>"ow the problem with the protocol described in the summary is that google will certainly track email addresses across usages. If they weren't they would have implemented this as being able to generate multiple document "passwords" and being able to assign permissions to each. Then you could distribute those document passwords without giving the client's email address to google."
+1 Insightful/Bingo.
This is just a way that Google can collect non-Google Email address and track non-G-verse users even more. Had they really wanted it to be neutral they would promote the "just Email a special link YOURSELF" and give the PIN to the person YOURSELF in any way you choose (via phone call, text, fax, Email, in person, letter, whatever). But because this new "feature" is so "convenient", nobody will use the safe/secure way. They will just type that other person's Email address right there into Google's lap.
It is exactly the same thing as those photo sharing sites that prompt users to "share their photos" with someone via Email. Bam- they just disclosed someone else's private Email to a third party without permission.
You omitted the most important thing. It's the _last_ prominent browser that is open to all adblockers.
And on the topic of ads and conflict of interest... It is already interesting that Google refuses to allow Chrome to block *ALL* autoplaying video... it allows playing muted video no matter what you try. And I doubt that will change. Firefox, on the other hand, does allow blocking all autoplaying video.
I don't think Google is bold enough YET to take ad blocking away. But you can bet they are not happy about it and will chip away at what can be blocked and how and try to find secret ways to monetize around it, under it, through it.
>"Once I found that, I made Duckduckgo my default search engine. It works about 98% of the time to help me find what I'm looking for and, AFAIK, doesn't track its users."
I have been using startpage.com for eons. Google power but without their tracking and stupid CPU-eating games.
>"It has improved greatly since the first time I used it and is now a drop in replacement. I don't log into Google mail much anymore. But I find I can't really get away from Youtube and Maps. If anyone knows of any (good!) replacements, feel free to let me know."
I wasn't really saying that people should not use Google's services/offerings. Just not to put all their eggs in a single basket. If interested- openstreetmap.org is a reasonable alternative to maps.google.com for some things. My main issues is it has no real-time traffic and it can't perform local store/business searches correctly. hotmail.com works fine for Email. Nothing touches youtube yet, we really need a good alternative.
>"The only reason why Firefox has improved as of late is because they are in panic mode, thanks to Chrome. When Mozilla was sitting pretty with 50% market share, that's when the bloat, performance problems, and ignoring user feedback really started."
It is exactly that point of having competition and pressure that keeps things moving and user-focused. I don't want a world without Firefox. But I don't want Chrome to disappear either. IE/Edge disappearing doesn't matter much; not because of the "evil" done in the past with their browser, but because it was single platform and closed-source.
>"You're not wrong, and I'd like to like Firefox, but I don't really have the time and energy to keep figuring out where my extensions and plugins keep disappearing to."
Of the 4 "essential" addons I had before the engine change ("Quantum"), 3 were available quickly at onset, and the last one was not, but I found a perfectly good replacement for it (just by a different person). I haven't had any of them disappear or die in the many months I have been using Firefox Quantum.
Yes, it can be a pain to find a replacement for addons, but the changes Mozilla made were absolutely necessary to fix move forward with the desired performance, stability, and security goals. So I am glad they bit the bullet and changed. If they didn't the browser would have hopelessly stagnated.
>"But Firefox looks to be heading the same direction. They already look like Chrome, and behave like Chrome. They are a rendering engine away from Chrome."
The default look of Firefox has been Chromified, no doubt. And by that, I mean the menus and "minimalistic" approach and the forced tabs-on-top. However, most of it is surface. Many users, me included, were able to remediate many of the changes we didn't want because Firefox is still much more configurable. Example- a simple user-chrome was all it took to get tabs back on the bottom (where they belong). Turning the top menus back on is also simple with no hacking, as is restoring the separate back/forward/home/reload button and the leading "http://" stuff. And as the newer API's for the UI start to resurface, even more things should be possible (with addons).
