Security and performance are desirable, yes. But they are coming with a cost, and for a lot of people, what they have to give up for it simply isn't worth it.
The dark web is simply that portion of the web that isn't indexed by search engines. Most of it is just individuals running servers for their own private use.
Phone service (the POTS variety, anyway) is classified as a "common carrier" and by law must be operated in a content neutral fashion.
The internet is not. This is, by the way, what the push for net neutrality is trying to fix. Well, work around, since actually declaring ISPs as common carriers -- as correct as that would be technically, socially, and in terms of business development -- is currently politically impossible.
There's a fairly huge difference between a company saying they won't host a particular website and a company saying they'll block traffic to a particular website.
The problem is that many of the rights we enjoy and that are enshrined in the Constitution are fundamentally incompatible with each other. Pretty much every right can be exercised in a way that infringes on a different right.
Given that, it is the proper role of government to try to establish a balance of sorts, so that when rights clash against each other, there is some established set of rules by which you can determine who wins.
All such rules are, of course, compromises and restrict rights. There's really no way around that. So you want to have the fewest such rules as possible -- but some such rules are mandatory.
The "protected classes" thing is one such compromise.
For all of the issues I've had with the direction that Firefox has been going over the years, they hadn't done anything (that I know of) that actually betrayed my trust. That did.
If you want HTML5 compatible, you need to support a very complex layout engine and rendering system, with animation and video support, so trade off against minimal system resource usage and page loading speed.
Yep. This is one of the major reasons why I don't care about HTML5 compatibility.
It doesn't take smarts to understand that if the user experience between two things is essentially the same, then many people will consider the two things the same.
I understand that there are differences under the hood, but for me, those differences are less meaningful than sharing a UI that's hard to use.
Personally, I always turn off the search bar. I never use it.
What I've always wished I could do was to turn off the "smarts" in the URL bar, so it just took anything I typed in there as a URL. I'm constantly being tripped up by that.
If there were a public domain registrar that would take any and all applicants, except those advocating for some violation of the law (like a violent overthrow of the government or an ISIS recruiting site)
There are plenty of domain name registrars who don't give the slightest of shits what your domain name is associated with.
Plus, having a domain name is an optional convenience. It's certainly not required in order to have a publicly available website. You didn't mention hosting, so I'll toss that in as well -- and you can even easily run a website without involving a hosting company at all.
All businesses are free to discriminate against people for any reason whatsoever, unless the reason is on the short list of protected classes (age, gender, religion, etc.)
A business can refuse you service just because they don't like the clothes you wear, the car you drive, your hair color, or even just because they're in a bad mood.
Funny how the right to refuse service covers those who refuse service to the right wing, but it ceases to exist when you're talking about Christian bakers who don't want to enter into contracts to make cakes celebrating gay weddings.
Funny how you take two situations and act like it's the exact same people who are making the decisions that you disagree with.
Customers who spend more on premium products tend to be more satisfied even when they are unreliable because they need to justify their own decision-making process.
Yep, this is a very well-known effect. I remember discussing this in a marketing class, and it's why you can find a lot of high-status consumer goods that are not very, umm, good.
Our instructor even quipped: if you that know your product is likely to have a high return rate, you're better off seriously overpricing it and spending extra attention on styling and marketing. People generally hate to admit to being taken and will keep it to themselves. They're more likely to act like the product is everything they expected it to be, sometimes even to the point of telling their friends how great it is. This tendency will lower your rate of returns and will reduce the amount of bad press and word-of-mouth you'll get.
Slashdot Mirror
I think they are shitting their pants, and that's the problem.
Most of the changes Firefox has implemented over the past few years have that feel of panic about them.
Or do you not want security and performance?
Security and performance are desirable, yes. But they are coming with a cost, and for a lot of people, what they have to give up for it simply isn't worth it.
True, I didn't mention common carriers and the like. But GoDaddy (or any other webhosting company) doesn't fall under any of those classifications.
What do you mean by "the dark web"?
The dark web is simply that portion of the web that isn't indexed by search engines. Most of it is just individuals running servers for their own private use.
Phone service (the POTS variety, anyway) is classified as a "common carrier" and by law must be operated in a content neutral fashion.
The internet is not. This is, by the way, what the push for net neutrality is trying to fix. Well, work around, since actually declaring ISPs as common carriers -- as correct as that would be technically, socially, and in terms of business development -- is currently politically impossible.
