Yes, the percentage that fell is specifically their profit margin. And while 43.7% to 42.2% is only a 1.5% difference, that is a 1.5% difference in millions of dollars. Since their business practices are centered around huge profit margins, this decrease is pretty significant for them. Please don't think of me being sympathetic towards them, I am not. I could care less if they only made $250 million dollars last year rather than $260 million (these numbers are not based in fact, just using it as an example).

However, when their business model is dependent on them making $260 million, they either have to scale back some where or raise service rates in order to compensate for the $10 million that they were expecting to be there but isn't. Where it gets ridiculous, is that for tax purposes, they are actually able to write off this $10 million as a "loss". Even though in reality they didn't lose anything instead they just made less than what they were expecting.

I decided to look for more info about her on Princeton's website, and she definitely deserves massive respect. You can read a bio about her here: http://wendy.seltzer.org/shortbio.html

She works in support of the internet users, even heading up a website that helps internet users understand their rights when they receive cease and desist threats. I like her too.

That, of course, is not the intended purpose to freedom of religion. You are speaking more along the lines of freedom FROM religion, which is not guaranteed nor mandated by any federal or state document (thankfully).

But there is a very fine line between socially vilifying a group of people and violating their rights (whether it comes from the left or the right); and very few people can walk that line without crossing it.

Apparently "freedom of religion" doesn't mean anything to you. Thankfully, the Bill of Rights disagrees with you.

That is the last thing they "need to do". Our government is supposed to protect us and our liberties even from international "law".

We would have to obey? That is the mentality of a defeatist. Our Constitution does not allow for an international body to have the power to govern the United States. Nor should it.

That was the most brilliantly written synopsis of the IP situation in the U.S. My hat is off to you.

Remember though, every step towards less freedom needs to be exactly that. A step. Obviously they aren't going to take away the URL bar completely right from the start. It starts with a "UI change" until Google, or some other company looks at data and sees that no one really uses the URL bar anymore and then they choose to disable it by default. So in order to have it, you have to go into settings and enable it. Then after a few years (possibly less) they look at the data again, and determine that they can eliminate the option completely because less than 1% of computer users actually use it.

There is a reason the saying "Out of sight, out of mind" exists. Now, I am not trying to say that I think that Google or Mozilla is eliminating the URL bar for the specific purpose of getting people to forget about it or any kind of conspiracy theories like that. I am sure they are doing it because it will improve the overall look of the browser. But I do feel it will come with a level of unfavorable results in our options or level of control of where and how we browse the Internet in the future.

This reminds me of a previous /. post that talked about draconian DRM: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/02/16/2259257/Draconian-DRM-Revealed-In-Windows-7

Specifically the second paragraph concerns me, "Noting that Win7 allows programs like Photoshop to insert themselves stealthily into your firewall exception list. Further, that the OS allows large software vendors to penetrate your machine."

I wonder if this is why the NSA wants everyone to upgrade.

Amazing how many people are missing this point....

You filed a lawsuit basically for copyright infringement and won. Might have been a tough battle, sure. But you won. BE HAPPY. Besides that obviously judges are going to protect other lawyers yada yada yada, no offense, you got greedy. Instead of taking your $19,000 and change and being happy that you were a little guy who won a case against "the man" you had to be juvenile and take it to the next level and file a lawsuit because of what the lawyers tried to do during the original lawsuit? I am glad that you won your original case, and I am glad you lost this case.

I support measures to increase privacy, but not government enforcement or government decided rules. We need SMALLER federal government, not bigger.

I need to learn how to cook. :(