>"Which is why I stop using it after 56."
To what? If Palemoon or something, I could understand. If to Chrome, that is illogical (but I hear it all the time from people).
>"While I agree that even one shooting is too many... I look at this and feel like the wording makes it sound like a bombing or shooting at a concert takes place very 2-3 days. I doubt very many people think that if they go to a concert that they are likely be part of a mass murder."
Exactly. +100 Insightful. I came to post just that. What a superbly distorted and inaccurate statement that was made. One is probably way more than 100,000 times more likely to die in a car accident traveling to the venue, or crossing the street from the venue parking to see the show than to die at some mass-shooting event at a venue.
This is just the type of hysterical, inaccurate, emotionally-driven garbage that gun-control proponents spew, endlessly, and get echoed over and over by the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all "mass shooting" events (what few there actually are) occur in so-called "gun-free zones" where no law-abiding people can protect themselves and there is zero to almost zero deterrence to such shootings.
>"But it's not so funny when (or if) Google adds stuff that slows down Firefox or other open source competitors to Chrome."
Bingo. And if anyone thinks that isn't already happening or won't happen, they need a reality check. Chrome has decimated Firefox's market share- and most of it undeserved. Firefox is the last light in the "true" open-source, multi-platform, modern browser era. We will all absolutely be worse off if that light is extinguished.
Ask yourselves if there is really any good reason now to "automatically" install Chrome on machines or recommend it to friends and family. If not, consider making it Firefox. The painful redesign of the Firefox engine that lost some of the addons ended up making Firefox just as fast and more resource friendly while still being much more user-oriented and configurable than Chrome... and with a huge bonus of not being tied into all kinds of other incentives to do bad things with your data. (Looking at you, YouTube/Android/Gmail/Gmaps/Gwhatever users..).
Chromium is FOSS. Chrome is a binary blob with who-knows-what in it, which is based on Chromium to some mystery extent. And something like 99.9% of Chrom* users are Chrome users, not Chromium.
>"Everyone can use it [Chromium], everyone can fork it, everyone can deploy it to their platform."
Except nobody has... yet (that I am aware of). And if they did, rest assure that somehow it will never keep up with actual Chrome.
>"The technology [of Chrome/Chromium] and the core software itself is objectively good
That depends on your perspective. It is NOT good if Google uses its dominance to ruin other players... especially if this continues to hurt Firefox (like it has been). Firefox development, unlike Chrom* has far, far, far less tie-ins to web control, Google-specific "products", and potential marketing of users' actions and data. Google is being put into a unique position that is dangerous for all of us.
Firefox is now just as fast and web-standards-based as Chrome. There is little reason not to support it... which I suggest people do. Mozilla cares about security and privacy as much as Google, perhaps more-so, and with far less incentive to do bad things.
>"Satisfying as that may be, it still change Google into a bunch of hymn singing angels."
Exactly. Which is why it is more important than ever to support Mozilla Firefox. We absolutely do NOT want to end up with Google in control of everything.... any more than what we dealt with when Microsoft was ruining the web.
There was a time when Chrome pulled ahead of Firefox in performance. That time ended. It is a good time to switch to or switch back to Firefox. You will have web-standards-based browsing on all platforms, open source, open development team, just as many addons, but with more user control and customization.
>"The Lithium in Li-Ion batteries is just a tiny part of the overall mass; the cobalt, oxygen, carbon and electrolyte is what makes up the most of it."
True, but I still think most of us would be more than happy with a 2mm phone that weighs an extra 20 grams if it meant 33%+ more battery life (or whatever it would end up being).
In the past decade I have never thought to myself "oh, I wish this phone were thinner or lighter", it has always been "why can't the battery last longer".
>"I'd argue that the 'thin' part is the real place to object--the goal should be to have it the right size and thickness to be easily and securely held."
