Re: Firefox: Unknown sites hog CPU or Modem
Doug Bashford
In netscape.public.mozilla.browser, In
<4phvr558acgkacgcg...@4ax.com>
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010, Ralph Fox said about:
Re: Firefox: Unknown sites hog CPU or Modem
> On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 21:18:53 GMT, in message <D_KdnaQpPagjBCLW...@pghconnect.com>
> pla...@work.edu (Doug Bashford) wrote:
>
> > Firefox: unknown sites hog CPU or modem.
.............snip
> Doug
>
>
> You should ask your question in the mozilla.support.firefox newsgroup which you can find
> on the news.mozilla.org news server.
>
> Everyone has moved to the mozilla.* groups on the news.mozilla.org news server.
> The group you are in was abandoned 4 years ago - see
> http://groups.google.com/group/netscape.public.mozilla.browser/msg/33678c39134833f2
>
>
> The best way is to set up news.mozilla.org as another news server.
> You can also use Google Groups to access the mozilla.* newsgroups.
>
> Do not, though, use a different news server apart from news.mozilla.org.
> Like it or not, the mozilla.* groups have been set up like a company
> news server. They are not shared with other news servers across Usenet.
> A few other servers have copied some of the group names and some of the
> posts as well, but your posts to those other news servers will not appear
> on the news.mozilla.org server where everyone is.
>
>
> > X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
>
> To handle two news servers in Forte Free Agent 1.21, you need to
> run two instances of Agent each with its own separate database.
> See this message for details: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent/msg/8bb090749613c76a
Thanks for the tips Ralph!
netscape.public.mozilla.browser,alt.fan.mozilla
alt.netscape,netscape.public.general,
Yer right I'm not crazy about the idea that
it's all now "company town." Another one bytes the dust.
I'da never figured Moz would be the one, they always
seemed like the pioneers for freedom and against
The Establishment's monopolies of thought and mortar.
So what the netiquette? Can I presume that people
disatisfied had damned well better watch their
honest feelings, it's sorta a luvy-dovey love fest?
[Respectful dissent is permited, we are so lucky.]
I can think of no other reason they'd do this...control.
I'll give it a looksee. If they demand an ID,
they can kiss my rosey red one.
"I never left them, they left me," comes to mind.
And: "You will be assimilated, try the Prozac, punk."
...anyway, thanks again, wish I was happier.
--Doug
The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
The rational change their world view to fit the facts.
Crash!
in netscape.public.mozilla.browser, On 21 Apr 2010, Ralph Fox
said:
> > So what the netiquette? Can I presume that people
> > disatisfied had damned well better watch their
> > honest feelings, it's sorta a luvy-dovey love fest?
> > [Respectful dissent is permited, we are so lucky.]
>
> I have seen plenty of criticism of the Firefox, Thunderbird, etc., apps.
> In this regard it is quite different to my recollection of the borland.* groups.
>
>
> > I can think of no other reason they'd do this...control.
>
> One other reason is so that newsgroups can be reorganized
> as needed. This is hard to make happen when groups are
> propagated across every other server on the planet.
>
> Let me give an example completely separate from mozilla.
>
> Some years ago NZ Usenet users strongly supported renaming
> NG "nz.reg.christchurch.general" to "nz.reg.canterbury.general".
> The two reasons I recall were that (a) the name
> nz.reg.christchurch.general attracted "Christian" spam,
> and (b) the NG was for the whole region (Canterbury)
> and not just the city (Christchurch).
>
> The rename was duly done. However, there are still some
> news servers (outside NZ) using the old newsgroup name
> "nz.reg.christchurch.general". Posts to
> "nz.reg.christchurch.general" on these servers will not be
> seen by people using the new name "nz.reg.canterbury.general".
That's pretty much my complaint here, just swap out the
details. Except you are ABANDONING Usenet, forcing people
like me to go Establishment...which includes FORCING ME
to give up my IP (automagically) in order to participate,
...plus related and unrelated.
> > I'll give it a looksee. If they demand an ID,
>
> No ID required.
Thanks for the info Ralph.
Well, I still have the same problem;
Firefox: Unknown sites hog CPU or Modem
No, I still haven't tried to make that change
to what ever the hell they are.
Counter example? About 10 years ago my small local
ISP subscribed to a Big Boy newsfeed, back in
the days when "full Internet service" included
Usenet. (loooong story) I discovered that
Big Boy NewsFeed had a feedback Newsgroup, or so it
appeared to me. Well I had a long and bad (privacy)
problem and went in rather beligerent, as well as
uninformed. I was a little rude but not unreasonable.
Turned out that I, as an ISP (indirect) subscriber,
I was NOT welcomed, I was banned (they owned my feed)
and then I was scolded by my ISP like I was a little boy.
My larger problem is that I have a problem with
the public domain going private. I'm that weirdo
who highly values my *public property rights* contrary
to our trained-in Establishment American values
which has never even heard of *public property rights*.
(I think, not an accident.)
I think that's worth contemplating, big picture.
Values are about real worth.
They tell us now, that even contemplating is
wimpy ...or some such.
- "Fascism should more properly be called
- corporatism, since it is the merger
- of state and corporate power."
-- - Benito Mussolini, father of fascism.
Wisdom from 1938:
"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people
tolerate the growth of private power to a point where
it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself.
> That in it's essence is fascism: ownership of the
government by an individual, by a group or any
controlling private powers."
-- Franklin Delano Roosevelt, message to congress,
proposing the "Standard Oil" Monopoly Investigation, 1938
* The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
* The rational change their world view to fit the facts.
Nobody
>
>in netscape.public.mozilla.browser, On 21 Apr 2010, Ralph Fox
>said:
>> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 (Doug Bashford) wrote:
>
>
>> > So what the netiquette? Can I presume that people
>> > disatisfied had damned well better watch their
>> > honest feelings, it's sorta a luvy-dovey love fest?
>> > [Respectful dissent is permited, we are so lucky.]
>>
>> I have seen plenty of criticism of the Firefox, Thunderbird, etc., apps.
>> In this regard it is quite different to my recollection of the borland.* groups.
>>
>>
>> > I can think of no other reason they'd do this...control.
>>
>> One other reason is so that newsgroups can be reorganized
>> as needed. This is hard to make happen when groups are
>> propagated across every other server on the planet.
>>
>> Let me give an example completely separate from mozilla.
>>
>> Some years ago NZ Usenet users strongly supported renaming
>> NG "nz.reg.christchurch.general" to "nz.reg.canterbury.general".
>> The two reasons I recall were that (a) the name
>> nz.reg.christchurch.general attracted "Christian" spam,
>> and (b) the NG was for the whole region (Canterbury)
>> and not just the city (Christchurch).
NZ <general> news groups have died anyway.
I used to watch <Hamilton> but the last activity reported by my ISP
(as of two minutes ago at 0040 UTC 4 June 2010) is dated 6 June 2008.