Don't forget that Google (once a friend, now a dubious acquaintance) has gone the way of evil microsoft: You no longer can just download their programs, you get a downloader, who installs services on your computer - last i checked it even installed a service and didn't remove it when i CANCELED the install.
I mean, I've given up on scaling fonts lager on the fly (as opposed to zoom), but how about 'paste and go' for urls - like opera has had for years (and now chrome)
"If you broadcast something into my home uninvited, and I find a way to make use of that broadcast, that's tough tits for you."
No - by living where you do you accept the law - if you don't you can get out of the country, or they'll throw the book at you - and then its tough tits for you in jail.
"If a firefox plugin and retreive the torrent then so can any image hosting site."
Duh, the whole point is you can put it on a website.
"If a firefox plugin and retreive the torrent then so can any image hosting site. all reputable ones will decline to host those images."
In your opinion. How would they know that it is? Ah, so they have to hire programmers to write code to determine if its a picture or not? And so they ban version1, then the pictures morph to version2, and when they ban that they morph to version 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 and 10000.
Far more likely they are going to say, a picture is a picture.
A lot of moronic kids were just making up what they thought the laws in sweden should be (and presenting it as fact). You didn't hear this in the news.
...for more than 5 minuttes it will probably slow down. Like 3.x - gets more and more sluggish. Their new awesome bar (or whatever it was they called it) is a really brilliant idea, but its so slow, it lags and freezes the browser - so firefox.. not so quick.
Remember how many people on the planet think that just *believing* something is ok ("I believe in a god", "I blieve there is no global warming" etc etc) - it will take 5 million years to get everybody to accept this and start working on a solution!
Very briefly - when I can't use a browser to read webpages I'm ditching the junk at once.
"If somebody sends you a 4000 x 3000 image, "zoom" to 20% is very useful. Any browser that can't do this is broken."
WHAT?! Are you totally sick in the head! If someone SENDS me an image, I get that in the email program, and i view it in a picture viewer. That's in no way some idiot browser should be able to do. But if they want to add that, sure fine, who cares, but that doesn't mean they should add superfluous rubbish at the expensive of things which are needed more: Like users being able to read the fucking pages!
"Moreso, any 320P animation,"
Should not be played in a browser.
"Just because you haven't found a use for something doesn't mean it's not worth having."
Have you tried Opera? Zoom is not better its worse. I don't give a hoot about layout, I want to be able to read the text! But it just enlarges the pictures too so often there is a thin gutter of text and these huuuuuge pictures, often pictures of totally irrelevant rubbish. Totally ridiculous.
Besides, Firefox has a 'only text' switch and generally preserves layout.
"Secondly, at least in Opera, you could just set a minimum text size in the options, and then you'd never need to change text size anyway because it would always be whatever you defined a readable size or larger..."
Yes you would often. Because it may be too large to render the page. The "set a default setting" is something which should have been dumped years ago, that is useless.
"In what way is just changing text size helpful vs the zoom functionality?"
Slashdot Mirror
We're sorry - we are over capacity - try again in a month.
Don't forget that Google (once a friend, now a dubious acquaintance) has gone the way of evil microsoft: You no longer can just download their programs, you get a downloader, who installs services on your computer - last i checked it even installed a service and didn't remove it when i CANCELED the install.
In most European countries it already IS illegal to drive and use the cell phone at the same time.
The cellphone lobby must be really strong in the United States.
"Ummm, in the US, hate speech IS protected speech."
Of course - they don't want you to destroy evidence!
Now explain what it means with your own words.
Right. Didn't think you could.
He's just another fool who doesn't under stand what agnostic means.
(I'm neither)
There are no good pictures on the site because of copyright greed.
This sentence:
"rather than the police scanning Facebook (as if they would know how to do that!) "
Is of course rubbish, and as such your entire post is not credible.
How can there still be a copyright on this?
No wait - politicans of course.
But more to the point SHOULD there be a copyright on something from that long ago?
And if someone says it is public domain, how can they not only sell it but also deny people right to use it?
...Its ok to shoot missiles into someone elses country because you do it in your own.
I mean, I've given up on scaling fonts lager on the fly (as opposed to zoom), but how about 'paste and go' for urls - like opera has had for years (and now chrome)
"If you broadcast something into my home uninvited, and I find a way to make use of that broadcast, that's tough tits for you."
No - by living where you do you accept the law - if you don't you can get out of the country, or they'll throw the book at you - and then its tough tits for you in jail.
If you use portable software. Takes me less than an hour to fully reinstall and i'm of again.
Hurrah for portable software (and data partition's )
(Bagram is the forgotten guantanamo)
"let's work through the logic:"
Which isn't really, but just your opinion.
"If a firefox plugin and retreive the torrent then so can any image hosting site."
Duh, the whole point is you can put it on a website.
"If a firefox plugin and retreive the torrent then so can any image hosting site. all reputable ones will decline to host those images."
In your opinion. How would they know that it is?
Ah, so they have to hire programmers to write code to determine
if its a picture or not?
And so they ban version1, then the pictures morph to version2, and when they ban that they morph to version 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 and 10000.
Far more likely they are going to say, a picture is a picture.
A lot of moronic kids were just making up what they thought the laws in sweden should be (and presenting it as fact). You didn't hear this in the news.
They have become Microsoft!
...for more than 5 minuttes it will probably slow down. Like 3.x - gets more and more sluggish. Their new awesome bar (or whatever it was they called it) is a really brilliant idea, but its so slow, it lags and freezes the browser - so firefox.. not so quick.
Remember how many people on the planet think that just *believing* something is ok ("I believe in a god", "I blieve there is no global warming" etc etc) - it will take 5 million years to get everybody to accept this and start working on a solution!
He chose to go there. People deserve the whole picture.
And its not as the newyork times shows any respect to others, do they?
Who knows where the money might go, or what else they'll start to censor
Studies also found that if you want a no, talking to the hand is the best option!
What are you smoking?
They have passed directives which require all ISP's in all countries TO LOG IP destinations and protocol of ALL their users. And that's one example.
"Have you actually used it much?"
Very briefly - when I can't use a browser to read webpages I'm ditching the junk at once.
"If somebody sends you a 4000 x 3000 image, "zoom" to 20% is very useful. Any browser that can't do this is broken."
WHAT?! Are you totally sick in the head! If someone SENDS me an image, I get that in the email program, and i view it in a picture viewer. That's in no way some idiot browser should be able to do. But if they want to add that, sure fine, who cares, but that doesn't mean they should add superfluous rubbish at the expensive of things which are needed more: Like users being able to read the fucking pages!
"Moreso, any 320P animation,"
Should not be played in a browser.
"Just because you haven't found a use for something doesn't mean it's not worth having."
Yes actually, that's exactly what it does.
Like have they added the ablity to make the fonts smaller or larger on the fly? (They haven't had this, they "zoom" into the page, which is rubbish)
Have you tried Opera? Zoom is not better its worse. I don't give a hoot about layout, I want to be able to read the text! But it just enlarges the pictures too so often there is a thin gutter of text and these huuuuuge pictures, often pictures of totally irrelevant rubbish. Totally ridiculous.
Besides, Firefox has a 'only text' switch and generally preserves layout.
"Secondly, at least in Opera, you could just set a minimum text size in the options, and then you'd never need to change text size anyway because it would always be whatever you defined a readable size or larger..."
Yes you would often. Because it may be too large to render the page. The "set a default setting" is something which should have been dumped years ago, that is useless.
"In what way is just changing text size helpful vs the zoom functionality?"
It makes a page readable.