>Closed source and closed development? Did we forget about Chromium, which is in Debian?
Nope. Didn't forget about it at all. For one, we are talking about Chrome, not Chromium. Chrome is closed on both fronts. Chromium is open source, but that is not what people are using- I would guess the ratio is about 99+% Chrome and less than 1% Chromium as far as installations go. And just because Chrome is based on Chromium, that doesn't mean it is using that code. Google puts whatever they like in Chrome and we really have no idea what it does behind the scenes. Our only clues are to try and carefully monitor the traffic it sends.
As for development, Mozilla isn't as open as I would like, but they are still far more open than Google is with Chromium. Even so Mozilla (corp) is a primarily a browser company, Google has its hands in all kinds of things, giving it far more incentive to develop to its own goals, not ours. Firefox coding is done by Mozilla Foundation, and that is a non-profit organization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... "The Mozilla Foundation describes itself as "a non-profit organization that promotes openness, innovation and participation on the Internet."
>"And yet, none of the ways it is "trying to turn into chrome" are on your list of the 4 reasons to avoid chrome. So, what exactly is the problem?"
With Mozilla/Firefox? That they keep removing and hiding things in the UI trying to make it so-called "clean" like Chrome. Then, worse, changing stuff and then removing the options to revert the changes. Now you have to load an addon (Classic Theme Restorer) to get some of the stuff back. Want a specific example? How about tabs-on-bottom, like they are supposed to be. Then there is all the crap they DO add that we don't want... like "hello" and "developer view" and "pocket"; all things that should clearly be addons.
The UI problem with Chrome is the arrogance of the design along with the lack of user choice. The lack of control is infamous and runs through all Google's apps and Android too (IOS is the same way). Firefox was never that way until Chrome came on the scene and then Firefox started mimicking Chrome more and more. That is my big beef with Mozilla/Firefox.
I don't want "clean" menus. I don't want "hamburger" menus. I don't want auto-hiding scrollbars. I don't want tabs on the top. I don't want the browser "refreshing" my settings. I don't want frequent site icons cluttering my blank newpage. I don't want my option for the addon bar removed. I don't want inactive tabs not looking like a tab.
And, yet, I still think Firefox is the "best" browser for all the reasons I have previously stated. One thing is for sure- it is nice to have choices. The idea of any one browser taking over and becoming the de-facto again is truly repulsive. I look at Chrome and hope it is not just the new "IE."
* Closed Source: Check! * Closed Development: Check! * Google Spyware: Check! * Most Restricted UI: Check!
Edge/IE are even worse because they only run on MS-Windows. No thanks, I will continue to use Firefox. Open source, open development, most addons. That doesn't mean Firefox doesn't have its issues... the biggest of which is TRYING TO TURN INTO CHROME!
>"It's encrypted before transmission to the Atlas Cloud servers"
Yeah, right. Closed source binary blob program, right? So you just "promise" that it is done a certain way. Sounds a lot like those "wonderful" closed-source password storage databanks, put everything of highest value in it and just hope it actually IS encrypted the whole way and that there are no backdoors, no spyware, no three-letter-agency access, no undiscovered security holes, etc. Some things are better left to yourself.
While that is an option, as you probably know, it has disadvantages:
1) Can be difficult 2) Time consuming 3) Erodes all security 4) Introduces more things to break & support 5) Puts a lot more load on the server (which in same cases is old and can't handle it well) 6) Won't work for clients you don't control (think public and guest access)
I still don't believe it makes sense to force the majority of web browsing to be https.
Not only does most stuff not need to be HTTPS, it often destroys caching, lowers battery life, and hurts performance.... but also.... how does Google know these statistics unless they are freely admitting that they have major spyware in their non-open, binary-only Chrome browser? So this whole https on non-important pages is theoretically so much better for privacy and security, except that Google gets to know everywhere you go?
OK, I probably jumped a bit too quickly. But I think you know what I mean when I say there are just so many postings about how wonderful this or that country is in Europe and how just doing XXXX here would solve all our problems. And those suggestions really do tend to be overwhelmingly "left".
(I do so hate the terms "left" and "right" as if all positions can be defined by them on a single line spectrum... it is beyond silly and doesn't match reality at all. It would be like defining a plane as traveling either left or right while completely ignoring elevation, speed, attitude, and location.)
