I agree with you, it is a risk, but of all browsers, what is the one you trust the most? What are the alternatives? You can not even now build chromium without a google build ID !!

Mozilla is not perfect, but is really trying to fix the major problems in the web, including the privacy problem. Could then do better? Yes!! but thank, the other browsers are more limited on what to do because they know that even small things can make many people change their loved for a browser and then slowly convince others.

Mozilla accepting this DRM is a way to limit what Apple, Google and MS want to do. Even if Adobe adds more stuff to their DRM plugin, it will only be used if Mozilla allows it. With Mozilla in the W3C group about DRM, it can talk, block, warn users about possible problems. No one wants again a web with different web standards and a "user" voice in the group is important... Mozilla is the closest you get for that. At least the browser code is open, people can fork it if Mozilla started to do "evil" things

Firefox tried to push open video formats, like webm, and refused to support H264... yet, after years of fighting they gave up, mostly because MS and Apple refused to support it to push their (patented group) H264 format. Only if google switched youtube to webm and stopped supporting H264 it would be possible to do something like that, but even if the webm was a google format, they never really pushed that change and H264 won this round.

Future video support is the new battleground. Yet W3C is set to accept DRM and firefox not supporting it would mean that important sites would either push the usage of other browsers (like netflix) or push the installation of broken plugins (like all the silverlght sites we have today) that may just exist in windows. Either way firefox would be lonely on this battle, as MS, Apple and Google all have interest in DRM video, so it would be a lost battle from the start. It is sad, but delivering video is only set to increase and big companies want to make money from it... even if the browser would not have any DRM, they would create "apps" to support it so that movie industry would allow online video streaming. It is a lost battle, since there is demand for it, not from the users, but from the content makers... and we all know they are stupid, they prefer having no market (and so piracy) than provide open access to their content, just look how music industry works with the internet and how long that battle is taking place

Firefox solution is to use a Adobe "plugin" that is very restricted on what it can do (read a stream, reply a stream), just to decode the DRM. This would allow the DRM validation that some companies require, allow one to disable this very easily and allow for future replacement of that closed "plugin" with any other open implementation (trying to push directly a open DRM "plugin" now could blacklist firefox if someone tried to remove the protection... later, with existent market share it would be harder to blacklist firefox)

So yes, no one wants DRM, not even Mozilla, but looking at the alternative (some other DRM support or protocol you can't control), at least Mozilla can have some control and impose limits by doing this and not sacrifice market share on a battle that would be lost anyway. Don't blame Mozilla on this one, blame MS, Apple and Google for teaming up pushing DRM, so much that W3C have also agreed to add a DRM standard.

no!

https://startpage.com!

Details, check the damn details!!

1- there is also a agreement to not put weapons on space
2- Money! you would need a HUGE amount of fuel to put something that big on space, even if piece by piece... probably too expensive for any country.
3- physic laws:
      if you fired those guns on space, you would start to move away from the target... so on each fire round you would need to correct the velocity and position, quickly wasting all your fuel

So yes, damn details!! :)

Won?! no, i just checked... my slackware is still working fine here!!

slackware is kick ass for a long time and have the same 1 full time developer since ever.
but there is also a brigade of (part-time) hackers helping him behind the shadows

for small workloads (eg: home users), unity is good. Mate is also good
for high workloads, with many windows open, openbox, fluxbox, awesome, dwm, ratpoison, etc are better
KDE is not bad too, as it is very flexible and lighter today than gnome ... Their major problem is that it still have that "not free enough!" or "it uses C++!!" shadow, that scared many to start gnome. Since then many things changed, but Redhat/fedora still run from it like hell and ubuntu always hide kubuntu from most people.
Gnome shell, IMHO is trash, even worst because of the same model as sytemd ( "Take over everything, do it my way, don't care about what people say, they are all idiots anyway")

one more step so that MS can control what you can run on your computer...