Couldn't agree more. And none of us CARE about being stupidly thin. We want to fill some of that thinness WITH MORE BATTERY CAPACITY! But somehow the phone manufacturers still haven't figured that out yet. And an extra 1 or 2mm of Lithium doesn't weigh much, either.
>"It probably has USB-C to 3.5mm audio adapter and you can keep using your existing headphones"
Which you inevitably never have with you when you need it. Which doesn't allow charging and using it for music at the same time. Which uses more battery. Which almost never comes with the device, meaning more $. Which is more weight and complexity when using ultra-light/thin wired earphones.
Just give me a headphone jack! Which, typically also work with wired headsets and microphones (3 stripe).
I think that depends on your definition of paradise. In many, many ways (besides financial), California is far from a paradise. I did have to laugh when I saw the "should I move out?".
>"Why would we want the Americans to have it? They'll just find a way to use it for making war on brown people countries, like they always do."
Not only is that totally inaccurate, you fail to realize that one of the most major points of conflict in the world revolves around energy. If you would stop viewing the world through distorted, far-left lenses, you might discover that plentiful, safe, cheap energy would allow all countries a measure of peace, security, and prosperity like nothing else ever could.
The problem is that to "solve" the "problem" in the manner you describe would require a global governance
No it doesn't. It just requires that scientists share their findings and work together. They already do this, especially on large projects based around pure science.
It is unfortunate it is taking so long to develop workable fusion power, but it is a rather complex problem to solve. I do wish more resources were put into it- it is one of the best-hope projects being done to "change the world." Unlimited, cheap, safe power would be one the best thing humans could ever do right now.
SSH is universal It is simple It is fast It can run remote commands It can run through pipes It can be scripted It can run well over low bandwidth You can run other protocols through it You can create a VPN using it RPD is not native on *ix
It has lots of uses beyond what RDP doesn't do. It is a great tool for lower-level stuff.
>"I've given up on Firefox, so I shouldn't care, but please stop. [...]This worked really well for firefox in the beginning, but now it is caught in the same trap of so many other programs."
And so you use what? Chrome? Then you are caught in the trap of not being allowed to choose what options you want at all (in many cases). In addition to whatever other things Google wants to shove in their binary. Don't get me wrong, I hate this new "feature" (just like Pocket and other such crap), but one can turn it off easily in preferences. Chrome, on the other hand, is SUPREMELY hostile to user choices and control compared to Firefox...
>"Maybe I'm weird, but I thought the best browser is one that simply works, works fast, and then allows for extensions to do whatever extras that I want."
Firefox does simply work. And it is fast. NO browser allows extensions to do whatever extras they want anymore. That model was incompatible with security, performance, and stability. Mozilla HAD to do something to move the browser forward. I just wish there were more UI API's. They are coming along, though... although too slowly for my taste.
Slashdot Mirror
>"ow the problem with the protocol described in the summary is that google will certainly track email addresses across usages. If they weren't they would have implemented this as being able to generate multiple document "passwords" and being able to assign permissions to each. Then you could distribute those document passwords without giving the client's email address to google."
+1 Insightful/Bingo.
This is just a way that Google can collect non-Google Email address and track non-G-verse users even more. Had they really wanted it to be neutral they would promote the "just Email a special link YOURSELF" and give the PIN to the person YOURSELF in any way you choose (via phone call, text, fax, Email, in person, letter, whatever). But because this new "feature" is so "convenient", nobody will use the safe/secure way. They will just type that other person's Email address right there into Google's lap.
It is exactly the same thing as those photo sharing sites that prompt users to "share their photos" with someone via Email. Bam- they just disclosed someone else's private Email to a third party without permission.
>"Leave it attached to your headphones."
True, but if you have more than one pair, gotta have more than one.
>"This does require a more expensive adapter, but also makes for a strange use case. "
Agreed. It is unusual.
>You're using an offboard DAC instead of an onboard DAC. I'm not 100% sure it has to use more electricity.'
I am not sure
>"Phones are heavy. Either the thing goes in the phone or the thing goes outside the phone. The weight isn't terribly different."
