Spatial navigation and caret browsing are two vastly different ways. With spatial navigation, you move across the links in mostly visual order, with caret browsing you move a cursor around text on the page.
In addition to spatial navigation, you can also navigate using the following keys
Q and A: previous/next link
W and S: previous/next heading
E and D: previous/next page element
In addition to the mentioned keyboard shortcuts, Opera allows navigation of elements inserted into the document's head, using <link/> elements, and the entire keyboard setup is customizable to your own liking (you can even use emacs-style keybindings if you want).
Re:Not being trollish, but...
on
Opera 8 Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
There are lots of more compelling features. That was just one
User Javascript. While it has similarities with GreaseMonkey, it can also do a great deal more, since it intercepts at a different level than GM, and it is fully integrated into Opera
Mouse gestures are way smoother and better than any Firefox extensions. They react when you use them, instead of 1/10 seconds after
Instant back/forward: Instead of refetching the document from the disk cache or the server, it gets the page instantly from the memory cache
Mail: If you get used to the Opera mail client, there is no turning back. I handle rather insane amounts of mail, and I never spend time organizing my mail. Opera does that already.
Newsfeeds. Unlike the reader built into Firefox: Opera's allow you to read full-text context of feeds that provide it
Easy built-in access for disabling plugins, sound in web pages, animated images, Java
Session saving: Do you have 1534 sites open, and need to continue later? Save the session and start where you left off
I could go on a lot longer, but these are some of the features that Firefox doesn't do properly, even with extensions that attempt to do (some of) the same.
Re:Here is a MUCH easier way to get Opera for Free
on
Opera 8 Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The license key you recieve when you do that is not valid for Opera 8.
That is a limited offer for Opera 7.x that ran in a german computer magazine.
Re:Not being trollish, but...
on
Opera 8 Released
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
As for the rest, I'm not trying to start a flamewar, but what does Opera have that I would really want in my Firefox? I mean, from your experience, what does Firefox really lack that makes a browser worth paying cash for?
One thing: Extended Rendering Architecture. No matter how clueless a web master is, there is an easy way to make sites readable in Opera. Does the duhveloper insist on you using a 16384px-wide display? No problem. Fit-To-Width will resize it for you. Do you prefer to have a website running in a 200px strip to the right of the screen while you have a text editor that fills the rest? No problem. Enable small-screen rendering.
(And before anyone mentions SSRXPI and Daniel Glazman's SSR stylesheet: No, SSR in Opera does more than a stylesheet is capable of)
How to (legally) get a free Opera license
on
Opera 8 Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Opera is giving away free licenses to people who help spread Opera. That's right, you can get a free license for an ad-free Opera, provided you do the following:
Create an affiliate link on your blog or web site. Your link should be to http://my.opera.com/username/affiliate/ (substitute username for your My Opera username, replacing any spaces in your username with +). You can use either a text link, or one of the supplied banners.
Get fifty people to download Opera[1]
[1] It's actually getting them to visit my.opera.com, but: People should really, really try Opera 8. It's quite brilliant, and in many ways sets the standard for what a web browser should and should not do.
Indirectly, the Wordpress installs are being used to spam Google. Joe Blogger's site has pagerank. Joe Blogger has Wordpress installed. Wordpress installs, by default link to the Wordpress.org site. Joe blogger's site passes pagerank to Wordpress. Wordpress hosts spam.
And about the password protect thing mentioned GGGP and GGP post, I believe that the idea is if you need a password to access the stats, then the bots won't index them. If that is the idea, however, wouldn't a quick edit to robot.txt be better? Not sure, since I didn't make the original posts.
It might help against those few spammers that are after PageRank, and care to look for and parse robots.txt. It won't help against the brute-force idiots who spam everything in sight, just because there are public referer pages out on the Internet
We have gotten "just about everyone" to take measures against mail spam. Now is the time to get people to take the same measures against web spam.
I am saying that automated public republishing of the HTTP Referrer field sent by web browsers is evil. I sm not saying collecting that information is evil, nor am I saying that browsers are wrong in sending this information to visiting sites.
What I am saying is that this information is trivial to falsify, and that there is a shitload of bots that look for websites, and "visit" them repeatedly having set this field. An example:
If Slashdot had been running AWStats, this would have counted as one hit to be listed in the section in AWStats files listed as "Links from an external page".
Now imagine that some spamming asshole had made 100 000 of these visits to your page in four days. This is wasted bandwith for you, it skews your visitor stats, and it has the potential to mess up search engine results, since spammer.example.com may rank higher thank deserved in results pages.
IMHO, Web referrer spam, together with it's siblings wiki spam and blog comment spam, poses a bigger problem for the Internet than e-mail spam does.
AWStats can do both, actually, depending on how you set it up. And even with dynamic pages, you can run it from a cron job -- it'll then just spend it's resources on generating the database.
