Firefox, now with Ads!
-
Mozilla has apparently decided advertising on the "new tab" page is going to go over well with it's users .... http://www.techtimes.com/articles/3379/20140212/mozilla-to-deliver-ads-in-firefox-browser-if-you-cant-beat-em-join-em.htm
-
Assuming the Google deal is lost, they would need to make up the difference. In order to do that, they would need less than $1 per user per year on average. However, considering how people complain even having to pay that for mobile apps, I seriously doubt that would work. The trend seems to show that people would prefer seeing ads sometimes than having to pay even an unnoticable amount to avoid them.
Besides, how distracting would it be to have ads on the new tab page? I rarely open a blank tab, since most new tabs for me are from links. Plus, it does nothing to block me from immediately opening whatever page I opened the tab for, so there's no real issue. I've seen dramatically worse approaches to includes ads in applications, so I'm perfectly fine with the way they plan to do it.
-
@rad131304 said:
Mozilla has apparently decided advertising on the "new tab" page is going to go over well with it's users .... http://www.techtimes.com/articles/3379/20140212/mozilla-to-deliver-ads-in-firefox-browser-if-you-cant-beat-em-join-em.htm
Already under discussion in the 'Pre-emptive fuck you to Mozilla' thread.
-
Mozilla has been overrun by people who think Marketing Gibberish is actual language.
-
@dhromed said:
The writing was on the wall when the six week release cycle madness began. Takes a pretty strong belief in your own bullshit to run with lunacy like that.Mozilla has been overrun by people who think Marketing Gibberish is actual language.
-
@dhromed said:
Mozilla has been overrun by people who think Marketing Gibberish is actual language.
I wish they'd just come clean and say, "hey look, open source bullshit aside, we're basically a software company with literally ONE client who provides 95% of our income, and that situation sucks... making it worse, that one client already has a browser that does everything we do. If we don't diversify, we're dead in under 5 years. And hey guess what? Open source bullshit aside, all of us here at the Mozilla Foundation like getting paychecks."
We all know what's going on.
-
@dhromed said:
Mozilla has been overrun by people who think Marketing Gibberish is actual language.
Does an organization exist whose PR arm doesn't believe this?
-
@blakeyrat said:
I wish they'd just come clean and say, "hey look, open source bullshit aside, we're basically a software company with literally ONE client who provides 95% of our income, and that situation sucks... making it worse, that one client already has a browser that does everything we do. If we don't diversify, we're dead in under 5 years. And hey guess what? Open source bullshit aside, all of us here at the Mozilla Foundation like getting paychecks."
Yes.
-
@dhromed said:
@blakeyrat said:
I wish they'd just come clean and say, "hey look, open source bullshit aside, we're basically a software company with literally ONE client who provides 95% of our income, and that situation sucks... making it worse, that one client already has a browser that does everything we do. If we don't diversify, we're dead in under 5 years. And hey guess what? Open source bullshit aside, all of us here at the Mozilla Foundation like getting paychecks."
Yes.
If they start offering a Pro version with non-fucked-up UI and a blank newtab-page for, say, the $1 per year mentioned... I might just buy a license.
Then again, I'm part of the minory that will not steal. For religious reasons. So I have paid for e.g. a copy of SlySoft AnyDVD, which I did in fact use for watching my legally bought DVDs, thankyouverymuch. ...Never needed to crack the pirated copies when I was a kid...
But I digress. Then we'd start seeing pirated copies of Firefox. Unless, of course, they start validating licenses upon updating. Which would be perfectly acceptable since, unlike a lot of other software, Firefox does indeed get used nearly exclusively for online activities. And the new rigorous short update cycle would fit this scheme perfectly, but I'm sure that's just coincidence.
-
@OldCrow said:
@dhromed said:
@blakeyrat said:
I wish they'd just come clean and say, "hey look, open source bullshit aside, we're basically a software company with literally ONE client who provides 95% of our income, and that situation sucks... making it worse, that one client already has a browser that does everything we do. If we don't diversify, we're dead in under 5 years. And hey guess what? Open source bullshit aside, all of us here at the Mozilla Foundation like getting paychecks."
Yes.
If they start offering a Pro version with non-fucked-up UI and a blank newtab-page for, say, the $1 per year mentioned... I might just buy a license.
