Or they crashed and everyone died.
Today is a slightly better day for the people of Iran. Especially for the women of Iran.
South Africa is going to speak out about war crimes any day now....
They know that the helicopter landed hard but doesn't know anything about the status of the president hours after the incident?
Sounds like they saw the decent on the radar and still haven't been able to get in touch with the crew... which indicates that it might have been more than just a hard landing.
On the other hand... Crashing is a very hard landing....
As a Swede I feel a bit offended.
Guys, just be happy that we don't send your Volvo in a flat pack, ok?
Same thing in Sweden. Had to look up "french door fridge".
You seeing me as aggressive just because I'm right about Firefox being a web browser is nothing I can do anything about and something you have to work with.
Me and Mozilla will keep trucking and call Mozilla Firefox a Web Browser.... Or as Wikipedia says:
Mozilla Firefox, or simply Firefox, is a free and open-source web browser developed by the Mozilla Foundation and its subsidiary, the Mozilla Corporation.
And you keep calling Firefox your banana or whatever. It's ok. I promise to continue to not being aggressive about it.
Banana or not, a document viewer / editor that handle a subset of two standards is not a very versatile document viewer / editor.
So back to my original point: Since Mozilla doesn't have a very stable business model it seems dangerous to focus on other things than making their web browser the best at browsing the web.
Ps. It took us over 20 years to get rid of the cluster f***s Internet Explorer and Flash was and it seems we should have learned the lesson by now. Going down the same route as before, starting to support standards that rely on patents owned by a third party (Adobe in this case) is definitively not a death sentence in any way, but history has shown us that it's a slippery slope that has many different paths and endings.
You obviously know very little about PDF since you're trying to put it on the same level as HTML.
The PDF files that we see in our daily life today is not even halfway as open as HTML is and dealing with them is not as easy as you think.
Furthermore, you're free to call Firefox a "document viewer".
I personally prefer a state of the art web browser and a state of the art PDF viewer more than one document viewer that only handles subsets of 2 document types.
That was 20 years ago. Numerous PDF readers has surfaced since then.
PDF is not like HTML.PDF is a messy standard where you need Adobe products to support all the shit that a PDF could contain. There is no open source product that for example fully support PDF forms and therefore Mozilla won't either.
All in saying is that Firefox is a web browser and not a document viewer. Since Mozilla would go bankrupt in two hours if Google stopped showing them with a shitload of money, Mozilla would be wise to focus on the core.
So if Google were to stop paying Mozilla for us to be able to use Firefox for free, we're all running Chrome.
Let's hope that if they support the shit show XFA is, they manage to support it fully.
The only one that seem to support it fully today is Adobe and I still haven't been able to find any open source product that was able to close forms in PDFs.
I just wish Mozilla got back to focus on making the best browser.
PDF stuff is cool but not why I use a web browser.
Don't give up. It might sound like a cliché: This not something that is won overnight.
It's either that or revolution...
Everything starts with you engaging in local politics.
You get the politicians your deserve.
If you don't engage in the local part of the political party that is closest to your views, then someone else will. That "someone else" might not have the same good intentions like you do.
The politicians elected in the lower parts of the political pyramid are the ones that will eventually rise to the next level.
So the corrupt ones in the top could have had a much harder journey if people stop focusing on the top and change focus to their own surroundings.
which bans any act preventing harbours, airports, railways or roads “from being used or operated to any extent
Yes Alex, I'll take "legislation that would make French farmers setting up guillotines in Paris" for 500.
No. Not "in that case".
Fact: Hamas commits and have committed acts of terrorism and therefore Hamas is a terrorist organisation. It doesn't matter what other countries have committed terrorist acts now or 100 years ago. There is no connection or dependencies.
Hamas is a terrorist organisation because of them committing acts of terrorism. End of story.
When BBC is asked to call Belgium a terrorist start you're free to discuss that there. In that thread I will happily claim that Hamas is innocent to whatever Leo did in Africa.
Funny thing: there's a replica in the harbour of Osaka, Japan.
Why Hamas should be called a terrorist organisation?
Because they have been committing acts of terrorism.
Whether other organisations has committed or has not commited terrorist acts is irrelevant in this context and does in no way cancel out the horrible things Hamas has been doing.
Punk isn't what it used to be...