So, in your world, Senators represent acres, not people, eh? Because Humboldt County has 16K people, while Middlesex County, MA has 1.6M people.

No.

About 600 of them work directly on Firefox.

Correlation does not imply causation. And in this case, it seems like there are pretty good candidates for the common cause. And the article even recognises that - the headline is clickbait.

For alternative browser, also consider Vivaldi.

Chromium-based but different UI, very configurable, with option for status bar, separate search box, much of the user-has-control philosophy of old-school Firefox. From the some of the original founders and developers of Opera, with much of its design flexibility but none of the now-Chinese company. No Operas services. Uses the Chrome web store, not the sketchy Opera one.

Win, Mac, Linux. Unlike Chrome still supports 32-bit as well as 64-bit, so there's a fully-enabled Chrome-compatible production-stable browser for things like repurposed XP machines, netbooks, and other low-end PCs that run Linux 32-bit well but can't run 64-bit, which Chrome abandoned. Unlike Chromium it does have the API license keys and code bits for Chromecast and some other "must be Google" services. But otherwise none of the googlybits.

No sync at all, so no passwords, history, form-fill nor bookmarks going up to Google (or Microsoft or Mozilla depending on browser) servers at all. But supports extensions for KeePass, LastPass, Xmarks, etc. so you can roll your own private sync or trust a commercial but non-Google service of your choice, at least for passwords, and if Xmarks then bookmarks. I'm using KeePass 2 with chromeIpass extension, with the KeePass database on my ownCloud on my own VPS. But I could put that anywhere.

Vivaldi is working on their own sync but it's not out yet. Nor is their same-sync-ecosystem proposed Android browser. But with third party sync you can work around that. 3rd-party sync or no sync at all is a privacy upgrade over Chrome (or any browser maker's) built-in sync anyhow.

The House can't vote for whomever they want. The House can only choose between the top three electoral vote recipients. There's no way the House can select Romney unless Romney gets at least one electoral vote, from a faithless elector, and nobody other than Trump and Clinton get electoral votes more than Romney.

But the House doesn't even com into play unless Trump loses 37 of his 306 electors. His *Republican* electors.

All the salty snowflake tears in the world can't make that happen. At most, a few politically-suicidal Trump electors defect - none of them to Clinton. He still has well over the 270 votes needed. She still has far fewer than needed, maybe even less than her supposed 232 because of the promise-to-be-faithless Clinton electors like WA's Satiacum.

Bernie Sanders is more likely to be the 3rd recipient of electoral votes than is Romney, if there even is any 3rd-place electoral recipient at all.

Trump wins. He already won, in the election that matters, the separately summed 51 states & DC elections to choose presidential electors. Nothing is changing that. Go put your efforts to some meaningful if you're progressive, like standing with Standing Rock, placing for the 2018 midterms, state legislator elections because that's where gerrymandering happens. Forward-looking stuff. Not this "Wah somebody better fix this" backward undo-it crying.

I really wish people would RTFM aka Constitution before putting out nonsense.

Sorry, I see nothing about a Mozilla and Microsoft partnership there. Care to be more explicit?

Can you say more about this Mozilla and Microsoft partnership? Thanks.

Not for ever - they are working on a method of doing bridge-based WebRTC which is nevertheless end-to-end secure - see https://datatracker.ietf.org/w... . AIUI, the way it works is that it established point-to-point encrypted tunnels between the endpoints for key distribution so the bridge isn't able to decrypt the data even if it wanted to, and yet, you don't need N->N transmission of streams.

Gerv

WebRTC-based services, in the form of e.g. https://meet.jit.si/, are end-to-end secure and decentralised. Not sure if Windows Phone has any browser which supports WebRTC, though.

"online" has a totally different meaning in that context. It does not mean "shopping on the web". It means, "Realtime authorization all the way back to/from the issuing bank".

Believe it or not, "online" has technology definitions that predate not only the web, but also the internet itself. This is one of them.

Wrong. There are some US banks offering Chip+PIN CREDIT cards. And some issuing Chip+Signature DEBIT cards. It all depends on which authentication methods the issuing bank coded into the card's chip, and which priority order they set them.

People saying "PIN is for Debit and signature is for credit" are taking anecdote as if it's industry-wide rule. Or are non-USAians who never knew how it works here.

The "Debit or Credit?" question that US Debit card users often are asked at Point of sale when making a purchase on a Debit card has nothing to do with whether it's a chip card or not, nor even whether it's a credit card or a debit card. It really means, "Process this like an ATM Bank card doing a checking account withdrawal? Which will require your ATM withdrawal PIN. Or, Process this like a credit card charge through the Visa (or MC) network, which will put a credit-card-style authorization on your account but not actually post the charge for hours or days?"

Not, "Is this a Debit card or a Credit Card?"

For the matter, you could always choose "Debit" with a real Credit card too, if you happened to know your "cash advance at ATM" PIN for your magstripe no-PIN credit card. Though most people didn't know that PIN, some Credit cards didn't have one unless you asked, and because at your credit card account it became a usually more-costly cash advance rather than a charge. But fundamentally, "Debit or Credit" is "act as if it's a bank ATM card or act as if it's a credit card", regardless of whether it's really a Credit IRS a Debit card.

"Act as if it's a bank ATM card" always required a PIN, ever since decades ago long before EMV chip cards reached USA.

"Act as if it's a credit card" never required a PIN, in USA.

What is new, and apparently confusing to Muricans, is that with EMV in most of the world, "Act as if it's a credit card" now also requires a PIN.

In USA, if your new EMV chip Credit card is done to world standards, "Act as if it's a credit card" does require a PIN, when in the past, "credit" never did. And too many US banks issued Chip+Signature (only, or Chip+Signature as priority 1 authentication method) cards, so that "credit" still would not require a PIN. Plus they even did the same for Debit Cards, so that when using the Debit card for a purchase as "act like a credit card" it does not use a PIN.

Which leads to confusion by cardholders and merchants alike, and the errors in so many of the posts here too.

My primary credit union's Visa Debit/ATM card requires the PIN for purchases even as "credit" if the POS terminal hardware, software, and merchant account are capable of following the card's EMV commands. Yet my other credit union issued Chip+Signature Debit MasterCard ATM cards. My bank issued a Chip+PIN priority Visa Debit, and the "checking alternative" account at my brokerage issued a Chip+Signature Visa Debit.

Of course all require a PIN when doing an actual ATM cash withdrawal. Or when doing a purchase through the "debit" ATM network.

I will stop now, before explaining how the Dodd-Frank Bill makes US-ussued chip Debit cards even more screwed up and globally non-standard even if they are true Chip+PIN. But it's all kinds of hilarity ensuing.

web.skype.com lets me log in using Firefox, no problem, so presumably it works there as well.

Gerv

What if "what I want" is to be able to visit the sites that are linking to a YouTube video I'm watching. Today I can't easily do that because YouTube doesn't want me leaving YouTube.

Pretty much every single smartphone is made in China. Regardless of brand, major or minor, "Western" (Apple, Microsoft/Nokia, rump-Nokia, Alcatel, or low-ends like Blu, etc.), "Developed World Asian"(Samsung, LG, HTC, etc.), or Chinese (Huawei, Oppo, OnePlus, etc.) as the "manufacturer".

Many by the same contract manufacturers in China. And no, that "Designed by Apple in California" or "Google Nexus" branding and supposed oversight does not guarantee that spying firmware and hardware can't get into some subset of phones.

It's pathetically hilarious when legislators or "patriotic citizen" low information types rant about evil Chinese companies making the products and demand only 'Murrican brands.