Then again, I'm part of the minory that will not steal. For religious reasons. So I have paid for e.g. a copy of SlySoft AnyDVD, which I did in fact use for watching my legally bought DVDs, thankyouverymuch. ...Never needed to crack the pirated copies when I was a kid...
But I digress. Then we'd start seeing pirated copies of Firefox. Unless, of course, they start validating licenses upon updating. Which would be perfectly acceptable since, unlike a lot of other software, Firefox does indeed get used nearly exclusively for online activities. And the new rigorous short update cycle would fit this scheme perfectly, but I'm sure that's just coincidence.
Instead of seeing pirated copies, someone else would just start releasing builds that didn't require a subscription. Mozilla would have to ditch open source completely for a forced subscription model to succeed, which is highly unlikely. Even then, there would be probably be a group that would just fork the latest open source version and start their own group supporting that version. Sadly there isn't a very good (meaning without loopholes) way for Mozilla to guarantee they will get the money required to support development without another corporate sponsor like Google or adding advertisements. Clearly they are planning for the worst case and including ads in case they don't get corporate sponsorship, which I can't really blame them for under the circumstances.
-
only way to fix firefox is to dump mozzila and start over from 3.6 (the last decent version)
-
@redfox646 said:
Besides, how distracting would it be to have ads on the new tab page?
I have problem with them, not because they are distracting, but because they'll certainly have to phone home, and send lots of data that'll change over time.
One of the reasons I use Firefox is because it does not phone home... As I already said, I have to search for a browsr that is not concerned with grumpy cats.
-
@ratchet freak said:
;only way to fix firefox is to dump mozzila and start over from 3.6 (the last decent version)
Grab those wooden shoes! CLOG THE MACHINES!
-
Re: Firefox, now with Aids!
I keep misreading the subject, so I thought it's probably better to go with it than to fight it.
-
@redfox646 said:
Clearly they are planning for the worst case and including ads in case they don't get corporate sponsorship, which I can't really blame them for under the circumstances.
Or they could fire all their executives, PR, marketing, upper management, middle management, lower management, 'experience experts' and 90% of their feature coders. The only reason all those positions exist is to create "projects" like Aurorialiscyst to justify the existence of those positions.
Jettison all those people, and you save millions per year in salaries. Go back to a core group of programmers, testers, a team lead/project manager. Focus on the core product instead of reams and reams of useless changes and unwanted "features".
For fuck's sake, what's the point of being an open source project unless you're going to take advantage of the best (only) good feature of such-- a massive userbase intensely interested in contributing. Documentation, patches, bugfixes-- hell, running and maintaining the forums and bug tracker.
The solution isn't ads to pay for Mozilla's runaway expenses. They're a non-profit organization. They shouldn't be looking to make a profit just to pay for it's out of control salary bloat. If you have cancer that is spreading through your body, the solution isn't "exponentially grow extra body tissue for the cancer to spread into instead of vital organs". You blast that shit with radiation & poison, lop off whatever body part you need to to survive, and stop taking your smoke breaks inside a nuclear power plant's sewer.
-
@boomzilla said:
@dhromed said:
Mozilla has been overrun by people who think Marketing Gibberish is actual language.
Does an organization exist whose PR arm doesn't believe this?
It's already a problem when the PR people start beliving in what they say, but it's an unsurmountable problem when the rest of the organization does the same.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
The solution isn't ads to pay for Mozilla's runaway expenses. They're a non-profit organization. They shouldn't be looking to make a profit just to pay for it's out of control salary bloat.
For several years now, they've had buttloads of free money rolling in. $900 Million in the last 3 years. Literally the only thing they have to do to get that money is put a Google search box in their browser.**After a while, buttloads of free money become the expected norm and you get comfortable feeling that you can do anything you want, regardless of whether or not it actually makes sense. That's why their LinkedIn page says they have more than 500 employees and the Mozilla Foundation spends more than $10 Million a year just for rent on office space.
-
@DaveK said:
@rad131304 said:
Mozilla has apparently decided advertising on the "new tab" page is going to go over well with it's users .... http://www.techtimes.com/articles/3379/20140212/mozilla-to-deliver-ads-in-firefox-browser-if-you-cant-beat-em-join-em.htm
Already under discussion in the 'Pre-emptive fuck you to Mozilla' thread.
