|
|
That is a scary security risk.
What is to stop malware from insert records into the DNS for Russian banks etc? File system escalations are bad enough and at least Chrome and IE do not have any filesystem access and can only write to %appdata.
But Firefox nope. I will make sure not to use it even if it does support threading like its competitors starting to do last decade.
IE 6 was the better browser sadly. If you can believe that which I know in 2014 that is hard.
Ask any older webmaster from that time frame?
W3C was something a committee did which was academic. Only Netscape and MS specific CSS and HTML mattered and websites needed to include specific workarounds for one or the other etc. Man, people forget how dark the web was 10 years ago.
The fact the majority of non Chinese and business users use Firefox and Chrome today show bundling had nothing to do with IE's rise. It came because Netscape died at 4.7 and become very stale FAST while we like to forgot about NS 5+ as they made IE 6 look less buggy in comparison and no one really used those. I refused and kept NS 4.7 for many many users until 2002 when I gave up.
You're an idiot as standard users still have access to threads, processes, and the file system. This means you can attach a rogue process or malware to an admin one which happens to run as a service. It can then be executed with full admin privileges.
You seem to think Firefox is still at version 4 or something. It is now heavily multithreaded, has sped up considerably (and is now competitive with even Chrome for most users), uses far less RAM (even compared to other browsers), and has even had its process sandboxing improved on most OSes.
None of this is an attempt to deter people from switching, but simply to fight your misinformation. It's popular to bash on Firefox lately, while telling users to switch to Chromium. But Opera is probably a better choice for users who don't want to opt into Google's services and just get the faster and leaner browser, and it is better-poised to return to greatness than stagnate like Chrome has lately.
Because it is!
No it is not multithreaded. Don't believe me? Hit control alt delete? Firefox uses 400 megs of ram and has high cpu spikes while 5 of my out of date cpu just sit there. One bad site ruins the rest of the 20+ tabs while javascript and everything else pegs just one core where a single bad script can take down the freaking browser.
Sounds like Windows 3.11 and MacOS classic all over!
It is snappier yes but only if you do not run more than a tab or two. It is time to move on as it is obsolete at this stage and is the new IE 6 of this decade. Stale, obsolete, and insecure.
Firefox while it does work is not the best and it pains me to type this. Chrome works better on my older cpu with mulitcores. Maybe on a shiny new icore3 Firefox might seem snappier on lightloads?
But the architecture is dated, insecure, and can not handle modern gpus and multi core cpus with modern security of per tab processes like IE and Chrome had since freaking 2009.
Shoot even the recent IPhones and Galaxy phones have 4 core systems. It is 2014.
I had trouble with youtube playing music as soon as you use flashblock or adblock. No issue at all with other browsers.
FYI this is after I disabled it for the FREAKING SITE. It seems unless they are uninstalled no music or videos can be displayed
I left firefox after 4.0 debuncle. Yes it was the first release to really support HTML 5 but it was freaking HORRIBLE. Bad UI, sloooow, and on older hardware it was unusable. IE 9 won rewards on tomshardware.com which was released march 2011. I held my nose and gave it a try. It supported hardware acceleration, html5 (I admit it was more limited at the time), and was great on my 6 core system as it has per process tab. Since 2001 it ran circles on gecko web engines??!
Many slashdotters said ewww no thanks based on IE 6 memories.
I then played with Chrome. Yes it is spyware somewhat but it too has important features and has less hardware acceleration but it is more secure and frankly a much better browser than Firefox.
My father got hacked with Firefox. It is a shitty browser with no lowrights mode. It is frome the XP era and has no concept of %appdate and uses the filesystem and has access rights to some processes and threads. Bad security wise but that is what XP era software did.
Chrome and IE 9+ have separate code bases for this with XP vs Windows 7 and greater with sandbox support. Many here use Comodo Dragon which is based off of Chrome but has no privacy issues. However, be warned it based off the previous version of Chromium with some security holes.
Switch my friend!
Until Firefox goes to a processing model and supports lowrights mode I will not go back. This may change hopefully as Firefox is improving with performance and ram requirements since 2011 but on a 6 core system it is stupid not to multitask!
Both Chrome and IE (yes slashdotters I did say IE) support lowrights mode.
