Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Mozilla Problems
37 views
Skip to first unread message
freemantle
Oct 23, 2018, 1:58:54 AM10/23/18
to
Firefox locks up where Chrome (I do not like Chrome) does not.
This happens on a Win XP Pro and a Windows 7 PC.
Latest version for both OS.
The red form close [X] only gives a box that DOES NOT CLOSE Firefox !
I have to use another program to kill FireFox.
Junk !
Then Seamonkey turns into a SLUG !
Can't they write code ?
If I try to post on Mozilla they block this post !
Any solutions, like a better free browser and newsgroup reader ?
This happens on a Win XP Pro and a Windows 7 PC.
Latest version for both OS.
The red form close [X] only gives a box that DOES NOT CLOSE Firefox !
I have to use another program to kill FireFox.
Junk !
Then Seamonkey turns into a SLUG !
Can't they write code ?
If I try to post on Mozilla they block this post !
Any solutions, like a better free browser and newsgroup reader ?
JJ
Oct 23, 2018, 2:40:10 AM10/23/18
to
the sites' scripts. Most web developers want to please their visitors, so
they made their sites with full of whistle and bells. That is good. But they
ignore whether their visitors' browser is enough to handle those extra crap.
Most don't provide any fallback to a simpler, lighter version of the site if
the browser is not capable enough.
But freezing when using usenet? Looks like it's a browser addon problem.
Paul
Oct 23, 2018, 3:08:58 AM10/23/18
to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivaldi_(web_browser)
For a newsreader, there are some crusty ones, but there
is also the commercial Forte Agent. Agent is a three-pane
tool that's had a consistent interface for years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Usenet_newsreaders
Version 3.3 was available free (as Free Agent), but Forte
has gone out of their way to hunt down copies and remove
them (archive.org used to have a copy). What I don't know,
is whether that version of Agent has support for encrypted
sessions (TLS transport). Version 3.3 is probably too old
for something like that.
There are other options, but nothing are refined as
Thunderbird or Agent. Some mail tools pretend to do
USENET as well, but that doesn't always end well.
*******
Since both Firefox and Seamonkey are acting up at the same
time, I would suspect some sort of attack. Maybe the prefs.js
on both browsers has had lines added to it, to exploit it.
Normally, I'd suggest adwcleaner, except it has a new owner,
and the previous conscientious individual updating it,
is probably out of the picture.
http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/download/adwcleaner/
Adwcleaner is now owned by Malwarebytes. What is
Adwcleaner bundled with ? Maybe someone else knows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malwarebytes
Firefox 52ESR is the last for WinXP, while Win7
can probably use a Firefox in the 60's ("Quantum").
So the situation on the two installs isn't identical.
The WinXP copy of Firefox could have quite a different
set of plugins or addons installed on it, than the
Win7 one.
Seamonkey still runs on everything, but... it's
probably based on 52ESR, and the days of using
Seamonkey on WinXP are just about done.
Paul
Chris
Oct 23, 2018, 3:17:42 AM10/23/18
to
freemantle <freem...@freemantle.com> wrote:
> Firefox locks up where Chrome (I do not like Chrome) does not.
>
> This happens on a Win XP Pro and a Windows 7 PC.
> Latest version for both OS.
>
> The red form close [X] only gives a box that DOES NOT CLOSE Firefox !
> I have to use another program to kill FireFox.
Which version and what sites? Have tried the usual of clearing
> Firefox locks up where Chrome (I do not like Chrome) does not.
>
> This happens on a Win XP Pro and a Windows 7 PC.
> Latest version for both OS.
>
> The red form close [X] only gives a box that DOES NOT CLOSE Firefox !
> I have to use another program to kill FireFox.
caches/history/etc running in Safe Mode and/or removing any add ons?
SilverSlimer
Oct 23, 2018, 8:23:33 AM10/23/18
to
created Mozilla (Brendan Eich). He was kicked out of Mozilla for
donating to an organization which believed in traditional families
(unthinkable in this day and age where dressing up as a dog for sexual
gratification is normal).
There is also Vivaldi which uses the same base as Chrome but has none of
Google's spyware in it.
--
SilverSlimer
Mayayana
Oct 23, 2018, 10:18:28 AM10/23/18
to
"freemantle" <freem...@freemantle.com> wrote
| Firefox locks up where Chrome (I do not like Chrome) does not.
|
| This happens on a Win XP Pro and a Windows 7 PC.
| Latest version for both OS.
|
| The red form close [X] only gives a box that DOES NOT CLOSE Firefox !
| I have to use another program to kill FireFox.
|
I've never seen that happen with either FF or
Pale Moon. Maybe you can provide links to specific
problem webpages. Also, any extensions or plugins
could affect it.
| If I try to post on Mozilla they block this post !
|
The Mozilla groups are mainly run by one Chris Ilias,
who controls it and moderates. He blocks anything
critical. At best you'll be told to post in the "general"
group, which gets no traffic and is mostly just a
junk collector.
I visited the Mozilla groups for awhile but finally
gave up because of the extreme censorship that
blocks even constructive criticism from ever getting
posted. It's a fan club, not a discussion.
That's the nice thing about newsgroups. I find it
odd that more people don't use public newsgroups. They
let Facebook control their lives. They let Reddit require
membership and "vote" their posts up or down. And
in the Mozilla group or Microsoft forums it's similar:
Privately owned, quasi-marketing forums that filter
minority opinions. Yet people somehow prefer that
humiliation to the "public square" of usenet.
| Any solutions, like a better free browser and newsgroup reader ?
I usually check out anything new I hear about.
So far I haven't come across anything promising.
Awhile back this topic came up and I tried one
of the supposedly clean Chrome clones. It tried
to call home. When that was blocked it tried to
call Google. Even SRWare Iron is not clean. I
wouldn't trust anything based on the original
Chromium.
Pale Moon is a lighter version of Firefox. K-Meleon.
also a FF variant, used to be good but has been
neglected for a long time now.
Whatever you use at this point will be some
variant of either Mozilla Firefox or WebKit/Chrome.
If I were you I'd be looking closer at the exact
cause of the freezes. I doubt FF is the culprit.
You might also consider installing the NoScript
extension if you don't already have it. That can not
only help with privacy and security but also greatly
reduce the compexity of pages you visit. Though I'm
not sure about whether it still works in the newer FF
versions. Recent versions now block older extensions
and many of the good ones no longr work.
It's an awkard situation all around. People increasingly
think of the Internet as a shopping mall and
entertainment venue. That means commercialism. That
leads to complex webpage code and lots of spying.
A few years ago, a webpage of 100 KB was too big
to be usable. More recently pages have been 2-3 MB
when all the javascript is counted. Now it's going even
more out of control, with pages of 20 MB not unusual.
Companies can often charge for ads if they autorun
videos, so you can end up with a half dozen videos
playing on a page.
Webpages have become complex software programs
that the browser must compile and run almost instantly.
Browsers are now required to be amazingly fast
and complex programs. It used to be they only had
to calculate the layout of webpage elements. That
was already incredibly complex. These days the
browser is expected to do the same thing from
moment to moment, with webpages that are constantly
changing.
Making matters
worse, most of the people making these software webpages
have no idea what they're doing. They link to javascript
libraries and then go online and collect snippets of
javascript code to add snazzy features to their webpages.
*The webmasters, for the most part, don't understand
the code in the own webpages. They have no inkling
of how it works or even whether it's safe. Much of it isn't.*
But you can simplify things a lot if you use a HOSTS
file to block unnecessary 3rd-parties and either block
javascript or use something like NoScript to reduce it.
If you use NoScript you'll see that most commercial
sites are pulling in script from numerous external
sources. They hand you off to trackers and advertisers,
who hand you off to still more trackers and advertisers.
It gets very complicated. And the browser can stall if
even one of those remote sources doesn't respond quickly.
Yet most webpages that require script will work fine
if you allow only the script that's actually coming from
that domain.
Example: The other day I needed to check
flight status at American Airlines. Like most big sites
these days, their page is a bloated mess of unnecessary
script that's completely, unnecessarily broken if script
is not enabled. Yet the page worked fine when I enabled
only the aa.com script and blocked all others. What others?
openx.net, an advertising company, and tiqcdn.com,
a spyware company. Why do I need to be tracked to
check a flight? What are they doing trying to show
me ads? I'm their customer already! If I allowed those
scripts then NoScript would probably show me 4-6 new
sites that wanted to run script.
Long story short, if you put some time into restricting
webpages through HOSTS and script blockers then
you can get much improved security and privacy while
also getting a more stable browser. I rarely see ads and
I rarely visit webpages that don't load almost instantly.
I also almost never see cartoons, slideshows, popups,
or other distracting movement on pages.
These days you
shouldn't allow websites to run script uncontrolled, any
more than you should allow sites to download and run
software on your computer. Because that's exactly what
they're doing. You're not visiting a website. You're
downloading a large, complex software program written
by some kid just out of college who has no understanding
of how that webpage works. He created it using a webpages-
for-dummies program. When he's not on his power
skateboard, going to buy bottled water or a decaf latte,
he's busy chatting with his cohorts, collecting ideas and
links to code and gadgets that will increase the "wow
factor" of his webpage. If any of those gadgets makes
his page hackable and leaves you vulnerable, he'll
probably never know. That's not his job, man. :)
| Firefox locks up where Chrome (I do not like Chrome) does not.
|
| This happens on a Win XP Pro and a Windows 7 PC.
| Latest version for both OS.
|
| The red form close [X] only gives a box that DOES NOT CLOSE Firefox !
| I have to use another program to kill FireFox.
|
Pale Moon. Maybe you can provide links to specific
problem webpages. Also, any extensions or plugins
could affect it.
| If I try to post on Mozilla they block this post !
|
who controls it and moderates. He blocks anything
critical. At best you'll be told to post in the "general"
group, which gets no traffic and is mostly just a
junk collector.
I visited the Mozilla groups for awhile but finally
gave up because of the extreme censorship that
blocks even constructive criticism from ever getting
posted. It's a fan club, not a discussion.
That's the nice thing about newsgroups. I find it
odd that more people don't use public newsgroups. They
let Facebook control their lives. They let Reddit require
membership and "vote" their posts up or down. And
in the Mozilla group or Microsoft forums it's similar:
Privately owned, quasi-marketing forums that filter
minority opinions. Yet people somehow prefer that
humiliation to the "public square" of usenet.
| Any solutions, like a better free browser and newsgroup reader ?
So far I haven't come across anything promising.
