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;-)
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.
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.
