Guess it's pretty much the same, as with MS. In addition, it's easier to train locals to provide support and develop special features, required by users, thus boosting the economy.

Same way pedophiles care more about your children than you do.

Well, you can recall the USA used to finance some of those organizations to fight USSR in Afganistan. After the USSR dissapeared the organization turned on it's former master and went from freedom fighters to terrorist in a blink of an eye. So yes, it's pretty much the definition.

It's not a social problem. It's problem of power abuse. Making it harder to abuse can help contain the problem. If everyone uses end-to-end encryption, then centralized ubiquitous surveillance is impossible.

You forget that if everyone uses encryption, then you'll have to use rubber-hose attack on all of them. Which is not quite feasible. It can only be applied on a per-person basis, if he's already drawn attention. Just like personal surveillance.

You're using the encryption wrong. If you are the only one who has the key, then NSA can go and build quantum computer. Untill they do that, you are in the clear.

It is taking off now in bank cards, phones and tags. Most of the phones make after GNex have NFC onboard. So I wouldn't burry the standart yet. Especially in favor of some obscure standard, that could as well be an animated GIF with QR codes.
NFC rocks with it's simplicity - you touch something - it starts working (an URL is opened, phones are paired and file transfer is initiated and so on).

Well, I'm pretty sure english-speaking users would be even more amused if the name sounded something like "faggot", which is just a bassoon in russian, so, yeah, immature public will always get excited over weird names. And before releasing something you might want to check if it sounds right in other languages.

Who's gonna pay for the "free" dongle? And how on earth can you make IPv6 a premium option if you don't make IPv4 unbearably broken and inconvenient for users? And once they start crying you offer a "new and improved internet".
Sad jokes aside - why aren't they implementing NAT64 ? It's solves the problem in the same way as NAT, except more and more resources will have incentive to move to IPv6 and once the momentum is gained and all of the resources are there you can just drop NAT64 altogether without anyone noticing.

STUN disagrees.

DRM by definition is not GPL compliant and will require a blob doing the decrypting, otherwise it will be as good as double XOR encryption.

It doesn't mean we should help them restrict our rights. On the contrary, we should make DRM as expensive and financially taxing, as we can. Hopefully, it should be made so expensive, anyone touching it should go out of business.

"And "presentation of video on the web" means DRM."
No it doesn't. Seems like you've been brainwashed into thinking that some corporation's sense of entitlement trumps basic human rights to obtain, process and share information.
Content can and should be available DRM free, because the only thing DRM does - screws the customers and makes pirates gloat. Because any DRM can be broken by definition. And hoping that you can prevent information from being copied by some people who have access to it at the same time being able to copy it by others having access to it is just like hoping you can make air breathable by some people and not breathable by others by your own arbitrary choice.

Yes, it is. Because you will be wasting money and effort helping DRM to entrench. DRM won't have a standart? Good. It will provide poor UX ? Even better. I am against buying lube at victim's expence. W3C should focus on providing good standart and reference implementation for DRM-free content distribution. That would be much more usefull.
If someone wants us shacked, I sure as hell ain't wasting time and resources on coming up with ideas on how to pad them with cushions and making them comfortable to wear.

Since the first browser war.