Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mozilla To Begin Pushing Ads To The New Tabs Page

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    How To Disable New-Tab Page

    Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    Hmm, well, I guess I might have to consider starting to use the home page as the default new tab page...
    If you go in to about:config in firefox, and search for "browser.newtab.url", you can change it to the default URL that a new-tab page will open to.. If you set/change the "browser.newtab.url" value to "about:blank", then it will cause any new tabs you open to be blank.. This is what I have done for years..

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by curaga View Post
      Huxley's Brave New World, the ultimate in human happiness.

      We're not in post-scarcity world yet, the unemployed money is barely enough to live, and comes with strings. If it were basic income enough to live on, no strings attached, would the people not be happier?
      I don't think so, although as often it can vary widely from one individual to another.
      If we define the threshold of "enough to live with" at the point where money stops contributing to happiness (around 50k$, depending on country), we can observe many people that keep on working even above that threshold. And I remember that sense of usefulness and having an occupation contribute to happiness regardless of the income, but I don't have any study to back that up right now.
      Also, relative position in society is a strong contributor to happiness, especially at the bottom (that one is fairly well documented), which means that even f people have enough to live, they may try to get more just to differentiate themselves from the other members of their group.

      But anyway, my feeling is that even though some people would be happier doing nothing that their current occupation, it does not mean they would be happy doing nothing.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
        You mean Corporatism not Capitalism, Capitalism hasn't been used in practice in hundreds of years, and things like "public" companies (and hence stock markets) and intellectual property are inherently anti-capitalistic.
        That's the point. Even if we had such a "true" capitalism, we would end up right here. When capital accumulation means power, our system becomes inherently corrupted as powerful people interfere with laws or rules to become even more powerful. That's what happened historically and that's what will happen again if we adopt, again, that "true" capitalism.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by brk0_0 View Post
          That's the point. Even if we had such a "true" capitalism, we would end up right here. When capital accumulation means power, our system becomes inherently corrupted as powerful people interfere with laws or rules to become even more powerful. That's what happened historically and that's what will happen again if we adopt, again, that "true" capitalism.
          Well the problem with that statement is that the issues that arise are a function of government not a function of capitalism, regardless of the economic system involved government by nature is prone to corruption, and it spreads this corruption into the economic system when things like intellectual property and regulatory agencies and even national militaries are brought in by creating power-sinks.

          The solution isn't a change in the economic system but actually applying capitalism to the government thus creating a system of government known as federalism. Pure federalism (a government based on federalism at every level, national-state-regional-local) is required though to ensure a minimal amount of corruption and the encapsulation of corruption which the system will then work out and crush. Just as an example a shift from a national military to even just a state based military (not to speak of shifting it down to regional or local) prevents a massive amount of interventionist policies because then the cost of maintaining a military is shifted to the states and as a result they are less inclined to put troops out for a national effort because they don't just have so much money to throw around, as a result costly intervention is avoided thus preventing massive harm to the local economy (which isn't to speak of harm done to others) and prevents power plays along that vector, as well it also prevents a rogue national government from oppressing it's citizens through military force, whereas state and lower level militaries can band against each other in the case of going rogue. Moral law being distributed to the private citizen and their respective religion as opposed to forming part of the secular law also prevents a great deal of injustice as another example, more commonly termed as "Separation of Church and State", is really a federalist idea of distributing power appropriately.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
            Well the problem with that statement is that the issues that arise are a function of government not a function of capitalism, regardless of the economic system involved government by nature is prone to corruption, and it spreads this corruption into the economic system when things like intellectual property and regulatory agencies and even national militaries are brought in thus creating power-sinks.
            .
            correction

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by stikonas View Post
              Indeed, Firefox is open source. Anybody is free to fork it and remove the ads. I am sure Iceweasel and Icecat will ship without any ads.
              I'd use Iceweasel more only if the bugs are ironed out as IW is buggier than the plain vanilla Firefox IMO.

              Comment


              • #97
                I'll take bugs over ads any time

                Originally posted by DeepDayze View Post
                I'd use Iceweasel more only if the bugs are ironed out as IW is buggier than the plain vanilla Firefox IMO.
                I cannot imagine any circumstance in which I would agree to ads in return for less buggy software. Given the whole privacy and security infrastructure that
                has evolved around Firefox, I suspect that someone will surely fork it. Torbrowser is already a fork of Firefox, so the code from Torbrowser could simply
                be borrrowed and altered to reenable running with a direct connection to the Internet and not through Vidalia. You would install this alongside Torbrowser:
                one for Tor work and one for everything else. The reason Torbrowser is set to crash if Vidalia stops is because an accidental non-Tor connection when a Tor
                connection was intended could literally get someone killed, tortured, or imprisoned for life.

                I can't see Torbrowser ever enabling ad tiles...

