> You think in 2011 microsoft can't possible have come up with a whitelist, or a way to remove a legitimately installed program other than uninstalling it, like deleting the executable (standard antivirus response)?
It's certainly technically possible, but why would Microsoft care about whitelisting Google apps? What does that buy them? Especially for an app Microsoft is giving away for free?
Moreover, even if they had not intended to bugger Chrome, it's not like Microsoft hasn't made phenomenally stupid mistakes in the past. This could have been yet another.
Ok I read TFA and I'm not sure how this is going to work out.
Amazon has an Android tablet but so heavily disguised you supposedly can't tell it's Android, and there is apparently some kind of appeal in adopting WebOS which they could also heavily disguise to look similar, although it probably won't be compatible with Fire first edition apps. What TFA doesn't say is what this does to the Fire early adopters. Nothing good, I suspect.
I was interested in the Fire, especially at that price point, but am now going to hold off and see how this plays out, which I recognize is the Osborne Effect revisited, but as much as I like Palm, and as much as I was attracted to the Fire, as a responsible consumer I can't buy every damned thing that comes out and then re-buy it when the *real* product succeeds it. The advantage is that Amazon isn't betting the farm on the Fire, so they can probably handle reduced sales while they work out their strategic direction.
Right. Let's face it, Microsoft would have done this on purpose if they had thought of it and thought they could get away with it, but chances are, this was an honest mistake. Test by: the regular (but hopefully infrequent) false positives you get from any antivirus product. Also test by: the speed at which M$ corrected it. Probably nothing to see here.
I haven't really noticed that. Yes, some of my extensions no longer work but all but one were for features the browser now supports natively. And it's been years since I hit a website (barring some asinine ActiveX control) that wouldn't render properly.
My issues have been memory footprint, hangs and crashes. Mozilla says version 7 solves this. I'm going to give it a try.
Parenthetically, I'm gratified that FF recently simplified and reduced the size of the header and frame. It works much better on netbooks with limited screen real estate.
Ok, you get high marks for responding in a public forum, and with usable technical information to boot. Tell you what: I will switch to Firefox 7 and see what happens.
You make a good point about extensions. It must be a nightmare to manage. For what it's worth, the only one I care about at this time is NoScript.
Firefox had been my browser of choice for years, but lately (is mozilla listening?) it's kinda sucked. I used it regularly on three desktops and a laptop, and sometime this year it's started to hang regularly and exhibit extremely slow behavior. Task Manager shows MASSIVE memory usage and significant CPU usage.
Needing a browser to verify a website I maintain, and with Firefox taking forever to do anything, I tried Chrome and have switched to it. Chrome renders significantly faster and doesn't appear to consume nearly the resources of Firefox. I'm sold.
I'm not getting religious here -- I am happy to go back to Firefox if some future version performs well. But in the meantime, I gotta get work done.
"they abandoned radio a long time ago" is interesting. I wonder if that was considered when Fermi first made the observation in 1950 -- that a civilization might only radiate detectable emissions during a small period of its existence. Not because it destroyed itself, but because it's a natural progression for a civilization to switch to lower power and ground based conduits shortly after they discover wireless communication.
> That compromise in thinking eventually led to the Renaissance.
You know, I don't really see it as a compromise. It's a fundamental truth. Compromise assumes that there had to be some give-and-take. I submit that rather it was a shedding of misconceptions.
What makes me sad is that one can ignore that some of the same people who are howling about global warming today were howling about a man-made ice age in the seventies, and expect the rest of us to blindly follow along. It's a bit disingenuous to claim that global warming was predicted 150 years ago, when a mere 40 years ago the alarmists were predicting the opposite.
My money is on "global warming" being listed as "discredited" in a few years as "global cooling" is now.
It is not and has never been about the climate. It is and has always been about control of money and resources.
That must have been awhile ago; I was an early adopter of DirecTV and it was a little more than $40/month in the nineties for 2 receivers, and rapidly got more expensive.
As I recall, $120 a month included two DVRs (which never really worked right) east and west coast feeds and a bunch of premium channels. It was even more costly the year we had the football package, but I refused to pay for it after the first year.
That wasn't even for HD content, which would have been more.
I watch very little TV; I usually plan what I watch, see it without commercials, and turn it off when I'm done. Wife leaves the TV on all day and most of the night for background noise (or something). We originally got the premium channels as part of a package deal where you weren't going to be charged for them for a certain number of months, but when that runs out they quietly start charging you for them, and I think a significant number of people just pay it. It was awhile before I realized wife wasn't watching the premiums and I was in effect throwing money at the cable company for no damned reason.
I finally got fed up, cancelled everything, sent all the equipment back, put an antenna on the roof and strung wires to the two tvs in the house. I got a roku box to keep wife amused. Cost of roku box was less than one month of cable tv service. When Netflix changed their policy I immediately dropped DVD service and kept streaming only. Yes, the selection sucks, but we all have to make sacrifices in a down economy. I may switch to Amazon, or Hulu, haven't decided yet.
