A minor point with this. First, simply putting in more security features doesn't make a product more secure. It is only as strong as it's weakest link. Third party apps that fail in this area as well as the user in between are a huge exposure. Although MS has improved here, far too many apps regularly require root to install, maintain, or to even use. Such instances should be the exception an I don't feel that's the case with Windows.
From what I recall of recent hacking contests, the OS's were all relatively secure from purely remote attacks. They failed when the user could be directed to outside sites after the initial hacking rules were relaxed. It is entirely possible to be strong in one area an weak in another.
The problem with Windows is that every new user is still an admin by default with 'no' warnings as to the risk, and prompts for the admin password are stll way too common. Prompts for such access in a common day on a Mac are not. It is an immediate red flag.
The UI is also important. For instance, you see an actual lock indicator on a Mac for EVERY control panel option that required admin credentials. Simply typing in a password doesn't unlock everything with admin credentials. It just seems more logical to partition the admin instance in this fashion and to require action via the gui or command line rather than allowing an 'admin' to change anything without any prompt or warning.
Care to cite any source where a human and animal were artificially spliced that created such an occurrence? Unless there is a specific use case or real risk then this remains fiction and a waste of taxpayer dollars. There is a difference between reaonable legislation (say for instance, safety laws where a 'real' risk exists) and paranoia.
No, the second quote said 'suggested' and 'might'. That to me simply smacks of a news site trying to drum up drama, as those are common buzzwords for 'unconfirmed' stories to get people stoked up.
That second "quote" (even though it's not a direct quote per the article) is directly contradicted by the first, which has much more detail as to specific triggers and which IS a direct quote. In this case, I simply took the quote that was obviously more knowledgeable. The second staffer obviously didn't have intimate knowledge of what those triggers were. Per the first quote, they couldn't do this on a simple suspicion. they would need specific data pointing to a mass attach from X, Y, and Z using 'T' vector of attack.
You assume every staffer is all briefed on all data so everyone is on the same page? I would imagine he has a large group of staffers, and not all of them will be up to speed, in every aspect of every discussion going on at every minute of every day. Nothing nefarious. It could even be poor communication skill on the part of the second staffer. That doesn't make the first more detail complete quote less accurate.
Let me ask you, did you feel uncomfortable with the fact that they already have this authority with your electric infrastructure? Your water? You're local emergency services? This is no different.
Actually no, I would have no problem with this regardless of who was president. This is a logical step in the event of an attack. Coordination at such times from a higher source is necessary, otherwise individual attempts would probably prove ineffective given how fast information moves over the net.
I really don't see how which president is in power, either then or now is relevant if the proposed plan makes sense, and it does make sense to me, as I would consider the interent a critical infrastructure for communication, just like power, water, etc.
The president cannot declare martial law 'whenever he feels like it'. It requires the approval of congress.
The trigger for this bill is also very specific.
As to the trigger in this bill, from TFA:
"In order for the President to declare such an emergency, there would have to be knowledge both of a massive network flaw — and information that someone was about to leverage that hole to do massive harm. For example, the recent “Aurora” hack to steal source code from Google, Adobe and other companies wouldn’t have qualified, one Senate staffer noted: “It’d have to be Aurora 2, plus the intel that country X is going to take us down using that vulnerability.”
All of this concern is valid, but is being stretched quite a bit given the posts in this thread. From what I recall, we still have a form of Democratic government. This doesn't allow them to simply toss all consequence out the window regardless of what the alarmist posts in this group are implying. Our government is still answerable to the citizens they serve. If the times comes when our government is no longer answerable to it's citizens, then this bill is rather irrelevant in the larger scheme of things as we will have much larger issues to deal with.
This is no different than existing bills already on the books for other critical infrastructure. I suspect much of the rhetoric being posted is more from the anti-Obama crowd, and possibly a wee bit from the usual anti-government/paranoid crowd.
I don't have a problem with this. This is worded in such a way that they can't just quietly come in and take control of the infrastructure. It would require a presidential declaration to start this in motion. Hardly something you can hide. It will also protect the rest of the internet that we control in the event of a cyberattack. I agree with the parent. This is a logical step to secure critical infrastructure in the event of an attack. Not some paranoid bill that will allow big brother to sneak in unaware and monitor/control every aspect of the internet. It is very specific in it's target and implementation trigger.
