Finland set up a filter that is supposed to be for illegal material outside their country only, a list reported to be about 1500 sites. Yet, when a web site within Finland put forth an anti-censorship message and provided a section of the banned list, that site itself was banned.
Australia intends to filter all pornography by default. (though you can opt out of that) If Finland's authorities can't be trusted to implement their law when it covers 1500 sites, what sort of public oversight do you think there can possibly be over a list containing tens of millions of entries and growing by hundreds every day? Error rates will be astronomical and those in power would be able to block any site at will and claim it was a random error. The risk to freedom of speech is quite real.
So, a company works for almost 30 years developing new software products and selling those products to clients, only to have Microsoft take over their competition and steal their inventions, and even license some of their inventions and then illegally resell them. That company are "bottom feeders" if they don't just lay down and die completely? According to you, do companies which aren't bottom feeders simply let Microsoft run them out of business, because that's somehow the right thing to do?
No new bugs came up... but bugs that were already known and marked as blocking 1.4 were ignored and not necessarily put in the release notes. Idiots.
In particular, see GDI Resources are used till the UI/website displays faulty for the really messy GDI-slurping problem it has under Windoze. Leaving that undocumented in the release notes and unfixed is a perfect way of preventing new users from using Mozilla.
I find not loading the Flash plugin is a good starting point. Alternatively, using an ad-blocking proxy and putting "/.*\.swf" or the equivalent as one of the patterns to block works really well too.
Slashdot Mirror
Finland set up a filter that is supposed to be for illegal material outside their country only, a list reported to be about 1500 sites. Yet, when a web site within Finland put forth an anti-censorship message and provided a section of the banned list, that site itself was banned.
Australia intends to filter all pornography by default. (though you can opt out of that) If Finland's authorities can't be trusted to implement their law when it covers 1500 sites, what sort of public oversight do you think there can possibly be over a list containing tens of millions of entries and growing by hundreds every day? Error rates will be astronomical and those in power would be able to block any site at will and claim it was a random error. The risk to freedom of speech is quite real.
So, a company works for almost 30 years developing new software products and selling those products to clients, only to have Microsoft take over their competition and steal their inventions, and even license some of their inventions and then illegally resell them. That company are "bottom feeders" if they don't just lay down and die completely? According to you, do companies which aren't bottom feeders simply let Microsoft run them out of business, because that's somehow the right thing to do?
In particular, see GDI Resources are used till the UI/website displays faulty for the really messy GDI-slurping problem it has under Windoze. Leaving that undocumented in the release notes and unfixed is a perfect way of preventing new users from using Mozilla.
I find not loading the Flash plugin is a good starting point. Alternatively, using an ad-blocking proxy and putting "/.*\.swf" or the equivalent as one of the patterns to block works really well too.