I remember back in the day, when I actually wanted to major in CS, Java came out. Yes, that long ago. And the big thing about Java was that you would be able to write code that was platform-independent, and just rely on a Java interpreter that would be released on any necessary platforms. Which is why everything is written in Java now...

I'm just saying, using a browser as a conveyance for some sort of universal HTML-based software market just seems like a new version of an old idea that didn't pan out in the first place.

Also, not to nitpick (well, yes to nitpick), but I think that part that says "suddenly every piece of software works..." needs a bit of filling out. Especially at the "suddenly" part.

Also also, Mozilla would be better off not trying to be the Gobot to Google's Transformer, if you see what I mean. That niche is already being filled by Google. Mozilla should focus on making a niche for Firefox, not making it an also-ran to Chrome OS. Full disclosure, I'm not a fan of Firefox since Chrome came out, and since I put Opera on my Droid. But, there must be some area where Firefox excels, because it has a solid base of users. They should exploit and enhance that area.

I'm not sure I'd call compensation via tax revenues a reasonable solution to bad actors in the DRM field.

Here are my bona fides: I'm a writer, and I'm seriously considering self-publishing, at least for digital formats, and I like things like food and my house, so I'm definitely sympathetic to any idea where the end result is my cashing a check. Also, my cousin is a comic artist who married a Canadian (we still talk to her, though) and moved to BC, partly because that's where her husband is from, but also partly to get a piece of that good ol' Canadian subsidy money.

Let's say you do something like a Canadian-style subsidy. It's a little tough to find the standards, but here's a copy I found via Google: http://www.ahcf.ca/images/SubsidyGuidelines.pdf

The standards are in Appendix A. Anyway, in a Canadian model, here are the problems I see. You have to meet four out of a list of something like eight qualifications in order to be considered an artist, and it looks like it's totally possible to meet your four without ever actually selling a piece of art (or a story, or what have you). Well, you might say, that's why you need a subsidy. Yes, but sometimes people don't pay for things because they're really, really bad. There's no qualification that the subsidy only goes to good art, or art that people want to see/read/hear/whatever. Is that important, or even ethical? You bet your ass it is, if it's my tax money going to pay for it.

Incidentally, those standards are set by the Canadian government. The government. That should turn half of /. against the idea right there.

Interestingly enough, although it seems possible to get a subsidy without producing art that anyone else wants, it looks like there's no way to get a subsidy without being a member of a professional organization or a student at a university. So, if your "free as in speech" panties aren't bunched by the government involvement aspect, there's the fact that you'd almost certainly have to be a member of an organization which is going to set some sort of requirements on your particular bit of art, be it peer approval, professorial approval, membership fees, or tuition. Ultimately, if you take the dole, you're compromised in some way.

Also interestingly, if you Google "Canadian art subsidy", most of the hits are complaints about it, including several saying that the net result is crappier Canadian art.

As far as I'm concerned, my cousin's got a contract with Image, and doesn't need the cash, and I don't want to be on art welfare, unable to sell anything in a flooded market because all of a sudden being a professional writer doesn't actually require talent anymore. If you're fine with socialism, which a surprising number of slashdotters appear to be, then good on you. I'm sure the idea of state-subsidized art (which we already have in the US in the form of various grants and so forth) is appealing to you. I'm not, because I don't want to pay for crap art, or art I don't like, or art I find insulting, and I also don't want the government to decide who is and isn't an artist. Sure, getting a subsidy doesn't make you an artist any more than not getting one makes you not an artist, but it does give an unfair advantage.

And, frankly, if someone likes my stuff enough to steal it, I'm flattered.

I'm a Netflix customer. At my house, I've got two devices which stream Netflix out of a possible total of seven at any given time, and on a pretty regular basis I'll be downstairs watching Doctor Who while my wife is upstairs watching something dumb (love you honey!). IANAITP, but I assume that what's happening is Netflix is seeing our login coming from our cable modem's IP and just not worrying about the number of simultaneous streams. I suppose that you might be able to stream two different movies from Netflix in two separate browser windows on the same login. It's never come up, but I'd be interested to see if we could stream from different IPs at the same time...but I digress.

Tabling as resolved the proposition that the law is poorly worded, probably inspired by bad intentions, and signed off by a governor who should be impeached for incompetence (Not familiar with the contents? That's sort of your job, dickhead...), isn't this going about the problem from the wrong end? I mean, Netflix could easily solve this by disallowing multiple logins, unless their business model counts on the fact that a single person isn't going to stream video 24/7, whereas a single shared account theoretically could. So, what's really going on here?

You must be new here...

From TFA, it seems that the only thing that has been decided is that Activision intends to charge monthly for some feature or set of features which does not include multiplayer or whatever Elite is. If the WSJ article is "factually inaccurate", then the only thing the author has to go on is the quote from Activision, which amounts to "we're not going to charge for MP or Elite, but we're going to charge for something."

