>"That's a big "nearly". There's no counterpart to Keybinder [github.com] for Firefox 57 and later, and there won't be until bug 1325692 [mozilla.org] is fixed."
The "nearly" will vary greatly from user to user, of course. You are absolutely correct that there are some addons that are waiting for bug fixes, and others waiting for a suitable API to be released. The latter is a shame, I think perhaps they rushed too quickly into this without giving enough API hooks and support. Still, the "average" user, will probably find all or nearly all the addons they need available or a suitable alternate addon that is workable...
I think of the 7 I was using pre-57, 4 were immediately ready, 1 I found an alternative quickly (and the original came back in a few months but by then, I think the alternate is better and kept it), 1 I had to wait about a month with no good alternate, 1 I didn't care about too about much and it might come later with an API change, and 1 there is no further support or hope for, but I also later discovered wasn't really needed.
>"audio and video shouldn't just NOT autoplay... they shouldn't even start to load. except, perhaps, a thumbnail image for videos (from the actual video and not some bullshit cover image bait like yt has so much of). when they buffer anyway, they still slow down your net, chew up precious data, and bog down the browser."
Good point. But the addon I suggested also has optional settings to disable the preloading/buffering, too:) And it has site-by-site, remembered preferences. I would love to see something like it tightly integrated right into Firefox.
>"about:config media.autoplay.enabled;false Not hard."
That option is not reliable and breaks LOTS of sites, where it then becomes impossible to play anything you do want. Plus it also has no method of dealing with site preferences. This is why I suggested the addon and ignored media.autoplay.enabled. Believe me, I have spent MANY hours testing both. Mozilla has several major bug reports about media.autoplay.enabled and they seem unable or unwilling to fix it, but we shall see.
For now, the addon works a hell of a lot better...
>"Well, like I said, it isn't perfect. GIF animation/video can be blocked already, just set image.animation_mode;none in about:config"
P.S. that setting will also stop the playing of animated PNG (APNG) files. However, it will not stop javascript programs that create a sequenced display of numerous, static PNG or JPEG images.
>"I just tried your suggestion in Firefox ESR 52 on Debian 9, with media.autoplay.enabled changed to false. Though the preference successfully blocked VP8, VP9, and AVC video from autoplaying, several methods of presenting video managed to sneak past it: GIF [pineight.com], JPEG sequence [pineight.com], PNG sequence [pineight.com], JPEG filmstrip [pineight.com], and PNG filmstrip [pineight.com]."
Well, like I said, it isn't perfect. GIF animation/video can be blocked already, just set image.animation_mode;none in about:config. So that is easy. Fortunately, the manual sequence "pseudo-video" stuff you listed isn't used much out there. So it is still pretty effective for general browsing purposes.
>"No one cares because FireFox is dead. They killed the addon ecosystem for "major speed improvements" that could only top Chrome in 2 benchmarks."
Don't feel the troll.....
The ecosystem they "killed" actually bounced back quite quickly. I use a lot of strange addons, and nearly every one was available immediately or just a few months after the switchover.
And Firefox is, by most measurements, just as fast, overall, as Chrome is NOW. And yet is more driven by the community, cares about privacy more, and is not a closed binary. Plus, I trust Mozilla a lot more than Google, who has their hands in everyone's business.
I am far more annoyed by the "Chromification" of Firefox, but that is not new, and is still far less Chromey than Chrome.
Muting audio is not enough. It shouldn't play video AT ALL. Video and animation, audible or not, is still extremely irritating, distracting, and consumes copious amount of bandwidth and CPU, and thus power and battery. And all that slows further rendering and makes using slower/older machines that much more painful. And on multiuser systems, it affects other people and processes, too (yes, I know that is rare nowadays, but I deal with it all the time on big systems, and remote viewing and remote X sessions).
It hasn't been updated recently, and has some flaws, but it beats the hell out of anything else I can come up with right now. Works well most of the time.
I really wish we could stop all the annoying animation and scrolling/fading/creeping crap on sites, too. And no, disabling javascript is no longer an option.
>"5 or more pieces of content from the user which indicate hate propaganda,[...] Of course this still depends on moderators identifying and labeling posts as violating to reach that threshold."
And the moderators' understanding and definition of "hate propaganda".
