Is there really? Or does it just get a lot of play on the news? Where are the hard, independently-verified survey numbers on UK attitudes or US attitudes on illegal immigrants?

Sometimes I feel a bit like we're all being led by our collective nose by our media culture.

Wow. You totally nailed my intent there!! Good job!!

Or maybe I was just blowing off some steam in a public forum about an issue that frustrates me. See the difference??

Until I am PROVEN GUILTY of not being one. I don't have to "opt in" for what should be my no-questions-asked constitutional rights.

What about the Mac or iOS versions?

Microsoft makes money off of Windows and Office licenses and they use IE to try to keep people locked into those two products.

I think that's patently false. The EU and the feds thought so too.

Fair enough regarding IBM. So they possibly have a right to complain based on their investment. I'm guessing Mozilla is thinking that the dollars from big corporations like IBM (and almost certainly Google) will be drying up. Also, was IBM investing in Firefox or an open-source browser engine?

If I had to guess, I'd guess that Mozilla is trying to figure out is trying to figure out how it exists in the long term and is looking to get some revenue stream off of it's larger consumer user base. I think they doubt that businesses would license Firefox when there are free alternatives. I think their right. Do you think your company would ever pay a per user or per machine license for Firefox? If not, then I'm sorry if this decision sucks for you, but I don't see why Mozilla would change course for a zero-revenue user or company.

For the record I don't like this move by Mozilla, but I'm not arrogant enough to think I know enough about their motivations that I can declare that there latests move is "idiocy", and I'm a pretty arrogant guy. ;)

And how much money(if any) does Mozilla get paid by your organization for your use of Firefox?

They seem to be fine with iTunes doing it.

Thank you for posting this. Yong claims to have all his "licensing" in order, this seems to back that up. He also claims that it was Sony that caused this takedown and that he'd seen evidence pointing to that. See ZodTTD's homepage for more information about how this WASN'T because of licensing abuse/misuse.

Now to all the Android fans. It's OK to like Android just like it's OK to like Apple. It's OK to like one or the other more. It's NOT OK to delude yourselves that Google is your "open" buddy free from commercial interests. Short version, they aren't. Google is a a very large corporation, and like all other very large corporations they are extremely focused on making lots of money off of you, the consumer. There's nothing sinister about this, but IMHO you shouldn't delude yourself into thinking otherwise because they embrace some "parts or principles" of open source. This also means they're not afraid to shit all over a developer if they think that developer is impugning upon their "money-makin'-turf". It SEEMS like that's what happened here.

My biggest beef with this, and with Google in general, is that their "sleazy corporate moves" always seem to me to be back handed. Oh, we're holding back this source now. Oh, we're letting carriers do shady shit now. Oh, we're pulling developers post-approval because a key partner or two complained. For the record, I personally prefer Apple as a company to Google. Mostly because they are out-in-front about wanting to "screw you"/profit off of you. Apple say's they want your money upfront, and in exchange for that, they guard you and your info like a jealous lover.

I'm not claiming that Apple's way is the best way of doing things, I don't know if there is a "best" way and wouldn't presume to know what that "best" way was, is, or will be. I am saying that Apple's up-front "dickishness" is the way I prefer for a company to treat me. I know Apple overcharges me and are dicks about letting me access certain information. I consider it a fair trade in exchange for their "openness" about how they screw me, as well as their efforts to protect their walled garden in which I dwell. I spend MY money with Apple accordingly, others are free to spend THEIRS where they will.

And then once you're finished (if you're like me or any of my gamer friends) you proceed to gorge on some high-fat, high-sugar junk food because you haven't eaten in "ages". Of course my anecdote is as equally worthless as yours is, that's why even small studies like this have merit.

IMHO humans aren't well equipped to handle an overabundant food supply as we are genetically hardwired for subsistence. I think that food consumption is some of our "lowest level programming" too. Hopefully research like that mentioned in the article will help us better understand how our "big ape brain" handles modern scenarios like the stress/challenge/reward experience of playing video games so that we can be better informed in our efforts to ameliorate behavior that leads to our dietarily profligate fat assess getting even wider.

OK. I know you said you were being an iconoclast, so fair enough that you're on the attack. The point I've often heard espoused in defense of the IQ test is that a student from a less than ideal home setting who's naturally bright or "natively intelligent" might be overlooked without it. That he or she might not have the opportunities to achieve something with his/her "native intelligence" that a bright child from a better home might. I'm not saying this is right, just that it's an argument I've heard in the past around the "IQ" test issue.

As far as what "native intelligence" is. There are certain people who can run circles around most of us when it comes to understanding complex problems, retaining information, comprehending relationships between data. I'm not one of them but I've known some. They're simply in a different league than most of us. Why exactly this is the case is hard to say. I've never seen anyone be able to point to any factor (race, wealth, parents education, etc.) that's a guarantee of people being that special kind of bright. Until someone can, the best you can do is test for those individuals. In general, those individuals tend to do much better than the rest of us at standardized IQ tests, so that's the benchmark that's used.