OT: Google Chrome

Comments

craftech wrote on 7/5/2015, 8:27 AM
One would hope that those who equate Ad Blocking with "piracy" would be consistent and reject telephone call screening methods. For example, if you have caller ID and you see an unknown number, I assume you would answer it in case it is a telemarketer. You wouldn't want to deny them their revenue. That would be "piracy".

Also, I would hope you are consistent and have NOT added your name to the National Do Not Call registry. That is "piracy".

And please, don't tell me you hang up on "robocalls". If anything would be "piracy", it would be hanging up in the middle of one of those.

EDIT: Almost forgot, Please don't tell me you choose the ultimate "piracy" habit which is "Opt-Out" and always Opt-In or the Captain Hook of them all - "unsubscribe".

John
wwaag wrote on 7/5/2015, 3:08 PM
@craftech

+1. And don't forget using your DVR to skip 20 minutes of commercials in an hour long program.

wwaag

AKA the HappyOtter at https://tools4vegas.com/. System 1: Intel i7-8700k with HD 630 graphics plus an Nvidia RTX4070 graphics card. System 2: Intel i7-3770k with HD 4000 graphics plus an AMD RX550 graphics card. System 3: Laptop. Dell Inspiron Plus 16. Intel i7-11800H, Intel Graphics. Current cameras include Panasonic FZ2500, GoPro Hero11 and Hero8 Black plus a myriad of smartPhone, pocket cameras, video cameras and film cameras going back to the original Nikon S.

Chienworks wrote on 7/5/2015, 3:56 PM
"telephone call screening methods"

Not really a close analogy. When someone calls my phone they must expect to abide by my rules, which are that i can listen, accept, ignore, or be as rude as i wish. When i visit a website i must expect to abide by the site's rules. I am intruding upon the website, and the ads that come with it are part of what i must expect. They are not intruding on me if i'm the one who initiated the contact. In fact, The better analog is to equate the website visitor with the telemarketer, not with the call recipient.

If enough people object enough to the ads to stop visiting those sites that are the most annoying then the free market forces will eventually eliminate those ads, and the sites that show them.

I will admit though that i also use adblock. It's not because i object to what is being advertised as in fact i really don't even notice. The reason i use it is that some sites will launch half a dozen or more flash & video windows, sometimes over top of the content i'm trying to read, and slow the whole computer to a crawl, even crashing the browser at times. There are also the video ads that play audio automatically, which is particularly offensive.
wwjd wrote on 7/5/2015, 6:25 PM
Exactly, Chienworks. It's about YOU having control over YOUR stuff.
craftech wrote on 7/5/2015, 10:17 PM
"If enough people object enough to the ads to stop visiting those sites that are the most annoying then the free market forces will eventually eliminate those ads, and the sites that show them."
-----------------------------------
Sometimes I wonder if anyone knows what goes on in the US Congress.

December, 2011: Mobile Information Call Act HR3035 Sponsored by Representative Lee Terry R-NE
Written to Allow Telemarketers Increased Access to Your Cell Phone. Supported by the Us Chamber of Commerce.

Despite the lack of reporting by cable and network news a massive public outcry resulted in the bill eventually being withdrawn in 2013.

The Do Not Track Me Online Act of 2011 HR 654 Sponsor
Rep. Jackie Speier [D-CA-12] (Introduced 02/11/2011)The bill was regarded as an online version of the Do Not Call law. Majority refused to bring the bill to the floor for a vote. Bill died in committee. Lack of reporting by cable and network news.

Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2011 HR1528 Sponsor Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) and co-sponsor Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT)
The bill would regulate the online and offline collection and use of traditional forms of personally identifiable information (e.g., name, address, email). The Stearns bill does not obligate entities to obtain opt-in consent in any circumstance. It requires opt-out consent before selling PII that may be used for a purpose unrelated to the transaction in which the PII was collected unless the purchasing entity is (1) under common control with the covered entity; or (2) contractually obligated to comply with the practices enumerated under the entity’s privacy policy. A covered entity may provide the consumer an opportunity to permit the sale (or disclosure for consideration) of such information in exchange for a benefit to the consumer.
In other circumstances, a covered entity may offer consumers other opportunities to limit collection or use of PII, but is not required to do so.
Latest Action: 04/25/2011 Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade. Majority refused to bring the bill to the floor. Lack of reporting by cable and network news.

Current privacy laws permit sharing of personal data even after you "opt-out"

So much for the "free market". It's free to do what it pleases.

John
wwjd wrote on 7/8/2015, 1:02 PM
.....aaaaand I'm back in Chrome. Gave Firefox another chance, and it was fast at first, now after a couple weeks, it feels bloated, slow, useless - this even AFTER doing the reset and heavy cleaning to it. No thanks. Not gonna reboot and maybe also reinstall Firefox every time I want it to surf fast. Chrome stays fast.
craftech wrote on 7/9/2015, 6:19 AM
Did you install the add-on FastestFox? OR, take a look at these tips.