I could see some value in this, if you wanted to put your system files on the SSD and use the internal HD for the rest (assuming your OS allows it). I'm a bit surprised that the capacities are so small, considering they are mass producing 500 GB SSD's in laptops like the Macbook Pro. The article does note that the second generation drives will sport a 256 GB drive, which is a bit more acceptable so if this is grabbing your interest, I'd suggest waiting until they have decent capacities.
All of the 3rd party code in the App store is reviewed and no code is placed into the App store until review is complete. This sort of hack, which would have to use non-standard API's to accomplish this, is exactly what such reviews would find. Love it or hate it, it is an effective tool in finding such malware. It is not a catch all, but is an important piece.
"You are aware that Apple don't review code before it is added to the shop right?"
Hopefully it's a trial with a jury, and the jury will see bullshit for what it is. I've served on something similar, and in our case, the defendant fully admitted to fault and was willing to pay for medical costs related to the accident, however the prosecution was interested in a lot of pain and suffering that we simply found wasn't warranted.
You do realize that is IS Apple's business? They gave away too much control in the 90's and were nearly buried because of it. Now they've gone to the other extreme and found it works very well for 'joe user' who doesn't care about Skype. Hell, he or she would probably just look at you wondering what the hell Skype is.
The sooner the geek crowd comes to terms with the fact that although Apple is a tech gadget company, and that they are also a PC company, they don't care about the 'geek' vote and they are perfectly fine with that. I happen to agree with Apple's stance on Flash. It would put a third party in control of the inevitable thousands of applications on Apple hardware based on Adobe Flash. Adobe, a company known for their lack of security, performance, or response to the same issues. They have a downright horrible reputation on Apple hardware when it comes to Flash, and have for many years. Hell, they are a decade late with a 64 bit plugin, even on Windows. I absolutely understand the Flash stance.
As to the Skype hoopla, I suspect that is far more an AT&T thing, and not an Apple thing. Apple is basically at the mercy of AT&T when it comes to 3G/Cell service, and if AT&T wasn't comfortable in allowing that, you have to honor that. With thousands of web sites slamming AT&T performance due to an overloaded network, I tend to agree that they did the right thing. They apparently feel a little better prepared now, which is I suspect why we're seeing the relaxed stance.
I have to agree. Being 'spiritual' has nothing to do with practicing religion. I think the author is reaching way to far to try to 'connect the dots', looking for closet prayers where none exists. Spiritual could range from someone feeling they are moral, to someone who simply cares for the planet. I think it's a bit disingenuous to take a self professed atheist, or even a non-practicing agonistic and linking their feelings to religion.
So you believe it's unreasonable to present credentials when you bought it with a credit card? How about when you are purchasing liquor? Writing a check? Do you consider yourself to be treated like a criminal in such situations? It is simply a precaution.
Unreasonable is not the same thing as inconvenient. This is a simple step to prevent casual piracy. It IS the norm for software to require registration and/or activation.
Nowhere did Blizzard claim they would prevent illicit copies. They have a more realistic approach. They also remove the requirement for DVD's in the drive once the game is no longer new. They understand that once it's no longer new, there is no need to enforce a physical disk in the drive when sales are not at risk. How many other game companies do this?
I equate this to locking your door at night when you go to bed. It is not an unreasonable step to prevent simple theft. It wouldn't prevent someone from breaking a window to gain entry, or breaking down your door, or waiting until you left for work. You could certainly take drastic steps to prevent those occurrences as well, like removing all of your windows, hiring security guards, getting a steel reinforced door, all of which would be unreasonable for a typical home.
I think you've confused unreasonable with inconvenient.
A single online activation isn't 'restrictive'. it's the norm for a wide range of software packages and it is not unreasonable. A simple system to prevent casual infringement is a non-issue. ALL DRM by it's nature is restrictive in some way, but most are oppressively so. You mention a lot of those oppressive systems in your post, none of which are as painless as the Blizzard alternative. They already release patches to remove CD requirements on their Old games. There is no reason they couldn't release a patch to remove the online activation if they should ever find themselves going out of business.