Please note that this was only one species of mosquito, not them all. And I don't believe they make up much of birds' diet. That isn't to say that you are wrong about the idea that "nature finds a way", because it usually does. Although not always (which is why we end up with extinct species).
Personally, I selfishly would rather see mosquitoes (and fleas, ticks, bedbugs, stable/horse/deer/sand flies, lice, and all other such) wiped off the Earth completely, or at least converted into some non-parasitic versions (ones that don't bite and suck blood). Or at a minimum, some magic thing that would keep them at bay without dousing oneself repeatedly in barely effective and smelly chemicals. Hey, one can dream!
They go to all that effort to benchmark and don't even list the versions of the freaking browsers. Plus, only MS-Windows... no Linux, no MacOS. (And they didn't use a zero scale on several of the graphs.)
In any case, I am not sure it matters. Looks to me like all three were fast. Other factors probably matter more now...
I am much more concerned with using a browser that is truly open-source, multiplatform, tries to respect privacy as much as possible, and community driven. I guess you know which browser I am using (because only one of those three matches).
Um, not necessarily. Subsidies can contribute to such problems, if there even is a problem. If a particular wind turbine installation is commercially viable, from a TCO, then it should pay for itself and make a profit. That TCO should be based on real costs and actual, guaranteed subsidies... not projected and uncertain subsidies. I am very pro-clean energy, and for a number of reasons (most of which being reduction of conflict and sustainability). But that doesn't mean I want to see tax money thrown at pork "feel good" projects that don't meet their objectives. Such risk should be on the investors, not the tax payers. Let them reap the benefits when they do the right thing and hurt when the decisions they make are bad.
Not sure I believe the "doom and gloom" of that article, anyway.
>"I've been using Tivo since 2000. FF, rewinding, and saving programs are necessary. "
Me too. Been doing it since the first TiVo came out. I can't stand commercials and the lack of control. I also can't imagine watching any other way. It is even MORE convenient that streaming because it doesn't require a live Internet connection to play it, all actions are instant and smooth, I can even look frame-by-frame, and it starts at full res (no "ramping up and down" depending on bandwidth or checking). Plus the remote is far more functional, and I can do "slow-mo" and "speed watching". And things I planned to watch months from now that I have recorded don't just "disappear" because it isn't carried anymore.
I find it amusing the summary calls watching cable or over the air "live TV", which it is not... as if DVR's don't exist.
>"The only effective way to manage the use of technology by a government is for the government proactively to manage this use itself,"
Also needs to cover private use and government contracts with private companies.
But that also depends on us actually believing the government will obey its own laws and regulations.... something I think many of us don't believe. Especially when you start throwing in the kinds of things the FBI, DHS, JD, ATF, CIA, DMV, ICA, etc, are tasked with doing.
Generally, the only safe data/information is that not collected in the first place. With video cameras being thrown into the public space in droves, RFID chips, web tracking, credit card tracking, phone tracking, TV/DVR tracking, car networks, EMRs, communications bugs (I mean "taps"), computers systems with seemingly unlimited storage, it seems unlikely we will really have any privacy in the future.
>"Just as an example the Samsung Galaxy S8 can output HDMI at 720p, and just so you are aware there are HDMI capable displays far larger than 5 inches."
We are talking about mobile video. If you are trying to replace your home ISP service with a cell phone, that is a different matter.
>"The main price hike hits customers who want to watch streaming video at HD quality instead of being reduced to DVD quality,
I must be in a tiny, tiny, tiny minority. I have never watched much "streaming video" on my phones, other than the occasional YouTube video here and there. And usually on WiFi. Why would anyone give a damn what resolution over "DVD quality" they are watching on a tiny 5 inch screen?
Anyway, I can certainly understand WHY mobile carriers want to limit resolution and bitrate of video, since video uses TONS AND TONS more data than anything else you could do on a phone. Still, the word "unlimited" is now so abused, probably making it second place only to the word "free" (which is almost totally meaningless now).
