Netscape once ruled the Web, their development stagnated due to some internal issues which let IE take the lead. IE took over and had the perfect opportunity. They were the default browser on their own OS for many years (for better or worse, hence the antitrust lawsuits.) All they had to do in order to keep their lead was develop the features that web content developers and consumers wanted. They strayed away from that and it gave Mozilla the chance to take the lead, despite enjoying the Default status. The latest version of IE (Edge) is still default on a new Windows PC, with a market share of under 5%. This means 95% of Windows users open up Edge long enough to download their browser of choice.

So Google decides to stop supporting adblocking in Chrome. Why do you think people won't just download Firefox? They're already having to download a 3rd party browser on their machine to start with. Just like MS and IE, Google has a choice with Chrome, give the community what it wants from a browser, or get out of the way and let one of the competitors take your lead. It's happened before with an even stronger foothold.

No, they died because they made it expensive and difficult to use their services compared to the competition. I started in '06 at a small company that had a couple of the executive staff using Blackberry devices. At the time we used Zimbra mail, which emulated Exchange for many services. I had a Windows Mobile device and all I had to do was put in the new server settings and credentials and my device picked up no problem and synced everything. For the BB users, we were forced to either pay for BES and deal with the hassle of getting it working on our servers, or pay a 3rd party for essentially a SaaS version of BES. We went that route, but it wasn't without issues either. Over time we had a couple more BBs added to the mix, but thankfully they all migrated to Android devices. We were all happy when we could stop supporting BBs, and could decommission some of the strange settings we had to use in order to support them.

BB was basically the first to market for a device with full e-mail access and was way ahead of the competition. Had they chosen to support existing standards like IMAP, POP, and SMTP, or even popular but proprietary "standards" like Exchange, they may have kept their market share. Instead they went the route of doing everything their own way, and charging for it. And that was fine when they were the only real player in the game. Once Android and WinMo devices started giving away what BB was selling they never stood a chance. Apple drove the final nail in the coffin when they released the iPhone.

The deals aren't worth it anymore. I've gone off and on to Black Friday sales. Back in the early 2000's when I first started going, stores had killer deals. They had significant numbers of the items in stock, and some stores like Staples even let you order it at the sale price on their website using the in-store kiosk. It was worth it to stand in line a couple of hours to get a great deal on a couple of large ticket items. I stopped going because the deals became lackluster, as in not much better than a regular sale price. The deals that were a large break were limited to only a couple per store, with no rainchecks or online ordering option. Basically unless you were one of the first two or three people in the door, you weren't going to get a deal. Why bother standing in line at that point?

How is this any different than a prisoner fighting the guards and straining against their restraints the entire time until the drugs are administered? I've not done any research, but it seems like you'd hear of this happening all of the time, and being cited on every anti-death-penalty comment. I think most of the time that the condemned has come to terms with it by the time their day comes, and realize fighting it is only going to make them look weak in the eyes of what few friends and family members may still be there for them. Obviously I'm sure they're not happy it is happening, but without evidence to suggest this is an issue in any but the rarest of cases, I don't think it is much of a concern in the long run.

How about removing the ability for the condemned man in your example from knowing exactly when the execution will take place? By this I mean have the gas mask placed on at some point before the appointed time. The mask would be providing a mixture of 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen, basically equivalent to standard atmosphere. This would be akin to having the IVs placed a short time before the execution now, with a saline solution running through to keep them open. At the appointed time, with no immediate warning to the condemned, the O2 mixture is reduced (without changing the flow volume of the mixture in general so that there is no change perceived) to 0%, bringing the mixture to the lethal 100% nitrogen. This would give him no warning and no time to hold his breath or make himself a spectacle, as he'd go from one breath as "normal" to the next having no oxygen. Before he had time to think about it he'd be out of oxygen. He wouldn't have time to hold his breath, and if he did there would be seconds before his brain would be unconscious anyway. There would be no gasping for air as once he is unconscious, the subconscious portions of the brain that *may* still be acting for a few more seconds wouldn't have the buildup of CO2 in the system to trigger the suffocating/gasping response.

Leaving aside any debates as to the morality of executions themselves, I think this is probably the best way to go given the options. I do believe that if I were wrongfully convicted of something and had exhausted all of my appeals, knowing there was no way I could avoid being put to death, this is the way I'd want to go.