Also probably true. It is more of a problem with more than one jack to get disconnected inconveniently.
You omitted the most important thing. It's the _last_ prominent browser that is open to all adblockers.
And on the topic of ads and conflict of interest... It is already interesting that Google refuses to allow Chrome to block *ALL* autoplaying video... it allows playing muted video no matter what you try. And I doubt that will change. Firefox, on the other hand, does allow blocking all autoplaying video.
I don't think Google is bold enough YET to take ad blocking away. But you can bet they are not happy about it and will chip away at what can be blocked and how and try to find secret ways to monetize around it, under it, through it.
>"Once I found that, I made Duckduckgo my default search engine. It works about 98% of the time to help me find what I'm looking for and, AFAIK, doesn't track its users."
I have been using startpage.com for eons. Google power but without their tracking and stupid CPU-eating games.
>"It has improved greatly since the first time I used it and is now a drop in replacement. I don't log into Google mail much anymore. But I find I can't really get away from Youtube and Maps. If anyone knows of any (good!) replacements, feel free to let me know."
I wasn't really saying that people should not use Google's services/offerings. Just not to put all their eggs in a single basket. If interested- openstreetmap.org is a reasonable alternative to maps.google.com for some things. My main issues is it has no real-time traffic and it can't perform local store/business searches correctly. hotmail.com works fine for Email. Nothing touches youtube yet, we really need a good alternative.
>"The only reason why Firefox has improved as of late is because they are in panic mode, thanks to Chrome. When Mozilla was sitting pretty with 50% market share, that's when the bloat, performance problems, and ignoring user feedback really started."
It is exactly that point of having competition and pressure that keeps things moving and user-focused. I don't want a world without Firefox. But I don't want Chrome to disappear either. IE/Edge disappearing doesn't matter much; not because of the "evil" done in the past with their browser, but because it was single platform and closed-source.
>"You're not wrong, and I'd like to like Firefox, but I don't really have the time and energy to keep figuring out where my extensions and plugins keep disappearing to."
Of the 4 "essential" addons I had before the engine change ("Quantum"), 3 were available quickly at onset, and the last one was not, but I found a perfectly good replacement for it (just by a different person). I haven't had any of them disappear or die in the many months I have been using Firefox Quantum.
Yes, it can be a pain to find a replacement for addons, but the changes Mozilla made were absolutely necessary to fix move forward with the desired performance, stability, and security goals. So I am glad they bit the bullet and changed. If they didn't the browser would have hopelessly stagnated.
>"But Firefox looks to be heading the same direction. They already look like Chrome, and behave like Chrome. They are a rendering engine away from Chrome."
The default look of Firefox has been Chromified, no doubt. And by that, I mean the menus and "minimalistic" approach and the forced tabs-on-top. However, most of it is surface. Many users, me included, were able to remediate many of the changes we didn't want because Firefox is still much more configurable. Example- a simple user-chrome was all it took to get tabs back on the bottom (where they belong). Turning the top menus back on is also simple with no hacking, as is restoring the separate back/forward/home/reload button and the leading "http://" stuff. And as the newer API's for the UI start to resurface, even more things should be possible (with addons).
>"Which is why I stop using it after 56."
To what? If Palemoon or something, I could understand. If to Chrome, that is illogical (but I hear it all the time from people).
>"While I agree that even one shooting is too many... I look at this and feel like the wording makes it sound like a bombing or shooting at a concert takes place very 2-3 days. I doubt very many people think that if they go to a concert that they are likely be part of a mass murder."
Exactly. +100 Insightful. I came to post just that. What a superbly distorted and inaccurate statement that was made. One is probably way more than 100,000 times more likely to die in a car accident traveling to the venue, or crossing the street from the venue parking to see the show than to die at some mass-shooting event at a venue.
