Good news for Windows users!

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Fri, 07 Dec 2018 01:10:43 -0500, micky
wrote:


I like and use Firefox to, but recently Page Up and Page Down, and the
Up and Down arrows have made the page jump all over the place. Clicking
in the scroll bar including the ends of the scroll bar does the same
iirc.

I followed Paul's suggestion and from the Options page there was a link
to an explanation of the accesibility service indicator:

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb...ility-services but wait:
When I go to this page directly, everything works, but when I use
Tools/Options/privacy & security and go down to Permissions/"Prevent
accessibility services from accessing your browser", and I right click
on Learn More, the problem starting at A) below occurs... Well, it
occurred the first time I did all this but not the second, even though
the first occurrence of the page is still open and the problem below
still exists on it!!! OTOH, the third time had its own small set of
problems--See below at the asterisks***.

And when I go to that page part of the problem I just reported shows up:

A) When I use Page Down if the scroll indicator is at the top of the
scroll bar, and the cursor is within the body of the page: it goes down
one page but the next time, it goes up again.

B) Whenever the scroll indicator, the vertical rectangle in the scroll
bar, is not at the very top, Page Down makes it go to the very top.

C) Page Up also makes it go the very top, not just one page up.

D) Home and End do nothing, even though iirc they are supposed to go to
the top and bottom of the page.

1) The down arrow goes down one line at a time and when it reaches the
bottom of the screen it makes the page scroll. The Up arrow does the
opposite. This is proper behaviour afaik,

2) Clicking in the scroll bar and and the ends of the scroll bar makes
the page scroll normally.

The previous two pargraphs, 1 and 2, describe the only keys here that
work properly!!



I have plenty of resources, nothing over 40% used, and only 3 tabs/one
window open in Firefox.


***After I opened the page 3 times, I had 5 tabs open, just as many
resources, and I had small problems with page up and down but they went
away. Home and End work go to top and bottom of the page, even though
they do nothing in the first occurrence.

But the first occurrence of the page works no better than it ever did.

On 12/7/18 6:54 AM, SilverSlimer wrote:
On 2018-12-06 2:44 p.m., T wrote:
On 12/6/18 10:20 AM, David B. wrote:
On 06/12/2018 18:04, T wrote:
On 12/5/18 12:27 PM, David B. wrote:
On 05/12/2018 16:36, T wrote:
On 12/5/18 3:11 AM, David B. wrote:
Microsoft Replacing Edge With New Chromium-based Browser
By Mayank Parmar
December 4, 2018

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/new...based-browser/



Just use Firefox or Brave or both.

I'm just the messenger, 'T'!Â* ;-)


Sorry.Â* Sometimes getting straight to the point can come off
a bit rude.

My customers who are IE fans do not like Edge at all, so I remove
their icons and replace them with IE.Â* I try to get them on Firefox.
The biggest selling of Firefox is the "uBlock Orgin" plug in (an
add blocker).

As an Aussie might say - *no worries mate*! ;-)

I use all popular browsers to keep myself current but as my main
machine Â*Â*nowadays is a 27inc Apple iMac, I tend to use Safari far
more than any other.


Take a peak at

https://brave.com

It has build in ad blocking and is very fast.Â* Its does not
accommodate pop ups though.Â* It is my "if Firefox doesn't work"
go to browser.

All I can say is "To Hell with Firefox" and the people developing it for
getting rid of Brendan Eich, who created the damned browser, just
because he didn't go along with their love for transsexual freaks and
homosexuals. I support Brave first as a result of how they disrespected
his freedom of speech as well as his freedom of association. Even if I
disagreed with his position - and I don't because in no way should
homosexuals be allowed to marry or start families considering that
statistics show them to be a lot more abusive toward children - I would
support his right to have such a position despite his role in the
company that he created.


That sort of colors one's impression of Firefox. Those
regressives are the most intolerant people on the face of
this earth. They don't give an inch when someone steps
outside of Gleichschaltung (conformity, know as political
correctness these days).

Unfortunately, Firefox has some impressive development tools,
that are lacking in Brave. As soon as Brave catches up, I
can see myself dropping Firefox. Maybe Brendan can come up
with a Thunderbird replacement too.

Did you see this?

Privacy-focused browser Brave sues Google, claims breach of
Europe’s GDPR rules:

https://www.digitaltrends.com/comput...cy-violations/

I like these guys more and more every day!

