While what you say may be very true, the problem is that we have yet to come up with a more feasible method of reaching distant planets in a reasonable amount of time.
The next closest idea that Science and Science Fiction have come up with is Wormhole/Space Fold travel. And unless you have some safe way of generating more power than a large star in a safe and contained manner, that's going to be even tougher than FTL or Warp Bubble drive.
So our best bet is to spend the time doing a full scientific inquiry into FTL/WB drive including actually attempting to BUILD something and testing it. If after that we can show that FTL/WB drive is the cosmic equivalent of a perpetual motion machine, then OK. But let's do the hard Science and prove it first. IANAQP, but it seems to me that your theory and TFA theory are as about as likely as the Mexican guy's theory. Let's find out, shall we?
You make an excellent point, but you also fail to take into consideration how much energy will not be transferred via the asteroid bits that simply miss the earth due to being blasted off into space by the force of the nuclear detonation. It just seems logical that reducing a large single mass strike down to a smaller mass spread out over a wide area is going to be significantly less damaging. Also, any heat transferred to the atmosphere is going to be transferred primarily to the upper atmosphere, where it is much more likely to simply bleed back into space.
Also, if the choice is between being exposed to a laser vs being exposed to the same amount of energy in a heat lamp form over several days (or weeks, or months) then thank you, I'll take the heat lamp.
This is the same reason why nuking the asteroid into dust won't help, if all those tiny particles still hit us.
I've never understood this argument. Let's take a look at this: Every day, THOUSANDS of tiny meteorites impact the atmosphere. Of that, only a tiny fraction ever reach the ground. The vast majority of them burn up in the atmosphere. Of the ones that reach the ground, a tiny fraction of the original tiny fraction actually impact on land. A tiny fraction of the tiny fraction of the tiny fraction land somewhere in a populated area. A tiny fraction of the tiny fraction of the tiny fraction of the tiny fraction do property damage. and the amount that actually injure or kill someone? Well, the chance is so minuscule as to be laughable.
Yet somehow, utilizing one of our Weapons of Mass Destruction to actually SAVE lives by obliterating a "Chicxulub" sized asteroid into "burn up in atmosphere" sized chunks is somehow supposed to be more dangerous? What?
While I realize that it's impossible to predict precisely how a given asteroid would respond to being blasted with a nuke, Knowing that a large asteroid is about to strike, I would much rather take my chances with a bunch of smaller pieces striking earth. The math says we would be MUCH more likely to survive a bunch of "Meteor Crater Arizona" sized meteors landing randomly around the earth than one "Chicxulub" strike.
Somehow I think that the scientists predicting this are just putting "anti-nuke" politics ahead of protecting the planet.
More importantly, how can the submitted article say the rocket "crashed" yet then immediately afterward say it landed softly. Are those two terms not mutually exclusive?
On February 28, 2009 a 50,000-pound dummy rocket booster was dropped in the Arizona desert and slowed by a system of five parachutes before it crashed to the ground. The booster landed softly without any damage.
I suppose one could have a soft "crash landing" in an airplane, with the definition of a "crash landing" being: An unscheduled landing due to mechanical problems. But in this case, the parachute system apparently worked flawless ly, exactly as it was designed. So even the loosest definition of "crash" would not fit.
Can someone please fix the article?
Perhaps to this:
On February 28, 2009 a 50,000-pound dummy rocket booster was dropped in the Arizona desert and slowed by a system of five parachutes before it landed softly without any damage.
No, a REALLY clever soldier would have said "Sir, Yes Sir!" and headed off, apparently to go do the impossible task. In reality he would have gone off to one of the many back rooms or quiet spots on the base, and started up a quiet card game with this buddies or any marks he could find and whiled away the afternoon while his dumbass CO thought he was being taught some kind of "lesson".
At least, that's what I would have done. Heck, your CO is expecting you to waste the day anyway, why disappoint him?
if you don't like teh awesomebar, rewrite it and recompile it.
Some of us are networking geeks, NOT codemonkeys. While I can do some minor Win scripting, I couldn't program my way out of a paper bag, NOR would I want to learn to. It's not my thing.