Awhile back this topic came up and I tried one
of the supposedly clean Chrome clones. It tried
to call home. When that was blocked it tried to
call Google. Even SRWare Iron is not clean. I
wouldn't trust anything based on the original
Chromium.
Pale Moon is a lighter version of Firefox. K-Meleon.
also a FF variant, used to be good but has been
neglected for a long time now.
Whatever you use at this point will be some
variant of either Mozilla Firefox or WebKit/Chrome.
If I were you I'd be looking closer at the exact
cause of the freezes. I doubt FF is the culprit.
You might also consider installing the NoScript
extension if you don't already have it. That can not
only help with privacy and security but also greatly
reduce the compexity of pages you visit. Though I'm
not sure about whether it still works in the newer FF
versions. Recent versions now block older extensions
and many of the good ones no longr work.
It's an awkard situation all around. People increasingly
think of the Internet as a shopping mall and
entertainment venue. That means commercialism. That
leads to complex webpage code and lots of spying.
A few years ago, a webpage of 100 KB was too big
to be usable. More recently pages have been 2-3 MB
when all the javascript is counted. Now it's going even
more out of control, with pages of 20 MB not unusual.
Companies can often charge for ads if they autorun
videos, so you can end up with a half dozen videos
playing on a page.
Webpages have become complex software programs
that the browser must compile and run almost instantly.
Browsers are now required to be amazingly fast
and complex programs. It used to be they only had
to calculate the layout of webpage elements. That
was already incredibly complex. These days the
browser is expected to do the same thing from
moment to moment, with webpages that are constantly
changing.
Making matters
worse, most of the people making these software webpages
have no idea what they're doing. They link to javascript
libraries and then go online and collect snippets of
javascript code to add snazzy features to their webpages.
*The webmasters, for the most part, don't understand
the code in the own webpages. They have no inkling
of how it works or even whether it's safe. Much of it isn't.*
But you can simplify things a lot if you use a HOSTS
file to block unnecessary 3rd-parties and either block
javascript or use something like NoScript to reduce it.
If you use NoScript you'll see that most commercial
sites are pulling in script from numerous external
sources. They hand you off to trackers and advertisers,
who hand you off to still more trackers and advertisers.
It gets very complicated. And the browser can stall if
even one of those remote sources doesn't respond quickly.
Yet most webpages that require script will work fine
if you allow only the script that's actually coming from
that domain.
Example: The other day I needed to check
flight status at American Airlines. Like most big sites
these days, their page is a bloated mess of unnecessary
script that's completely, unnecessarily broken if script
is not enabled. Yet the page worked fine when I enabled
only the aa.com script and blocked all others. What others?
openx.net, an advertising company, and tiqcdn.com,
a spyware company. Why do I need to be tracked to
check a flight? What are they doing trying to show
me ads? I'm their customer already! If I allowed those
scripts then NoScript would probably show me 4-6 new
sites that wanted to run script.
Long story short, if you put some time into restricting
webpages through HOSTS and script blockers then
you can get much improved security and privacy while
also getting a more stable browser. I rarely see ads and
I rarely visit webpages that don't load almost instantly.
I also almost never see cartoons, slideshows, popups,
or other distracting movement on pages.
These days you
shouldn't allow websites to run script uncontrolled, any
more than you should allow sites to download and run
software on your computer. Because that's exactly what
they're doing. You're not visiting a website. You're
downloading a large, complex software program written
by some kid just out of college who has no understanding
of how that webpage works. He created it using a webpages-
for-dummies program. When he's not on his power
skateboard, going to buy bottled water or a decaf latte,
he's busy chatting with his cohorts, collecting ideas and
links to code and gadgets that will increase the "wow
factor" of his webpage. If any of those gadgets makes
his page hackable and leaves you vulnerable, he'll
probably never know. That's not his job, man. :)
Mathedman
Oct 23, 2018, 10:55:29 AM10/23/18
to
I unfortunately got it for "free" with some small freeware software.
(apparently google bought up all those little applets
that used to bee free-ware or share-ware.
I've tried everything I know to try and could/can not get it all removed
pyotr filipivich
Oct 23, 2018, 11:05:26 AM10/23/18
to
"Mayayana" <maya...@invalid.nospam> on Tue, 23 Oct 2018 10:17:36
-0400 typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
let alone know what it is, or how to access it.
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?
-0400 typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
>
> That's the nice thing about newsgroups. I find it
>odd that more people don't use public newsgroups. They
>let Facebook control their lives. They let Reddit require
>membership and "vote" their posts up or down. And
>in the Mozilla group or Microsoft forums it's similar:
>Privately owned, quasi-marketing forums that filter
>minority opinions. Yet people somehow prefer that
>humiliation to the "public square" of usenet.
I suspect that far too many have no idea that Usenet even exists,
> That's the nice thing about newsgroups. I find it
>odd that more people don't use public newsgroups. They
>let Facebook control their lives. They let Reddit require
>membership and "vote" their posts up or down. And
>in the Mozilla group or Microsoft forums it's similar:
>Privately owned, quasi-marketing forums that filter
>minority opinions. Yet people somehow prefer that
>humiliation to the "public square" of usenet.
let alone know what it is, or how to access it.
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?
Keith Nuttle
Oct 23, 2018, 11:45:31 AM10/23/18
to
problem like you describe.
What version of FireFox are you running. there are some version of
Firefox that are no longer supported on the obsolete Windows XP. There
may be difference in the verso of Firefox that you are running on the XP
machine and the Windows 7 machine.
Are you using the latest version of the extension and plugins?
As suggested in other post, does this problem occur on several URL's or
just specific URL'S
Have you gone to Help; Troubleshooting?
Is there any Warnings?
From there you can restart with the addons disabled, and see if the
problem exist with no addons.
Also you can try to refresh Firefox. Doing this you may have to
reinstall some extensions.
From experience it probably will take as long to troubleshoot Firefox,
as it takes to find a different browser, install it, learn how to use
it, and customize it.
--
2018: The year we learn to play the great game of Euchre
Char Jackson
Oct 23, 2018, 11:55:34 AM10/23/18
to
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 03:08:58 -0400, Paul <nos...@needed.invalid> wrote:
>For a newsreader, there are some crusty ones, but there
>is also the commercial Forte Agent. Agent is a three-pane
>tool that's had a consistent interface for years.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Usenet_newsreaders
>
>Version 3.3 was available free (as Free Agent), but Forte
>has gone out of their way to hunt down copies and remove
>them (archive.org used to have a copy).
Old versions are easy to find on the Forte site, including v3.3.
>For a newsreader, there are some crusty ones, but there
>is also the commercial Forte Agent. Agent is a three-pane
>tool that's had a consistent interface for years.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Usenet_newsreaders
>
>Version 3.3 was available free (as Free Agent), but Forte
>has gone out of their way to hunt down copies and remove
>them (archive.org used to have a copy).
Go to http://www.forteinc.com, scroll to the bottom of the page and
click Download, then on that page look for Additional Resources. In that
section, look for "Go here to Download Older Versions of Agent". Click
the link, which points to http://www.forteinc.com/agent/download-all.php
I think that link location hasn't changed in nearly 20 years.
>What I don't know,
>is whether that version of Agent has support for encrypted
>sessions (TLS transport). Version 3.3 is probably too old
>for something like that.
Stunnel as a front end (proxy). I'm not sure what v3.3 supports.
nospam
Oct 23, 2018, 12:24:26 PM10/23/18
to
In article <pqnajf$r5g$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
which web forums block or remove.
> They
> let Facebook control their lives.
no they don't.
> They let Reddit require
> membership
usenet requires a membership with a usenet provider.
> and "vote" their posts up or down.
that's one of the best parts, which makes it easier to sort through the
crap and find the helpful posts. many web forums do that.
> And
> in the Mozilla group or Microsoft forums it's similar:
> Privately owned, quasi-marketing forums that filter
> minority opinions.
create your own forum and filter as you see fit.
> Yet people somehow prefer that
> humiliation to the "public square" of usenet.
the 'public square' is why usenet is overrun with spam.
<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> That's the nice thing about newsgroups. I find it
> odd that more people don't use public newsgroups.
usenet doesn't get the traffic that web forums do, other than spam,
> That's the nice thing about newsgroups. I find it
> odd that more people don't use public newsgroups.
which web forums block or remove.
> They
> let Facebook control their lives.
> They let Reddit require
> membership
> and "vote" their posts up or down.
crap and find the helpful posts. many web forums do that.
> And
> in the Mozilla group or Microsoft forums it's similar:
> Privately owned, quasi-marketing forums that filter
> minority opinions.
> Yet people somehow prefer that
> humiliation to the "public square" of usenet.
VanguardLH
Oct 23, 2018, 1:34:12 PM10/23/18
to
SilverSlimer wrote:
> On 2018-10-23 1:58 a.m., freemantle wrote:
>> Firefox locks up where Chrome (I do not like Chrome) does not.
>>
>> This happens on a Win XP Pro and a Windows 7 PC.
>> Latest version for both OS.
>>
>> The red form close [X] only gives a box that DOES NOT CLOSE Firefox !
>> I have to use another program to kill FireFox.
>>
>> Junk !
>>
>> Then Seamonkey turns into a SLUG !
>>
>> Can't they write code ?
>>
>> If I try to post on Mozilla they block this post !
>>
>> Any solutions, like a better free browser and newsgroup reader ?
>
> You can always use Brave which is developed by the guy who originally
> created Mozilla (Brendan Eich). He was kicked out of Mozilla for
> donating to an organization which believed in traditional families
> (unthinkable in this day and age where dressing up as a dog for sexual
> gratification is normal).
A dislike of Brave is that its author has an inbuilt adblocker but
> On 2018-10-23 1:58 a.m., freemantle wrote:
>> Firefox locks up where Chrome (I do not like Chrome) does not.
>>
>> This happens on a Win XP Pro and a Windows 7 PC.
>> Latest version for both OS.
>>
>> The red form close [X] only gives a box that DOES NOT CLOSE Firefox !
>> I have to use another program to kill FireFox.
>>
>> Junk !
>>
>> Then Seamonkey turns into a SLUG !
>>
>> Can't they write code ?
>>
>> If I try to post on Mozilla they block this post !
>>
>> Any solutions, like a better free browser and newsgroup reader ?