>"I hate a lot of the current candidates policies I like some of them but not one closely reflects my views. This is the best we could do?"
With a first-past-the-poll voting system and the electoral college, yes, that is the best we can do. It has been in the making for a long time. The only way to get real choice is to get rid of the EC and institute SOME type of instant runoff voting. Alas, it will likely never happen at this point. So we are trapped.
And all of that might work in a tiny, insulated country of like-minded people with minute immigration, lack of having to defend themselves, and without certain Constitutionally protected rights.
I get so tired of hearing people try to compare small European countries to the USA as if they are something we could just emulate or should even aspire to become. Our problems tend to be far, far more complex and expensive.
>" If they are voluntarily paying it, they do." >" Gun to their head and all that?"
OK, let's see how your logic works for:
1) Electricity 2) Gas 3) City water 4) City Sewer
They don't have a "gun to your head" to pay for those, so it must be voluntary, right? I mean, you CAN live without any of those.... burn candles and wood, get bottled water, crap in a pail. Some services are necessary for reasonable modern living, and Internet is becoming one of those.
They don't necessarily think it is worth the expense, in some cases they simply have no choice. Where I live, I have no other choice for [real] Internet access, period. So it doesn't matter what they charge, I pretty much "have" to pay it. Not everyone has the option (or desire) to "borrow" (more like "steal"?) Internet access like you can do. In fact, most don't.
TV is somewhat less important [to most people, including me], but if you want quality content that is NOT on Netflix/whatever or over the air, again, you are stuck (think History Channel, Science Channel, NatGeo).
About sports- that is a perfect example of one of the several causes TV is too expensive. I call it the "sports tax." Like you (and many others), I don't give a F*** about *any* sports. And, yet, a sizable amount of my cable bill dollars go directly to ESPN's pockets for their exorbitant licensing fees. And the cable TV companies act like it is a wonderful thing for everyone that we have access to 26 sports channels, and the golf channel, and 20 home shopping network channels, and 30 reality-tv-junk channels, and 18 non-English channels, and etc.
Last time I complained to Cox about their latest series of price hikes, they had the nerve to tell me how wonderful a value their service is because it covers all the people in my house at no extra charge! I told them "Yeah, because, since I live alone, I guess should be terribly happy I am subsidizing it for all those multi-person households; such a great deal for me."
>"I don't know who the fuck is behind wireless charging and water proofing. It sure as fuck isn't customers.?
You are wrong on lots of levels, mostly by assuming people would ONLY use it the way you do. I have enjoyed wireless charging for many years now, starting with the Palm Pre and it is WONDERFUL.
1) There ARE standards for charging- QI being the most important. But of course Apple won't use anything standard because that will eat into their innovation, I mean profit.
2) Some of use DON'T CARE HOW LONG IT TAKES TO CHARGE. So being slow won't matter to us when it is more convenient.
3) Nobody is forcing anyone to use wireless charging, it is a useful OPTION. Pick what works best for you.
How I use it is- when I get home I slap my Nexus 5 on the pad and it immediately starts charging. 99% of the time I have no alignment or other issues, it just instantly works and I get audible feedback that it works, too. If I get a message or want to use the phone, I pick it up, mess with it (without having to mess with a cord in the way or disconnecting and reconnecting it) and then slap it back on the pad when done. I don't carry it around with me at home. It is extremely convenient to not have to mess with cords and connectors.
Now, for people who want to charge as quickly as they can so they can get the phone back on their person ASAP, they are free to use the cord/connector option- no problem. But to think it is "dumb" just shows that you can't possibly put yourself in other peoples' shoes.
>"Cable TV Price Increases Have Beaten Inflation Every Single Year For 20 Years"
I don't think any of us needed a study to tell us this. Although my Interenet speed has gotten better, and I now have HDTV channels, the *quality* of the content and the selection of quality channels has NOT improved. If anything, it has gotten worse and worse.
This is unsustainable and why you are seeing people jump ship with other options just as soon as they could, and most of those options are only available due to Internet streaming (which is consuming TONS and TONS of bandwidth and increasing exponentially).