So basically, I have the choice of:
a) Go back to FF2 and get a non-brain-dead implementation of a URL bar back again. b) Spend months-years of my valuable time learning to code so I can write my own custom version of Firefox, which I will then be responsible for supporting and bug testing.
Yeah, pretty obvious which one I'm gonna pick there.
I got so frustrated with it I actually DOWNGRADED back to FF2 on my Win box, and just removed Firefox altogether from my Ubuntu machine, in favor of Seamonkey.
The Awful Bar sucks, and I refuse to use it. Get on the stick FF developers! Make the Awful Bar an extension and give us back a sensible location bar!
If a script from one site makes a request to another, the JS engine should ask permission.
No Script already does this (Although I agree it should be part of the JS engine). Even on "Allowed" scripts, XSS operations cause a prompt who's default behavior is to stop the XSS action. You actually have to uncheck a box to unblock the XSS behavior.
This is the way software seems to evolve, and it's interesting that free software is subject to it as well.
Indeed. unfortunately, Firefox has garnered enough of a user base that the overwhelming majority of it's users are now non-technical and non-programmer. Which means that every change made away from modularity is one more change that will start to drive away people who don't have the knowledge and skills to alter the browser themselves.
Personally, this entire discussion made me realize just how much I HATE the Awful Bar and it's Freedom Stealing. Enough that I just spent some time downloading the last version of F2, exported my bookmarks in HTML format and un-installed FF3, leaving all my settings in place. I then reinstalled FF2 and imported my bookmarks. the only extensions that didn't work were all the ones designed to try and fix the Awful bar, and one skin. Everything else worked beautifully and I could literally FEEL myself relaxing and de-tensioning seeing the nice neat FF2 bar.
I made sure to click the "feedback" option when uninstalling FF3 and gave the devs an eyeful on how much I hated the Awful Bar in the comment form. I'll be sticking with FF2 until the Awful bar is made Optional, scrapped, or there is a better alternative to FF2 available.
Oh, and in case the Mozilla Dev that made the Awesome bar his/her baby is reading this; Your bar sucks shit and you should be fired for forcing it on users.
The "options" dialogs should not include a billion elements each of which will be used by 5% of the userbase. There are basic UI limits to what can be graphically presented while still being reasonable navigable.
Yet another reason to revert to the old URL bar and offer the Awesome Bar as an extension to the base FF install.
The point is the loss of Freedom and Control that the Awful Bar introduces. I used porn as a dramatic example. But one could easily substitute just about anything else that a given person might not want some other people to see. Why should I be forced to give up control of the behavior of a KEY portion of the UI of Firefox? I can control pretty much EVERYTHING else, why should this be any different?
My God, if this was IE I was upset about 90% of/. would be UP IN ARMS over this! As it is, as at this moment my initial post has been modded -1 Troll! (as if bringing up a legitimate but slightly off topic complaint was EVER a problem at/. !) is the "groupthink" that strong here that people can't have a single problem with an otherwise good application?
People, Mozilla is not perfect. They made a MISTAKE in forcing people to use the Awesome Bar. The best way to fix the mistake is to REVERT to the old URL bar and offer the Awesome bar as an extension. YOU WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO HAVE IT and all it's "Awesome" functionality. But those that didn't want it would not be FORCED to take it.
Oh, "-1 reading comprehension" as well moonbender. If you read ANY of my other posts you would see that I always completely disable the Awful Bar, rendering my URL bar as nothing more than a place to type in addresses. I hate it that way. But I hate it LESS than I hate the Awful Bar.
One last thing. I was attempting to make a somewhat humorous Nazi/Soviet Russia comparison. (You know; "Ve haf veys of makink you talk!) but I guess that was lost on you. Next time I'll try James Bond: "Do you expect me to USE the Awful Bar?" "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to DIE!" No? Whatever.
I don't pretend to speak for all Firefox users. But I'll bet you I speak for a significant amount of them.
Ultimately, the change was unnecessary. The old URL bar function worked well. Why not simply introduce the Awesome Bar as a new Extension and promote it heavily if they thought it was good? They HAD to know that not everyone would like such a drastic change.
