Every time I decide to try Chrome again, I remember why I don't -- it's all about the ads.
The thing is there is an adblock. It supports the subscriptions that adblock plus original uses too. The problem is that the content still loads - this filter doesn't prevent that, it only blocks it from being displayed. While this solves some of the problem, it also means that you're still adding to page load times, etc just as if the ads were displayed.
I'd personally like to have this, assuming I can drag for top/bottom/tiled docking without having to manually drag the windows to the exact size. It means I don't have to have the window decorations on each window, and can share the menu space between them.
The above comment was posted in demonstration of the Prime Rule of Requirements Deflection: tell the user that they want something other than what they ask for.
How about the fact that ALL of their headlines look like any other half-news, half-bias pseudo-news site. There is nothing to differentiate them from their competition -- which is equally unappealing, and for the same reason.
This is even worse than a crotchety old person - it's a crotchety young person who thinks he's a crotchety old person because he's been online for a decade!
Does that invalidate his points? I don't think so - replace "nobody" with " not everybody". Not to mention that this software is not produced for free, and is often supported by the deep pockets of corporations or friendly donors.
Valid point - if the data points don't exist, he can't very well reference them. I think what bugged me was more the tone of "I present this as fact though it is speculation" that led up to his request.
There's also the inevitable conclusion that will be drawn when no company provides the information. Rightly or wrongly, the lack of information will be used as "proof" that there's something to hide.
Where are the facts again? Oh, right, he tells us!
The fact is that what most telcos call hogs are simply people who overall and on average download more than others. Blaming them for network congestion is actually an admission that telcos are uncomfortable with the 'all you can eat' broadband schemes that they themselves introduced on the market to get people to subscribe. In other words, the marketing push to get people to subscribe to broadband worked, but now the telcos see a missed opportunity at price discrimination...
It's nice of him to declare that without evidence. Now I know it to be true.
I'm not saying he's wrong... quite possibly he's right, but seriously - how does someone's blog entry that doesn't provide one single data point to back up the claim make it to the front page?
Thanks - that's the point I'm trying to get at. Given that I'm aware I could do something stupid, it's my friggin box...
I find it quite funny that my original post was modded "overrated". Apparently there is moderator out there who is so offended by this concept of user control that he needed to suppress the very idea...
So let's say you have a recent car that gets a crappy 22mpg highway. You decide you want to go for efficiency, and buy a $22,000 Prius. The '09 prius gets 50mpg highway.
Your 60 month monthly payment on the Prius, at a 0% interest loan, is $366. You drive the typical 12,000 miles a year, which is 250 gallons of gas, or 21 gallons a month.. In your old car, that's 545 gallons of gas or 45 a month. . At a current price of $3/gallon...
Prius: 63
Old car: $135 a month.
Total monthly cost of Prius at current gas prices: 429
Total monthly cost of Old Car at current: 135
Now let's look at your theoretical $12/15*/20/gallon:
Prius at $12/gallon: $618 / 681 / 786
Old car: $540 / 675 / 900
That means the break-even gas pricing of the car you purchased explicitly to save gas e is somewhere between $15-20 a gallon.
Alternatively, let's say you paid cash up front. In order for your new car purchase to pay for itself in gas savings (again, based on 12k a year):
$3/gallon: 309 months
$12/gallon: 76 months
$15/gallon: 61 months
Now, if you actually need a new car anyway, and you absolutely must have a brand new car instead of one that's a couple of years old (and much less expensive), it's definitely worth it. But if there's nothing wrong with your car... well, personally, I'll be sticking with the car I've already paid for (21mpg highway) for a good long time.
* If you got 4000 for your trade in, that would lower the break-even point to around $14/gallon.
Because we all know that when a big company is accused of something it must be true.
he Santa Clara Superior Court initially ruled against him.[1][2] On October 4, 2007, the California Sixth District Court of Appeal overturned the lower court's verdict and allowed the lawsuit to proceed.[3] The case has been appealed to the California Supreme Court which has not yet heard the case.
I looked into creating such a system a few years ago. After a bit of research, I decided I wasn't that brave -- certainyl the technology existed even then to do it, but here's what I ran into: requiring a person to learn (via biofeedback) to force certain brainwave patterns, and to repeat them often and for long periods of time, is not necessarily a Good Idea. What research I could find at the time showed that there may be potentially negative effects (inducing epilepsy was one such, in people who had no prior history). But more than that, I mostly found a huge unknown - there were few real studies on how this could affect a person.
Until such a device can interpret thoughts as we have them, without requiring the user to "think" certain patterns... I think I'll hold off on buying mine.