Cable monopolies are far too used to being the only game in town and raking in tons of cash doing so. They need to start offering lower-priced a-la-cart channel options and soon or their slide will continue. But don't think for a moment they will just suffer alone. Since they are still monopolies for Internet in most regions, they will start to try and make up for their lost profits by raising the prices of their Internet services. It is already happening.
So maybe it might make sense to name children with more "American" sounding names rather than [made-up] supposedly African ones? I am not saying such discrimination is right, just pointing out it shouldn't be a surprise there are some real-world effects when choosing a name like "Latishquia."
In other news, I bet Muslim-sounding names have a harder time too. Is that surprising?
It might be a good idea for such services to use a nickname or "handle" or just numeric login name for relaying the information to the drivers, releasing the real name only when the actual ride begins....
> And yet, far less intrusive than the police performing an old-fashioned door-to-door canvassing.
Not really. Because they are not going to perform a canvassing to thousands of doors. They would actually do some thinking and analysis FIRST and then contact the people most likely to be relevant. But when it is easy to just shoot out thousands of text messages and hope that maybe 1% actually hit relevant people, guess what they will do?
Like I said above, where does it end. Perhaps *a* text message doesn't bother you. But what about when it is 10 a day? When it wakes you from a nap? Don't think that is possible? I do. It is, indeed, a form of spam. Text messages demand attention- not to the level of a phone call, but far, far, far more invasive and annoying than an Email or a letter.
At least they got a warrant... but we know how that evolves just by reviewing history.
>"Ads that exclude people based on race, gender and other sensitive factors are prohibited by federal law in housing and employment."
Um, WTF? That is so wrong and used completely out of context. This has nothing to do with discrimination or not offering something to particular groups of people because you are trying to harm them or exclude them from something they should or would need. There is no sense in showing an ad for feminine products to men. There is little sense in showing an ad for a men's underwear to women. It is silly to show an ad for Geri-curl to someone who is white. There is probably no reason to show an ad for makeup tinted for very light skin to someone who is black. This isn't something to get in a huff about AT ALL. If you offer a product that is targeting a specific age range, gender, race, religion, orientation, hair color, height, home owner, motorcycle driver, language, WHATEVER, what harm is there in making sure those costly exposures are more likely to be sent to people who actually care about your product?
>"The competition remains fierce. Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, and Microsoft Edge have all gained a variety of new features and improvements over the past year."
Isn't it nice to not have just one mega browser? Competition is a wonderful thing.... Edge is not multiplatform, nor open, so not sure it can count, completely. Chrome is not really open-source (the base is, as Chromium), but at least is multiplatform. Firefox is completely open and very multiplatform, but seems to be turning into Chrome for some reason (gotta piss off your user base, you know). But all three are winners in various benchmarks.
>"Society said it did not matter if you could pay for electricity; we wanted everyone to have it. Society said we would not limit dial tone to those who could pay the most, we gave it to all,"
Poor comparison.
Most of us agree that "reasonable" internet speeds should be available to everyone. But that doesn't mean everyone must have access to the fastest and best services. Everyone has access to electricity, but not everyone is entitled to have backup generators, 200 amp service, underground lines, and a 30 circuit panel. Everyone has access to dial tone, but not everyone is entitled to have dual lines, caller ID, call waiting, voicemail, and three-way calling.
The biggest problem with internet (and TV) service is that there is little or no competition in most areas. I suffer from that too... in my area, Verizon chose not to offer FIOS and at the same time has allowed their copper structure to literally fall apart. So my choice is either overpriced but excellent Cox internet or unbelievably slow, unreliable, and overpriced ($ per Mb/s) DSL from Verizon- so slow, it is certainly under nobody's definition of "reasonable". Yet just a few neighborhoods over, customers can choose FIOS and more reliable Cox services... often at lower prices. For CATV, my neighborhood has zero choice.... overpriced Cox or nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
>Closed source and closed development? Did we forget about Chromium, which is in Debian?
Nope. Didn't forget about it at all. For one, we are talking about Chrome, not Chromium. Chrome is closed on both fronts. Chromium is open source, but that is not what people are using- I would guess the ratio is about 99+% Chrome and less than 1% Chromium as far as installations go. And just because Chrome is based on Chromium, that doesn't mean it is using that code. Google puts whatever they like in Chrome and we really have no idea what it does behind the scenes. Our only clues are to try and carefully monitor the traffic it sends.
