNOW or TRUST, say NO. If you're NOT SURE, click "Allow for session".

      I give them the tools. I will even give them notes. But I won't treat them like idiots without good cause!

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    6. Re:But the ONE thing I want... by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      "keep cookies until you close your browser" means you can't elect to keep a cookie. I for one don't want to type in my Slashdot login every time, yet I don't want to allow 95% of sites to set permanent cookies. In Firefox, you can do it (clunkily) even with no extensions, or comfortably (defaulting to session cookies) with Cookie Monster.

      Chrome has no equivalent for this functionality, with or without extensions.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  14. Google knows best? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What was wrong with asking the user whether to keep a suspicious file? Especially considering their malware detection algorithm has been known to act overly paranoid at times.

  15. Scroll bar steppers are gone from Chrome by Megawatt-hour · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You know those little arrow buttons at each end of the scroll bar? The ones that scroll the content one line at a time? Gone as of Chrome 32. Anyone else think this is a terrible idea? Bug report here.

    1. Re:Scroll bar steppers are gone from Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't get worked up about this one, sorry.

    2. Re:Scroll bar steppers are gone from Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Son of a bitch, you're right. Yet more change for change's sake. Thanks a lot, you stupid fuckers at google.

    3. Re:Scroll bar steppers are gone from Chrome by ahabswhale · · Score: 2

      You could just use the arrow keys to go up and down one line at a time...

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    4. Re:Scroll bar steppers are gone from Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not a problem; I'm glad to see them go. I wished I could coherently allow myself to use Google Chrome.

    5. Re:Scroll bar steppers are gone from Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      http://xkcd.com/1172/

    6. Re:Scroll bar steppers are gone from Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I'm glad to see them go

      They don't even occupy any additional space, man.

    7. Re:Scroll bar steppers are gone from Chrome by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      I hope the thumbwheel is still there (the little drag rectangle in the scrollbar you grab with the mouse and drag up and down). I like to make parts of certain pictures as big as possible to barely fit onscreen, and I need that to fine-control the vertical and horizontal alignments for maximum aesthetic appreciation.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    8. Re:Scroll bar steppers are gone from Chrome by Megawatt-hour · · Score: 1

      That doesn't always work, since the page can intercept the key presses and do whatever it wants with them, and also because the input focus may be inside some element on the page, such as an embedded video, requiring a click somewhere else on the page to return the focus to the entire document.

    9. Re:Scroll bar steppers are gone from Chrome by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      Not only did they remove them, but in the process they broke much of the scrolling functionality for some users: https://code.google.com/p/chro...

      I've received at least one complain from a user of our small company website, then found out that a few of our office folks were having the same problem (they primarily use Chrome, I primarily use FireFox.) It was double fun because I have auto-updating turned off for Chrome and, when I went to update, I wasn't affected by the issue so I had to find someone else's computer that was and do my testing there.

      A lot of users who encounter this problem with wrongly blame the issue on the website they're using instead of on Google.

      (I'm actually okay with removing the arrows; they were likely removed as stats showed they were rarely used, with people either using the moving part of the bar and dragging it, or just clicking on an "empty" part to jump up or down, or using their scroll wheel; that last functionality was kinda broken in this release, too.)

  16. Re:Why does anyone use this spyware? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

    Firefox loads images really slowly.

    Don't believe me? Create a local html file with 500 pictures in it, and open it. Depending on how fast your computer is (mine is a $300 Ivy Bridge whatever it was) It will take firefox like 10 seconds to open, and chrome opens instantly.

    I actually still use firefox as my default browser because I am used to it, but I can see the appeal of using chrome.

    because I do some web development I actually will use firefox, chrome, and IE on various pages to see if they have different behavior.

  17. Google sure ain't an angle ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 0, Troll

    They are the ONLY major search provider who fought against China's requests for data on dissident bloggers

    How about Google's close relationship with the NSA ?

    Sure, Google might have protected the Chinese dissidents but it sold out the rights of the American citizens (and citizens of MANY other countries ) !!

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Google sure ain't an angle ... by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      How about Google's close relationship with the NSA ?

      They dont have a close relationship with the NSA. You have apparently been reading headlines, and skipping the articles. Heres a hint: the NSA's own documents indicated that the spying was done without the knowledge of the companies (Yahoo, Google, etc); Google responded by encrypting their intra-datacenter comms before any of the other companies did so.

