| Page 2 of 2 |
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73304
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
|
 Posted: Wed, 3rd Sep 2008 21:51 Post subject: |
|
 |
It's more than 30%. IE6 is still dominating the IE user-base, which is 75% of all browsers.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 3rd Sep 2008 23:34 Post subject: |
|
|
HA !
| Quote: | | By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services |
| Quote: | | Since Chrome is a Google product/software, then it is part of the "Services". The content you post to any site is thus subject to Section 11 licensing because the content you post is something "which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services". |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 3rd Sep 2008 23:53 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73304
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Wed, 3rd Sep 2008 23:55 Post subject: |
|
|
This "The Services" sound way too much like "The Man." Don't like it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fraich3
Posts: 2907
Location: Not from my mouth!
|
| Posted: Thu, 4th Sep 2008 13:55 Post subject: |
|
|
Looks like Google is removing its license rights to use what you post through Chrome. The License rights in chapter 11 has been change to: You keep your copyrights and all other rights, you already have over the content you send, place or show on or through the services - quicky translated from a danish news paper - http://politiken.dk/tjek/digitalt/internet/article562580.ece
"Zipfero is the biggest fucking golddigger ever" - Mutantius
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
$en$i
VIP Member
Posts: 3127
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73304
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Fri, 5th Sep 2008 00:32 Post subject: |
|
|
I won't be surprised if they disabled the possibility of creating an ad-blocker altogether. One of Google's most serious incomes comes from AdSense.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 5th Sep 2008 00:38 Post subject: |
|
|
Block ads ? LOL !
I find it more likely to implement an "ad-enhancer" plugin. A special toolbar/window that will satisfy all your advertisement needs.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73304
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Fri, 5th Sep 2008 02:29 Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The first, is the popular "carpet bomb" vulnerability that still exists within Chrome, as pointed out on our forums by our member matessim. This vulnerability allows malicious websites to drive by download and execute programs on your machine. Our visitors may remember the uproar that this same vulnerability caused for Safari users, and that Apple patched the carpet-bombing issue with Safari v3.1.2. Chrome is vulnerable to this exploit because it is based on the same engine, WebKit 525.13, and Google did not patch or update the engine before releasing the software. |
"on out forum" = http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=664974 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nouseforaname
Ãœber-VIP Member
Posts: 21306
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 5th Sep 2008 03:55 Post subject: |
|
|
| LeoNatan wrote: | | I won't be surprised if they disabled the possibility of creating an ad-blocker altogether. One of Google's most serious incomes comes from AdSense. |
um..
it's open source..
it's trivial to implement adblock by anyone with a few lines of code; check each requested url against ad-database..
if match, return nothing
and even if you can't have it as an addon, a greasemonkey-alike will surely come about and you can script the same functionality with that
it simply can't be patched against
once they put detailed info on addons online, i'm sure it will be one of the very first plugins to appear
i'm happy they focus on the core for now..
the vulnerabilities it was supposedly protected against are funny though
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73304
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Fri, 5th Sep 2008 04:13 Post subject: |
|
|
shole, you obviously have no idea how proper ad-blocking works, because it is much more complex to effectively remove ads than just checking with a DB.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 5th Sep 2008 08:01 Post subject: |
|
|
Not really complicated. You scan the html-code prior to launching the page and compare it with a blacklist of sites you don't want info from. That is then cut from the code and then the site is displayed.
So the basics is just cutting of eg. <img src="commercial ad">
I also think fisk should be unbanned.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuTuRa
Posts: 2445
Location: NFOHump
|
| Posted: Mon, 15th Sep 2008 15:18 Post subject: |
|
|
I´m using for the first time now, and it feels very fast loading pages!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Karmeck
Posts: 3350
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Mon, 15th Sep 2008 16:34 Post subject: |
|
|
So any one played with the source and added mouse gestures and a plug-in that make every page you type in open in a new tab?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kosmiq
Posts: 2304
Location: Somewhere
|
| Posted: Tue, 16th Sep 2008 03:34 Post subject: |
|
|
Ran it for a while but switched back to Firefox for now. Chrome might turn out real good in the end but not yet IMO.
Behold his GLORY! Bow for the technical master!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 22nd Sep 2008 03:52 Post subject: |
|
|
youtube+google chrome = fail
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 2 of 2 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
