Yes to TGA... I work in television graphics, and we targas far too often (not by my choice).

In this industry, there's no such thing as a "replacement," it's "just another competing format." None of the old formats ever dies, all we ever get is more new formats, all of which need to be supported, ultimately making everything more complicated. I'm not saying we shouldn't advance... but the belief that some new format you create will replace something instead of muddying the existing pool of formats is laughable. related xdcd. (yes, I know it's "standards" and not "formats," but the result is the same)

Right... we should have instant run off so people can actually vote for who they want without "throwing away" their votes. Since the two parties are so firmly entrenched, and the last thing they want is more competition (especially given they are both two sides of the same coin - very minor differences if you actually look at it), instant run off will never be allowed. And since neither party will ever give up power, you will NEVER see fair redistricting.

Personally it seems more like a liberal media is more likely to point out when republicans do it, ultimately giving the impression that you seem to have.

The both do it wherever and whenever possible. Under current laws, they'd actually be stupid not to.

However, what I'd like to see is a computer algortihm based redistricting that is approved by all parties. The rule of thumb when you cut a cake is that the person who cuts it chooses last... that ensures they make the fairest cuts. Unfortunately you can't apply the same logic here, but you can make it so everyone has to agree... the only way they'd agree is if it were fair.

Then again, I'd like to see instant run off implemented at all levels, including choosing electors in presidential elections... and I'll never see that, either.

I don't have it, but my parents have year round hot water from their solar water heating on their roof - but then they live in "The Sunshine State." I'd say that's a pretty good deal.

I applied this back in the early days of Java development, when the giant list of terms and conditions for the SDK download was displayed in a text field.

An editable text field.

This has two main effects that I can see:

1. I, unlike most people, am allowed to use old versions of Java to run nuclear power stations.
2. Sun owes me $1m for each JDK I downloaded back in the day.

To date I haven't received payment.

That may be, but I agree with the GP... what you've described is already a problem, where you need to competing services to get all of the content, despite the fact that 90% of it overlaps. Now imagine Sony content (including TV shows and several motion picture companies they own as well as libraries of content from studios like MGM, which they acquired a while back) only being available from Sony.

Apparently some mod can't handle the truth.

That's an absurd conclusion. Look at how many are graduating from STEM fields instead of liberal arts, then start making ridiculous claims like that. It's never convenient for the whiners to compare apples to apples, is it? (no pun intended)

And you never stop hearing the white people whining about it! Right? Right!?!? It never stops!

I had this argument before w.r.t. affirmative action. I asked if they didn't want to be judged on the content of their character instead of the color of their skin, and was told - seriously - that quote is from Martin Luther King Jr., and he's "theirs," so I'm not allowed to use his quote in an argument. No,.. really.

And because some idiot seems likely to come along with some crap like "so says the ac," I'll echo this using my account.

For the last time - equal opportunity does NOT mean equal outcomes. Correlation is not causation - if you can actually prove the system is biased against minorities/women/any other special interest, then do it instead of complaining the outcomes aren't what you want. If you want to prove someone isn't being paid fairly, the ONLY way to do it is show that people with equal educations, equal experience, and equal OUTPUT are not being paid equally.

Because the content providers are not the ones using the bandwidth, it's the ISPs own customers that are using the bandwidth they paid for. Netflix doesn't push it's contents onto an ISPs network - the ISPs customer pulls it, using the bandwidth they've already paid for. If the ISP wants to charge more, or renegotiate terms with all those customers they promised "unlimited high speed" bandwidth to, that's a different story. Punishing the content providers is absurd. If you could punish the spam pushers, that'd be a different story, but companies like CNN, Yahoo, Netflix, Amazon... they don't force their content onto anyone's networks.

Even if the NSA was out of the equation, there's always some #@$hole out there who'll hack your stuff anyway... whether for gain (blackmail) or fun... you can't win.

Sure you could... if you like having to take extra steps every time you get a new book before you can read it. Maybe you don't care; technical issues like this are easy for us nerds, but most people just want things to work without hassle.