Actually I'd hope to be put under general anesthetic, have all of my viable organs harvested and given to those that desperately need them. Obviously after the heart and lungs are gone it wouldn't take but 30 seconds and my brain would be gone. I can see how this could be considered an issue though, especially when there is doubt about the commission of a crime to begin with. "They just executed him to harvest his organs." That is a doubt you don't want cast. Despite the execution process being ultimately wasteful, it is probably necessary to keep it that way so there is no doubt.

It depends on your definition of a broadband provider is. In my area, outside of Boise, ID, we have a hand full of choices by a very loose definition. However when it comes down to it, there is only one, maybe two.

CableOne - Best option if you can get it. $60/mo for 30x2. Fast speeds (up to 75x5,) great service (especially with "business" plan) and decent coverage area in town. No enforced data caps on business plans, rate limits when caps exceeded for residential plans.

Century Link DSL - Second best choice, though speeds are nowhere near cable (most areas still get 1.5-7x768 up. A few select areas can get 40x5.) They are just as expensive as cable for the lowest speeds if you don't "bundle" with landline service. Typical telco customer service experience.

Digis - $40/mo for 5/1 speed. Wireless service, so not as stable as wired service.

Safelink - Wireless $25/mo for 1M/256 service, 10 GB limit. $100/mo for 15x2 service, "no limit."

Speedyquick - Wireless $40/mo for 1x1 service, "premium" account for $75/mo 4x1 service.

If you take the FCC's new definition of broadband internet (25x4 minimum,) CableOne is the only option with their most expensive plan unless you happen to live in one of the small areas here that qualify for CenturyLink's 40x5 service. Even if you relax that definition a bit and go to 10x1, you're still limited to CableOne, some CenturyLink areas, and SafeLink's $100/mo plan.

If you're on the same transformer as your neighbor's house, your X10 system is wide open to them too. Years ago when I was playing with X10, we had all of the lights in our house start randomly flashing at 2:00 in the morning. This happened a couple of times over a couple of weeks. Come to find out, our neighbors just had a new alarm panel installed and had a few false alarms as they worked the kinks out/got used to how it operated. One of it's features was to flash all X10 light modules when the alarm was triggered. Since it came set to house code A, and I used the same house code for the first batch of devices in my home, my lights were happy to obey the instructions it was sending out. Ultimately we left it alone as I figured I'd rather have some notification that something was going on next door.

If you aren't using a central controller/automation system, you just have a remote switch/dimmer for all of your lights. While handy, this is hardly "home automation" as the OP is asking for.

Just put a sticker on the window, kind of like the "oil change reminders" that says audio and video recording is taking place in the vehicle. I haven't looked at this car specifically, but nearly every late-model car has a display in the instrument cluster or the radio/nav system. Make it turn red with the text "Valet Mode - Audio and Video Recording in Progress" and problem solved. If the valet doesn't want to be subjected to the recording, then he can get back out, tell the driver he'll/she'll have to park the car themselves.

Well my provider uses Google for their e-mail addresses, so if I really wanted to get one I could have something@provider.com and access it via Gmail.

My mother still uses dial-up Internet, primarily because she had a hard enough time getting all of her acquaintances (most of them aged admittedly) to get her simple address (lastnamefirstinitial@provider.com) correct in their address books to begin with, and getting them to update it correctly to the new address would be a craps shoot. This is the biggest reason she still uses dialup, and will likely continue to pay $9 per month for it, despite a wireless bridge I'm setting up to her house a block away so I can share my broadband with her.

Thankfully 12+ years ago I was forced to change e-mail addresses 3 times over as many months due to ISP acquisition turmoil in my area, so I went to my own domain. It was rare for individuals to do that back then, but I have zero regrets, and it has made it very easy for me to switch ISPs subsequently. Amazingly enough I still get the "what is your new e-mail address?" question occasionally after a move.

Well, for one I have to spend my time to submit a fraud report to my bank. If using my debit card, the money is gone until the fraud is confirmed. Second, I have to wait for a new card to arrive in the mail, then try to remember who I have set up on automatic payments using my old card. Call each one of them or visit their website to enter in the new numbers. The ones that I forget will possibly result in account suspensions, etc, until after the new number is entered. Fees may be charged, which most of the time will be waived but that again takes more time to deal with.

The credit card companies need to fix this, and chip/pin is not the answer. It should solve retail store card theft, but as online purchasing becomes more and more popular, chip/pin will do nothing to combat it. We need a rotating pin device, similar to PayPal and World of Warcraft uses, and tie that number to the authorization. That number/pin combo would be useless for future transactions other than follow-on transactions to/from the same merchant for subscription or refund purposes. That way when a card number is compromised it is useless since the attacker won't be trying to get more money for the original merchant. Instead the card issuers just tout "$0 fraud liability!!!11!!!1!" to the consumers and pass the buck off to the merchants. Chargback fees from merchants are a profit center for card issuers, so why would they want to fix the problem?

