I actually like Panorama. I don't typically use it, but when I'm doing research online, I can send items that I think I'm going to want to bookmark to their own tab group and then just bookmark all those pages in that tab group while excluding the ones that aren't related.
The feature is new enough, that I don't think most of us have really come up with how to use it maximally. I just wish that they would add a default name to each new tab group so that I didn't have to immediately go in and give it a name. Basically allow me to send a lot of tabs over there to the same group without having to name it just to do that.
That memory leak was fixed a long time ago. And by that I mean since at least Firefox 3.5. I realize that trolls seem to think otherwise, but as of Firefox 3.5 it was beating the crap out of chrome and most of the other browsers in terms of memory allocation. Chrome and Firefox 3.5 Memory Usage As far as the rendering engine goes, it's stable, they're working on it and it's getting better but they have to worry a lot more than the Google folks do about pissing off a large user base by making substantial changes to the rendering engine every release. And yes, that makes a difference. I like that Firefox doesn't typically break my web experience when I update.
Firefox tends to top out at about 250mb of RAM typically, lately it's gone above that, but if you leave it sit for a few days or keep it open constantly it tends not to go much above that. There was a comparison a while back between the major browsers and Firefox beat the crap out of the other ones. Unfortunately, that was a while back and so it's not particularly informative anymore, but that was relatively recently, think 3.x series.
Most of the time when people claim that Firefox is leaking memory it's not the browser it's one of their addons or their doing something really strange. I'm sure there are cases where individuals do wind up with it eating up a lot of memory, but it's something they're generally aware of. That's one of the things they're keeping an eye on with those studies.
My Linux install doesn't yet have FF 4.0 on it because I can't be bothered to install it, but the 3.6 version is really, really slow no matter where I go compared with 4.0 on my Windows install. I suppose it could be due to the different OSes, but I doubt that very much. That's FF3.6 with basically no add ins installed and 4.0 with noscript, ghostery and a couple other ones.
Not sure what might be up with yours if you're not seeing a difference.
The problem is that a lot of sites include cookies for third parties without permission or any explanation. I regularly get requests for facebook to set a cookie for me. I'm not sure why most of those sites would do such a thing.
But in general I've found very little help on sites explaining to me why various javascript or cookies are requesting to be loaded by my browser. And really it makes it tough for me to figure out what ones are really necessary and which ones might not be.
Yes, especially since the site now has no way of knowing whether or not it has previously asked for permission unless the answer was yes. Meaning that if you say yes then that's the last you hear of it, but if you say no, then it'll ask you for permission every time you visit the site.
My main concern is that there's not really any information given about why a lot of these sites are setting cookies for facebook and random other sites.
It's hard to say, but if the patent fees go to the patent office then there'll be more resources for analyzing applications. That won't guarantee that patents are up to snuff, but it should at least provide the resources to do a much more thorough job of examining the application.
I haven't heard of anybody claiming that should be the case for standards. What they typically advocate for is products like Crossover Office where you're paying for something that's nearly entirely made of open source code.
Some clients also allow you to delay the actual sending of the email for a few moments so you can pull it back if you notice an obvious mistake just after clicking send.
Just imagine the LULZ that could be had by replacing the reply button in Outlook with a reply all button but keeping the original icon. Or by switching the two.
Hidden isn't necessary, but it should come with a pop up asking if you're sure you want to reply all. Also the button shouldn't be right next to the reply button. As somebody else mentioned you don't have to hide the thing you can require an additional click to use it so that somebody is less likely to accidentally click on it when the mean to click reply.
No, and that's probably my biggest complaint about Windows. The engineers are telling me what I should be able to do, rather than making me raise my privileges to do whatever dangerous things I want to do. Admittedly that has changed and I believe that they finally got it more or less right with 7, but even up to about Vista they still hadn't gotten it right. And up to XP it was nigh impossible to get work done without being an admin account or doing some serious haxxoring of the system.
Something like UAC is probably about as good as it gets. The main problem they had with UAC was a lack of discrimination in what should warrant user intervention, but the idea itself has worked well for many years in other OSes. Personally, I prefer a well set up *BSD or similar box where a lot of that is handled with groups and group permissions rather than handing out root control of the entire box.
It has its uses. I've been using it more in the last week than probably the rest of my life combined. I've been doing group work over email with a small handful of people and reply all is a god send for that. The big problem is that there isn't typically a sanity check for when the list of addresses grows longer or a message asking if you really want to send it to everybody. Plus the buttons are often times right next to each other meaning that you can easily click the wrong one if you're not careful.
Squall indignantly about what an outrage it all is while refusing to inconvenience himself in the slightest in order to protect his "details" (most of which are matters of public record).
