Ah, did not know that. There's still quite a bit of closed source bits in Chrome (unlike Firefox which is all open source code), but it looks like the PDF viewer is no longer one of them.
Yes and no. Chrome, in general, has more between version patches than Firefox. Version 33 was a notable exception due to the landing of off-screen GPU renderring though. So, even though Mozilla's release cycle is 15 days faster, Chrome is still pushing out more new browser versions. Source: I have to package every version of each for portable use, so I know about every new full version and patch version whereas most local users don't notice due to automatic updating.
> Don't worry about it, next week you'll be running Firefox 35 anyway. Which is funny and all, but you realize that Chrome is on version 39 despite the fact that Firefox is 4.5 years older than Chrome, right?
Firefox has no such issues these days. And Firefox has an open source PDF viewer, unlike Chrome.
It'll start with users on Windows that are using better browsers (Firefox and Chrome as well as variants) as well as some of the 8% of the world that runs Mac who've grown beyond the often-outdated Safari (since it's OS tied and you have to upgrade your whole OS to update it). And it'll start on the majority of smartphone users that use Android. So that means most users can either use this now or upgrade to a better browser that can use this now. It'll come to the #2 mobile OS later once Apple adds it in to Safari but then it'll work for every browser on iOS since every browser on iOS is actually just Safari with a pretty UI on top.
Firefox and Chrome have about equal market share.
Or just use a password manager and you can have unique high entropy passwords for every single site and service without taxing your brain.
Mexico's vaccination rates are higher than the US.
If you're talking about hard goods like washing machines and lawn mowers, their cost with respect to wages and inflation has decreased dramatically over time. Why? Because people value price over quality. And don't consider ten year investments anymore. So, we have cheap washing machines that don't cost much more than they did in 1962 (and that's WITHOUT inflation) that are basically disposable and meant to last 10 years. A washing machine cost nearly $200 in 1962. A basic top-loading washing machine today with no bells and whistles similar to a 1962 model costs a lot less than $1,550 today (the equivalent in 2014 dollars). Or maybe a basic, single-set cordless phone that was $129 in 1982. A basic model today costs a lot less than $330. You can get the same support you used to, but you have to pay A LOT more for it. Why? Because most people just want it cheap and won't pay for quality and support. So the quality and support side of things loses the economies of scale that it used to enjoy. So, you can get the quality and support, you'll just have to pay a lot more for it.
Sure it does. If they had to provide support, they would build in the cost of said support to the price of the software. Instead, you have the option of paying for live technical support on a contract or incident basis if you so choose. You're free to pay for technical support if you would like it.
If you paid for a technical support contract, you'll get a person on the phone to assist with technical problems. If you didn't, you shouldn't expect it. Most companies operate on margins that a single technical support call handled in the US would wipe out their margin on that product these days. Everybody wanted everything cheap. Now we have it.
That's the price the cable networks have to pay for each subscriber with anything more than a basic broadcast package. And they have to include ESPN in all packages except that and aren't allowed to offer it a la carte as per their contracts. So, while it won't show up as a line item on your cable bill, that is the average price ESPN is getting of your monthly cable bill whether you watch it or not. And that's solely for ESPN alone. They often force you to take additional networks as well but it varies by cable provider.
It's pretty common knowledge. It was $4.69 at the end of 2011.  And it was $5.54 in the middle of 2013.  And this is ONLY for ESPN proper. Additional properties all have their own price (ESPN2 is another $0.70, for instance). By forcing cable companies to gouge all their customers, ESPN is able to pay $2 billion a year just for Monday night football. As cable subscriptions shrink, that model will become much more difficult. 1 - http://www.sportsgrid.com/medi... 2 - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08...
And a big part of that is the over $60 a year you're spending on ESPN and associated networked even if you never watch sports.
You do realize you're calling me a hypocrite when I never expressed an opinion. That's a bit telling.