Same here. I'm getting unusably bad text rendering with FF4 b7 in Vista, and am disappointed to see it's not fixed in b8. I'm still sticking with 3.6.x for now, but this had better be fixed by the time FF4 gets released.

OK, well, that distinction wasn't made.

I would never condone censorship or be a proponent of political intervention in Internet infrastructure, but I do object to labeling pedophiles as "peaceful", as someone who engages in such behavior is obviously anything but.

By networking, I mean to establish contact with each other, potentially leading to sharing their victims with each-other. There have been several high-profile busts of child porn rings involving just such occurrences.
Here's one in the news today:
http://www.examiner.com/sex-trafficking-in-national/fbi-busts-international-child-pornography-ring-with-roots-child-sex-tourism

Unless it's used by these people to network with each other to facilitate the abuse of children.

Umm, peaceful except for that whole assaulting and raping defenseless children part...

I have no more examples, as they've all fleeted from memory. I'm simply giving my impressions of him based on the last few movies I've seen. I remember thinking that at the time, but no longer what made me feel that way, and I don't care enough about the subject to revisit it.

Personally, I don't much like his movies because they're often sleazy and underhanded, taking cheap shots at people. No matter what, he doesn't seem like the type of director to let facts get in the way of his narrative. His health care movie was a fairly good exposé, until he got to the solutions part, or lack thereof. His capitalism movie was a complete load of crap, with a bunch of bluster, a total misunderstanding of economics, and no proposed solutions to any of the problems raised. Seeing that movie just left me feeling dirty from all the sleazy argumentation tactics. After seeing that one, I doubt I'll be watching another of his movies.

I'm simply arguing that the current setup is unconstitutional, and that including it in your taxes would not be, since the 16th Amendment specifically allows for a federal income tax. I'm not arguing my preference for one setup vs. the other.

The reason people have a "right" to treatment is for public health. It's idiotic to call for people to go untreated at hospitals, as that will simply create populations where communicable diseases can evolve and flourish, and eventually affect your health and well-being. Everyone else already benefits when someone gets free treatment at a hospital. I wouldn't have a problem dedicating a portion of my taxes to pay for this, as long as everyone else pays for it as well, regardless of whether they themselves have health insurance. I agree that the cost for this shouldn't be born by only those who have purchased insurance, but the solution is not to force others into the insurance system, it's to provide base single-payer insurance for everyone.

Actually, if they had structured it so that everyone's income taxes go up by the amount of the health insurance penalty, and then credit those with health insurance for that amount, then there would be a much better case for the law's constitutionality. As it is now, however, it is clearly unconstitutional, as citizens cannot be compelled to purchase any unwanted product or service with the force of law. That is the fundamental basis of personal freedom. You can't make a law that says that everyone presently alive must perform action x. You can outlaw certain behavior, but you can't force behavior by law.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. No one has to drive. If you choose to drive, then you need insurance. You might see how that's slightly different from requiring that anyone presently alive must buy health insurance or be extorted for a lot of money.

Seriously, how is a disgruntled private supposed to suck down the contents of the DoD document store without a USB port?

Google has blessed the Flash player, so ChromeOS will keep it automatically updated for you... probably whether you wanted it or not.

I will agree that governments and their people are surely best served by a certain level of secrecy for their diplomats, but that doesn't mean that our government has a mandate to punish people from other countries with no obligation to the US for disseminating those secrets once they've been handed to them. Why should they care what secrets the US government would rather be kept hidden? They don't owe the US government a thing, and the US has no jurisdiction over them. This whole media attack on Wikileaks is simply to divert attention from the State Department's devastating lack of information security. There's no one to blame but ourselves.