Firefox, again
-
Ok, I know you are being confrontational for the sake of being confrontational, but really? I am hardly defending him, here. My whole point is that he has more 'intelligence' than sense, and worse, he doesn't realize it. He's basically reasoned himself into a corner, and then spent the next twenty-five years defending that corner despite the obvious errors he made.
Filed under: is there a
for selective quoting?
-
Ok, I know you are being confrontational for the sake of being confrontational, but really?
Fuck you!!!
I am hardly defending him, here. My whole point is that he has more 'intelligence' than sense, and worse, he doesn't realize it.
You're using a definition of the word "intelligence" that I can't get behind.
-
Yes, we know, in your mind, "Intelligence" means perfectly balanced and in agreement with yourself, just like "Lie" means anything untrue.
-
-
except they could be receiving more money on the free market.
-
So in this metaphor Mozilla is the baby and oss licensing is the bath water? If so then we agree.
I wasn't suggesting that there is anything wrong with open source projects, it's just that I don't see what practical value the actual licensing offers. Maybe in the days before source control, trying to keep track of who had the rights to what would have made collaboration a headache, but these days it seems like people spend more time quibbling over with license to use than they would ever spend running git blame if we were to abolish all this Eula bullshit and go back to the original system for protecting a person's right of ownership to anything they have written.
-
Interestingly, that same 'everyone a programmer' mentality was a key factor in both the successes and failures of the Xerox PARC research team, and specifically was the fundamental design concept enshrined in the design of Smalltalk. Funny stuff, in light of how that ended up; if you ever wondered why it has such a strange (lack of) syntax, that's it right there.
I have actually never wondered that. Though I have grown up believing that k&r is the be-all and end-all of syntaxes (sintices?). If we're going to talk about works of genius, the more programming languages I learn about, the more convinced I am that c-style syntax is the wheel. C itself has plenty of flaws, but 99% of those relate to the semantics, not the syntax. I suppose I'm glad that stuff like generics and lambdas have been added in to c-syntax languages, but in general, any time I see a language designer deviating from the standard, my first thought is “Really? Are you sure you want to mess with a good thing?”.Anyway, buried in there was another point about how I prefer to talk about works of genius than calling specific people geniuses. I think this is an opinion that I got from Einstein (and you basically have to listen to what he says, the guy's a total genius
), that maybe the theory of relativity is genius, but he's just the guy who noticed it. So, for example, Chomsky's work of genius is the Chomsky hierarchy (but that was just a side effect of his wrong-headed quest to foist his deeply held beliefs about human nature on all of us), Marx's work of genius—as I have mentioned elsewhere—was the invention of ideological warfare, which I wanted to compare to those of Alfred Nobel and Oppen Heimer, but then I remembered that tnt and nukes actually have some practical value. And the only thing that could legitimately be called rms's work of genius is gnu, which isn't something that I personally care for.
-
-
-
MrL:
If abolishing public funding for campaigns had any significant popularity, it would be proposed by at least one of bigger parties.Gaska:
And when I said there is one major party that actually proposed it (presented the project on a parliamentary session and tried to get it all the way through legislative way [which they failed to, but still]), you refuted it as irrelevant because:MrL:
I meant "proposed" as "one of highlighted points of political program", not "used to fill 2 minutes of evening news once, maybe".Gaska:
Which clearly shows where your priorities are.Yeah, you didn't understand. No suprise there.
So, again:
If abolishing public funding for campaigns had any significant popularity, it would be used as an important point in political program/propaganda of one of major parties, to sway supporters of that idea towards this party.
But, it is not a popular idea, and/or not considered important by the public.
-
Yeah well, then why one of the three questions in the national referendum later this year will be specifically about if people want to keep financing political parties from public budget*? Seems like it's pretty important thing (or at least our politicians think it's pretty important), about as much as introducing single-member districts which has a whole political soon-to-be-party devoted to just this single issue, and their leader got third place in presidential elections (earning 21% of votes).
