0 users browsing Discussion. | 1 guest | 4 bots  
Main » Discussion » Mozilla, *sigh*
Pages: First Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next Last
Posted on 19-09-29, 20:48
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #649 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 169 days
Last view: 167 days
It's not as if China don't do both. Besides, "Business" "Insider" reporting that an "independent tribunal" (read: some Micky Mouse org which doesn't even have a Wikipedia page) told the UN that China did X is hardly conclusive evidence of anything.

Personally, I think that there's nothing wrong with taking organs off death row prisoners, and that it in fact is a commendable practice with which the Chinese ought to have continued–their blood is upon their own heads, and they're dead anyway, so what's the argument against not letting the bodies go to waste? I would argue they forfeited any and all alleged rights they had, the moment they committed such unforgivable crimes, and so the rest is, as one might say in the industry, undefined behavior–behavior, upon use of a nonportable or erroneous program construct or of erroneous data, for which this International Standard imposes no requirements. (Of course, if your issue is that China have a dubious justice system which has a bad tendency to wrongfully convict people, then just say that outright, but I'd say that's a whole other issue from organ transplants, which in my opinion would be completely fine were they done in a civilized country)

Also, I find the whole Uighur thing to be extremely questionable. I can definitely think up good arguments for why censorship would be a far worse transgression: one is a clear-cut human rights violation and a direct admission of wrongdoing that you can't really explain away, whereas the other one is just an internal dispute between two ethnic groups, of which one arguably is not native to the country. Genocide is the sort of thing that happens every now and then in every (non-homogeneous) civilization, whereas there is not ever any good excuse for–in countries who otherwise were able to sustain democracy–transgressions against human rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and the like. I don't intend to imply that the UK are worse than China–they aren't, because China are a worse transgressor on almost all of these facets–but I would like to argue that it's hardly as open-and-shut a case as you argue, and that genocide alone does not strictly disqualify a country from being free.

Just my two cents.

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-09-29, 20:49
Wonderbolt

Post: #411 of 502
Since: 10-29-18

Last post: 17 days
Last view: 11 hours
The shops are also evil.
Posted on 19-09-29, 21:26 (revision 3)
Custom title here

Post: #714 of 890
Since: 10-30-18

Last post: 10 days
Last view: 5 hours
What the FUCK!
Genocide does not just HAPPEN, and is UNARGUABLY worse than fucking internet filters.

Also, speaking of unalienable rights...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

That's the first words ever authored by my country. I note they didn't say "life unless you got the wrong skin color" or "the pursuit of innernet tiddies". So yes, genocide is a fuckin' violation of human rights.






Also: the shops are evil too?!?! That's not true! Thates impossible!

--- In UTF-16, where available. ---
Posted on 19-09-29, 22:17
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #650 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 169 days
Last view: 167 days
Posted by CaptainJistuce
What the FUCK!
Genocide does not just HAPPEN, and is UNARGUABLY worse than fucking internet filters.

Also, speaking of unalienable rights...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

That's the first words ever authored by my country. I note they didn't say "life unless you got the wrong skin color" or "the pursuit of innernet tiddies"

Genocide is directly downstream from ethnic conflict, and ethnic conflict happens when you get sufficient ethnic tensions, which is to say everywhere you have different people living together. Can you put up even one counter-example, of a civilization or time that was free from genocides despite heavy ethnic conflict, or free from ethnic conflict despite various ethnicities?

It is deeply ironic that you assert that your fatherland is such an example. Pray tell, what happened 54 years after the ratification of the passage you quote? Granted, this was according to many observers how it was able to avoid going the way of South America or the African colonies, and one could argue–I am not taking a position on the issue–it was thus necessary, but it nevertheless very much happened.

Whether pornography is covered under the freedom of speech is a hotly debated issue, but you likewise ought to be familiar with the conclusion of your Supreme Court in the case of Miller v. California. At any rate, is not the pursuit of Happiness but rather the right to Liberty under which it would fall.

So, no, would be my conclusion. While it as you note did indeed not directly write let alone ratify those passages, it did consistently carry out actions consistent with at least the former, and later on the latter. It appears perfectly reasonable to me that your Founding Fathers would have found Internet censorship far more objectionable than the genocide of domestic ethnic minorities.

