Yes. That would be Google. And they pay quite well.

They should have stopped before they decided to stop improving an existing browser and start just blindly copying everything Chrome does. I'm guessing you are not old enough to remember this, but before version 4.0 every release was not about complaining. Admittedly slashdot posts about a new firefox version were a lot less interesting and had fewer comments, but the changes tended to be relatively sane and if there was a bit of craziness thrown in at least it wasn't the sort that utterly destroys the browser so that Chrome users can have the option of a very slightly different browser that works just like they are used to. It's almost like Google is paying for these changes.

Actually a better analogy would be some smartypants removing your gearshift lever entirely and putting it in random places. Every. Fucking. Night. Why? Because he can and because he likes fucking with you.

Strawman. We only hate change when it makes things worse or when it is just random redesign which is change just for the sake of change. If I get a can of fluorescent yellow spray paint and paint your car with it one night while you sleep and you see your red car turn yellow the next day are you going to embrace change?

Clearly the Mozilla devs have a design target in mind though: Chrome. If you like Google's browser then you will like the direction Firefox has been headed in for years. If you don't then you will probably find yourself switching to Pale Moon, Seamonkey, or Waterfox right about now. Or for Linux just never upgrading to version 29 since they cannot force upgrades in Linux.

I am. Probably the only reason I've been able to stick with Firefox since the Rapid Release madness began. Since Firefox wanted nothing more than to be a Chrome clone. But it only delays the inevitable. The shit UX UIs eventually make it into the ESR too. No. I think I'm going to switch to Pale Moon or Waterfox now and preempt this shit before they shove it down the throats of the ESR people too.

In Linux you could just not upgrade since they cannot force upgrade you (at least not in Arch Linux), but obviously then you don't get security fixes. The writing has been on the wall for years now. I think it's about time to abandon ship.

To deal with developers who have never seen or heard of a change they didn't like. Who don't need a reason to make a change other than it being different or rather MORE LIKE CHROME. Or just to give the original user base who liked the original UI design the finger.

I don't, but Microsoft allows you to change it so that the task bar performs its original task. The Mozilla team of assholes however insists that it is their way or the highway. I even have the quick launch bar restored. It's not because I don't like change. I just don't like change for the worse and that is how I see a mixed function bar. I find separate bars for separate functions to be more logical and usable. I launch from the launch bar and monitor, control, and choose running apps from the task bar. Makes perfect sense to me. It didn't need any 'streamlining'.

Is it a badge of honor to be willing to change for no reason other than you want to change? Because that is what this is about. And of course dumbing down the UI so that people with an IQ of 15 can still at least think they can use it except that they won't be able to find anything because it is all so cleverly hidden in the name of 'cleanliness'.

Actually I think you are missing the point. The case that B is better than A should have been made by the devs already. I don't believe they have made their case for most of those removed features. The burden to show how these features are better is on them not. They are the ones making the claim that they are better.

As we all know by now the real reason for these changes are not because they are better but because they are different and more to the point because it is more like Chrome, the browser that the Firefox dev team has wet dreams about every night. This is just more of the same and the evasiveness about removing the tabs on bottom is typical of the Mozilla team.

I used to like Firefox because it was different from the other browsers and I liked those differences. and of course for the extensions and themes. The ones that the dev team keeps breaking many times permanently due to the insanity of the Rapid Release religion. The time is fast approaching that I may as well just install Chrome instead. Why settle for a bad copy when you can have the original? Seriously if they take away tabs on bottom and the ability to create sequential rows of tabs I will finally dump firefox for good.

I would simply summarily execute any cop whose recording gear malfunctioned at a critical time. They'd get the same fair trial they give to the people they murder and beat and frame for crimes they never committed.

Why do you say, "climate change" instead of "global warming" or at least "climate warming"? Are you concerned about cooling as much as warming?

Stop coal mining. Make coal mining & burning a global death-penalty offense.

How will you enforce this outside the US? Are you going to attack/invade every country that continues to mine/burn coal?

Goatse Security? A guy named Tor? It's not April 1st yet is it?

Has anyone claimed that they do? What difference does it make why women love the show? The fact is that they do. As a male it is also one of my favorite shows. Well until it turned into too much of a soap opera. I think the setting is a big part of the appeal. So the point the above poster made is valid. Yes, people do quite enjoy seeing the 1950s of America portrayed in fiction. The fact that it isn't a politically correct period does not make it any less interesting. It may even make it more interesting because it is so different from today.

You are seriously afraid of them? Why? Are you also afraid of girls? Admittedly in Bangkok, ladyboys acquired a pretty fierce reputation over the years for ass kicking in general and mugging in particular, but I think they aren't considered so violent anymore.