* - The actual question is constructed in such a way that saying "no" is pretty much meaningless, but that's another matter. Bonus WTF: single-member districts are currently against the Constitution, so even if it gets past the referendum, it will still be a long way to get them running, and the last question is totally meaningless.
-
Marx's work of genius—as I have mentioned elsewhere—was the invention of ideological warfare
He also was about the first person to describe Capitalism, naming it as a thing rather than it just being “how things are”. Lots of stuff is obvious once a genius has done the hard work of having the new thought; that doesn't mean that the originality was easy.
-
He also was about the first person to describe Capitalism, naming it as a
thingn ideology rather than it just being “how things are”.Lots of stuff is obvious once a genius has done the hard work 🏢
-
The referendum is a part of anti government wave of recent months, and is used by non-government parties as "let's change the country" banner and to gain tv time during the campaign.
Question about campaign financing is used in all that to lower interest in the referendum, as no party really wants to make the changes that are asked about (maybe except soon-to-be-party-for-idiots).
-
The referendum is a part of anti government wave of recent months, and is used by non-government parties as "let's change the country" banner and to gain tv time during the campaign.
Yep, and our former president who announced the referendum and made up the questions had totally nothing to do with it. Not at all. It was all the antigovernmentalists.Question about campaign financing is used in all that to lower interest in the referendum, as no party really wants to make the changes that are asked about (maybe except soon-to-be-party-for-idiots).
I don't follow you at all here. How is it supposed to lower interest? And how is what the parties want relevant to what the people want?
-
Yep, and our former president who announced the referendum and made up the questions had totally nothing to do with it. Not at all. It was all the antigovernmentalists.
The announcement was an idiotic effort by the former president to show that he listens to public opinion, loud party-of-idiots especially. It was ineffective and shortsighted, as now it's used by anti government parties, as I described.
I don't follow you at all here. How is it supposed to lower interest?
Unpopular questions, stupid ones, or just too many of them, lowers interest. The more referendum is seen as unimportant or as unserious circus, the less people will attend.
And how is what the parties want relevant to what the people want?
Parties rely on what people want. The relation is not direct, of course.
-
The announcement was an idiotic effort by the former president to show that he listens to public opinion, loud party-of-idiots especially. It was ineffective and shortsighted, as now it's used by anti government parties, as I described.
And none of this is a sign that people care about this issue, right?Parties rely on what people want. The relation is not direct, of course.
You forgot about the basic conflict of interest - people want as little money wasted by government as possible, and politicians want as much money going to them as possible.
-
And none of this is a sign that people care about this issue, right?
Vocal minority of idiots is not people.
You forgot about the basic conflict of interest - people want as little money wasted by government as possible, and politicians want as much money going to them as possible.
People claim that, as a broad meaningless slogan, but when it comes to specifics, they want exactly the opposite.
-
Vocal minority of idiots is not people.
You forget that vocal minority of idiots is the only group that cares about politics at all. In other words, of all people who care at all about politics, this minority of idiots is the largest and most important group.People claim that, as a broad meaningless slogan, but when it comes to specifics, they want exactly the opposite.
You must differentiate between what people want and what people have deep up their asses. If someone doesn't care that they're paying 50% of what they earn in taxes, it doesn't mean they approve.
-
You forget that vocal minority of idiots is the only group that cares about politics at all. In other words, of all people who care at all about politics, this minority of idiots is the largest and most important group.
That's simply false. They have something like 13% of theoretical poll popularity. Which is lower and lower by the month.
You must differentiate between what people want and what people have deep up their asses. If someone doesn't care that they're paying 50% of what they earn in taxes, it doesn't mean they approve.
But they do approve. Social spending and privileges are very popular. High taxes are also approved, just 'not for me, but for others'.
-
That's simply false. They have something like 13% of theoretical poll popularity. Which is lower and lower by the month.
I forgot to ask - which of the vocal groups of idiots do you consider to be this 13%?But they do approve. Social spending and privileges are very popular. High taxes are also approved, just 'not for me, but for others'.