As an aside, still very happy with T-Mobile. Simple plans, cheap, great coverage, fantastic customer service, convenient and helpful people at the numerous stores around here, no problems with the technology. Was with Sprint for a very long time (17 years?) before switching 4 years ago. Sprint had constant technological problems- messed up towers, repeating and lost or delayed text messages, disconnected calls, activating phones was a nightmare of frustration, data so slow I couldn't hardly do anything much of the time in half the places I went, bad customer service (over and over), few stores and with tremendously long waits, numerous billing issues, whew. I hope this merger doesn't contaminate/degrade the T-Mobile experience. Some things I want to leave in the past.
>"It is also legal to possess a firearm you make yourself, to carry a firearm you make yourself, to use a firearm you make yourself. "
Not if you are a felon or fall under other laws that prevent you from possessing or carrying a firearm. That was my point. It is not the act of MAKING it that might be illegal, but HAVING it might be, depending on who and where you are.
>"Wow, even a simple inquiry is enough to trigger some gun nuts with mod points. Probably an indication that they shouldn't have guns of they are so sensitive."
Oh please, don't act like you genuinely wanted an answer to the question. Your posting was absolutely a troll, especially in light of your numerous anti-gun-rights postings. And yet, a couple of people did answer your question correctly, logically, and politely (like I did). One of whom you replied to with:
>"So they made up a new sport to justify the ownership of weapons like the AR-15?"
Nice. So don't be surprised when you are modded a troll when trolling.
Before mouthing off and insulting someone else, perhaps you should learn something about etiquette. My posting was specifically about the "Liberator" which is all plastic (hence my saying a "plastic gun"). It doesn't have a metal chamber nor bolt nor barrel.
Discussion doesn't have to include demeaning or insulting text. Have fun reading. Thanks...
>"No, it just says that we have the right to arm our selves with what they called "arms" at the time."
You can repeat yourself all you like, but that will not make words appear in the 2A that are not and have not been there, like "at the time" or "contemporary" or "what we use now."
"The government expressly acknowledges that non-automatic firearms up to.50-caliber -- including modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms -- are not inherently military."
They just defined it, in reverse. It would be all automatic firearms, and firearms over.50 caliber. ANY firearm can or may be used by the military, but the previous sentence define those that are inherently military.
Your followup statements are out of bounds, since their definition only regards firearms. Nuclear bombs, tanks, etc, are not "firearms".
>"But if any are out there willing to raise their voices I want to ask: what, if anything, will make you stop supporting him?"
I think you are asking the wrong question. A better question might be "At what point will the nation seriously consider a new voting system, like ranked choice, that will make it possible for better candidates to gain traction and other parties to actually compete fairly?" Otherwise, we will continue to pretend that the current D and the current R are the only valid and rational choices. Most voting now is near meaningless because of where one geographically lives, and/or single-issue polarization, and/or voting for the "least worst", and/or horrible candidates on the only two tickets than can win because of the "first past the post" system we still use. The political spectrum is not, and should not, be a two point location on a single line that attempts to describe everything.
Since voting methods are controlled by the States (and hasn't yet been unconstitutionally taken over by the Fed, like so much already), meaningful voting method change actually COULD happen (which is the major reason for the 10th Amendment). It is making inroads in local governments all over the country and starting to pick up interest at State levels. It would have a huge positive impact in party primaries, too (regardless of which party). It doesn't matter what party you support or what your political positions are, IRV/AV/RC is good for EVERYONE.
>"No, it just says that we have the right to arm our selves with what they called guns at the time. In other words, muskets."
Technically, the 2A says "arms", which was shorthand for "armaments". It doesn't say "firearms" nor "guns." Arms are any and all types of weaponry (of which there were far more than just muskets at that time). It also does not say nor imply any type of limit to just what was available at moment it was written or became part of the Bill of Rights or was adopted. There will be disagreements, of course, as to the scope of such a notion (most sane people wouldn't think it includes weapons of mass destruction, for example), but it didn't mean just "muskets."
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Slashdot Mirror
>"That's a big "nearly". There's no counterpart to Keybinder [github.com] for Firefox 57 and later, and there won't be until bug 1325692 [mozilla.org] is fixed."
The "nearly" will vary greatly from user to user, of course. You are absolutely correct that there are some addons that are waiting for bug fixes, and others waiting for a suitable API to be released. The latter is a shame, I think perhaps they rushed too quickly into this without giving enough API hooks and support. Still, the "average" user, will probably find all or nearly all the addons they need available or a suitable alternate addon that is workable...
