If FF is losing users it's for two reasons: they break existing functionality with every release, and they're unresponsive to bug reports. Having two drones reply to every report with unrelated cut-and-paste from the documentation, then marking the report as solved, does not count as a constructive response.
They have not been 'trying to remove the Jews'. That's a classic US media propaganda position. Their grievance would be just the same and just as valid if their lands had been seized by US-backed Methodist military colonists. The religion of their oppressors is entirely irrelevant.
I was with him 100% up to the 'privatisation' bit. But how he thinks that replacing the public airport Gestapo with private security guards (the SA perhaps?) will help, I cannot fathom.
This is about one thing and one thing only, compiled/encrypted scripts so that users don't know what Google is downloading on their behalf and can't control their web experience.
Again, 'if he'd done something that was actually illegal, no one would have any doubt that he should have been imprisoned, therefore he should be imprisoned for doing something that did not constitute an offence' ?
This is the most ludicrous UK internet-related prosecution since the constructed misunderstanding over the Nottingham airport tweeter. And it's another example of the exciting possibilities the securitat have found recently in the concept that (allegedly) hurting people's feelings is illegal.
Interesting argument - 'if he'd actually committed a crime, he would have been punished, therefore he should be punished even though he wasn't actually committing an offence' ?
This is just something you like to fantasise about, right, rather than something you're admitting to having participated in? Either way, it puts you in no moral position to look down on alleged internet trolls.
No doubt the oligarchs have seen what an effective tool false copyright infringement claims have been in the civilised world - a no-trial, no-evidence way of cutting off websites that displease the authorities - and are keen to use them to give their future repressive moves a veneer of legality.
SOCA (or their successors) clearly seeking to expand their powers to punish people without evidence. New Labour laws have already made it possible for them to 'seize' money unless the owner can prove that they came by it honestly - this can be authorised by a court without any evidence other than the unsupported word of SOCA personnel.
I detect a tiny tiny amount of bias in the anonymous reader's summary of this story. He's just a lackey hoping that the ruling class will throw him a bone if he's a good dog.
Someone who openly fantasises about people being raped in prison is an unsuitable person to pass judgement on a credit card fraudster. You and he are both on the same level of degeneracy.
As far as I'm concerned it's very clear who the real 'predators' are in this scenario. That sort of ridiculous macho bullshit deprieves their claims of any credibility.
Where there is any choice I never deal with any firm that exports jobs in this way, partly because they're evading UK employment law by exploiting people in the third world, and partly because the service isn't up to scratch. By putting customer service in the hands of people who can't speak or understand English they're showing sheer contempt for their customers.
Take off Murdoch, you have been rumbled! Surely now the guilty News International employees must be named and shamed so that the vigilante justice that the News of the World so approves of can be done.
Being ripped off by Steve Jobs is still better than being ripped off by Bill Gates because - er - I can't recall the exact reason but I'm sure the Applefan zombies will be along to explain it soon.
Yes, I remember the trial where it was proved that the tool was being used to infringe copyright. Oh no hold on, I don't because there wasn't one. Thank god our freedoms are being preserved by allowing private companies to decide whether or not the law is being broken.
Yet another no-trial, no-evidence extrajudicial solution. Copyright infringers don't respect the law, and neither do the authorities on the evidence of this, so what's to choose between them?
Frame 1
Caption: Steve wasn't sufficiently challenged by school
'This is boring! I wish I was writing a 16-bit chip emulator for the 6502'
Frame 2
'Heh! Sweet-16 is totally sweet! But now I need another challenge'
Frame 3
Thinks: 'What if I could create a totally sealed line of products that meant the user had to take my way or the highway? Yeah! And I could charge them £100 for battery replacement!'
Frame 4
Caption: 25 years later
'Made it!'
Slashdot Mirror
If FF is losing users it's for two reasons: they break existing functionality with every release, and they're unresponsive to bug reports. Having two drones reply to every report with unrelated cut-and-paste from the documentation, then marking the report as solved, does not count as a constructive response.