This issue has been well addressed by the courts. This sort of editorial control does not result in the loss of safe harbor protections.
There's a fairly huge difference between a company saying they won't host a particular website and a company saying they'll block traffic to a particular website.
If the grocers could decide not to sell food to people that were left handed, say, then it'd be functionally starving them out.
Under the law right now, grocers (or any other business) could totally do this. Handedness is not a protected class.
Of course, if too many grocers started doing this, then it might become a protected class.
The problem is that many of the rights we enjoy and that are enshrined in the Constitution are fundamentally incompatible with each other. Pretty much every right can be exercised in a way that infringes on a different right.
Given that, it is the proper role of government to try to establish a balance of sorts, so that when rights clash against each other, there is some established set of rules by which you can determine who wins.
All such rules are, of course, compromises and restrict rights. There's really no way around that. So you want to have the fewest such rules as possible -- but some such rules are mandatory.
The "protected classes" thing is one such compromise.
That's because telephone service falls under "common carrier" rules. I completely agree that internet service should fall under the exact same rules.
You all seem to know the one true way to build a browser that everyone would want to use.
I'm not worried about a browser that the majority wants to use. We have that already: Chrome.
I'm worried about having a browser that I want to use.
Yes, that was a really terrible blow.
For all of the issues I've had with the direction that Firefox has been going over the years, they hadn't done anything (that I know of) that actually betrayed my trust. That did.
If you want HTML5 compatible, you need to support a very complex layout engine and rendering system, with animation and video support, so trade off against minimal system resource usage and page loading speed.
Yep. This is one of the major reasons why I don't care about HTML5 compatibility.
It doesn't take smarts to understand that if the user experience between two things is essentially the same, then many people will consider the two things the same.
I understand that there are differences under the hood, but for me, those differences are less meaningful than sharing a UI that's hard to use.
Yes, I love that about Konq. Unfortunately, Konq works so poorly for me that it's essentially worthless.
Personally, I always turn off the search bar. I never use it.
What I've always wished I could do was to turn off the "smarts" in the URL bar, so it just took anything I typed in there as a URL. I'm constantly being tripped up by that.
Windows & Linux certainly let you capture just the active window. I don't know about Mac, but I have to believe you can do that there, too.
What purpose was there to seeing the status bar at times it had nothing to display?
None, of course. But when you need to know the status of something, it's awfully nice.
And how often did you use the menus that it impacts you to have to click the menu button first to see them?
I use the menus constantly.
If there were a public domain registrar that would take any and all applicants, except those advocating for some violation of the law (like a violent overthrow of the government or an ISIS recruiting site)
There are plenty of domain name registrars who don't give the slightest of shits what your domain name is associated with.
Plus, having a domain name is an optional convenience. It's certainly not required in order to have a publicly available website. You didn't mention hosting, so I'll toss that in as well -- and you can even easily run a website without involving a hosting company at all.
what about discrimination laws?
What about them?
All businesses are free to discriminate against people for any reason whatsoever, unless the reason is on the short list of protected classes (age, gender, religion, etc.)
A business can refuse you service just because they don't like the clothes you wear, the car you drive, your hair color, or even just because they're in a bad mood.
Are they still free to purchase hosting services within the US, though? Anti-terrorism laws apply to that kind of extremist content.
Yes, they are. The US still has very strong protections of speech, even despicable speech. What they can't do is incite people to violence.
Funny how the right to refuse service covers those who refuse service to the right wing, but it ceases to exist when you're talking about Christian bakers who don't want to enter into contracts to make cakes celebrating gay weddings.
Funny how you take two situations and act like it's the exact same people who are making the decisions that you disagree with.
Hint: it isn't.
I would sue GoDaddy with extreme prejudice if I was this lady.
Sue them for what?
I think TFA says it's removable.
Customers who spend more on premium products tend to be more satisfied even when they are unreliable because they need to justify their own decision-making process.
Yep, this is a very well-known effect. I remember discussing this in a marketing class, and it's why you can find a lot of high-status consumer goods that are not very, umm, good.
Our instructor even quipped: if you that know your product is likely to have a high return rate, you're better off seriously overpricing it and spending extra attention on styling and marketing. People generally hate to admit to being taken and will keep it to themselves. They're more likely to act like the product is everything they expected it to be, sometimes even to the point of telling their friends how great it is. This tendency will lower your rate of returns and will reduce the amount of bad press and word-of-mouth you'll get.
Marketing is a sleazy business.