I don't have a cell phone. I just know other people are like "tunnel" - especially in the subway, but often when driving on a highway - and the coverage stops. But yea, I guess they are going for most data per effort, not most energy efficient way to get 100% of the data points.
Nope. You may be right - I just think that the only way to get total data coverage is to eventually get physical control of the device back. But certainly you could get most data without having to do that. Just not 100%.
Re:new firefox release schedule moved me to Chrome
on
Firefox 8.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
i think the current day "install_flash_player.exe" successfully installs it in current day Chrome, i.e. if you're starting from a fresh chrome install like I did. I'm not sure though. Flash can be a fucking bitch some/all of teh time. But when stuff is out there, I want to be able to view it, regardless of my opinion of the format, so...
Are they completely metal free? I'm actually thinking clamps make more sense than magnets anyway, but magnets would be a good option when you don't have as much time to install.
Re:new firefox release schedule moved me to Chrome
on
Firefox 8.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
I actually view my porn in another browser, only an ameteur would view porn in his primary browser! The other browser can manage 300+ tabs with less memory than firefox with 20 tabs. No, I won't say which one it is.;)
Remember: A bug not manifesting in your instance of a program is not the same as the program being bug free. Firefox craps out at 1920x1080, failing to display JPGs at a JPG-ending URL if the system is distressed certain ways. Ways that don't affect the other 4 browsers I tested it on. But you know what? Now that I've switched to *anything that isn't firefox*, the problems are gone.
Re:new firefox release schedule moved me to Chrome
on
Firefox 8.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
with the exception of DownloadHelper and NoSquint, I'm running the excact same set of extensions here. Firefox has been known to leak memory like a sieve. Just because your instance of something doesn't demonstrate a bug doesn't mean it's bug free. Now on to the crashing - Chrome has only crashed once in the past week, a crash tied to my explorer.exe crashing. Firefox never, even in it's good (3-4) versions, lasted that long, ever, regardless of extensions. Not on any of the 5+ computers running 3 different operating systems that I've used. My wife switched a long, long time ago, but I was hanging on because I liked NoSquint so much. I've actually seen Firefox use a full 8G before {obvious memory leak, you can see it climbing}. Firefox has major issues in 1920x1080 resolution that do not manifest in lower resolutions. Issues such as failing to be able to even display large-photograph JPGs, while simultaneously EVERY other browser (I have 5 installed) could.
I agree with what you said. I just don't think it's a fundamental difference. It's a difference in degree. Just say "this is too much". Don't say "this is something completely different". It's not. My argument is purely semantic, not ideological. I agree with you totally.
So you get coverage in parking garages and 30 mile tunnels, right? And the devices never run out of power, right? Despite the fact that receiving a GPS signal takes infinitely less battery than transmitting GSM data, somehow your devices actually use GSM, and magically transmit the high power signal without ever running out of battery. There's special Euro-centric physics at force, I guess. I could just see the engineers saying to each other, "This is a portable device. How do we make it use MORE power?" They should have gotten jobs working on the next iPhone. Oh wait. That was amercan ingenuity.
new firefox release schedule moved me to Chrome
on
Firefox 8.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I finally bit the bullet. After making probably 50 tweets complaining about various firefox crashes over the years.... I switched to Chrome even though they don't have a zoom plugin as good as NoSquint. (I compute exclusively on a 52-inch HDTV that I sit 5 feet away from, so my font needs are comparable to a visually disabled person {which I am not}).
I use Greasemonkey every day. Greasemonkey is built into chrome. Not firefox. And when they auto-upgrade-without-permission to a new version that doesn't support it, I lose functionality that I use every day. Not smart.
But it was the crashing every 10 minutes that finally did me in. I could live with the "1 gig of RAM per 15 tabs", even though I knew other browsers could do 50 tabs with the same memory. I mean: Buy more ram. Restart firefox to free up the leaked memory. There were solutions.
But no solution to crashing every 10 minutes. No. The best was when I downgraded and the problems persisted.