SilverSlimer wrote:


All I can say is "To Hell with Firefox"

their love for transsexual freaks and homosexuals.

You should set your Rant O' Matic to "Chop"
rather than "Puree". Using the "Chop" setting
makes it seem more reasonable.

http://www.newsun.com/bunker.jpg

Must be nice to work there. Look at the view.

https://blog.mozilla.org/internetcit...08-Outside.jpg

They have cupcakes. "Must be Communists".

https://blog.mozilla.org/places/file...1-1024x768.jpg

These must be the transgender freaks you were referring to.
No, wait... It's Halloween. "Probably Communists".

https://blog.mozilla.org/places/file...1-1024x768.jpg

They were so cheap, their balloons didn't even have Helium.

Well, I've run out of rant, so I'll have to switch off now.

Paul

On 12/7/18 12:35 PM, Paul wrote:
YouÂ*shouldÂ*setÂ*yourÂ*RantÂ*O'Â*MaticÂ*toÂ*"Chop "
ratherÂ*thanÂ*"Puree".Â*UsingÂ*theÂ*"Chop"Â*settin g
makesÂ*itÂ*seemÂ*moreÂ*reasonable.

Paul,

What Slimer says is correct. He was fired because of his stance
on Gay Marriage. Firing someone over their personal political
views is beyond reprehensible in a Republic.

-T

On 2018-12-07 7:59 p.m., Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-12-07 19:22, T wrote:
On 12/7/18 12:35 PM, Paul wrote:
YouÂ*shouldÂ*setÂ*yourÂ*RantÂ*O'Â*MaticÂ*toÂ*"Chop "
ratherÂ*thanÂ*"Puree".Â*UsingÂ*theÂ*"Chop"Â*settin g
makesÂ*itÂ*seemÂ*moreÂ*reasonable.

Paul,

What Slimer says is correct.Â* He was fired because of his stance
on Gay Marriage.Â* Firing someone over their personal political
views is beyond reprehensible in a Republic.

-T


He was fired because he was/is a teacher, and apparently expressed his
views in the classroom. Since some of his students were certainly gay,
that amounted to an attack on them. For a teacher to express
contempt/disgust/hatred/etc for his pupils is beyond reprehensible,
period. "Republic" has nothing to do with it.

We're talking about Brendan Eich, not me. Try to pay attention.

He's quite sane and even useful when he sticks to technical subjects. As
soon as he veers off into anything to do with sex and gender, he does
the typing equivalent of foaming at the mouth.

Not so long ago, he referred to the students in one of his previous
schools as "filth."

Yep. Believe it or not, not all students are perfect little angels like
what you socialists tend to believe.

BTW, no opponent to gay marriage has ever been able to describe to me
the harm that (s)he personally has suffered because of it. And believe
me, I've asked. Repeatedly.
The harm is not to the individual, it's to society. Accepting homosexual
marriage means accepting homosexual adoption. That means that society
will have to ignore the consequences of homosexuals - who can't
reproduce on their own - adopting a child even though the consequences
are numerous and well known. Statistics show that there is no line they
won't cross in regards to sexual matters even with children and that
they tend to be very abusive toward the children they adopt, presumably
because neither had any role to play in creating the child.

--
SilverSlimer
Minds: @silverslimer

On 12/7/18 4:59 PM, Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-12-07 19:22, T wrote:
On 12/7/18 12:35 PM, Paul wrote:
YouÂ*shouldÂ*setÂ*yourÂ*RantÂ*O'Â*MaticÂ*toÂ*"Chop "
ratherÂ*thanÂ*"Puree".Â*UsingÂ*theÂ*"Chop"Â*settin g
makesÂ*itÂ*seemÂ*moreÂ*reasonable.

Paul,

What Slimer says is correct.Â* He was fired because of his stance
on Gay Marriage.Â* Firing someone over their personal political
views is beyond reprehensible in a Republic.

-T


He was fired because he was/is a teacher, and apparently expressed his
views in the classroom. Since some of his students were certainly gay,
that amounted to an attack on them.

I am sorry, but that is their problem, not his,

For a teacher to express
contempt/disgust/hatred/etc for his pupils is beyond reprehensible,

"contempt/disgust/hatred/etc" is what regressives see as
disagreeing with them.