My suggestion: Revert to the old URL bar in a default FF install. Offer the Awesome Bar as a "recommended" extension in the existing Add-Ons chooser window, and let people freely decide if they want it or not. Those that want it will still be able to have it. Those that don't will not be forced to take it. Everybody wins, most especially software freedom.
Even if you are orgasmic over the awesome bar you MUST ADMIT this is the most "free" method of handling a not insignificant groundswell of dislike over a feature.
Until you visit that site again, OR that site is in a bookmark.
Obviously, in that situation i didn't have the site bookmarked. but at home i have several sites bookmarked that i don't necissarily want to pop up when my kids are sitting there with me, or grandma is over visiting. the old URL bar would allow an auto-clear of it's contents every time FF was closed. So I never had to worry about last night's porn and sex session with the missus to show up the next day when my kids want to go to noggin.com.
Now, while I can manually delete url's that I surfed to, if I have them bookmarked, THEY SHOW UP ANYWAY.
Are you getting it now? the "Awesome Bar" TAKES AWAY CONTROL. You no longer have control over it's behavior. This doesn't need to be fixed, it needs to be REMOVED and made into an extension for those that want it.
As I stated in another post. There is NO WAY to revert the bar to it's old behavior. Extensions won't do it, about:config won't do it. The only thing that you can do is cripple the bar to do NOTHING but accept typed-in URLs. That's it.
Perhaps you should actually TRY to do a full revert before posting?
My beef with the Awful bar is precisely what you like about it.
I don't want it searching my bookmarks. I can go to my bookmarks on my own. And you know, as I am sitting here at my home PC in the family room with my kids running around behind me, it might be possible that I don't want them seeing the names and URLs some of the more Adult oriented sites that Mommy and Daddy surf together after they go to bed.
Ultimately, the main problem with the Awful bar is that it TAKES CONTROL AWAY FROM YOU. You can't tell it what to display, or when to display it, or what to search or not search. you can't turn it on or off without dicking around in the about:config. It has a very "Microsoft" feel to it. IE: This feature is "cool" (tm) and you VILL LIKE IT! VE HAF VEYS OF MAKINK YOU LIKE IT! HEIL MOZILLA!
I don't want my Browser doing things without my say-so. the Awful bar takes away some of my freedom and control. I want to keep my freedom and control.
While the Awful bar would make an EXCELLENT extension, it is wrong to force it on people that don't want it. FF started out as a nice, stripped-down browser that you could customize any way you want with easy to install extensions. now it's become a bloated, slow beast that get's features put in that a significant amount of users DO NOT WANT (note I said "significant amount", not necessarily "majority". Just because users who don't want it are a minority doesn't mean we shouldn't get a say.)
The problem is that this is one part of the browser that is NOT modular. There isn't a way to REVERT the behavior back to the old way, we are stuck with it. Even extensions can't fully fix the problem. (Yes, I've tried "Old Bar" extension and all the about:config tricks. None of them return the desired traditional functionality.)
So basically I'm stuck with either completely disabling the URL bar, or the horrible new behavior. Frankly, i hate the new behavior enough that I narrowly prefer NO function to it's current function.
the lead devs for Mozilla need to listen to ALL the users and realize that NOT EVERYONE LIKES the new bar and they should make it MODULAR as it should be.
Even worse, it will bring up the same five or 6 sites REGARDLESS of how often you view them. I went to 4chan ONCE on a fresh VM with FF3 installed, and FOREVER AFTER it was the first result in the Awful bar! I had to do a complete uninstall and reinstall of FF3 (including manual deletion of leftover folders) to get this to stop!
Since then the first thing I do after installing FF3 is go to about:config and completely disable all the Awful bar functions.
Firefox 3.x is STILL straddled with the "Awesome Bar" AKA the "Awful Bar". At what point will they recognize the groundswell of DISLIKE for this part of the browser and just go back to the old 2.x behavior?