    2. Re:Google sure ain't an angle ... by swillden · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They are the ONLY major search provider who fought against China's requests for data on dissident bloggers

      How about Google's close relationship with the NSA ?

      As a Googler, I'd say the best description is of Google's relationship with the NSA is "antagonistic". The news that the NSA had been tapping fiber between Google's data centers really pissed people off.

      Google has publicly denied providing the NSA with any access, and there's no evidence that the denials are false. From my internal point of view (working on security infrastructure stuff), I also see zero evidence, and I think I would see it if it existed.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:Google sure ain't an angle ... by LoztInSpace · · Score: 1

      Maybe you can answer the question prompted by the post above - why were the intra-datacentre comms links ever unencrypted?

    4. Re:Google sure ain't an angle ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It pissed some engineers off -- it didn't piss off the higher-ups who got the kickbacks/NSLs, otherwise it would have all been encrypted in the first place, as others have commented. These sorts of sellout decisions are made by the CxOs without any input from the peons, before anything's implemented -- or during implementation where business requirements change for 'other reasons'.

    5. Re:Google sure ain't an angle ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about Google's close relationship with the NSA ?

      You should be a bit more careful when judging a person or company for nothing more than operating within the US and being under the same thumb of rule as all citizens.

      After all, your close and personal relationship with the NSA and the rest of your government does not look too flattering on you.

    6. Re:Google sure ain't an angle ... by Lodlaiden · · Score: 1

      Why are the network lines between a grocery store and their main office unencrypted, even though it's used to transmit credit card data? (I'm looking at you small northwest grocery store chain which caused me to get a new credit card the day before Thanksgiving)

      Because it's cheaper, and cheaper is always better than secure in the eyes of a a cost cutting/saving leader.

      --
      Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
    7. Re:Google sure ain't an angle ... by buck-yar · · Score: 1

      You're either naive or work for google.

    8. Re:Google sure ain't an angle ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SUMMARY OF COMMENT:

      >> We didn't see X coming, but it did. As an expert on X, I see zero evidence of X happening in the future.

  18. How about better memory usage by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

    Does Chrome still spawn a new instance of itself for every tab you have open and every extension you have running? I like Chrome and I use it, but I upped my system to 12GB ram in order to use it to the extent that I need to. I realize that they do this so if one tab crashes, it doesn't take down the whole system. But the only thing that makes Chrome unstable in the first place is this behavior. Don't believe me? run this command:

    ps -eo pmem,comm | grep chrome | cut -d " " -f 2 | paste -sd+ | bc

    Now start opening more tabs with content and run the command again. Open more tabs and run it again. Memory usage sky rockets. Now try the same command but replace chrome with firefox, midori, or whatever else you have. Big difference.

    Why do I have the feeling modding isn't going to go my way with this post. Oh well.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    1. Re:How about better memory usage by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Because all other browsers are furiously trying to implement the exact same thing because its a zillion times better for stability. It does increase memory usage, but do keep in mind that a lot of the memory usage is due to the sheer complexity of pages today. If you compared memory usages for X tabs across browsers, I think youd find that they were roughly the same-- perhaps one would be higher or lower, but generally in the same ballpark.

    2. Re:How about better memory usage by dresgarcia · · Score: 1

      This is an unfortunate result of the sandboxing. This is really "the big trade off" between firefox and chrome beside all the little things. Do you want memory usage or sandboxing?

      Its pretty rare that I find Chrome with 5+ tabs using less than about 1GB of ram. I have an image somewhere in which when firefox is prompting to close 157 tabs, it is using ~1.5GB.

    3. Re:How about better memory usage by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

      but generally in the same ballpark.

      Not remotely. But I still use Chrome due to its advantages for my work. Hence the 12GB of memory. And yes, I have compared them all.

      --
      Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    4. Re:How about better memory usage by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

      I have hit 10GB of memory usage with Chrome. I use it due to its many advantages for my work, but before I upped my RAM to 12GB Chrome would elegantly crash once it started scraping swap space. The logic behind the trade-off needs further consideration. Regardless, I still use it.

      --
      Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    5. Re:How about better memory usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please file a bug report. Being swapped out by the OS should not crash any application.

    6. Re:How about better memory usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't buy it. Compare Opera 15's memory usage to Chrome's on Tom's Hardware benchmarks. I think there's more to the story here. I'm assuming Chrome just uses more memory for services, caches, and other things that Opera is tinkering with to reduce memory use, as opposed to feeling faster to end users.