So I'm TRWTF, neh? Oh well, won't be the last time that happens.
-
@Mcoder said:
As presented, I get the impression that it would be doing no such thing - they'd be default things to put on there if Firefox (locally) hadn't figured out which of your most frequently visited sites to put there yet. Once it had figured it out (using whatever random algorithm they're using at the moment) you wouldn't see any ads there at all.@redfox646 said:
Besides, how distracting would it be to have ads on the new tab page?
I have problem with them, not because they are distracting, but because they'll certainly have to phone home, and send lots of data that'll change over time.
-
@PJH said:
As presented, I get the impression that it would be doing no such thing - they'd be default things to put on there if Firefox (locally) hadn't figured out which of your most frequently visited sites to put there yet. Once it had figured it out (using whatever random algorithm they're using at the moment) you wouldn't see any ads there at all.
If I had a gif that conveyed a condescending "Really? Really, that's what you think they'll do in the end? Really?" I'd post it. But I don't, so I guess you get away without a good telling-to.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
@PJH said:
As presented, I get the impression that it would be doing no such thing - they'd be default things to put on there if Firefox (locally) hadn't figured out which of your most frequently visited sites to put there yet. Once it had figured it out (using whatever random algorithm they're using at the moment) you wouldn't see any ads there at all.
If I had a gif that conveyed a condescending "Really? Really, that's what you think they'll do in the end? Really?" I'd post it. But I don't, so I guess you get away without a good telling-to.
The proposed changes to the "tiles" is no big deal. How often to you do a clean install of Firefox? Once you use it for a while the tiles will fill up with randomly selected sites you've visited any time in the last few weeks or months. And you can always turn them off and just get a blank page whenever you open a new tab. Although you'll probably have to Google it because it's not exactly obvious how to turn them off.But ultimately, we all know exactly where this is headed. Sooner or later the truckloads of money from Google will stop showing up at Mozilla headquarters and that Vice President of Content Services is still going to expect to get a paycheck.
-
@El_Heffe said:
[T]hat Vice President of Content Services is still going to expect to get a paycheck.
And therein lies TRWTF. Why does Mozilla even have a VP of Content Services? A browser is supposed to display content provided by the page the user is visiting, not provide its own content.
-
@HardwareGeek said:
@El_Heffe said:
[T]hat Vice President of Content Services is still going to expect to get a paycheck.
And therein lies TRWTF. Why does Mozilla even have a VP of Content Services? A browser is supposed to display content provided by the page the user is visiting, not provide its own content.
@https://blog.mozilla.org/press/bios/darren-herman/ said:As VP of Content Services, Darren Herman is responsible for diversifying revenue and sustaining Mozilla’s mission through innovation in content and personalization products and services.
Basically, this means he's responsible for making the company money by (a) selling ads and (b) identifying new products that people want to purchase. Which, considering that everyone likes getting a paycheck and eating, is not a bad thing.
Also, keep in mind, the Mozilla Foundation is not just Firefox. Beyond just the broad range of products, it's primarily a non-profit organization for outreach. It's not really there to make browsers, it's there to convince people that making open source software is a great and noble goal. The browser is just an off-shoot. And outreach stuff needs money. Any time they have a "open source conference" or sponsor an open source coding competition at some college, they need revenue to pay for it. And people to oversee said event, and money to pay those people to oversee said event.
-
@HardwareGeek said:
And therein lies TRWTF. Why does Mozilla even have a VP of Content Services? A browser is supposed to display content provided by the page the user is visiting, not provide its own content.
Irrelevant to the situation at hand.
It doesn't matter HOW he got his job. He has it, and he'll want to keep it after the Google money dries up.
-
@blakeyrat said:
It doesn't matter HOW he got his job. He has it, and he'll want to keep it after the Google money dries up.
It doesn't mean he should keep it, especially not if his services are no longer required, are detrimental to the product, and at the expense of the users.
In an ideal world, that update would be opt-in with the following text:
"Hey, Firefox user. We want you to watch ads so a VP can keep his paycheck. His one and only job is to show you ads. Do you agree? (Please note, if too many users select NO, the VP will be fired and those funds will be re-allocated to other Firefox improvement functions)."
-
@blakeyrat said:
It doesn't matter HOW he got his job. He has it, and he'll want to keep it after the Google money dries up.