I have a program I just installed yesterday called Total Recall, and it works great on my Galaxy S4 Verizon. I had to root the phone for it to be able to direct-record the streams, but that is a small price to pay.

My wife and I have had "smartphones" (starting with Palm and the older Windows Mobile) for pushing 10 years now. We'd had Android phones for about 4 years, then we switched carriers in October. My wife decided she wanted to give an iPhone a try. I have an iPad for work, and she liked how it worked. She liked it for a couple of weeks, then the limitations started to get in the way. No external storage. Certain apps not available that she wanted. Settings she wasn't allowed to change such as default apps. In March we got her a new S4 and gave the iPhone to my daughter. 6 months is all she could stand being locked into Apple's walled garden. She didn't realize how open the Android system is in comparison to iOS.

If anything, I think Cook has it backwards. People go in looking for a smart phone and get sold an iPhone instead. If people are looking for an iPhone and walk out with an Android device I think it is more likely because of the price difference from an entry-level Android vs. an iPhone. It is very doubtful that they don't understand the difference with all of the marketing and hype surrounding both platforms. That or Apple is seriously underestimating the cognitive abilities of its customers, which is insulting at best.

He makes some good points. I can only imagine what a real-life "Laura" would think of an "Urkel" constantly stalking her. She shouldn't have to put up with that. To come out and say it is all men's (and more specifically "nerds'") fault for perpetuating this attitude of entitlement is absurd. Nearly everybody has had a crush on someone and has been rejected. There are respectful guys that just chalk it up to incompatibility between two people. There are nice guys that take that rejection and use it as an opportunity for introspection to see their own flaws. There are assholes that chalk it up to feeling entitled and that the woman should have given in. Then there are the mentally ill who go on a shooting spree. Lumping all "nerds" in to basically the last two categories, or enabling of them, is flat out wrong.

While (thankfully) I don't know of any women who have gone on shooting sprees because they were rejected, I do know women who fill all of the other categories. Women who feel entitled to date any man they want. Women who think a man "must be gay" if he doesn't date them. Women who write songs about sabotaging a man's vehicle because he went out with another woman (yes cheating, but that still doesn't justify the vandalism, Ms. Underwood.) And yes even some women who have murdered men because they were rejected, just non on a spree.

This is a mental health issue clearly. This is not a misogyny or misandry issue. Men can be assholes, but so can women. Love-scorned people of both genders have committed horrible acts against others.

To top it off, the article is factually inaccurate. The statistics he mentions are out dated. Newer studies are showing that victims of rape and domestic violence are closer to equal when divided by gender, not the 8 out of 10 numbers he used. The newer numbers take under reporting into consideration where men are discouraged from reporting, cases where by definition of local law men can not be raped, etc.

My heart really does go out to the families of the women, and men, that were killed or injured by Elliott Rogers. We need to stand together as men and women to do something about it and work on the real cause. The kid was mentally ill. He happened to be a misogynist asshole, but that that didn't cause him to go kill people.

All I have to say on the subject can be summed up with one word: Good!

Speeding is a BS racket anyway. Speed alone never hurt anyone contrary to what the current ad campaigns say. Excessive speed for the conditions and/or vehicle is the problem. Someone going 85 in a 65 MPH zone on a straight freeway with light traffic on a bright sunny day isn't going to magically cause an accident. Someone doing 45 in that same 65 MPH zone on a rainy day in heavy traffic could kill someone.

I've always thought there needs to be a definite separation from the funds from traffic tickets to the agencies and municipalities that enforce them. Traffic fines should not be a profit center to fund anything, except maybe better driver's education (or more mandatory classes for habitual offenders) to reduce the infractions. Our police departments are supposed to be there for our protection, to serve us. They aren't supposed to be revenue collectors for alternative taxes. I hate seeing police officers sitting somewhere running radar/laser speed checks when they should be out patrolling to reduce overall crime.

Automating the majority of our transportation infrastructure will allow us to let the police focus on what they should be focused on, and if we get to cut some fat from the departments in the process so be it.

Currently that is true. I could see that being changed if the sliding scale were introduced. I believe it would still be effective if the max was $50, but slid to $0 with additional measures being taken by the cardholder.