Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: MX Greens are not new (Score 1, Insightful) 298

by Coopjust (#43109449) Attached to: Cherry's New Keyboard Switches Emulate IBM Model M Feel
MX Greens have been used with MX Blue switches for a while. Usually the only green switch on the keyboard is the spacebar, it's meant to be a stronger (heavier, requiring more actuation force) version of the blue for that purpose.

The use of MX Greens for an entire keyboard is new though.

As others indicated, you can buy a Unicomp if you want a "real Model M" anyways. The click is not as tactile and the feel from the tactility is different between buckling springs and MX switches (a click leaf is different from the THWACK of a buckling spring buckling and hitting the wall). If you want a heavier actuation cherry switch with a lighter click, get an MX. If you want a Model M-like keyboard, get a Model M or Unicomp Customizer...

Comment: Re:Only when they don't already know? (Score 2) 358

by Coopjust (#39147287) Attached to: US Appeals Court Upholds Suspect's Right To Refuse Decryption
Also in Boucher's case they were able to get specific, and in Boucher's case, he only used a container, so files with names suggesting CP were there, and the defendant voluntarily decrypted them so they could be viewed.

The ICE agent examined the computer and saw a file labeled “2yo getting raped during diaper change,” but was unable to open it. After the suspect navigated to the encrypted portion of the hard drive, the ICE agent located and examined several videos or images that appeared to be child pornography. Id. The district court concluded that the “foregone conclusion” doctrine applied under those facts because any testimonial value derived from the act of production was already known to the Government and therefore added nothing to its case

The circumstances are different here, hence why a foregone conclusion was not found.

Comment: Re:Third Party Addons... (Score 1) 305

by Coopjust (#37569066) Attached to: Firefox 8.0 Beta Available
The Anon I replied to alleges that addons cover extensions (ABP, Betterprivacy, Ghostery, Skype, etc.) AND plugins (Flash, Shockwave, java - anything that uses the NPAPI).

So if my initial interpretation was correct (same as yours- this is for extensions not plugins), that won't be a problem; if his interpretation is correct (keeping in mind that he challenged mine - plugins/extensions are under the addons umbrella, both appear in the addon manager, etc.) it would be.

I guess the only way to find out will be to install a copy of the beta and then a plugin or two.

Comment: Re:wow (Score 1) 305

by Coopjust (#37568196) Attached to: Firefox 8.0 Beta Available
The development cycle is better but using major numbers is stupid and has rendered it meaningless IMO. Chrome ratchets up the version number similarly, they just don't trumpet it and instead silently update (which Mozilla is deeply opposed to).

Honestly I think the default option should be default stealth update like Chrome and, during install, ask if people want continuous silent updates. Let the nerds opt out if they have concerns and let everyone who doesn't like to know about every update get it.

Comment: Re:Third Party Addons... (Score 1) 305

by Coopjust (#37568158) Attached to: Firefox 8.0 Beta Available
If that's true, then it's as comprehensive as I'd hope. I just wonder if Firefox will whitelist certain addons at the risk of seeming to play favorites (if people don't check to enable Flash and then try to go to Youtube, it won't work).

Either that or prompt when a plugin that's present but default disabled would be used and ask if they want to enable it with a notification. Not sure of the handling code for that, but I can't imagine it being impossible.

Comment: Re:Third Party Addons... (Score 1) 305

by Coopjust (#37568110) Attached to: Firefox 8.0 Beta Available
Mozilla blog mentions that it's for addons, which are different from plugins (plugins use NPAPI - Flash, Java, Shockwave, etc. - vs XPIs). They are separately listed in the addons manager for that reason. At this point, I'd say it probably doesn't apply to plugins, but the page doesn't give enough context to determine that.

