Slashdot Mirror
Firefox and the 4-Year Battle To Have Google To Treat It as a First-Class Citizen (zdnet.com)
Web monoculture is well and truly alive when Google cannot be bothered to make a full-featured cross-browser mobile search page. From a report: It has been over five years since Firefox really turned a corner and started to morph from its bloated memory-munching ways into the lightning-quick browser it is today. Buried in Mozilla's issue tracker is a bug that kicked off in February 2014, and is yet to be resolved: Have Google treat Firefox for Android as a first-class citizen and serve up comparable content to what the search giant hands Chrome and Safari. After years of requests, meetings, and to and fro, it has hit a point where the developers of Firefox are experimenting by manipulating the user agent string in its nightly development builds to trick Google into thinking that Firefox Mobile is a Chrome browser. Not only does Google's search page degrade for Firefox on Android, but some new properties like Google Flights have occasionally taken to outright blocking of the browser.
Sounds like a good case for an anti-trust suit.
I thought the days of delivering different content depending on the brand of browser was over. I guess some companies still think it is OK to provide different content to different platforms.
--
Firefox is best browser i have ever use. But need some improvement like use Language translation option. So, we can read all language articles, news, and more things. Add this feature to firefox.
It was bad 10 years ago, when pages were “best viewed in Internet Explorer”. The fact that nowadays it’s Google Chrome rather than IE doesn’t make it any less bad.
Code your web pages using web standards, guys. Then, if things are broken in a particular browser - submit a bug report.
#DeleteChrome
And I don't miss anything. Use ixquick, duckduckgo, searx. Don't use Google, period.
It takes some time to get used to (with no tracking, the search engine knows less about you, that means you've got to think a bit more about your search terms), but who wants to degenerate into some kind of jellyfish attached to Google? Remember: their business model depends on this happening, whereas your sanity depends on this not happening. Google and you are not allies!
...In the same way Trump is getting 'respect' from Putin. Trying to imitate your competitor absolutely and completely is no way to help either of you. The only thing you're going to get in return is mild amusement from your competition, and an audience confused about what you're even trying to offer them.
Killing plugins/statusbar/etc. was basically sabotaging everything that made Firefox hold an advantage. Trying to compete as a Chrome clone, just makes it useless as a choice.
I'll stick with Firefox 56 until a new browser based on that version takes off.
Ryan Fenton
Does anyone get respect from Google search? I search for two words, word1 and word2, and right there on page 1 of the results are many that don't include one of the necessary words. Farther down are words that are similar but wrong. And, still on page 1 of the results are finds that include neither word. Some results have oriental characters and no English at all.
Google says there are 52,200 results. I click on the last page and it says "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 300 already displayed.", except that there were less than 200 hits, very few of which matched the criteria.
Google used to inform users of the size of each web page in the results. A search result that was 10K bytes might be a good hit, but a search result page that was 4MB was probably a spam page with a long list of random words.
Much additional information was available about each search result that is now denied us. Those of us who haven't forgotten know that the information is available. Google has simply decided not to give it to us. After all these years is there no competitor that can replicate the original search engine and give Google some competition?
...omphaloskepsis often...
Be going thru this bullshit if Microsoft had been crushed in court like it should have been in the late 90s.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Chrome should never have been allowed to gain a dominant market share. But Firefox conceded market share with dropping XUL and its numerous UI “experiments” too. Google should be forced to have a “browser choice” screen on Android to give other browsers a chance.
I realise it is a troll, but it is always worth reminding people that capitalism requires a well regulated market. Whatever you may think of it, if people contributing to the market are allowed to lie, cheat, steal or otherwise manipulate the rules of the game what you have is not capitalism. To what extent that already happens is left as an exercise to the reader. Google has been allowed to become a monopoly, which makes abuse far easier for them to abuse the market to the point it is difficult to avoid. Time for some scrutiny.
Using your monopoly in one market (search) to tilt the playing field for your product in another (browser) is a textbook example of anticompetitive behaviour. Browser products should be allowed to compete on their own terms.
Whined about it on this very site for a solid 5 years. Really really loved a lot of things about it, infact almost everything except performance, it's woeful when you load it up with many many tabs (chrome, is not like this)
Sadly, they fixed the performance issue, by destroying all their plugins and switching plugin types, so I've stopped using it.
