Multi-Process Comes To Firefox Nightly, 64-bit Firefox For Windows 'Soon'

An anonymous reader writes with word that the Mozilla project has made two announcements that should make hardcore Firefox users very happy. The first is that multi-process support is landing in Firefox Nightly, and the second is that 64-bit Firefox is finally coming to Windows. The features are a big deal on their own, but together they show Mozilla's commitment to the desktop version of Firefox as they both improve performance and security. The news is part of a slew of unveilings from the company on the browser's 10th anniversary — including new Firefox features and the debut of Firefox Developer Edition.

Comments

Sea Monkey

[bussdriver]

Use Sea Monkey - Netscape Communicator theme and related extras supported forever without change.

http://www.seamonkey-project.o...

Re:only thing I care about

[reub2000]

Firefox has had the ask-to-activate for flash for some time. Go to about:addons, select plugins from the menu on the left, and next to each plugins there is a menu where you can select ask to activate.

Re:Good

[MSG]

Chrome still has the technology edge in several cases

Some, maybe. It's getting harder to name them. Firefox is a smaller download, uses less RAM, starts faster, and (if arewefastyet is to be believed) has a faster JavaScript engine now. And the mobile version supports plugins. And I can run my own sync server if I want to.

The Paradox of Tolerance

[Tenebrousedge]

The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

Karl Popper, Vol. 1, Notes to the Chapters: Ch. 7, Note 4

Paradox is not necessarily a fallacy, and blind moral relativism is not a good thing. There is no need to be tolerant of the views of murderous dictators, rabid extremists, or any other group which opposes freedom and tolerance. Resisting bigots results in more tolerance, not less (although if you're a bigot you might think the distribution is unfair).