So does pretty much everyone who gets laid off when his/her employer runs into financial difficulty. Just because he'll want to keep it doesn't mean he should get to (although, unfortunately, he probably will).
-
@Lorne Kates said:
"Hey, Firefox user. We want you to watch ads so a VP can keep his paycheck. His one and only job is to show you ads. Do you agree? (Please note, if too many users select NO, the VP will be fired and those funds will be re-allocated to other Firefox improvement functions)."
The only problem with this idea is that Mozilla has redefined "improvement" to mean the opposite of what it means in common usage. Therefore, the funds would be reallocated to further stupidify Firefox.
-
@Snooder said:
Also, keep in mind, the Mozilla Foundation is not just Firefox. Beyond just the broad range of products, it's primarily a non-profit organization for outreach. It's not really there to make browsers, it's there to convince people that making open source software is a great and noble goal.
They're not doing a very good job of that, now are they?
-
@Lorne Kates said:
Please note, if too many users select NO ... those funds will be re-allocated to other Firefox improvement functions
Now you convinced me. Yes, show the ads.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@HardwareGeek said:
And therein lies TRWTF. Why does Mozilla even have a VP of Content Services? A browser is supposed to display content provided by the page the user is visiting, not provide its own content.
Irrelevant to the situation at hand.
It doesn't matter HOW he got his job. He has it, and he'll want to keep it after the Google money dries up.
You have the cause and effect backward. The VP of Content Services was hired in 2013. Probably because they realized that they need to start generating new revenue sources, and he's apparently good at that. It's not "google money is going away so I need a new way to get paid." It's "google money is going away, so they hired me to keep the lights on." If he figures out a way to get them 40million a year in ad revenue, paying him a couple hundred thousand a year salary isn't all that bad a deal for Mozilla.
-
@Snooder said:
keep the lights on
You say that as if it were a good thing. Given Mozilla's recent history of and continuing determination to destroy their flagship product and violate their own Manifesto, I'm not convinced that turning out the lights and locking the door wouldn't be preferable.
-
Mozilla just needs to learn the new techniques to monetize software: "Oops, looks like you've already opened 10 bookmarks today! You can wait 24 hours to open this one, or you can skip the wait for only 300 gems!"
-
@anonymous234 said:
Mozilla just needs to learn the new techniques to monetize software: "Oops, looks like you've already opened 10 bookmarks today! You can wait 24 hours to open this one, or you can skip the wait for only 300 gems!"
Why has nobody thought of this before? A web browser with microtransactions!
-
@Mcoder said:
@Lorne Kates said:
Please note, if too many users select NO ... those funds will be re-allocated to other Firefox improvement functions
Now you convinced me. Yes, show the ads.
Your truth reminds me of why I drink.
-
Re: Firefox, now with AIDS!
Fixed the title.
-
@Ben L. said:
Fixed the title.
That joke is almost as funny as when boomzilla made it 10 hours before you!
-
@joe.edwards said:
@Ben L. said:
Do you really expect me to read things before I reply to them?Fixed the title.
That joke is almost as funny as when boomzilla made it 10 hours before you!
-
@joe.edwards said:
@Ben L. said:
Fixed the title.
That joke is almost as funny as when boomzilla made it 10 hours before you!In all fairness, Boomzilla called it Aids instead of AIDS, so Ben L. did correct the title.
(Count the pedantic dickweeds I managed to cram into a single sentence!)
-
@Lorne Kates said:
Don't forget Ayds@joe.edwards said:
@Ben L. said:
Fixed the title.
That joke is almost as funny as when boomzilla made it 10 hours before you!In all fairness, Boomzilla called it Aids instead of AIDS, so Ben L. did correct the title.
(Count the pedantic dickweeds I managed to cram into a single sentence!)
-
@ratchet freak said:
only way to fix firefox is to dump mozzila and start over from 3.6 (the last decent version)
You're probably in the target demographic for Pale Moon.
Heading that way myself is an option; depends whether PM actually has the dev resources to keep back-patching Mozilla's security updates into an ever-diverging toolkit. With any luck there will continue to be enough overlap with what SeaMonkey is doing to keep that feasible.
Also depends on how well the Unfuck Firefox extension proves to work. If it turns out to be as ludicrously inadequate as the various hacks that attempt to unfuck Gnome 3, that will pretty much be goodbye from me to the Firefox mainline.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
@joe.edwards said:
@Ben L. said:
Fixed the title.
