He's just not mincing words. It's time we started calling lies what they are. You're ignoring his facts because they're inconvenient for you and blaming your willful ignorance on the fact that he's calling a liar a liar. If you have a problem with that, prove him wrong. Otherwise, you're just lying about your motivations for not wanting to consider his argument.

This is a perfect solution to when you download a movie and the aspect ratio is wrong. :)

They're the GNOME UI team. GNOME lost me years ago, when they decided to shove that stupid "spatial file browsing" thing down everyone's throats. I still don't see how it was any different from the default settings in Windows 95, which I would immediately change every time I used a new windows box. Some people think of their files in terms of a position on their desktop. Some people have a lot of files and don't want to put everything eight folders deep, so they put them in one directory and then have the file manager alphabetize them. Sometimes people even want to see advanced details, like how big their files are and when they were last modified. Around that time, they were also having discussions about doing away with tabs in applications.

Essentially, if GNOME says something in the UI is "too complicated", then there's a very good chance that it's something I use and like. So I just use KDE. :)

I'm a web developer. When I put up audio and video files, I'd like to be able to put up one single format and have every browser be able to play it, and do so without bringing netbooks to their knees with flash.

...OGG and VP8 out of the box now?

Web developer here.

First off, HTML 4 has plenty of browser interoperability issues. Just try to develop something that works on IE and any other browser.

Secondly, for the love of God and all that is holy, HTML is primarily a visual medium that people look at on a computer screen! Separating content (html) from presentation (CSS) was an excellent idea. Failing to allow vertical centering without dumbass CSS and javascript hacks is not. Seriously, what the hell?

Third, why can't CSS styles inherit other styles or use constants? You were *finally* going to add that into CSS, and then some jackass decided not to include it because it would make it more *complicated*. Do you know what's complicated? Having to change 40 instances of a color in a CSS file because I can't define a damn constant. This is exactly the kind of shit CSS was supposed to *solve*. Safari implemented this briefly and removed it because *they were afraid people would like it too much and usage would become widespread before there was a standard*. Add it to the standard! Right now, we have to use ridiculous workarounds like CSS compilers, which don't fit very well into a lot of modern CMSs.

Fourth, stop deliberating and start releasing official standards, otherwise Microsoft will just run off and do its own thing and we'll all be boned *again*. You're doing way more damage than you're preventing.

Finally, your failure to support as standards things (like the aforementioned CSS vertical centering) that people need to do in the real world on a regular basis just leads web developers to use non-standard code and bullshit like Flash, which circumvents your standard altogether.

End rant.

Those of you who are making this argument, please think about whether you support the idea of corporate personhood and whether you believe that there is a corporate right to free speech and to decide which customers they want to service and which ones they don't.

Unfortunately, this isn't a black and white issue. The founders were all about free speech in the federal government, but the original intent of the constitution was to allow the states to make their own laws that might place additional restrictions on peoples' rights. This turned out to be a very bad idea (slavery, segregation, etc), and the constitution was eventually amended to allow the Federal government to step in and enforce the bill of rights in a way that would *supercede* state laws. But to say the the founders would have necessarily supported forcing a private company, Rackspace, to broadcast someone else's speech is just wrong. They weren't even in favor of forcing the *states* to allow free speech.

All that being said, it's a very legitimate idea that the right to express oneself supersedes property rights, *particularly in cases where there are few options for expressing yourself*. This is the whole idea behind Net Neutrality. Since the Internet is controlled by a few large companies, at some point it becomes necessary to step in with legislation and preserve the *de facto* right to free speech, since if these few private companies decided to arbitrarily restrict political speech (or any other kind of expression) it would put a serious dent in our ability to express ourselves.

All told, Rackspace's obligations to respect the free speech of other groups ought to be tied directly to how many other real, useful alternatives exist to their service. If it would be relatively easy for this site to pick up and move to another server farm, then I think Rackspace's policy ought to stand. On the other hand, if all hosting providers have this policy, or Rackspace is the only one big enough to handle hosting their website, then it becomes a Net Neutrality issue.

Just a quick addendum: You can catch us on IRC, too. We're #opengameart on irc.freenode.net. Here's a web link:

http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=opengameart

I'm in and out of the channel during the work day, but it's a pretty active place, so there's always someone around.