They call them baseline requirements, but since they have no authority, they are really just guidelines. Ultimately, these really don't fix anything, they are just an attempt to say "look, we are doing something!" You could argue that something is better then nothing, but until we have a real system for managing CAs that doesn't involve browser and operating system updates, we will stay in the same boat of trusting a third party (whose method of becoming a valid CA is questionable or unknown) and getting CA updates in a slow manner.

For Amazon's first go at a tablet, I think the Kindle Fire is a great product for the price of $200. It is not without flaws, but I am very happy with mine thus far. I do agree with nearly all of the complaints, but for some of them there is a workaround and (I'm guessing) a software updating coming to fix them. None of them are enough to send mine back and I've just gotten used to the touch sensitivity. The sluggishness can be an issue at times, but I wasn't expecting something super snappy for the price that I paid. An external volume control would be nice, as the device can be sleep and still be playing audio with no way to adjust it, but you can get headphones that have a volume control on them to workaround this issue. I've never had issues with web page load times except for some sluggishness at times and privacy settings/parental controls would be a very nice feature to have so you could share the device with others without them messing up your settings or viewing content you don't want them to view. The off switch problem was fixed for me by getting a cover for it, as it makes it more difficult to hit the power button in accident.

Actually, what we need is an alien from the planet Omicron Persei 8 (they'd actually have to be closer because that is 1000 light years away) to have recorded all of Earth broadcasts and be willing to give us a copy of them.

I completely understand that. I'm on Opera and I've gotten so used to some of the features in Opera that I can't switch to anything else without losing things. I tried Chrome and Firefox but switched back because of a few seemly trivial features that I couldn't do without. Personally, I love the way the Opera does RSS feeds within its email reader and nothing else could do that and the speed dial works so nicely in Opera (although it works pretty well in Chrome too).

As far as website compatibility, I think this issue is nearly gone. Opera supports masking as IE or Firefox which solves most of the very few issues that I encounter and sites that don't work correctly are usually broken in Firefox or Chrome anyway and require IE to work. I've experienced instances of a site displaying strangely in Opera and when I pull up Firefox or Chrome it displays exactly the same strange way.

I've been using Opera for many, many years and they are constantly innovating. The were the first browser that I know of with tabbed browsing, the first with the speed dial, among many other features. The browser has a built in mail client, which I use mainly for reading RSS feeds, which is nice because it keeps the entire history of the feed, and it also has a built in BitTorrent client, which has been convenient on a few occasions when sites have BitTorrent download links. It supports extensions, but they aren't quite as advanced as Firefox extensions, although from a security standpoint that might be a good thing and installing them doesn't require a browser restart. Opera Link is great for syncing up your bookmarks, history, speed dial, etc with all your other Opera browsers (desktop and laptop for example). Opera Turbo is similar to Amazon's Silk browser feature to use a compressing proxy, although Opera Turbo can actually detect a slow connection and only use the feature when it needs to and then only when it is turned on. I haven't really messed with Opera Unite, but it seems like a pretty cool feature which allows you to basically set up a limited web server on your own computer for sharing files, broadcasting a web cam, accessing your home media library remotely, among other things. Back in the day I had to have another browser on standby because there were many pages Opera didn't work with, now it is very rare to find pages that don't work with Opera, plus Opera supports masking the browser as IE and Firefox for those pages that perform browser checking and tell you that your using an unsupported browser.

If you haven't tried Opera, give it a try, you might be pleasantly surprised at how advanced and slick it is.

With a few exceptions, this is all data that you GAVE to Facebook willingly. This isn't like a credit reporting agency having information on you they got from other sources. You gave them everything they have and now you are upset they have it or won't tell you exactly what you gave them? Seems a bit silly to tell a secret to someone that you don't trust...

E-books scare the crap out of the book publishers because if they replace printed books, they lose control of the book market. Publishing a print book is expensive and risky, while publishing an e-book is cheap and easy. Publishers can easily be eliminated from the e-book business and they are trying there best to keep paper books popular by tightly controlling the e-book market and making them less desirable options. In my opinion, they are failing.

Steve Jobs was an ass. I know people like him that don't think they should have to obey the rules they don't like, but don't have the money to get away with most of it. Steve Jobs did and believed he knew better than anyone else, so he did what he wanted when he wanted regardless of the impact it had on others.

I read this article yesterday and if I understand correctly, the problem isn't that her age was revealed, but that the personal information she used when signing up for the site was used to get that information. If true, this seems to be a complete misuse of her personal information. I think ultimately, Amazon will have to provide evidence that they obtained this information from another source or convince the judge that it was within their rights according to the site's user agreement to use the information in this manner.

