Hi,

Check out Vivaldi: https://vivaldi.com/

I've been VERY pleased with it so far, under Windows, OS X and Linux..

It has the one thing that I missed most from the old Opera: Sane/useful tab stacking/grouping built in, with the ability to save and restore such.

Sure, many of you don't care about that, but I do.

At work with the old Opera, I'd create sets of tabs, stacked as I saw fit, for each client and would then save them as profiles named for my clients.

When I got a support call all I had to do was open the saved tab profile for them, and then I'd have EVERYTHING related to them available to me immediately, organized in the way I found most useful to me.

Yes, it took time to set that all up. Yes, it took time to maintain it, but all that time paid for itself, every time I fielded a service call for my customers.

It was an amazingly powerful tool for me, and when Opera dropped it I stayed with the old version until it didn't work anymore.

I looked for similar functionality under Chrome, et al, Firefox and IE but nothing came close.

Vivaldi gave that back to me, and I've switched and will never go back.

It's still very "young", and they are working hard on it. But, they appear to be very motivated and committed.

The current stable release is great, does everything I need, and even better? Since it's multi-platform I get the same basic experience and usability regardless of OS.

While I still use mostly Windows at home, I support Windows, OS X and Linux at work now, and having a web browser that works under all three with the functionality that I want/need allows me to support our users, regardless of OS, without having to switch back and forth between computers

And to bring this back on-topic? Vivaldi is built upon Chromium and still supports the backspace key for going back a page.

The only thing I wish they'd add? Native proxy support, such as Firefox does. I've used Privoxy: http://www.privoxy.org/ under Windows for years, and, while the old Opera had its own proxy support, just as Firefox does? Vivaldi doesn't yet, so I have to resort to an add-on for that, since some of the games that I play at home don't support proxies.

Take all of the above for whatever it's worth to you, but I think that Vivaldi is at least worth checking out.

Regards,

dj

You can say many things about Prince, but "talentless hack" isn't among them.

I think that his fame came more from singing and songwriting, but Prince was greatly underappreciated as a guitarist.

Proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SFNW5F8K9Y

His solo starts at about 3:26. I recommend watching it from the beginning, because it's a wonderful tribute.

His solo is exquisite, in my opinion, at times at the forefront, extending, expanding upon the lyrics and melody while never overwhelming either, and at times also complementing them, moving back and forth until the end.

No showboating, I think, but verve, gusto, pure enjoyment and musicianship. He was asked there to play, and to solo, and he did both masterfully.

Watch/listen it in its entirety, once. Then just listen to it.

As you watch it, note that Prince is not only soloing GREAT, playing well, he's also engaged with the other musicians. He knows the song, knows that he's playing with some of the best musicians in the rock world and is aware of all of that as he plays.

And you can TELL that he's having a blast being there. He's playing his best, and I think that the others in the band recognize it.

As you just listen, note how well what he plays fits, both solo and together with the rest of the band. Clean, complex, precise, not a missed note, nor a note played that doesn't fit the song overall in some way.

At one point he just vanishes, merges back into the song with the band and then emerges again.

Wonderful!

All that being said, I was never a huge Prince fan over the years, but that video gave me a new appreciation of him, when I first watched it, years ago.

As to whether or not his death deserves to be of note on Slashdot? The most relevant justification would be Prince's stance on digital copyright, and I don't care to discuss that.

I made the mistake of doing that in general here, years ago, and I shan't revisit that here ever again.

All that being said: Say what you will of Prince, but don't ever say he was a "talentless hack".

Regards,

dj

Love it how this is only /. news once the US becomes involved. Been news for days in Australia.

How is this even related to tech/nerd news, anyway?

Now that marketing departments cannot track emails being viewed, the next move by Google will be to sell this tracking information back to the companies' marketing departments. They will probably set up a protocol to do it, or a nice dashboard/UI for it. In fact this might be good for smaller companies whose marketing/IT departments are small such that they don't have the ability to code in tracking images and cookies. Even good for larger companies - would cut down the infrastructure and development time; no more needing to host images on a server, with databases, etc...

Could be good for everyone involved.

I have been an Opera fan for a long time. The latest release, Opera 15.x seems a bit of a mixed bag for me. I agree about the "showing its age" for 12.16.

It always had a number of points of difference from the others (Firefox, Chrome, IE). But Opera 15 feels like Chromium with a new theme. I guess it's because of WebKit. But the configuration pages are almost identical to Chrome. Not that this is a bad thing, really - their reason was that they would contribute to make WebKit better, which makes business sense. But it's a bit of a "if you can't beat them, join them". I really resent the lack of ability to change the default search provider in the URL bar. I use DuckDuckGo and although I can add it as a provider, I am still limited to the usual "big 3" or 4 providers as default. Why, Opera? Chrome has this ability?

Now, regarding Mail, etc. I am using the independent new Opera Mail client and love it. It's in my opinion, way better than Thunderbird in the UI - very clean and refined and a evolution of the previous Opera Mail (integrated into the browser). Seems not much development is going on with it though, there haven't been any new releases since it was first released. And it's not that heavily marketed...

The thing I liked about the "old" Opera was it's difference from the other browsers. It's a bit of a Norwegian quirkyness, with some awesome innovations thrown in. And it worked well. I loved how it was different. But it seems more watered down and vanilla now, just another browser. Why use it? Not much reason now, might as well use Chrome and have better plugins. Or rekonq or arora, etc. All WebKit browsers.