As for mobile systems, well that's sad too. Firefox is awful on mobile, just the interactivity with opening a tab. I tend to hold down "open in new background tab" - I always browse like this, always. Continue reading my article, read my followups after. The 'clickyness' and delay / sensitivity on the hold downs and font selection on firefox is terrrrrrible on mobile.
On the other hand, Firefox for mobile, I THINK supports plugins (of some kind) - I particularly miss the ability to "close tab if already open elsehwere" when you open a link. That's very useful. But no plugins on Chrome mobile.
Be careful with "well regulated", that's a tricky expression. It does NOT mean "under control of government regulations". It means "kept in proper condition, ready to function as soon as needed." That's how it is used in the Second Amendment.
Circumcision is child abuse.
Seriously, even the threat will have Google doing anything to accommodate. They have a business model based entirely on a search monopoly. They'll put a lot of effort into keeping it.
If not the government, then who else? Even the most rabid Randian accepts that there needs to be a small function of the government to keep order, unless you are an anarchist or plutocrat?
User-Agent headers, and browser fingerprinting in general, are the worst idea ever made for the web.
Seriously, put up standardised content. If it doesn't display, either you code is not-to-standard, or their device is. Guess who suffers? The party who skimped on their implementation (i.e. you because your website doesn't work for your customers, or them because they can't get on standard websites that others can).
The second we said "Okay, so what are you accessing it on, so I can fix my rubbish site to take account of your particular quirks", we lost the point of the web.
One of the big issues with restrictive access to web content concerns video. There are so many sites [MSNBC, CNN, Top Gear, others] where Firefox simply doesn't work, yet pretty much everything on YouTube does.
I think this is simply a case of lack of support for HTML5 standards. Well, that and the fact that it also locks out the non-Windows, non-Mac community.
Good to see that all those tax dollars we put towards anti-trust protections for citizens are well spent...
In the same sense that they're free to fart in the Elevator and piss on the walls in a public restroom.
I am frequently amazed how Americans manage to make things be about the right to be able to kill other people at the squeeze of a trigger.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
The definition (from Merriam-Webster) of capitalism is:
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
There is no requirement for well regulated or anything.
This is an example of the no true Scotsman fallacy. Concretely, pure capitalism seems to lead to monopolies. Instead of accepting this and thus that pure capitalism is not perfect, people try to change the definition of it.
And once again history repeats itself. Microsoft stole the crown of evil from IBM back in the late 80s-early 90s, now Google has conclusively stolen the mantle for themselves by doing the exact same anticompetitive bullshit.
I wonder who the next one will be, and how long it will take Google to stop being evil (a point which IBM have already reached; Windows 10's slurping shows that MS aren't there yet).
which just proves that america is just a bunch of clones.. which in turn explains the whole star wars clone crud, and trump, bush, raegan, clinton, nixon etc...
And it is still a memory hog. Now with multiple processes, it can suck up all of the RAM on my laptop, and I need to shut down Firefox to run some other application. As a workaround, I had to change the configuration to reduce the number of processes.
What the heck are you people doing? I have Firefox open with scores of tabs all the time (for you wet-behind-the-ears types, a score is 20, scores is more than 20) and never have any issues.
Memory-munching Atom and Electron apps are a far bigger problem, especially with #Slack chewing down 1 GB of RAM or more per subscribed channel.
Thank god for dark mode on FF.
Google and others, WHITE SUCKS
White websites are shit.
Its so yahoo 1999.
Yeah - slashdot too, ugly as fuck as its white - great with plugin making it dark.
White is ass shite ugly.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
That sounds like the Windows vs. Linux debate. On both sides.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
There is no requirement for well regulated or anything.
There is if you want it to actually work in the real world. Dictionary definitions are pretty much useless here. There is nothing wrong with private ownership and profit motives and they routinely benefit society greatly. That said, we have centuries of evidence that in more than a few cases we have to make and enforce some rules to keep things moving smoothly. Anyone who denies this fact is either clueless or has ulterior motives.
Concretely, pure capitalism seems to lead to monopolies.
Only in some cases. Monopolies are not universally a bad thing - in some contexts they can be quite helpful. Utilities for example actually have the lowest costs when there is a monopoly. In some industries achieving a monopoly would be a good approximation of impossible even with no regulation of any kind. But in all cases any monopoly needs to be examined closely and regulated to some degree. I can think of no case where an unregulated monopoly has been a good thing for society.
