SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Ian Bicking has confirmed that Mozilla has quietly shut down Mozilla Labs.
This development raises some interesting questions about the future of Mozilla and their products:
With Firefox's usage declining, with Firefox on Android seeing limited uptake, with Firefox not being available on iOS, with Thunderbird stagnating, with SeaMonkey remaining as irrelevant as ever, with Firefox OS suffering from poor reviews and little adoption, and now with a reduction in innovation due to the closure of Mozilla Labs, does Mozilla have any hope of remaining relevant as time goes on?
Will Mozilla be able to reignite the spark that originally allowed them to create products like Firefox and Thunderbird that were, at one time, wildly popular and innovative?
Is Mozilla still capable of innovating without Mozilla Labs, or will they slowly fade into irrelevance as the last remaining users of their products move on to other offerings from competitors?
(Score: 1) by chris.alex.thomas on Sunday September 21 2014, @10:26AM
the list is quiet easy, but I'm shocked that I have to tell you how it works.
1) anything that expands the rights of people to live peacefully and in the way that they desire
2) with regard to (1) it only supports the expansion of rights, never the contraction, therefore any expansion of rights which causes the contraction of other peoples rights, it not in the list.
Example:
1a) The ability to marry who the hell you want
1b) The refusal to accept gay marriage
==
1a) is acceptable because it expands the rights of people to live how they want and does not cause the contraction of rights given to other people
1b) is not acceptable because it expands the rights of people who wish to contract the rights given to other people falling foul of rule (2)
==
It's really not that hard, but I'm shocked that in the 21st century, this STILL has to be explained.......
(Score: 2) by tftp on Sunday September 21 2014, @05:27PM
Your list means that you will support expansion of rights of some pedophile to have sex with your baby. This example proves that you need to think again what is and is not allowed, and why. Hint: human rights are not the goal; survival of the humankind is.
You can also see that your list only expands rights, but has no mechanisms for taking some rights away that were given in error. In the end everyone will have *all* the rights. A stranger in the street will have a right to stick a knife into you, and you will have a right to shoot him before he comes close enough. I believe we have a name for such a society...
If, however, you do not advocate for anarchy, then your political system should have a mechanism by which some rights can be taken away, once they prove to be unwisely given. Humankind is not flawless, and democratic decisions are not error-free. There ought to be a method to correct those errors. So far you are of opinion that such method should not exist, and a right, once given, shall stay no matter how good or how bad it is for the society.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday September 22 2014, @01:26PM
That would violate the rights of the child, and therefore fails his second rule.
Only if you live in some weird parallel universe which has no concept of a right to life or safety...otherwise you're again violating his second rule.
Of course, there is one flaw in his rules, which is that you need a consistent set of rights as a starting point for further expansion. I'm not sure there's any current definition that's fully consistent, although the original founding documents of the US might work -- just not their current interpretations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 22 2014, @11:39PM
That would violate the rights of the child, and therefore fails his second rule.
I guess a baby is clearly incapable of giving consent, but what if it was an older, but still pre-pubescent child that for some reason consented to having sex with a paedophile? Would that still be a violation of the child's rights? If so, why?
Of course there are reasons why it shouldn't be allowed, but I don't see how they fit into rules that chris.alex.thomas proposed.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Monday September 22 2014, @02:51AM
Typical evidence that you haven't thought this out. So why does 1b) the refusal to "accept" same sex marriage violate rule 2)? Your acceptance of someone's same sex marriage is not required in order for the marriage to occur. Even recognition by the state is not required in order for a same sex marriage to occur. For example, I attended a same sex marriage (Unitarian Church BTW) in the US state of North Carolina in 1998 or 1999 (I forget the year). The marriage wasn't recognized by the state, but it happened anyway and the ceremony was legal to conduct.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday September 22 2014, @01:30PM
Ignoring whether or not the issue at hand was a full ban or just "refusal to accept", the state refusing the recognize it IS a rights violation, as it is blatantly discriminatory. There are many legal benefits that come with state recognition of a marriage, and by refusing to recognize same-sex marriage they're saying that only heterosexual couples are entitled to those benefits.
Of course, if we abolished state recognition of marriage and the associated benefits entirely, that would solve that issue. Not sure why they have any business being involved these days anyway...
(Score: 2) by khallow on Tuesday September 23 2014, @02:45AM
We can't ignore that. The phrase was "refusal to accept gay marriage" not "full ban on gay marriage". That's a huge difference. chris.alex.thomas claims that we don't have a right to think or say certain things, not use the force of law to ban certain things or prevent certain rights from being exercised.
Of course, if we abolished state recognition of marriage and the associated benefits entirely, that would solve that issue. Not sure why they have any business being involved these days anyway...
I agree.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday September 23 2014, @12:01PM
Right, there's certainly a difference, I was just saying that that distinction didn't really apply to the point I was making -- whether or not one has a legal right to say something (and I'd agree, you have a legal right to say *anything*), the question at hand doesn't involve legal action. You have a right to say anything you want, but I have a right to stop doing business with you because of it.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Wednesday September 24 2014, @03:26AM
That's not necessarily true in employment. For example, the Eich case involved legally protected political donations. It was actually against California law [vtzlawblog.com] to force him out, even using the "voluntary resignation" fig leaf. And in federal employment, there are several protected classes for which you can't discriminate (such as sexual status or religion). A case exists for religious discrimination against Eich here.