Don't make assumptions about why FF is losing users. The overwhelming majority of ex-FF users that moved to Chrome, strictly cite performance. Most of the ex-FF users I know that moved to Chrome, were not add-on users and didn't have that as a issue to deal with.

Personally, I have quibbles with some of the UI changes (I'm a left handed mouse user and I find the relocation of the Reload button annoying) but otherwise, I welcome the frequent updates. Looking ahead, I trust that FF will use their common sense and not overwhelm users with frequent UI changes. Speaking of which Google is as guilty as anyone in terms of foisting idiotic UI stuff on their users and in their case, with few exceptions, they don't even bother to respond to thousands of complaints.

My only serious complaint about Firefox is the huge memory footprint and the performance degradation that accompanies it. When I'm I'm researching something and get deep into it, with the usual 3-4 windows with a plethora of tabs that inevitably are attached to each window, Firefox slows toa maddening crawl and sometimes just locks up solid. Take the exact same Windows and tabs into Chrome and it the difference is quite obvious: Chrome just handles it much more elegantly.

I much prefer Firefox's interface (maybe it's just familiarity, but there ya go) and there's simply no comparison in terms of add-on, etc. but I'm on the verge of giving up on FF if they can't find a better way to handle those huge sessions.

Wow, certainly interesting to see how frustrated so many users are with the Ribbon. About 3 years ago, after spending months suffering with it, when I stumbled across a 3rd party Office add-in product that brings back the classic MS Office menus (updated with the features from the newer versions), into any or all of the Office 2007and 2010 applications, of your choice. If you really want to go Office old school, you can (optionally) remove the Ribbon completely. It's worked extremely well for me.

They charge for most of their products but they also offer a free version for personal, non-commercial use, that works for the basic Office apps ( Word, Excel & Powerpoint). Link to the free Classic Menu for Office 2010 download:

http://www.extendoffice.com/download/classic-menu-for-office.html

Link to the free Classic Menu for Office 2007:

Classic Menu for Office 2007

The also offer an Office Tab product appears to be an implementation of a Tabbed, Multiple Document Interface for Office 2007 and 2010. Same deal, the Basic version of Tabs for Word, Excel & Powerpoint is free for personal, non commercial use. A the link to the free Office Tab download:

http://www.extendoffice.com/download/office-tab-free-edition.html

Hope this helps!

I'm glad to see that it seems that haven't been arrested.

If you had, you would find out that in almost every circumstance, you will NOT be allowed to make a call using your own phone. There may be exceptions if it's a very minor situation or the rare compassionate cop, but I would NOT count on it. Your phone WILL be confiscated and inventoried, along with all of your other belongings, and you will NOT get to see it again at all, until you are released.

BTW, this has implications beyond the possibility of your phone being searched. How many important phone numbers do you have memorized these days? Maybe 2 or 3 "important" numbers? What if those folks don't answer? In most urban holding cells (where you'll spend up to 24 hrs when you're first arrested, before going to other areas of the jail), there's a phone that everyone can use to make as many free calls as you would like. The catch is that the calls are usually limited to the city or county limits. If the numbers you have memorized are outside the calling area you are SOL. Oh yeah, they always have the bail bond numbers posted by the phone, so you could get out in a few hours on your own, IF you have a few thousand bucks to spare (most cities have drastically increased minimum bail amounts in recent years and it's very common to find even minor, non-violent, misdemeanor crimes with bail in the $10-$30k territory = $1-$3k for bond, which is $ you will never see again).

My advice: memorize a dozen or so cell phone and landline numbers that you will want to call in any emergency (believe it or not, there are some jail phone systems where you can only leave messages on landlines!). If you are stopped in your vehicle, try to make a call ASAP, before you may be asked to get out of your car and before there is any chance of being arrested and the cops taking your phone. Write important numbers on your hand or arm if needed. If you're taken into custody, you will most likely have to change into jail clothes and you'll lose access to any paper you had in your pocket, etc.

