To try the thousands of add-ons available here, download Mozilla Firefox, a fast, free way to surf the Web!Close
Choose from thousands of extra features and styles to make Firefox your own.Close
|User since||March 5, 2007|
|Number of add-ons developed||0 add-ons|
|Average rating of developer's add-ons||Not yet rated|
...as far as I can see, it interferes with TMP, disabling at least the preferences in TMP regarding Tab width. This I found out, when I hided one tab (Nr. 3 of 3) and loaded a different site in a new tab (which would be - because of the hided Nr. 3 - now Nr.4). As soon as I clicked the link for this tab Nr. 4, all tabs reduced their width to th minimum given in TMP.
Beyond this... good Extension.
@pezzonovante: I can not understand your problems... I surf a lot, my bookmarks-file contains several hundred locations. At least 95% of all locations work correct - and if something is locked, I often recognize scripts of foreign sites (lots of them are simply advertisement or tracker scripts anyway), which are blocked. For many reasons I prefer to hinder 'dubious' scrips of also strange servers to run on my machine. And if I know such a server exactly, as well as I know the necessary script, I allow this permanently - that's it. But since I know, that almost nothing in the world wide web is constantly 'reliable', I prefer to enable most of the scripts temporarily. The only places I allow permanently are local scripts like configuration scripts (for example of my router).
If one really is disturbed by always blocked scripts, one should reflect about the meaning of the term 'security' and the personal skills around this topic. If you, pezzonovante, are experienced enough or you dislike such blocking, why do you install NoScript?
There are lots of users who desire this kind of security and know very well what they want to allow to run (and that is - for sure - less than 50% of all scripts on the average of pages out there) on their machines. NoScript gives us the ability to choose the level of security according to our 'feeling'. Those, who are permanently annoyed can simply uninstall NoScript, so no necessity of such strange modifications like that one you told - I don't like such rare experiments. And especially to you: WOT isn't made to collect sites running 'insecure' scrips or stuff, which is possible harmful (you should look for information about WOT and its intention p r i o r to post such statements at this place). So a combination of these two Extensions would make NoScript in a lot of points senseless and useless at all.
Dear Developer, I wished, y o u read, what I wrote:
Passwords are PRIVATE, which means: The only place they are made for is the user's home (or at least a place, only the user can access) who created it. Your machine may encrypt them (btw, one user found, that the master password for this storage is identical to the login-password to the account on your machine...?!?). But even i f they are encrypted, one have to send you the not encrypted passwords as well as the 'master password' to encrypt them.
This way every traffic listener on the web with enough knowledge can catch this data... and what kind of 'security' is this? You need to receive the not encrypted passwords to be able to encrypt them and... you know the master password... of course you also know the encryption algorithm ... what else can one offer you to access every single password (this method you call trustworthy???)? If you was smart enough, then you also created a 'comment' field for every stored password, so that the users are 'able' to remember where these passwords fit... (as well as you, what a convenient solution!)
Hm, do you need more? No, man, I'm not paranoid, but you seem to think, all people trust in strangers... may be some do - I WON'T.
Would YOU give all your passwords to me, if I'd tell you, they will be encrypted? You know what? There are indeed methods for such a kind of storage on a server, BUT before one single password leave a machine, it has to be encrypted LOCALLY with an algorithm AND password, which WILL NEVER leave the local machine. This would be safe, because nobody can decipher them (no sniffer, nobody in your network). And if you are a really correct person, then you think about that, what I and TheAssasin have mentioned.
Excuse me, fairy tale lovers, but... in times, when mobile storage offers 16 GB (an ordinary USB-Stick) really nobody can tell me, that my passwords have to be stored somewhere in the web (be it with or without 'password'!). I can carry encyclopedias full of passwords to any place in the world without the possibility for anybody to watch them (encrypted, decrypted, in runes written or in hieroglyphs...).
So please tell me: Why does one need to give ones private access keys (!!!) to people they will never know in their life???
That's why I call users 'trusting' such technologies 'fairy tale lovers'... I'm not paranoid, BUT what is the reason for using passwords? If I give them anybody (who I don't know!!!), I simply don't need them - that easy it is.
at least 1 issue I want to mention:
Nearly all mathematical operations work clean, but there is at least one exception: 1/x
Why does this produce rounding errors like single precision calculations (3 -> 1/x -> 1/x -> 3.000000000003)?
BTW, what's the reason for the stack limitation to 4 levels? For sure this is not caused by memory consumption, so what's the real reason? And even if you call this only a little helper application (possibly...), it doesn't cause more effort to use 'larger' variables instead or ... another possibility: Make some values (like the maximum stack size or the number of memories) customizable - and even if it's only available through about:config. So those one, who want to work on more complex material, can simply modify the default values - is this an idea?