Genocide is an activity which sometimes may be legitimate and sometimes not, whereas censorship–at least to the degree that it infringes on the right to freedom of speech being necessary for the proper functioning of the free marketplace of ideas–is a direct admission of wrongdoing that is always a crime against humanity. It is important to keep in mind that the negative effects of genocides on human rights are extremely limited; although they may be regrettable in other regards, they rarely constitute a significant threat to the health of the democracy.

I will conclude by paraphrasing the abortion enthusiasts here; their subjects, their choice.

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-09-29, 23:03
Post: #95 of 144
Since: 11-01-18

Last post: 10 days
Last view: 2 hours
Name a legitimate genocide.
Posted on 19-09-29, 23:33
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #651 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 169 days
Last view: 167 days
Well, that's certainly a controversial topic. But as examples, I have heard–and I want to be clear, I take no position here–good arguments for Melos, Yugoslavia, Israel, China, and the US constituting such. While all are certainly regrettable situations, a peaceful resolution of the conflict was hardly possible. This stands in opposition to for instance the World War II-era genocides, in which people were murdered without provocation or any underlying conflict.

More or less any genocide that happened as a result of conflict, as opposed to the other way around. To be clear here, I'm not praising genocide in describing it as "legitimate," but if you have two peoples who do not and will not like each other and one swath of land, then the old adage this town ain't big enough for the two of us applies, and then the only feasible resolutions are the departure of one party (e.g. surrender) or strife, both of which constitute genocide. Of course, a peaceful resolution could also be reached, but this is never guaranteed and appears unlikely if either party stands nothing to gain from it.

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-09-29, 23:44
Not from my cellphone

Post: #561 of 739
Since: 10-30-18

Last post: 3 days
Last view: 10 hours
Know who deserve genocide?

The creators of D'OH!

My computer, my rules. I don't need the help of my web browser provider to fight censorship, thanks.

Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free
Posted on 19-09-29, 23:50
Lying Dutchman

Post: #413 of 502
Since: 10-29-18

Last post: 17 days
Last view: 11 hours
If the leaders and their armies can't be arsed to try diplomatic means, their civilians should not ever need to suffer death for it. Not ever.

That would be a genocide.

Now, pop back to talking about how Mozilla are evil and dumb, perhaps pop even further down the discussion if you must, but drop this or we may learn what "sureacide" means.
Posted on 19-09-30, 01:34 (revision 1)
Custom title here

Post: #716 of 890
Since: 10-30-18

Last post: 10 days
Last view: 5 hours
Posted by sureanem

Genocide is directly downstream from ethnic conflict, and ethnic conflict happens when you get sufficient ethnic tensions, which is to say everywhere you have different people living together. Can you put up even one counter-example, of a civilization or time that was free from genocides despite heavy ethnic conflict, or free from ethnic conflict despite various ethnicities?

That people seem unable to get along doesn't make it RIGHT.

It is deeply ironic that you assert that your fatherland is such an example. Pray tell, what happened 54 years after the ratification of the passage you quote? Granted, this was according to many observers how it was able to avoid going the way of South America or the African colonies, and one could argue–I am not taking a position on the issue–it was thus necessary, but it nevertheless very much happened.

I've never claimed my country is perfect, or even GOOD, at adhering to the precepts that its founders believed in.
Also, not ratification. That was the first sentence of the declaration of independence. There wasn't a government to ratify shit yet(and the first government we founded after telling England to fuck off was so ineffectual that the president under the Articles of Confederation refused to take office).

The point is what the words say. It is self-evident that all men are created equal, and that possess unalienable rights to life and liberty. Whether my nation has always upheld these words is irrelevant to whether I believe them or not. You brought the concept of inherent human rights up, I doubled-down.



Whether pornography is covered under the freedom of speech is a hotly debated issue, but you likewise ought to be familiar with the conclusion of your Supreme Court in the case of Miller v. California. At any rate, is not the pursuit of Happiness but rather the right to Liberty under which it would fall.

It would most likely fall under freedom of speech. The rights laid out in the first sentence of the declaration of independence are not an all-encompassing list(nor are the ones listed in the bill of rights, as amendments 9 and 10 make clear and the law steadfastly ignores), merely the most important ones and the ones the US was seceding for violation of.

It appears perfectly reasonable to me that your Founding Fathers would have found Internet censorship far more objectionable than the genocide of domestic ethnic minorities.

I disagree, but contend that a failure to uphold one's ideals does not prove them invalid. By that argument, there is, in fact, no such thing as human rights.