Kill off extensions and watch what little market share you had disppear: http://gs.statcounter.com/. They are at 5.17%. The highest they ever were was 31.82% in Nov, 2009. They stopped innovating, got political, became a Chrome copycat, and lost everything.
It is okay. That's called "freedom of choice." It may or may not be a good business move, but they're free to do that.
The concern is that it ceases to be a choice. We almost had that unfortunate state of affairs with Internet Explorer before Firefox came along and it wasn't good. If Google manages to make Chrome a de-facto standard then they effectively can push all other browers out of the market and start establishing "standards" at will that favor them and them alone. This is not an idle or trivial concern.
I hate Google. That's why I don't use their products. That's my choice. You have the same option.
I have better things to do than to waste my time hating a company. I tried that in the past and it was a waste of time. Google is fine as long as you understand what they are and what their motivations are. I use some of their products but refuse to tie myself to them (or anyone else) exclusively. Their search engine works very well and their email services are pretty useful. I sometimes use their maps applications. All of those have alternatives if I become dissatisfied with any of them. Many people like Android and that's fine too if it suits your needs.
Does anyone remember how Microsoft played similar games with DR-DOS by deliberately making their programs crash, complain, or do strange things when said programs noticed that the operating system was DR-DOS rather than MS-DOS? It's the same thing but with different players.
>"Instead of accepting this and thus that pure capitalism is not perfect, people try to change the definition of it."
Pure capitalism *is* perfect, in theory. Unfettered capitalism works great assuming perfect information availability, perfect freedom, and perfectly educated and informed consumers. The problem is that doesn't happen like that in the real world. Hence, the need for some limited regulation to help stop monopolies from taking over and destroying competition.
The tricky part is striking the correct balance of "regulation". Once you start over-regulating, everyone loses just as much as if there were no regulation (through stifling of innovation, lack of initiative, higher prices, poorer quality, and ultimately fewer choices).
logic and have it interpreted by the client's software.
The IDIOCY of the current web environment is staggering.
I am frequently amazed how Americans manage to make things be about the right to be able to kill other people at the squeeze of a trigger.
You ... literally just defined government. " the right to be able to {officially} kill other people at the squeeze of a trigger"
I am frequently amazed how Americans manage to make things be about the right to be able to kill other people at the squeeze of a trigger.
I think the true problem in the US is the fact that people want to have rights without responsibilities. I have nothing against anyone owning a gun so long as they take responsibility for it and store it, and its ammunition, in a safe manner. The problem is that people often neglect to do so because they're paranoid about home invasions and other such things that, while they do happen, are statistically unlikely to happen to any specific person.
Relevent XKCD
If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
Stop being a d*ckhead Google, fix your shit.
https://webaim.org/blog/user-agent-string-history/
if people contributing to the market are allowed to lie, cheat, steal or otherwise manipulate the rules of the game what you have is not capitalism.
Actually, that sounds exactly like capitalism.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Sad how things have changed.
Capitalism doesn't result in a "realy free market", that's why government controls are needed.
Because if you knew what you're talking about, you'd know that the progressive era anti-trust campaigns were started by REPUBLICAN Teddy Roosevelt.
#fail
Back to history class for you!
And if YOU actually knew history, you would know:
As Governor of New York, Roosevelt made a lot of waves with his anti-trust campaigns, and it really pissed off the Republicans. So, they came up with a plan to get rid of him.
When William McKinley was running for president in 1900, the Republicans nominated Roosevelt for Vice President because it's a do-nothing job with no real authority to do anything. Making Roosevelt Vice President would put an end to his anti-trust activities.
Unfortunately (for Republicans), McKinley died a month after taking office and Roosevelt became president.
You ... literally just defined government. " the right to be able to {officially} kill other people at the squeeze of a trigger"
It is sad how limited view you have of government. Legal execution of people is in no way a requirement of governing said people. In the majority of countries in the world it is illegal for anyone to execute any of its citizen (sans self defence).
When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
It's the defining characteristic of government. Want to know who the government is, in a location? It's whoever can legitimately send armed men against you to enforce their will.
What about pissing on the walls of an elevator?
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
If guns are readily available, then nutters and dope fiends, and your average maniac can get old of the guns and go on a murder rampage.
If guns are less available then there are less nutters on the rampage with guns. A small number of non-nutters could be mildly inconvenienced, but mildly inconvenienced is better than dead.