John
wwjd wrote on 7/9/2015, 9:00 AM
I'd gone through a ton of hoops for it before and then thought, "Why am I wasting my time with all this extra work??" FF used to be my GO TO browser, but it has gotten a tad bloated. It is still fine, but doesn't keep up with me like Chrome does. I just finger scan my DNA and blood type to Google along with my SOC number and Chrome is as fast as ever!

But I might switch back to NETSCAPE COMMUNICATOR
http://netscape-communicator-complete-4-79.en.softonic.com/

:D
Chienworks wrote on 7/9/2015, 9:14 AM
Take a look at seamonkey http://www.seamonkey-project.org/. It's put out by what still exists of the original Netscape development community, has all the integrated features of Communicator, all the new tech of Firefox, but without the bloat. I use it for everything except paying my electric bills, which for some bizarre reason only works in MSIE.
deusx wrote on 7/9/2015, 10:22 PM
>>>>One would hope that those who equate Ad Blocking with "piracy" would be consistent and reject telephone call screening methods. For example, if you have caller ID and you see an unknown number, I assume you would answer it in case it is a telemarketer. You wouldn't want to deny them their revenue. That would be "piracy".<<<<

So you don't see the difference between YOU going to a site and using somebody's content and SOMEBODY calling you without your permission?

If a site just randomly popped up on your screen and displayed ads, you'd have a point, but as it is I'll assume you were drunk when you wrote that.
craftech wrote on 7/10/2015, 7:11 AM
Yes deusx, I was perfectly sober when I wrote it.

If I Google something (which is my most often use of the computer) and go to the sites that come up to find what I am looking for I DO NOT expect to be bombarded with pop-ups and garbage ads (some of which may contain dangerous scripts and code) just to find out the answer to a question. So it is exactly the same.

John
Chienworks wrote on 7/10/2015, 7:27 AM
I guess i'll disagree with you there, John. You should expect whatever the site wants to show to you. It is their website after all, and they set the rules of interaction.

I'm not saying you should be happy with it or put up with it, but you do have to expect it, and accept that if you want to view their content, they're perfectly free to shove anything else they want in your direction. Your freely available alternative, of course, is to not go there.

This is quite the opposite from someone calling you, where you have the right to set the rules and expectations and refuse any communication you don't want or don't like. The caller may desire to tell you whatever they want, but they cannot expect to.
craftech wrote on 7/10/2015, 9:49 AM
"You should expect whatever the site wants to show to you"
-------------------------------------
So if I Google Panasonic Plasma TC-P65ZT60 + sudden shutdown I should "expect" that if I look at any of the answers provided they have a right to shove anything extra down my throat (even a virus) or my choice is not to go to ANY of the choices Google provides. I should accept that the price of doing research or using the internet at all EVEN IF MY EMPLOYER REQUIRES THAT I DO is spam or worse and accept that.

I use AdBlock and No Script, but of course that is "piracy". The lunacy of this discussion is amazing and I am positive FEW Americans agree.

In terms of the National Do Not Call Registry for the telephone,

Violations with impunity

Violations with impunity

Violations with impunity

And of course, by looking that up I should have ACCEPTED spam just for the privilege of making a point and not wanting to be a "pirate".

You also said, "This is quite the opposite from someone calling you, where you have the right to set the rules and expectations and refuse any communication you don't want or don't like. "

Here are the "rules"

4. What types of calls are not covered by the National Do Not Call Registry?

The do not call provisions do not cover calls from political organizations, charities, telephone surveyors, or companies with which a consumer has an existing business relationship.

And that includes any business a business you do business with or buy something from has a relationship with. Whether you like it or not.

So much for that argument.

John
wwjd wrote on 7/10/2015, 10:48 AM
with phone calls audio (old tech data), you don't HAVE ability to alter/censor/edit it. with Internet DATA, (new tech) we DO have the ability to manipulate the stream. And we do, will, and no one will ever choose to backpedal against that.
deusx wrote on 7/10/2015, 11:44 AM
Well, you can't argue with somebody who doesn't even understand the basic difference between somebody calling you out of the blue and you going to a web site willingly to look up/use information contained on that site.

>>>we DO have the ability to manipulate the stream<<<<

Criminals have the ability t to break into your house, stab you and take whatever they want, so what exactly is your point? You're saying that ability to do something = it's OK to do it?

You guys should really stop using AdBlock. There may be ads for Common Sense out there and you really could use some.



Chienworks wrote on 7/10/2015, 1:19 PM
"So if I Google Panasonic Plasma TC-P65ZT60 + sudden shutdown I should "expect" that if I look at any of the answers provided they have a right to shove anything extra down my throat (even a virus) or my choice is not to go to ANY of the choices Google provides. I should accept that the price of doing research or using the internet at all EVEN IF MY EMPLOYER REQUIRES THAT I DO is spam or worse and accept that."