At this point, I think we should be encouraging more sensible and sane DRM solutions, rather than immediately claiming that it will never be enough.
For my company, the answer is a bit more clear cut. They have money invested in MS. ALOT of money, both in infrastructure, and client software. They also fear Open Source (that one puzzled me when I first heard it). They don't fear it because it's open, but rather because it comes from a group of people who may or may not be responsive to their needs. They actually find comfort in getting legal contracts for support, and working with a 'known' vendor.
Oddly enough, the iPhone itself seems to be making them more comfortable with Apple in the corporate world. They are already looking at the iPad (the execs seem to love the thing), and they've opened up limited usage for Mac, although they still support those via yet another outside vendor rather than our in-house IT shop.
It actually takes more hoops to get FOSS approved in our environment than it does for pay to play software.
That's my personal beef with it. Still no production x64 plugin. Adobe has sat on their ass for a decade while 64 bit computing marched on, they 'penalize' anyone wanting to run a 64 bit OS. Perhaps not directly because the site designers opt to use Flash, but when the platform becomes unavoidable, and the only place to get it is a single company, I take issue with that.
There should be absolutely no excuse that they haven't had a 64 bit plugin for this YEARS ago. If they had no intention of keeping the tech current, then they should have open sourced the damn thing to let the community do what was right and needed. Instead, they have held onto it, and let the platform languish (not that it was ever top of the line, but that's another topic altogether).
She actually has a very good legal case here. The assumption that she did this on her own time is now pretty much irrelevant. A joke about using drugs is not a crime regardless of your position in the work world, and the City overstepped it's bounds. If she was at work when she posted this, that wasn't the reason given by her employer, meaning they separated her with cause due to a 'joke on Facebook'. The genie is out of the bottle so to speak. They can't go back and change their reasons for termination now in any case.
Unless the city can prove that posting bad jokes violates some sort of policy, they will probably have a fight on their hands as that was the reason they stated she was dismissed.
They could possibly prevent that by using light instead of radio to transmit the code and require the code be sent from synchronous towers so that the source couldn't come from just one location . Put the receptor on a car roof that isn't easily accessible to transmitting towers except that at a street light 20 feet above your head, and you might have a workable system. Use directed laser light and bypass radio. Hell, they could even transmit it through the street material in some way.
That said, this is an idiotic idea to invest in. With the advent of hybrids, which turn off the gasoline engine below 30 or 40 miles per hour, this would become irrelevant technology within a decade or two.
Performance is comparable to Safari and Firefox. Perhaps a tiny bit snappier in rendering a page, but not something that is overly noticeable, hence my opinion that it isn't light weight. It also lacks a decent bookmark manager, drag and drop options for the URL's to the desktop, and some drag and drop operations are not permitted in the bookmark bar, but I notice those are slowly but surely showing up.
The latest betas also enabled the 'extensions' on Mac, which is what was holding me back from using it.
I find it funny that the topic of browsers being light weight was modded 'Redundant'. Only on slashdot...
As to responsiveness, I don't find Chrome to be all that different from Safari or Firefox. Java performance is not and should not be a factor of 'bloat' as the 'content' is not part of the browser itself. Only the engine to process Java is there. I just don't consider Chrome to be a light weight browser. It is a new browser, and by such, it will not have the full feature set that other browsers do. This is no different than a beta product that will mature over time and eventually become similar to other market leaders.
It is almost feature complete for basics, and eventually it will contain the same functionality or some other alternative features comparable to what Firefox and Safari offer. When that time comes, will it still be considered lightweight if it performs the same functions as other browsers, uses the same memory footprint (or more), and is not significantly faster than the market leaders in basic operation?