This means it has no access to the file system at all, no access to processes or threads and %appdata is its prison
I left Firefox for IE 9 in 2011 after it won rewards on tomshardware.com. Then switched to Chrome. Firefox like Netscape before it is a sad shell of its former self. I do admit the later firefox releases are much more lenient on ram usage and have improved drastically.
But I have an older Phenom II x6. Nice 6 core with virtualization support for VMWare
To prevent my fan from going high and causing high usage both IE 10+ and Chrome utilize my system fine and still display pages as fast as those reading this on an icore5 or later. But Firefox puts +20 tabs on one cpu with no lowrights mode and as you can image when firebug is on it slows down all the tabs and it is a security risk.
Like netscape it was the lack of funding that killed it agaisn't IE 6 onslaught. I wonder if the same is true? I used Netscape 4.7 before succumbing to IE 6 and then Firefox 1.5 to IE 9 and later Chrome today.
Replaced with what?
Nothing is as cheap or plentiful. I agree we need to limit coal plants by laws to protect it from being all used up. But doing so will increase the price by large margins and encourage others to mine coal in different spots and competitors to move in to get a piece of the action since prices going up 250% mean very very large profit margins.
The article is ignorant of how basic economics work.
The AC is ignorant of what was written in the article.
Not really. Limit supply you increase demand.
There is coal just sitting in beaches outside of Anchorage Alaska and in many many places. It is un mined as people want to suck the muck on the bottom of the cook inlet for gold since it went up 600% in value instead.
You think with energy spikes and this coal going up to thousands of dollars a 500 pound ore that everyone and their brother won't want in on the action of free $$$?
The Koch brothers and others will quickly pay top dollars to anyone who can bring in coal and invest in some power plants thanks to the new 200% profit margin they can provide due to scarcity of electricity.
If you buy up all of the coal mines while you're at it, you'll not only drive up the price since it's all have to be imported, but the time taken to rebuild all of those plants would take quite a few years, during which time other competition would have moved in, making it much less lucrative to start a new coal power plant.
And in laws of economics you will create a surge in demand to mine new coal. Witness what happened when Gold went up 600% in the last 10 years? There are shows on TV now where people suck up mud in Alaska because 2 ounces of gold can easily cover the cost and pay people for a week!
Alaska has lots of coal unmined as an example that are all over its beaches too. The reason why is it is uneconomical to mine it when West Virginia does it cheap nearby the customers.
When you try to interfere with the free market like buy up all the coal and limit energy you only increase the demand and reward for someone to enter. I would like to see coal energy banned. We need it for steel and we are wasting it all right now and we wont have any left. Slowly ban it I may add to prevent what I described above but shit that is socialism! Lobbyists and the tea party will throw a violent revolution at least in the US.
You're making up numbers. We've had billions of transistors on chips for some time now. The XBox One's main chip has five billion transistors. And that's just one chip. The Titan supercomputer has nearly 200 trillion transistors.
If the transistor doubling time remains about the same, you can equate any number of transistors you like to a neuron and Kurzweil's prediction still won't be off by much. Such is the nature of exponential curves. Sophisticated objections to his predictions don't involve transistor counts.
Nobody knows how much of a neuron you need to build a brain. If you actually have to simulate it, possibly at the quantum level, then no number of transistors may be sufficient. You can probably get around that problem by not using regular transistors though. Sufficient artificial neurons might actually be easier to build - noise and interference are probably not as harmful as they are in regular computing, and may actually be beneficial.
1300 times as massive.
Isn't there a city in your "midwest" (which is actually pretty far east, no?) that's called the windy city? Seems like wind power might be a reasonable thing in that region.
You know you can use electricity to produce heat, right?
You could go further with this idea. Maybe have an expert in the topic present to help people. You could even gather a bunch of meetups for different courses under one organization. Provide equipment, develop new courses, etc. You could call it I don't know a college maybe?
Sure would be great if I can make a law that bans competition from out of country, out of state, or whomever I do not want to compete with me when I negotiate a contract job.
What I could charge? The sky would be the limit.
Of course that is evil damn socialism for me and we can't have that now can we? But if some businesses or corporations do the same thing. Then it is for the good of the economy and ok etc.
For every problem there is one solution which is simple, neat, and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken