Sony forced you to involuntarily lose a feature or features with the update, whether you installed it or not.
Either you were stripped of the ability to play new PS3 games or you lost advertised functionality.
Imagine if we applied this argument a couple of years ago;
Nothing is stopping you from buying a new Xbox 360 just for games if an update gives it the RROD!
1) Use your ATI GPU that was sitting there doing almost nothing while you browsed/. anyways
2) Get value for essentially nothing that more than offsets the power cost
3) Cash out early and often
I don't see the problem with Bitcoins as long as you're paying attention and not actually investing any of your time or (non-electrical) energy.
It has noticeable "pop" time before an ad is blocked (depends on how ad-heavy a site is though) and it doesn't work to block ads through things like flash streams, which is where they're really quite pervasive.
Granted, a proper hosts file is the best alternative but a browser with a few plugins on a stick is quite nice when you have to change machines frequently.
the syrian government is losing their standing.
Blocking freedom of speech sites, organizing sites, western influences of varying kinds? Sure, you can get away with it.
But blocking the porn? That's a recipe for eventual revolution.
When factoring in the plugin_container process, Firefox usually uses a good chunk more than Chrome while watching videos/using plugins like Flash. In my experience, that is.
Memory is cheap so stability and features are more important these days, except on mobile platforms but then the Browser's software architecture is different enough to not really be a fair comparison to their desktop counterparts.
Lack of proper adblock, lack of the ability to have extensions that save to the disk (mass file/image downloaders, etc.) and a large bug/problem that occurs (that utterly breaks the browser) when you have lots of tabs and windows (each with lots of images) open that the Chrome support forums has more or less admitted exists but won't be solved are all quite good reasons to stick with Firefox.
There are about an equal amount of reasons, if not more, to leave modern Firefox for Chrome though.
not to install McAfee.
I mean, it's a notch above Kaspersky when it comes to "not slowing the computer down to an unmanageable mess" but it still reigns in the "how does this terrible software still exist in a market of vastly superior and more advertised competitors."
The cost of storing that information is minimal. The real cost is in the game servers themselves and bandwidth, both of which have a net zero change when a game changes hands.
This is nothing more than a cash grab at used sales, and it will be succeeded by tying more singleplayer features to online functionality.
It was quite an obvious assumption by many that Flash would be marginalized due to HTML5 within the next few years. That an unnecessary plugin would be replaced with a standardized, more open platform.
This is a pretty cool development though.
True enough.
If you know you'll be having kids you'll want to put through College, then it immediately pays itself off.
Otherwise, I would simply assume that the scientific and communal benefit from a highly educated populace is worth the tax rate - and try and hide the idea of social science majors from my mind.
That sounds like a pretty fun job. You just get to make wild guesses and accusations about what something is worth based off of completely arbitrary guesses on what effects what.
If those 50 tabs have more than 3 fullscreen images open each, Chrome may not even render the pages anymore and instead serve you with a plain blank page.
Known bug with no solution (other than "don't have a lot of tabs" that sadly made me switch back to Firefox.
Chrome's tab operations - decoupling a tab from a window or set of tabs, dragging them into a new one, etc. - are far, far, faaaaaaaar more seamless than Firefox, which basically refreshes the whole tab (it doesn't reload the page anymore, but it's still a laggy endeavor)
The "Each tab and extension is an individual process" aspect of chrome makes it crash free - you can open a site that might run a complex script and not worry about losing any work.
Not having to restart the browser after adding extensions is also far preferable, especially when you have tons of tabs open.
Then, it just seems faster and more streamlined on certain sites. And the syncing feature(s) are vastly superior and easier to use when compared to Firefox'.
Mozilla seems to be content with adding a new annoyance to each new Firefox release - the one that I just noticed today was the annoying "switch to tab" when trying to enter a URL that another tab happened to share. While you can get around this with duplicating or with holding shift, most users won't tolerate 'workaround' solutions.
There's also the fact that Chrome just has a few better nice little features - like the search box not being an entire bar while also providing you with useful information such as the number off occurrences on a page and where they all are being listed in the scrollbar.
Lastly, Firefox didn't adopt a similar UI until after Chrome had been out for a while. While they had the newer/post version 3 UI in planning since before Chrome, regular users never saw it until a good chunk after Chrome had been released.
They are both competent browsers with neat features, some quirks and some flaws though.
Slashdot Mirror
Sony forced you to involuntarily lose a feature or features with the update, whether you installed it or not. Either you were stripped of the ability to play new PS3 games or you lost advertised functionality. Imagine if we applied this argument a couple of years ago; Nothing is stopping you from buying a new Xbox 360 just for games if an update gives it the RROD!
1) Use your ATI GPU that was sitting there doing almost nothing while you browsed /. anyways
2) Get value for essentially nothing that more than offsets the power cost
3) Cash out early and often
I don't see the problem with Bitcoins as long as you're paying attention and not actually investing any of your time or (non-electrical) energy.
It has noticeable "pop" time before an ad is blocked (depends on how ad-heavy a site is though) and it doesn't work to block ads through things like flash streams, which is where they're really quite pervasive. Granted, a proper hosts file is the best alternative but a browser with a few plugins on a stick is quite nice when you have to change machines frequently.
the syrian government is losing their standing. Blocking freedom of speech sites, organizing sites, western influences of varying kinds? Sure, you can get away with it. But blocking the porn? That's a recipe for eventual revolution.
When factoring in the plugin_container process, Firefox usually uses a good chunk more than Chrome while watching videos/using plugins like Flash. In my experience, that is. Memory is cheap so stability and features are more important these days, except on mobile platforms but then the Browser's software architecture is different enough to not really be a fair comparison to their desktop counterparts.
Lack of proper adblock, lack of the ability to have extensions that save to the disk (mass file/image downloaders, etc.) and a large bug/problem that occurs (that utterly breaks the browser) when you have lots of tabs and windows (each with lots of images) open that the Chrome support forums has more or less admitted exists but won't be solved are all quite good reasons to stick with Firefox. There are about an equal amount of reasons, if not more, to leave modern Firefox for Chrome though.
not to install McAfee. I mean, it's a notch above Kaspersky when it comes to "not slowing the computer down to an unmanageable mess" but it still reigns in the "how does this terrible software still exist in a market of vastly superior and more advertised competitors."
The cost of storing that information is minimal. The real cost is in the game servers themselves and bandwidth, both of which have a net zero change when a game changes hands. This is nothing more than a cash grab at used sales, and it will be succeeded by tying more singleplayer features to online functionality.
It was quite an obvious assumption by many that Flash would be marginalized due to HTML5 within the next few years. That an unnecessary plugin would be replaced with a standardized, more open platform. This is a pretty cool development though.
True enough. If you know you'll be having kids you'll want to put through College, then it immediately pays itself off. Otherwise, I would simply assume that the scientific and communal benefit from a highly educated populace is worth the tax rate - and try and hide the idea of social science majors from my mind.
Because it's an iPad in their eyes for cheap. And a lot of them are probably doing it on credit/borrowed money anyways,
That sounds like a pretty fun job. You just get to make wild guesses and accusations about what something is worth based off of completely arbitrary guesses on what effects what.
They also tend to buy more than people that download less than them.
At least you can get a cheap lunch if you do get fired. Or a cab home.
It has never and will never be that easy, Steve. Your optimism is appreciated though.
Had to be something relatively new to trigger it just now, though.
The rapid release schedule that started after version 3.?, you mean?
The Jocks shall finally Rise Again!
It's just seems more...electrifying.
If those 50 tabs have more than 3 fullscreen images open each, Chrome may not even render the pages anymore and instead serve you with a plain blank page. Known bug with no solution (other than "don't have a lot of tabs" that sadly made me switch back to Firefox.
Android doesn't use Chrome AFAIK. It's WebKit and uses the Chrome javascript engine, but it's not quite Chrome.
I found Chrome to use substantially more memory when watching a video stream or an HD video on youtube with the flash plugin.
Chrome's tab operations - decoupling a tab from a window or set of tabs, dragging them into a new one, etc. - are far, far, faaaaaaaar more seamless than Firefox, which basically refreshes the whole tab (it doesn't reload the page anymore, but it's still a laggy endeavor) The "Each tab and extension is an individual process" aspect of chrome makes it crash free - you can open a site that might run a complex script and not worry about losing any work. Not having to restart the browser after adding extensions is also far preferable, especially when you have tons of tabs open. Then, it just seems faster and more streamlined on certain sites. And the syncing feature(s) are vastly superior and easier to use when compared to Firefox'. Mozilla seems to be content with adding a new annoyance to each new Firefox release - the one that I just noticed today was the annoying "switch to tab" when trying to enter a URL that another tab happened to share. While you can get around this with duplicating or with holding shift, most users won't tolerate 'workaround' solutions. There's also the fact that Chrome just has a few better nice little features - like the search box not being an entire bar while also providing you with useful information such as the number off occurrences on a page and where they all are being listed in the scrollbar. Lastly, Firefox didn't adopt a similar UI until after Chrome had been out for a while. While they had the newer/post version 3 UI in planning since before Chrome, regular users never saw it until a good chunk after Chrome had been released. They are both competent browsers with neat features, some quirks and some flaws though.
...an eager IBM official responded with one word: "Rofl."
Are they hoping that, should Samsung fall, all the other Android phone manufacturers will immediately settle?