In general, if your government is not allowed to go round killing people, and Putin is not using Facebook to goad a bunch of dimbos, then the ballot box is a good way to control your government.
If you need guns to control your government, that is a civil war - see Syria, Yemen and Somalia for examples of how that will go. No government is definitely worse that almost all governments, probably including Assad and even Saddam.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
The definition (from Merriam-Webster) of capitalism is:
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
There is no requirement for well regulated or anything.
This is an example of the no true Scotsman fallacy. Concretely, pure capitalism seems to lead to monopolies. Instead of accepting this and thus that pure capitalism is not perfect, people try to change the definition of it.
This, free markets require necessary regulation, capitalism requires no such thing. There has never been a true capitalist economy, unlike communism which has been tried and failed, pure capitalism failed before even getting off the ground. Almost all successful economies are mixed, neither pure capitalist or socialist.
OTOH, free markets can be strangled by too much unnecessary regulation. Its a balancing act.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Not necessarily with the intent to kill you. In Europe we have hostage negotiators, not hostage executors.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Newsflash: The most important aspect of July 4th to me, personally, was my grandmother's birthday. It is not a celebrated holiday in Europe.
And again, this isn't about my perception of the second amendment; it's about how the comment I replied to jumped from talking about regulation of business in a free market to said second amendment without even stopping to take a breath.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
The problem here is that people generally mean an economy which follows free market principles when they use the word capitalism. One of the principles of a free market economic system is that the market be "well regulated", which, as another poster pointed out, does not mean government regulation (although those might play a role). One of the keys to well regulated markets is that information be allowed to flow freely and that those who commit theft and/or fraud be identified and punished.
In a truly free market, monopolies are exceedingly rare, and always short-lived. Even in the types of free markets we see in the real world, monopolies only last any length of time when the government intervenes in the market to protect them...and most monopolies came into existence in the first place because of government regulations. I only know of one monopoly which managed to form without government regulations which created the environment which led directly to its formation and even that one can be argued.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Concretely, pure capitalism seems to lead to monopolies. Instead of accepting this and thus that pure capitalism is not perfect, people try to change the definition of it.
Um... ok, you "win", let's say that capitalism doesn't by definition require regulation. Now that that epic and meaningful battle is over, can we get on with talking about how regulation is needed EVEN IF IT'S NOT PART OF THE DEFINITION?
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
That's society in general. Societies rely on people subscribing to the ideals/rules of that society. Those of you ranting about "hurr dur gubermints dun kills peeple" fail to understand that whether it's governments, warlords, anarchial leaders, clubs, families, tribes, clans, or brotherhoods, the factors that allow their existence is that some people may be forced to act a certain way. There is no alternative. Anarchy has never and will never be a thing. People seek to be lead and others seek to lead and the few retards who refuse to conform are outcasted. The only difference is that in the past it was easier to just kill them off. Now they just suck at society's teats as "freemen" and "Sovereign Citizens".
Tor Browser conspicuously features duckduckgo.com as the preferred search engine.
Microsoft provides search services for Duck Duck Go, so much that Bing's results are commonly identical. Firefox can and should promote Bing in all of it's guises.
The startpage.com search engine appears to be based in Europe, and seems to continue to outsource to Google although this branding was recently removed from the home page.
It is Firefox that should demote Google to a second-class citizen, immediately opening an incognito window on startpage.com for Google searches and potentially launching a Tor process for it (which they are in discussions to bundle). Firefox should loudly begin work to sandbox gmail, maps, drive, and all other Google properties.
A few press releases of this, without even beginning work, would likely get Mozilla everything it wants.
If not the government, then who else?
The people. After all, that's who the governemt is supposed to be of and for in this country.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
For most of us it's more about the right to be able to put holes in paper targets from a distance, but you go on and think we're all murderous pricks. That we may also use those weapons to defend ourselves if someone should break into our homes is secondary for a lot of us, because we really don't have much fear of that actually happening.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Except the comment you are referring to, didn't do that. The comment that you are referring to was making a point about 'well-regulated market' simply used the 2nd amendment as an example of a specific usage of the term 'well-regulated'.
