Chromium does, they're just doing it at a more frequent rate. People acclimate to minute changes made very often (every few days) over bigger/more changes made at once (even if it's every few weeks instead of every year or so).
eBay changed the color on the background of a part of a page from one color to another - IIRC it was yellow to purple - and users flipped so much they changed it back. Then, over the course of several weeks, they did many intermediate colors, changing it a couple days a week. Suddenly, no one noticed the page they complained about in the past had, again, changed color completely.
The Chromium team has done a great job in that regard.
It's an addon/plugin/profile issue. I'd argue the last one is probably the worst because it's hard to diagnose without creating a new profile.
If you update everything (Flash/Shockwave/Java/etc. - I'd recommend Secunia's PSI to check your programs, including plugins, for updates) and it doesn't help stability, I would disable all addons and browse until you find the one causing the problem.
You may say "Why bother?". As a nerd, I enjoy addons with no comparable functionality in Chrome/Chromium and I support Mozilla. My FF7 installs work very well although I won't lie and say Firefox has been problem free (no browser has been). It may be worth examining if you liked Firefox as 7 is a good improvement over 6 even despite the development time. I don't seem to have the stability/bloat issues others complain about.
Anyhow, up to you if you want to examine it for you. In the end, whatever works for you works for you and you are either going to try to diagnose Firefox or ignore it.
Define better. It really depends on the usage scenario. Not in RAM usage or ability of addons to modify browser behavior beyond the highest level.
I have IE, Chromium, Firefox, and Opera installed and they each have strengths and weaknesses. However, my primary browser is Firefox.
8 is adding some neat features, but I think a quarterly check-in would be more appropriate. However, 8 beta does add some features Firefox users have been seeking for a long time, like opting into addons installed by third party programs.
Users will receive a one-time notification to review and confirm third party add-ons they want to keep, disable or delete. When Firefox starts and finds that a third-party program has installed an add-on
I assume this include Microsoft stealth adding extensions to the browser?
IE: Windows Media Player Plugin
Yeah, addons that added themselves outside the normal system weren't always removable (through Firefox) and Firefox never asked about them. Yahoo Toolbar, Bing, etc.
Change for the better. Users who don't explicitly want something are unlikely to approve it (since it's disabled by default), and users who don't know better are more likely to ignore it (again, disabled by default). I think you'll have few "click-throughers" that will check the box to enable the addon then hit continue.
However, they're talking addons at this point (Adblock Plus, BetterPrivacy, Greasemonkey, Skype etc.) - NOT plugins (Flash, Shockwave, Java [except the Console, which is an addon], etc.). In the comments somebody asked if it applied to plugins and they said "Skype is an addon so it will have this" - I'm guessing it won't ask for plugins.
That was a more recent Iron addin then when that article was written, but even then modern versions change very little. With the WebRequest Experimental API and Adblock Plus for Chrome using it in dev builds now, blocking is essential comparable (and unlike beforeLoad, the webRequest API doesn't have a really shitty success rate).
It changed barely anything, in essence; three options plainly visible and easily disabled in Chrome/Chromium's options (persistently disabled between upgrades, I might add) were removed, the rest were copyright notice changes and resource changes (e.g. "Chromium" to "SRWare Iron", icon, etc.). Calling it a true privacy fork is disingenuous when it disables three user accessible options and is otherwise just rebranded, persistently behind in version/security updates, etc.
Chrome doesn't accept toolbars, has a minimalist fixed interface (a lot of printer drivers & other shit install addons), updates Flash & such automatically, etc.
Most problems I've had with bloat in Firefox relate to bad plugins (Shockwave, Flash, etc.) and bad addons.
If you've updated all your plugins to their latest versions, disabling all of your addons and enabling them one by one until you find what's leaking can be helpful.
In my experience, Firebug is an awesome and flexible tool, but it leaks. I only enable it when I need to. That's one example.
SRWare Iron is a joke; go with a Chromium build if you're looking for a completely open source version of Chrome, then disable the four options SRWare codes out entirely. They'll remain persistently disabled between installs (I just use the builds of Chromium provided by Google and update occasionally).
The WebRequest API (experimental) is promising but at this time it doesn't touch what Firefox has; Chrome/Chromium simply do not permit extensions the same level of access.
There are only a few real world browsing scenarios that I have encountered with Chrome (vs. FF7) that Chrome is faster, and sometimes I have encountered the inverse. However it depends on the machine; on slower machines, Chrome is a lot faster, and Opera is great for older PCs because it'll run circles around both.