I think of the 7 I was using pre-57, 4 were immediately ready, 1 I found an alternative quickly (and the original came back in a few months but by then, I think the alternate is better and kept it), 1 I had to wait about a month with no good alternate, 1 I didn't care about too about much and it might come later with an API change, and 1 there is no further support or hope for, but I also later discovered wasn't really needed.
>"audio and video shouldn't just NOT autoplay... they shouldn't even start to load. except, perhaps, a thumbnail image for videos (from the actual video and not some bullshit cover image bait like yt has so much of). when they buffer anyway, they still slow down your net, chew up precious data, and bog down the browser."
Good point. But the addon I suggested also has optional settings to disable the preloading/buffering, too :) And it has site-by-site, remembered preferences. I would love to see something like it tightly integrated right into Firefox.
>"about:config media.autoplay.enabled;false Not hard."
That option is not reliable and breaks LOTS of sites, where it then becomes impossible to play anything you do want. Plus it also has no method of dealing with site preferences. This is why I suggested the addon and ignored media.autoplay.enabled. Believe me, I have spent MANY hours testing both. Mozilla has several major bug reports about media.autoplay.enabled and they seem unable or unwilling to fix it, but we shall see.
For now, the addon works a hell of a lot better...
>"Well, like I said, it isn't perfect. GIF animation/video can be blocked already, just set image.animation_mode;none in about:config"
P.S. that setting will also stop the playing of animated PNG (APNG) files. However, it will not stop javascript programs that create a sequenced display of numerous, static PNG or JPEG images.
>"I just tried your suggestion in Firefox ESR 52 on Debian 9, with media.autoplay.enabled changed to false. Though the preference successfully blocked VP8, VP9, and AVC video from autoplaying, several methods of presenting video managed to sneak past it: GIF [pineight.com], JPEG sequence [pineight.com], PNG sequence [pineight.com], JPEG filmstrip [pineight.com], and PNG filmstrip [pineight.com]."
Well, like I said, it isn't perfect. GIF animation/video can be blocked already, just set image.animation_mode;none in about:config. So that is easy. Fortunately, the manual sequence "pseudo-video" stuff you listed isn't used much out there. So it is still pretty effective for general browsing purposes.
>"No one cares because FireFox is dead. They killed the addon ecosystem for "major speed improvements" that could only top Chrome in 2 benchmarks."
Don't feel the troll.....
The ecosystem they "killed" actually bounced back quite quickly. I use a lot of strange addons, and nearly every one was available immediately or just a few months after the switchover.
And Firefox is, by most measurements, just as fast, overall, as Chrome is NOW. And yet is more driven by the community, cares about privacy more, and is not a closed binary. Plus, I trust Mozilla a lot more than Google, who has their hands in everyone's business.
I am far more annoyed by the "Chromification" of Firefox, but that is not new, and is still far less Chromey than Chrome.
Muting audio is not enough. It shouldn't play video AT ALL. Video and animation, audible or not, is still extremely irritating, distracting, and consumes copious amount of bandwidth and CPU, and thus power and battery. And all that slows further rendering and makes using slower/older machines that much more painful. And on multiuser systems, it affects other people and processes, too (yes, I know that is rare nowadays, but I deal with it all the time on big systems, and remote viewing and remote X sessions).
If you want something MUCH better and RIGHT NOW, see this addon: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...
It hasn't been updated recently, and has some flaws, but it beats the hell out of anything else I can come up with right now. Works well most of the time.
I really wish we could stop all the annoying animation and scrolling/fading/creeping crap on sites, too. And no, disabling javascript is no longer an option.
>"5 or more pieces of content from the user which indicate hate propaganda,[...] Of course this still depends on moderators identifying and labeling posts as violating to reach that threshold."
And the moderators' understanding and definition of "hate propaganda".
Please note that this was only one species of mosquito, not them all. And I don't believe they make up much of birds' diet. That isn't to say that you are wrong about the idea that "nature finds a way", because it usually does. Although not always (which is why we end up with extinct species).
