Probably not. There is most likely exception to services offered to general public. The same organizations also use phones, public roads, even regular mail and email services. Nothing special about Twitter in that regard.

They are measuring it by how http client announces itself to a cite (which client is specified in the http header). Most scripting libraries will put Mozilla in that header by default. So this data is scewed by all the crawlers running on the web. These are just scripts announcing themselves to be Firefox rather than actual Firefox browsers.

HTC just opened up their phones. There's tonnes of cheap tablets that are open. Thing is, even big guys like IBM want to keep things open. Look at HTML5. They're all too scared of Microsoft to risk a complete lock down.

If the copyright terms were not draconian, scarcity would be much more temporary. So we'd get both the advantage of incentivising creation and of having access to ideas which have become pervasive after some time. The current model is woefully inhibitive to creation because it effectively does not allow derivative experimentation with established models of writing, design, etc. In fact, I would argue that the only reason OSS took off was in response to lock-in copyright periods of the proprietory model.

Firefox, by the way never dominated. It never broke past 20% of the market share. And Chrome is not developed through an OSS model as much as through professional development model (Google makes it and gives it away). PHP does not dominate by any means and I would argue is largely considered sub par in quality to all other solutions in the same domain.

Um, in case you hadn't noticed, the middle class has been shrinking since 1970. There's been a lot of talk about raising taxes on the poor to give them a 'stake in the country'. There isn't enough money left in the middle class to run the country and not tax the rich, so they're after the poor now. I think the phrase is 'Balance the budget on the backs of the poor.".

Well, it's granted under the theory that people wouldn't be creating as much otherwise. In other words, the 1st sharing would be a much more rare occurrence. That theory does seem to have merit (the opposite was true during the writing of the Constitution's Article 1). However, making the copyright terms as long as they have become is unquestionably draconian. If you accept the assumption that less is created if no intellectual property laws exist, then you would get the not sharing of the original A as the default behavior in most cases. If the app writers couldn't copyright their apps, there would still be apps. But there would be less of them. And there would be little incentive to put the finishing touches by the creators. As soon as they would get bored with it, they'd stop working on it (as every volunteer does). You can still have professionally written software to support your platform. There is an example of that: IBM mainframes. But that software (not the operating system, but software) is usually incredibly clunky and behind times. So if that's the model we aspire to, we have good evidence against it. If you oss model will do it, you'll have to explain why it hasn't come to dominate despite being cheaper over the last 20 years.

it can best be summed up by the phrase "Screw the poor!". With a few exceptions (Alan Grayson & Barney Frank) a Democrat is just a Republican that isn't very good at it. BTW, this comes from a card carrying Dem. My theory is at least their Rhetoric isn't openly hostile to me. Anyway, you want change in this country? Do something about racism and Homophobia. That's what the 1% use to divide and conqueror the rest of us.

He said nothing about this problem being ours alone. He simply identified the problem and a natural solution to it. Basic care can be provided with much less training than we demand of health care providers. That's all.

Don't take the premise of this article too seriously. Lifespans have increased by about 20 years in the last 40 years. Heart-attack care, for example, is generally an emergency care operation and it's generally not fatal. There is plenty of other examples. Emergency treatment works and works successfully. If it didn't, people wouldn't live as long.

because they don't at all represent them

Must be me then. This phrase, of course, is where you stop deserving to be treated like a human being.

It is quite another thing to forbid anyone from sharing. But it is your right to make that a per-condition for your sharing. Because, as you pointed out, it is your right not to share at all.

Talkies don't give me a pounding headache, even at THX volumes.

If you write a book, you as the OWNER of the intellectual property get to deny its use until you get a compensation you want. You might never get it, but that you do get the right to deny its use until you do. Again, that's what it means to own something. You don't have to give up until you get what you want in return. You may need that $1000 and then exchange the right to read that book for that $1000, but you it's your right not to do that.

And the sky is blue, right? Any more platitudes? Do you not understand what "creating drag on heat flow" means? Cause that's what I said they did. The GP however was claiming that they "trap" the heat in the atmosphere. I assure you that I know that heat equation and its implications. The fact that you reached conclusion that I don't understand the issue speaks volumes about your ability to comprehend what you read. The fact that you think that someone discussing the best method for fact-finding in a particular context needs to know the details more than they need to understand the context is an indication that you are dogmatic about your fact-finding methods.