This is just the type of hysterical, inaccurate, emotionally-driven garbage that gun-control proponents spew, endlessly, and get echoed over and over by the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all "mass shooting" events (what few there actually are) occur in so-called "gun-free zones" where no law-abiding people can protect themselves and there is zero to almost zero deterrence to such shootings.
>"But it's not so funny when (or if) Google adds stuff that slows down Firefox or other open source competitors to Chrome."
Bingo. And if anyone thinks that isn't already happening or won't happen, they need a reality check. Chrome has decimated Firefox's market share- and most of it undeserved. Firefox is the last light in the "true" open-source, multi-platform, modern browser era. We will all absolutely be worse off if that light is extinguished.
Ask yourselves if there is really any good reason now to "automatically" install Chrome on machines or recommend it to friends and family. If not, consider making it Firefox. The painful redesign of the Firefox engine that lost some of the addons ended up making Firefox just as fast and more resource friendly while still being much more user-oriented and configurable than Chrome... and with a huge bonus of not being tied into all kinds of other incentives to do bad things with your data. (Looking at you, YouTube/Android/Gmail/Gmaps/Gwhatever users..).
>"Chrome (Chromium) is FOSS."
Chromium is FOSS. Chrome is a binary blob with who-knows-what in it, which is based on Chromium to some mystery extent. And something like 99.9% of Chrom* users are Chrome users, not Chromium.
>"Everyone can use it [Chromium], everyone can fork it, everyone can deploy it to their platform."
Except nobody has... yet (that I am aware of). And if they did, rest assure that somehow it will never keep up with actual Chrome.
>"The technology [of Chrome/Chromium] and the core software itself is objectively good
That depends on your perspective. It is NOT good if Google uses its dominance to ruin other players... especially if this continues to hurt Firefox (like it has been). Firefox development, unlike Chrom* has far, far, far less tie-ins to web control, Google-specific "products", and potential marketing of users' actions and data. Google is being put into a unique position that is dangerous for all of us.
Firefox is now just as fast and web-standards-based as Chrome. There is little reason not to support it... which I suggest people do. Mozilla cares about security and privacy as much as Google, perhaps more-so, and with far less incentive to do bad things.
>"Satisfying as that may be, it still change Google into a bunch of hymn singing angels."
Exactly. Which is why it is more important than ever to support Mozilla Firefox. We absolutely do NOT want to end up with Google in control of everything.... any more than what we dealt with when Microsoft was ruining the web.
There was a time when Chrome pulled ahead of Firefox in performance. That time ended. It is a good time to switch to or switch back to Firefox. You will have web-standards-based browsing on all platforms, open source, open development team, just as many addons, but with more user control and customization.
>"The Lithium in Li-Ion batteries is just a tiny part of the overall mass; the cobalt, oxygen, carbon and electrolyte is what makes up the most of it."
True, but I still think most of us would be more than happy with a 2mm phone that weighs an extra 20 grams if it meant 33%+ more battery life (or whatever it would end up being).
In the past decade I have never thought to myself "oh, I wish this phone were thinner or lighter", it has always been "why can't the battery last longer".
You are correct. None of the non-Play models have removable batteries.
>"I'd argue that the 'thin' part is the real place to object--the goal should be to have it the right size and thickness to be easily and securely held."
Couldn't agree more. And none of us CARE about being stupidly thin. We want to fill some of that thinness WITH MORE BATTERY CAPACITY! But somehow the phone manufacturers still haven't figured that out yet. And an extra 1 or 2mm of Lithium doesn't weigh much, either.
>"It probably has USB-C to 3.5mm audio adapter and you can keep using your existing headphones"
Which you inevitably never have with you when you need it.
Which doesn't allow charging and using it for music at the same time.
Which uses more battery.
Which almost never comes with the device, meaning more $.
Which is more weight and complexity when using ultra-light/thin wired earphones.
Just give me a headphone jack! Which, typically also work with wired headsets and microphones (3 stripe).