>
> You can always use Brave which is developed by the guy who originally
> created Mozilla (Brendan Eich). He was kicked out of Mozilla for
> donating to an organization which believed in traditional families
> (unthinkable in this day and age where dressing up as a dog for sexual
> gratification is normal).
deliberately lets paying advertisers get through. Guess Eich wasn't
making enough money at Mozilla, so he came up with a revenue-generating
model for a web browser. He also jumped ships moving from Gecko/Quantum
(Firefox) to Blink (Chromium).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)#Critical_reception
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/01/mozilla-co-founder-unveils-brave-a-web-browser-that-blocks-ads-by-default/
Only if Brave lets you disable its own adblocker and install a 3rd party
extension for adblocking that YOU can configure as to what it blocks
would I bother trialing it. I see a few extensions listed at
https://brave.com/features/. Are others allowed?
https://brave.com/loading-chrome-extensions-in-brave/
Hmm, guess you can use Chrom(e|ium) extensions in Brave. But can you
disable Brave's own ad-allowing, er, adblocking function to rely solely
on your choice of an adblocker extension?
> There is also Vivaldi which uses the same base as Chrome but has none of
> Google's spyware in it.
Chromium or one of those variants.
VanguardLH
Oct 23, 2018, 1:34:25 PM10/23/18
to
freemantle wrote:
> Firefox locks up where Chrome (I do not like Chrome) does not.
>
> This happens on a Win XP Pro and a Windows 7 PC.
> Latest version for both OS.
>
> The red form close [X] only gives a box that DOES NOT CLOSE Firefox !
Before Firefox exits, it first has to exit all extensions that it loaded
> Firefox locks up where Chrome (I do not like Chrome) does not.
>
> This happens on a Win XP Pro and a Windows 7 PC.
> Latest version for both OS.
>
> The red form close [X] only gives a box that DOES NOT CLOSE Firefox !
(that you installed and are enabled). So, what happens when you disable
all extensions, exit Firefox, reload it, and then test if it unloads
okay?
Have you tried disabling whatever anti-virus or other security software
you installed? Web browsers are the biggest infection vector (and so is
e-mail), so you want to disable it only temporarily while visiting only
known safe sites.
> I have to use another program to kill FireFox.
taskkill.exe /im firefox.exe /f
By the way, if you choose to visit web sites whose pages are not just
riddled with Javascript (for dynamic content) but keep it looping then
those pages can keep the browser so busy that your interaction with the
web browser gets delayed so long that the browser looks hung. Don't
visit those sites, or use an ad/content blocker to disconnect the
delivered web page from all those script sources often which are ads.
> Junk !
Seems more likely your particular configuration of Firefox, other
software you are running on your computer at the time, or your choice of
where you visit on the Web.
> Then Seamonkey turns into a SLUG !
decided to stick with the legacy XUL/XCOM interface for extensions
(which had security issues, like one extension reading data for another
extension or even altering the configuration of another extension).
I don't use combination clients. If you've been in Usenet for awhile,
you'll see where someone composed a message intending to send it to a
specific person via e-mail but instead posted it publicly in Usenet.
Although I use a client that can do both e-mail and newsgroups, I do not
configure anything within it to do e-mail.
> Can't they write code ?
cannot fork from the Firefox project. While Mozilla improved Firefox a
lot regarding performance, many enhancements were made after version 52
(the Quantum releases) which Seamonkey cannot take advantage.
> If I try to post on Mozilla they block this post !
for newsgroups into which newsgroup. The Firefox newsgroup is moderated
by Chris Ilias and he does a very poor job of being there (to take care
of the approvals of submissions) plus it is primarily an e-mailing list,
not NNTP - they use an e-mail server with an NNTP gateway but any errors
in e-mail don't get reported back to the NNTP poster. It's a crappy
setup and Ilias is a crappy moderator. Only 15% of my posts ever show
up in mozilla.support.firefox (if that's the newsgroup you used).
> Any solutions, like a better free browser and newsgroup reader ?
7 and have no problems with it. Back before its Quantum days,
extensions often sucked. Authors didn't check for conflicts with other
extensions that performed overlapping functions, many got abandoned (and
another reason Mozilla changed to WebExtensions to shake off all the
abandonware), and many caused problems which can still happen with
WebExtensions. You need to test with a clean Firefox to test its exit,
and that means disabling or uninstalling the extensions and then reload
Firefox again to see if it exits okay without all those extensions.
For Usenet, there has been very little change in its specifications for
well over a decade. Even ancient NNTP clients work very well. I use
40tude Dialog (which was abandoned back in 2005) but the primary reason
I used it is that I was able to customize it using macros regarding its
events, behaviors, and toolbars. There's an ancient free 2.x version
(or maybe it was 3.3) of Forte Agent that is still being used (newer
versions became payware).
Not everything (web, email, newsgroups) needs to get rolled into one
client. Handyman of several trades means less than stellar expertise in
any one trade. Not all ancient clients are useless. NNTP has changed
little, so old newsreaders work just fine. Unless you need to use a
proprietary protocol (Microsoft's Exchange or Google's mail API) and
just need POP, IMAP, or SMTP for e-mail, then old e-mail clients still
work very well (um, except regarding secured connections which many
servers requires SSL 3.0 or TLS 2.0, or later).
nospam
Oct 23, 2018, 1:38:49 PM10/23/18
to
In article <hc0eeb1y03hz$.dlg@v.nguard.lh>, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH>
wrote:
> A dislike of Brave is that its author has an inbuilt adblocker but
> deliberately lets paying advertisers get through.
that's not how it works.
<https://brave.com/faq/#allowing-ads>
Ads and trackers are blocked by default. You can allow ads and
trackers in the preferences panel. Later, as mentioned above, Brave
will let you opt into receiving a reduced ad load that comes without
trackers, maintains your privacy and helps support the publishers you
like.
wrote:
> A dislike of Brave is that its author has an inbuilt adblocker but
> deliberately lets paying advertisers get through.
<https://brave.com/faq/#allowing-ads>
Ads and trackers are blocked by default. You can allow ads and
trackers in the preferences panel. Later, as mentioned above, Brave
will let you opt into receiving a reduced ad load that comes without
trackers, maintains your privacy and helps support the publishers you
like.
Ken Blake
Oct 23, 2018, 2:17:50 PM10/23/18
to
forum to their web site, has done a great job of killing Usenet.
nospam
Oct 23, 2018, 2:34:06 PM10/23/18
to
In article <dbpusd58o1gvpavem...@4ax.com>, Ken Blake
usenet turned into a spam haven and a method of distributing binaries,
namely porn and warez. those who wanted discussion forums went
elsewhere.
<K...@invalid.news.com> wrote:
> > I suspect that far too many have no idea that Usenet even exists,
> >let alone know what it is, or how to access it.
>
>
> Ditto to all three of those statements. Microsoft, by moving all its
> forum to their web site, has done a great job of killing Usenet.
that had very little to do with it. almost nothing, in fact.
> > I suspect that far too many have no idea that Usenet even exists,
> >let alone know what it is, or how to access it.
>
>
> Ditto to all three of those statements. Microsoft, by moving all its
> forum to their web site, has done a great job of killing Usenet.
usenet turned into a spam haven and a method of distributing binaries,
namely porn and warez. those who wanted discussion forums went
elsewhere.
Harry Bloomfield
Oct 23, 2018, 3:54:02 PM10/23/18
to
After serious thinking freemantle wrote :
locks FF up completely. Some other less frequented sites have the same
effect. It locks all of the open FF tabs - The only way out it via
using Win10's Task Manager and Close Program.
So, for that one site, I have to open Microsoft Edge, which works fine
though I prefer FF.
> Firefox locks up where Chrome (I do not like Chrome) does not.
>
> This happens on a Win XP Pro and a Windows 7 PC.
> Latest version for both OS.
>
> The red form close [X] only gives a box that DOES NOT CLOSE Firefox !
> I have to use another program to kill FireFox.
I'm subscribed to Familysearch and every time I visit that site, it
>
> This happens on a Win XP Pro and a Windows 7 PC.
> Latest version for both OS.
>
> The red form close [X] only gives a box that DOES NOT CLOSE Firefox !
> I have to use another program to kill FireFox.
locks FF up completely. Some other less frequented sites have the same
effect. It locks all of the open FF tabs - The only way out it via
using Win10's Task Manager and Close Program.
So, for that one site, I have to open Microsoft Edge, which works fine
though I prefer FF.
VanguardLH
Oct 23, 2018, 4:21:32 PM10/23/18
to
Double dip
It's one thing for a Web browser to block ads by default, but quite
another for that Web browser to insert its own ads and generate revenue
in the process.
You really think Eich has his own ads? Nope. Those "own ads" are those
the advertisers paid to circumvent his inbuilt adblocker. Brave also
has a rewards system but I'll let you read about it.
https://brave.com/faq/#brave-payments
They try to make it sound like users are getting rewarded. Wrong. The
"grants" given to users gets donated to the sites the user most visits.
This is akin to when coal mining companies paid their employees in
script that could only be spent at the company store, like how rebates
from Menards are script that can only be spent at Menards.
https://brave.com/brave-users-get-rewarded-to-browse/
https://brave.com/brave-launches-user-trials-for-opt-in-ads/
https://www.ccn.com/brave-announces-blockchain-digital-advertising-platform-with-ethereum-based-token-rewards-for-users/
Even Eich doesn't lie that Brave has an ad model. Rewarding the ad
sources is how Eich is trying to dig into the web browser marketplace.
Rewarding sites to play nice in their ad content isn't new. Adblocker
Plus did the same thing with their whitelist of acceptable ad sources
which was enabled by default and enraged lots of users of that
extension. It was an attempt to coerce unacceptable site to become
acceptable in the ad behavior and content.
nospam
Oct 23, 2018, 4:45:48 PM10/23/18
to
In article <1g7o5her...@v.nguard.lh>, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH>
i've been using it since the early summer. it blocks ads and a lot of
other garbage, and it's actually very good at doing so.
there is an *opt* *in* alternative, which is entirely voluntary.
wrote:
> >> A dislike of Brave is that its author has an inbuilt adblocker but
> >> deliberately lets paying advertisers get through.
> >
> > that's not how it works.
> >
> > <https://brave.com/faq/#allowing-ads>
> > Ads and trackers are blocked by default. You can allow ads and
> > trackers in the preferences panel. Later, as mentioned above, Brave
> > will let you opt into receiving a reduced ad load that comes without
> > trackers, maintains your privacy and helps support the publishers you
> > like.
>
> From the Arstechnica article:
stop reading articles and try using the app.
> >> A dislike of Brave is that its author has an inbuilt adblocker but
> >> deliberately lets paying advertisers get through.
> >
> > that's not how it works.