It highly depends on who you ask. In my experience, hardly anybody advocates high taxes (even for just the richest 1% or something), but in the same group most people don't attend elections.
-
I forgot to ask - which of the vocal groups of idiots do you consider to be this 13%?
Kukiz pseudo party, in this case. Not that we have any shortage of other types of idiots.
It highly depends on who you ask. In my experience, hardly anybody advocates high taxes (even for just the richest 1% or something), but in the same group most people don't attend elections.
It also depends on how you ask. No one will say he's for killing people, but death penalty? Why not.
Wasting money by the state? That's outrageous! But benefits for unemployed? Absolutely.
High taxes? Nooo, taxes should be low. But banks should pay more. And corporations. And supermarkets.
Oh, and employers, those greedy bastards.
And rich/politicians/clergy*.Also - don't judge general public by people you know or even meet. It's a very small sample and very biased by who you are and what you do.
*pick your favourite scapegoat.
-
Kukiz pseudo party, in this case.
So, if I understand correctly, the 20% of idiots who voted for him in presidential elections shouldn't be treated seriously because... raisins? Contrary to other idiots, e.g. Komorowski's electorate, who have all rights to be heard and their demands to be fulfilled, because... more raisins?It also depends on how you ask. No one will say he's for killing people, but death penalty? Why not.
Unless people being asked think that death penalty is the same kind of killing as any other kind.Wasting money by the state? That's outrageous! But benefits for unemployed? Absolutely.
Unless people being asked think that benefits for unemployed is wasting money.High taxes? Nooo, taxes should be low. But banks should pay more. And corporations. And supermarkets.Oh, and employers, those greedy bastards.
Unless people being asked think that the only result of taxing those enterpreneurs higher will be that the services they provide will become more expensive to compensate, so the actual people that will pay those taxes will be commoners.Also - don't judge general public by people you know or even meet.
And vice versa - as shown above.
-
-
Fun fact: during the last campaign, Polish internets were overflooded with cookies-related puns.
-
So, if I understand correctly, the 20% of idiots who voted for him in presidential elections shouldn't be treated seriously because... raisins? Contrary to other idiots, e.g. Komorowski's electorate, who have all rights to be heard and their demands to be fulfilled, because... more raisins?
I don't know where you got this from.
Unless people being asked think [...]
That's the whole point - general public is too stupid to make a connection between those things.
And vice versa - as shown above.
I don't even know what my friends political views are.
What general public thinks is pretty well shown by election results.
-
I wasn't suggesting that there is anything wrong with open source projects, it's just that I don't see what practical value the actual licensing offers.
There's little practical value to the end user for brace style. That doesn't mean that stuff like that has no importance.
...and go back to the original system for protecting a person's right of ownership to anything they have written.
People have different opinions. Film at 11.
-
He also was about the first person to describe Capitalism, naming it as a thing rather than it just being “how things are”.
I'll admit to not being all up on the details of his writings, but most of the stuff I've read didn't seem to do a great job describing much of anything. Wikipedia seems to disagree with you:
Now, if you'd said something about how he obsessed about capitalism...
-
-
@boomzilla said:
People have different opinions. Film at 11
Yes but my opinions are correct 📁
Correct. When you're agreeing with me.
-
Actually, in my opinion, it is impossible for anyone's opinion to be correct.
Filed under: I think you're all a bunch of
Cretanscretins!
-
Actually, in my opinion, it is impossible for anyone's opinion to be correct.
With wrong opinions like that, I'm not surprised!
-
Mozilla sets plan to dump Firefox add-ons, move to Chrome-like extensions
Developers will have until mid-2017 to switch to the new programming model.
Good news everyone! All existing Firefox add-ons are officially deprecated, and will have to be re-written for their new API.
-
Next step: switch to Webkit?
-
Good news everyone! All existing Firefox add-ons are officially deprecated, and will have to be re-written for their new API.