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by DeepDayze View Post
                  I'd use Iceweasel more only if the bugs are ironed out as IW is buggier than the plain vanilla Firefox IMO.
                  I've been using iceweasel for years and years.. Is it really that much different from normal firefox?..
                  I've been using debian for many years, and I don't think debian have normal firefox in its repositories, and I usually try to stick only with stuff that is in the debian repos (most of the time).. But iceweasel works good, at least for me any way..

                  A related question: I thought debian was the only distrobution with iceweasel.. Is iceweasel actually on other distrobutions as well?..

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Anyone can download from Debian repos

                    Originally posted by Baconmon View Post
                    I've been using iceweasel for years and years.. Is it really that much different from normal firefox?..
                    I've been using debian for many years, and I don't think debian have normal firefox in its repositories, and I usually try to stick only with stuff that is in the debian repos (most of the time).. But iceweasel works good, at least for me any way..

                    A related question: I thought debian was the only distrobution with iceweasel.. Is iceweasel actually on other distrobutions as well?..
                    Just fetch it from the Debian repos and install in manually. In my experience browser builds tend to be rather portable, I've used out-of-version browsers in Ubuntu-based systems with no issues, I suspect that Debian builds of Iceweasel would also be compatable.

                    Comment


                    • Phoronix and isms

                      Words. Capitalism, the system where the means of production are owned and controlled by a little minority. The capitalists or oligarchs. In capitast states they control the corporations, the banking systems, and also the states. Well, in large degree that is.

                      Free culture movement, foss, labour unions, cooperatives, family enterprizes, democratic institutions and socialism. - They represents alternatives, or counter forces, to the capitalist ways of coersion.

                      Ok, the Phoronix blog operates in a capitalists environment, but itself is not AFAIK under capitalist exploitation. The owner/worker needs money as we all do. He use ads for the capitalist corporations to get income. I do not blame him, but I will never open my brain for capitalist corporations propagana for him. So I use Adblock. Sane people use adblock. The crying about that might make people go away.

                      I hope Phoronix find other ways. What abou Flattr or other donation button vissible?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by risotto77 View Post
                        Words. Capitalism, the system where the means of production are owned and controlled by a little minority. The capitalists or oligarchs. In capitast states they control the corporations, the banking systems, and also the states. Well, in large degree that is.

                        Free culture movement, foss, labour unions, cooperatives, family enterprizes, democratic institutions and socialism. - They represents alternatives, or counter forces, to the capitalist ways of coersion.

                        Ok, the Phoronix blog operates in a capitalists environment, but itself is not AFAIK under capitalist exploitation. The owner/worker needs money as we all do. He use ads for the capitalist corporations to get income. I do not blame him, but I will never open my brain for capitalist corporations propagana for him. So I use Adblock. Sane people use adblock. The crying about that might make people go away.

                        I hope Phoronix find other ways. What abou Flattr or other donation button vissible?
                        Corporatism not Capitalism. They are two completely different and opposed ideas. Capitalism due to lacking the concept of IP and regulatory agencies does not allow anyone to dictate what others may or may not do (other than violate the life, liberty, or property of other individuals), and as a result everyone has the freedom to produce even if not everyone at any particular point in time has the resources to produce. A perfect case study of capitalism in force vs corporatism is actually the video game industry if we examine the difference between the publisher controlled games vs independently published games. The former is a slow lumbering monster which only produces a few games per year, and they are limited in category and rarely innovative because intellectual property has ensured that that side has settled into an oligopoly, meanwhile in the independent game field innovation abounds not just in the games themselves but how to fund them and other similar questions, and genres are re-saturating because digital distribution and private investments (through crowd funding) allows the actual creators to circumvent all regulation, which allows these tiny pockets of capitalism to exist, even if no economic system has actually been properly based on it in a long time.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
                          Corporatism not Capitalism. They are two completely different and opposed ideas. Capitalism due to lacking the concept of IP and regulatory agencies does not allow anyone to dictate what others may or may not do (other than violate the life, liberty, or property of other individuals), and as a result everyone has the freedom to produce even if not everyone at any particular point in time has the resources to produce.
                          That is a false dichotomy I believe. Capitalism and corporatism are integrated and symbiotic.
                          Capitalism deals with separation between owners and subordinated wage labourers and the maximizing of profit for the owners.
                          The corporations are tools to do so. They operate under capitalist conditions and for the capitalist intention.

                          Property are basis of capitalism and IP is a natural effect of capitalism. The owner class would like to own everything. They want to own your food and your genes, the land and the oceans and the air too.
                          Yes the corporations do work for these 'developments'. But please ask yourself 'for whom?' do they work for.