They have not been 'trying to remove the Jews'. That's a classic US media propaganda position. Their grievance would be just the same and just as valid if their lands had been seized by US-backed Methodist military colonists. The religion of their oppressors is entirely irrelevant.
I was with him 100% up to the 'privatisation' bit. But how he thinks that replacing the public airport Gestapo with private security guards (the SA perhaps?) will help, I cannot fathom.
Can't work out how that happened, but it's great news.
This is about one thing and one thing only, compiled/encrypted scripts so that users don't know what Google is downloading on their behalf and can't control their web experience.
Again, 'if he'd done something that was actually illegal, no one would have any doubt that he should have been imprisoned, therefore he should be imprisoned for doing something that did not constitute an offence' ?
This is the most ludicrous UK internet-related prosecution since the constructed misunderstanding over the Nottingham airport tweeter. And it's another example of the exciting possibilities the securitat have found recently in the concept that (allegedly) hurting people's feelings is illegal.
Interesting argument - 'if he'd actually committed a crime, he would have been punished, therefore he should be punished even though he wasn't actually committing an offence' ?
This is just something you like to fantasise about, right, rather than something you're admitting to having participated in? Either way, it puts you in no moral position to look down on alleged internet trolls.
No doubt the oligarchs have seen what an effective tool false copyright infringement claims have been in the civilised world - a no-trial, no-evidence way of cutting off websites that displease the authorities - and are keen to use them to give their future repressive moves a veneer of legality.
SOCA (or their successors) clearly seeking to expand their powers to punish people without evidence. New Labour laws have already made it possible for them to 'seize' money unless the owner can prove that they came by it honestly - this can be authorised by a court without any evidence other than the unsupported word of SOCA personnel.
Couldn't the anti-Klan statutes be used against these people? Depriving citizens of their rights while acting under colour of law?
Twitter in China = FREEDOM Twitter in the UK = NASTINESS Cameron you utter hypocrite.
Google v the Israeli government. Is there some way they can both lose?
I detect a tiny tiny amount of bias in the anonymous reader's summary of this story. He's just a lackey hoping that the ruling class will throw him a bone if he's a good dog.
Someone who openly fantasises about people being raped in prison is an unsuitable person to pass judgement on a credit card fraudster. You and he are both on the same level of degeneracy.
As far as I'm concerned it's very clear who the real 'predators' are in this scenario. That sort of ridiculous macho bullshit deprieves their claims of any credibility.
Where there is any choice I never deal with any firm that exports jobs in this way, partly because they're evading UK employment law by exploiting people in the third world, and partly because the service isn't up to scratch. By putting customer service in the hands of people who can't speak or understand English they're showing sheer contempt for their customers.
Take off Murdoch, you have been rumbled! Surely now the guilty News International employees must be named and shamed so that the vigilante justice that the News of the World so approves of can be done.
Being ripped off by Steve Jobs is still better than being ripped off by Bill Gates because - er - I can't recall the exact reason but I'm sure the Applefan zombies will be along to explain it soon.
And we always thought Apple were a US company. Or are these products made in Chinese sweatshops by any chance?
How lucky you are to live in the US where you have the freedom to pay up, or push off and die of untreated disease.
Yes, I remember the trial where it was proved that the tool was being used to infringe copyright. Oh no hold on, I don't because there wasn't one. Thank god our freedoms are being preserved by allowing private companies to decide whether or not the law is being broken.
Yet another no-trial, no-evidence extrajudicial solution. Copyright infringers don't respect the law, and neither do the authorities on the evidence of this, so what's to choose between them?
Frame 1 Caption: Steve wasn't sufficiently challenged by school 'This is boring! I wish I was writing a 16-bit chip emulator for the 6502' Frame 2 'Heh! Sweet-16 is totally sweet! But now I need another challenge' Frame 3 Thinks: 'What if I could create a totally sealed line of products that meant the user had to take my way or the highway? Yeah! And I could charge them £100 for battery replacement!' Frame 4 Caption: 25 years later 'Made it!'