Personally, I selfishly would rather see mosquitoes (and fleas, ticks, bedbugs, stable/horse/deer/sand flies, lice, and all other such) wiped off the Earth completely, or at least converted into some non-parasitic versions (ones that don't bite and suck blood). Or at a minimum, some magic thing that would keep them at bay without dousing oneself repeatedly in barely effective and smelly chemicals. Hey, one can dream!
They go to all that effort to benchmark and don't even list the versions of the freaking browsers. Plus, only MS-Windows... no Linux, no MacOS. (And they didn't use a zero scale on several of the graphs.)
In any case, I am not sure it matters. Looks to me like all three were fast. Other factors probably matter more now...
I am much more concerned with using a browser that is truly open-source, multiplatform, tries to respect privacy as much as possible, and community driven. I guess you know which browser I am using (because only one of those three matches).
>"Subsidies are the solution..."
Um, not necessarily. Subsidies can contribute to such problems, if there even is a problem. If a particular wind turbine installation is commercially viable, from a TCO, then it should pay for itself and make a profit. That TCO should be based on real costs and actual, guaranteed subsidies... not projected and uncertain subsidies. I am very pro-clean energy, and for a number of reasons (most of which being reduction of conflict and sustainability). But that doesn't mean I want to see tax money thrown at pork "feel good" projects that don't meet their objectives. Such risk should be on the investors, not the tax payers. Let them reap the benefits when they do the right thing and hurt when the decisions they make are bad.
Not sure I believe the "doom and gloom" of that article, anyway.
>"I've been using Tivo since 2000. FF, rewinding, and saving programs are necessary. "
Me too. Been doing it since the first TiVo came out. I can't stand commercials and the lack of control. I also can't imagine watching any other way. It is even MORE convenient that streaming because it doesn't require a live Internet connection to play it, all actions are instant and smooth, I can even look frame-by-frame, and it starts at full res (no "ramping up and down" depending on bandwidth or checking). Plus the remote is far more functional, and I can do "slow-mo" and "speed watching". And things I planned to watch months from now that I have recorded don't just "disappear" because it isn't carried anymore.
I find it amusing the summary calls watching cable or over the air "live TV", which it is not... as if DVR's don't exist.
>"The only effective way to manage the use of technology by a government is for the government proactively to manage this use itself,"
Also needs to cover private use and government contracts with private companies.
But that also depends on us actually believing the government will obey its own laws and regulations.... something I think many of us don't believe. Especially when you start throwing in the kinds of things the FBI, DHS, JD, ATF, CIA, DMV, ICA, etc, are tasked with doing.
Generally, the only safe data/information is that not collected in the first place. With video cameras being thrown into the public space in droves, RFID chips, web tracking, credit card tracking, phone tracking, TV/DVR tracking, car networks, EMRs, communications bugs (I mean "taps"), computers systems with seemingly unlimited storage, it seems unlikely we will really have any privacy in the future.
>"Just as an example the Samsung Galaxy S8 can output HDMI at 720p, and just so you are aware there are HDMI capable displays far larger than 5 inches."
We are talking about mobile video. If you are trying to replace your home ISP service with a cell phone, that is a different matter.
>"The main price hike hits customers who want to watch streaming video at HD quality instead of being reduced to DVD quality,
I must be in a tiny, tiny, tiny minority. I have never watched much "streaming video" on my phones, other than the occasional YouTube video here and there. And usually on WiFi. Why would anyone give a damn what resolution over "DVD quality" they are watching on a tiny 5 inch screen?
Anyway, I can certainly understand WHY mobile carriers want to limit resolution and bitrate of video, since video uses TONS AND TONS more data than anything else you could do on a phone. Still, the word "unlimited" is now so abused, probably making it second place only to the word "free" (which is almost totally meaningless now).
As an aside, still very happy with T-Mobile. Simple plans, cheap, great coverage, fantastic customer service, convenient and helpful people at the numerous stores around here, no problems with the technology. Was with Sprint for a very long time (17 years?) before switching 4 years ago. Sprint had constant technological problems- messed up towers, repeating and lost or delayed text messages, disconnected calls, activating phones was a nightmare of frustration, data so slow I couldn't hardly do anything much of the time in half the places I went, bad customer service (over and over), few stores and with tremendously long waits, numerous billing issues, whew. I hope this merger doesn't contaminate/degrade the T-Mobile experience. Some things I want to leave in the past.
