Firefox 29 UI comment

Accepted the "suggestion" to upgrade to 29.0.1 which was to be just a
security update. Didn't realise I was at 28 and that this was far more
than a security update. Spent a few hours undoing the UI changes,
installing the "classic theme restorer" extension and then within it,
having to play with settings.

The one thing I was not able to undo: grabbing anywhere in the top bars
(not just the title bar) causes the window to move. Fairly annoying.

(on my machine, a slight move of a window causing it to overlap into the
adjoining screen causes major performance degradation).


Is it normal that applications can designate areas inside the window as
grabbable for purpose of moving window ? I thought this was limited to
the title bar.

Or is this a case of Firefox creating a huge title bar, and faking a
real one inside (it can be removed, and in fact is removed by default).

 

Yes, it is normal that it can be done. Check out Apple's Calculator
app for example.

It is not usual that it is done.

 

Firefox has been in a steady decline since they started their new
numbering scheme. There are a few things it does better than other
browsers, but overall, it's a lethargic behmouth with the turning radius
of an aircraft carrier and it makes the worst versions of IE look like
nibble ballet dancers by comparison.

I don't run it.

That would be my guess.

 

Sadly, this describes it perfectly. Why? The maintainers not only
don't give a shit about the users (check the Mozilla discusion threads
if you don't believe that), but when they're not busy ruining FF, they
are working hard to dumb it down to their own level of moronity.

I think it peaked around v17 (an extended support release). Or, it
was still bearable then. I've kept that one, but I don't often use
it.

Billy Y..

 

When Mozilla fired CEO Brandon Eich for having/supporting ideas that are
different from their ultra-lib orthodoxy, I told my IT manager to take
Firefox off all computers in my company and to block it from accessing
our websites.

And yup, I check the parking lot for lib candidate or cause- supporting
bumper stickers at salary review time or before a layoff. And when an
employment candidate checks-in at the security gate guard shack to enter
company property, the guard give HR a heads-up if there's one on his
bumper too. It's a short interview;-)

 

What company so that I can warn other people you're an asshole?

 

Yellow Cab. Travis Bickle used to be a leftist radical. He wanted to
put bumper stickers on his car but the boss wouldn't let him.
http://movieclips.com/iBqa-taxi-driver-movie-travis-supports-palantine/

 

That's your prerogative. I don't patronize ultra-right companies like
Hobby Lobby, Chik-fil-a (well, another reason is that their product
tastes terrible), and Exxon-Mobile, for similar reasons.

It's also the reason that sponsors are fleeing from Rush Limbaugh's
show in droves.

But by denying Firefox access to your company's web site, you're
hurting your own business.

 

More importantly, so I can make certain I never give that company so
much as a nickel I've used to scrape dog shit out of the tread of my
shoe.

(I also find it amusing that he's offering, on a public forum, evidence
that he's violating multiple employment laws - assuming, of course, that
he isn't just one more in a long line of mom's-basement-dwelling trolls
that have gone through here over the years - I suspect that's the more
likely reality.)

 

Nope; he's one of the regulars, recycled.

but he's not violating any employment laws because his company is
fictitious.

 

Somehow I suspected as much. Anybody who knows anything about HR beyond
"It's where you send your resume when you're looking for a job" knows -
or should - that practices such as he describes are all but guaranteed
to cost a company a metric buttload of cash as quick as the local
labor-law enforcement folks get wind of it.

 

Does the dictionary entry for "hypocrite" have a picture of you?

 

Violating labor laws? Nope, afraid not.

1. It's a privately held company. 2. I don't do business with any
governmental agency. 3. We're neither a common carrier nor offer public
accommodations. 4. And most importantly-- none of the slacker/moochers I
won't hire or promote are members of any designated protected class.
Thus, no laws are being broken.

So while the self-appointed Grievance Industry agitators may not like
the way I do business, there's nothing they can do about it other than
rant and community-organize boisterous protests outside my gate. And
frankly, when my highly conservative customer base sees those ass-hats
on the evening news, they're inclined to give me even more of their
business. So thanks for the free advertising. boychiks;-)

 

In response:
1. Actually, my company doesn't want business from you and your ilk; it
might drive off some folks in our key demographic and customer base.

2. In actual fact, ad revenues for Rush Limbaugh and most other major
conservative talk radio shows are flourishing. It's the few remaining
liberal talk radio shows that are circling the drain due to a paucity of
advertisers and listeners.

3. If I lose a little business, so be it. Making a statement/operating
on principle is more important than a little lost revenue.

 

Better check your own dictionary before you post again, Barry my lad.

You'll note that a hypocrite is a person who pretends to have virtues,
moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not
actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

If you look at my post, it's obvious that my actions and beliefs are all
consistent. eh?

I am curious about something though. Your sig mentions MIT. Were you
actually a student there-- or just a part-time janitor? Maybe walked by
the campus one time on your way to the free clinic?

 

That is a lie. I suspect everything you say is a lie, but I *know* that
one is a lie. Ad revenue on Rush is down 90%. The only reason it's on
the air at all is because Clear Channel Fuckheads are willing to lose
money on it. Rush has lost *every* national advertiser and is living off
gold scammers, local realtors and car dealers, and consirvitard
websites.

Every national ad agency has "exclude Limbaugh and Hannity" clauses in
their ad buys. They are being propped up by a consirvitard company, but
they are losing millions per year. Clear Channel will never recover the
money they paid to Limbaugh.

 

"Block it from accessing our websites"

Why would anyone do such a self defeating thing?

Right. Fantasy boss in mom's basement.

 

"Ilk is a Scots word meaning same. It is not a noun meaning kind, sort
or kidney. 'James Sporran of that ilk' means 'James Sporran of Sporran';
it shows that he lives on the estate that bears the family name and
distinguishes him from his cousins, the Sporrans of Glenhaggis, and his
distant kinsmen, the Sporrans of Upper Tooting. The schoolmaster who
wrote to The Times about the damage done to the BBC by 'Mrs Whitehouse
and her ilk' should write out fifty times 'I must not use words I do not
understand.' "

(Sir Ernest Gowers, The Complete Plain Words)

What was that about checking dictionaries?

Paul Magnussen

 

As if any of your customers know what the political affiliations of
other customers are. Not that you actually have a business or
customers.

His ratings are plummeting and advertisers are leaving him in droves:

<http://radioink.com/Article.asp?id=2649276&spid=24698>

"Forty-eight of the top 50 network advertisers have ³excluded Rush and
Hannity² orders. Every major national ad agency has the same dictate."

Admittedly, that was about a year ago, and Limbaugh has since switched
from Cumulus to Clear Channel; however, his ratings on those Clear
Channel stations are abysmal.

Actually, I agree with that. It's a shame, though, that your
principles are detrimental to the well being of the country, and the
world, for that matter.

 

If it existed, that might be true. Doesn't change the reality that
privately held or not, the labor laws must be followed.

That's good. Means I don't give you any money indirectly through my
taxes. Well, it would, if this company of yours existed outside your
imagination.

I'll buy that - since an imaginary company can't offer much of anything
to anybody other than the one pretending it exists.

Since they don't exist anywhere outside your imagination, I guess I
haven't got a choice but to admit that last one is true - one generally
doesn't need to pay imaginary employees.

Of course not - it's hard for an imaginary company to do anything at
all, never mind anything illegal.

Keep on dreaming, basement-boy.