Last, if you're thinking that as a 1000% law abiding citizen, that none of this could happen to you, think again and bear in mind that guilt is NOT criteria that determines one's vulnerability to arrest and the even the most innocent citizen could possibly find themselves in a situation where they are arrested.

>If you reduce the price of albums to near that level, you've pretty much guaranteed that what you'll end up with is the one hit single plus 8-10 other generic throwaway songs that nobody will ever care to listen to.

Haven't we been pretty much guaranteed that for most albums for the last 40+ years, while we're paying $10 - $15?

I copied this directly from the U.S. Copyright Group web site (http://www.savecinema.org):

"Solution: at no cost to our clients, the Us Copyright Group will:

Identify illegal donwloaders by ISP address

Subpoena identifying contact information

Send a cease & desist letter to demand payment of damages

Obtain settlement of approximately $500 - $1,000 per infringer & promise to cease future illegal downloading

Process settlements & provide records to the client

Disburse client’s portion of the damages"

----
Hmmmm....

- "donwloaders": they either can't spell, don't use a spellchecker or more likely, this site was put very hastily, just in time for the news cycle. Many of the links are dead.

- They are pursuing damages on a "per infringer" basis. This is dramatically different from the RIAA's tactic of going after a small number of cases and seeking huge damages based on each pirated song. And it explains why they are suing so many people.

While it might be fun to think about clogging the courts with thousands of jury trials, the most likely outcome is that unless they are convinced that they have a very good chance of prevailing, the vast majority of plaintiffs will choose to settle, esp. if it's close to $500, rather than face the time, stress & expense of going through a trial that may wind up causing them a LOT more if they lose.

Don't get me wrong, I detest what these sad excuses for human beings are doing but if their evidence is very detailed and tight, they have a very good chance of accomplishing their goals of making a lot of money for themselves and the assholes they represent. And don't hope for any common sense or relief from the present administration. Obama is 100% behind ACTA and you can be sure that he'll support this.

>You assume wrong. Double jeopardy protection doesn’t apply to civil cases.

Thanks for correction about double jeopardy in civil cases. Civil law generally seems to have many areas where it diverges from criminal law and I think it's a subject that the public really doesn't know much about, myself included. I'm curious enough about it's historical roots and how it evolved in the U.S., to spend some time learning about it. Any good intros to Civil Law: books, web sites?

>The company that keeps brining additional trials isn’t paying out. They’re receiving the settlement. They won. They’re just bringing additional trials to harass the defendant and force her to go bankrupt fighting these repeated cases.

Yes, of course I understand that the RIAA's actions in the Jamie Thomas case aren't the same as the example I mentioned. Except for their being able to afford to take as much time as needed and pay as many legal bills as it will take to get what they want. Is there any legal recourse that Jamie Thomas can pursue to keep the RIAA from continuing to harass her?

The way I read the story is that this is a new trial only about the damages. The RIAA is not asking for a new trial about whether she uploaded copy written songs. I assume that Jamie would be protected from that under the double jeopardy statutes. I think it's not uncommon in large civil lawsuits with huge damage assessments for the the company that's paying out to bring two or more additional trials about the damages and it can many years to resolve. Of course it's usually large corporations pursuing reductions in high stakes payouts because they can afford prolonged legal battles that very few private citizens could even consider. Didn't Exxon doggedly pursue reducing the very high damages that they were assessed for the Valdez disaster? I think they persisted for several years and ultimately succeeded in getting the damages substantially reduced.

--- The above comments are the property of the RFLF (Real Fake Law Firm). We're really not lawyers and what we don't know, we just make up.

Tell that to your kids when you're living in a shelter! Many people (along with their families) who get fired or not hired via the scenario you described, are facing a lot more than than the loss of "little comfort"? In a severely depressed job market, job loss can very realistically lead to not having a place to live and while I agree that it's important to assert our legal rights, the survival of one's family is not a trivial consideration.