This is the future of the Internet. Corporate censorship at the demand of the loudest group. One by one, sites are going to filter user areas. Then content. Starting with obvious things that few will care about, like prostitution. Slowly, everything is going to be so pasteurized that sites with no filters will be considered criminal organizations.

Look, whatever you think of it is irrelevant, abused or not, the racier parts of the internet are a necessary part of freedom. Draw the line of allowed hosted content straight through what most people find offensive and leave it there.

It may not happen in our lifetime, but if we don't demand full neutrality (for host and carriers), it's going to happen.

"It's not that simple. Quicktime is neither backwards nor forwards compatible, nor does it allow for multiple simultaneous installations."

I not entirely sure WIndows even allows that. OS X does. WIth a knowledgable hand, Linux should (as well with most Unix systems). IIRC, Windows isn't so keen on multi versions of libs. Apps should be able to code around this, but the core operating system doesn't provide that level of versioning. What you are describing is a Windows issue, which Apple has to work around.

I'm not a fan of the oil subsidies either. Though, if repealed, the oil companies would just pass the additional costs onto the consumers.

You make it sound like subsidies come out of thin air, just like magic, and no one will pay for them. The cost is passed onto everyone, and in the case of oil, everyone is dependent on it. Hence the customers are paying, but don't know they the real price.

Call my a conspiracy nut

Not a problem, I'll get his number from the CIA.

the jury found him guilty and found the death penalty appropriate

It was the only option offered, something the jururers complained about

"How do you propose Firefox prevent the installation of an extension by software that has direct file system access?"

Don't use filesystem placement as the method of registering extensions. Keep registered extensions in an encrypted database which only Firefox has access to. Only add extensions when the user interacts with a secure API verifying they want the extension added. /next question?

Save for the title being "first post" you really don't deserve a flamebait rating. Post like this is why flamebait is moved to +5 to my account.

That being said, you're wrong. GPL software is inherently incompatible with software patents. If you're a big company with a big patent portfolio, you can pretty much make any software you want. Someone sues you, you counter sue, because odds are they are breaking at least one of your patents. In general, companies try to avoid suing each other and instead opt to just cross license each others patents, by formal agreement or by understood silence.

GPL software developers have no such luxury. They aren't known for patenting things and if they do, they then promptly license the patent in a such a way that GPL compatible licenses can use the patent. Which means, BSD licenses can use the patents too. Which means, it can be incorporated into proprietary software without releasing the code. Which, of course, defeats the whole purpose of a patent.

If firefox includes H 264 decoding in their own software libraries, they are no exposed to a lawsuit. If they opt to use OS native plugins for H 264, they end up creating a logistical nightmare in development, since you can't guarantee that all installs will have the software needed to the embedded movies. Which means the user is going to blame them when it doesn't work.

The real solution is to work with the standards committees to make the video tag in HTML have real meaning. What movie containers and formats are officially supported by HTML 5? How will the patents work, etc etc. This whole Theora thing is the wrong tactic. They will stand alone and fail. They should call up Apple and Google and ask them to work with them on solving this problem permanently. If they can get the MPEG patent holders to all license their software in such a way that its compatible with the GPL, then the problem is solved.

You're really concerned what's going to happen to your ebooks when you're dead? Taking corporate paranoia to the afterlife is a little extreme, no?

I don't have to buy a different set of eyes to read books purchased at different stores. They all work, as is. Where as, with ebooks, once you have a collection from Amazon, if you EVER want to read them again, you must do so on an Amazon supplied reader. If at any point in the next couple of years, Amazon decides to stop manufacturing those readers and yours dies, all of your books stop being readable.

We already know with DRM'ed music, that companies have taken their tracking servers off line, making moving the music to new hardware IMPOSSIBLE.

If I own something, I own it. I don't need the entity I bought it from to give me permission to use it.

Competition from a new contender that is known to be a strong player causes the strongest early market entrant to throw a hissy fit, news at a 11.

Until I can actually BUY an e-book, not rent them for life, the entire market will remain irrelevant to me.

Some people see no need to pay more money to buy the most recent OS.