Read the last link in my previous reply, please: There is a response from GoogleGuy, claiming that Google recognizes and adds implicit nofollow to common stat package pages.
Spammers don't know that, and they don't care. As long as there are public stat pages out there, they will still hit them.
With the danger of being modded way down by the zealotist crowd: If you are going to complain about Microsoft patents, could you instead point at the real problems:
That particular patent, if granted, will in effect make mod_rewrite infringe. Not that Microsoft would stand a chance in court with this patent, since mod_rewrite predates both the application, and referenced patents.
While Opera used Cydoor as an advertising delivery partner, Opera never contained any spyware, or any Cydoor technology at all: Opera simply fetched the Ads from the cydoor servers.
Not only that, Opera provided a full description of the protocol for ad delivery in Opera versions that had Cydoor as ad partner: Additional Content Protocol 1.0.
I remember, because I whined about Cydoor and ads in the Opera newsgroups the day it became known that Opera was to have ads.
The problem with analogies are that they often are invalid.
An antivirus solution is not your seatbelt. Antivirus is a set of sensors mounted on your car, designed to warn you about disaster. They won't prevent you from running your car into a brick wall at 110mph, but they'll tell you you're about to. Some of the time.
Look: I'm not telling people to uninstall whatever antivirus solution they have. I am, however, suggesting that antivirus users are more often careless, because they rely too heavily on their antivirus solution to take care of the problem, and thus they become reckless.
"Whenever I am called out to do virus disaster recovery" i certainly don't hope your paid to do this because your ignorance is astounding. many viruses sole purpose is to log key strokes and copy files. so it IS a privacy issue.
Dear Sir. Your answer is probably well meant, but I fear this is your ignorance speaking.
An anti-virus solution does not prevent virus infection. By nature, anti-virus vendors will always provide protection "after the fact". They can not provide protection against viruses they haven't yet analyzed. Only good habits, a properly hardened system, and secure software can do so.
Furthermore, you claim that you have "never been infected". In the absence of virus scanning tools, how are you reasonably certain of this?
I don't do warez
I don't open attachments
My e-mail client (Opera Mail/M2) is without scripting capabilities
I run with a secure browser
I have once or twice scanned my drives with an online tool, and never found an infection
I use a (hardware) firewall
I am restrictive with trying out software. I install what I need, and that's it.
On a related note: I am also one of those people who rarely have to reinstall my operating system. And amazingly: The OS is Windows (2000), and it isn't slow, it's not spyware infected, and it's not crashy.
Install anti-spyware, anti-virus, and firewall software on your computer.
I can understand why people want anti-spyware when running on windows boxes, since they also do a good job with cleaning recent files and such.
I can also understand why people would want firewalls for privacy. They're more convenient than actually locking down all ports and services manually
But anti-virus? And as a privacy measure? I don't get this. I have run without anti-virus for almost seven years, on various Windows boxes. I have never been virus-infected.
Whenever I am called out to do virus disaster recovery, it's almost always for people who have an antivirus solution installed. When are people going to drink the kool-aid, and understand that anti-virus solutions don't help.
My advice would rather go something like this: Set up your mail client so it won't auto-infect you by receiving mail. Don't open attachments. Don't install warez. Don't be so freakin' naive and gullible. Stop believing strangers send you naked Britneys.
Slashdot Mirror
Spatial navigation and caret browsing are two vastly different ways. With spatial navigation, you move across the links in mostly visual order, with caret browsing you move a cursor around text on the page.
In addition to spatial navigation, you can also navigate using the following keys
In addition to the mentioned keyboard shortcuts, Opera allows navigation of elements inserted into the document's head, using <link /> elements, and the entire keyboard setup is customizable to your own liking (you can even use emacs-style keybindings if you want).
Only on Slashdot is replacing one rotten analogy with an equally rotten analogy "Insightful".
*sigh*
I have reported ~100 bugs in earlier versions of Opera, and the vast majority of these are fixed
The proper way to report bugs in Opera is not via the Opera usenet groups.
Try the bug report wizard
There are lots of more compelling features. That was just one
I could go on a lot longer, but these are some of the features that Firefox doesn't do properly, even with extensions that attempt to do (some of) the same.
The license key you recieve when you do that is not valid for Opera 8 .
That is a limited offer for Opera 7.x that ran in a german computer magazine.
(This is a partial repost from my own blog entry on Opera 8
Opera is giving away free licenses to people who help spread Opera. That's right, you can get a free license for an ad-free Opera, provided you do the following:
[1] It's actually getting them to visit my.opera.com, but: People should really, really try Opera 8. It's quite brilliant, and in many ways sets the standard for what a web browser should and should not do.
Indirectly, the Wordpress installs are being used to spam Google. Joe Blogger's site has pagerank. Joe Blogger has Wordpress installed. Wordpress installs, by default link to the Wordpress.org site. Joe blogger's site passes pagerank to Wordpress. Wordpress hosts spam.
