Firefox 3

[jezer]

The new Firefox 3 stuffs up the orientation of the crier.

Can anyone look into this, maybe easy fixed? Does anyone use firefox? don't tell me your using Internet Exploiter!

[Tap]

I'm not sure what you mean by post. Firefox 3 is causing you to question your orientation? I'm using it and haven't noticed any problems...f__k internet explorer..it's a virus haven

[alias]

Been using firefox 3 since beta and haven't noticed a difference. Maybe check your settings...

[jezer]

Not sure this problem is a "setting" in firefox, but here is what I found...

Unknown property 'align'. Declaration dropped. Line 17
Unknown property 'spacing'. Declaration dropped. Line 25
Unknown property 'spacing'. Declaration dropped. Line 31
Unknown property 'colspan'. Declaration dropped. Line 37
Unknown property 'colspan'. Declaration dropped. Line 43

All of these are in http://www.slothmud.org/themes/SlothIII/style/style.css. What I am seeing is the 'crier' module part on the home page is aligned left and not center... So would appear to be something wrong with line 17.

I cleared all temp internet files and reloaded and I still have this problem.

CSS can be like a woman sometimes.

[Weasel]

Nods, been getting that for a while, but it was not at the same time as I updated to FF3.0.1, it was later - I just guessed someone had been messing with the site at the time. It's been like that ever since when you're viewing the 'home' page..

[Jag]

No biggie, but I had the same issue. I just up'd to the new version and the windows on the home screen no longer dovetail as they had.

[Yasik2]

i do use Firefox, but still old one 2.0.0.16 or whatever
in 3.0 problems with compatibility of addons
w/o addons it's no better than IE or Opera
strongly recommend install NoScript addon and learn to use it properly

I also use Download Statusbar, Download Helper for video d/l from YouTube etc, Foxmarks Bookmark Synchronizer to share my bookmark set among multiple computers, Tab Mix Plus for rockin', FlashGot for you know what

you won't ever get so much cruise conrol over your browser and safety if you use IE/Opera/other
IE sux by default, Opera has much fewer customizability + too much options no idea what they are for and what they do (isnt self-explanatory and takes too much time to guess their purpose)

[Widow]

So, Firefox just came out with their 3.0, I download it and have the same probs w/ the orientation of the crier (only site I have difficulty with so far).

I don't think it's any big deal, just odd that it's displaced at all.

So - for the non technical firefox users - if someone comes up with any suggestions, please let us know.

[jezer]

Anyone tried Google's new web browser Chrome?

It's kinda nice so far... I like.

[Rynquald]

I like the name

Edit: After a little more research, it looks like "Google Chrome" is little more than a cynical attempt to use the term "open source" as a marketing ploy. The license is a nice rehash of the .net passport fiasco.

From the license:

[quote:2csqjs02]
11. Content license from you

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. 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. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.

11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.

11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions.

11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above license.[/quote:2csqjs02]

Google hasn't seemed to be what it once was for some time now.

[Rynquald]

Looks like enough people noticed to get Google to pretend it was a mistake ([url:9u5uwmgc]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/04/google_retracts_lousy_chrome_eula_terms/[/url:9u5uwmgc])

Still, the fact that they tried that on is enough to kill any trust I had in them.

[Yasik2]

can you pls translate that to common language?

[Atwell]

[quote="Rynquald":2d4h8ewb]Looks like enough people noticed to get Google to pretend it was a mistake ([url:2d4h8ewb]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/04/google_retracts_lousy_chrome_eula_terms/[/url:2d4h8ewb])

Still, the fact that they tried that on is enough to kill any trust I had in them.[/quote:2d4h8ewb]

The terms are natural for something like Google Groups or Google Video. They reused an existing license without appropriate scrutiny; it doesn't smell like an intentional move.

[Rynquald]

The old licence? It would have meant any information you passed through Google Chrome would effectively become Google's property. The effectively is there because they could use it as though they owned it, including selling it on, but you would still technically retain copyright.

For example, if you had uploaded your latest novel through Chrome under the old licence, there would be nothing you could do to stop Google binding and publishing it without paying you a cent.

They could have turned something you uploaded to deviantart.com into their new logo, or sold it to another company for their logo.

It's also arguable that they could have harvested millions of email addresses in conjunction with data about the owner's browsing habits, which would have had significant commercial value.

Assuming of course that the clickwrap license agreement held up, which is getting into murky legal water, but they tend to.

Of course no one can say if Google would have actually used any of these "rights" if they hadn't retracted the licence. But does anyone really object any less to having a noose around their neck just because they vaugely trust the one holding the lever?

Edit: That was a reply to Yasik's post btw, was still writing when Atwell's one came in

Atwell does make a good point though, it's completely possible that there was no malicious intent.

[Jag]

The new version of Firefox is displaying our page properly again. Thanks to whomever.