I was just about to start a new thread for this. I was pondering the title "Firefox cuts off their own dick to fuck themselves in the ass with".
-
This does look worthy of its own topic.
-
This does look worthy of its own topic.
On one hand, I agree. On the other hand, I'll be godfucked if I'm going to suggest a jeffing.
-
They're also planning to drop support for HTTP. Cool, huh?
Not sure if serious.We are through the looking glass on insane web browsers, people.
Edit: OH JESUS FUCK YOU'RE NOT MAKING IT UP.
-
What I want to know is what were they smoking when they thought this was a good idea. Those of us with a more… reality-based mindset are less-than-happy with the whole thing.
-
As a school netadmin, I can assure Mozilla that the main effect of a relentless drive toward HTTPS is going to be the complete undermining of HTTPS as a thing of value.
Schools and many workplaces have a completely legitimate need to inspect and filter network traffic. If the majority of network traffic is carried over HTTPS, then the only filtering option is to break HTTPS with a MITM filter using spoofed server certificates, which requires the installation of the filter's own root cert in users' devices. Many workplaces are already outsourcing this kind of thing to Security-As-A-Service providers who are set up to do SSL MITM in bulk.
It's already bad enough that some unknown handful of the hundreds of root certs already installed in every browser will already be unworthy of the trust we place in them by default. But as an SSL user connecting from such a workplace, I am required to trust an entity with which I have no business relationship at all to do the right thing when given complete access to all my so-called secured data. This is the exact weakness that end-to-end encryption was designed to remove.
Most device users will not understand this and will blindly accept installation of the cert that workplace IT says they have to install in order to use their devices at work.
Encrypting the Web != securing the Web. I would have thought that Mozilla contained at least some project leads who understand this.
-
This is an interesting perspective I had not heard.
Unfortunately it seems Mozilla has lost its vision, and is trying to do all sort of random shit not related to what people know and respect them for, i.e. Firefox browser.
FirefoxOS, deprecating HTTP, and now I hear some major overhaul of Add-ons that will break their most differentiating factor from Chrome! big experiments need lots of cash, even Google split into Alphabet to keep the core clean and profitable.
-
I think they're on a classic spiral of "we're losing market share, let's do weird stuff in hopes we get it back!".
Alternatively known as "running around like a chicken with its head cut off".
-
Seems to me they're doing their best to be just like Chrome in every possible way, and have been for quite some time; it started with the idiot six week release cycle and got worse from there. Which I personally find very frustrating because I dislike Chrome intensely.
-
Our school's IT company tried this as well. Only problem: They set the MITM on the proxy which routed the traffic for the Bring Your Own Device network intended for teachers and pupils.
-
My point is that if everything is HTTPS, that very policy will need to become typical, and a installing a spoofing root cert will become a standard condition of connecting your own device to school or other workplace networks. After a while, people will get so used to needing to install new certs before a network will work that they'll be routinely doing it at McDonald's as well; the UAC effect in network form.
-
Unlikely, at least over here. Data protection laws and all that stuff. As soon as you have a network that's not intended for strictly internal use in a business, you're not allowed to install any kind of sniffing tools.
-
BYOD on a school network is a bit of a grey area there. Also, it's not necessarily the business installing the sniffing tools; in many cases it will be a third-party SAAS provider.
-
Not grey at all. You're not allowed to do such things, period. The devices don't belong to you and as a result, you have no right to access data to, from or on it.
-
Tell that to Zscaler.
At the school I netadmin, the only way out from our district-managed VPN is through Zscaler. I have refused to turn on its SSL sniffer for our site; instead, student Internet accounts can't connect to HTTPS sites at all unless their domains appear on a school whitelist I maintain, in which case they get proper end-to-end encryption.
If most of the web goes TLS, and especially if browsers start insisting on it, this is not going to be sustainable.
I don't imagine I'm the only netadmin in the same position.
-
Germany's laws are different in that regard.
Capitalism - Wikipedia
Deprecating Non-Secure HTTP – Mozilla Security Blog