Maybe they shouldn't be, the last 4 digits of the social security, the ones they typically ask for are typically completely unguarded on bank websites, mother's maiden name frequently used as a way of confirming ones identity is easily looked up in most cases online.
Individually it's not that big a deal, but when you add those things up, it becomes relatively easy to break into other people's accounts using publicly available information. And since companies frequently don't bother to secure their sites with appropriate measures without being forced, it gets to be a real problem real soon.
The problem is that at some point in the future it might be that important and once your information is on the web you can't get it back. TD Ameritrade lost some of my contact information by incompetent security measures on their database server, that information is out there, and no number of injunctions is going to change that.
It's really easy to say that it's not that important now, but you don't get to redo it at some point in the future should you change your mind.
They can, but when it's some sort of bullshit like this which the legislature shouldn't be doing at all, the resources should be spent elsewhere. Just because you can do more than one thing at a time, doesn't mean that wasting time on stupid things like this isn't harmful.
Which is why you'll never find anybody teaching that we're a representative republic. We're a representative democracy, we have elected officials that vote for us, which is typically what they mean by representative democracy rather that being a republic. It's also why a lot of people refer to the US as a democracy because we are a type of democracy, even if not always directly. And despite what the founding fathers thought, the constitution ended up forming a representative democracy, which to be fair to them didn't really exist at the time. Representative democracy
It's not more accurate. We're a representative democracy otherwise known as a democratic republic. A republic does not suggest that you're voting on representation. It's equally valid to have a system like they did in Rome where the oldest citizens are automatically representing the people. Consequently, the term representative democracy is the term to use or democratic republic.
No, they're not right. We are a representative democracy or a democratic republic. As in we have a representative government, but we vote for the representatives. A nation as large as the US does not function with direct democracy. There's just way too many issues for everybody to vote on everything the way that they do in some smaller countries.
I think you're overly optimistic. Or did I miss the discovery of a bit of malware that causes people to cram too many discs in their CDROM tray or use the tray as a cup holder? You theoretically would have the malware and junkware problem solved, but I guarantee you that there will be a contingent of end users that find some other way of breaking their computers equally effectively and efficiently.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually like Panorama. I don't typically use it, but when I'm doing research online, I can send items that I think I'm going to want to bookmark to their own tab group and then just bookmark all those pages in that tab group while excluding the ones that aren't related.
The feature is new enough, that I don't think most of us have really come up with how to use it maximally. I just wish that they would add a default name to each new tab group so that I didn't have to immediately go in and give it a name. Basically allow me to send a lot of tabs over there to the same group without having to name it just to do that.
That memory leak was fixed a long time ago. And by that I mean since at least Firefox 3.5. I realize that trolls seem to think otherwise, but as of Firefox 3.5 it was beating the crap out of chrome and most of the other browsers in terms of memory allocation. Chrome and Firefox 3.5 Memory Usage As far as the rendering engine goes, it's stable, they're working on it and it's getting better but they have to worry a lot more than the Google folks do about pissing off a large user base by making substantial changes to the rendering engine every release. And yes, that makes a difference. I like that Firefox doesn't typically break my web experience when I update.
Firefox tends to top out at about 250mb of RAM typically, lately it's gone above that, but if you leave it sit for a few days or keep it open constantly it tends not to go much above that. There was a comparison a while back between the major browsers and Firefox beat the crap out of the other ones. Unfortunately, that was a while back and so it's not particularly informative anymore, but that was relatively recently, think 3.x series.
Most of the time when people claim that Firefox is leaking memory it's not the browser it's one of their addons or their doing something really strange. I'm sure there are cases where individuals do wind up with it eating up a lot of memory, but it's something they're generally aware of. That's one of the things they're keeping an eye on with those studies.
Chrome and Firefox 3.5 Memory Usage I think this is the comparison I saw, the situation is likely to have changed since then.
My Linux install doesn't yet have FF 4.0 on it because I can't be bothered to install it, but the 3.6 version is really, really slow no matter where I go compared with 4.0 on my Windows install. I suppose it could be due to the different OSes, but I doubt that very much. That's FF3.6 with basically no add ins installed and 4.0 with noscript, ghostery and a couple other ones.
Not sure what might be up with yours if you're not seeing a difference.
We here in the US refer to that as the "ignition switch" and it's very effective at telling the machine not to burn fuel.
The problem is that a lot of sites include cookies for third parties without permission or any explanation. I regularly get requests for facebook to set a cookie for me. I'm not sure why most of those sites would do such a thing.
But in general I've found very little help on sites explaining to me why various javascript or cookies are requesting to be loaded by my browser. And really it makes it tough for me to figure out what ones are really necessary and which ones might not be.