From the US Copyright office "Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation." It seems to me like the time in a certain place in the world is a fact.

That does seem like the most feasible option if it is added to the complete game. The problem with this approach is still how it is applied. I think an example of this is with swing/no swing call. An umpire (not the catcher) can appeal to the first or third base umpire to determine if a batter offered at a pitch. He can only do this if he determined the batter did not. If he determined the batter did, the call stands, no appeal is allowed. Things would have to be decided like what calls can be appealed and who and when can they appeal to the replay umpire. In football, the white hat is in charge of everything and he always looks that a replays and determines the call. In baseball, the crew chief in in change of the umpires and the entire crew runs the show. Umpires are each assigned a responsibility and know what it is. If you see something differently and it is not your responsibility, you don't say anything unless asked for your opinion by another umpire. Assigning someone to be the person that tells the umpire they are wrong seems like a tough job, but with the proper thought and logic put into it, I think something workable could be put into place. I think manager should have no part in the instant replay process, it should be 100% assigned to the umpires. So, unlike football, no challenges and no special treatment after say the 8th inning (like they have after 2:00 left in football). The other problem is the live ball vs. dead ball problem. For example, fair and foul, foul produces a dead ball while fair is a live ball. Reversing a foul call to fair is pointless unless the umpire just decides what probably would have happened. Also, if a call gets reverse, say a fly ball to the outfield with runners on first and third and one out. It is called no catch and both runner score. Call reversed, it was actually a catch, what do you do with the runners? If it were catch, the person from third probably would have scored on the sac fly and the person on first would probably have stay there. Can we really award a run on a reversal?

I assumed you were aware, I just wanted to let other people know the reason behind allowing the fielder to not tag the base. I don't think a robot could handle the flexibility and abstractness of the baseball rule set (or nearly any complex team sport in general). There are so many situations in baseball that a robot couldn't handle. Think about the balk rules, it is difficult for even an experienced umpire to see some balks, which is why you have four umpires looking for them. Interference and obstruction are also subjective to the situation. Did you the batter lean into the pitch to get hit? Did the batter get in the way of the catcher trying to throw out a runner stealing third? Did the batter offer at the pitch (a subjective item that commentators try to define, though it isn't)? Did the fielder drop the ball on the transfer from glove to throwing hand or on the catch?

Robots couldn't handle any of these situation because they are all subjective and need judgment to decide. When I was in umpire school if an argument ensued, the statement we always give is the call was made in my judgment, because judgment calls can't be challenged. If you mistook the rules though, the manager could protest the game. If they won the protest, that was basically your pink slip.

To comment on a point you made on the double play, the umpires allow the player to not touch the base to avoid injury from the incoming base runner. In the umpires judgment, the player would need to have been able to touch the base. Players, umpires, and managers all agree on this point and would rather short cut the touching of the base than risk a serious injury to a player.

As someone that has attended one of the two professional umpire schools in Florida and had conversations with the umpires actually working in MLB, I'd like to bring some perceptive to this. These umpires are highly trained, high paid individuals that are the cream of the crop in their profession. They are under constant scrutiny from the Umpire Supervisor (who is Charlie Reliford, an excellent umpire in his own right) and his observers who ensure they are performing to the best of their ability. Obviously, mistakes are made and with instant replay, we can relive them over and over again. Umpiring is about being in the right spot at the right time to see the play and make the call. It is 95% positioning and 5% actually calling what you see. If you aren't in the right position, that is when you get in trouble.

Back to robots and their place in the field of umpiring. I think monitoring fair/foul like in tennis and similar things is a valid application, but anything beyond that is not very feasible as proper positioning is very subjective to the situation. I'd think that some sort of eye piece with a HUD that was able to track the ball and allow the umpire to reply what he saw would be the best option for baseball. Not sure if it at all feasible, but I don't think you'd get too much opposition for the umpire association. Instant reply has problems with when should it be used, how long should it take, and the like. Nearly all plays in baseball have significance and have the chance to alter a game, especially during a close game. Baseball can already be a long game and IR would just add to it.

This is very clearly a case of extortion, defined as, "the practice of obtaining something, esp. money, through force or threats." Bullying the user of the infringing technology instead of the company that made it is NOT okay. I hope a criminal investigation is opened against them because seems to me to be a clear case of illegal extortion. All of these companies should send something to the FTC, US Attorney General, State Attorney General, and anyone else they can think of.