Unfortunately, the manner in which they implemented the Awful Bar means that it's impossible to go back unless you want to program your own version. You basically have to DISABLE the bar entirely, simply sacrificing the URL bar for anything other than typing URLs into.
I thought Firefox was supposed to be a "community" project? Why isn't the community getting input?
I'm afraid you're actually quite wrong, there. The president's job is to do what he was elected to do.
I'm afraid YOU are quite wrong.
Regardless of what ANY presidential candidate campaigns on, he IS restricted to the Constitutionally delineated duties and privileges of the Presidency. Including those he has sworn or affirmed upon taking the Oath of Office:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Which means that making fundamental change in our society (such as altering the economy and political system from a Capitalistic Representative Republic to a Socialistic Single Party System.) is literally prohibited from even attempting. Not that "The One" won't try it. The "stimulus" package is one such totally unconstitutional example.
All that aside though, I'm not necessarily in disagreement with him on this particular selection, provided that this appointee doesn't overstep his bounds in enforcing Net Neutrality as the ISP's have overstepped their bounds in exploiting the monopolies granted to them by federal/state/local governments. Two wrongs don't make a right, let us all hope that Mr. Genachowski remembers that.
At the rate things are going, "The One" is going to have a historic presidency for, if nothing else, having the most tax cheats appointed of any presidency in history. I'd like AT LEAST ONE nominee to turn out to be an honest person.
Depends. How much do you value groupthink? Personally, "getting along with the team" is overrated, and honestly, a false sense of security.
And that is EXACTLY the kind of opinion that will keep you from getting hired by the majority of employers.
Most employers want "team players" IE: people that will subordinate their personal opinions for the good of the team, or people who's personal opinions already line up with much of the rest of the team.
Ultimately, most employers are paying you to be a functional cog in their business machine. Not playing nice with the other cogs is a good way to get yourself replaced.
Don't like it? Then either find that 1% of employers that just don't care, or are looking for "artisan" workers (Hollywood, the arts) or go out and start your own business. Then YOU can hire the people and will get to find out the hard way just how difficult running a business is when people don't or won't work as a team.
Not a flame. Really. But you need to understand that the "I'm more special than anyone in the room and so I don't have to work nicely with them" attitude is a good way to get fired. Trust me, you aren't irreplaceable.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's just hope that the time from original concept to working prototype is a bit shorter with this one.
While what you say may be very true, the problem is that we have yet to come up with a more feasible method of reaching distant planets in a reasonable amount of time.
The next closest idea that Science and Science Fiction have come up with is Wormhole/Space Fold travel. And unless you have some safe way of generating more power than a large star in a safe and contained manner, that's going to be even tougher than FTL or Warp Bubble drive.
So our best bet is to spend the time doing a full scientific inquiry into FTL/WB drive including actually attempting to BUILD something and testing it. If after that we can show that FTL/WB drive is the cosmic equivalent of a perpetual motion machine, then OK. But let's do the hard Science and prove it first. IANAQP, but it seems to me that your theory and TFA theory are as about as likely as the Mexican guy's theory. Let's find out, shall we?
And nursing her new baby?
Yeah, kinda takes the sexy out of it, doesn't it?
You make an excellent point, but you also fail to take into consideration how much energy will not be transferred via the asteroid bits that simply miss the earth due to being blasted off into space by the force of the nuclear detonation. It just seems logical that reducing a large single mass strike down to a smaller mass spread out over a wide area is going to be significantly less damaging. Also, any heat transferred to the atmosphere is going to be transferred primarily to the upper atmosphere, where it is much more likely to simply bleed back into space.
Also, if the choice is between being exposed to a laser vs being exposed to the same amount of energy in a heat lamp form over several days (or weeks, or months) then thank you, I'll take the heat lamp.
I've never understood this argument. Let's take a look at this: Every day, THOUSANDS of tiny meteorites impact the atmosphere. Of that, only a tiny fraction ever reach the ground. The vast majority of them burn up in the atmosphere. Of the ones that reach the ground, a tiny fraction of the original tiny fraction actually impact on land. A tiny fraction of the tiny fraction of the tiny fraction land somewhere in a populated area. A tiny fraction of the tiny fraction of the tiny fraction of the tiny fraction do property damage. and the amount that actually injure or kill someone? Well, the chance is so minuscule as to be laughable.