Genocide is an activity which sometimes may be legitimate and sometimes not

NO! IT CANNOT! YOU CANNOT ENGAGE IN A SYSTEMATIC CAMPAIGN OF MASS MURDER AND CALL IT LEGITIMATE! WHAT IN THE EVER-LOVING FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOUR HEAD?!?!?!

It is important to keep in mind that the negative effects of genocides on human rights are extremely limited; although they may be regrettable in other regards, they rarely constitute a significant threat to the health of the democracy.

My mistake, you're definitely right. Executing large swaths of a population on the flimsiest of reasons isn't any kind of threat to democracy.

If fucking state-sponsored mass-murder is acceptable, there is no democracy because it is acceptable for the government to execute anyone who disagrees.

I will conclude by paraphrasing the abortion enthusiasts here; their subjects, their choice.

But the same does not apply to censorship?


You are a horrible, sick creature and I am disgusted to share a world with you.

--- In UTF-16, where available. ---
Posted on 19-09-30, 13:42
Not from my cellphone

Post: #562 of 739
Since: 10-30-18

Last post: 3 days
Last view: 10 hours
Google plans (they're actually D'OH!, not DNS-over-TLS as the article wrongly says!) are already making "friends" with your friendly politicians:
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/19/09/29/2033247/googles-dns-over-tls-plans-scrutinized-by-us-congress

Seriously, trying to secure DNS is like trying to encrypt the freakin' phone directory.
Who cares if my ISP knows I'm trying to connect with www.mybank.com.ve or fuckyoucommunists.org or loli.porn?
I care more about my connections to said sites to not be tampered or detoured in transit, and for that we have the tech (HTTPS, run your own DNS servers).

The political side has an easy solution: overthrow your governments. (And get rid of your evil corporations while we're at there).
But then, normal people is ignorant by choice, they don't want to learn, they enjoy their brainwashing (all they want are their Kartrashians gossip and their Fecesbooks), and that's where Big Tech comes with non-solutions (D'OH!, social networks, "dark patterns") which please their agendas, while politicians help to destroy our future.

sureanem, you sure enjoy the propaganda. I'm not. I just want to use my goddamned computer, which I'm being denied, by both users AND providers!

Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free
Posted on 19-10-01, 03:13
Post: #55 of 76
Since: 10-31-18

Last post: 61 days
Last view: 1 day
Posted by tomman
Who cares if my ISP knows I'm trying to connect with www.mybank.com.ve or fuckyoucommunists.org or loli.porn?

I care that the government isn't building profiles of people for social credit scores, for arresting people, etc.. That my school isn't looking. that my ISP isn't spying on my DNS queries for advertising. That an employer isn't looking to monitor workers' internet activity and invade their privacy.
Posted on 19-10-01, 22:28 (revision 1)
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #652 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 169 days
Last view: 167 days
Posted by tomman
Who cares if my ISP knows I'm trying to connect with www.mybank.com.ve or fuckyoucommunists.org or loli.porn?

Isn't your ISP state-run? Wouldn't they kill you if they were to read your posts here? Fine if you lived in an ostensibly free country, but doesn't the saying "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" very much apply here?
Posted by tomman
The political side has an easy solution: overthrow your governments. (And get rid of your evil corporations while we're at there).

By what metric is this easy? I'm not trying to put you on the spot here, but if it's so easy then why haven't you done it?
Posted by CaptainJistuce
I will conclude by paraphrasing the abortion enthusiasts here; their subjects, their choice.

But the same does not apply to censorship?

Well, I don't reckon I could respond to the other stuff, unfortunately–if you post it in Politics!, I would be happy to–but I would reckon this part is just about close enough to the thread topic that it's OK if I put it in a spoiler.



There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-10-02, 07:12
Custom title here

Post: #723 of 890
Since: 10-30-18

Last post: 10 days
Last view: 5 hours
Posted by sureanem

As such, all governments that do engage in censorship are wrong and evil, and all that do not are just and good. It follows then that any activity that a good government has engaged in at any time is less evil than censorship.
A government can, for instance, NOT censor the fact that the country is run by mass-murdering genocidal racist nutjobs.
No censorship, but still wrong and evil. Censorship is not inherent proof of villainy, and lack thereof is not inherent proof of virtue.

--- In UTF-16, where available. ---
Posted on 19-10-02, 11:15
Oatmeal? Are you crazy?

