Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mozilla To Begin Pushing Ads To The New Tabs Page

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

  • Luke
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • DeepDayze
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Luke_Wolf
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Luke_Wolf
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • brk0_0
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • erendorn
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Baconmon
    replied
    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..

    Leave a comment:


  • verde
    replied
    Chrome is much MUCH faster than Firefox right now. This new "feature" is just another one reason to avoid Firefox...

    Leave a comment:


  • curaga
    replied
    Originally posted by erendorn View Post
    1) So what will human do? Unemployed people are paid here, for a long time. To do nothing. Mostly, they do not seem happy.
    2) If I have only my arms to produce goods for improving my life, I'll use my arms. If I have a robot and my arms to produce good for improving my life, I'll use the robot and my arms. There is no magical level where humanity has "enough" (unless it's when needs are fulfilled, and experience shows that most people do not stop there when they reach that) that it can stop using available capital without making any difference. There can be a point though where most of human workforce becomes uncompetitive (compared to robotic workforce), and at that point, because of 1, all these people feeling useless may not feel like living the utopia you paint.
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • TemplarGR
    replied
    Originally posted by erendorn View Post
    "Someone" with 300M$ annually. Would be nice of him.
    How much of that goes to Firefox OS and other crap no one needs?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X