As for development, Mozilla isn't as open as I would like, but they are still far more open than Google is with Chromium. Even so Mozilla (corp) is a primarily a browser company, Google has its hands in all kinds of things, giving it far more incentive to develop to its own goals, not ours. Firefox coding is done by Mozilla Foundation, and that is a non-profit organization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... "The Mozilla Foundation describes itself as "a non-profit organization that promotes openness, innovation and participation on the Internet."
>"And yet, none of the ways it is "trying to turn into chrome" are on your list of the 4 reasons to avoid chrome. So, what exactly is the problem?"
With Mozilla/Firefox? That they keep removing and hiding things in the UI trying to make it so-called "clean" like Chrome. Then, worse, changing stuff and then removing the options to revert the changes. Now you have to load an addon (Classic Theme Restorer) to get some of the stuff back. Want a specific example? How about tabs-on-bottom, like they are supposed to be. Then there is all the crap they DO add that we don't want... like "hello" and "developer view" and "pocket"; all things that should clearly be addons.
The UI problem with Chrome is the arrogance of the design along with the lack of user choice. The lack of control is infamous and runs through all Google's apps and Android too (IOS is the same way). Firefox was never that way until Chrome came on the scene and then Firefox started mimicking Chrome more and more. That is my big beef with Mozilla/Firefox.
I don't want "clean" menus.
I don't want "hamburger" menus.
I don't want auto-hiding scrollbars.
I don't want tabs on the top.
I don't want the browser "refreshing" my settings.
I don't want frequent site icons cluttering my blank newpage.
I don't want my option for the addon bar removed.
I don't want inactive tabs not looking like a tab.
And, yet, I still think Firefox is the "best" browser for all the reasons I have previously stated. One thing is for sure- it is nice to have choices. The idea of any one browser taking over and becoming the de-facto again is truly repulsive. I look at Chrome and hope it is not just the new "IE."
Chrome:
* Closed Source: Check!
* Closed Development: Check!
* Google Spyware: Check!
* Most Restricted UI: Check!
Edge/IE are even worse because they only run on MS-Windows. No thanks, I will continue to use Firefox. Open source, open development, most addons. That doesn't mean Firefox doesn't have its issues... the biggest of which is TRYING TO TURN INTO CHROME!
Yep, which clearly invalidates the GP's trolling.
>"It's encrypted before transmission to the Atlas Cloud servers"
Yeah, right. Closed source binary blob program, right? So you just "promise" that it is done a certain way. Sounds a lot like those "wonderful" closed-source password storage databanks, put everything of highest value in it and just hope it actually IS encrypted the whole way and that there are no backdoors, no spyware, no three-letter-agency access, no undiscovered security holes, etc. Some things are better left to yourself.
"Danger, danger Will Robinson..."
While that is an option, as you probably know, it has disadvantages:
1) Can be difficult
2) Time consuming
3) Erodes all security
4) Introduces more things to break & support
5) Puts a lot more load on the server (which in same cases is old and can't handle it well)
6) Won't work for clients you don't control (think public and guest access)
I still don't believe it makes sense to force the majority of web browsing to be https.
>"Your browser can cache resources delivered through HTTPS as easily as through cleartext HTTP."
Which does absolutely nothing for centralized caching like Squid.
Not only does most stuff not need to be HTTPS, it often destroys caching, lowers battery life, and hurts performance.... but also.... how does Google know these statistics unless they are freely admitting that they have major spyware in their non-open, binary-only Chrome browser? So this whole https on non-important pages is theoretically so much better for privacy and security, except that Google gets to know everywhere you go?
There are many reasons I don't use Chrome....
OK, I probably jumped a bit too quickly. But I think you know what I mean when I say there are just so many postings about how wonderful this or that country is in Europe and how just doing XXXX here would solve all our problems. And those suggestions really do tend to be overwhelmingly "left".
(I do so hate the terms "left" and "right" as if all positions can be defined by them on a single line spectrum... it is beyond silly and doesn't match reality at all. It would be like defining a plane as traveling either left or right while completely ignoring elevation, speed, attitude, and location.)