I'm so glad I finally took the plunge and switched to google chrome. I'd been avoiding it because the plugin/extension offerings were not previously sufficient. ANd it's true, I still have to open Firefox to use DownloadHelper to download YouTube videos (almost daily). There are Chrome equivalents, but I haven't found one that doesn't require you re-typing the title into the filename, and I'm quite willing to open a browser to prevent myself from having to type a long filename.
but in general - Firefox can take its shitty browser and shove it into whatever incompatible plugin it keeps up it's bloated ass.
Because that's how you get the full data. You can't just transmit information anywhere. I mean, unless you want the unit cost to increase by the cost of a satellite phone. Which would make this type of surveillence used less due to the cost. Which would decrease the profits of the companies that make these, by decreasing demand due to increased cost. It's in their best interest to make the cheapest device possible. How are you going to transmit location data in a tunnel? What about in a rural area where there is no cell service in any direction? And if you did include a sattelite (can't spell that word sorry) or just cell phone into the surveillance device, how do you power it? And how do you transmit in a tunnel? We're now having to open the car up and divert it's electricity? Or a big battery? But the battery will run out. These are covert ops. If your car is there you're likely home. They have to sneak around and do this. They can't do major work rerouting power. They have to be able to deploy the device quickly, as well as retrieve it quickly. Everything I've said just seems to be common sense, but I'm quite willing to be proven wrong.
They're not. Bigger bomb is still a bomb. It's still bombing. I posit that our real disagreement might perhaps be about what the word "fundamentally" means.
spikes? really? Instead of clamps? I'd say the only thing important in developing this technology is that they make sure not to hire you for the brainstorming committee.
Because glue is fucking stupid - people need to be able to come up and discretely take these things off and put them on. They're not using glue. Did you watch Breaking Bad?;)
"Easier" and "more universal" does NOT constitute "fundamentally different". No judge would buy that argument either. Technology makes things easier, that doesn't mean you make those things harder to do. Overruled.
Makes sense. But would it be worth mentioning that as the contractor is funded by the government, that the government is paying to fulfill those regulations either way? (At least, regulations pertaining to the actual work, but not regulations pertaining to being a contracting company.)
Either way, probably not as much of a difference as I initially thought.
>plus the costs of meeting all of the regulations that cover whatever it is you're doing.
But the government is beholden to the same regulatoins, isn't it? So wouldn't that cost the same either way?
Oh, I get it. You're talking about independent contractor, not someone working through a contracting company (which is almost always the case that I see). I think this blog post (written by my brother in law actually) is mostly aimed at salaried people working at contracting/consultant agencies, not independent 1040 types.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have a cell phone. I just know other people are like "tunnel" - especially in the subway, but often when driving on a highway - and the coverage stops. But yea, I guess they are going for most data per effort, not most energy efficient way to get 100% of the data points.
Here in America we use a lot of sarcasm. Lol.
Nope. You may be right - I just think that the only way to get total data coverage is to eventually get physical control of the device back. But certainly you could get most data without having to do that. Just not 100%.
i think the current day "install_flash_player.exe" successfully installs it in current day Chrome, i.e. if you're starting from a fresh chrome install like I did. I'm not sure though. Flash can be a fucking bitch some/all of teh time. But when stuff is out there, I want to be able to view it, regardless of my opinion of the format, so...
Are they completely metal free? I'm actually thinking clamps make more sense than magnets anyway, but magnets would be a good option when you don't have as much time to install.
Remember: A bug not manifesting in your instance of a program is not the same as the program being bug free. Firefox craps out at 1920x1080, failing to display JPGs at a JPG-ending URL if the system is distressed certain ways. Ways that don't affect the other 4 browsers I tested it on. But you know what? Now that I've switched to *anything that isn't firefox*, the problems are gone.
with the exception of DownloadHelper and NoSquint, I'm running the excact same set of extensions here. Firefox has been known to leak memory like a sieve. Just because your instance of something doesn't demonstrate a bug doesn't mean it's bug free. Now on to the crashing - Chrome has only crashed once in the past week, a crash tied to my explorer.exe crashing. Firefox never, even in it's good (3-4) versions, lasted that long, ever, regardless of extensions. Not on any of the 5+ computers running 3 different operating systems that I've used. My wife switched a long, long time ago, but I was hanging on because I liked NoSquint so much. I've actually seen Firefox use a full 8G before {obvious memory leak, you can see it climbing}. Firefox has major issues in 1920x1080 resolution that do not manifest in lower resolutions. Issues such as failing to be able to even display large-photograph JPGs, while simultaneously EVERY other browser (I have 5 installed) could.