This is not the first time this nonsense has been used:

Gleichschaltung – the restructuring of German society and
government into streamlined, centralized hierarchies of
power, with the intention of gaining total control and
co-ordination of all aspects of society. Duke University’s
notable historian, Claudia Koonz, described the institutionalized
Gleichschaltung of the National Socialist government as
comprehensive in scope and depth. For the Nazis, Gleichschaltung
meant absolute unequivocal conformity and obedience. Such uniform
programming of thought was part propaganda induced, partly the
result of the Gestapo enforcement mechanism, and part social
pressure from every direction; it was of paramount importance
to act uniformly if one wanted to remain a member of the
Volksgenossen.

Don't you DARE disagree with them!!! The open exchange of ideas is
forbidden to them. They respond with name calling and hatred.


period. "Republic" has nothing to do with it.

The free and open exchange of information and opinion is necessary
for the survival of a Republic. The "religion of the perpetually
offended" has no place in a Republic. Get use to it cupcakes,
folks are going to have opinions that differ from you.


He's quite sane and even useful when he sticks to technical subjects. As
soon as he veers off into anything to do with sex and gender, he does
the typing equivalent of foaming at the mouth.

Not so long ago, he referred to the students in one of his previous
schools as "filth."

Is that all? Teachers called me names all the time.


BTW, no opponent to gay marriage has ever been able to describe to me
the harm that (s)he personally has suffered because of it. And believe
me, I've asked. Repeatedly.

I am glad you asked!

The harm is to society. The family is were society replenishes
itself. As such, society has a vested interest in what constitutes
the makeup of the family. Children need two parents of opposite
sexes in a functional setting to learn how to interact properly
with the opposite sex as well as learn their responsibility towards
the opposite sex. Society pay a heavy price when the family spits
out screwed up children: divorce, poverty, incarceration, crime,
more screwed up children, and on and on so forth. And this
harms everyone.

By the way, most molesters are gay. It is best to keep children away
from them. "Chicken" is the term I believe gays use for children.
And something like 95% of gay men were also molested as children.

Society has every right to define what constitutes a marriage.



Have a good day,


You too.

On 12/7/18 5:21 PM, SilverSlimer wrote:
The harm is not to the individual, it's to society. Accepting homosexual
marriage means accepting homosexual adoption. That means that society
will have to ignore the consequences of homosexuals - who can't
reproduce on their own - adopting a child even though the consequences
are numerous and well known. Statistics show that there is no line they
won't cross in regards to sexual matters even with children and that
they tend to be very abusive toward the children they adopt, presumably
becauseÂ*neitherÂ*hadÂ*anyÂ*roleÂ*toÂ*playÂ*inÂ*cr eatingÂ*theÂ*child.

What harms society does eventually work its way around to the
individual

In article , wrote:


BTW, no opponent to gay marriage has ever been able to describe to me
the harm that (s)he personally has suffered because of it. And believe
me, I've asked. Repeatedly.

I am glad you asked!

The harm is to society.

there is no harm to society whatsoever. what two consenting adults
decide to do is *their* business.

The family is were society replenishes
itself. As such, society has a vested interest in what constitutes
the makeup of the family. Children need two parents of opposite
sexes in a functional setting to learn how to interact properly
with the opposite sex as well as learn their responsibility towards
the opposite sex.

what a load of ignorant bigoted bull****.

Society pay a heavy price when the family spits
out screwed up children: divorce, poverty, incarceration, crime,
more screwed up children, and on and on so forth. And this
harms everyone.

that has nothing whatsoever to do with sexual orientation and nobody is
harmed other than those directly involved.

By the way, most molesters are gay. It is best to keep children away
from them. "Chicken" is the term I believe gays use for children.
And something like 95% of gay men were also molested as children.

nonsense.

Society has every right to define what constitutes a marriage.

and it has finally realized that there's no reason to prevent two
people from being married, regardless of their gender.

On Fri, 07 Dec 2018 08:19:40 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Dec 2018 21:14:26 +0900, Stephen Chadfield
wrote:

On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 10:30:16 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote:

"Stephen Chadfield" wrote
I don't know what most of your requirements
even mean. Why do I need to zoom so much?

Maybe you don't need such control over zoom levels. My eyesight and
preferences dictate that I do.