>"I hate a lot of the current candidates policies I like some of them but not one closely reflects my views. This is the best we could do?"
With a first-past-the-poll voting system and the electoral college, yes, that is the best we can do. It has been in the making for a long time. The only way to get real choice is to get rid of the EC and institute SOME type of instant runoff voting. Alas, it will likely never happen at this point. So we are trapped.
http://fairvote.org/
And all of that might work in a tiny, insulated country of like-minded people with minute immigration, lack of having to defend themselves, and without certain Constitutionally protected rights.
I get so tired of hearing people try to compare small European countries to the USA as if they are something we could just emulate or should even aspire to become. Our problems tend to be far, far more complex and expensive.
1) Get real
2) No thanks
They don't say, but we all know it is an MS-Windows based system.... probably clients and servers.
>"Cable television isnt of great intrinsic value, at all."
Where in my posting did I say ANYTHING about cable TV? I said Internet.
>" If they are voluntarily paying it, they do."
>" Gun to their head and all that?"
OK, let's see how your logic works for:
1) Electricity
2) Gas
3) City water
4) City Sewer
They don't have a "gun to your head" to pay for those, so it must be voluntary, right? I mean, you CAN live without any of those.... burn candles and wood, get bottled water, crap in a pail. Some services are necessary for reasonable modern living, and Internet is becoming one of those.
They don't necessarily think it is worth the expense, in some cases they simply have no choice. Where I live, I have no other choice for [real] Internet access, period. So it doesn't matter what they charge, I pretty much "have" to pay it. Not everyone has the option (or desire) to "borrow" (more like "steal"?) Internet access like you can do. In fact, most don't.
TV is somewhat less important [to most people, including me], but if you want quality content that is NOT on Netflix/whatever or over the air, again, you are stuck (think History Channel, Science Channel, NatGeo).
About sports- that is a perfect example of one of the several causes TV is too expensive. I call it the "sports tax." Like you (and many others), I don't give a F*** about *any* sports. And, yet, a sizable amount of my cable bill dollars go directly to ESPN's pockets for their exorbitant licensing fees. And the cable TV companies act like it is a wonderful thing for everyone that we have access to 26 sports channels, and the golf channel, and 20 home shopping network channels, and 30 reality-tv-junk channels, and 18 non-English channels, and etc.
Last time I complained to Cox about their latest series of price hikes, they had the nerve to tell me how wonderful a value their service is because it covers all the people in my house at no extra charge! I told them "Yeah, because, since I live alone, I guess should be terribly happy I am subsidizing it for all those multi-person households; such a great deal for me."
>"I don't know who the fuck is behind wireless charging and water proofing. It sure as fuck isn't customers.?
You are wrong on lots of levels, mostly by assuming people would ONLY use it the way you do. I have enjoyed wireless charging for many years now, starting with the Palm Pre and it is WONDERFUL.
1) There ARE standards for charging- QI being the most important. But of course Apple won't use anything standard because that will eat into their innovation, I mean profit.
2) Some of use DON'T CARE HOW LONG IT TAKES TO CHARGE. So being slow won't matter to us when it is more convenient.
3) Nobody is forcing anyone to use wireless charging, it is a useful OPTION. Pick what works best for you.
How I use it is- when I get home I slap my Nexus 5 on the pad and it immediately starts charging. 99% of the time I have no alignment or other issues, it just instantly works and I get audible feedback that it works, too. If I get a message or want to use the phone, I pick it up, mess with it (without having to mess with a cord in the way or disconnecting and reconnecting it) and then slap it back on the pad when done. I don't carry it around with me at home. It is extremely convenient to not have to mess with cords and connectors.
Now, for people who want to charge as quickly as they can so they can get the phone back on their person ASAP, they are free to use the cord/connector option- no problem. But to think it is "dumb" just shows that you can't possibly put yourself in other peoples' shoes.
>"Cable TV Price Increases Have Beaten Inflation Every Single Year For 20 Years"
I don't think any of us needed a study to tell us this. Although my Interenet speed has gotten better, and I now have HDTV channels, the *quality* of the content and the selection of quality channels has NOT improved. If anything, it has gotten worse and worse.
This is unsustainable and why you are seeing people jump ship with other options just as soon as they could, and most of those options are only available due to Internet streaming (which is consuming TONS and TONS of bandwidth and increasing exponentially).