That joke is almost as funny as when boomzilla made it 10 hours before you!In all fairness, Boomzilla called it Aids instead of AIDS, so Ben L. did correct the title.
(Count the pedantic dickweeds I managed to cram into a single sentence!)
I debated going all caps for pedantic dickweed points, but went with the existing casing for subtlety. I should have known better than to try subtlety around here.
-
@flabdablet said:
Also depends on how well the Unfuck Firefox extension proves to work. If it turns out to be as ludicrously inadequate as the various hacks that attempt to unfuck Gnome 3
Currently, that appears to be the case. Based on their list of things that the extension can't do (or can't do properly) the new Firefox may be too fucked to unfuck. @flabdablet said:You're probably in the target demographic for Pale Moon.
Pale Moon looks promising. If they can keep back-patching Mozilla's security updates into an unfucked version of the Firefox sourcecode, then Mozilla can just fuck off.
-
@El_Heffe said:
@flabdablet said:
Also depends on how well the Unfuck Firefox extension proves to work. If it turns out to be as ludicrously inadequate as the various hacks that attempt to unfuck Gnome 3
Currently, that appears to be the case. Based on their list of things that the extension can't do (or can't do properly) the new Firefox may be too fucked to unfuck. @flabdablet said:You're probably in the target demographic for Pale Moon.
Pale Moon looks promising. If they can keep back-patching Mozilla's security updates into an unfucked version of the Firefox sourcecode, then Mozilla can just fuck off.I prefer [url=http://www.waterfoxproject.org/]Waterfox[/url].
-
@The_Assimilator said:
@El_Heffe said:
As far as I can tell, Waterfox is just a 64 bit version of Firefox made with a different compiler (which supposedly makes it "faster"), but I don't see any indication on the website that he's doing any actual development.@flabdablet said:
Also depends on how well the Unfuck Firefox extension proves to work. If it turns out to be as ludicrously inadequate as the various hacks that attempt to unfuck Gnome 3
Currently, that appears to be the case. Based on their list of things that the extension can't do (or can't do properly) the new Firefox may be too fucked to unfuck. @flabdablet said:You're probably in the target demographic for Pale Moon.
Pale Moon looks promising. If they can keep back-patching Mozilla's security updates into an unfucked version of the Firefox sourcecode, then Mozilla can just fuck off.I prefer Waterfox.
Pale Moon is using Firefox 24 as the base (the latest "Extended Service Release" and probably the last version that can be unfucked) and then selectively patching in features and bug fixes. For example he put a proper status bar back into the program -- no need to use an extension anymore. That's why I said that Pale Moon looks promising - somebody is doing actual development work, not just re-compiling the latest sourcecode.
There are many "forks" of Firefox floating around the Interwebs, but there's more to forking a program than just changing the name and using a different compiler.
-
-
@dhromed said:
@El_Heffe said:
For example he put a proper status bar back into the program
What do you use it for?
1) Visually deliniating the bottom of the window, so it doesn't look like it just ENDS
2) Display that STATUS in BAR format. What page it's loading. Where the link goes. Download progress of page and/or files.
3) Icons of commonly used tools because that's where they've always been, and they don't clutter up the top of the screen (Firebug, noScript, Greasemonkey, Stylish, Ghostery, RequestPolicy). They're nice tiny little icons, instead of a ton of gigantic FUCK YOU sized icons on top
4) Do that I don't constantly have shit fade in/fade out over top of text as I move the mouse across the screen. I fucking hate having shit flashing in the corner of my eye, and that "hide it until you need it" status bar does just that.
5) As a training tool for less technically savvy users. Seriously, for years the advice was always LOOK AT THE MOTHERFUCKING STATUS BAR BEFORE CLICKING ON A LINK. The status bar was always there, even when blank. It was a constant reminder that "hey, something goes here, and important information will be in this area". Now you have an indicator that is only present when it's needed, meaning unless you know it's going to be there-- you will not look at it. And the information is presented in a transparent, lightly-colored, variable width blob that is trying it's damnedest to be invisible. Hard to see, inconsistent width, no constant reminder to check it. Bad design, bad for security.