Adblock Plus for Chrome is incomplete and cannot block many elements properly, including those loaded by legitimate resources (say, a Flash player); see the many issues merged into this Chromium issue.
RequestPolicy works great in conjunction with NoScript. Don't know if it works with Firefox mobile (doubt it), but it's great for site specific permissions on the desktop.
I am confident that you can sniff wireless traffic if you're just using WPA(2) with a PSK because I've done it on my own network. If you give the neighbors your passphrase, they can sniff you.
There are options such as using multiple APs in DD-WRT, or using an enterprise WPA method where you have a login for your stuff (nerd/securepassword) and give one to the public (public/publicpass).
Unless the sync is optional, or it allows the user to use a key separate from the credentials that requires a re-sync if you lose it (like Firefox Sync) where the provider can't tell what you store on their servers (encrypted/decrypted locally), it'll bar me from buying Apple products ever again.
RTFA and you see that, as many of us already know, you can get a court order to get the exact identity of the account holder, so the problem as described by the summary quote is not the real issue. Rather, just because you know the account holder does not mean that you can prove that the account holder, or whoever you have on the stand, is the one that infringed.
Despite rear-end covering clauses in the terms of most home ISPs that state that the account holder is liable for everything that goes across their connection, most courts won't accept that. I wouldn't be willing to test it, but it's a very valid point of defense. The number of people with open Wi-Fi is staggering, and even then there are attacks which work on WEP (a ton) and WPA (GPU accelerated attacks can get passphrases in under a minute on many routers), which is the maximum security many home routers in use are capable of. That makes this point even more valid.
Sony uses ADEPT DRM on its books (if I recall correctly. Barnes & Noble uses their own format (the decryption tool is called ignoble), I can't find any solid confirmation but the rumor is that Apple is using FairPlay on their ePUBs.
Decryption tools exist (at least for ADEPT and B&N) but I don't know if that's the case with Apple (I would guess that the answer is yes) but it is a major problem with portability.
Amazon uses their own DRM which is pretty easy to circumvent (With tools); once you do, conversion via a tool like Calibre to another format (e.x. ePUB) is trivial. Couple mouse clicks.
The voicemail was left on the mailbox of a recipient. A voicemail is a knowingly made recording, and one that has no reasonable expectation of privacy.
I'm no lawyer, but if a voicemail sender retains copyright on their message, I have no idea how a site like Audioo (which shares embarrassing voicemails with the world) hasn't been sued into oblivion yet.
As far as the images of Jake (Buckyballs CEO) used in the presentation go (which are images from Google Images, all freely available, used as a representation of a subject matter at a low resolution), I am extremely doubtful. I'm not a lawyer, and it's why Zen is consulting one.
There was no other property belonging to Buckyballs. The trademark was identified as that of a competitor, so there's no basis for a trademark infringement claim. The rest of the video was recorded entirely by Zen Magnets.
A DMCA notice has to include a statement that, under penalty of law, the person filing it knows they have a copyright being infringed and their statements are accurate.
As you might imagine, the difficulty is proving that in court.
The reddit link seems to indicate that they're in the process of making sure they're completely clear:
Decision is we're going to do a counter-notification, but we're gonna have a lawyer back us up. (Especially since there have been good points about potential $$$ damages for perjuring a false copyright take-down.)
The video has been reuploaded to Youtube by a few others though.
If you upgrade from a Northwood Pentium IV to an i7, was the processor not good enough to begin with, or did your needs change? It's much more likely to be the latter.
As a web designer, I'll agree that IE needs improvement. However, dismissing the work of the IE team is wrong. At one point, the IE team consisted of a couple of people doing basic patch support on IE6. Competition forced Microsoft to do better and bring back the team. Why do you think the IE team sends a cake every time Firefox puts out a major release?
Anyhow, IE6 was relatively fast when it came out. It was a security nightmare too. Firefox 1.0 was blazing fast when it came out too, but as we moved towards web apps, complex Javascript, bigger images and bigger everything, it wasn't sufficient. Wave (shelved, I know) still brings browsers to their knees after you get to 100+ threads in the Wave.
Also, keep in mind Microsoft has heavy marketing potential. Nerds may want much better stanedards compliance and speed. The average user may just be coaxed into downloading it because Microsoft advertises it, convincing the user into downloading IE9.
A lot of people were on the Vista beta too. Just keep that in mind.