> >
> > <https://brave.com/faq/#allowing-ads>
> > Ads and trackers are blocked by default. You can allow ads and
> > trackers in the preferences panel. Later, as mentioned above, Brave
> > will let you opt into receiving a reduced ad load that comes without
> > trackers, maintains your privacy and helps support the publishers you
> > like.
>
> From the Arstechnica article:
i've been using it since the early summer. it blocks ads and a lot of
other garbage, and it's actually very good at doing so.
there is an *opt* *in* alternative, which is entirely voluntary.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Oct 23, 2018, 5:09:24 PM10/23/18
to
In message <pqmhe7$404$1...@dont-email.me>, Paul <nos...@needed.invalid>
writes:
[]
"Pretend"? As far as the user is concerned, I don't know about any
pretence: OE, Turnpike, and Thunderbird all succeed. (What's going on
"under the hood" - like TB being mostly a browser - doesn't bother me.)
As for not ending well, I'm not going to take that challenge: I prefer
to put it as "some people do not like that idea, some do", or something
like that. The only argument against it that cuts any ice with me is the
suggestion that one might forget which one was using and post when you
meant to email or vice versa. I concede the possibility; in practice, I
think I've come across maybe five or ten examples in 30 years or so of
posts that were intended as emails, which is the more drastic way round.
(That's not counting gmail users misled by Google Groups' user
interface, which isn't part of that discussion.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
(Petitions - at least e-petitions - should collect votes both for and
against, if they're going to be reported as indicative of public
opinion. If you agree, please click below, unless you already have.) [UK only]
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/230003/sponsors/new?token=gHafDVBYobumelL9J54c
One of my tricks as an armchair futurist is to "predict" things that are
already happening and watch people tell me it will never happen.
Scott Adams, 2015-3-9
writes:
[]
>> Any solutions, like a better free browser and newsgroup reader ?
[]
>For a newsreader, there are some crusty ones, but there
[]
>There are other options, but nothing are refined as
>Thunderbird or Agent. Some mail tools pretend to do
>USENET as well, but that doesn't always end well.
[]
>Thunderbird or Agent. Some mail tools pretend to do
>USENET as well, but that doesn't always end well.
"Pretend"? As far as the user is concerned, I don't know about any
pretence: OE, Turnpike, and Thunderbird all succeed. (What's going on
"under the hood" - like TB being mostly a browser - doesn't bother me.)
As for not ending well, I'm not going to take that challenge: I prefer
to put it as "some people do not like that idea, some do", or something
like that. The only argument against it that cuts any ice with me is the
suggestion that one might forget which one was using and post when you
meant to email or vice versa. I concede the possibility; in practice, I
think I've come across maybe five or ten examples in 30 years or so of
posts that were intended as emails, which is the more drastic way round.
(That's not counting gmail users misled by Google Groups' user
interface, which isn't part of that discussion.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
(Petitions - at least e-petitions - should collect votes both for and
against, if they're going to be reported as indicative of public
opinion. If you agree, please click below, unless you already have.) [UK only]
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/230003/sponsors/new?token=gHafDVBYobumelL9J54c
One of my tricks as an armchair futurist is to "predict" things that are
already happening and watch people tell me it will never happen.
Scott Adams, 2015-3-9
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Oct 23, 2018, 7:05:32 PM10/23/18
to
In message <rhnub6jhx0du$.dlg@v.nguard.lh>, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH>
writes:
[]
[]
I've seen for "combination clients". And I think I've seen about five to
ten examples - in over 30 years. [Not counting gmail users misled by
Google Groups' atrocious UI, which is nothing to do with clients.]
[]
[]
I'm not saying _you_ _should_ use a combined client - just that I get a
little tired of others saying _I_ _shouldn't_.
>any one trade. Not all ancient clients are useless. NNTP has changed
>little, so old newsreaders work just fine. Unless you need to use a
>proprietary protocol (Microsoft's Exchange or Google's mail API) and
>just need POP, IMAP, or SMTP for e-mail, then old e-mail clients still
>work very well (um, except regarding secured connections which many
>servers requires SSL 3.0 or TLS 2.0, or later).
Which things like stunnel can solve, I gather.
writes:
[]
>Web browsers are the biggest infection vector (and so is
>e-mail)
Make your mind up (-:
>e-mail)
[]
>I don't use combination clients. If you've been in Usenet for awhile,
>you'll see where someone composed a message intending to send it to a
>specific person via e-mail but instead posted it publicly in Usenet.
That's the only criticism (apart from "you can't do both optimally")
>you'll see where someone composed a message intending to send it to a
>specific person via e-mail but instead posted it publicly in Usenet.
I've seen for "combination clients". And I think I've seen about five to
ten examples - in over 30 years. [Not counting gmail users misled by
Google Groups' atrocious UI, which is nothing to do with clients.]
[]
>extensions that performed overlapping functions, many got abandoned (and
>another reason Mozilla changed to WebExtensions to shake off all the
>abandonware)
I find a lot of good stuff in abandonware (not just Firefox extensions).
>another reason Mozilla changed to WebExtensions to shake off all the
>abandonware)
[]
>well over a decade. Even ancient NNTP clients work very well. I use
[]
>Not everything (web, email, newsgroups) needs to get rolled into one
>client. Handyman of several trades means less than stellar expertise in
But some of us _like_ a common interface for email and news. However,
>client. Handyman of several trades means less than stellar expertise in
I'm not saying _you_ _should_ use a combined client - just that I get a
little tired of others saying _I_ _shouldn't_.
>any one trade. Not all ancient clients are useless. NNTP has changed
>little, so old newsreaders work just fine. Unless you need to use a
>proprietary protocol (Microsoft's Exchange or Google's mail API) and
>just need POP, IMAP, or SMTP for e-mail, then old e-mail clients still
>work very well (um, except regarding secured connections which many
>servers requires SSL 3.0 or TLS 2.0, or later).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
(Petitions - at least e-petitions - should collect votes both for and
against, if they're going to be reported as indicative of public
opinion. If you agree, please click below, unless you already have.) [UK only]
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/230003/sponsors/new?token=gHafDVBYobumelL9J54c
The early worm gets the bird.
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
(Petitions - at least e-petitions - should collect votes both for and
against, if they're going to be reported as indicative of public
opinion. If you agree, please click below, unless you already have.) [UK only]
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/230003/sponsors/new?token=gHafDVBYobumelL9J54c
Mayayana
Oct 23, 2018, 7:43:49 PM10/23/18
to
"pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote
| I suspect that far too many have no idea that Usenet even exists,
| let alone know what it is, or how to access it.
|
Yes. Odd, though, isn't it? When I tell friends they
could go get or share advice on nearly any topic
they show no interest. If it's not coming from
Google then.... well... it's not coming from Google!
| I suspect that far too many have no idea that Usenet even exists,
| let alone know what it is, or how to access it.
|
could go get or share advice on nearly any topic
they show no interest. If it's not coming from
Google then.... well... it's not coming from Google!
VanguardLH
Oct 23, 2018, 7:56:43 PM10/23/18
to
God. brave.com must be lying about the Brave web browser. Eich must be
lying about his web browser. nospam must be correct because, gee, he is
our God here and how he thinks things should be is how they must be.
nospam
Oct 23, 2018, 8:27:01 PM10/23/18
to
In article <1ippthk2ucism$.dlg@v.nguard.lh>, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH>
neither brave nor eich are lying.
you don't understand how it works, one reason being that you've never
actually used it, and what's worse is you refuse to find out how it
does work.
here's more for you to read, which you probably won't understand any
better than their faq:
<https://brave.com/brave-launches-user-trials-for-opt-in-ads/>
WeÄ…re now ready to start voluntary testing of our ad model before we
scale to further user trials. Once weÄ…re satisfied with the
performance of the ad system, Brave ads will be shown directly in the
browser in a private channel to users who consent to see them. When
the Brave ad system becomes widely available, users will receive 70%
of the gross ad revenue, while preserving their privacy. Â
...
Brave ads are opt-in and consent-based (disabled by default), and
engineered to operate without leaking the userÄ…s personal data from
their device.
what part of *voluntary*, for those who *consent* *to* *see* *them*,
*opt-in* and *consent-based* ( *disabled* *by* *default* ), is not
clear??
over on reddit, this question comes up fairly often. here's one comment
that's quite clear:
<https://www.reddit.com/r/privacytoolsIO/comments/9lznlw/privacytools_se
rvice_that_you_will_never_use/e7c0j3j/>
Brave serves zero ads to users unless you set it to. And the only
reason people set it to is to make money. ItÄ…s not opt-out. ItÄ…s
opt-in. When and if you opt-in, they give you a percentage of money
from every piece of data they sell on you and your able to see each
individual piece of data and to who it gets sold to. So itÄ…s a very
in control method that gives control back to the user. And again, if
you donÄ…t care about the money, you never have to opt-in. That way no
data is ever collected or sold. And no ads are served.
tl;dr no ads unless the user *opts* *in* to see them, with a monetary
benefit if they do.
those not interested should not opt in. very simple.
all of this would be obvious if you actually used it, but you'd rather
just make up stuff as you go along.
> nospam must be correct because, gee, he is
> our God here and how he thinks things should be is how they must be.
another ad hominem.
wrote:
> >>>> A dislike of Brave is that its author has an inbuilt adblocker but
> >>>> deliberately lets paying advertisers get through.
> >>>
> >>> that's not how it works.
> >>>
> >>> <https://brave.com/faq/#allowing-ads>
> >>> Ads and trackers are blocked by default. You can allow ads and
> >>> trackers in the preferences panel. Later, as mentioned above, Brave
> >>> will let you opt into receiving a reduced ad load that comes without
> >>> trackers, maintains your privacy and helps support the publishers you
> >>> like.
> >>
> >> From the Arstechnica article:
> >
> > stop reading articles and try using the app.
> >
> > i've been using it since the early summer. it blocks ads and a lot of
> > other garbage, and it's actually very good at doing so.
> >
> > there is an *opt* *in* alternative, which is entirely voluntary.
>
> Sorry, I forgot I was talking to a delusional poster who thinks he is
> God.
ad hominem.
> >>>> A dislike of Brave is that its author has an inbuilt adblocker but
> >>>> deliberately lets paying advertisers get through.
> >>>
> >>> that's not how it works.
> >>>
> >>> <https://brave.com/faq/#allowing-ads>
> >>> Ads and trackers are blocked by default. You can allow ads and
> >>> trackers in the preferences panel. Later, as mentioned above, Brave
> >>> will let you opt into receiving a reduced ad load that comes without
> >>> trackers, maintains your privacy and helps support the publishers you
> >>> like.