It might help against those few spammers that are after PageRank, and care to look for and parse robots.txt. It won't help against the brute-force idiots who spam everything in sight, just because there are public referer pages out on the Internet
We have gotten "just about everyone" to take measures against mail spam. Now is the time to get people to take the same measures against web spam.
I am saying that automated public republishing of the HTTP Referrer field sent by web browsers is evil. I sm not saying collecting that information is evil, nor am I saying that browsers are wrong in sending this information to visiting sites.
What I am saying is that this information is trivial to falsify, and that there is a shitload of bots that look for websites, and "visit" them repeatedly having set this field. An example:
wget --referer=http://spammer.example.com http://slashdot.orgIf Slashdot had been running AWStats, this would have counted as one hit to be listed in the section in AWStats files listed as "Links from an external page".
Now imagine that some spamming asshole had made 100 000 of these visits to your page in four days. This is wasted bandwith for you, it skews your visitor stats, and it has the potential to mess up search engine results, since spammer.example.com may rank higher thank deserved in results pages.
IMHO, Web referrer spam, together with it's siblings wiki spam and blog comment spam, poses a bigger problem for the Internet than e-mail spam does.
I think there must be something here you don't get: Referer spammers spam because there are public pages listing referrals.
Not listing refererrals will take away their incentive to spam.
As for protecting yourselves by other means, such as using tarpits, blocking them, one way or another, that is a separate measure.
AWStats can do both, actually, depending on how you set it up. And even with dynamic pages, you can run it from a cron job -- it'll then just spend it's resources on generating the database.
And, oh, did I mention that your installation of AWStats is Vulnerable?
Well, now I did. Friendly warning
Read the last link in my previous reply, please: There is a response from GoogleGuy, claiming that Google recognizes and adds implicit nofollow to common stat package pages.
Spammers don't know that, and they don't care. As long as there are public stat pages out there, they will still hit them.
Hey, you know that by making your stats available on the web you are doing the following:
You are helping (referer) spammers!
So, for the love of [insert deity here], would you please password protect such pages
With the danger of being modded way down by the zealotist crowd: If you are going to complain about Microsoft patents, could you instead point at the real problems:
That particular patent, if granted, will in effect make mod_rewrite infringe. Not that Microsoft would stand a chance in court with this patent, since mod_rewrite predates both the application, and referenced patents.
And if you want a laugh from the MS' patent portfoliom you should know that Microsoft holds a patent for an apple tree named Burchinal Red Delicious. (US Patent PP14,757
While Opera used Cydoor as an advertising delivery partner, Opera never contained any spyware, or any Cydoor technology at all: Opera simply fetched the Ads from the cydoor servers.
Not only that, Opera provided a full description of the protocol for ad delivery in Opera versions that had Cydoor as ad partner: Additional Content Protocol 1.0.
I remember, because I whined about Cydoor and ads in the Opera newsgroups the day it became known that Opera was to have ads.
I keep a list of earthquake related resources.
I'm rather surprised: Several Norwegian banks have been using these RSA Hardware Tokens for a couple of years.
The problem with analogies are that they often are invalid. An antivirus solution is not your seatbelt. Antivirus is a set of sensors mounted on your car, designed to warn you about disaster. They won't prevent you from running your car into a brick wall at 110mph, but they'll tell you you're about to. Some of the time. Look: I'm not telling people to uninstall whatever antivirus solution they have. I am, however, suggesting that antivirus users are more often careless, because they rely too heavily on their antivirus solution to take care of the problem, and thus they become reckless.
Dear Sir. Your answer is probably well meant, but I fear this is your ignorance speaking.
An anti-virus solution does not prevent virus infection. By nature, anti-virus vendors will always provide protection "after the fact". They can not provide protection against viruses they haven't yet analyzed. Only good habits, a properly hardened system, and secure software can do so.
On a related note: I am also one of those people who rarely have to reinstall my operating system. And amazingly: The OS is Windows (2000), and it isn't slow, it's not spyware infected, and it's not crashy.
Ok, let me explain this once more: Anti-virus software will not help you. What will help you is having habits that prevent infection.
From the Privacy Resolutions:
I can understand why people want anti-spyware when running on windows boxes, since they also do a good job with cleaning recent files and such.
I can also understand why people would want firewalls for privacy. They're more convenient than actually locking down all ports and services manually
But anti-virus? And as a privacy measure? I don't get this. I have run without anti-virus for almost seven years, on various Windows boxes. I have never been virus-infected.
Whenever I am called out to do virus disaster recovery, it's almost always for people who have an antivirus solution installed. When are people going to drink the kool-aid, and understand that anti-virus solutions don't help.
My advice would rather go something like this: Set up your mail client so it won't auto-infect you by receiving mail. Don't open attachments. Don't install warez. Don't be so freakin' naive and gullible. Stop believing strangers send you naked Britneys.