Are you aware that in most browsers, and in most other Windows
programs, whether by Microsoft or a third-party (it's a Windows
standard), you can change the zoom by holding down the Ctrl key and
scrolling the mouse wheel?

Yes. In most browsers it only changes the zoom in fixed increments:
110%, 125%, 150%... That is not fine enough control for me. It still
results in choosing between text which is too small or too big for
many of the web sites I frequent.

I want an easy and reliable way to chose any zoom level on a per-site
basis. Vivaldi offers this.

On 2018-12-07 9:01 p.m., T wrote:
On 12/7/18 5:21 PM, SilverSlimer wrote:
The harm is not to the individual, it's to society. Accepting
homosexual marriage means accepting homosexual adoption. That means
that society will have to ignore the consequences of homosexuals - who
can't reproduce on their own - adopting a child even though the
consequences are numerous and well known. Statistics show that there
is no line they won't cross in regards to sexual matters even with
children and that they tend to be very abusive toward the children
they adopt, presumably
becauseÂ*neitherÂ*hadÂ*anyÂ*roleÂ*toÂ*playÂ*inÂ*cr eatingÂ*theÂ*child.

What harms society does eventually work its way around to the
individual

Absolutely and I have earned a great amount of respect for you as a
result of the brilliant post you made just before this one.


--
SilverSlimer
Minds: @silverslimer

On 12/7/18 7:34 PM, SilverSlimer wrote:
On 2018-12-07 9:01 p.m., T wrote:
On 12/7/18 5:21 PM, SilverSlimer wrote:
The harm is not to the individual, it's to society. Accepting
homosexual marriage means accepting homosexual adoption. That means
that society will have to ignore the consequences of homosexuals -
who can't reproduce on their own - adopting a child even though the
consequences are numerous and well known. Statistics show that there
is no line they won't cross in regards to sexual matters even with
children and that they tend to be very abusive toward the children
they adopt, presumably
becauseÂ*neitherÂ*hadÂ*anyÂ*roleÂ*toÂ*playÂ*inÂ*cr eatingÂ*theÂ*child.

What harms society does eventually work its way around to the
individual

Absolutely and I have earned a great amount of respect for you as a
result of the brilliant post you made just before this one.



:-) !! Thank you. Nice to not be called names over
something like this.


You will get a laugh out of this one:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) vs Donald Trump Jr.:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BrELOVXl...ource=ig_embed

She is mad at the meme:

Ocasio-Cortez: Why are you so afraid of a socialist economy?
Trump: Because Americans want to walk their dogs, not eat them.

She is threatening to subpoena Donald Trump Jr over it.

This is the newly elected Socialist that claims that the
democrats have to take back the three branches of government:
the presidency, the house, and the senate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80VObga-2n0

How she manages to walk and chew gum ...

T wrote:
On 12/7/18 5:21 PM, SilverSlimer wrote:
The harm is not to the individual, it's to society. Accepting
homosexual marriage means accepting homosexual adoption. That means
that society will have to ignore the consequences of homosexuals - who
can't reproduce on their own - adopting a child even though the
consequences are numerous and well known. Statistics show that there
is no line they won't cross in regards to sexual matters even with
children and that they tend to be very abusive toward the children
they adopt, presumably
because neither had any role to play in creating the child.

What harms society does eventually work its way around to the
individual


Ten percent of the population is gay.

How did that affect me again ?

Does it mean that interior decoration services are too numerous ?

Maybe there will be too many gay parades holding up traffic ?

As for your concerns about children, that's
why we have social workers and the Childrens Aid Society.
You can be assured that plenty of people of your
"sensibilities" will be calling out the CAS
for a "welfare check".

If only the busy bodies of this world... could work on something important.
Something that mattered.

Paul

On 12/7/18 9:58 PM, Paul wrote:
T wrote:
On 12/7/18 5:21 PM, SilverSlimer wrote:
The harm is not to the individual, it's to society. Accepting
homosexual marriage means accepting homosexual adoption. That means
that society will have to ignore the consequences of homosexuals -
who can't reproduce on their own - adopting a child even though the
consequences are numerous and well known. Statistics show that there
is no line they won't cross in regards to sexual matters even with
children and that they tend to be very abusive toward the children
they adopt, presumably because neither had any role to play in
creating the child.

What harms society does eventually work its way around to the
individual


Ten percent of the population is gay.