-- Plus it effectively "broken links" years worth of training advice. "ALWAYS LOOK AT THE MOHTERFUCKING STATUS BAR!" User: "I don't see a status bar. This must be old advice. I'll ignore it." {clicks on <a href="google.com.risudfs.ru">Free monies!</a>}
-
@Lorne Kates said:
-- Plus it effectively "broken links" years worth of training advice. "ALWAYS LOOK AT THE MOHTERFUCKING STATUS BAR!" User: "I don't see a status bar. This must be old advice. I'll ignore it." {clicks on <a href="google.com.risudfs.ru">Free monies!</a>}
Free monies!Yep, broken link.
-
@dhromed said:
@El_Heffe said:
(a) Progress indicator (page load / file download). I find it useful and so do a lot of other people. More importantly, the fact that it's been there since the earliest versions of Firefox and probably was there in the original Mozilla Suite that pre-dates Firefox, is good enough reason to leave it alone.For example he put a proper status bar back into the program
What do you use it for?(b) The proper status bar displays the same information as the current fucked up status bar but does it in a less annoying way. Having a staus bar popping in and out rapidly while moving your cursor across the screen is distracting and annoying. Also, this behavior cannot be be configured or disabled, so it's actually two steps back, not just one.
(c) Add-ons with icons placed in the add-on bar. The current fucked up status bar floats above it - using up more screen space than was used with the previous status bar. The main argument used for removing the proper status bar (that it would allow more room for page content) is actually false. (The new Australis version "fixes" this problem by eliminating the add-on bar. Nice.)
(d) What Lorne said.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
1) Visually deliniating the bottom of the window, so it doesn't look like it just ENDS
OH NOES my window JUST ENDS all the words are going to fall out the bottom get the virtual dustpan!!!
I don't know what OS you use, but mine has this thing called "window borders". There's even one on the bottom, to keep your web content securely in-place!
@Lorne Kates said:
2) Display that STATUS in BAR format. What page it's loading. Where the link goes. Download progress of page and/or files.
I don't use FF, but Chrome manages to do that just fine without an always-visible status bar.
@Lorne Kates said:
3) Icons of commonly used tools because that's where they've always been, and they don't clutter up the top of the screen (Firebug, noScript, Greasemonkey, Stylish, Ghostery, RequestPolicy). They're nice tiny little icons, instead of a ton of gigantic FUCK YOU sized icons on top
This one is true and I think it's hilarious. Firefox, especially if you use the Jetpack API, basically force--"gently encourages" Add-Ons to have their UI in the Add-On bar which shows up on the status bar. ... then they hide it by default. Dicks.
Thankfully, even with the Jetpack API you can use a bit of hackery to put your icon back up in the navigation area. Until they undoubtedly delete that next release.
@Lorne Kates said:
4) Do that I don't constantly have shit fade in/fade out over top of text as I move the mouse across the screen. I fucking hate having shit flashing in the corner of my eye, and that "hide it until you need it" status bar does just that.
Homeless drunk man ranting!! COMMIES IN MY SKULL!!!!! RADIO BEAMS FROM URANUS JESUS JESUS JESUS COMMIES! UGH!!!!!
@Lorne Kates said:
5) As a training tool for less technically savvy users. Seriously, for years the advice was always LOOK AT THE MOTHERFUCKING STATUS BAR BEFORE CLICKING ON A LINK.
Nobody ever said that. And in any case, the Chrome implementation still does that.
It sounds like your real complaints are less, "the status bar should never be hidden!" and more "goddamned Firefox is a flaming piece of shit!"
Serious question: have you ever encountered a UI change that you actually like? You just hate change. Which is fine, keep using Firefox 3.6, I don't give a shit.
-
@El_Heffe said:
More importantly, the fact that it's been there since the earliest versions of Firefox and probably was there in the original Mozilla Suite that pre-dates Firefox, is good enough reason to leave it alone.
Right! And horse-whipping! People were whipping horses for centuries, so that's good enough reason to be whipping horses right now! I'm gonna go down to the local stable and cut a switch, FUCK YA. And slavery! If ten years of having a status bar is enough to establish it as a "thing that should forever be present", then we better fucking go back to holding slaves post-haste! Because, fuck man, we had tens of thousands of years of slavery, so that's like... a thousand status bars worth of "thing that should forever be present".
(Seriously, do you people even *think* about these posts before you hit the submit button?)