Yet somehow, utilizing one of our Weapons of Mass Destruction to actually SAVE lives by obliterating a "Chicxulub" sized asteroid into "burn up in atmosphere" sized chunks is somehow supposed to be more dangerous? What?
While I realize that it's impossible to predict precisely how a given asteroid would respond to being blasted with a nuke, Knowing that a large asteroid is about to strike, I would much rather take my chances with a bunch of smaller pieces striking earth. The math says we would be MUCH more likely to survive a bunch of "Meteor Crater Arizona" sized meteors landing randomly around the earth than one "Chicxulub" strike.
Somehow I think that the scientists predicting this are just putting "anti-nuke" politics ahead of protecting the planet.
More importantly, how can the submitted article say the rocket "crashed" yet then immediately afterward say it landed softly. Are those two terms not mutually exclusive?
I suppose one could have a soft "crash landing" in an airplane, with the definition of a "crash landing" being: An unscheduled landing due to mechanical problems. But in this case, the parachute system apparently worked flawless ly, exactly as it was designed. So even the loosest definition of "crash" would not fit.
Can someone please fix the article?
Perhaps to this:
Thanks.
No, a REALLY clever soldier would have said "Sir, Yes Sir!" and headed off, apparently to go do the impossible task. In reality he would have gone off to one of the many back rooms or quiet spots on the base, and started up a quiet card game with this buddies or any marks he could find and whiled away the afternoon while his dumbass CO thought he was being taught some kind of "lesson".
At least, that's what I would have done. Heck, your CO is expecting you to waste the day anyway, why disappoint him?
Some of us are networking geeks, NOT codemonkeys. While I can do some minor Win scripting, I couldn't program my way out of a paper bag, NOR would I want to learn to. It's not my thing.
So basically, I have the choice of:
a) Go back to FF2 and get a non-brain-dead implementation of a URL bar back again.
b) Spend months-years of my valuable time learning to code so I can write my own custom version of Firefox, which I will then be responsible for supporting and bug testing.
Yeah, pretty obvious which one I'm gonna pick there.
I got so frustrated with it I actually DOWNGRADED back to FF2 on my Win box, and just removed Firefox altogether from my Ubuntu machine, in favor of Seamonkey.
The Awful Bar sucks, and I refuse to use it. Get on the stick FF developers! Make the Awful Bar an extension and give us back a sensible location bar!
No Script already does this (Although I agree it should be part of the JS engine). Even on "Allowed" scripts, XSS operations cause a prompt who's default behavior is to stop the XSS action. You actually have to uncheck a box to unblock the XSS behavior.
So... you could say the Aussie scientists have taken a Quantum Leap in cryptography for the AU?
*rimshot*
Thank you, I'll be here all night! Remember to tip your waitress!
Indeed. unfortunately, Firefox has garnered enough of a user base that the overwhelming majority of it's users are now non-technical and non-programmer. Which means that every change made away from modularity is one more change that will start to drive away people who don't have the knowledge and skills to alter the browser themselves.
Personally, this entire discussion made me realize just how much I HATE the Awful Bar and it's Freedom Stealing. Enough that I just spent some time downloading the last version of F2, exported my bookmarks in HTML format and un-installed FF3, leaving all my settings in place. I then reinstalled FF2 and imported my bookmarks. the only extensions that didn't work were all the ones designed to try and fix the Awful bar, and one skin. Everything else worked beautifully and I could literally FEEL myself relaxing and de-tensioning seeing the nice neat FF2 bar.
I made sure to click the "feedback" option when uninstalling FF3 and gave the devs an eyeful on how much I hated the Awful Bar in the comment form. I'll be sticking with FF2 until the Awful bar is made Optional, scrapped, or there is a better alternative to FF2 available.
Oh, and in case the Mozilla Dev that made the Awesome bar his/her baby is reading this; Your bar sucks shit and you should be fired for forcing it on users.