>"Dude have you seeen the specs on this thing?!> [google.com]. 100 DPI? My non smart phone from 2009 had a better screen!"
Ones he was quoting went off sale years ago. Let's look at the now 2-year-old Moto G5Plus which I bought a year ago from Costco for $189.
1080P screen on a 5.2" screen = 424ppi
> It is IPS?!
Yes
>The CPU is 5 years old and 2 generations behind the budget grade snapdragons which powered my old Windows Phone.
It is an 8 core Cortex A53 @ 2Ghz and seems very speedy to me. Much faster than the Nexus 5. And the Snapdragon 625 is only 2 years old.
>"Tiny battery life"
3000mAh is not tiny. Again, much longer battery life than the Nexus 5.
>"and no mention of ram which makes me suspicious."
5plus 2GB. 5plusS 3GB LPDDR4
>"Can it even boot anything after 6 marshmallow"
Android 8.1 Oreo
>"or run apps?"
Yep. And GPS, decent cameras, fingerprint sensor, headphone jack, and SD card.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
>"Samsung is simply cutting costs on their budget line up by removing the headphone jack."
Seriously? As if a headphone jack costs more than $0.50?
>"Paradise is expensive."
I think that depends on your definition of paradise. In many, many ways (besides financial), California is far from a paradise. I did have to laugh when I saw the "should I move out?".
>"DNS-AND-BIND is a notorious right-wing troll. Everything he said above was definitely sarcastic."
Ah, well, kinda hard to know that without some signal. But it does sound exactly like something I would expect to hear on Slashdot by someone.
>"Why would we want the Americans to have it? They'll just find a way to use it for making war on brown people countries, like they always do."
Not only is that totally inaccurate, you fail to realize that one of the most major points of conflict in the world revolves around energy. If you would stop viewing the world through distorted, far-left lenses, you might discover that plentiful, safe, cheap energy would allow all countries a measure of peace, security, and prosperity like nothing else ever could.
>"Europe can't make war on other countries"
You desperately need to study actual history.
The problem is that to "solve" the "problem" in the manner you describe would require a global governance
No it doesn't. It just requires that scientists share their findings and work together. They already do this, especially on large projects based around pure science.
It is unfortunate it is taking so long to develop workable fusion power, but it is a rather complex problem to solve. I do wish more resources were put into it- it is one of the best-hope projects being done to "change the world." Unlimited, cheap, safe power would be one the best thing humans could ever do right now.
SSH is universal
It is simple
It is fast
It can run remote commands
It can run through pipes
It can be scripted
It can run well over low bandwidth
You can run other protocols through it
You can create a VPN using it
RPD is not native on *ix
It has lots of uses beyond what RDP doesn't do. It is a great tool for lower-level stuff.
>"Please do not do this. The last thing I need is yet another program trying to make "suggestions" to me."
Then turn it off in preferences. At least we still have control.
>"I've given up on Firefox, so I shouldn't care, but please stop. [...]This worked really well for firefox in the beginning, but now it is caught in the same trap of so many other programs."
And so you use what? Chrome? Then you are caught in the trap of not being allowed to choose what options you want at all (in many cases). In addition to whatever other things Google wants to shove in their binary. Don't get me wrong, I hate this new "feature" (just like Pocket and other such crap), but one can turn it off easily in preferences. Chrome, on the other hand, is SUPREMELY hostile to user choices and control compared to Firefox...
>"Maybe I'm weird, but I thought the best browser is one that simply works, works fast, and then allows for extensions to do whatever extras that I want."
Firefox does simply work. And it is fast. NO browser allows extensions to do whatever extras they want anymore. That model was incompatible with security, performance, and stability. Mozilla HAD to do something to move the browser forward. I just wish there were more UI API's. They are coming along, though... although too slowly for my taste.
Or go to about:config
find browser.newtabpage.activity-stream.asrouter.userprefs.cfr
and make it false
(what a long/non-descriptive/cryptic preference name)