Totally agree with being jibbed regarding Linux support too. So I use Chromium. Half because the Firefox UI is a bit ugly in KDE.

Just to clarify, the NHTSA hasn't said anything to Tesla like the summary states. It has clarified its rating system. That is all.

That article is written like a high schooler's blog.

I feel compelled to let anyone here who has not RTFA to not bother. It is a poorly written blog entry that's nothing but hyperbole and speculation. It's also badly researched and contains a lot of inaccuracies. One of the commenters is the CEO of DDG and he corrects some of the misinformation.

I've been using DDG for 2 years and it is great. Not always as good as Google but a good alternative for most searches. Make sure you set it to your region (settings).

Stalin? a blip.

That's probably because Stalin preferred to kill people instead of incarcerating them. It's estimated that between 3 million and 60 million people died during Stalin's regime: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin.

I don't have any hard facts concerning China, and so can't rebut your assertion, except to note that you don't offer any numbers of your own for comparison purposes.

And, hey, let's not count the dead in any case, right? After all, they're dead, so who cares?

Now. How can anyone argue that there's no such thing as "brainwashing", or that it only works on stupid or ignorant people?

Well, there's brainwashing, there's stupidity, ignorance and then there's just outright dishonesty, which is what you appear to be engaged in with your hyperbole. Sad that you got modded up, though I certainly understand it. That 3-digit UID pretty much makes all the youngins here swoon, I imagine.

Regards,

dj

The problem however was that the ARCNET daisy chain had a fairly short maximum physical length before you got signal degradation.

No offense, but, I NEVER deployed ARCNET in a "daisy chain" configuration, EVER. ARCNET, by definition, was a token-passing network, deployed upon a physical star topology [1], and was VERY flexible with regards to cabling..., and it MIGHT have supported such, but *I* never used it, ever, in such a configuration as you state.

We ran RG-62 coax, from end nodes, to active hubs, in the early days, and occasionally split those with 4-port passive hubs, which, while allowed, DID limit overall cable length. By specification, any active to active run (whether end point or active hub ) run could be up to 2000 feet [2], which was one of the great things about ARCNET back then: You could use the same coax cable, everywhere, so long as you abided by the overall length per network segment rules. And, 2000 feet is a LONG distance, in the real world, especially when you're running cable to tie together buildings on a campus, for example. I could do that, with ARCNET, and DID, using just RG-62 coax, and judiciciously-placed active hubs.

I, for one, welcomed Ethernet when it became affordable. I had become so tired of crawling through ceilings and fishing down walls whenever someone moved to a different office

No offense, but that's not a failure of ARCNET, as a cabling system, but rather, a failure of planning, I think. Certainly, I had my share of "cabling angst", back in the day: Ran *miles* of ARCNET coax cabling, NO lie. Later, the same for Ethernet twisted pair: CAT 3, then CAT 5, when I had my own business, I finally subbed it out, because I couldn't do it properly: I couldn't cost-justify the time, labor, nor tools needed to do it properly, for my customers, myself. So, I gave all my cabling jobs, back then, to a small, local company whose owner I knew, and I knew they'd do a good job. Never asked for a kickback, nor anything other than they take care of my customer, and remember me for referring them. Never got a ounce of business from him in return, but it didn't matter to me: He does good work, and so my customers were well served, as I wished.

However, to wrap this up? Regardless of time, network cabling is just something to be done. In the OLD days, we did it ourselves, as part of being nerds, we ran the cabling, connected it, tested it - how else were we going to connect everything, and be sure that it was done correctly?

Now days, it's just another "thing", like electricity.

Still, I *miss* those days, you know: Networking was NEW, and people appreciated it... ,

Regards,

Notes:

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARCNET

[2] ibid

[3] This note has no reference. However, I have, in a filing cabinet, the complete specifications for ARCNET, as published by Datapoint Corporation, circa 1980. Send me an email at djloweathotmaildotcom and I'll scan them and email them to you :)

Hi,

In my opinion, you've completely missed the mark, upmods notwithstanding, and here's why:

And underwent surgery in order to get rid of glasses as they were the worst annoyance in my life [1] - so there's no chance of me using this product [2].

Of course, Google Glass has NOTHING at all to do with vision correction, per se... so, this objection is a complete non sequitor, due to its irrelevance.

People don't realise just how much these things are going to negatively affect you

they are going to cause irritation and issue with our hair

Not irritation with our hair, Precious! ANYTHING but that!

and the side of your head

Which side? Not the right side, Precious!

That's my take on it all. The wearable aspect is just a poor substitute for what we have been "promised" in fiction.

And, what, exactly, is that? Have we ever been promised good hair, non-irritated hair, somewhere in fiction? If not, I suppose that I'm fortunate: None of the glasses I've ever worn have irritated my hair, and, I suppose, at this late date, I'm fortunate that I still HAVE hair, which remains unirritated, despite the ongoing presence of glasses, Google or otherwise.

Regards, mostly in jest,

dj

Notes:

[1] Trust me, I understand: I've worn glasses since I was 4 years old, and, now, at age 48, I've had to adopt progressive bifocals. However, my objections to Google Glass have NOTHING at all to do with my having to wear corrective lenses in general.

[2] I'll never use it, because of the privacy issues involved.