Cable monopolies are far too used to being the only game in town and raking in tons of cash doing so. They need to start offering lower-priced a-la-cart channel options and soon or their slide will continue. But don't think for a moment they will just suffer alone. Since they are still monopolies for Internet in most regions, they will start to try and make up for their lost profits by raising the prices of their Internet services. It is already happening.
So maybe it might make sense to name children with more "American" sounding names rather than [made-up] supposedly African ones? I am not saying such discrimination is right, just pointing out it shouldn't be a surprise there are some real-world effects when choosing a name like "Latishquia."
In other news, I bet Muslim-sounding names have a harder time too. Is that surprising?
It might be a good idea for such services to use a nickname or "handle" or just numeric login name for relaying the information to the drivers, releasing the real name only when the actual ride begins....
> And yet, far less intrusive than the police performing an old-fashioned door-to-door canvassing.
Not really. Because they are not going to perform a canvassing to thousands of doors. They would actually do some thinking and analysis FIRST and then contact the people most likely to be relevant. But when it is easy to just shoot out thousands of text messages and hope that maybe 1% actually hit relevant people, guess what they will do?
Like I said above, where does it end. Perhaps *a* text message doesn't bother you. But what about when it is 10 a day? When it wakes you from a nap? Don't think that is possible? I do. It is, indeed, a form of spam. Text messages demand attention- not to the level of a phone call, but far, far, far more invasive and annoying than an Email or a letter.
At least they got a warrant... but we know how that evolves just by reviewing history.
And where will this type of thing end? What level crimes will justify such privacy invasions? To me, this just sounds a lot like spam.
>"Ads that exclude people based on race, gender and other sensitive factors are prohibited by federal law in housing and employment."
Um, WTF? That is so wrong and used completely out of context. This has nothing to do with discrimination or not offering something to particular groups of people because you are trying to harm them or exclude them from something they should or would need. There is no sense in showing an ad for feminine products to men. There is little sense in showing an ad for a men's underwear to women. It is silly to show an ad for Geri-curl to someone who is white. There is probably no reason to show an ad for makeup tinted for very light skin to someone who is black. This isn't something to get in a huff about AT ALL. If you offer a product that is targeting a specific age range, gender, race, religion, orientation, hair color, height, home owner, motorcycle driver, language, WHATEVER, what harm is there in making sure those costly exposures are more likely to be sent to people who actually care about your product?
>"The competition remains fierce. Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, and Microsoft Edge have all gained a variety of new features and improvements over the past year."
Isn't it nice to not have just one mega browser? Competition is a wonderful thing.... Edge is not multiplatform, nor open, so not sure it can count, completely. Chrome is not really open-source (the base is, as Chromium), but at least is multiplatform. Firefox is completely open and very multiplatform, but seems to be turning into Chrome for some reason (gotta piss off your user base, you know). But all three are winners in various benchmarks.
>"Samsung Hit With Class Action Lawsuit Over Exploding Galaxy Note 7 "
Except none of them "exploded." Burned, perhaps... but that doesn't sound sensationalistic enough.
>"Society said it did not matter if you could pay for electricity; we wanted everyone to have it. Society said we would not limit dial tone to those who could pay the most, we gave it to all,"
Poor comparison.
Most of us agree that "reasonable" internet speeds should be available to everyone. But that doesn't mean everyone must have access to the fastest and best services. Everyone has access to electricity, but not everyone is entitled to have backup generators, 200 amp service, underground lines, and a 30 circuit panel. Everyone has access to dial tone, but not everyone is entitled to have dual lines, caller ID, call waiting, voicemail, and three-way calling.
The biggest problem with internet (and TV) service is that there is little or no competition in most areas. I suffer from that too... in my area, Verizon chose not to offer FIOS and at the same time has allowed their copper structure to literally fall apart. So my choice is either overpriced but excellent Cox internet or unbelievably slow, unreliable, and overpriced ($ per Mb/s) DSL from Verizon- so slow, it is certainly under nobody's definition of "reasonable". Yet just a few neighborhoods over, customers can choose FIOS and more reliable Cox services... often at lower prices. For CATV, my neighborhood has zero choice.... overpriced Cox or nothing.