In addition to that, it is theoretically possible to get RDP in Wayland working similar to X-forwarding. RDP has superior performance to X since it supports compression and it can be used to share a single application or an entire desktop, just like X. At that point, X will hold absolutely no advantages over Wayland.

I am reluctantly tolerant of ads since I realize that they pay the people who provide the content I'm consuming without charge, but if I'm reading a text article and a video ad with sound pops up, I kill the sound by closing the tab. I won't tolerate that rudeness when there are so many other sources of news that don't expose me to such tripe.

The rightsholders have claimed copyright on birdsong, a public transmission of the space shuttle launch, and many other claims of complete nonsense, proving that their algorithms are way too aggressive in flagging videos and that they can't even be bothered to review the "infringing" material before issuing a takedown notice. So who wants to bet that the legislative resolution to this issue has nothing to do with harsher penalties for fraudulent requests and everything to do with harsher penalties for "pirates" who happened to have a radio or television playing in the background when they caught something unusual on video?

It's even worse than that. Some companies don't even want to sell their products in the U.S. out of fear of patent litigation. I had a feeling this would eventually happen, but I didn't think it would happen this soon. The U.S. is losing ground in the tech sector and the worst part is that it's our own fault.

Well yes and no, patent protects innovation because you have a monopoly on your idea.

While I agree with most of what you have said, I have to make a pedantic statement about a common mistake that you have made that infuriates me - you can not patent an idea! You may patent an implementation of an idea, otherwise known as an invention, but you are not supposed to be able to patent the underlying idea.

You're never forced to patent your idea tho (see Coca-Cola, never patented, receipt never given).

This is true, although you've used a bad example since recipes are not eligible to be patented. But otherwise, you are correct - unpatented ideas can be protected as trade secrets.

Many people do not understand the nature of a "free market". To help them put it into perspective, a "free market" means that the players in the market are free to screw over each other and their customers as much as they want. If you don't like it, your only option is to start your own company assuming that the established players haven't already cornered the market or the infrastructure required to bring the product or service to market. However, healthy and fair competition is rarely ever the result of a free market - that only exists with a moderate amount of regulation to prevent the established players from stomping or buying out the competition.

This agreement definitely favors Apple since the U.S. cases still proceed where Apple's has the advantage of strong support for their software patents as well as home court advantage. I can't help but wonder why Samsung would agree to this, especially the part about dropping the case in their home country.

True, but approximately 90% of businesses fail within the first three years. Unfortunately, I can't pay my mortgage in stock that's worth less than toilet paper.

Yeah, but then I'd have to live in Texas!

Where do you live that startups pay ridiculously good money? Most of the startups I've seen pay mediocre at best and provide compensation in the forms of promises that you'll be rewarded when the company "makes it big". If you want great money, medium-sized businesses are the way to go right now. They're stable and they tend to focus on taking care of their employees. It used to be the case that large corporations offered the best compensation, but many are still feeling the effects of the market crash and continue to shrink as well as put the squeeze on benefits. Since medium-sized companies don't have as much overhead, many of them aren't feeling the effects of the crash as much and are able to take better care of their employees. Regardless of the size of the company you choose to work for, it's best to dabble in the new languages and technologies, but don't put all of your eggs in those baskets - many of them are fads that are sure to fail the test of time.

This guy sounds like a twentieth century doctor probably sounded as the medical field started to become highly specialized. There are few things in life in which we make progress and make things simpler at the same time. It's the reason that you can't see the ground anymore while looking into the engine compartment of your car and it's the reason that laws are more numerous and more complex than ever before. Sometimes it's nice to look back at the simpler times with nostalgia, but there's no going back, and even if you could, you would probably just come out of it with a greater appreciation for the lifestyle that is provided by these advances, even if it comes at the cost of significant complexity.

I don't think it was the "profanity" that was wrong with the headline and instead it was the grammar. A preposition is not what you're supposed to use to end a sentence with.

The biggest issue I have with Verizon Fios is the TV service. All of the video channels are so compressed that you inevitably get pixelation and tearing

What are you comparing this to? The television signal on FIOS is superior to almost every other cable company since FIOS is one of the only services that sends the original stream and not a recompressed video. If you think the FIOS video signal is bad, you should try Comcast or, even worse, one of the satellite networks.

This is particularly infuriating when it happens during playback for video on demand shows that you are paying extra for.

That is different from the television service and you're right in that there is no excuse for this on a fiber network where the files are hosted by the ISP.

But the 75/35 is pretty flash.

As long as you're not using it for Netflix or YouTube, but who does that?

That sounds like Yogi Berra's quote on why he no longer went to a local restaurant: "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded."

it doesn't mean that people shouldn't have a right to be forgotten in the public eye as far as possible.

Who are you to determine what the public has a right to focus their attention on?

You may personally believe free speech is an absolute right (it's not, try committing libel, or professing in public repeatedly that you want to blow up the president or something) that overrides all other rights but it's just not that simple.

Nobody is arguing that free speech is an absolute right, but libel and threats are already covered by different, more reasonable laws.

What Google is receiving requests for is the fact that they're in breach of data protection law, and like every other company on earth, have an obligation to adhere to the law.

I'm not arguing that Google should be given a free pass to violate this law. I'm arguing that the law is foolish and shouldn't even be in place. If you have a problem with the data being broadcasted about you, take it up with the people doing the broadcasting, not a third-party that simply indexes whatever information is publicly available.

By your logic Microsoft never had a monopoly with Internet Explorer because Netscape existed. Monopolies are not determined by amount of competition, but by amount of marketshare held

As swillden said, Microsoft did not have a monopoly in the browser space. They were convicted of using their monopoly of desktop operating systems to exert undue influence in the browser market. Google did not use an existing monopoly to gain marketshare in the search engine, so your analogy is bogus.

So what you're saying then is that it's okay to manipulate results if you don't like the law? Interesting.

They are following the law, just in an exaggerated form to protest the burden this is placing on them.

It's censorship in the exact same way that pulling your curtains closed when you get undressed is censorship.

If that was the case, then I would fully support the law, but it is nothing like that. Google is being forced to take information that is already publicly available out of their search results. This does not work - the cat is already out of the bag and the law makes it Google's problem to try to put the cat back in the bag.

Tell that to every company that's been fined for breaches of data protection law. I'm sure despite being down thousands they'll be happy to here that what they did was impossible to enforce.

When I said it was impossible to enforce, I didn't mean that some companies wouldn't be fined. What I was saying is that there will always be services that fly under the radar that will provide that information. People will inevitably gravitate toward those sources which will eventually garner enough attention to have this law enforced on those new services. When that happens, another small company will take their place and the process repeats. The point is that the information is public and there is a demand for the "forgotten" data, so there will always be someone to provide that service even if it doesn't comply with the law. That's the way the internet works, hence the analogy to piracy on P2P services.