Recommended Posts

  Lee McDermott said:
Yes, maybe google does have the ability to snoop users but I don't think they'll ever use it.

585873594[/snapback]

Why wouldn't they? To say such a thing is naive.

Any corporation that is in the business of making money will make decisions that, in the end, make them money. If you stupidly tell Google all of your surfing habits (including all of your buying habits, all of your warez site visits, any porn site visits, any Amazon sites visits, how many times you email your loved one, etc.), are you so naive that you think Google will NOT use each and every little bit of information that you blithely give them to make a profit off of you?

If you are so enamored of Google's omnipotence and think that they can do no harm, then please, give them anything they ask for.

  tm? said:
You might want to check the spelling there, eh?

co.uk, not c.uk

I can trust Google, I'm using it right now, I can notice a difference:):)

585874924[/snapback]

he knew that bud, hes just pointing out that it forwards to a google error message, not a firefox one.

Lol Brilliant, and as sumeet said i was pointing out it now takes you to a google page not found page

  APLardi said:
Time Saved with Google Accel after 2 days: 2.5 Minutes

Time spent looking at the Google Accel during 2 days: 10 Minutes

Wow.....

585877754[/snapback]

Ya know, in the long run web accelerators just clog up networks with unnecessary bandwidth from all the prefetching. So, theoretically, if lots of people used one, the internet would get SLOWER. It also only is faster assuming that your connection to Google is faster than your connection to the site (if you don't factor in prefetching or compression).

Source http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/security/...39197327,00.htm

  Quote
A software tool launched by Google on Wednesday that speeds up the process of downloading Web sites has caused some users to worry about their privacy.

Google Web Accelerator, which was released in beta, is set up to automatically work with Firefox and Internet Explorer once it's been downloaded. The service stores copies of sites frequently accessed by individual PCs and automatically retrieves new data from those pages, so that a Web browser needs to process only updates to those sites when asked to load them. It can also automatically "pre-fetch" frequently used Web sites before the user downloads it.

However, users are concerned that the service can cache more data from their computers than they would prefer.

On a Google Labs discussion group, one user said that the security implications of Google caching details of Internet sessions were unacceptable.

"I went to the Futuremark forums and noticed that I'm logged in as someone I don't know. Great, I've used Google's Web Accelerator for a couple of hours, visited lots of sites where I'm logged in. Now I wonder how many people used my cache. I understand it's a beta, sure, but something like that is totally unacceptable."

Google was not immediately available for comment, but said in a Web site statement that the service can receive information such as the user's IP address, computer and connection information, and "personally identifiable information", such as an email address.

"Whenever your computer sends cookies with browsing or prefetching page requests for unencrypted sites, we temporarily cache these cookies in order to improve performance," the company wrote on its Web site.

Information entered in SSL connections, such as Internet banking, will not be cached, the company wrote.

The service is only available to broadband subscribers.

  Xtreme $niper said:
This almost sounds like a scam. They can read every single site we go to since all requests go through google, and plus I dont see how thats making things faster, instead of going directly to the site. I'll pass on this one.

585879396[/snapback]

Scam or not; the notice is visible to me (on roughly 3MB Comcast cable broadband).

Guys, don't download this. It has a major security hole.

I downloaded this, thinking it'd speed up my internet connection. What it has doen is allowed me to login as other users on this board.

Major security issues here:

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/security/...39197327,00.htm

"I went to the Futuremark forums and noticed that I'm logged in as someone I don't know. Great, I've used Google's Web Accelerator for a couple of hours, visited lots of sites where I'm logged in. Now I wonder how many people used my cache. I understand it's a beta, sure, but something like that is totally unacceptable."

PLEASE READ

  Quote
Thank you for your interest in Google Web Accelerator. We have currently reached our maximum capacity of users and are actively working to increase the number of users we can support.

http://webaccelerator.google.com/

Hmm, can't download it anymore...