This review is for a previous version of the add-on (0.8.2).
I like the IDEA, b u t ...
first: I don't like software which download something without my permission. So my first impression was bad, when I read: "Add-Art downloaded some ...".
Then NO possibility to change this behavior (using a configuration dialog)? What the heck is this?
Why that complicating? Why not simply create a directory for the images and a table to assign banner sizes (or ranges of sizes) to specific pictures (possibly more than one for a size)? It even could lead to interesting results to assign specific AdBlockPlus filters to some specific pictures... ;-)
This would be much more flexible and enable everybody to create own assign tables without the need of fumbling inside of JAR-archives...
It seems that there is an inconsistency of data in the cache, which is caused by a deletion of data during a page load. If I kill the content of cache using Cache status by hand AND if the page is already loaded, there is no problem. But as soon as there is an automatic cache deletion during the process of loading a page, all further pages are not loaded completely (means: The progress bar stucks at about 90-95% - in all cases the same value) and there is no futher progress.
Why do you not 'delay' the automatic deletion, if this deletion would happen during the process of loading a site?
For me I can say, that BDD works, when I search explicitly for duplicate bookmarks using the dialog. But while bookmarking on a website (right click > context menu > 'Bookmark This Link') it doesn't work at all.
I have disabled it as long as there is no fix.
I don't know, which data Auto Dial uses, because after clicking only a few links (which I visit very seldom) the Auto Dial places these Links too 'high' (they are in the first 10 Links - which is very unrealistic). As a suggestion (something which should be configurable): Ranking on the base of real usage of the Links (and a value, which reacts in a shorter time). So I could tell Auto Dial, that it places the Links which I really use often in the beginning of the list and the less I use them the more they move to the end of the list.
And... another point. Please introduce a variable to tell Auto Dial, how many links to collect. Another possibility: Add a variable, which only chooses links with a given percentage of clicks (or similar) and - as told above - sort them using this percentage.
In the moment I can see links at the bottom of FF's window, which are shown only partially. Removing links at the top makes them visible...
And ... sorting these links according to the frequency of usage is not that complicating, in short: Although I can't imagine, but if you want some ideas, write me a message.
Same arguments as jackfrost418: If I wanted to give advertisers information, there was no need for adblock. And even worse: Use a tool, which name makes one believe it is AGAINST ad's, but in fact it is used to make these ad's more and more sick on the basis of blocked ones??? Hey author, reflect on your intentions. What you announced here is a helper-tool for advertisers (although with a time delay). Use it and be happy with it. I won't.This review is for a previous version of the add-on (0.85).
... I wasn't able to make it work on FF 3.0.6 nightly together with (no matter how many) pictures in a local directory under WinXP SP3. Without function... I can not rate it on a really neutral base.
But a suggestion: Look for a different algorithm which chooses the pictures, since it needs way too much time to scan a directory with many pictures (several hundrets).
If you need an idea how to reach this I could suggest you a few ways. Furthermore I possibly could give you a few ideas for enhancements.
But try to find out why it doesn't work in FF 3.0.6 (since I - and I assume I'm not the only one... - do not use FF 3.1 or 3.2 because of a few add-on's which still don't work with these versions of FF). Without this issue in mind I would rate it with *****.
I found the idea very interesting, since I browse often 'volumous' sites which - 'filtered' - can be handier than without. This add-on has potential, but...
I tested it on FF 3.0.6 nightly and... i made the mistake to click a button on the toolbar which was similar to a 'Close' button. Indeed it closed... and there is no simple way to 'reenable' it. The list of add-on's still shows it, but... dear developer: If it is intended to en-/disable a toolbar one should at least create something like a button, checkbox (or similar) in the configuration menu to show/hide this bar. BTW, FF offers the possibility to en-/disable a toolbar easier by right klicking the bar and uncheck it... why did you not combine your hiding mechanism with this FF-feature?
I would rate with 5 - without this... little 'problem', sorry.
This is one of my favourite (if not t h e favourite!) AddOn's for FF.
It works very reliable, stable and even the 'slow' filters are very quick. I often search for information about programming, but also often I look for new releases of some programs. If I would be sentenced to watch all the AD-crap out there, I would become crazy after a a couple of months.
There are sites, where I allow some Ads, but I prefer to choose, which.
To those people calling this 'aggressive':
Indeed y o u are sick, not recognizing, that the 'normal' case is to have only d e s i r e d information on the screen.
If there is something out there, which is very aggressive, it is ADVERTISEMENT.
You think it is 'aggressive'?
Don't use it and leave us in peace and a l o n e!