I have fiber internet to the house, and streaming works just fine, thank you. I keep internet speed provisioned to a point where streaming works well and *not* at the fastest rate my ISP can deliver, because that would be more money for very little gain. About every six months I play off the competing ISPs in my area which usually gets me an extension of the discount I currently enjoy.
It's important to remember, it's just TV. It isn't, you know, oxygen.
...that far from increasing revenue, this will be a money pit and will never work quite right? That it'll start out a stellar idea, but in implementation, as more and more people and companies get connected to the project, it drowns in cost overruns and performance shortfalls? A strong mayor will pull the plug at some point and go back to meter maids. A weak mayor will see it through, ending up paying several times the cost for less than what he started with.
> You know, every one of these "features" you want could be found on every tablet computer manufactured before the advent of the iPad. The problem is, no one bought them or cared about them, because they all sucked.
They sucked because they ran Windows, and every single Windows "tablet enabled" edition has sucked in remarkable ways. Microsoft just doesn't get the tablet market. Oh, individuals at Microsoft might, but they're hampered by the company's obsession with reusing code that doesn't fit the paradigm.
Are you really saying that if Apple stopped charging a premium on storage and put an SD card slot on their tablet, people would stop buying the iPad? Seriously?
Ok, maybe not kill it, but wound it severely. We dropped cable a year ago and I tell ya, I really appreciate that extra $120 each and every month. It's like getting a raise.
If you're in a place that will support it, real TV antennas are making a comeback. The price is modest and the content is free! And just about everything else is available off the internet, especially if you don't insist on watching it the very moment it's broadcast.
I think cable TV is the dial-up service of this century. It's expensive, redundant and unnecessary, but is still popular for reasons that aren't entirely clear.
A Comcast salescreature comes by about once a month and tries to sell us on switching to a package deal. I say I'm happy with what I have (fibre to the house). He says but your carrier is getting out of the cable business!!! You're not going to get cable TV anymore!!! In the same tone of voice you'd say They're going to cut off your Oxygen!!! I tell him yes, I don't get cable TV , just internet. He looks at me like the refrigerator salesman looked at the Amish couple. They just can't understand not wanting cable TV. It's AOL all over again -- they couldn't understand why I didn't need them anymore when I switched to broadband. "But what about email?" Free. "Our content?" Crap. "How are you going to get to the internet??" Broadband includes the internet, that's kinda the point. And so on.
Slashdot Mirror
> You think in 2011 microsoft can't possible have come up with a whitelist, or a way to remove a legitimately installed program other than uninstalling it, like deleting the executable (standard antivirus response)?
It's certainly technically possible, but why would Microsoft care about whitelisting Google apps? What does that buy them? Especially for an app Microsoft is giving away for free?
Moreover, even if they had not intended to bugger Chrome, it's not like Microsoft hasn't made phenomenally stupid mistakes in the past. This could have been yet another.
Ok I read TFA and I'm not sure how this is going to work out.
Amazon has an Android tablet but so heavily disguised you supposedly can't tell it's Android, and there is apparently some kind of appeal in adopting WebOS which they could also heavily disguise to look similar, although it probably won't be compatible with Fire first edition apps. What TFA doesn't say is what this does to the Fire early adopters. Nothing good, I suspect.
I was interested in the Fire, especially at that price point, but am now going to hold off and see how this plays out, which I recognize is the Osborne Effect revisited, but as much as I like Palm, and as much as I was attracted to the Fire, as a responsible consumer I can't buy every damned thing that comes out and then re-buy it when the *real* product succeeds it. The advantage is that Amazon isn't betting the farm on the Fire, so they can probably handle reduced sales while they work out their strategic direction.
Right. Let's face it, Microsoft would have done this on purpose if they had thought of it and thought they could get away with it, but chances are, this was an honest mistake. Test by: the regular (but hopefully infrequent) false positives you get from any antivirus product. Also test by: the speed at which M$ corrected it. Probably nothing to see here.
XP, Windows Server 2003 and Windows 7 32 and 64 bit, why?
Um, in all fairness, you may be misinterpreting what "lol" means in those posts.
I haven't really noticed that. Yes, some of my extensions no longer work but all but one were for features the browser now supports natively. And it's been years since I hit a website (barring some asinine ActiveX control) that wouldn't render properly.
My issues have been memory footprint, hangs and crashes. Mozilla says version 7 solves this. I'm going to give it a try.
Parenthetically, I'm gratified that FF recently simplified and reduced the size of the header and frame. It works much better on netbooks with limited screen real estate.
Ok, you get high marks for responding in a public forum, and with usable technical information to boot. Tell you what: I will switch to Firefox 7 and see what happens.
You make a good point about extensions. It must be a nightmare to manage. For what it's worth, the only one I care about at this time is NoScript.
Wow, how did he deserve that?
And slow performance.
Firefox had been my browser of choice for years, but lately (is mozilla listening?) it's kinda sucked. I used it regularly on three desktops and a laptop, and sometime this year it's started to hang regularly and exhibit extremely slow behavior. Task Manager shows MASSIVE memory usage and significant CPU usage.