Sure, but here's my point. If I'm stupid enough to run a malicious program, that means I'm just going to give it the permissions it requires, when I'm prompted.
And if I'm not stupid enough to do that, the extra step of being prompted does me no good at all - as I wouldn't have run it in the first place.
The only place I see it as being of potential value is in sandboxing your system -- so that a a security vulnerability that allows something in through a back door can't do harm beyond your personal account.
That being said, even this is of limited practical use for a single user system. If your personal account is compromised, it's just as damaging -- a process doesn't need admin/root to serve as a spam generator. Keyloggers don't need root/admin either. Finally, someone able to plunder my/home/me directory, or "My Documents", will have access to all of my personal info.
Rootkits are bad, but they are far from required to do serious damage. ANd from the user's perspective, the amount of damage which can be done by non-root compromises is just as bad.
I had done that, but it doesn't really solve the problem. Two things - first, relatively minor: I still need to type "sudo" when I want to do something. Far more annoyingly -- desktop applications still prompt regardless of that setting.
I know the instinctive response is "no bad bad bad"... but as someone who has avoided any kind of viruses or malware on Windows for many years while being forced by the OS to run as admin... is there really any benefit to not running as root? If you assume that I'm willing to accept consequences of my own stupidity, what else is there?
On the other hand, I really don't want to have to deal with UAC/sudo/etc. every time I edit one of my own documents, so it's kind of an unwinable situation that only good backups can protect against.
I think that's exactly it - I've been experimenting with running linux as::gasp:: root with a full desktop lately. The same rules apply as when running as admin on Windows: don't be stupid. But realistically, what does it save me to have to constantly enter a password to do something? I've never once said "Oops, wait, no I don't want to do this, I'm so glad you nagged me for a password so that I reconsidered it." And I don't think many people ever do have that experience.
When you're using an OS as a single-user system, it's extremely redundant to have to fight against multi-user controls all the time. If I'm stupid enough to type "rm -f/", then I'm also stupid enough to type "sudo rm -f/". (And yes, one one occasion I *was* that stupid. Guess what - it was nobody's fault but my own. I got what I deserved.) The other side of the coin: downloading malware. The answer for that is the same as it is for windows - don't.
Having an operating system that trips over its own feet trying to protect you from yourself is like government legislating use of seatbelts. Yeah, there are a lot of people who aren't wearing seatbelts. Having a law about it will change that for a few of them. But the remainder fall into two categories: those who will continue without the seatbelt anyway, and those those who used seatbelts all along. The "protections" don't really help either one.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing is there is an adblock. It supports the subscriptions that adblock plus original uses too. The problem is that the content still loads - this filter doesn't prevent that, it only blocks it from being displayed. While this solves some of the problem, it also means that you're still adding to page load times, etc just as if the ads were displayed.
The win7 auto-docking is great for that, but I do wish I could do without wasted window decoration and titlebar space.
I wasn't aware of that either, apparently I never got there through any other path.
Heh, I was actually referring to the GP poster, not you. Should've been clearer.
I'd personally like to have this, assuming I can drag for top/bottom/tiled docking without having to manually drag the windows to the exact size. It means I don't have to have the window decorations on each window, and can share the menu space between them.
You need to get a bigger screen.
The above comment was posted in demonstration of the Prime Rule of Requirements Deflection: tell the user that they want something other than what they ask for.
That's so freaky that you mentioned that! Look: http://paywall.google.com/beta
They have no paywall. Just scroll to the page bottom.
How about the fact that ALL of their headlines look like any other half-news, half-bias pseudo-news site. There is nothing to differentiate them from their competition -- which is equally unappealing, and for the same reason.
This is even worse than a crotchety old person - it's a crotchety young person who thinks he's a crotchety old person because he's been online for a decade!
Does that invalidate his points? I don't think so - replace "nobody" with " not everybody". Not to mention that this software is not produced for free, and is often supported by the deep pockets of corporations or friendly donors.
Supply of what is actually licensed - the /original/ idea/creativity/etc - is not infinite though.
There's also the inevitable conclusion that will be drawn when no company provides the information. Rightly or wrongly, the lack of information will be used as "proof" that there's something to hide.
The fact is that what most telcos call hogs are simply people who overall and on average download more than others. Blaming them for network congestion is actually an admission that telcos are uncomfortable with the 'all you can eat' broadband schemes that they themselves introduced on the market to get people to subscribe. In other words, the marketing push to get people to subscribe to broadband worked, but now the telcos see a missed opportunity at price discrimination...
It's nice of him to declare that without evidence. Now I know it to be true.