Try harder next time, idiot euro-troll.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Not enough of you, apparently.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Yes, and the negotiations come down to "release the hostages or we kill you." If killing wasn't an option, they'd be a lot less effective.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
So you'd be fine with keeping your gun stored in a central locker at the shooting range?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
It went from talking about the definition of "well regulated" to an example of where that definition was actually used. Do you have a better example? No? The sit down and shut up.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
F-Droid has a browser implemented with the system Webview that disables Javascript by default, and gives you a one-button enable.
Privacy Browser does not offer extensions, but it does have a few more useful features, including blocklists and Tor integration.
I hope that you find it useful.
For it to be sustainable, yes, actually.
Absent some sort of regulation (even self-regulation works), all of the money ends up on one side of the table; then, you no longer have a market and capitalism has failed.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Browser fingerprinting is big business. Tor Browser constantly throws warning dialogs for sites using the canvas element in attempts to uniquely identify your machine.
Tor Browser also warns you not to maximize it, as your monitor size is also useful tracking information.
And I'd argue that the referenced definition means "Under control instead of random hillbillies that like to shoot at redcoats", but what do I know.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Google is a more than bit like M$ and as a monopoly controls access to its market.
Google will continue to treat any competitor to any of its products as second class citizens unless forced to change by a regulator or a judge .
That somewhat violates the secondary concern I stated; unless the range I have set up in my back yard counts, in which case, yes, I'd be fine with that because it's already what I do.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Well maybe the damned redcoats should have stayed out of the random hillbillies' back yards?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
So it's a civil war when you have a significant ISIL presence in your country waging war against the government and the people at the same time?
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Does a driver's license give one the right to be able to run over another person at the press of a pedal? Yes, but the principal at stake is that of freedom and liberty. The second amendment enables some means of combating intrusions to a free society (though the means are feeling increasingly quaint, similar to the freedom of the press).
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
There also zero barriers of entry to the search market.
Of course, that's not remotely true. The bandwidth and storage required to actively trawl and index the web is non-trivial, and that's not including the R&D or licensing costs to get search algorithms on parity with google. And even if you could look up the algorithm in an expired patent library, having 40,000 active searches per second combined with well over a decade of historic data to help you refine your results simply can't be simulated.
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
It's the defining characteristic of government.
This is obviously a false argument. Because if it were true, it would mean that the majority of countries in the world does not have a government since they do not allow for their citizens to be killed. It is perfectly fine to have a government without it having the ability to kill its residents.
Want to know who the government is, in a location? It's whoever can legitimately send armed men against you to enforce their will.
The government has a violence monopoly (police) and freedom removal monopoly (imprisonment). Neither of those implies killing its residents as a requirement.
When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
Why not start by defining what it is you're actually talking about. You use the word capitalism but you're talking as if you mean free market. If you replaced every instance of capitalism with the word free market this entire discussion would make sense.
But right now, the only thing correct anywhere here is the dictionary definition.
In its pure form, capitalism has nothing at all to do with any discussion on regulation or monopolies, other than the fact an unregulated capitalistic system is unstable and ultimately leads to monopolies as the ultimate goal of the players is to break down the perfect market and gain an edge over the competition.
If person A is trying to imprison person B for life and person B pulls a gun on them, who is the one exercising self defense?
It's different party altogether with very different ideals with two big changes over time. First was the abandonment of protectionism and tariffs, which suprisingly has come back as a decaying zombie recently. And second, the incorporation of the southern segregationists when they left the Democratic party due to its support of civil rights; which cemented social conservativism into the Republican agenda.
The Merriam-Webster definition I just looked up online is (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism):
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.
In other words, it include investments and fair competition which your definition excludes.
Also to be sure, we don't have any pure capitalist countries anymore than we've ever had pure socialist countries.
Unchecked monopolies lead to concentration of power, and will lead to influencing the state sooner or later, leading to the ultimate corruption and disabling democratic processes.
One might regard that as a form of capitalism.
Another form of capitalism is the "market economy", which is actually what has made us succesful in the 20the century. Market economy relies on fair markets and fair competition.
Monopolies destroy market and fair competition, leading to disaster.
War is legal execution.
Which is completely irrelevant to this discussion which was about what defines a government in the normal case. War is an extreme exception to the normal, peaceful operation of a government.
The only way I guess your view could be so skewed that you think war is normal is if you live in a country which has been participating in wars almost every single year since 1950, has a massively oversized military (around 4% of the world's population but has around 35% of the world's military spending (used to be around 40%)), and aggressively market itself as "the good guys" (more below) .
