I have been a Firefox user for many years. Internet Explorer has always been buggy for me. It didn’t matter if I was at work on a professionally managed network or at home on a hobby box or brand-name PC. IE has always pretty well been trouble.
Before Firefox, I loved Netscape Navigator because it was the anti-IE choice at the time. Once Netscape Communicator came out, it became a bloated resource hog that slowed down any machine you ran it on, hung up or crashed for no reason, but I digress.
As a long-time user of Firefox, I’m familiar with the many extensions and plug-ins available and all of the cool features that make Firefox my choice for a web browser.
It wasn’t until this morning, however, that I learned where the Firefox name comes from. Originally named Firebird, a new name was needed to avoid infringing on existing trademarks. Soooo, Firefox was (apparently) chosen because it’s similar to the original name Firebird and (again, apparently) because someone was fond of the red panda.
He/she is quite photogenic.
To learn more than you ever wanted to know, here’s the Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_panda
I’m a big fan of summer but I was happy to see this record heat/drought go away. Loving the cooler temperatures and sunny fall days.
Life is good!
Help me understand. I’ve seen lots of signs the “occupy” people are holding as I read the articles or watched the news coverage. I get the “greed is bad” message and I agree. It’s a deadly sin as “they” told me in Sunday school.
What I don’t get is what they hope to accomplish? Is the CEO of Nike going to surrender part of his 8 or 9 digit compensation package over this? Do they hope he will come down to the street and write them checks?
I’m afraid that most are hoping Washington, DC will do something to “create jobs” which is:
A. Not something governments are designed to do
B Not something they actually CAN do
So what’s the point? What’s the goal besides awareness? We’re all aware that Nike’s CEO makes A LOT of money. If he weren’t worth it, the board wouldn’t have authorized it! If the goal of a big greedy nasty corporation is to make ugly greedy nasty profits, they wouldn’t piss it away on a CEO that didn’t bring home the bacon.
I see a lot of signs in the “profit = evil” vein but I think these guys just haven’t thought it through.
Much like the “it’s obscene that healthcare companies profit from other people’s illnesses” crowd. Uhh, do you think there would be ANY hospitals if there wasn’t a promise of profit? Where would you go when you needed a doctor then?
Someone help me out on this. What am I missing here? Keep it civil please.