Well, yes, you should expect that. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Neither you nor your employer have any right to expect that websites will cater to your needs and desires. I think you're getting confused between "google search results" and "information free for the taking". What if you got a link elsewhere besides a web search? Would you consider that to be any less free of abuse? Why? And why do you think links from a google search should cater to your whim?

I'm not saying you have to like and accept any of the garbage. Accept is not the same as expect. You choose to deal with it in whatever way you wish. Some ignore the sites, some accept the trash, some use a variety of filters. However, you do not have the right to tell the website NOT to include it; when you visit the site, you do so on the site's terms, not yours. That's all i'm saying here.

Yes, people violate DNC all the time. So what does that have to do with it? You still decide whether you're going to answer, let them talk, or report them. Even if they're DNC exempt they still cannot expect a successful communication. When exempt people call me they either get ignored, or if i'm really bored they get an earful about how horrible and unethical it is for them to call me when i've clearly made my DNC choice known. In essence, they get whatever i want to give them because they've made the contact to me. They should expect silence or harassment, and if they don't want to accept it they shouldn't call me.

I had some moderate success with getting a loan scammer in deep trouble. One of his marketing droids was foolish enough to give me real contact information for the company and i reported it to the BBB. Because of that he got investigated, fined, and had to shut down for a while until the heat was off. The defense he gave to the BBB was quite comical. He claimed that since my phone number appeared on a community activity website that it must therefore be commercial and not covered by DNC, this despite the fact that i had already requested removal from his calling lists several dozen times. See ... telemarketers should expect this sort of response when they make annoying calls. They don't have to accept it; their choice is to stop calling if they don't want to deal with it.
craftech wrote on 7/10/2015, 2:55 PM
Kelly,

You are assuming that you can identify the callers. This from the FTC

We’ve seen a significant increase in the number of illegal sales calls — particularly robocalls. Advances in technology have made it cheap and easy for scammers to make illegal calls from anywhere in the world, and to hide from law enforcement

The situation is out of control as is the invasion of privacy. It is made even easier by people sticking their heads in the sand and pretending it isn't happening and that they have real control over it.

In terms of not liking what happens on the net and doing something about it, I do. I use ad blocking and no script which a very very few people call piracy. So I am a pirate then.

John

wwjd wrote on 7/10/2015, 5:31 PM
"You guys should really stop using AdBlock."

It's too bad using adblock is affecting your profits. In my company, when profits wane, we step up and find different paths of revenue instead of worrying about why ONE PATH has dried up. Business has thrived like that for a loooooooong time.

It's my PAID internet line... I'll do what I please with it.
deusx wrote on 7/11/2015, 3:56 AM
crafttech dude just doesn't get it.

Using the phone calling example. In the AdBlock/website situation YOU ARE THE A$$HOLE MAKING THE CALL, not the other way around. You are going to a web site and trying to get around whatever they have set up. Just like those a$$hole phone companies try to get around whatever you have set up to avoid them.
riredale wrote on 9/2/2015, 3:41 PM
Not wishing to beat a dead horse here, but Google announced a few days ago that Chrome will now prevent Flash ads from running without the user clicking on them first.

Not so much because they are ads but rather because they are Flash, which Google says makes for a slower browsing experience than with HTML5.
Chienworks wrote on 9/2/2015, 7:19 PM
Yep. I've had flash set to require my click before running for quite some time. It's amazing how much faster websites load, and how many fewer browser errors and crashes happen. Yes, that does mean that every time i want to watch a video i have to click, but that's still worth it for absence of the 100x as many things that i don't want slowing down my browsing experience, or playing annoying audio automatically.
deusx wrote on 9/3/2015, 7:06 AM
Googley says a lot of things and none of them are true. Now advertisers will start abusing HTML 5 and it will be exactly the same thing. Dealing with games I already see this. We are going back to 2005 quality wise and HTML 5 crashes just as much as flash, things freeze, don't work and other things as well. If you just visit regular sites you don't know about this because the scripting they use is minimal. I do see a lot of glitches and freezing on some pages that try to be a bit fancier. Just give it some time, it will be far worse than flash as soon as they really start using it. and you won't be able to block it either.

Just like Apple they prefer to steer people to their own stuff, their own stores and Flash is the enemy here. Why let people play Flash games for free when they can sell you crap in their app stores? That is what it's all about, Never been about anything else ( they block Unity 3D too, can't have people playing real 3D games for free, gotta go to the app store and buy $hit from us ).
JJKizak wrote on 9/3/2015, 7:33 AM
Just installed Firefox and it corrected all of Google's problems.
JJK
Kit wrote on 9/3/2015, 8:49 PM
I much prefer Pale Moon. I use the 64 bit version. I think Firefox started to go downhill around the time they started their updating binge.