Disqus is only an example but the point is that there are "third party web components" that will be effected by a platform wide block. For cases like this it is good to give legitimate component software a "transitional grace period" to move away from the deprecated behavior before locking it out from modern versions onward.

I view control over "third party sources" in web content as a serious security issue but I also admit that I don't know the full ramifications of an outright ban either where taking the grace period to do some metrics is probably a good idea. What I would like Mozilla to do is allow it in Firefox 22 but expose it an option under Options/Advanced so it can be toggled with removing the option and enabling it later.

One of the biggest sources of revenue comes in from sales and licensing of new vehicles where over time dealership industry is powerful on the state level due to this relationship. When dealers make money, the state gets serious revenues. So when a new type of car comes along with a company who can't afford the high barrier of entry to setup a dealer network the whole thing turnes into market protection in the guise of customer service. If you are interested in buying a Tesla and living in a city with a center, you can go there but it is like bizzaro land because they are forced to operate as a "service center" instead of a "dealership" subject to fees and zoning that are often waived or offset for "real dealerships".

It is stuff like this that makes me wish the market would be dragged into the 21st Century. Shopping for a car is one of those tasks that is slightly higher than "doctor visit". There is little to no value added for going to the dealership so I would rather just order directly from maker themselves than to sit through the junk you need to do for a purchasing a car.

Is EA going to sell us things like Big Ben, Eiffel Tower and The Empire State Building when "SimCity" can't simulate a city the size of London, Paris, or New York? I don't know if "SimCity" can even do 20 square blocks which isn't even a quarter of Manhattan.

Both in terms of the idea and design. There is no level of Trust in the design of "Do Not Track". The server on the other end has no real obligation to honor the flag. The client has no real way to check if it is honoring the flag.

Also something people miss: You can't legislate trust. How do you prove violations? Random audits on paper sound like the way to tackle conformance but again who is building that tool? Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc? Again we have a lack of trust....

It is only defamation if it is untrue. If Hingston had a business that went bankrupt and went bankrupt then where is the defamation?

As others have noted their "gaming strategy" has been schizophrenic and scattered because of contrary goals working against each other instead of concert (promoting consoles erodes PC, promoting mobile erodes consoles, etc). So to answer your question: It does make sense if they decide they want to bank everything on Win Phone 8 and Surface where a future XBox is a distraction or partially erode that goal.

Although Microsoft can claim "we win!" the console generation, it cost heavily and might have been a Pyrrhic victory. If the high execs believe the future is all mobile phones and tablets then Microsoft has a much bigger in to "the living room" than it ever did with consoles. Consoles in this view become an expensive anchor that are fraught with more risk than selling another phone.

Of course this thinking only makes sense if you are an exec who really really really really really believes that Win Phone 8 and Surface are really really really really all of that. If the higher ups at Microsoft believe that then it would be a small step to see how selling off that expensive business "makes sense" for as a boost to the company instead of a disaster.

As I mentioned in another post, I very much appreciate my parents for getting an Apple IIe (with the 80 column text card) but it took me long after to consider how expensive that piece of hardware was for them just in 80s US$ let alone what it could cost today!! My fond memories of coding my own stuff (like a school presentation with ASCII graphics) and playing "Agent USA" and "Ultima 4" and "Ultima 5" and other games but it never really sunk in until these anniversaries came around just how expensive the hardware and software really was.

So while I salute my parents and Apple for providing me with a neat little computer to play and do some BASIC code on, I am really shocked it went anywhere due to the price tag.

The quality of both XBox Live and Skype are both atrocious compared to hosted solutions. I've given up long ago on both where instead I'm using my own "solutions". I'm not sure the value is in doing this migration beyond the cross platform capability.

You don't need to justify watching Fox then when NPR, PBS, and foreign sources like BBC or Times of India. BBC in particular has the unique perspective that often rings more true than many domestic sources.

Fox does not deserve attention because they suck at journalism (sourcing in particular). Fox should not get praise for covering "other stuff" because multiple sources do journalism so much better without the taint. On the entertainment side, I would take one episode of "This American Life" or "Frontline" over the entire programming week as well.

Weird, a pun that actually is appropriate?