Although something similar may be posted below, I'm feeling to lazy to read the entire thread. There are no commandments in the Qur'an that ban images of this sort:
Unlike the Hebrew Bible, and perhaps surprisingly, there is no commandment against making images of living beings in the Qur'an. But it does make clear that nothing should be honored alongside God:
"God does not forgive the joining of partners [Arabic: shirk] with him: anything less than that he forgives to whoever he will, but anyone who joins partners with God is lying and committing a tremendous sin" (4:48). All the Islamic injunctions against making religious images come from the hadith, traditions recorded by various followers about what the Prophet said and did. Although not divine revelation like the Qur'an, hadith is considered binding when multiple trustworthy sources agree
"The outrage and violence occasioned by the infamous "Danish cartoon controversy" perhaps had more to do with disrespect for Islam than depictions of the Prophet"
Apple already has licenses for h.264 which are included with the OS. It makes sense for them to include that support. MS is also offering that support with their higher end versions of Windows 7.
There is no reason that Mozilla couldn't simply rely on the same. it would not require that they charge anyone in those cases. Simply offering the option to use the OS's built in codec is a simple solution. As to what it will 'do to the web', it won't do anything. H.264 is already in use, on a multitude of high profile sites. Simply claiming Theora is better simply because it's OSS doesn't make it logistically a better fit for everyone. H.264 has obvious advantages including hardware acceleration on a huge number of devices where none exists for Theora. Also taken into account that Apple and Mac have already paid those license costs for the OS. Why not use them?
I'm sorry but I don't consider Chrome to be a 'light weight' browser. It's memory footprint is right up there with the others, especially since each tab is isolated. As far as feature set, it's a bit behind the others, but I expect within a year it will be about the same level as the others as far as features, and only then because it's a bit late to the game.
I tend to think Firefox suffers from the same issue as Linux, although arguably it has had more success in public uptake. It doesn't require any complex processes to install, being a simple software program, and it has a plugin system that at the time was groundbreaking. Now that others have begun to adapt this, it has lost one of it's primary draws for me. That leaves performance and ease of use, neither of which tips the balance for me in any particular direction.
They are simply being left behind because they don't offer anything that is 'must have' anymore. That and the fact that they won't play h.264 is just enough for me to switch to Chrome after using Firefox for years.
Slashdot Mirror
A minor point with this. First, simply putting in more security features doesn't make a product more secure. It is only as strong as it's weakest link. Third party apps that fail in this area as well as the user in between are a huge exposure. Although MS has improved here, far too many apps regularly require root to install, maintain, or to even use. Such instances should be the exception an I don't feel that's the case with Windows.
From what I recall of recent hacking contests, the OS's were all relatively secure from purely remote attacks. They failed when the user could be directed to outside sites after the initial hacking rules were relaxed. It is entirely possible to be strong in one area an weak in another.
The problem with Windows is that every new user is still an admin by default with 'no' warnings as to the risk, and prompts for the admin password are stll way too common. Prompts for such access in a common day on a Mac are not. It is an immediate red flag.
The UI is also important. For instance, you see an actual lock indicator on a Mac for EVERY control panel option that required admin credentials. Simply typing in a password doesn't unlock everything with admin credentials. It just seems more logical to partition the admin instance in this fashion and to require action via the gui or command line rather than allowing an 'admin' to change anything without any prompt or warning.
Care to cite any source where a human and animal were artificially spliced that created such an occurrence? Unless there is a specific use case or real risk then this remains fiction and a waste of taxpayer dollars. There is a difference between reaonable legislation (say for instance, safety laws where a 'real' risk exists) and paranoia.
No, the second quote said 'suggested' and 'might'. That to me simply smacks of a news site trying to drum up drama, as those are common buzzwords for 'unconfirmed' stories to get people stoked up.
That second "quote" (even though it's not a direct quote per the article) is directly contradicted by the first, which has much more detail as to specific triggers and which IS a direct quote. In this case, I simply took the quote that was obviously more knowledgeable. The second staffer obviously didn't have intimate knowledge of what those triggers were. Per the first quote, they couldn't do this on a simple suspicion. they would need specific data pointing to a mass attach from X, Y, and Z using 'T' vector of attack.
You assume every staffer is all briefed on all data so everyone is on the same page? I would imagine he has a large group of staffers, and not all of them will be up to speed, in every aspect of every discussion going on at every minute of every day. Nothing nefarious. It could even be poor communication skill on the part of the second staffer. That doesn't make the first more detail complete quote less accurate.
Let me ask you, did you feel uncomfortable with the fact that they already have this authority with your electric infrastructure? Your water? You're local emergency services? This is no different.