More like 3% at best. The number gets politicized a lot. Like
the number of gun murders that get suicide by gun included.


How did that affect me again ?

What affects society eventually affects the individual. Be
surrounded by unproductive, messed up people affects us all.

Does it mean that interior decoration services are too numerous ?

You funny bunny.

I work for one by the way. They are all women. It is fun to visit
them as they are all older, intelligent women, which are my
favorite customers. They can be intensely loyal. (And if I
look the slightest bit ill, they are on the phone to my wife.)

Maybe there will be too many gay parades holding up traffic ?

As long as they have a proper permit, I don't care.

Me personally, I hate parades. They bore me to insanity.

As for your concerns about children, that's
why we have social workers and the Childrens Aid Society.
You can be assured that plenty of people of your
"sensibilities" will be calling out the CAS
for a "welfare check".

And exactly what are my "sensibilities"? Interesting
how regressives put words in other months and them go
after them for something that does not even exist.

You are not making a good case or I have no clue what you
are getting at.

Gay's with Chicken (children) are not the only social
ill that affect children. We butchered over a hundred
thousand children last year (abortion) alone. The karma
on that one has got to be something to behold.


If only the busy bodies of this world... could work on something important.
Something that mattered.

Agreed.

Salvation Army does a wonderful job with a very low overhead.


Â*Â* Paul

"Wolf K" wrote

| SS wrote:
| The harm is not to the individual, it's to society.
|
| A common argument, which makes a fundamental category mistake. It
| assumes that "society" is some material entity apart from the individual.
|
| There is no harm to society distinct from harm to the individual.
| Conversely, any harm to the individual harms society.
|

You don't seem to realize that you're arguing within
your own assumptions. SS should, of course, provide
links if he wants to make such controversial claims
as saying that gay parents are sexual abusers. But
he does have a point in one respect: The society is
not just a group of individuals. It's a paradigmatic
social structure within which people live. What the
conservatives are mainly upset about is the threat
to that structure. Liberals would like to think the
structure exists only to protect their freedoms. It
doesn't work that way.

Conservatives say we need rules. Liberals say
we need freedom. In fact, society is changing fast
and we have growing pains. Allowing gay marriage is
not just a matter of whether we respect gays. It's
a radical redefinition of marriage. To not acknowledge
that is to not be honest.

As recently as the
1960s it was difficult in the US to not live married.
Virtually everyone was married. It was also questionable
not to have children. Marriage was both a practical
choice and, to some extent, a civic duty. (I once
read that in colonial MA, a man found living alone was
given 6 weeks to move in with a family. The individual
in service to society.)

These days we're at the other extreme. Personal freedom
obsession. Marriage is a sexual business deal that
we can enter into or leave fairly easily. It's considered
by many to be a choice of personal fulfillment. Changes
in society and technology have brought that on. It's
not a social advance. Gloria Steinem and her ilk
are not forward thinking pioneers. They're merely
symptoms of a society in flux. As is MeToo. As are
angry, evangelical activists.

So what will marriage be now? It can be whatever
we want, but we must be honest with ourselves.
If it's not a duty to society -- if it serves only personal
fulfillment -- then shouldn't we cancel any legal
benefits, like tax breaks? Otherwise, I can live with
my girlfriend and marry my buddy merely for the tax
break. Some might say that my buddy and I don't
have the requisite "deep caring relationship", but
that's a subjective definition, not a legal one. I say
I love my buddy deeply if it saves me taxes to marry
him.

If I may be a bit anti-social and introduce an
on-topic note:

In case people haven't seen, MS have officially
announced Edge as Chromium. What's more, they
plan to make a version for Win7/8 and Mac.

https://venturebeat.com/2018/12/06/m...s-8-and-macos/

This looks to me very much like an IE strategy:
Make a product that makes everything work better
on Windows. Look for integrated OneDrive, widgets
for gmail, etc. Otherwise it would make no sense
for MS to just release yet another Chromium
browser with a slightly different wrapper.

In article , wrote:


Ten percent of the population is gay.

More like 3% at best. The number gets politicized a lot. Like
the number of gun murders that get suicide by gun included.

the number is irrelevant, and is actually underreported.

How did that affect me again ?

What affects society eventually affects the individual. Be
surrounded by unproductive, messed up people affects us all.

that has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

what affects society are ignorant people full of hatred and intolerance.