                          Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
                          A perfect case study of capitalism in force vs corporatism is actually the video game industry if we examine the difference between the publisher controlled games vs independently published games.
                          The former is a slow lumbering monster which only produces a few games per year, and they are limited in category and rarely innovative because intellectual property has ensured that that side has settled into an oligopoly, meanwhile in the independent game field innovation abounds not just in the games themselves but how to fund them and other similar questions, and genres are re-saturating because digital distribution and private investments (through crowd funding) allows the actual creators to circumvent all regulation, which allows these tiny pockets of capitalism to exist, even if no economic system has actually been properly based on it in a long time.
                          But independent artists and studios are (often) opposite to the capitalist structure. They own their own labour, individually or in cooperatives. Crowd funding is opposite to capitalist investment.
                          Where capitalist investment is for profit and labour exploitation, crowd funding is for use value.

                          Oligopolies or monopolies have been known to be effects of capitalism since the first serious critics in the 19th century.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by risotto77 View Post
                            Capitalism deals with separation between owners and subordinated wage labourers and the maximizing of profit for the owners.
                            Maybe that's what it means to you, but it's definitely not in the definition. It's entirely consistent with capitalism for the workers in a company to be the owners, and for them to be working towards maximizing their own profits.

                            This is even a commonplace practice. A large number of people are self-employed.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by risotto77 View Post
                              That is a false dichotomy I believe. Capitalism and corporatism are integrated and symbiotic.
                              Capitalism deals with separation between owners and subordinated wage labourers and the maximizing of profit for the owners.
                              Incorrect you believe so purely because you lack understanding of what Capitalism actually is, as opposed to what Marxist (or other fallacy based anti-capitalist) doctrines have led you to believe. Capitalism is all about granting individuals freedom to do as they wish (within the limits of not infringing upon other people's basic freedom) and deal with the consequences of their actions without any sort of governmental parachute or regulation. This sounds dangerous at first and that it might lead to abuses of the freedom that has been granted, however it is important to note that bad business practices have consequences which will result in a company failing when it doesn't have the government in it's pocket being capable of bludgeoning the consumers into taking what it wants.

                              Originally posted by risotto77 View Post
                              The corporations are tools to do so. They operate under capitalist conditions and for the capitalist intention.
                              Absolutely not, the concept of a public company is anathema to Capitalism. Capitalism demands a total lack of government involvement in the economy. A company being public is the very definition of government involvement.

                              Originally posted by risotto77 View Post
                              Property are basis of capitalism and IP is a natural effect of capitalism. The owner class would like to own everything. They want to own your food and your genes, the land and the oceans and the air too.
                              For starters there's no such thing as an owner's class, everyone owns things, even the poorest person owns something (if nothing else their body). Second off Intellectual Property, and Physical Property are two completely different concepts. Physical property can be held, controlled, and defended by a single person or group. Intellectual Property not having a corporeal existence can not be held, controlled, or defended by a single person or group, as a result government involvement is required in order to establish and maintain it, and thus it is anathema to Capitalism.

                              Originally posted by risotto77 View Post
                              Yes the corporations do work for these 'developments'. But please ask yourself 'for whom?' do they work for.
                              The hive mind of the shareholders which itself is focused not on the wellbeing of the company or the customers but on the bottom line, which naturally leads to abuse.

                              Originally posted by risotto77 View Post
                              But independent artists and studios are (often) opposite to the capitalist structure. They own their own labour, individually or in cooperatives.
                              Quite the opposite, them owning their labour and working for themselves is quite capitalistic. Them doing as they wish without being regulated by others is the very fundamental of capitalism.

                              Originally posted by risotto77 View Post
                              Crowd funding is opposite to capitalist investment. Where capitalist investment is for profit and labour exploitation, crowd funding is for use value.
                              Crowd funding is quite capitalistic, and in fact is far more capitalistic than so quote "venture capitalism", as individuals are giving of their own free will and are not burdening the people that they are funding with demands for control and regulating what they can do, as opposed to promise of a product.

                              Originally posted by risotto77 View Post
                              Oligopolies or monopolies have been known to be effects of capitalism since the first serious critics in the 19th century.
                              Corporatism not capitalism, and it's a result of government involvement such as intellectual property, and regulatory agencies such as the FDA, as well as corrupt politicians creating an unfair tax code to squeeze out small and medium businesses, as well as concepts such as public companies which provides no real benefit to the company itself (all that going public provides is a permanent but volatile loan of money that you should never touch) while leaving them open to hostile takeovers.
                              Last edited by Luke_Wolf; 02-18-2014, 02:45 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Artisan work is not capitalism

                                Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                                Maybe that's what it means to you, but it's definitely not in the definition. It's entirely consistent with capitalism for the workers in a company to be the owners, and for them to be working towards maximizing their own profits.

                                This is even a commonplace practice. A large number of people are self-employed.
                                A self-employed person is an artisan, not a capitalist. A capitalist is someone who profits of the labor of others who work for him.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X