Needing a browser to verify a website I maintain, and with Firefox taking forever to do anything, I tried Chrome and have switched to it. Chrome renders significantly faster and doesn't appear to consume nearly the resources of Firefox. I'm sold.
I'm not getting religious here -- I am happy to go back to Firefox if some future version performs well. But in the meantime, I gotta get work done.
"they abandoned radio a long time ago" is interesting. I wonder if that was considered when Fermi first made the observation in 1950 -- that a civilization might only radiate detectable emissions during a small period of its existence. Not because it destroyed itself, but because it's a natural progression for a civilization to switch to lower power and ground based conduits shortly after they discover wireless communication.
So if there are that many earth-like worlds... Well, you know the question.
Bingo. "They charged what it cost plus a modest margin" makes the huge leap of faith that Apple is also making a "modest margin".
HP had just priced it out of the market.
This perhaps inadvertently brings up a good point -- whomever writes the manual has an unfair influence on the way the law is practiced.
> That compromise in thinking eventually led to the Renaissance.
You know, I don't really see it as a compromise. It's a fundamental truth. Compromise assumes that there had to be some give-and-take. I submit that rather it was a shedding of misconceptions.
What makes me sad is that one can ignore that some of the same people who are howling about global warming today were howling about a man-made ice age in the seventies, and expect the rest of us to blindly follow along. It's a bit disingenuous to claim that global warming was predicted 150 years ago, when a mere 40 years ago the alarmists were predicting the opposite.
My money is on "global warming" being listed as "discredited" in a few years as "global cooling" is now.
It is not and has never been about the climate. It is and has always been about control of money and resources.
That must have been awhile ago; I was an early adopter of DirecTV and it was a little more than $40/month in the nineties for 2 receivers, and rapidly got more expensive.
As I recall, $120 a month included two DVRs (which never really worked right) east and west coast feeds and a bunch of premium channels. It was even more costly the year we had the football package, but I refused to pay for it after the first year.
That wasn't even for HD content, which would have been more.
I watch very little TV; I usually plan what I watch, see it without commercials, and turn it off when I'm done. Wife leaves the TV on all day and most of the night for background noise (or something). We originally got the premium channels as part of a package deal where you weren't going to be charged for them for a certain number of months, but when that runs out they quietly start charging you for them, and I think a significant number of people just pay it. It was awhile before I realized wife wasn't watching the premiums and I was in effect throwing money at the cable company for no damned reason.
I finally got fed up, cancelled everything, sent all the equipment back, put an antenna on the roof and strung wires to the two tvs in the house. I got a roku box to keep wife amused. Cost of roku box was less than one month of cable tv service. When Netflix changed their policy I immediately dropped DVD service and kept streaming only. Yes, the selection sucks, but we all have to make sacrifices in a down economy. I may switch to Amazon, or Hulu, haven't decided yet.
I have fiber internet to the house, and streaming works just fine, thank you. I keep internet speed provisioned to a point where streaming works well and *not* at the fastest rate my ISP can deliver, because that would be more money for very little gain. About every six months I play off the competing ISPs in my area which usually gets me an extension of the discount I currently enjoy.
It's important to remember, it's just TV. It isn't, you know, oxygen.
With and for.
> You know, every one of these "features" you want could be found on every tablet computer manufactured before the advent of the iPad. The problem is, no one bought them or cared about them, because they all sucked.
They sucked because they ran Windows, and every single Windows "tablet enabled" edition has sucked in remarkable ways. Microsoft just doesn't get the tablet market. Oh, individuals at Microsoft might, but they're hampered by the company's obsession with reusing code that doesn't fit the paradigm.
Are you really saying that if Apple stopped charging a premium on storage and put an SD card slot on their tablet, people would stop buying the iPad? Seriously?
Ok, maybe not kill it, but wound it severely. We dropped cable a year ago and I tell ya, I really appreciate that extra $120 each and every month. It's like getting a raise.
If you're in a place that will support it, real TV antennas are making a comeback. The price is modest and the content is free! And just about everything else is available off the internet, especially if you don't insist on watching it the very moment it's broadcast.
I think cable TV is the dial-up service of this century. It's expensive, redundant and unnecessary, but is still popular for reasons that aren't entirely clear.
A Comcast salescreature comes by about once a month and tries to sell us on switching to a package deal. I say I'm happy with what I have (fibre to the house). He says but your carrier is getting out of the cable business!!! You're not going to get cable TV anymore!!! In the same tone of voice you'd say They're going to cut off your Oxygen!!! I tell him yes, I don't get cable TV , just internet. He looks at me like the refrigerator salesman looked at the Amish couple. They just can't understand not wanting cable TV. It's AOL all over again -- they couldn't understand why I didn't need them anymore when I switched to broadband. "But what about email?" Free. "Our content?" Crap. "How are you going to get to the internet??" Broadband includes the internet, that's kinda the point. And so on.