If they were to charge monthly for something like enhanced Facebook connectivity, or some other social media gewgaw, I don't see anyone paying $5 a month, although I might be underestimating the fanaticism of CoD players. If they charge for access to particular maps, they run the risk of alienating a significant portion of the player base, or of charging for maps that turn out to be less popular due to design, or just due to a lack of players.

I just don't see how this comes out as a net win for Activision.

"BS. Just like most idealogical movements, the way to judge it is by the way its members currently conduct themselves, not the core principles its founders started with."

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Democratic Party.

Sorry, low-hanging fruit and all.

But seriously, I wouldn't dignify what you posted by even referring to it as a comment. Never mind the pompous cynicism of considering everyone you disagree with some sort of ignorant, monolithic mass of bad intent, you're even so arrogant as to believe (or purport to believe) that you know enough about a political movement and a religion to judge both in their entirety against what you refer to as "core principles".

I'd love for you to state categorically what the founding core principles of both Christianity and the Tea Party movement are.

Don't worry, I'll wait.

Ok, here's the problem. Let's say that there actually was a successful raid which led to the killing of bin Laden.

First, the body was buried at sea, according to the US military, which means there's no proof he's actually dead. In other words, he's going to turn into the Elvis of Islamic terrorism. Either there is a conspiracy, and he's not dead, or conspiracy theorists will claim that he's still alive somewhere. We live in a world where (some) people believe that the President of the United States forged his own birth certificate with the collusion of the state of Hawaii; you think a 19-year-old terrorist recruit in Whatthefuckistan is gonna just take the word of the United States government that the leader of Al Qaeda was buried at sea?

Second, I guarantee that within two days a new bin Laden tape will be released. The guy had less value as a strategist than he did as a symbol, and I'll bet that there are pre-recorded tapes yet unreleased, and that there will be audio tapes with a "voice purported to be Osama bin Laden". Probably talking up Ayman al-Zawahiri as the operational leader of AQ.

Third, while there is potent symbolism for the West in killing bin Laden, keep in mind that he headed an organization which advocated suicide bombing as a tactic. Bin Laden's death is going to make him a martyr in the world of radical Islamic terror. While there may not be a single figure that can replace him right now, there are plenty of other affiliated groups, with plenty of other members, and a successful attack can be planned and carried out by an uncharismatic moron just as easily. For that matter, an unsuccessful attack can have a significant impact, too. Ask Richard Reed.

Fourth, to the West, this looks like the USA is still the baddest motherfucker around, and we always get our man. To people who live in Pakistan, the Middle East, and other, non-Western places, this looks like the only superpower in the world spent ten years and billions of dollars to kill one guy who pissed it off, in a campaign culminating in the use of clandestine intelligence and spec ops, in someone else's country. How's that for international diplomacy?

I'm not saying I'm sad the guy's dead, because I'm not. I think it's great. I just wish he'd gotten hit by a truck, or ate some bad dates or something. I have a strong feeling that this is not going to make our lives any easier.

I think the general idea that teams of people who get along work better is obviously sound, but it's not caused by sitting together on a bench with a box of Cheez-its. People who like each other's company are more likely to want to eat together, IF that's something they'd normally do anyway.

For example, I am on the border of introversion and extroversion, according to most personality inventories. I enjoy being with people, but I also need time alone. I have never, ever, ever enjoyed eating with other people. Don't know why, it's just a weird thing of mine. I find it awkward and tense, unless I'm with very close friends or family. Social drinking, on the other hand, is something I enjoy a great deal, especially with strangers or acquaintances, since I can get to know people in a relaxed environment.

In work environments, I talk to all of my coworkers constantly. Not to the point of distraction or annoyance, and not always about non-work topics, but if there's down time I'm not going to wait until lunch to make small talk. In my experience, it's always been a plus to develop strong social ties with coworkers, even if it never leaves the workplace, and those ties form most easily when they're allowed to do so organically, not through some sort of enforced "social hour". As a matter of fact, the thing I enjoy most about a lunch break is the time spent alone, reading news and taking walks. I would be stressed out if I was forced to spend that time sitting around a table watching coworkers eat awkwardly.

I just RTFA to make sure I'm getting this correct, because I normally am fully in support of "damn the man" stuff like this, but this is just ludicrous. There has never been a time in my life where I have needed to "urgently" check my email and been unable to, nor has there ever been a time where the only thing standing between me dying of thirst and reaching a nearby oasis has been my ability to access Google Maps on a laptop. In fact, I would like to go so far as to say that if you are the kind of person who ever "urgently" needs to check your email, consider: a.) purchasing a cellphone and distributing that number to whoever might need to get in touch with you, b.) purchasing a smartphone so you can check your email without a WiFi connection, and/or c.) checking your email before you leave for a four-week safari. Who is this demographic that can afford a laptop and conducts vital business via the Interwebs, but can't afford a data plan?

I know that people around here get fussy about car analogies, so...

This is like asking me to buy a horse, and leave the horse saddled in my front yard just in case anyone needs to use it to go somewhere. And then just trusting that no one is going to hop on the horse, rob a stagecoach, and then drop the horse back in my yard for the posse to find.

