I found this quite funny.... Firefox has an add on where it allows one to search for mirrored sites that have been blocked by the Federal Government. The Dept. of Homeland Security has asked Firefox to disable the add on... But does Firefox grant their request? No!!! They refuse to disable the addon...
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
You have a source for this? I'm not sure how Firefox could disable anything. The browser is open source. And add-on is just that...a piece of software that you can install separately and "add it on" to the browser giving it more functionality.
What exactly does the government expect Mozilla to do?
Firefox, is, to me, an excellent argument against the scaremongering of the Randian/corporatist crowd vis a vis IP abolition. I'd be astounded if Silicon Valley turned out to be anything ideologically different from Berkeley, Sacramento or the rest of SoCal, but at least it's a strong step in the right direction, and I strongly sympathize with the cyber civil-libertarians, who I'd criticize only on the points of rallying behind Ted Kennedy's "net neutrality" band-aid and failing to expand out to Western Europe, where the latest media-manufactured hysteria is regarding violent online video games and politically incorrect political opinions.
Firefox does have an official hosting site for addons, from which they can be expurgated. The full version of SkipScreen, for instance, has been relegated elsewhere due to the lobbying of MegaUpload and other file sharing sites.
John James: You have a source for this? I'm not sure how Firefox could disable anything. The browser is open source. And add-on is just that...a piece of software that you can install separately and "add it on" to the browser giving it more functionality. What exactly does the government expect Mozilla to do?
Yes, Firefox could regulate which addons it accepts...
Adam mentions this in his show on Adam vs the man 5/31/11 episode
Techdirt
Blog of one of the people of the Firefox legal team
Huffingtonpost
Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo:Firefox could regulate which addons it accepts...
...You mean kinda like Apple regulates which apps can run on the iPhone?
Firefox can regulate its addons on their web browsers, or else they wouldnt have their legal team working on this case...
Did you miss my last post? I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. And for that matter, I'm not even sure you're understanding what the situation is. Not one of those sources you posted said anything about ordering Mozilla to "disable" anything...and what "legal team"? I'm not even sure what the heck you're talking about.
John James: I'm not even sure what the heck you're talking about.
i could say the same about you...
? Let's try and clear things up then. Please quote the part of any of those sources that say anything about Mozilla's "legal team" being involved in anything or looking into anything or battling anything or being involved in any way.
And while the question posed by Mozilla in the letters uses the language "disable the addon", I saw nothing about the DHS's actual request that indicated they requested Mozilla do anything other than remove it from distribution on its site. I'm wondering if you're just going off the Mozilla letter, or if you have any actual source that states the DHS was requesting anything other than simply taking the extension down from its listing on its website.
read Harvey Anderson's( one of the heads of the legal department) blog on what the legal team is doing about this...
do you have a source for the Dept. of Homeland Sec. letter?
As I said, I'm aware the question posed by Mozilla in the letters uses the language "disable the addon"...but I saw nothing about the DHS's actual request that indicated they requested Mozilla do anything other than remove it from distribution on its site. I'm wondering if you're just going off the Mozilla letter, or if you have any actual source that states the DHS was requesting anything other than simply taking the extension down from its listing on its website.
That was basically the entire last paragraph of my last post. Did you not read it?
And if by "Harvey Anderson's blog" you mean the second link you provided above, I did read that. I read all of those sources and I did not see a single thing about any sort of legal team or legal professionals being involved. Which is why I asked you to quote the passage you are talking about. Could you do that please?
im done...i already answered your concerns
? Huh? You said "their legal team is working on this case", and I said I didn't see anything about a legal team on the sources you posted, and asked you to point out what you're talking about...and then you just told me to look at one of the sources you posted.
(And that was after you repeated what I had already said about the "disable" language which made it seem like you didn't even read my post...which now I notice you deleted that part, so I guess you ended up reading it after you replied.)
You haven't answered anything. I guess that means you made it up?
yes, i made eveything up, the articles, the blog post, everything... you caught me
Strawmen? Seriously? You sound like those people who accuse anarcho-capitalists of being in favor of chaos...or that saying law enforcement shouldn't be able to write its own warrants means you're in favor of terrorists getting weapons.
Obviously I'm not implying you made up the story. I'm talking about the part that you are avoiding...the part I asked you about...the part about the "legal team working the case". All I asked was where is there any mention of a legal team at all. And you characterize my question as if I was accusing you of faking the whole story.
I guess that removes any doubt.
no, you just keep repeating the same thing over again, but clearly, if they have one of the heads of the legal department on the case, the legal department is working on this case. I guess if you want something that says 'legal department' or 'legal team' on it, look at this article. But that blog post is all that was really need to justify what I have already said. and note that it is filed under 'legal'
the last post was not meant to be serious, by the way.I frankly, just got tired of repeating myself
Thank you. If you would have just provided that link to begin with I wouldn't have had to keep asking for it (which you referred to as me "repeating the same thing over again"), and you wouldn't have had to get "tired of repeating yourself".
cool beans...you're welcome
Firefox, is, to me, an excellent argument against the scaremongering of the Randian/corporatist crowd vis a vis IP abolition. I'd be astounded if Silicon Valley turned out to be anything ideologically different from Berkeley, Sacramento or the rest of SoCal, but at least it's a strong step in the right direction, and I strongly sympathize with the cyber civil-libertarians, who I'd criticize only on the points of rallying behind Ted Kennedy's "net neutrality" band-aid and failing to expand out to Western Europe, where the latest media-manufactured hysteria is regarding violent online video games and politically incorrect political opinions. Firefox does have an official hosting site for addons, from which they can be expurgated. The full version of SkipScreen, for instance, has been relegated elsewhere due to the lobbying of MegaUpload and other file sharing sites.
Well, Firefox 4 is much faster than the previous versions, and I'm glad for that.
aervew:Uhh, firefox is a perfect example of open source goody-goody naive coding faimily failure. Release after release, more useless badly optimized crap gets added on, without a clear vision, inefficient flexible open source libraries are used for interfacing and backbone for the good of the "community" and what you end up with is a crippled slow piece of shit. Similar argument goes for chromium, except its main bog is the memory usage.
Feel free to not use it.
DE GVSTIBVS NON EST DISPVTANDVM
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Vitor: Well, Firefox 4 is much faster than the previous versions, and I'm glad for that.
It looks a lot nicer too. At least on Win7.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Firefox is a true libertarian browser as it gives freedom in adding to browser features that ultimate user, not developer, wants. Sure, it has its disadvantages: big memory usage, windows-like interface (even in Firefox 4 there remains its signs, in comparison to, for instance, Opera which I used until after an update caused fatal crashes with funny journeys to BIOS). But again, addons, that make my life much easier in some respects, are the reason why I became a Firefox user
Score one for open source software! I use Firefox 4 with Fedora 14 and it works great. I also have a special place in my heart for open-source, which is why I don't use Google Chrome (also good software, mind you).
Chris:I also have a special place in my heart for open-source, which is why I don't use Google Chrome (also good software, mind you).
You have heard of Chromium, right?
Yeah, but Chromium's a bit... crashy for me. :)
I was just pointing out that Chromium is Google Chrome at its base. You said you don't want to use Chrome because it's not open source...but a great deal of that source code was released and turned into an open source project. That's what Chromium is.
No arguments from me about any of the above. I've got nothing against Chrome or Chromium. But Firefox is a 100% open-source project, and is arguably the best browser out there with v4. Mozilla also does much to maintain a free and open web. Great group of folks on that project.