> >>
> >> From the Arstechnica article:
> >
> > stop reading articles and try using the app.
> >
> > i've been using it since the early summer. it blocks ads and a lot of
> > other garbage, and it's actually very good at doing so.
> >
> > there is an *opt* *in* alternative, which is entirely voluntary.
>
> Sorry, I forgot I was talking to a delusional poster who thinks he is
> God.
neither brave nor eich are lying.
you don't understand how it works, one reason being that you've never
actually used it, and what's worse is you refuse to find out how it
does work.
here's more for you to read, which you probably won't understand any
better than their faq:
<https://brave.com/brave-launches-user-trials-for-opt-in-ads/>
WeÄ…re now ready to start voluntary testing of our ad model before we
scale to further user trials. Once weÄ…re satisfied with the
performance of the ad system, Brave ads will be shown directly in the
browser in a private channel to users who consent to see them. When
the Brave ad system becomes widely available, users will receive 70%
of the gross ad revenue, while preserving their privacy. Â
...
Brave ads are opt-in and consent-based (disabled by default), and
engineered to operate without leaking the userÄ…s personal data from
their device.
what part of *voluntary*, for those who *consent* *to* *see* *them*,
*opt-in* and *consent-based* ( *disabled* *by* *default* ), is not
clear??
over on reddit, this question comes up fairly often. here's one comment
that's quite clear:
<https://www.reddit.com/r/privacytoolsIO/comments/9lznlw/privacytools_se
rvice_that_you_will_never_use/e7c0j3j/>
Brave serves zero ads to users unless you set it to. And the only
reason people set it to is to make money. ItÄ…s not opt-out. ItÄ…s
opt-in. When and if you opt-in, they give you a percentage of money
from every piece of data they sell on you and your able to see each
individual piece of data and to who it gets sold to. So itÄ…s a very
in control method that gives control back to the user. And again, if
you donÄ…t care about the money, you never have to opt-in. That way no
data is ever collected or sold. And no ads are served.
tl;dr no ads unless the user *opts* *in* to see them, with a monetary
benefit if they do.
those not interested should not opt in. very simple.
all of this would be obvious if you actually used it, but you'd rather
just make up stuff as you go along.
> nospam must be correct because, gee, he is
> our God here and how he thinks things should be is how they must be.
SilverSlimer
Oct 23, 2018, 8:44:13 PM10/23/18
to
user is likely to need built-in. For that, I can't really fault him.
Regardless of how simple it is, I do believe that many Firefox users are
entirely unaware of the fact that the browser allows them to install
additional features to enhance their browsing experience.
I don't use Brave myself because I like some DRM-enabled content and
Brave doesn't support that (in Linux at least) but it seems like a good
choice for many people. I prefer Vivaldi myself.
--
SilverSlimer
SilverSlimer
Oct 23, 2018, 8:51:20 PM10/23/18
to
sort of recent development I was unaware of. Brave essentially allows
you to block all ads, allow them all or allow only the "ethical" ones
which adopted Brave's system. I don't know if any did but, in the
meantime, people who feel that their favourite sites deserve
compensation as a result of ad revenue lost can donate to them through
cryptocurrency automatically.
--
SilverSlimer
nospam
Oct 23, 2018, 8:59:04 PM10/23/18
to
In article <8mPzD.837593$Vl2.1...@fx46.iad>, SilverSlimer
> Brave essentially allows
> you to block all ads, allow them all or allow only the "ethical" ones
> which adopted Brave's system.
and receive a benefit for doing so. however, it's *voluntary*.
> I don't know if any did but, in the
> meantime, people who feel that their favourite sites deserve
> compensation as a result of ad revenue lost can donate to them through
> cryptocurrency automatically.
ads are how a lot of sites make money. blocking them is a financial
hit. some people are ok with paying for content, they just don't want
annoying ads.
<sil...@slim.er> wrote:
> On 2018-10-23 1:38 p.m., nospam wrote:
> > In article <hc0eeb1y03hz$.dlg@v.nguard.lh>, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> A dislike of Brave is that its author has an inbuilt adblocker but
> >> deliberately lets paying advertisers get through.
> >
> > that's not how it works.
> >
> > <https://brave.com/faq/#allowing-ads>
> > Ads and trackers are blocked by default. You can allow ads and
> > trackers in the preferences panel. Later, as mentioned above, Brave
> > will let you opt into receiving a reduced ad load that comes without
> > trackers, maintains your privacy and helps support the publishers you
> > like.
>
> That's what I thought but I imagined that Vanguard was referring to some
> sort of recent development I was unaware of.
the only person imagining things is vanguard.
> On 2018-10-23 1:38 p.m., nospam wrote:
> > In article <hc0eeb1y03hz$.dlg@v.nguard.lh>, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> A dislike of Brave is that its author has an inbuilt adblocker but
> >> deliberately lets paying advertisers get through.
> >
> > that's not how it works.
> >
> > <https://brave.com/faq/#allowing-ads>
> > Ads and trackers are blocked by default. You can allow ads and
> > trackers in the preferences panel. Later, as mentioned above, Brave
> > will let you opt into receiving a reduced ad load that comes without
> > trackers, maintains your privacy and helps support the publishers you
> > like.
>
> That's what I thought but I imagined that Vanguard was referring to some
> sort of recent development I was unaware of.
> Brave essentially allows
> you to block all ads, allow them all or allow only the "ethical" ones
> which adopted Brave's system.
> I don't know if any did but, in the
> meantime, people who feel that their favourite sites deserve
> compensation as a result of ad revenue lost can donate to them through
> cryptocurrency automatically.
hit. some people are ok with paying for content, they just don't want
annoying ads.
VanguardLH
Oct 23, 2018, 11:38:01 PM10/23/18
to
You sure Brave doesn't support DRM content (using the Widevine plug-in)?
https://www.willchatham.com/internet/just-in-time-the-brave-browser-becomes-my-default/
Looks like Google is going to remove the option to disable their
Widevine plug-in. Oops, already happened ...
https://www.ghacks.net/2017/01/29/google-removes-plugin-controls-from-chrome/
You can't even go to chrome://plugins anymore. Brave still lets users
disable the WideVine plug-in. I don't know the default or install-time
default for that plug-in and why I pointed at the forum thread about how
to enable that plug-in.
https://www.ghacks.net/2018/09/28/brave-reading-to-get-web-browser-brave-1-0-out/
Yikes, I didn't realize Brave was just out of dev phase and just got
into a beta release. Tis one of the reasons I didn't bother with
Vivaldi for a long time. At the bottom of the brave.com pages, there is
a "Build Channels" section, and it has a link to Brave Release (versus
Brave Dev and Brave Beta). Maybe it just went out of beta in the last
month.
https://brave.com/new-brave-browser-release-available-for-general-download/
Hmm, looks like they published a released (GA = general availability)
version on October 18 ... just 5 days ago. Yet their blog says the
released version is 0.55, not 1.0. With other products, anything less
than 1.0 is a beta or alpha version.
Lucifer
Oct 24, 2018, 4:02:07 AM10/24/18
to
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 16:45:45 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
Use punctuation.
wrote:
Lucifer
Oct 24, 2018, 4:06:07 AM10/24/18
to
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 20:59:01 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
Some people don't use punctuation.
wrote:
Lucifer
Oct 24, 2018, 4:12:21 AM10/24/18
to
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:34:02 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
Driven away by those who fail to punctuate.
wrote:
Lucifer
Oct 24, 2018, 4:16:16 AM10/24/18
to
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 12:24:22 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <pqnajf$r5g$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
><maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>
>> That's the nice thing about newsgroups. I find it
>> odd that more people don't use public newsgroups.
>
>usenet doesn't get the traffic that web forums do, other than spam,
>which web forums block or remove.
Yes it does.
>> They
>> let Facebook control their lives.
>
>no they don't.
Yes they do.
>> They let Reddit require
>> membership
>
>usenet requires a membership with a usenet provider.
But not punctuation.
>> and "vote" their posts up or down.
>
>that's one of the best parts, which makes it easier to sort through the
>crap and find the helpful posts. many web forums do that.
They should block posters who don't punctuate.
>> And
>> in the Mozilla group or Microsoft forums it's similar:
>> Privately owned, quasi-marketing forums that filter
>> minority opinions.
>
>create your own forum and filter as you see fit.
>
>> Yet people somehow prefer that
>> humiliation to the "public square" of usenet.
>
>the 'public square' is why usenet is overrun with spam.
And people who don't punctuate.
wrote:
>In article <pqnajf$r5g$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
><maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>
>> That's the nice thing about newsgroups. I find it
>> odd that more people don't use public newsgroups.
>
>usenet doesn't get the traffic that web forums do, other than spam,
>which web forums block or remove.
>> They
>> let Facebook control their lives.
>
>no they don't.
>> They let Reddit require
>> membership
>
>usenet requires a membership with a usenet provider.
>> and "vote" their posts up or down.
>
>that's one of the best parts, which makes it easier to sort through the
>crap and find the helpful posts. many web forums do that.
>> And
>> in the Mozilla group or Microsoft forums it's similar:
>> Privately owned, quasi-marketing forums that filter
>> minority opinions.
>
>create your own forum and filter as you see fit.
>
>> Yet people somehow prefer that
>> humiliation to the "public square" of usenet.
>
>the 'public square' is why usenet is overrun with spam.
Lucifer
Oct 24, 2018, 4:18:24 AM10/24/18
to
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 09:55:25 -0500, Mathedman <Math...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On 23/10/2018 (date fixed) 12:58 AM, freemantle wrote:
>> Firefox locks up where Chrome (I do not like Chrome) does not.
>>
>> This happens on a Win XP Pro and a Windows 7 PC.
>> Latest version for both OS.
>>
>> The red form close [X] only gives a box that DOES NOT CLOSE Firefox !
>> I have to use another program to kill FireFox.
>>
>> Junk !
>>
>> Then Seamonkey turns into a SLUG !
>>
>> Can't they write code ?
>>
>> If I try to post on Mozilla they block this post !
>>
>> Any solutions, like a better free browser and newsgroup reader ?
>
> Chrome is malware! It also does tracking info for Google.
>I unfortunately got it for "free" with some small freeware software.
>(apparently google bought up all those little applets
>that used to bee free-ware or share-ware.
> I've tried everything I know to try and could/can not get it all removed
Just don't use Chrome.
wrote:
>On 23/10/2018 (date fixed) 12:58 AM, freemantle wrote:
>> Firefox locks up where Chrome (I do not like Chrome) does not.