At a certain point, personal responsibility has to enter into all of this. Of course someone shouldn't be liable for nasty things accomplished using a WiFi connection if they made an honest effort to secure it, or just didn't know that that was something one ought to do. But if they intentionally leave it open for anyone to use, they should accept some of the blame when someone uses it to do something naughty.

And furthermore, it's WiFi, not clean drinking water. Since when is leveling your paladin a vital civil liberty? What's next, should I set up an HD projection system on the side of my house so that people outside aren't suppressed by the tyranny of Netflix requiring a subscription? Because Ironman 2 is one of those bits of information that "wants to be free"?

Actually, I think you have that mixed up. I believe he's saying that stupid slashdot writers are hostile to stuff.

Frankly, and not without reservations, I tend to agree.

That's why I write my own OS, drivers and software. I also dug my own well in my backyard, bought a windmill-powered generator, built my own car, bake my own bread and only read stories that I wrote myself. Of course, with the latter, I usually have to wait about five years to forget the plot, but at least I know I'll like it.

Actually, I do bake my own bread, weather permitting.

Of course, this has been appropriately modded as flamebait, so this is a little pointless. However, as a poli sci guy, I have to take issue with your use of the word "peasant". Do you know what that means? Or are you using it to make a point of some kind? Because it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

Also, your argument fails to account for the fact that the rate of population increase amongst those of lower incomes is higher than that of the higher income demographics. And what do corporations have to do with what you said, please? You know, you can actually submit some pretty lengthy posts here, so if you wanted to actually support that argument with logic, you've got room...

Mod parent up.

I sincerely hope that all of the people who recoil in horror at the idea of ad-bearing products don't own clothes, shoes, cars, or any other products that bear their manufacturer's logo prominently.

Well, it's easy to reduce the budget by simply decreasing the amount by which existing funding for annual budget items is increased. Easy logically, that is, not necessarily politically. It's not like the choice is between eliminating Social Security and halving the federal budget, or increasing spending by adding services and creating new government. The third choice is to simply maintain current spending.

That said, as a "fiscal conservative", I would change Social Security at the very least by implementing means testing. And yes, I would begin to phase out Social Security. It wasn't intended to be used as a retirement fund so much as a safety net. Not everyone is supposed to get their money back out of it, and if you're relying on Social Security to provide for you in your old age, you're probably going to need a few other safety nets as well. I don't expect to get a dime back from Social Security, if it's even still around when I retire, and that's fine. I just look at it as another tax, frankly.

I would also cut defense spending, which I believe is one of the bigger line items in the federal budget. IMO, the State department is underfunded, while Defense is bloated. There's a massive military industrial complex that soaks up a lot of tax dollars, when we should be sending some of that money to State, and some of it elsewhere in the budget.

And I know this is unpopular, but I would eliminate the Department of Education, which I believe is more properly a state-level matter. And Homeland Security, which is totally unnecessary and has consistently failed to accomplish its overall mission since its inception. Also, I would take a look at stuff like agricultural subsidies, which are a pretty fair chunk of the budget.

Even if you make a quarter of those cuts, and only cut a quarter of those elements of the budget, you're already saving a lot of money. My point is that, just because you might not be able to find one single line item in a budget that is both unpopular enough to be cut without political danger, yet large enough to make a big dent in the budget by itself, does not mean that there isn't a problem with wasteful and/or unnecessary spending in the federal budget.

Ps. I would leave NASA alone, because more money gets spend on the food stamp program than gets sent to NASA. And NASA is a model of efficiency within the Fed, frankly, before we even start talking about all the useful technology and research we gain from that particular agency.

If you're talking about the Libyan army, last I checked the Russians made T-72's and T90's. Also, we don't exactly have a warm and fuzzy relationship with Libya. Bahrain has some US hardware, but the M60 Patton and the M113 APC aren't exactly the cutting edge of armor; they both came out in the 60s. And if you think Bahraini protesters should hate the US on the basis of military hardware, might I suggest that they also hate the British, French, Swiss, Swedish, and Germans for the same.

I'm not sure, but I think the tanks that the Egyptian army did not turn on protesters are a combo of American and old Soviet tanks.

Secret police, being secret, don't advertise whatever tech you think they might be using, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the CIA did not provide any help to Libya in that regard, either, seeing as this is the country led by a dictator whose house we bombed in the 80s for general naughtiness, among other notable diplomatic fun-facts.

Although "people don't like us" is a deliciously vague phrase, I'm going to translate that as, "the US is unpopular in the Middle East". Then I would say that we're actually not as unpopular as you might think, or as we might seem at times. Also, the Middle East encompasses a large enough area and diverse enough population that it is probably a gross oversimplification to assign one opinion to all people in the entire region. Then you have the problem of how to accurately measure opinions of populations who might not have the freedom to speak openly, in countries led by hostile regimes, and who may or may not be truly random selections (i.e. not government plants). Finally, it seems that most people in the Middle East are quite capable of separating a distaste for American foreign policy from a dislike for the United States as a country or Americans as people.