Actually no, I would have no problem with this regardless of who was president. This is a logical step in the event of an attack. Coordination at such times from a higher source is necessary, otherwise individual attempts would probably prove ineffective given how fast information moves over the net.
I really don't see how which president is in power, either then or now is relevant if the proposed plan makes sense, and it does make sense to me, as I would consider the interent a critical infrastructure for communication, just like power, water, etc.
The president cannot declare martial law 'whenever he feels like it'. It requires the approval of congress.
The trigger for this bill is also very specific.
As to the trigger in this bill, from TFA:
"In order for the President to declare such an emergency, there would have to be knowledge both of a massive network flaw — and information that someone was about to leverage that hole to do massive harm. For example, the recent “Aurora” hack to steal source code from Google, Adobe and other companies wouldn’t have qualified, one Senate staffer noted: “It’d have to be Aurora 2, plus the intel that country X is going to take us down using that vulnerability.”
All of this concern is valid, but is being stretched quite a bit given the posts in this thread. From what I recall, we still have a form of Democratic government. This doesn't allow them to simply toss all consequence out the window regardless of what the alarmist posts in this group are implying. Our government is still answerable to the citizens they serve. If the times comes when our government is no longer answerable to it's citizens, then this bill is rather irrelevant in the larger scheme of things as we will have much larger issues to deal with.
This is no different than existing bills already on the books for other critical infrastructure. I suspect much of the rhetoric being posted is more from the anti-Obama crowd, and possibly a wee bit from the usual anti-government/paranoid crowd.
I don't have a problem with this. This is worded in such a way that they can't just quietly come in and take control of the infrastructure. It would require a presidential declaration to start this in motion. Hardly something you can hide. It will also protect the rest of the internet that we control in the event of a cyberattack. I agree with the parent. This is a logical step to secure critical infrastructure in the event of an attack. Not some paranoid bill that will allow big brother to sneak in unaware and monitor/control every aspect of the internet. It is very specific in it's target and implementation trigger.
I could see some value in this, if you wanted to put your system files on the SSD and use the internal HD for the rest (assuming your OS allows it). I'm a bit surprised that the capacities are so small, considering they are mass producing 500 GB SSD's in laptops like the Macbook Pro. The article does note that the second generation drives will sport a 256 GB drive, which is a bit more acceptable so if this is grabbing your interest, I'd suggest waiting until they have decent capacities.
All of the 3rd party code in the App store is reviewed and no code is placed into the App store until review is complete. This sort of hack, which would have to use non-standard API's to accomplish this, is exactly what such reviews would find. Love it or hate it, it is an effective tool in finding such malware. It is not a catch all, but is an important piece.
"You are aware that Apple don't review code before it is added to the shop right?"
Hopefully it's a trial with a jury, and the jury will see bullshit for what it is. I've served on something similar, and in our case, the defendant fully admitted to fault and was willing to pay for medical costs related to the accident, however the prosecution was interested in a lot of pain and suffering that we simply found wasn't warranted.
I can only hope they get a reasonable jury.
You do realize that is IS Apple's business? They gave away too much control in the 90's and were nearly buried because of it. Now they've gone to the other extreme and found it works very well for 'joe user' who doesn't care about Skype. Hell, he or she would probably just look at you wondering what the hell Skype is.
The sooner the geek crowd comes to terms with the fact that although Apple is a tech gadget company, and that they are also a PC company, they don't care about the 'geek' vote and they are perfectly fine with that. I happen to agree with Apple's stance on Flash. It would put a third party in control of the inevitable thousands of applications on Apple hardware based on Adobe Flash. Adobe, a company known for their lack of security, performance, or response to the same issues. They have a downright horrible reputation on Apple hardware when it comes to Flash, and have for many years. Hell, they are a decade late with a 64 bit plugin, even on Windows. I absolutely understand the Flash stance.
As to the Skype hoopla, I suspect that is far more an AT&T thing, and not an Apple thing. Apple is basically at the mercy of AT&T when it comes to 3G/Cell service, and if AT&T wasn't comfortable in allowing that, you have to honor that. With thousands of web sites slamming AT&T performance due to an overloaded network, I tend to agree that they did the right thing. They apparently feel a little better prepared now, which is I suspect why we're seeing the relaxed stance.
