Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Benchmark Battle October 2016: Chrome Vs. Firefox Vs. Edge (venturebeat.com) 134

Krystalo quotes a report from VentureBeat: It's been more than a year since our last browser benchmark battle, and the competition remains fierce. Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, and Microsoft Edge have all gained a variety of new features and improvements over the past year. It's time to see if any of them have managed to pull ahead of the pack. It appears that Edge has made the biggest gains since last year. That said, browser performance is improving at a very rapid pace, and it shouldn't be your only consideration when picking your preferred app for consuming Internet content. You can click on individual tests below to see the details:

SunSpider: Edge wins!
Octane: Edge wins!
Kraken: Chrome wins!
JetStream: Edge wins!
Oort Online: Firefox wins!
Peacekeeper: Firefox wins!
WebXPRT: Edge wins!
HTML5Test: Chrome wins!

You can also read all about the setup used for the benchmark tests here. VentureBeat used a custom desktop PC, featuring an Intel Core i5 4440 processor (6M Cache, 3.10 GHz), 8GB of DDR3 1600MHz RAM, a 500GB SATA hard drive (7200 RPM), an Nvidia GeForce GTX 460 graphics card, and a 24-inch widescreen LED monitor (1920 x 1080).

Comment Re: "Tacit approval"? My nose! (Score 1) 205

Would you care to prove that HRC tried to avoid using her private email server for classified communications? Evidence suggests she didn't. Powell had and used an email account on the classified State Department network ("high side"); Clinton did not. The NYTimes reports that a search of Powell's emails was done, and only uncovered two emails, sent to Powell but someone else, that were upgraded to confidential or secret after the fact -- unlike emails that Clinton sent containing information that was classified (and even marked as such) at the time, and emails on her server that included top secret information.

Comment Re: "Tacit approval"? My nose! (Score 1) 205

That article doesn't suggest that either "forwarding information marked classified" or "direct[ing] underlings to remove classification" blocks/markings is at all common. Why is your reading comprehension so awful? Did you get dropped on your head as a baby?

Meanwhile, your overactive imagination is making you hear voices about what was on an email server that was required by federal law to exist and be used for specific purposes, and you're ignoring that Hillary Clinton got caught lying about what was in the emails she deleted.

Comment Re: "Tacit approval"? My nose! (Score 1) 205

You do highlight more relevant distinctions between Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton, though:

Colin Powell did not forward information marked classified. Hillary Clinton did.

Colin Powell did not direct underlings to remove classification information from hard copies before sending it over non-secure networks. Hillary Clinton did.

In fact, Hillary Clinton forwarded the "marked classified but not in the header" email a year after she told her subordinate to handle information in just that manner. Of course, she still had an obligation to protect and preserve the classified information -- but you apparently bought her excuses to the contrary. In fact, she had a further obligation to report the spill and work with appropriate security officers to remedy it, and she failed in that duty as well.

Comment Re: "Tacit approval"? My nose! (Score 1) 205

Aw, the ignorant little spouter of off-topic and factually wrong talking points doesn't like being identified as such. Guess what: Slashdot isn't a safe space, and you're going to get called on false equivalencies and falsehoods. Go away and come back when you know how any of the relevant laws work.

Comment Re: "Tacit approval"? My nose! (Score 2, Informative) 205

Colin Powell used a private email account (not server) only for things that the State Department didn't have a functional email server for. Hillary Clinton avoided using the State Department's perfectly functional system.

Colin Powell only used it for unclassified communications. Hillary Clinton used her email server to receive and send up to TOP SECRET communications.

Colin Powell did not hire personal staff to the State Department basically for the purposes of supporting his private email account. Hillary Clinton brought one of her techs to State so he could more easily support her email server.

Colin Powell did not affirmatively choose to delete emails were under both subpoena in private lawsuits and Congressional investigation. Hillary Clinton did.

Colin Powell did not put his name on a memo that reminded State Department staff of the department policy to avoid using personal email if at all possible, because no such policy existed at the time. Hillary Clinton did put her name to such a memo, because the policy existed before she took office there.

Colin Powell did not have staff who needed immunity agreements from the Department of Justice. Hillary Clinton did, even for things that should not need such agreements, like producing a laptop.

Colin Powell was not represented by lawyers who had conflicts of interest by being potential subjects of investigation over email misuse. Hillary Clinton was -- in fact, one of her lawyers got an immunity deal while representing Clinton.

You have been led around by the nose. Stop being such a tool.

Unsurprisingly, the Republican National Committee operated an email server for White House staff to use for partisan communications and purposes. Unsurprisingly, it's illegal to use federal property for purposes like that. Unsurprisingly, there's no federal law that requires the RNC to retain its internal communications indefinitely, like there is for federal records.

Comment Re: "Tacit approval"? My nose! (Score 1) 205

My justification for the FBI not investigating these attacks is only that the there's no obvious US jurisdiction, and none of the victims seem likely to ask the FBI to investigate while providing information that could establish US jurisdiction. Why do you disagree strongly with that?

The rest of your beef seems to be that I have different standards for thinking the FBI should formally investigate a computer crime from other people have for attributing nationalities to the perpetrators of computer crimes. Do you think there should be just one standard for those two different things? If so, why?

Comment "Tacit approval"? My nose! (Score 1) 205

The FBI will probably investigate these hacks as soon as the victims come forward and cooperate with the investigations.

Which, considering that they are violating various US laws themselves, doesn't seem very likely.

It's lousy pro-jihadist/pro-Russian propaganda to suggest that the FBI should investigate various random crimes, by someone of only self-described nationality, targeting non-US people using servers in unknown jurisdictions, when there's no clear nexus to US jurisdiction.

Comment Re: Meanwhile... (Score 1) 65

For OSes with frequent releases, calendar-based numbering makes more sense than major numbers. What qualifies as a major change in an OS is very subjective, and it means nobody needs to remember how old FooBSD 7.5 or 8.3 or whatever is.

I won't argue that the silly names are a good idea, though.


Google Has Quietly Dropped Ban On Personally Identifiable Web Tracking (propublica.org) 154

Fudge Factor 3000 writes: Google has quietly changed its privacy policy to allow it to associate web tracking, which is supposed to remain anonymous, with personally identifiable user data. This completely reneges its promise to keep a wall between ad tracking and personally identifiable user data, further eroding one's anonymity on the internet. Google's priorities are clear. All they care about is monetizing user information to rake in the big dollars from ad revenue. Think twice before you purchase the premium priced Google Pixel. Google is getting added value from you as its product without giving you part of the revenue it is generating through tracking through lower prices. The crossed-out section in its privacy policy, which discusses the separation of information as mentioned above, has been followed with this statement: "Depending on your account settings, your activity on other sites and apps may be associated with your personal information in order to improve Google's services and the ads delivered by Google." ProPublica reports: "The change is enabled by default for new Google accounts. Existing users were prompted to opt-in to the change this summer. The practical result of the change is that the DoubleClick ads that follow people around on the web may now be customized to them based on your name and other information Google knows about you. It also means that Google could now, if it wished to, build a complete portrait of a user by name, based on everything they write in email, every website they visit and the searches they conduct. The move is a sea change for Google and a further blow to the online ad industry's longstanding contention that web tracking is mostly anonymous. In recent years, Facebook, offline data brokers and others have increasingly sought to combine their troves of web tracking data with people's real names. But until this summer, Google held the line." You can choose to opt in or out of the personalized ads here.

Slashdot Top Deals

Do molecular biologists wear designer genes?