As much as I love AMD (OMG, FUSION!! FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK)... AMD/ATI video cards suck for anything that isn't DirectX. As much as they push their specs and let the FLOSS community develop drivers, it doesn't change the fact that OpenGL isn't something that AMD develops the hardware of their cards for. We can optimize the software all we want, but compared to nVidia cards, ATI is terrible for anything that isn't DirectX. So you have the software end of AMD doing one thing to support the open standard, and the hardware end fabricating cards almost exclusively for DirectX.

Obviously a better one than you. And I don't need no stinkin' Anonymous Coward banner to hide behind. Seriously, fuck off.

I think we are missing a huge piece of the puzzle here: Mozilla updated firefox to appease ITS users. Wow. I mean, seriously, wow. This is a huge step forward for Mozilla.

Yes, but the main problem with programming, especially FLOSS programming, is everyone wants to amp up the program with features while minimal time is spent bug testing and correcting flaws, as developers finish one feature and move onto the next. Obviously, where there's a budget for it, this gets done, but bugs tend to... go over looked, especially in projects that are hobby-based in nature, like many FLOSS programs.

Wow, if only this applied to programming.

Not entirely true, unless every part of the game is FLOSS. I mean, proprietary graphics make this a lot harder to do. Also having the first and original version tends to give you a bit of leeway. And also, you can commercialize with ads in the worst case scenario and not charge anyone a dime.

Verizon.

I trust bloggers more than I trust Fox.

I love how competition works in a system that seems designed to make it fail.

I, on the other hand, DO have things to hide. My porn browsing history and embarrassing hobbies being some, illegal activity and anarchist cookbook "curiosities" being others. Maybe more, maybe less, but the fact is, a lot of things that are laws, I do like having my abilities to civilly disobey them if I disagree with them without having to fear men with flame throwers breaking down my door with axes to eliminate my free will because it was too dangerous for "the children" and adults alike. I'm not perfect, nor am I a lawyer. I don't know how many of my activities are illegal of the ones I thought were legal, and I don't like having to writhe in fear for my every movement online. So I like wikileaks? So I like being educated of ways my government is out to "protect me" today? Maybe I just like conspiracy theories cause I think they're funny and hide behind 14 proxies because it's fun? If the next area 51 leak means I'm set off to be sanitized, what then?

So, yes, I'm rambling, but my point is simple: I don't want my privacy to be invaded and I have my reasons, even if crazy and slightly insane. The fact of the matter is, though, they're still my rights, and I'm sure we all agree that our privacy is something we want because it's OURS to do with as we want.

It's been said before and it'll be said again: The pedophiles ARE thinking of the children.

After some thought and considerations, I assume that the reason that anonymity on the net is a fundamental right is because removing it would allow us to be observed in the privacy of our own homes. To say in the least, it would be like the government requiring you to install cameras in all the rooms of your house. As most computer do have webcams, I can also draw to the conclusion that if you're doing something online that somebody doesn't like and your identity is known because of the lack of anonymity online, it would be rather simple for some black hat hacker or government organization to, say, turn on the cam and observe you as you browse. So, I imagine that anonymity online is simply a right because violating it invades your privacy in your own home.

That isn't to say certain websites cannot or shouldn't require you to identify yourself to access them, but on a whole requiring your computer to identify who you are while you're online is about equivalent to some supposed V-Chip that observes you through your TV or taps your phone calls while you're phone sexing your girl.

It's because Google isn't hiding behind any need to protect anything that I'd rather give my so-called "rights" to them. Their agenda is well known and obvious: They are a corporation and are expected to behave like one, including first and foremost existing to turn a profit in spite of all else. Google may be corrupt, may be shady, but their agenda is clear and not muddled. On the other hand, the government's agenda is mixed, it's muddled, confused, sprawled, and a mess. We originally submitted to a government under the terms that under a government, we should be better off, because a government can protect us from each other. The amount of rights we hand to the government should be comparable to the amount of protection we want or need. However, this isn't the case, as the government had developed a patented strategy of giving us protection we don't want or need at all, usually under a clause of protecting the children or protection us from the evil terrorists. I'd rather take my chances with Google than with this sprawling mass that acts like a corporation run by a madman whose job is to protect us from ourselves. At least Google has a stable economy.

I'm sorry, you were saying...?