Tariffs that are there to prevent free trade shouldn't exist, they are immoral, they raise consumer prices and prevent good deals and hurt the people who are unable to pay more.

Everybody should be against tariffs that prevent free trade.

Their extension can't affect the recipient's end of things if the recipient isn't also running that extension. In that case nothing Dmail can do can prevent the recipient from saving the message, forwarding it or doing anything else with it. Dmail can play tricks with HTML e-mail by replacing the body of the e-mail with a dummy wrapper that fetches the message via HTTP from a Dmail server and they can use some Javascript tricks to try and block "Save as", but those are going to run into problems with anything that blocks remote content or disables Javascript in e-mail. Even if the recipient's using Gmail in Chrome that's going to be an issue considering how that sort of blocking's basic to blocking malware. And of course if the recipient's running a non-browser client using IMAP4, Dmail's completely out of luck.

As far as being able to restrict viewing to only the recipient, that's easy. Every standard mail client today supports it. The hard bit's getting the recipient to generate a public-key certificate and install it as a personal certificate and key in their e-mail client. Then you just encrypt the e-mail using their public key and send it as an S/MIME message, their mail client will automatically decrypt it for them. I could even make that work in web-mail with a browser extension that recognizes the message text block, grabs it and decrypts it and stuffs the results back in the text block for the user to see. The obvious advantages here are that a) you wouldn't need to use any particular service provider to send the mail and b) not even the service provider or e-mail servers would be able to see the cleartext. The hard part's the PKI, and really all that needs is an extension for the mail client to automate generation of a certificate and installation into the client like we have in browsers. Depending on the browser and OS that might be simplified by taking advantage of shared OS cryptography features.

I've kicked this idea around as a commercial possibility, but it all comes down to two basic problems:

• If the messages are truly private it's nigh impossible to generate revenue by any means except annual subscriptions from users. Senders might pay, but recipients won't and that breaks the whole thing.
• Controlling what happens after the message reaches the recipient's nigh-impossible. The best you can do is if you restrict recipients to a platform like mobile where they have to access messages through your app. There's still ways around the controls, but you can make it so the phone has to be rooted and then access to the secure credential storage obtained and that's not something that can be automated enough to be feasible for the average user to do. In an uncontrolled environment like a browser or a regular e-mail client? Forget it.

- ok, stupid but doable.

- ok, by itself it does not mean anything, as it doesn't say how that is supposed to be done. But together with the first statement (reducing nuclear power) looks suspiciously contradictory.

- WHAT?????

Ok, unless the goal is to half the population and production by 2050 from the 2012 levels while simultaneously switching to non-nuclear power, that's one thing. But if the goal is also to reduce 'green house gas emissions'...

Explain this to me: half the energy consumption, reduce reliance on nuclear power and at the same time reduce green house emissions.

Unless the real goal there is to reduce population then I have a bridge to sell you.

I also may want a unicorn and a tooth fairy and I can even enact legislation about it but legislation that requires unicorns and tooth fairies to become available to me upon the request by the authorities cannot in fact magically produce unicorns and tooth fairies!

Usually a requirement for DirectX or ActiveX is for the viewer software they provide, not the camera itself. Either their application uses DirectX to handle the graphics display, or the standard Web page the camera puts around the stream uses an ActiveX widget to display the stream. Usually if you can get the manual for the camera and take a look at the Web page it generates you can find the URL for the actual video stream and use that in any video software. A little more work will give you how to configure the camera for resolution and stream encoding and such to get exactly what you want.

That's actually only partially right. If you pass on the source code along with the binaries, you're only obligated to give the source to people you give the binaries to. But if you make an offer to provide the source, you have to provide the source to anyone who asks. That's because of 6c (GPL v3) or 3c (GPL v2) which allow those you gave binaries to to pass along those binaries and your offer of source code to others. Those bits mean those additional people are entitled to the source through your offer so you can't refuse to give people the source just because you didn't give them binaries direcetly. No, you can't bar recipients from passing along the binaries per those bits without yourself violating your license, except by including the source in what you distribute.

Humans.

Much the same here. The attraction of G+ was that it was a lot easier to use for non-public streams. Where Facebook tried to make everything public for the world to see, G+ made it easy to keep things limited to specific groups so that a) conversations wouldn't be visible to people I didn't want to see them (and to people that aren't interested, my family really doesn't want to have a ringside seat for my rather heated discussions about the technical aspects of IPv6) and b) we wouldn't be inundated by trolls, spammers and general idjits. I think that's one of the problems, it's not that G+ isn't active but that the outlets saying it's dead are basing that only on public activity which isn't G+'s focus.

Except that most of Silicon Valley can't save money outsourcing to India. Sure they could hire the same number of workers cheaper, but they can't get the same amount of work done on an ongoing basis. They make their money the way US consultants have: swoop in, hack together something that meets requirements enough to get the final payment, then disappear the morning after the release to production. When the company finds all the bugs and problems, their own people have to clean up the mess or the company has to hire a different set of consultants to try and fix things. It's a great gig for the consultants, not so great for the companies afterwards. And word never gets out because it's the higher-ups who hired the consultants and admitting that the whole thing failed would tarnish their reputation so all the problems get firmly swept under the rug (or better yet, blamed on the company employees who had nothing to do with the project but are tasked with supporting it).

Now if you're talking first-line helpdesk or somesuch, you may save money outsourcing that. Your customers will hate you, but you'll save money. But software development, network engineering, database design, system administration, none of that is first-line helpdesk-type stuff. There's a reason companies are finding it cheaper to move work from India and the like back to the US.

Accidental overdose on 5 knives sticking out of his back and chest. Obviously no foul play. A guy tries to run a startup, the startup has crushed for various reasons, then there is the question of lawsuits for hundreds of millions of dollars in supposed damages to music labels. No foul play...

Governments were under control of 'the people' in the USSR. I prefer corporations and advertising.

Do everybody a favour, Google USSR advertising, look at the examples and then stop talking. We had advertising coming out of wazo and it was all completely state sponsored advertising. It was advertising for some products, events, moral ideology etc. The state was also using propaganda to keep people inline. Our newspaper s, such as 'pravda', 'trud' etc., were all propaganda - false advertising by the state to brainwash the entire population of the country. Alternatives were illegal like any other private endeavour. Go ahead, tell me that governments should be in charge of the economies. I am not going to pretend to listen, but will prove you wrong every time.

Wow, you too are insane.

This story is pure insanity. Advertising is one of basic instincts in animal nature. Women advertise to men, men to women. Without advertising evolution and progress would stop and die.

Not once I am done with them!

How about an exorcism to rid oneself from stupidity? Cure for ignorance is education, but maybe to cure from stupidity one needs a witch?