>"It is also legal to possess a firearm you make yourself, to carry a firearm you make yourself, to use a firearm you make yourself. "
Not if you are a felon or fall under other laws that prevent you from possessing or carrying a firearm. That was my point. It is not the act of MAKING it that might be illegal, but HAVING it might be, depending on who and where you are.
Here is just Federal: https://www.justice.gov/sites/... (section 1)
>"Wow, even a simple inquiry is enough to trigger some gun nuts with mod points. Probably an indication that they shouldn't have guns of they are so sensitive."
Oh please, don't act like you genuinely wanted an answer to the question. Your posting was absolutely a troll, especially in light of your numerous anti-gun-rights postings. And yet, a couple of people did answer your question correctly, logically, and politely (like I did). One of whom you replied to with:
>"So they made up a new sport to justify the ownership of weapons like the AR-15?"
Nice. So don't be surprised when you are modded a troll when trolling.
>"Well, I looked and looked but couldn't find "Liberator"
That is true, but I said "plastic gun" which was, indeed, a main part of the summary and subsequent discussion by other posters.
>"(which is a single shot weapon, so stress from repeat firing isn't an issue) anywhere in your original very broad brush post."
Stress from single firing *is* there, and there are many documented cases of it blowing up with that single shot.
>"Maybe attention to detail isn't your thing."
Perhaps. But nothing I said called for being insulted, especially not twice (or perhaps three times, depending on how what you wrote was read).
Before mouthing off and insulting someone else, perhaps you should learn something about etiquette. My posting was specifically about the "Liberator" which is all plastic (hence my saying a "plastic gun"). It doesn't have a metal chamber nor bolt nor barrel.
Discussion doesn't have to include demeaning or insulting text. Have fun reading. Thanks...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
>"Your analogy sucks. Meth is illegal to own."
And yet, my analogy with cars is still valid...
>"No, it just says that we have the right to arm our selves with what they called "arms" at the time."
You can repeat yourself all you like, but that will not make words appear in the 2A that are not and have not been there, like "at the time" or "contemporary" or "what we use now."
Thanks, good info/point
>"What then is inherently military?"
Remember their statement:
"The government expressly acknowledges that non-automatic firearms up to .50-caliber -- including modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms -- are not inherently military."
They just defined it, in reverse. It would be all automatic firearms, and firearms over .50 caliber. ANY firearm can or may be used by the military, but the previous sentence define those that are inherently military.
Your followup statements are out of bounds, since their definition only regards firearms. Nuclear bombs, tanks, etc, are not "firearms".
>"But if any are out there willing to raise their voices I want to ask: what, if anything, will make you stop supporting him?"
I think you are asking the wrong question. A better question might be "At what point will the nation seriously consider a new voting system, like ranked choice, that will make it possible for better candidates to gain traction and other parties to actually compete fairly?" Otherwise, we will continue to pretend that the current D and the current R are the only valid and rational choices. Most voting now is near meaningless because of where one geographically lives, and/or single-issue polarization, and/or voting for the "least worst", and/or horrible candidates on the only two tickets than can win because of the "first past the post" system we still use. The political spectrum is not, and should not, be a two point location on a single line that attempts to describe everything.
Since voting methods are controlled by the States (and hasn't yet been unconstitutionally taken over by the Fed, like so much already), meaningful voting method change actually COULD happen (which is the major reason for the 10th Amendment). It is making inroads in local governments all over the country and starting to pick up interest at State levels. It would have a huge positive impact in party primaries, too (regardless of which party). It doesn't matter what party you support or what your political positions are, IRV/AV/RC is good for EVERYONE.
http://fairvote.org/
>"No, it just says that we have the right to arm our selves with what they called guns at the time. In other words, muskets."
Technically, the 2A says "arms", which was shorthand for "armaments". It doesn't say "firearms" nor "guns." Arms are any and all types of weaponry (of which there were far more than just muskets at that time). It also does not say nor imply any type of limit to just what was available at moment it was written or became part of the Bill of Rights or was adopted. There will be disagreements, of course, as to the scope of such a notion (most sane people wouldn't think it includes weapons of mass destruction, for example), but it didn't mean just "muskets."
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"