Many countries involved in WW2 teach a "war is bad, look at all the bad things that happened" philosophy to children born after WW2 (although Japan is shamefully largly avoiding admitting its own mistakes and take more a "war is bad, (only) look at what happened to us during the war" approach). In USA this is considered problematic since its oversized military is based on voluntary participation, and with an honest "war is bad" teaching that would severely negatively impact enrolment. So instead they take a "well, we do not have to be that honest about war is bad" approach and instead endorse military worshipping, completely ignoring president Dwight D. Eisenhower's warning that
... we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.
When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
I get why people want to mindlessly downvote parent, but in reality Firefox has a lot of problems. It's to the point where I still use it everyday, but only for development because it has superior development tools and control over things like cache, where as even in Chrome all the tools suck and I swear when you clear the cache it somehow doesn't clear everything.
It is, however, very slow compared to Chrome. Too many times does it seemingly lock up for a few moments out of nowhere. This is a problem with the Mozilla platform in general as with Thunderbird, a few times, though rarely, it will also freeze up while I am typing and that's not so bad except for the fact that for some reason it takes the key presses made during the freeze up to be essentially CTRL + key, so I've accidentally sent emails by even typing something and then it freezes, I stop instantly, but on no, I hit "s" and now it's sent. What the fuck is that? A lot of times I honestly type things in notepad and just copy/paste them in a new email just to avoid the bullshit.
Not to mention the memory leaks. Chrome has them too, and Chrome has a really bizarre issue with HTML5 video sometimes breaking, but at least I can kill separate threads in Chrome. With Firefox, I'm SOL, I gotta exit the whole browser, and when I do, about 50% of the time I get a notification that Firefox has crashed. How? Why? What the hell?
So sure, let's praise it for being the origin of the first decent browser, let's praise it for having a good history, but let's not just ignore its problems because it's not Google Chrome or Microsoft IE/Edge.
Address the problems before whining about "oh no, people don't want to use it anymore." If it were better, people would use it more often. It used to be that my IT friends would install Firefox on new machines or just to avoid dealing with IE on Windows Servers and general PCs, but most switched to Chrome not because it was better, the fact it doesn't have a full install without having to download over the damn Internet is irritating as hell, but because it was just faster and easier to deal with.
We've been over this. Do we really need to go over it again?
My contact info is attached to everything I post here. How does one reach you?
Point, game, match.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
dear god... the cyanide pills, they do NOTHING!
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
To be fair, there were 17250 murders alone in the US (not including suicides) in 2017, versus 723 murders (of all kinds) in the UK in 2017. Turning that into a percentage of population, the murder rate is almost 5 times higher in the US than in the UK, so the view that you're all just a bunch of murderous fucks does have at least some justification.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
The murder rate in the USA is around 5 times higher than what it is in Western Europe, so there is some justification to the "murderous pricks" reputation.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Granted.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
...when Firefox persists in trying to be a second-rate clone of Chrome?
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else" --Churchill
Casteism
Is that overall or per-capita? Assuming it's per-capita, you must be looking at (and misinterpreting) this.
While the murder rate for the Americas is about 5x that of Europe (as a whole), that includes all of North, Central, and South America, not just the US. The murder rate in Europe is 3:100,000, whereas it is 5.35:100,000 in the US; not quite double. If we restrict to Western Europe, it's still about double; unless you include the French territories of Saint Pierre and Miquelon, which reside in North America (as that page defines it, at least) have a per-capita murder rate 3x higher than the US.
That's right, outside of the mainland, gun-free France has a higher murder rate than the US; and by a greater factor than the difference between the US and Europe.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
This isn't Firefox, the browser with a billion users.
This is Firefox for Android... which has several orders of magnitude fewer users, if I was betting.
That's... a pretty important bit entirely buried by the lede here.
Political parties are groups of people. Individual people change over time, which can affect what the group is like in the short term.
And which people belong to the group changes over time, as people become less involved or die, and new people join.
Nobody with a lick of sense and even a slight knowledge of history would say that the Democratic Party of Stephen Douglas is the same as the Democratic Party of Harry Truman is the same as the Democratic Party of Barack Obama, or that the Republican Party of John C. Fremont is the same as the Republican Party of Ulysses S. Grant is the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan is the Republican Party of Donald Trump.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.