Having the master key = impersonating whatever display you want or creating new ones. It would be a game of cat and mouse if hackers could only impersonate, and since hackers can also make new displays, firmware upgrading isn't a solution at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Chromium does, they're just doing it at a more frequent rate. People acclimate to minute changes made very often (every few days) over bigger/more changes made at once (even if it's every few weeks instead of every year or so).
eBay changed the color on the background of a part of a page from one color to another - IIRC it was yellow to purple - and users flipped so much they changed it back. Then, over the course of several weeks, they did many intermediate colors, changing it a couple days a week. Suddenly, no one noticed the page they complained about in the past had, again, changed color completely.
The Chromium team has done a great job in that regard.
It's an addon/plugin/profile issue. I'd argue the last one is probably the worst because it's hard to diagnose without creating a new profile.
If you update everything (Flash/Shockwave/Java/etc. - I'd recommend Secunia's PSI to check your programs, including plugins, for updates) and it doesn't help stability, I would disable all addons and browse until you find the one causing the problem.
You may say "Why bother?". As a nerd, I enjoy addons with no comparable functionality in Chrome/Chromium and I support Mozilla. My FF7 installs work very well although I won't lie and say Firefox has been problem free (no browser has been). It may be worth examining if you liked Firefox as 7 is a good improvement over 6 even despite the development time. I don't seem to have the stability/bloat issues others complain about.
Anyhow, up to you if you want to examine it for you. In the end, whatever works for you works for you and you are either going to try to diagnose Firefox or ignore it.
Define better. It really depends on the usage scenario. Not in RAM usage or ability of addons to modify browser behavior beyond the highest level.
I have IE, Chromium, Firefox, and Opera installed and they each have strengths and weaknesses. However, my primary browser is Firefox.
8 is adding some neat features, but I think a quarterly check-in would be more appropriate. However, 8 beta does add some features Firefox users have been seeking for a long time, like opting into addons installed by third party programs.
Users will receive a one-time notification to review and confirm third party add-ons they want to keep, disable or delete. When Firefox starts and finds that a third-party program has installed an add-on
I assume this include Microsoft stealth adding extensions to the browser?
IE: Windows Media Player Plugin
Yeah, addons that added themselves outside the normal system weren't always removable (through Firefox) and Firefox never asked about them. Yahoo Toolbar, Bing, etc.
Change for the better. Users who don't explicitly want something are unlikely to approve it (since it's disabled by default), and users who don't know better are more likely to ignore it (again, disabled by default). I think you'll have few "click-throughers" that will check the box to enable the addon then hit continue.
However, they're talking addons at this point (Adblock Plus, BetterPrivacy, Greasemonkey, Skype etc.) - NOT plugins (Flash, Shockwave, Java [except the Console, which is an addon], etc.). In the comments somebody asked if it applied to plugins and they said "Skype is an addon so it will have this" - I'm guessing it won't ask for plugins.
That was a more recent Iron addin then when that article was written, but even then modern versions change very little. With the WebRequest Experimental API and Adblock Plus for Chrome using it in dev builds now, blocking is essential comparable (and unlike beforeLoad, the webRequest API doesn't have a really shitty success rate).
It changed barely anything, in essence; three options plainly visible and easily disabled in Chrome/Chromium's options (persistently disabled between upgrades, I might add) were removed, the rest were copyright notice changes and resource changes (e.g. "Chromium" to "SRWare Iron", icon, etc.). Calling it a true privacy fork is disingenuous when it disables three user accessible options and is otherwise just rebranded, persistently behind in version/security updates, etc.
Chrome doesn't accept toolbars, has a minimalist fixed interface (a lot of printer drivers & other shit install addons), updates Flash & such automatically, etc.
Plus advertising helps Chrome tremendously.
Most problems I've had with bloat in Firefox relate to bad plugins (Shockwave, Flash, etc.) and bad addons.
If you've updated all your plugins to their latest versions, disabling all of your addons and enabling them one by one until you find what's leaking can be helpful.
In my experience, Firebug is an awesome and flexible tool, but it leaks. I only enable it when I need to. That's one example.
SRWare Iron is a joke; go with a Chromium build if you're looking for a completely open source version of Chrome, then disable the four options SRWare codes out entirely. They'll remain persistently disabled between installs (I just use the builds of Chromium provided by Google and update occasionally).
The WebRequest API (experimental) is promising but at this time it doesn't touch what Firefox has; Chrome/Chromium simply do not permit extensions the same level of access.
There are only a few real world browsing scenarios that I have encountered with Chrome (vs. FF7) that Chrome is faster, and sometimes I have encountered the inverse. However it depends on the machine; on slower machines, Chrome is a lot faster, and Opera is great for older PCs because it'll run circles around both.
Adblock Plus for Chrome is incomplete and cannot block many elements properly, including those loaded by legitimate resources (say, a Flash player); see the many issues merged into this Chromium issue.