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • It is good that it can be removed. Those users who want it can use it, and those users who do not want it can remove it.
    • Yeah, but I can't blame people given the way things are nowadays with inflated prices that used to be reasonable not all that long ago. but I would not even attempt to offer someone $30 for a 8TB SSD (I know that was just a example of people trying to really low-ball someone though) as trying to undercut the normal-ish price a decent amount is one thing but that much I would not even attempt to offer someone on Ebay etc. but on the flip side... I think some people want more than stuff is worth at times and even when you offer them something reasonable they might take it as a insult etc. but usually these types tend to be a bit more unreasonable/unrealistic with their pricing. I get people don't want to give their stuff away, but at the same time some try to squeeze every last penny out of stuff to. there needs to be some sort of balance there as a guideline. but even when it comes to prices on random stuff... it can be difficult to determine what's roughly fair/reasonable as a happy medium where both sides feel like they did at least okay on the deal. but just off the top of my head buying expensive used stuff, especially stuff that might be more prone to failure (instead of being quite unlikely to fail), I might try to dodge or want a cheaper than usual price to even risk it etc. but I guess I could probably speak for many when it comes to a gaming PC in that a person wants the cheapest possible price for something that's good enough as this tends to be roughly the sweet-spot of $ spent vs real world performance where it really matters. because it's generally not worth paying hundreds extra or more for something that's not significantly better than a more reasonably priced gaming PC that tends to be good enough as I figure once you get a setup that can do roughly 1080p @ 60fps with high enough graphics (or in this ball park either way), the gains past that tend not to be worth spending hundreds of dollars more when that money could be saved and ones current computer (the one that does 1080p @ 60fps with high enough graphics etc) will easily last years (probably 3-5 years for a conservative figure) before they genuinely need a upgrade and the saved hundreds of dollars could be put towards another build at some point in the future. I never understood people who want to build a "better PC" when their current one is still clearly on the faster side of things and still runs pretty much everything more than well enough as you are pretty much just wasting money for something that's not that much better for the vast majority of tasks. like as a ball park when it comes to GPU's, to use NVIDIA as a example... right now I suspect a solid Geforce 20 series GPU is no where near needing a true upgrade as I would say more worthwhile upgrades are more seriously worth considering for people on the Geforce 10 series or older GPU's at the moment as I would probably use that as where the line is roughly drawn if you have to split stuff up into 'current enough' vs 'older' standards (even though I realize say a strong Geforce 10 GPU is still more than solid enough for many). basically, short of a few specialized use situations etc, most people don't need anywhere near high end PC's, even from a gaming perspective since 30fps being playable and 60fps is pretty much perfect have been standards around for decades now as these are the ones that truly matter the most from a general real world gaming perspective. the 120fps+, while might help a bit, is still largely excess luxury in that it's just not worth the extra money unless prices are fairly close as if you got to pay hundreds of dollars more for it, overall most people are better off with the 'slower' setup. p.s. hell, I am still on a i5-3550 CPU (which is 2012 CPU tech) with a NVIDIA 1050 Ti 4GB (which is 2016 GPU tech) and while if I upgraded today I would get a worthwhile difference, but in all honesty the main reason I hold off, besides prices nowadays being a bit inflated, is what games I do play tend to work anywhere from playable (30fps) to perfect-ish (60fps) and I am of the mindset I have a feeling my current GPU etc is more reliable than modern GPU's etc which is another reason I am in no rush to upgrade. I suspect ill eventually be forced into upgrading, but baring major hardware failure out of no where, ill likely be on my current setup for years to come at a minimum. say the rest of this decade, possibly further, especially given while I might play a semi-recent game here and there I am usually replaying games that stand the test of time from the past etc.
    • I have only two Play Anywhere titles from all games I own, and Game Pass doesn't include DLCs. I know it's shocking, but I like to buy premium editions of games I've really liked on Game Pass. I have Ultimate and I've already checked what I can play on PC when I upgraded my laptop to a new one with Nvidia 4070 half a year ago - not much so I haven't even bothered.
    • I hate to break it to you, but if you have the Copilot app installed and up-to-date, you have this. Your computer doesn't need to be a Copilot+ PC to use this, any x86-64 CPU without NPU will do. Also, you don't have to use it, it's not enabled the whole time. Even if you open the Copilot app, you must manually enable Vision on the desired opened windows, it doesn't work by itself. But if you're worried, just remove the Copilot app. Problem solved.
    • no octopus needs seven equal noses. Simply, it can act limpy. Don't worry, Aclarke, it happens
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      POR2GAL4EVER earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Year In
      Orpheus13 earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      Orpheus13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Orpheus13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      serfegyed earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      534
    2. 2
      ATLien_0
      254
    3. 3
      +FloatingFatMan
      183
    4. 4
      +Edouard
      166
    5. 5
      Xenon
      122
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!