>>
>> This happens on a Win XP Pro and a Windows 7 PC.
>> Latest version for both OS.
>>
>> The red form close [X] only gives a box that DOES NOT CLOSE Firefox !
>> I have to use another program to kill FireFox.
>>
>> Junk !
>>
>> Then Seamonkey turns into a SLUG !
>>
>> Can't they write code ?
>>
>> If I try to post on Mozilla they block this post !
>>
>> Any solutions, like a better free browser and newsgroup reader ?
>
>I unfortunately got it for "free" with some small freeware software.
>(apparently google bought up all those little applets
>that used to bee free-ware or share-ware.
> I've tried everything I know to try and could/can not get it all removed
Just don't use Chrome.
Keith Nuttle
Oct 24, 2018, 8:21:50 AM10/24/18
to
stand. Sometimes the punctuation can change the meaning of a phrase
entirely.
SilverSlimer
Oct 24, 2018, 8:41:51 AM10/24/18
to
--
SilverSlimer
SilverSlimer
Oct 24, 2018, 8:45:12 AM10/24/18
to
Windows either. I'll try it out later on.
< snip >
--
SilverSlimer
Mayayana
Oct 24, 2018, 8:50:28 AM10/24/18
to
"VanguardLH" <V...@nguard.LH> wrote
| > i've been using it since the early summer. it blocks ads and a lot of
| > other garbage, and it's actually very good at doing so.
| >
| > there is an *opt* *in* alternative, which is entirely voluntary.
|
| Sorry, I forgot I was talking to a delusional poster
Yes. And you should know better. :)
As usual, though, there are bits of truth in nospams
arguing. nospam has a mysterious knack for sounding
coherent. I'm still leaning toward the theory that
nospam is actually a bot employed by corporations.
The inflamed opinions generally favor giving money
to big companies. When it's not telling you you're
wrong and it's right, it's vehemently defending Apple,
Adobe, and even Microsoft as entities deserving of
your money. nospam may be "next gen" malware
created by the business Software Alliance. :)
For now it's opt-in. But who needs a special
browser to block ads? I use HOSTS and often block
iframes and 3rd-party altogether with Mozilla's
little-known 3rd-party image blocking. If I remember
correctly, you use ublock origin.
There's something very disturbing about a browser
trying to become your gateway to the Web, rather
than just a tool. Like Apple, Google and AOL, it's a
power grab. And it's profoundly arrogant of Eich that
he thinks he should "fix" the Web.
What if you had a website and were making a small
profit from ads? I'd block them and I wouldn't feel sorry
for you if you were doing it with ad servers like Google/
Doubleclick. But what Eich proposes is that he'll block
them and then replace them from his own ad server.
He would edit your webpage for the viewer but also
make it into his own version of your page.
I can soothe my alleged guilty consience by agreeing
to look at Eich's ads and letting him decide how, when
and how much of the proceeds will go to you and your
website... and how much he'll get paid for being such
a well intentioned genius.
And as usual, there are feverish promises that
it will all be anonymous... as though that were possible.
If Eich succeeded in duping enough people he'd
be something like a new AOL, acting as intermediary
between you and websites.
The whole thing looks to me like ninny-headed
idealism, at best. Worse, it casts the Internet as a
fundamentally commercial medium. I don't see any reason
to support that idea. Eich seems to represent a large
contingent of geeks who think the Internet will collapse
without being based on ads and/or subscriptions. It's the
view that the Internet is, should be, and will inevitably
be modelled on a shopping mall rather than a town square.
It's a limited, small-minded view. The down side of that
view has already been demonstrated by Google's rating
system: If you don't sell something, get other buisinesses to
link to you, and update your webpage frequently, then
your site is irrelevant.
There's also a kind of perverse, idealistic activism in
the ideas of Eich and his ilk. You'll agree to look at ads
and thereby support "good" businesses by choosing the
ads you want to support. Or rather, letting Eich choose.
The millennials who grew up in shopping malls and had
retail play dates instead of friendships, will then regard
that as a kind of political/social activism. They'll vote for
Eich, who in turn will vote for companies that don't spy,
don't advertise gluten, are not responsible for any dumping
of plastic into the oceans, hire only MeToo-activist
women and people who claim to represent non-binary
gender... or whatever the upper-middle-class, suburban,
first-world cause-du-jour happens to be at the time. And
we'll all be able to save the planet with no more effort
than switching browsers.
| > i've been using it since the early summer. it blocks ads and a lot of
| > other garbage, and it's actually very good at doing so.
| >
| > there is an *opt* *in* alternative, which is entirely voluntary.
|
| Sorry, I forgot I was talking to a delusional poster
As usual, though, there are bits of truth in nospams
arguing. nospam has a mysterious knack for sounding
coherent. I'm still leaning toward the theory that
nospam is actually a bot employed by corporations.
The inflamed opinions generally favor giving money
to big companies. When it's not telling you you're
wrong and it's right, it's vehemently defending Apple,
Adobe, and even Microsoft as entities deserving of
your money. nospam may be "next gen" malware
created by the business Software Alliance. :)
For now it's opt-in. But who needs a special
browser to block ads? I use HOSTS and often block
iframes and 3rd-party altogether with Mozilla's
little-known 3rd-party image blocking. If I remember
correctly, you use ublock origin.
There's something very disturbing about a browser
trying to become your gateway to the Web, rather
than just a tool. Like Apple, Google and AOL, it's a
power grab. And it's profoundly arrogant of Eich that
he thinks he should "fix" the Web.
What if you had a website and were making a small
profit from ads? I'd block them and I wouldn't feel sorry
for you if you were doing it with ad servers like Google/
Doubleclick. But what Eich proposes is that he'll block
them and then replace them from his own ad server.
He would edit your webpage for the viewer but also
make it into his own version of your page.
I can soothe my alleged guilty consience by agreeing
to look at Eich's ads and letting him decide how, when
and how much of the proceeds will go to you and your
website... and how much he'll get paid for being such
a well intentioned genius.
And as usual, there are feverish promises that
it will all be anonymous... as though that were possible.
If Eich succeeded in duping enough people he'd
be something like a new AOL, acting as intermediary
between you and websites.
The whole thing looks to me like ninny-headed
idealism, at best. Worse, it casts the Internet as a
fundamentally commercial medium. I don't see any reason
to support that idea. Eich seems to represent a large
contingent of geeks who think the Internet will collapse
without being based on ads and/or subscriptions. It's the
view that the Internet is, should be, and will inevitably
be modelled on a shopping mall rather than a town square.
It's a limited, small-minded view. The down side of that
view has already been demonstrated by Google's rating
system: If you don't sell something, get other buisinesses to
link to you, and update your webpage frequently, then
your site is irrelevant.
There's also a kind of perverse, idealistic activism in
the ideas of Eich and his ilk. You'll agree to look at ads
and thereby support "good" businesses by choosing the
ads you want to support. Or rather, letting Eich choose.
The millennials who grew up in shopping malls and had
retail play dates instead of friendships, will then regard
that as a kind of political/social activism. They'll vote for
Eich, who in turn will vote for companies that don't spy,
don't advertise gluten, are not responsible for any dumping
of plastic into the oceans, hire only MeToo-activist
women and people who claim to represent non-binary
gender... or whatever the upper-middle-class, suburban,
first-world cause-du-jour happens to be at the time. And
we'll all be able to save the planet with no more effort
than switching browsers.
SilverSlimer
Oct 24, 2018, 8:52:30 AM10/24/18
to
--
SilverSlimer
Paul
Oct 24, 2018, 9:09:00 AM10/24/18
to
around something, helped them understand the context better.
It can help, even if it looks goofy. Adding smileys, not
so much :-) When it might be <VEG>
Now, we wait and see if Lucifer has his universal translator available.
Paul
Paul
Oct 24, 2018, 9:25:00 AM10/24/18
to
firefox tasks has stopped.
If you look in Task Manager, when using a browser with E10S ("electrolysis"),
the tasks talk to one another over named pipes. There can be five or
more copies of Firefox running. Some of the copies are "containers"
for Adobe Flash. The whole idea was, a plugin container provides
a way for Flash to crash, without taking down the whole browser.
But this isn't the way it happens all the time.
What should happen, is the "boss" of the container, should notice
that the container is no longer responding, and cut it loose. There
should be "timers" used for this (using a timer covers all the
cases you didn't consider in advance as part of your design). It's
unclear whether they use timers or not, or whether they rely on
other static status information to figure it out.
In any case, I only mention this, to justify tracking down
disablement of E10S on the version of browser you're using.
Then, you can re-test the errant website and see if the
outcome is better.
Using "about:config" as a URL, gives access to the low-level
preferences. And there might be a preference in there to
disable the five task operation, and drop it to a lesser
number. If you can convince it to not use containers
and the like, the browser might work better for that
one site.
When they pick names for preferences, the names may not
accurately describe the function. And this can be a strategic
call on their part, so the users won't figure out what
knobs to twiddle on a feature they would prefer you
not disable.
Once you figure out what version of Firefox you're running,
that will make it easier to figure out what setting
needs adjustment.
If you were running Firefox 3, it wouldn't have tabs and
it wouldn't have Electrolysis. And it also wouldn't have
this bug...
Paul
Mayayana
Oct 24, 2018, 9:51:41 AM10/24/18
to
"Paul" <nos...@needed.invalid> wrote
| If you were running Firefox 3, it wouldn't have tabs and
| it wouldn't have Electrolysis. And it also wouldn't have
| this bug...
|
Or... let me see... Firefox 52. :)
I've never allowed tabs, as much as I can avoid them.
Maybe these discussions should include details about
how people are using their browser. Sometimes it turns
out that someone never closes the browser, has dozens
or even hundreds of tabs loaded, and yet is surprised
when the browser crashes.
| If you were running Firefox 3, it wouldn't have tabs and
| it wouldn't have Electrolysis. And it also wouldn't have
| this bug...
|
I've never allowed tabs, as much as I can avoid them.
Maybe these discussions should include details about
how people are using their browser. Sometimes it turns
out that someone never closes the browser, has dozens
or even hundreds of tabs loaded, and yet is surprised
when the browser crashes.
Keith Nuttle
Oct 24, 2018, 9:53:58 AM10/24/18
to
never had a problem with the site.
nospam
Oct 24, 2018, 10:43:36 AM10/24/18
to
In article <pqppqh$g0s$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> What if you had a website and were making a small
> profit from ads? I'd block them and I wouldn't feel sorry
> for you if you were doing it with ad servers like Google/
> Doubleclick. But what Eich proposes is that he'll block
> them and then replace them from his own ad server.
