Maybe I'm getting hung up on the wrong thing here, but how the fuck do you measure how "fun" a web-browsing experience is? What does that actually mean? What is it that makes Firefox fundamentally more enjoyable during recreational use that, say, Chrome/Opera/Safari/IE/etc. are missing?

I'm fine with the rest of this and happy birthday to Firefox and all, but what is it that actually makes for a "fun" browsing experience, other than the specific websites that I choose to use?

That's a good question. To the end of answering it, I'd like to be the kid's defense attorney for this case, because I've played through all of the Ace Attorney games, and I'm looking forward to the new one coming out soon in English.

This proposal is a simple one. If I am not allowed to defend the kid in court based on my experience with law video games, then they can't use video games to call him a murderer, so the prosecution has no case on those grounds. If I am allowed to defend him just because I've played some law video games, then we are unlikely to be able to make a decent defense case (but these are criminal charges, so reasonable doubt is a thing).

If the kid can be a murderer because of a mobile game, then I should be able to be his attorney because of Phoenix Wright.

Isn't that what they tell us? "If you're doing nothing wrong, then you should have nothing to hide"?

And then they decide that they should probably hide this massive surveillance program? :P

With the right spin, this is what I believed from the beginning about Microsoft Security Essentials. If the company can't even write a decent, secure operating system to begin with, why should we trust them to write decent dedicated antivirus software? What reason could we as a population of computer users have for having any confidence in this product? Of course it should be a relatively terrible at protecting a user's computer from viruses, because it comes from the same company who has that sort of track record with viruses in the OS to begin with (that is, the same reason why antivirus software is pushed onto users in the first place).

To believe that Microsoft Security Essentials is any good at what it is ostensibly meant to do is to believe that Microsoft is good at detecting and clearing viruses from users' systems, but to believe this is to hold a contradiction to every observation made of various versions of the Windows operating system.

Like TFS states, games can receive T, M, or AO ratings without being violent. If a game is AO for explicit sexual content, that isn't a violent video game (and I would be hard-pressed to find someone other than this Missouri representative who would believe otherwise). The ESRB does give specific qualifiers in the ratings for why a game is rated as it is. The ESRB will tell you, on the box, if a video game received its rating because of violent content.

If section 144.1020 were re-written so as to appear to be the product of a reasonable human being, I might be in favor of this idea.

The official response should look something like this, I imagine:

The rules say that the White House has to respond, not that they have to do it.

I wanted to post something like this.

I think you're right -- assuming that the embryo or fetus can be transplanted from a biological to an artificial womb, this should be a legitimate solution to the abortion politics problem. The woman would be able to stop carrying her pregnancy at any time. The Church no longer needs to be worried about the destruction of life. Abortion could be outlawed in favor of this other measure, consistent with pro-life views.

We'll see how far this technology goes.

To be fair, everyone's a data point. Either you occur as an "event" with hypothetical null probability p, or you occur as the opposite of an "event" with hypothetical null probability 1-p.

So, what you're telling me is that there are more Americans with broadband access than with health insurance?

And to think that we actually have legislators who are actively trying to block UHC legislation! Man, that is messed up!

I'm not sure. Is the tactic of "sue your competitors out of the market" limited strictly to mobile devices and software patents?

Shit, yo, why we gotta turn everything into weapons, huh? wouldn't we be more civilized without weapons?

Since when is there money to be made by supporting the common good?

What a fucking lie. If we look at human history, it's obvious that Mankind is a warrior race.

Also, the past-tense verb that you desire is "copyrighted."

When the fuck did Slashdot become exactly equivalent to Microsoft? I thought this was still a second-hand tech article aggregator and instant DDoS machine.