Actually hobosapien,
Your reasons for disliking the Awful bar are exactly the same as mine. I think we just have different ways of saying it. But I agree with you totally.
The browser is my slave. Not the other way around.
Yet another reason to revert to the old URL bar and offer the Awesome Bar as an extension to the base FF install.
Ugh. "-1 missing the point" moonbender.
The point is the loss of Freedom and Control that the Awful Bar introduces. I used porn as a dramatic example. But one could easily substitute just about anything else that a given person might not want some other people to see. Why should I be forced to give up control of the behavior of a KEY portion of the UI of Firefox? I can control pretty much EVERYTHING else, why should this be any different?
My God, if this was IE I was upset about 90% of /. would be UP IN ARMS over this! As it is, as at this moment my initial post has been modded -1 Troll! (as if bringing up a legitimate but slightly off topic complaint was EVER a problem at /. !) is the "groupthink" that strong here that people can't have a single problem with an otherwise good application?
People, Mozilla is not perfect. They made a MISTAKE in forcing people to use the Awesome Bar. The best way to fix the mistake is to REVERT to the old URL bar and offer the Awesome bar as an extension. YOU WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO HAVE IT and all it's "Awesome" functionality. But those that didn't want it would not be FORCED to take it.
Oh, "-1 reading comprehension" as well moonbender. If you read ANY of my other posts you would see that I always completely disable the Awful Bar, rendering my URL bar as nothing more than a place to type in addresses. I hate it that way. But I hate it LESS than I hate the Awful Bar.
One last thing. I was attempting to make a somewhat humorous Nazi/Soviet Russia comparison. (You know; "Ve haf veys of makink you talk!) but I guess that was lost on you. Next time I'll try James Bond: "Do you expect me to USE the Awful Bar?" "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to DIE!" No? Whatever.
I don't pretend to speak for all Firefox users. But I'll bet you I speak for a significant amount of them.
Ultimately, the change was unnecessary. The old URL bar function worked well. Why not simply introduce the Awesome Bar as a new Extension and promote it heavily if they thought it was good? They HAD to know that not everyone would like such a drastic change.
My suggestion: Revert to the old URL bar in a default FF install. Offer the Awesome Bar as a "recommended" extension in the existing Add-Ons chooser window, and let people freely decide if they want it or not. Those that want it will still be able to have it. Those that don't will not be forced to take it. Everybody wins, most especially software freedom.
Even if you are orgasmic over the awesome bar you MUST ADMIT this is the most "free" method of handling a not insignificant groundswell of dislike over a feature.
Until you visit that site again, OR that site is in a bookmark.
Obviously, in that situation i didn't have the site bookmarked. but at home i have several sites bookmarked that i don't necissarily want to pop up when my kids are sitting there with me, or grandma is over visiting. the old URL bar would allow an auto-clear of it's contents every time FF was closed. So I never had to worry about last night's porn and sex session with the missus to show up the next day when my kids want to go to noggin.com.
Now, while I can manually delete url's that I surfed to, if I have them bookmarked, THEY SHOW UP ANYWAY.
Are you getting it now? the "Awesome Bar" TAKES AWAY CONTROL. You no longer have control over it's behavior. This doesn't need to be fixed, it needs to be REMOVED and made into an extension for those that want it.
Problem NOT solved.
As I stated in another post. There is NO WAY to revert the bar to it's old behavior. Extensions won't do it, about:config won't do it. The only thing that you can do is cripple the bar to do NOTHING but accept typed-in URLs. That's it.
Perhaps you should actually TRY to do a full revert before posting?
My beef with the Awful bar is precisely what you like about it.
I don't want it searching my bookmarks. I can go to my bookmarks on my own. And you know, as I am sitting here at my home PC in the family room with my kids running around behind me, it might be possible that I don't want them seeing the names and URLs some of the more Adult oriented sites that Mommy and Daddy surf together after they go to bed.