Post: #418 of 502
Since: 10-29-18

Last post: 17 days
Last view: 11 hours
Can someone recap the Mozilla thing for me please?
Posted on 19-10-02, 16:35 (revision 2)
Not from my cellphone

Post: #567 of 739
Since: 10-30-18

Last post: 3 days
Last view: 10 hours
Posted by Kawa
Can someone recap the Mozilla thing for me please?

Mozilla hates you, the loyal user that has been there since the original browser wars age.

They prefer to pander to Silly Valley hipsters, computer-challenged people, cellphones, the advertising industry, and whatever target Google has today, including one or two big governments.

In the meanwhile they're hellbent on getting rid of every single feature we computer nerds and sensible users actually like/need (from cookie controls to DNS to customizable UIs), because those somehow pose a major threat to that userbase they're trying their hardest to reach (spoilers: they won't - they're very happy with Chrome, despite being another turd... and this turd is the new IE because there has to be a new IE, of course!)

Every Mozilla history since Chrome became popular often boils down to this. Apparently they have a template for these kind of things, who would know that?

Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free
Posted on 19-10-02, 20:35
Custom title here

Post: #725 of 890
Since: 10-30-18

Last post: 10 days
Last view: 5 hours
And they can't actually take marketshare back from Chrome because Google controls advertising on the information superhighway, as well as a good percentage of the most popular websites.

--- In UTF-16, where available. ---
Posted on 19-10-02, 21:01
Universally genre savvy

Post: #419 of 502
Since: 10-29-18

Last post: 17 days
Last view: 11 hours
Thank you, that's a pretty clear recap.

So if Mozilla is on a probable dead run off a cliff and the next Edge is Yet Another Chromium... doesn't that mean Chrome has a monopoly? Wasn't that sort of thing super illegal, or does it Technically Not Matter because on a level that the courts are likely to understand they're still different products?
Posted on 19-10-02, 22:01
Custom title here

Post: #726 of 890
Since: 10-30-18

Last post: 10 days
Last view: 5 hours
Posted by Kawa
Thank you, that's a pretty clear recap.

So if Mozilla is on a probable dead run off a cliff and the next Edge is Yet Another Chromium... doesn't that mean Chrome has a monopoly? Wasn't that sort of thing super illegal, or does it Technically Not Matter because on a level that the courts are likely to understand they're still different products?

It doesn't matter because american courts give no fucks about monopolies.
...
Also the whole "different products" thing. Nothing STOPS Microsoft or Opera or anyone from developing their own engine, and they can't actually PROVE Google is intentionally sabotaging them(though the Edge team was sure of it).


If they could actually prove Google was making changes to YouTube with the explicit purpose of ruining Edge's performance to make MS look bad for announcing "fake" benchmark results and make Chrome look better by knocking Edge's performance back behind Chrome, that would be one thing.
But they can't prove it, so it is all happenstance, coincidence, and suspicion.

--- In UTF-16, where available. ---
Posted on 19-10-02, 22:09
Post: #97 of 144
Since: 11-01-18

Last post: 10 days
Last view: 2 hours
Microsoft got into trouble due to exclusivity deals for windows/dos with a handful of major manufacturers, and shipping their OS in a manner that reduced choice to those new to computing. At the time of the case, you couldn't ship windows 9x without IE - you can ship an android without chrome, or any of googles apps.
Posted on 19-10-03, 01:29
Full mod

Post: #354 of 409
Since: 10-30-18

Last post: 1 day
Last view: 2 hours
Posted by Kawa
Wasn't that sort of thing super illegal, or does it Technically Not Matter because on a level that the courts are likely to understand they're still different products?

It's not illegal to have a monopoly; that kind of thing can happen quite naturally without any wrongdoing or ill-intent.

What's illegal is to use a monopoly in one field as leverage in another. For example, using a monopoly on oil refining to prevent competitors from buying oil pipelines or rail transport, using a monopoly on the telephone network to prevent competitors from using their own equipment, or using a monopoly on computer operating systems to prevent competitors from signing distribution deals with computer manufacturers. Notably, you don't need a 100% guaranteed monopoly to abuse your power illegally, you just need to have enough market share that your suppliers and customers will think twice about doing business with your competitors.

The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.
Pages: First Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next Last
Main » Discussion » Mozilla, *sigh*
Yes, it's an ad.