Comment: Re:are you kidding me? (Score 1) 305

by Coopjust (#37568078) Attached to: Firefox 8.0 Beta Available
Chromium does, they're just doing it at a more frequent rate. People acclimate to minute changes made very often (every few days) over bigger/more changes made at once (even if it's every few weeks instead of every year or so).

eBay changed the color on the background of a part of a page from one color to another - IIRC it was yellow to purple - and users flipped so much they changed it back. Then, over the course of several weeks, they did many intermediate colors, changing it a couple days a week. Suddenly, no one noticed the page they complained about in the past had, again, changed color completely.

The Chromium team has done a great job in that regard.

Comment: Re:Never again (Score 1) 305

by Coopjust (#37568020) Attached to: Firefox 8.0 Beta Available
It's an addon/plugin/profile issue. I'd argue the last one is probably the worst because it's hard to diagnose without creating a new profile.

If you update everything (Flash/Shockwave/Java/etc. - I'd recommend Secunia's PSI to check your programs, including plugins, for updates) and it doesn't help stability, I would disable all addons and browse until you find the one causing the problem.

You may say "Why bother?". As a nerd, I enjoy addons with no comparable functionality in Chrome/Chromium and I support Mozilla. My FF7 installs work very well although I won't lie and say Firefox has been problem free (no browser has been). It may be worth examining if you liked Firefox as 7 is a good improvement over 6 even despite the development time. I don't seem to have the stability/bloat issues others complain about.

Anyhow, up to you if you want to examine it for you. In the end, whatever works for you works for you and you are either going to try to diagnose Firefox or ignore it.

Comment: Re:Why is this an article? (Score 1) 305

by Coopjust (#37567960) Attached to: Firefox 8.0 Beta Available
Define better. It really depends on the usage scenario. Not in RAM usage or ability of addons to modify browser behavior beyond the highest level.

I have IE, Chromium, Firefox, and Opera installed and they each have strengths and weaknesses. However, my primary browser is Firefox.

8 is adding some neat features, but I think a quarterly check-in would be more appropriate. However, 8 beta does add some features Firefox users have been seeking for a long time, like opting into addons installed by third party programs.

Comment: Re:Third Party Addons... (Score 1) 305

by Coopjust (#37567916) Attached to: Firefox 8.0 Beta Available

Users will receive a one-time notification to review and confirm third party add-ons they want to keep, disable or delete. When Firefox starts and finds that a third-party program has installed an add-on

I assume this include Microsoft stealth adding extensions to the browser?

IE: Windows Media Player Plugin

Yeah, addons that added themselves outside the normal system weren't always removable (through Firefox) and Firefox never asked about them. Yahoo Toolbar, Bing, etc.

Change for the better. Users who don't explicitly want something are unlikely to approve it (since it's disabled by default), and users who don't know better are more likely to ignore it (again, disabled by default). I think you'll have few "click-throughers" that will check the box to enable the addon then hit continue.

However, they're talking addons at this point (Adblock Plus, BetterPrivacy, Greasemonkey, Skype etc.) - NOT plugins (Flash, Shockwave, Java [except the Console, which is an addon], etc.). In the comments somebody asked if it applied to plugins and they said "Skype is an addon so it will have this" - I'm guessing it won't ask for plugins.

Comment: Re:Sometimes (Score 1) 585

by Coopjust (#37566928) Attached to: Chrome Set To Take No. 2 Spot From Firefox
That was a more recent Iron addin then when that article was written, but even then modern versions change very little. With the WebRequest Experimental API and Adblock Plus for Chrome using it in dev builds now, blocking is essential comparable (and unlike beforeLoad, the webRequest API doesn't have a really shitty success rate).

Comment: Re:Sometimes (Score 1) 585

by Coopjust (#37566904) Attached to: Chrome Set To Take No. 2 Spot From Firefox
It changed barely anything, in essence; three options plainly visible and easily disabled in Chrome/Chromium's options (persistently disabled between upgrades, I might add) were removed, the rest were copyright notice changes and resource changes (e.g. "Chromium" to "SRWare Iron", icon, etc.). Calling it a true privacy fork is disingenuous when it disables three user accessible options and is otherwise just rebranded, persistently behind in version/security updates, etc.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Working...