I agree with what you said. I just don't think it's a fundamental difference. It's a difference in degree. Just say "this is too much". Don't say "this is something completely different". It's not. My argument is purely semantic, not ideological. I agree with you totally.
So you get coverage in parking garages and 30 mile tunnels, right? And the devices never run out of power, right? Despite the fact that receiving a GPS signal takes infinitely less battery than transmitting GSM data, somehow your devices actually use GSM, and magically transmit the high power signal without ever running out of battery. There's special Euro-centric physics at force, I guess. I could just see the engineers saying to each other, "This is a portable device. How do we make it use MORE power?" They should have gotten jobs working on the next iPhone. Oh wait. That was amercan ingenuity.
I use Greasemonkey every day. Greasemonkey is built into chrome. Not firefox. And when they auto-upgrade-without-permission to a new version that doesn't support it, I lose functionality that I use every day. Not smart.
But it was the crashing every 10 minutes that finally did me in. I could live with the "1 gig of RAM per 15 tabs", even though I knew other browsers could do 50 tabs with the same memory. I mean: Buy more ram. Restart firefox to free up the leaked memory. There were solutions.
But no solution to crashing every 10 minutes. No. The best was when I downgraded and the problems persisted.
I'm so glad I finally took the plunge and switched to google chrome. I'd been avoiding it because the plugin/extension offerings were not previously sufficient. ANd it's true, I still have to open Firefox to use DownloadHelper to download YouTube videos (almost daily). There are Chrome equivalents, but I haven't found one that doesn't require you re-typing the title into the filename, and I'm quite willing to open a browser to prevent myself from having to type a long filename.
but in general - Firefox can take its shitty browser and shove it into whatever incompatible plugin it keeps up it's bloated ass.
Because that's how you get the full data. You can't just transmit information anywhere. I mean, unless you want the unit cost to increase by the cost of a satellite phone. Which would make this type of surveillence used less due to the cost. Which would decrease the profits of the companies that make these, by decreasing demand due to increased cost. It's in their best interest to make the cheapest device possible. How are you going to transmit location data in a tunnel? What about in a rural area where there is no cell service in any direction? And if you did include a sattelite (can't spell that word sorry) or just cell phone into the surveillance device, how do you power it? And how do you transmit in a tunnel? We're now having to open the car up and divert it's electricity? Or a big battery? But the battery will run out. These are covert ops. If your car is there you're likely home. They have to sneak around and do this. They can't do major work rerouting power. They have to be able to deploy the device quickly, as well as retrieve it quickly. Everything I've said just seems to be common sense, but I'm quite willing to be proven wrong.
They're not. Bigger bomb is still a bomb. It's still bombing. I posit that our real disagreement might perhaps be about what the word "fundamentally" means.
spikes? really? Instead of clamps? I'd say the only thing important in developing this technology is that they make sure not to hire you for the brainstorming committee.
Because glue is fucking stupid - people need to be able to come up and discretely take these things off and put them on. They're not using glue. Did you watch Breaking Bad? ;)
"Easier" and "more universal" does NOT constitute "fundamentally different". No judge would buy that argument either. Technology makes things easier, that doesn't mean you make those things harder to do. Overruled.
(or a clamp-like device) #futurama
I'm not even a judge, and I know these things would use magnets and clamps, not glue. Overruled.
either or? They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive! /pedtant
Yes, it couldn't possibly be useful to anyone else for any reason. (rolls eyes)
this should find it :)
dude, have you even read the now-deleted blog of one of his accusers? She had a list of how to get legal revenge on ex-lovers!
Either way, probably not as much of a difference as I initially thought.
After a 2nd read, I am very compelled by your points. Thanks.
>plus the costs of meeting all of the regulations that cover whatever it is you're doing. But the government is beholden to the same regulatoins, isn't it? So wouldn't that cost the same either way?
Oh, I get it. You're talking about independent contractor, not someone working through a contracting company (which is almost always the case that I see). I think this blog post (written by my brother in law actually) is mostly aimed at salaried people working at contracting/consultant agencies, not independent 1040 types.