I agree totally. It might get one seen, but it is distracting to the point it probably would be very dangerous for the wearer.

Thanks for the info

Not that it affects me (since I am in USA, use Linux, and would never use Bing) but I would love to know:

1) How MS knows you actually switched anything in your browser, unless they built in spyware to watch what you are doing.

2) If this applies to browsers other than IE.

3) If it applies to platforms other than MS-Windows.

4) As others said, what prevents you from immediately just switching back?

5) Are they really THAT desperate to have people use their search engine/home page?? (Although I guess it really isn't going to cost MS anything to "pay" for this promotion).

>"very few white people in a sea of African Americans"

Or "very few European Americans in a sea of black people"

If we are going to be PC, then term equality would be nice instead of having just one be "special".

>"Average American Cable Subscriber Gets 189 Channels and Views 17"

I must be above average then (or perhaps below average), since I get something like 300+ channels and watch maybe 8?

Ones I can get over the air (so I don't count those 6, of which I might even watch only 3)+
History
Science
NatGeo
SciFi
AMC
Epix
Encore
WGN

How the above post could possibly be modded up for any metric is beyond me.

>"Especially when those copies come with awful DRM. "

Um, and streaming doesn't? There is just as much DRM on Netflix/etc. Plus it has its own limitations:

* I can't use it on any of my many Linux machines.
* I can't use it without an Internet connection.
* I can't get QUALITY without a GOOD Internet connection.
* I can't use it at all if that Internet connection has blocking.
* They have the ability to FORCE the user to watch anything they want- commercials, previews, copyright notices, public service announcements, etc.
* The quality or playback is far more likely to change or be interrupted.
* Streaming is often very "clunky" when it comes to fast forwarding and rewinding.

It worked fine for me yesterday, that is all I know. Have not tried it again since then... yet

I have to admit that I also noticed this improvement. The last several versions of Firefox were becoming very painful to use because of such performance issues and I would have to close and reload Firefox every few days because of it.

Everything seems MUCH faster now. It is a shame they ruined the user interface at the same time :(

I absolutely, positively *DETEST* the UI redesign. I immediately installed https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...

I have no idea why they would want to ruin a perfectly good browser like this. There is nothing wrong with having REAL menus on the top line, nor the ability to have tabs on the bottom, where they belong. It is beyond reason why they would not make such a change OPTIONAL... resorting to an addon is a huge and irritating kludge that will annoy the S*** out of me every time I have to install a new Firefox somewhere and will likely cause breakage later.

Color me very, very annoyed.

When you make it illegal (or very difficult) for good and law-abiding people to own weapons, then only criminals will own guns.

Make no mistake- people that are out to do bad will have no trouble at all obtaining weapons and using them and will have a field day knowing that even more of the good citizens have been stripped of their rights to protect themselves, their families, and their property.

The reality is that it doesn't matter WHAT the law says. If they obtain the data, they can and will do anything they want with it. I knew this long before the whole NSA "expose`".

I am not saying we shouldn't make laws about it, or even try to enforce them, but I am saying that laws and enforcement are not enough. To some degree, the government (and businesses) simply should not have access to certain data in the first place because it is the ONLY way to prevent it from being used in an abusive way.

Not sure what the big news is.... like we didn't already know this? They probably already have access to every state's DMV records, which include photographs for every person who has a driver's license or ID card. I would estimate that is maybe 90% of every adult citizen, alone.

And yes, it upsets me.... far less than fingerprinting or DNA, however. The only privacy-friendly biometrics are those that we don't "leave" all over the place, and can't be collected or taken without our knowledge. That leaves things like retinal scans and deep vein pattern recognition.

And in other technological "news for nerds"....

Hurricanes hit the Mid-Atlantic
Tornadoes spawn in the Midwest.
Snow falls in the Northeast.
Taxes go up.
Civil liberties go down.
Google makes money.

http://www.earthquakecountry.i...

Replying to self- my message above was in response to wolrahaes, not X0563511

For some reason, the indenting on Slashdot on this thread is broken. Sorry about that.