I have to agree. Being 'spiritual' has nothing to do with practicing religion. I think the author is reaching way to far to try to 'connect the dots', looking for closet prayers where none exists. Spiritual could range from someone feeling they are moral, to someone who simply cares for the planet. I think it's a bit disingenuous to take a self professed atheist, or even a non-practicing agonistic and linking their feelings to religion.
So you believe it's unreasonable to present credentials when you bought it with a credit card? How about when you are purchasing liquor? Writing a check? Do you consider yourself to be treated like a criminal in such situations? It is simply a precaution.
Unreasonable is not the same thing as inconvenient. This is a simple step to prevent casual piracy. It IS the norm for software to require registration and/or activation.
Nowhere did Blizzard claim they would prevent illicit copies. They have a more realistic approach. They also remove the requirement for DVD's in the drive once the game is no longer new. They understand that once it's no longer new, there is no need to enforce a physical disk in the drive when sales are not at risk. How many other game companies do this?
I equate this to locking your door at night when you go to bed. It is not an unreasonable step to prevent simple theft. It wouldn't prevent someone from breaking a window to gain entry, or breaking down your door, or waiting until you left for work. You could certainly take drastic steps to prevent those occurrences as well, like removing all of your windows, hiring security guards, getting a steel reinforced door, all of which would be unreasonable for a typical home.
I think you've confused unreasonable with inconvenient.
A single online activation isn't 'restrictive'. it's the norm for a wide range of software packages and it is not unreasonable. A simple system to prevent casual infringement is a non-issue. ALL DRM by it's nature is restrictive in some way, but most are oppressively so. You mention a lot of those oppressive systems in your post, none of which are as painless as the Blizzard alternative. They already release patches to remove CD requirements on their Old games. There is no reason they couldn't release a patch to remove the online activation if they should ever find themselves going out of business.
At this point, I think we should be encouraging more sensible and sane DRM solutions, rather than immediately claiming that it will never be enough.
"Sure they are a successful consumer electronics vendor. Beyond that they are pretty much a failure."
Just in case you missed the article Title: Apple Surpasses Microsoft In Market Capitalization
Could you clarify your definition of where Apple is a failure?
For my company, the answer is a bit more clear cut. They have money invested in MS. ALOT of money, both in infrastructure, and client software. They also fear Open Source (that one puzzled me when I first heard it). They don't fear it because it's open, but rather because it comes from a group of people who may or may not be responsive to their needs. They actually find comfort in getting legal contracts for support, and working with a 'known' vendor.
Oddly enough, the iPhone itself seems to be making them more comfortable with Apple in the corporate world. They are already looking at the iPad (the execs seem to love the thing), and they've opened up limited usage for Mac, although they still support those via yet another outside vendor rather than our in-house IT shop.
It actually takes more hoops to get FOSS approved in our environment than it does for pay to play software.
That's my personal beef with it. Still no production x64 plugin. Adobe has sat on their ass for a decade while 64 bit computing marched on, they 'penalize' anyone wanting to run a 64 bit OS. Perhaps not directly because the site designers opt to use Flash, but when the platform becomes unavoidable, and the only place to get it is a single company, I take issue with that.
There should be absolutely no excuse that they haven't had a 64 bit plugin for this YEARS ago. If they had no intention of keeping the tech current, then they should have open sourced the damn thing to let the community do what was right and needed. Instead, they have held onto it, and let the platform languish (not that it was ever top of the line, but that's another topic altogether).
It can't die soon enough.
She actually has a very good legal case here. The assumption that she did this on her own time is now pretty much irrelevant. A joke about using drugs is not a crime regardless of your position in the work world, and the City overstepped it's bounds. If she was at work when she posted this, that wasn't the reason given by her employer, meaning they separated her with cause due to a 'joke on Facebook'. The genie is out of the bottle so to speak. They can't go back and change their reasons for termination now in any case.
Unless the city can prove that posting bad jokes violates some sort of policy, they will probably have a fight on their hands as that was the reason they stated she was dismissed.