> He would edit your webpage for the viewer but also
> make it into his own version of your page.
it doesn't work that way.
> What if you had a website and were making a small
> profit from ads? I'd block them and I wouldn't feel sorry
> for you if you were doing it with ad servers like Google/
> Doubleclick. But what Eich proposes is that he'll block
> them and then replace them from his own ad server.
> He would edit your webpage for the viewer but also
> make it into his own version of your page.
Ken Blake
Oct 24, 2018, 10:58:38 AM10/24/18
to
On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 00:03:56 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>In message <rhnub6jhx0du$.dlg@v.nguard.lh>, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH>
>writes:
>[]
>>Web browsers are the biggest infection vector (and so is
>>e-mail)
>
>Make your mind up (-:
>[]
>>I don't use combination clients. If you've been in Usenet for awhile,
>>you'll see where someone composed a message intending to send it to a
>>specific person via e-mail but instead posted it publicly in Usenet.
>
>That's the only criticism (apart from "you can't do both optimally")
>I've seen for "combination clients". And I think I've seen about five to
>ten examples - in over 30 years. [Not counting gmail users misled by
>Google Groups' atrocious UI, which is nothing to do with clients.]
I use a "combination client: (Agent), but I use it only for Usenet
<G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>In message <rhnub6jhx0du$.dlg@v.nguard.lh>, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH>
>writes:
>[]
>>Web browsers are the biggest infection vector (and so is
>>e-mail)
>
>Make your mind up (-:
>[]
>>I don't use combination clients. If you've been in Usenet for awhile,
>>you'll see where someone composed a message intending to send it to a
>>specific person via e-mail but instead posted it publicly in Usenet.
>
>That's the only criticism (apart from "you can't do both optimally")
>I've seen for "combination clients". And I think I've seen about five to
>ten examples - in over 30 years. [Not counting gmail users misled by
>Google Groups' atrocious UI, which is nothing to do with clients.]
I don't really have anything against the idea of using a combination
client. The reason I don't use the same program for both newgroups and
e-mail is that I've chosen what I consider to be the best newsreader
and the best e-mail program, and they don't happen to be the same.
>>extensions that performed overlapping functions, many got abandoned (and
>>another reason Mozilla changed to WebExtensions to shake off all the
>>abandonware)
>
>I find a lot of good stuff in abandonware (not just Firefox extensions).
>[]
>>well over a decade. Even ancient NNTP clients work very well. I use
>[]
>>Not everything (web, email, newsgroups) needs to get rolled into one
>>client. Handyman of several trades means less than stellar expertise in
>
>But some of us _like_ a common interface for email and news. However,
>I'm not saying _you_ _should_ use a combined client - just that I get a
>little tired of others saying _I_ _shouldn't_.
else, I think you should chose to use what you like best. However,
I'll just mention that *I* don't see any value to a common interface.
pyotr filipivich
Oct 24, 2018, 11:26:37 AM10/24/18
to
"Mayayana" <maya...@invalid.nospam> on Tue, 23 Oct 2018 19:42:58
-0400 typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
Yep.
It is not "1984" which I fear, but "Brave New World". Where
people are so entertained / diverted, there is no need to "control"
information.
Snerk, Rod Sterling's quote about the difficulty in presenting
anything when you're going to be interrupted by dancing bunnies
selling toilet paper holds true. And we don't realize it until, for
some reason, we are made aware of it. I recall watching "McMillan &
Wife" on Turkish TV. No commercial breaks in the show. But took me a
while to realize that why there suddenly was a shot of 'the capital'
was the need for American program directors/ broadcasters / viewers to
mark the end of the commercials and the resumption of the story.
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?
-0400 typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
It is not "1984" which I fear, but "Brave New World". Where
people are so entertained / diverted, there is no need to "control"
information.
Snerk, Rod Sterling's quote about the difficulty in presenting
anything when you're going to be interrupted by dancing bunnies
selling toilet paper holds true. And we don't realize it until, for
some reason, we are made aware of it. I recall watching "McMillan &
Wife" on Turkish TV. No commercial breaks in the show. But took me a
while to realize that why there suddenly was a shot of 'the capital'
was the need for American program directors/ broadcasters / viewers to
mark the end of the commercials and the resumption of the story.
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?
pyotr filipivich
Oct 24, 2018, 11:30:36 AM10/24/18
to
"Mayayana" <maya...@invalid.nospam> on Wed, 24 Oct 2018 09:50:51
a limit of about six at a time.
Okay, and to open news stories from an aggregator.
-0400 typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
>"Paul" <nos...@needed.invalid> wrote
>
>| If you were running Firefox 3, it wouldn't have tabs and
>| it wouldn't have Electrolysis. And it also wouldn't have
>| this bug...
>|
>
> Or... let me see... Firefox 52. :)
>
> I've never allowed tabs, as much as I can avoid them.
The main time I have tabs is to load comic pages. And then I have
>
>| If you were running Firefox 3, it wouldn't have tabs and
>| it wouldn't have Electrolysis. And it also wouldn't have
>| this bug...
>|
>
> Or... let me see... Firefox 52. :)
>
> I've never allowed tabs, as much as I can avoid them.
a limit of about six at a time.
Okay, and to open news stories from an aggregator.
Harry Bloomfield
Oct 24, 2018, 12:37:48 PM10/24/18
to
SilverSlimer brought next idea :
Yes, and the last several versions of FF have exhibited the issue,
including the latest version I updated to 10 minutes ago.
including the latest version I updated to 10 minutes ago.
Keith Nuttle
Oct 24, 2018, 1:36:01 PM10/24/18
to
On 10/24/2018 12:37 PM, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
> he last several versions of FF have exhibited the issue, inc
Windows 10 1803?
> he last several versions of FF have exhibited the issue, inc
Harry Bloomfield
Oct 24, 2018, 2:33:19 PM10/24/18
to
Keith Nuttle presented the following explanation :
> Windows 10 1803?
Yes, 1803 OS 17134.345
> Windows 10 1803?
Yes, 1803 OS 17134.345
😉 Good Guy 😉
Oct 24, 2018, 3:19:35 PM10/24/18
to
On 23/10/2018 06:58, freemantle wrote:
If I try to post on Mozilla they block this post !
It's because you are so stupid that you don't even know where to
post your question and how to post a question to get a response
and/or solution. ChrisI doesn't need idiots like you there.
You are not using Windows 10 but decided to post your rant on it to generate useless posts. When will idiots like you grow up and learn how to get results? Any ideas?
You are not using Windows 10 but decided to post your rant on it to generate useless posts. When will idiots like you grow up and learn how to get results? Any ideas?
Path: news.mixmin.net!goblin1!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.netfront.net!.POSTED.45.26.37.121!not-for-mail From: freemantle <freem...@freemantle.com> Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10 Subject: Mozilla Problems Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 22:58:49 -0700 Organization: Netfront http://www.netfront.net/ Message-ID: <pqmdaq$2fb9$1...@adenine.netfront.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 05:58:51 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: adenine.netfront.net; posting-host="45.26.37.121"; logging-data="81257"; mail-complaints-to="ne...@netfront.net" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0 SeaMonkey/2.49.4 X-Mozilla-News-Host: news://freenews.netfront.net:119 Xref: news.mixmin.net microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:332860 alt.windows7.general:96954 alt.comp.os.windows-10:71407
--
With over 950 million devices now
running Windows 10, customer satisfaction is higher than any
previous version of windows.
SilverSlimer
Oct 24, 2018, 4:17:18 PM10/24/18
to
On 2018-10-24 11:27 a.m., pyotr filipivich wrote:
> "Mayayana" <maya...@invalid.nospam> on Tue, 23 Oct 2018 19:42:58
> -0400 typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
>> "pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote
>>
>> | I suspect that far too many have no idea that Usenet even exists,
>> | let alone know what it is, or how to access it.
>> |
>>
>> Yes. Odd, though, isn't it? When I tell friends they
>> could go get or share advice on nearly any topic
>> they show no interest. If it's not coming from
>> Google then.... well... it's not coming from Google!
>
> Yep.
>
> It is not "1984" which I fear, but "Brave New World". Where
> people are so entertained / diverted, there is no need to "control"
> information.
I'd say that Brave New World's universe is mostly harmless to the
> "Mayayana" <maya...@invalid.nospam> on Tue, 23 Oct 2018 19:42:58
> -0400 typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
>> "pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote
>>
>> | I suspect that far too many have no idea that Usenet even exists,
>> | let alone know what it is, or how to access it.
>> |
>>
>> Yes. Odd, though, isn't it? When I tell friends they
>> could go get or share advice on nearly any topic
>> they show no interest. If it's not coming from
>> Google then.... well... it's not coming from Google!
>
> Yep.
>
> It is not "1984" which I fear, but "Brave New World". Where
> people are so entertained / diverted, there is no need to "control"
> information.
individual because resources are essentially plentiful and there
actually ARE distractions to keep the individual entertained. In the
case of 1984, any reasonable use of your brain, access to your emotions
or desire for liberty is punished severely as is the natural inclination
to seek out intimate relationships. People CAN get intimate in Brave New
World; they just can't have lasting relationships. I'd say that while
both worlds are terrible, at least people can find some happiness in the
former.
--
SilverSlimer
pyotr filipivich
Oct 25, 2018, 4:50:59 PM10/25/18
to
SilverSlimer <sil...@slim.er> on Wed, 24 Oct 2018 16:17:14 -0400 typed
And if not, there is always "Soma".
Of course in this modern world, we have Social Media to wile the
hours away.
And, if you recall, the whole idea of what we would consider a
"normal life" was viewed as just so old fashioned, if not to mention
somewhere between barbaric and uncouth.
Of course in this modern world, we have Social Media to wile the
hours away.
And, if you recall, the whole idea of what we would consider a
"normal life" was viewed as just so old fashioned, if not to mention
somewhere between barbaric and uncouth.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Oct 25, 2018, 6:10:11 PM10/25/18
to
In message <ita4tdldm1brllva8...@4ax.com>, pyotr
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
All that glitters has a high refractive index.
filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> writes:
>SilverSlimer <sil...@slim.er> on Wed, 24 Oct 2018 16:17:14 -0400 typed
>in alt.windows7.general the following:
[]
>SilverSlimer <sil...@slim.er> on Wed, 24 Oct 2018 16:17:14 -0400 typed
>in alt.windows7.general the following:
>>to seek out intimate relationships. People CAN get intimate in Brave New
>>World; they just can't have lasting relationships. I'd say that while
>>both worlds are terrible, at least people can find some happiness in the
>>former.