    7. Re:How about better memory usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing even comes close to the performance of Firefox.

      Multiple process browsers aren't going to hold up if they continue along this path.

    8. Re:How about better memory usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember people leaving Firefox for Chrome several years ago with nary a real reason other than "Firefox uses too much RAM". Turns out they were full of shit, because they don't care if Chrome uses too much RAM now, they just wanted something that integrates better into Google's services and gives them feel-good features that are barely better than a placebo.

  19. ...Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, when I open up a Youtube video in a new tab, clearly I don't want it to play audio unless I go through the additional effort of unmuting that tab.

    1. Re: ...Right by Dzimas · · Score: 1

      You have obviously never configured an exception table.

    2. Re:...Right by icebike · · Score: 1

      So, when I open up a Youtube video in a new tab, clearly I don't want it to play audio unless I go through the additional effort of unmuting that tab.

      Exactly.
      Maybe you want to read the comments, before you launch a NSFW video in the office.
      Its exactly one click more. I'll take that every day over one one annoying ad a week.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:...Right by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      So if Google introduced a 'one click more' way to mute a tab, that'd be fine then?

    4. Re:...Right by icebike · · Score: 1

      Probably. But other than closing a tab, there really isn't any way to do that without adding a whole bunch of add-ons.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  20. And of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tighter NSA integration.

  21. Chrome Metro mode is broken by RR · · Score: 2

    I had been using Chrome in Metro mode, because I wanted to have experience in Metro, and I had to go back to desktop with this release.

    The new Metro mode doesn't integrate well with the rest of Windows 8. It doesn't resize with Snap View, so you have to keep it full-screen. It adds an app switcher bar, but the bar only switches between Chrome apps, which I generally don't use. It has an app launcher button, but if you use a mouse then the Windows Start button appears and overlaps it.

    Furthermore, the latest version of Chrome crashes more. So, I not only have to be in desktop, but I have to be in Firefox. Sometimes I wonder if the Chrome team runs their own product on Windows.

    --
    Have a nice time.
  22. Re:Why does anyone use this spyware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds quite bad. Please file a bug report.

  23. Stalking your prey by antifoidulus · · Score: 2

    And if you will look up for a moment, you will see the joke that sailed over your head. Beautiful isnt it, it's subtleness protects it from the clueless. Lets watch!

    --
    Monstar L
  24. LOL by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

    Wow, they encrypted their intra-datacenter comms! Awesome! That so totally shows how much they are fighting against the NSA ... as much as the fact that their SSL connections still use unbreakable, military-grade RC4 encryption!

    1. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would you expect/want them to do?

    2. Re:LOL by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      RC4 was chosen because it was the recommended choice for quite some time recently due to attacks on AES-CBC. In fact, Google hopped onto RC4 before anyone else when BEAST hit.

      For the record, RC4 is not broken, it still works, and its still immune to BEAST. IIRC criticisms of it stem from its age, simplicity and speed.

    3. Re:LOL by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      They'll use RC4 if your browser says it wants to use RC4, but they also support stronger encryption. I mean, it's your data, your responsibility to pick a good cipher.

    4. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.google.com as I write this. I'm connected using the TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 cipher suite. Upgrade to a browser that supports TLS 1.2, imo.

    5. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RC4 is broken now (in the last 12 months, I think), and should not be used.

      http://blogs.technet.com/b/srd/archive/2013/11/12/security-advisory-2868725-recommendation-to-disable-rc4.aspx

    6. Re:LOL by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Im no expert, and cant really debate it beyond this point-- but that attack appears to be somewhat similar to attacks on AES: get a huge number of ciphertexts from a given plaintext and different keys, and you can start to recover some of the plaintext.

      Its an attack, but Im not sure that thats considered "broken". The issue is that most of the current encryption schemes used in SSL have problems; I wasnt aware of this one in RC4, but Im not sure of how serious it is.

  25. Re:Why does anyone use this spyware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is also part of the why and how the two browsers utilize memory so differently. Open a site like http://www.so.cl up in both browsers then begin scrolling down and watch the memory usage. Watch what the browsers then do with that memory after being idle for about a minute, 5 minutes etc...

  26. Re:Why does anyone use this spyware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you can currently find information concerning Firefox regarding these practices within bugzilla.