They could possibly prevent that by using light instead of radio to transmit the code and require the code be sent from synchronous towers so that the source couldn't come from just one location . Put the receptor on a car roof that isn't easily accessible to transmitting towers except that at a street light 20 feet above your head, and you might have a workable system. Use directed laser light and bypass radio. Hell, they could even transmit it through the street material in some way.
That said, this is an idiotic idea to invest in. With the advent of hybrids, which turn off the gasoline engine below 30 or 40 miles per hour, this would become irrelevant technology within a decade or two.
Performance is comparable to Safari and Firefox. Perhaps a tiny bit snappier in rendering a page, but not something that is overly noticeable, hence my opinion that it isn't light weight. It also lacks a decent bookmark manager, drag and drop options for the URL's to the desktop, and some drag and drop operations are not permitted in the bookmark bar, but I notice those are slowly but surely showing up.
The latest betas also enabled the 'extensions' on Mac, which is what was holding me back from using it.
Older on Windows perhaps. On my Mac, it's pretty basic and only recently available in the last few months.
I find it funny that the topic of browsers being light weight was modded 'Redundant'. Only on slashdot...
As to responsiveness, I don't find Chrome to be all that different from Safari or Firefox. Java performance is not and should not be a factor of 'bloat' as the 'content' is not part of the browser itself. Only the engine to process Java is there. I just don't consider Chrome to be a light weight browser. It is a new browser, and by such, it will not have the full feature set that other browsers do. This is no different than a beta product that will mature over time and eventually become similar to other market leaders.
It is almost feature complete for basics, and eventually it will contain the same functionality or some other alternative features comparable to what Firefox and Safari offer. When that time comes, will it still be considered lightweight if it performs the same functions as other browsers, uses the same memory footprint (or more), and is not significantly faster than the market leaders in basic operation?
Although something similar may be posted below, I'm feeling to lazy to read the entire thread. There are no commandments in the Qur'an that ban images of this sort:
Unlike the Hebrew Bible, and perhaps surprisingly, there is no commandment against making images of living beings in the Qur'an. But it does make clear that nothing should be honored alongside God:
"God does not forgive the joining of partners [Arabic: shirk] with him: anything less than that he forgives to whoever he will, but anyone who joins partners with God is lying and committing a tremendous sin" (4:48).
All the Islamic injunctions against making religious images come from the hadith, traditions recorded by various followers about what the Prophet said and did. Although not divine revelation like the Qur'an, hadith is considered binding when multiple trustworthy sources agree
"The outrage and violence occasioned by the infamous "Danish cartoon controversy" perhaps had more to do with disrespect for Islam than depictions of the Prophet"
Ref: http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/things/depictions-of-muhammad-in-islamic-art.htm
Apple already has licenses for h.264 which are included with the OS. It makes sense for them to include that support. MS is also offering that support with their higher end versions of Windows 7.
There is no reason that Mozilla couldn't simply rely on the same. it would not require that they charge anyone in those cases. Simply offering the option to use the OS's built in codec is a simple solution. As to what it will 'do to the web', it won't do anything. H.264 is already in use, on a multitude of high profile sites. Simply claiming Theora is better simply because it's OSS doesn't make it logistically a better fit for everyone. H.264 has obvious advantages including hardware acceleration on a huge number of devices where none exists for Theora. Also taken into account that Apple and Mac have already paid those license costs for the OS. Why not use them?
I'm sorry but I don't consider Chrome to be a 'light weight' browser. It's memory footprint is right up there with the others, especially since each tab is isolated. As far as feature set, it's a bit behind the others, but I expect within a year it will be about the same level as the others as far as features, and only then because it's a bit late to the game.
I tend to think Firefox suffers from the same issue as Linux, although arguably it has had more success in public uptake. It doesn't require any complex processes to install, being a simple software program, and it has a plugin system that at the time was groundbreaking. Now that others have begun to adapt this, it has lost one of it's primary draws for me. That leaves performance and ease of use, neither of which tips the balance for me in any particular direction.
They are simply being left behind because they don't offer anything that is 'must have' anymore. That and the fact that they won't play h.264 is just enough for me to switch to Chrome after using Firefox for years.