Yes, especially since the site now has no way of knowing whether or not it has previously asked for permission unless the answer was yes. Meaning that if you say yes then that's the last you hear of it, but if you say no, then it'll ask you for permission every time you visit the site.
My main concern is that there's not really any information given about why a lot of these sites are setting cookies for facebook and random other sites.
Why not? You can already patent claims.
If you feel that strongly about it, then perhaps you shouldn't be working to invent that sort of technology, just sayin'.
It's hard to say, but if the patent fees go to the patent office then there'll be more resources for analyzing applications. That won't guarantee that patents are up to snuff, but it should at least provide the resources to do a much more thorough job of examining the application.
I haven't heard of anybody claiming that should be the case for standards. What they typically advocate for is products like Crossover Office where you're paying for something that's nearly entirely made of open source code.
Some clients also allow you to delay the actual sending of the email for a few moments so you can pull it back if you notice an obvious mistake just after clicking send.
Just imagine the LULZ that could be had by replacing the reply button in Outlook with a reply all button but keeping the original icon. Or by switching the two.
Hidden isn't necessary, but it should come with a pop up asking if you're sure you want to reply all. Also the button shouldn't be right next to the reply button. As somebody else mentioned you don't have to hide the thing you can require an additional click to use it so that somebody is less likely to accidentally click on it when the mean to click reply.
No, and that's probably my biggest complaint about Windows. The engineers are telling me what I should be able to do, rather than making me raise my privileges to do whatever dangerous things I want to do. Admittedly that has changed and I believe that they finally got it more or less right with 7, but even up to about Vista they still hadn't gotten it right. And up to XP it was nigh impossible to get work done without being an admin account or doing some serious haxxoring of the system.
Something like UAC is probably about as good as it gets. The main problem they had with UAC was a lack of discrimination in what should warrant user intervention, but the idea itself has worked well for many years in other OSes. Personally, I prefer a well set up *BSD or similar box where a lot of that is handled with groups and group permissions rather than handing out root control of the entire box.
It has its uses. I've been using it more in the last week than probably the rest of my life combined. I've been doing group work over email with a small handful of people and reply all is a god send for that. The big problem is that there isn't typically a sanity check for when the list of addresses grows longer or a message asking if you really want to send it to everybody. Plus the buttons are often times right next to each other meaning that you can easily click the wrong one if you're not careful.
Squall indignantly about what an outrage it all is while refusing to inconvenience himself in the slightest in order to protect his "details" (most of which are matters of public record).
Maybe they shouldn't be, the last 4 digits of the social security, the ones they typically ask for are typically completely unguarded on bank websites, mother's maiden name frequently used as a way of confirming ones identity is easily looked up in most cases online.
Individually it's not that big a deal, but when you add those things up, it becomes relatively easy to break into other people's accounts using publicly available information. And since companies frequently don't bother to secure their sites with appropriate measures without being forced, it gets to be a real problem real soon.
The problem is that at some point in the future it might be that important and once your information is on the web you can't get it back. TD Ameritrade lost some of my contact information by incompetent security measures on their database server, that information is out there, and no number of injunctions is going to change that.
It's really easy to say that it's not that important now, but you don't get to redo it at some point in the future should you change your mind.
That's why I borrow a tin foil hat before I decide where to buy my replacement hat.
They can, but when it's some sort of bullshit like this which the legislature shouldn't be doing at all, the resources should be spent elsewhere. Just because you can do more than one thing at a time, doesn't mean that wasting time on stupid things like this isn't harmful.
Which is why you'll never find anybody teaching that we're a representative republic. We're a representative democracy, we have elected officials that vote for us, which is typically what they mean by representative democracy rather that being a republic. It's also why a lot of people refer to the US as a democracy because we are a type of democracy, even if not always directly. And despite what the founding fathers thought, the constitution ended up forming a representative democracy, which to be fair to them didn't really exist at the time. Representative democracy
It's not more accurate. We're a representative democracy otherwise known as a democratic republic. A republic does not suggest that you're voting on representation. It's equally valid to have a system like they did in Rome where the oldest citizens are automatically representing the people. Consequently, the term representative democracy is the term to use or democratic republic.
No, they're not right. We are a representative democracy or a democratic republic. As in we have a representative government, but we vote for the representatives. A nation as large as the US does not function with direct democracy. There's just way too many issues for everybody to vote on everything the way that they do in some smaller countries.
I think you're overly optimistic. Or did I miss the discovery of a bit of malware that causes people to cram too many discs in their CDROM tray or use the tray as a cup holder? You theoretically would have the malware and junkware problem solved, but I guarantee you that there will be a contingent of end users that find some other way of breaking their computers equally effectively and efficiently.
Of course not, some computers don't run Windows at all.