I agree, I'd pay more for more content. I think most of us would. You can, however, stream to more than one device at a time right now. My wife and I do it all the time, either one Apple TV and a computer, or two Apple TVs.

I doubt that. Do you actually think that if Amazon sold a book on the iPhone for $10, they'd sell the same book on Android for $7? Why would they give you the three bucks? They'll sell it for the same price on ALL platforms and just keep the extra they make from non-iOS sales.

Actually there happens to be an applicable word for that - it's called "plinking".

Your point is a good one, though. The fight to keep the meaning of the word "hacker" pure is lost, and has been for some time. I think, though, that given context and knowledge of who's using the word about whom, we'll still be able to use it the way we always have ("Put a 3.2 GHz Phenom into your Linksys router? What a hack!") and let the rest of humanity use it however they will.

My wife doesn't know any of my passwords, and I don't know any of hers. However, I do have an escrow file which she can open in the event of my death which contains them all.

She will need access to banking sites etc. when that happens, so privacy until then, and full disclosure after.

One small issue with moving everything to https is that you need one IP address per domain. That puts a pretty big wrinkle in the many, many servers out there that serve up multiple domains per IP. (Technically, you can do so if you utilize unique ports on the same IP for each served domain, but that breaks the "just works" aspect of port 443).

It's not insurmountable, but it does put more pressure on the already shrinking IPv4 pool. Another reason to hasten the adoption of IPv6, I suppose...

It's just an alternative suggestion. You're obviously free to approach the problem however you like, and as I indicated, I think Click2Flash is a great plugin.

I think you might be surprised, however, how many sites will provide working versions of their sites that don't have Flash elements. Looking at the browser share of all the iOS devices, it's not hard to see why.

Increasing the number of Flash-less browsers will only encourage more web developers to produce sites that don't require Flash, or at minimum, will gracefully degrade when it isn't present.

Yeah, I didn't see it until you linked it. =) But he, like me, missed that Adobe has an official uninstaller for Flash, linked by cerberusss here. That's a better way to go.

Also, if you were worried about things that use Air like Pandora One (I was), you needn't. They all work just fine in the absence of Flash.

Alternatively, just uninstall Flash. You really don't need it for most of the web these days. (On OSX, it lives in /Library/Internet Plug-ins; you'll want to remove Flash Player.plugin, flashplayer.xpt, and the Shockwave file, I don't remember the name.)

Click2Flash is a great plugin, I used it for months. The problem with it is that it tells sites you have Flash installed; it just takes over for Flash and then releases content to the real plugin when you click on the box. The downside to that is that you prevent the site from sending alternate content which can be sent if your browser reports no Flash plugin.

For those sites that won't work any other way, load them in Chrome, which has an internal Flash renderer. When you're done you can quit Chrome and go back to your regular browser, with which you can write a note to the admin of the site you just visited asking them to get their head our of their ass and provide alternate content.

Which is bullshit. VLC didn't show up on the App Store by magic, and it's not Apple that put it there. Someone got an iOS Developer License from Apple, agreed to its terms, and then compiled VLC for iOS, and submitted it for distribution in the App Store.

Now, somone–ostensibly a different someone–who has code in VLC has noticed that it's incompatible and is asking Apple to remove it. Apple has no choice, really, the license doesn't allow it to stay in the App Store, so poof. It's gone.

Now try to figure out how this helps anyone. It isn't good for the users, certainly, since an app they could otherwise get is now gone. I don't see how it helps the developers of VLC; an extremely popular distribution channel is now closed to them. And it doesn't help or harm Apple, really, unless someone is really broken up about not being able to get a frankly redundant video player on their device.

Who submitted the iOS VLC app to the App Store? Apple didn't go looking for VLC so they could have it, someone submitted the application without sufficient regard as to whether or not it could be legally distributed there.

Apple didn't catch it in the review process (we all know how well that works) and now they're being asked to remove it. You say "if Apple chooses to remove VLC from their App Store" as if Apple has a choice. They do not - they're in violation of the license.

This is not an App Store issue. It's an issue with the license of this application being in conflict with the conditions of the App Store. Apple can't fix it without the GPL allowing an exception, or the application authors allowing an exception.