What the parent is partially suggesting is that Microsoft intentionally sabotages their own product to boost future profit which seems to me a bit like "Broken Window Fallacy" in economics. If you are in the business of building and installing windows, wouldn't be a good idea to sneak around and break people's windows? It turns out that this is a bad idea because people end up spending their budgets more on Windows and less on other items. With that in mind, suggesting Microsoft purposely released a borked Windows 8 to improve sales for Windows 9 is crazy due to the amount of money they would have to knowingly flush. And just like the window company, there is a big risk where if they are caught they are DOOMED because customers will flee to competitors and alternatives.

Sales where big on Win95, XP and Win7. Was that because of the stuff between? Partially but for a reason not mentioned: time. If people hear how clunky and broken Windows ME was they sit on their Win95 machine until XP came out. By the time that happened hardware had nearly turned over to completely different class so buying an entirely new machine made a lot of sense. Sure WinME sucked but it was more the case that many had to buy new hardware by the time XP released. Do we have a window when Win9 will come? If the pace of hardware dev from AMD and Intel keeps moving on track then people will feel they need to buy a new machine regardless of how much they love or hate Win8 or how much they love or hate Win9.

In my experience, my TV habits have shift radically since getting a Google TV. Instead of connecting a bunch of boxes to it, they've all gone to the older HDTV. Things I've noticed off the top of my head and in no particular order:

- The DLNA features is a necessary thing for all my TVs now. I've relied on less and less live TV due to this feature alone.
- Apps like Netflix run just as well if not more directly when it is on the TV itself instead of a secondary box.
- Since Google TV has Chrome, if there is not an app for something that offers video or a stream I can just browse to it, play it at full screen and enjoy it like watching a TV channel.

The only "traditional" thing I can think that TV does any longer is that it has a console connected to it where the console has duplicate features too which I would never run since they are all on the TV.

I wish it was smart enough to "scrape" a web page that has been book marked for video or audio content or stream and show it like a channel. Although Youtube and Chrome works fine, crossing between them is a still a bit clunky since it requires minimizing one/activating the other but that is something all tablets and phones. I also wish it would have a more intelligent guide where the information on a show should be available across all sources instead of "Now search Live TV", "Now search Internet" etc.

In the end I will admit that I'm not sure having "fancy TV" changed how I use it as much as my taste and habits changed. I no longer spend much time watching "Live TV" where an net aware and internet connected TV has been more useful.

I don't live in Nevada or have a stance either way on this issue but it isn't "put all of the waste in Reid's Basement" is exactly why Reid would object? He and others from that area of the country have been dealing with fallout (pun intended?) with this waste and probably doesn't want any more in his basement.

Saying "smart user" means that such a user never makes a mistake or clicks the slight off or any number of accidental things that happen in Windows.

No the best thing to do is engineer a solution where bolting on software to monitor the user is the cheapest way to do it and it is inadequate because it never solves the fundamental problem: Malware software are doing things no software probably shouldn't be allowed to do. Forget about detection where instead the focus should be on why those features and hooks into the OS exist at all.

Even with that citation that is odd. Many of Google's apps out of that era were all built in the same manner which were pale shadows of the version on Android. There was controversy when Google launched their G+ app for both Android and iOS where the iOS version was primitive and missing a lot of functionality! I am pretty sure Apple wasn't dictating "Make G+ as crudely as possible" unless there is some Apple plan to move into that app space.

Google apps in the past have a history of working but often were limited on iOS. I have always said "It takes two to tango" where this appears to be a failure on both Google and Apple where neither wins. Apple walked away but Google wasn't trying hard either.

I've been waiting for years for the AMD + ATI merger to payoff but there are parallels with what is going on with graphics as with processors. This was supposed to be a synergy that would lead to optimized and amazing PC technology for games but has that happened? Especially after the last machine I built for myself both AMD and ATI have been slipping in quality.

I have my complaints with how Nvidia but their cards have gotten reliable and each new generation has had not only the standard performance increases but new features as well. Features like Adaptive VSync are a "why didn't they have this before?" kind of feature that I can't find if ATI supports yet. Meanwhile ATI has been...around. I have noticed that hardware and driver quality and stability differ from card to card and game to game.

I can't figure out what happened. I used to think AMD got distracted with ATI causing them to lose focus in processor but I wonder if something deeper happened in management that caused company to wander.