RequestPolicy works great in conjunction with NoScript. Don't know if it works with Firefox mobile (doubt it), but it's great for site specific permissions on the desktop.
I am confident that you can sniff wireless traffic if you're just using WPA(2) with a PSK because I've done it on my own network. If you give the neighbors your passphrase, they can sniff you.
There are options such as using multiple APs in DD-WRT, or using an enterprise WPA method where you have a login for your stuff (nerd/securepassword) and give one to the public (public/publicpass).
Unless the sync is optional, or it allows the user to use a key separate from the credentials that requires a re-sync if you lose it (like Firefox Sync) where the provider can't tell what you store on their servers (encrypted/decrypted locally), it'll bar me from buying Apple products ever again.
RTFA and you see that, as many of us already know, you can get a court order to get the exact identity of the account holder, so the problem as described by the summary quote is not the real issue. Rather, just because you know the account holder does not mean that you can prove that the account holder, or whoever you have on the stand, is the one that infringed.
Despite rear-end covering clauses in the terms of most home ISPs that state that the account holder is liable for everything that goes across their connection, most courts won't accept that. I wouldn't be willing to test it, but it's a very valid point of defense. The number of people with open Wi-Fi is staggering, and even then there are attacks which work on WEP (a ton) and WPA (GPU accelerated attacks can get passphrases in under a minute on many routers), which is the maximum security many home routers in use are capable of. That makes this point even more valid.
Giving funds to telecom companies always turns out productively, right?
Sony uses ADEPT DRM on its books (if I recall correctly. Barnes & Noble uses their own format (the decryption tool is called ignoble), I can't find any solid confirmation but the rumor is that Apple is using FairPlay on their ePUBs.
Decryption tools exist (at least for ADEPT and B&N) but I don't know if that's the case with Apple (I would guess that the answer is yes) but it is a major problem with portability.
Amazon uses their own DRM which is pretty easy to circumvent (With tools); once you do, conversion via a tool like Calibre to another format (e.x. ePUB) is trivial. Couple mouse clicks.
Their twitter feed is saying to expect a restock this weekend.
The voicemail was left on the mailbox of a recipient. A voicemail is a knowingly made recording, and one that has no reasonable expectation of privacy.
I'm no lawyer, but if a voicemail sender retains copyright on their message, I have no idea how a site like Audioo (which shares embarrassing voicemails with the world) hasn't been sued into oblivion yet.
As far as the images of Jake (Buckyballs CEO) used in the presentation go (which are images from Google Images, all freely available, used as a representation of a subject matter at a low resolution), I am extremely doubtful. I'm not a lawyer, and it's why Zen is consulting one.
There was no other property belonging to Buckyballs. The trademark was identified as that of a competitor, so there's no basis for a trademark infringement claim. The rest of the video was recorded entirely by Zen Magnets.
A DMCA notice has to include a statement that, under penalty of law, the person filing it knows they have a copyright being infringed and their statements are accurate.
As you might imagine, the difficulty is proving that in court.
The origin of the name Buckyballs is not the toy.
Google was honoring Fullerene, not the toy, although Buckyballs put out a press release saying it massively boosted their sales as a side effect.
The summary here links to reddit. And not every Slashdot user visits reddit regularly.
It's been mirrored by other people on Youtube.
The video has been reuploaded to Youtube by a few others though.
If you upgrade from a Northwood Pentium IV to an i7, was the processor not good enough to begin with, or did your needs change? It's much more likely to be the latter.
As a web designer, I'll agree that IE needs improvement. However, dismissing the work of the IE team is wrong. At one point, the IE team consisted of a couple of people doing basic patch support on IE6. Competition forced Microsoft to do better and bring back the team. Why do you think the IE team sends a cake every time Firefox puts out a major release?
Anyhow, IE6 was relatively fast when it came out. It was a security nightmare too. Firefox 1.0 was blazing fast when it came out too, but as we moved towards web apps, complex Javascript, bigger images and bigger everything, it wasn't sufficient. Wave (shelved, I know) still brings browsers to their knees after you get to 100+ threads in the Wave.
Also, keep in mind Microsoft has heavy marketing potential. Nerds may want much better stanedards compliance and speed. The average user may just be coaxed into downloading it because Microsoft advertises it, convincing the user into downloading IE9.
A lot of people were on the Vista beta too. Just keep that in mind.
Having the master key = impersonating whatever display you want or creating new ones. It would be a game of cat and mouse if hackers could only impersonate, and since hackers can also make new displays, firmware upgrading isn't a solution at all.