You already have Boot loader signing, now you may block the non-whitelisted apps... (for sure MS signed apps are automatically allows)
next is to require all apps to be signed to be executed (if not enabled with this)...
Finally require all apps to be delivered by MS store (with the excuse to automatically sign all apps), or if you are big enough, setup your public store with expensive MS software and some CA like key from CA

I'm so glad i have stopped using windows

- both support from MS and Oracle is sh*t our days... i know, i used then until a few months ago
  I understand that "companies" will not care, they want someone to blame and pay the money they ask... but those are brainless companies. Companies that do really think on why and the costs see that it may be better to use something help or even pay for a "cloud" solution

-If you company business is doing @100+ million based on exchange, your company is doing it wrong, for sure!!
Almost no companies are "email based" (eg: making money based on the email), even worst depending on something so hard to scale as exchange.

Lets face it, companies use exchange because is MS, because they have many tools and people trained on that and because they don't know anything help.

Every cpu company with several CPUs do that

If a batch gave cpus that have some problem, disable that cpus and sell the silicon for the remaining working cpu. silicon is expensive, the build process is expensive, if you they didn't do this, all CPUs would be more expensive too

So a heavy multi-thread usage is close or even higher on AMD...

video encoding, is better to use GPU... and again, AMD APU is and faster than anything Intel sells... If you buy a real GPU, well, the cpu will not matter much

A10 CPU is very good!

Is not the faster CPU, that is right, but is fast enough!
Then you have the internal GPU, that will eat intel one alive. Taking out the hardcore gamers, the normal users (home users, casual gamers, office work, etc) will get a very good machine for a lower price. Everyone likes to have the most powerful rig of the neighborhood, but that is just ego talking, most people will not use it.

hardcore gamers will always choose top CPUs and GPUs and will pay huge amount of money to get then... but that doesn't mean that lower spec hardware is terrible worst, they are many time just a little slower for lot less money

what are you guys using that even see the difference between this CPUs? I use several computers with different CPUs (cores, speed and brands) and i see almost no difference at all. Most systems are idle, waiting for user input or HD access. Of course i'm ignoring video editing and some small set of very cpu hungry single thread apps, but most people don't use then anyway. Most people will see get better performance by buying a SSD, not cpu

I think this is just a matter of "who size is bigger", not real performance differences.

What i like in AMD cpus is they have all the features, not bullshit capped cpus like intel cpus, where they remove features from lower cpus to force you to buy higher (and much expensive) ones

Simple, don't use exchange!! don't try to fix the wrong problem!

If you choose a closed email server full of closed protocols, you will have problems finding tools that work with it! All the tools that can work with it will cost money and usually require yet another closed tool or service.

Use other things or pressure MS to support open protocols. if you don't do that, then you can't complain about application support.

If you really want to follow that path, set up a davmail server and use it (directly with SSL or via a vpn)

Again, exchange is broken and is not required... exchange people don't really know anything else and always complain that nothing can replace it... yet million of companies and people use other solutions and are happy. So yeah, exchange users/companies are "blind" inside a walled garden.

you can try privoxy as a proxy with tight control (whitelist/backlist, regexp by words, url, etc), if needed as a transparent proxy, so one can not change that. you can later screen the logs to see if anything more needs to be filtered (recommended ublocker or ghostery to also block ads and tracking, to help keep the logs cleaner)
WoT (web of trust) firefox add-on as a generic blocker, as it block bad, dangerous or not child safe... is not perfect but no solution will completely filter all urls... having said that, if is very good, also protects adults :)

Chats and social network are the main dangers, so parental supervisions and teaching is always required
Make then understand that the internet stores and copies everythings, so they should keep private things private and that they should always questions how much they should trust people that they don't know in flesh and blood.

you kids need to trust you enough to tell you about the problems and things they found... if they really want to workaround any filter, they will do it...
i see friends kids using the dogs facebook login to hide things from parents, others connecting to the neighborhood network and many using the (unprotected) friends computer to do things that they can't do at home