Ultimately, the main problem with the Awful bar is that it TAKES CONTROL AWAY FROM YOU. You can't tell it what to display, or when to display it, or what to search or not search. you can't turn it on or off without dicking around in the about:config. It has a very "Microsoft" feel to it. IE: This feature is "cool" (tm) and you VILL LIKE IT! VE HAF VEYS OF MAKINK YOU LIKE IT! HEIL MOZILLA!
I don't want my Browser doing things without my say-so. the Awful bar takes away some of my freedom and control. I want to keep my freedom and control.
It's that simple.
BINGO!
While the Awful bar would make an EXCELLENT extension, it is wrong to force it on people that don't want it. FF started out as a nice, stripped-down browser that you could customize any way you want with easy to install extensions. now it's become a bloated, slow beast that get's features put in that a significant amount of users DO NOT WANT (note I said "significant amount", not necessarily "majority". Just because users who don't want it are a minority doesn't mean we shouldn't get a say.)
The problem is that this is one part of the browser that is NOT modular. There isn't a way to REVERT the behavior back to the old way, we are stuck with it. Even extensions can't fully fix the problem. (Yes, I've tried "Old Bar" extension and all the about:config tricks. None of them return the desired traditional functionality.)
So basically I'm stuck with either completely disabling the URL bar, or the horrible new behavior. Frankly, i hate the new behavior enough that I narrowly prefer NO function to it's current function.
the lead devs for Mozilla need to listen to ALL the users and realize that NOT EVERYONE LIKES the new bar and they should make it MODULAR as it should be.
Even worse, it will bring up the same five or 6 sites REGARDLESS of how often you view them. I went to 4chan ONCE on a fresh VM with FF3 installed, and FOREVER AFTER it was the first result in the Awful bar! I had to do a complete uninstall and reinstall of FF3 (including manual deletion of leftover folders) to get this to stop!
Since then the first thing I do after installing FF3 is go to about:config and completely disable all the Awful bar functions.
Firefox 3.x is STILL straddled with the "Awesome Bar" AKA the "Awful Bar". At what point will they recognize the groundswell of DISLIKE for this part of the browser and just go back to the old 2.x behavior?
Unfortunately, the manner in which they implemented the Awful Bar means that it's impossible to go back unless you want to program your own version. You basically have to DISABLE the bar entirely, simply sacrificing the URL bar for anything other than typing URLs into.
I thought Firefox was supposed to be a "community" project? Why isn't the community getting input?
I'm afraid YOU are quite wrong.
Regardless of what ANY presidential candidate campaigns on, he IS restricted to the Constitutionally delineated duties and privileges of the Presidency. Including those he has sworn or affirmed upon taking the Oath of Office:
Which means that making fundamental change in our society (such as altering the economy and political system from a Capitalistic Representative Republic to a Socialistic Single Party System.) is literally prohibited from even attempting. Not that "The One" won't try it. The "stimulus" package is one such totally unconstitutional example.
All that aside though, I'm not necessarily in disagreement with him on this particular selection, provided that this appointee doesn't overstep his bounds in enforcing Net Neutrality as the ISP's have overstepped their bounds in exploiting the monopolies granted to them by federal/state/local governments. Two wrongs don't make a right, let us all hope that Mr. Genachowski remembers that.
Has Julius paid his taxes?
At the rate things are going, "The One" is going to have a historic presidency for, if nothing else, having the most tax cheats appointed of any presidency in history. I'd like AT LEAST ONE nominee to turn out to be an honest person.
And that is EXACTLY the kind of opinion that will keep you from getting hired by the majority of employers.
Most employers want "team players" IE: people that will subordinate their personal opinions for the good of the team, or people who's personal opinions already line up with much of the rest of the team.
Ultimately, most employers are paying you to be a functional cog in their business machine. Not playing nice with the other cogs is a good way to get yourself replaced.
Don't like it? Then either find that 1% of employers that just don't care, or are looking for "artisan" workers (Hollywood, the arts) or go out and start your own business. Then YOU can hire the people and will get to find out the hard way just how difficult running a business is when people don't or won't work as a team.
Not a flame. Really. But you need to understand that the "I'm more special than anyone in the room and so I don't have to work nicely with them" attitude is a good way to get fired. Trust me, you aren't irreplaceable.