>
> And if not, there is always "Soma".
(Not to mention Soylent Green.)
>>World; they just can't have lasting relationships. I'd say that while
>>both worlds are terrible, at least people can find some happiness in the
>>former.
>
> And if not, there is always "Soma".
>
> Of course in this modern world, we have Social Media to wile the
>hours away.
Ooh - cue Twilight Zone music: SOcial MediA!
> Of course in this modern world, we have Social Media to wile the
>hours away.
>
> And, if you recall, the whole idea of what we would consider a
>"normal life" was viewed as just so old fashioned, if not to mention
>somewhere between barbaric and uncouth.
Then there is medical Hot Fudge.
> And, if you recall, the whole idea of what we would consider a
>"normal life" was viewed as just so old fashioned, if not to mention
>somewhere between barbaric and uncouth.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
All that glitters has a high refractive index.
SilverSlimer
Oct 26, 2018, 8:12:35 AM10/26/18
to
I know for sure is that even though Brave New World was a work of
fiction, it was based on the elites' actual plan for humanity going
forward. I suppose it's nice to know that they weren't planning on just
massacring the lot of us.
--
SilverSlimer
Mayayana
Oct 26, 2018, 9:24:14 AM10/26/18
to
"SilverSlimer" <sil...@slim.er> wrote
| >
| > And, if you recall, the whole idea of what we would consider a
| > "normal life" was viewed as just so old fashioned, if not to mention
| > somewhere between barbaric and uncouth.
|
| I recall some of it but it has been a while since I read the book.
I don't really remember it, either. But it sounds
like the two of you are talking about different
threats. You're worried about gov't leadership
becoming corrupt and creating a totalitarian
state. pyotr is talking about people enslaving
themselves in feeble-mindedness via the wide
array of physical, emotional, or intellectual
masturbation aids we now have access to.
I guess your view of that depends on whether
you think Grand Theft Auto and Twitter are
mindless addictions or top quality retail consumer
items. And that, in turn, will depend on how you
define "entertainment". Many people think of it
as one of life's great pleasures. And they pay
hundreds of dollars per month to get as much
as possible over their TV set. When the TV isn't
available they scroll their phones endlessly, through
posts and pictures from friends. Or they read novels.
Or they play video games. Or they go mountain
biking.
But that's really not any different from putting a
mobile over a baby's crib to stop them from crying.
Or giving them a pacifier.
Once you see it that way, the idea of ever more
alluring entertainment becomes disturbing. When people
are unable to sit still for even one minute without
being overwhelmed by anxiety it becomes very
easy to control them with mobiles. But the punch
line of that joke is that we do it to ourselves.
Caesar may have talked about controlling the masses
with "bread and circuses", but the masses also want
to be diddled.
The people giving us phones and Twitter and novels
and GTA and official exercise uniforms are, themselves,
just busy trying to find new ways to diddle themselves
in order to keep from freaking out. We get so lazy
that we can't be bothered to relate to our own
life. Instead we just constantly scan for the
shiniest bauble in our field of vision and try to
engage it somehow. Who can be bothered figuring
out how to type a URL? It's not "fun".
If people get too sophisticated and start to see
through their own habits, they can follow a super-
diddle-guru like Steve Jobs, who will explain that his
mega-diddling devices actually represent a way to
"think different". Look kids, you can become a brilliant
non-conformist, a one-of-a-kind genius, if you just do
exactly as I tell you and go back to sleep. :)
I remember once seeing a documentary about some
kind of Eskimo-type people. When it came time to hunt
seals, they'd hike a long distance to the place where
they knew the seals would arrive on their migration
route. Then they sat and waited. For days. No crossword
puzzles. No video games. It struck me that the idea of
diddling themselves -- physically, emotionally, or
intellectually -- didn't even occur to them. It was just
life. They sat and waited. If one of them had started
drawing stick figures on the ground with a twig, the others
probably would have thought he was batty. Yet in our
modern world, someone simply being present in their
life is considered batty. Maybe they're having a seizure,
or maybe they're simple-minded. Maybe their phone
battery ran out. Maybe we should lend them our
iPad or our GameBoy. Or we could give them a book.
Their incessant inactivity is heart wrenching!
Apropos of that would be Plato's allegory of the cave.
Though I think he was addressing a more fundamental
level of self-deception. But the problem of hypnotic
entertainment described -- avoiding existential angst
through diddling -- is basically the same. The people in
the cave just lacked headphones and HD video.
| >
| > And, if you recall, the whole idea of what we would consider a
| > "normal life" was viewed as just so old fashioned, if not to mention
| > somewhere between barbaric and uncouth.
|
| I recall some of it but it has been a while since I read the book.
like the two of you are talking about different
threats. You're worried about gov't leadership
becoming corrupt and creating a totalitarian
state. pyotr is talking about people enslaving
themselves in feeble-mindedness via the wide
array of physical, emotional, or intellectual
masturbation aids we now have access to.
I guess your view of that depends on whether
you think Grand Theft Auto and Twitter are
mindless addictions or top quality retail consumer
items. And that, in turn, will depend on how you
define "entertainment". Many people think of it
as one of life's great pleasures. And they pay
hundreds of dollars per month to get as much
as possible over their TV set. When the TV isn't
available they scroll their phones endlessly, through
posts and pictures from friends. Or they read novels.
Or they play video games. Or they go mountain
biking.
But that's really not any different from putting a
mobile over a baby's crib to stop them from crying.
Or giving them a pacifier.
Once you see it that way, the idea of ever more
alluring entertainment becomes disturbing. When people
are unable to sit still for even one minute without
being overwhelmed by anxiety it becomes very
easy to control them with mobiles. But the punch
line of that joke is that we do it to ourselves.
Caesar may have talked about controlling the masses
with "bread and circuses", but the masses also want
to be diddled.
The people giving us phones and Twitter and novels
and GTA and official exercise uniforms are, themselves,
just busy trying to find new ways to diddle themselves
in order to keep from freaking out. We get so lazy
that we can't be bothered to relate to our own
life. Instead we just constantly scan for the
shiniest bauble in our field of vision and try to
engage it somehow. Who can be bothered figuring
out how to type a URL? It's not "fun".
If people get too sophisticated and start to see
through their own habits, they can follow a super-
diddle-guru like Steve Jobs, who will explain that his
mega-diddling devices actually represent a way to
"think different". Look kids, you can become a brilliant
non-conformist, a one-of-a-kind genius, if you just do
exactly as I tell you and go back to sleep. :)
I remember once seeing a documentary about some
kind of Eskimo-type people. When it came time to hunt
seals, they'd hike a long distance to the place where
they knew the seals would arrive on their migration
route. Then they sat and waited. For days. No crossword
puzzles. No video games. It struck me that the idea of
diddling themselves -- physically, emotionally, or
intellectually -- didn't even occur to them. It was just
life. They sat and waited. If one of them had started
drawing stick figures on the ground with a twig, the others
probably would have thought he was batty. Yet in our
modern world, someone simply being present in their
life is considered batty. Maybe they're having a seizure,
or maybe they're simple-minded. Maybe their phone
battery ran out. Maybe we should lend them our
iPad or our GameBoy. Or we could give them a book.
Their incessant inactivity is heart wrenching!
Apropos of that would be Plato's allegory of the cave.
Though I think he was addressing a more fundamental
level of self-deception. But the problem of hypnotic
entertainment described -- avoiding existential angst
through diddling -- is basically the same. The people in
the cave just lacked headphones and HD video.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Oct 26, 2018, 10:04:52 PM10/26/18
to
In message <pqv4hr$8g9$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
<maya...@invalid.nospam> writes:
[]
The Pythons had that well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QereR0CViMY
(it's only 44 seconds).
The seafront at Brighton
But I say, by Jove
Watch out if it's Hove.
- Sister Monica Joan, quoted by Jennifer Worth (author of the Call the
Midwife books, quoted in Radio Times 19-25 January 2013)
<maya...@invalid.nospam> writes:
[]
>"think different". Look kids, you can become a brilliant
>non-conformist, a one-of-a-kind genius, if you just do
>exactly as I tell you and go back to sleep. :)
[]
>non-conformist, a one-of-a-kind genius, if you just do
>exactly as I tell you and go back to sleep. :)
The Pythons had that well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QereR0CViMY
(it's only 44 seconds).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
It's OK to be tight on
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
The seafront at Brighton
But I say, by Jove
Watch out if it's Hove.
- Sister Monica Joan, quoted by Jennifer Worth (author of the Call the
Midwife books, quoted in Radio Times 19-25 January 2013)
ta...@thedance.com
Oct 26, 2018, 10:15:35 PM10/26/18
to
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 22:58:49 -0700, freemantle
<freem...@freemantle.com> wrote:
>Firefox locks up where Chrome (I do not like Chrome) does not.
>
>This happens on a Win XP Pro and a Windows 7 PC.
>Latest version for both OS.
>
>The red form close [X] only gives a box that DOES NOT CLOSE Firefox !
>I have to use another program to kill FireFox.
>
<freem...@freemantle.com> wrote:
>Firefox locks up where Chrome (I do not like Chrome) does not.
>
>This happens on a Win XP Pro and a Windows 7 PC.
>Latest version for both OS.
>
>The red form close [X] only gives a box that DOES NOT CLOSE Firefox !
>I have to use another program to kill FireFox.
>
>Junk !
>
>Then Seamonkey turns into a SLUG !
>
>Can't they write code ?
>
>
>Then Seamonkey turns into a SLUG !
>
>Can't they write code ?
>
>If I try to post on Mozilla they block this post !
>
>
>Any solutions, like a better free browser and newsgroup reader ?
Do yourself a favor and NEVER use any mozilla crapware again. Mozilla
software is pure garbage.
Mayayana
Oct 26, 2018, 10:22:34 PM10/26/18
to
| >"think different". Look kids, you can become a brilliant
| >non-conformist, a one-of-a-kind genius, if you just do
| >exactly as I tell you and go back to sleep. :)
| The Pythons had that well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QereR0CViMY
| (it's only 44 seconds).
I should watch that again. I haven't seen it
| >non-conformist, a one-of-a-kind genius, if you just do
| >exactly as I tell you and go back to sleep. :)
| The Pythons had that well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QereR0CViMY
| (it's only 44 seconds).
since it first came out. I guess that was in
the 70s.
0 new messages