I'm not saying he's wrong... quite possibly he's right, but seriously - how does someone's blog entry that doesn't provide one single data point to back up the claim make it to the front page?
I find it quite funny that my original post was modded "overrated". Apparently there is moderator out there who is so offended by this concept of user control that he needed to suppress the very idea...
oops - minor miscalc that doesn't change much - it's 240 gallons annually, 20 monthly.
Your 60 month monthly payment on the Prius, at a 0% interest loan, is $366. You drive the typical 12,000 miles a year, which is 250 gallons of gas, or 21 gallons a month.. In your old car, that's 545 gallons of gas or 45 a month. . At a current price of $3/gallon...
Prius: 63
Old car: $135 a month.
Total monthly cost of Prius at current gas prices: 429 Total monthly cost of Old Car at current: 135
Now let's look at your theoretical $12/15*/20 /gallon:
Prius at $12/gallon: $618 / 681 / 786
Old car: $540 / 675 / 900 That means the break-even gas pricing of the car you purchased explicitly to save gas e is somewhere between $15-20 a gallon.
Alternatively, let's say you paid cash up front. In order for your new car purchase to pay for itself in gas savings (again, based on 12k a year):
$3/gallon: 309 months
$12/gallon: 76 months
$15/gallon: 61 months
Now, if you actually need a new car anyway, and you absolutely must have a brand new car instead of one that's a couple of years old (and much less expensive), it's definitely worth it. But if there's nothing wrong with your car... well, personally, I'll be sticking with the car I've already paid for (21mpg highway) for a good long time.
* If you got 4000 for your trade in, that would lower the break-even point to around $14/gallon.
he Santa Clara Superior Court initially ruled against him.[1][2] On October 4, 2007, the California Sixth District Court of Appeal overturned the lower court's verdict and allowed the lawsuit to proceed.[3] The case has been appealed to the California Supreme Court which has not yet heard the case.
No matter what the verdict is in the end.
Should be brain-controlled
That's just what they want you to think ;)
Until such a device can interpret thoughts as we have them, without requiring the user to "think" certain patterns... I think I'll hold off on buying mine.
And if I'm not stupid enough to do that, the extra step of being prompted does me no good at all - as I wouldn't have run it in the first place.
The only place I see it as being of potential value is in sandboxing your system -- so that a a security vulnerability that allows something in through a back door can't do harm beyond your personal account.
That being said, even this is of limited practical use for a single user system. If your personal account is compromised, it's just as damaging -- a process doesn't need admin/root to serve as a spam generator. Keyloggers don't need root/admin either. Finally, someone able to plunder my /home/me directory, or "My Documents", will have access to all of my personal info.
Rootkits are bad, but they are far from required to do serious damage. ANd from the user's perspective, the amount of damage which can be done by non-root compromises is just as bad.
I know the instinctive response is "no bad bad bad"... but as someone who has avoided any kind of viruses or malware on Windows for many years while being forced by the OS to run as admin... is there really any benefit to not running as root? If you assume that I'm willing to accept consequences of my own stupidity, what else is there?
depending on how enticing the malware author can make it sound, the user can be convinced to click "Yes" on each and every prompt. --
Worse than that. The user is trained, by the constant recurrence of that prompt, to automatically click yes.
and it's also good to see that Prevx can apologize when the make a mistake
Of course they can. Now they've gotten their publicity, it doesn't really matter that they needed to apologize after the fact.
On the other hand, I really don't want to have to deal with UAC/sudo/etc. every time I edit one of my own documents, so it's kind of an unwinable situation that only good backups can protect against.
I think that's exactly it - I've been experimenting with running linux as ::gasp:: root with a full desktop lately. The same rules apply as when running as admin on Windows: don't be stupid. But realistically, what does it save me to have to constantly enter a password to do something? I've never once said "Oops, wait, no I don't want to do this, I'm so glad you nagged me for a password so that I reconsidered it." And I don't think many people ever do have that experience.
When you're using an OS as a single-user system, it's extremely redundant to have to fight against multi-user controls all the time. If I'm stupid enough to type "rm -f /", then I'm also stupid enough to type "sudo rm -f /". (And yes, one one occasion I *was* that stupid. Guess what - it was nobody's fault but my own. I got what I deserved.) The other side of the coin: downloading malware. The answer for that is the same as it is for windows - don't.
Having an operating system that trips over its own feet trying to protect you from yourself is like government legislating use of seatbelts. Yeah, there are a lot of people who aren't wearing seatbelts. Having a law about it will change that for a few of them. But the remainder fall into two categories: those who will continue without the seatbelt anyway, and those those who used seatbelts all along. The "protections" don't really help either one.