That's all well and good as long as you know how to "determine" fairness and justice. US courts are set up in such a way to deliberately obfuscate the law.

Federal courts in the US are a mess. There are entire books worth of byzantine rules that even the lawyers have trouble understanding. To make matters worse, each of the federal districts has their own local rules as well (because every federal district court needs it's own rules for what font size motions should be in...).

Pro se parties are routinely discriminated against. Lawyers essentially have unlimited power to issue subpoenas; the US is one of the only countries that allows lawyers to do this with no oversight. Pro se parties cannot do this. The clerks of court will go out of their way to answer questions about the law to lawyers (again, even they can't keep track of all of the rules) but will refuse to answer any questions for pro se parties.

In addition, the salaries of lawyers are artificially inflated through the cartel known as the bar. The amount of lawyers is artificially restricted by the state through economic rent seeking. Even offering your opinion on something related to the law can subject you to the imposition of violent force by the state on behalf of the bar (Free speech doesn't apply to non-lawyers). Since judges are members of this cartel, and judges are lawyers themselves, they will never rule such a thing illegal even if it is.

If that doesn't get you, case law will. Lawyers have access to tools like LexisNexus which allow them to figure out WHAT the case law is and what cases have been overturned and such. The average person can't afford that and has to resort to inferior tools.

It is criminal to have a system where someone with millions of dollars can simply use the state and its courts as a means to steal money from people simply because they can't afford to fight it. It is criminal to have a system where shysters can issue one subpoena after another without needing any sort of approval. It is criminal to have a system where someone is subject to violence because they offered legal advice to the less fortunate simply because they haven't paid money into the bar racket.

As far as I'm concerned, US Courts no longer have any legitimacy. They are a joke and should be treated as such. So help me if I'm called for jury slavery because I would be the juror from hell.

The adversarial system is the biggest injustice ever created. Such a system dates back from the times when people solved disputes by beating each other over the head with clubs. The US legal system literally derives from the law of Germanic tribes back in antiquity.

The adversarial system turns everything into a game. Fact is irrelevant. Law is irrelevant. Justice is irrelevant. All that matters is whose lawyer is the best at legal gamesmenship. A typical civil trial in the US is a game of trying to bury the other party in motions and frivolous lawsuits until they can no longer afford to fight it. The adversarial system ensures that no help is given to a party who has a significant financial disadvantage because the law is simply not important and if you can't afford a good lawyer, that's too bad and you're going to go bankrupt even if you've done nothing wrong.

Civilized countries (e.g. the majority) realized a long time ago that the adversarial system is not just. In most countries, the inquisitorial system is used in which the judge, rather than the lawyers, are the ones who do the investigating and asking of questions. In an inquisitorial court, it is not a competition to see which party has the best lawyers and legal arguments but rather a search for the truth.

While, as an anarcho-capitalist, I've come to the expect the state to completely and utterly ignore their own laws when they become inconvenient, I believe the void for vagueness doctrine applies here :

It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly - Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 US 104 - Supreme Court 1972

Not paying "taxes" is prohibited. The average person is not capable of understanding the tax code of their state and the feds, much less that of fifty states. Under the state's own law, the entire tax code should be stricken as being void for vagueness.

I refuse to recognize anything that the Supreme Clown Court says. They stopped following the Constitution a long time ago and only rule based on their own political interests.

I will resell what I want to resell. Any attempt to commit a violent act against me for doing such will result in me defending myself with a proportional amount of force.

If the ad companies ignore Internet Explorer's DNT, then Microsoft should respond by adding an adblocker that blocks them.

This is actually a good business strategy for them :

1.It benefits consumers because they get an integrated adblocker and it establishes customer goodwill and a reason to upgrade IE.
2.It would seriously hurt Google. Microsoft's revenue from online advertising is peanuts; their profit is in their software. By contrast, Google's only real source of income is online advertising.

On my Windows machines I use SeaMonkey. It is written by developers who are actually competent and know what they are doing.

On my Linux machines, I use a custom build of Firefox. It is currently Version 14 and it will stay Version 14 as I have decided to just backport the security and rendering changes without all of the UI nonsense that the idiotic fashion designers running Mozilla seem to want to do. I also patched in KDE integration from the SuSE build for good measure.

The problem with Mozilla is that they've put a bunch of "user-experience designers" in charge of Firefox rather than programmers who actually know what they are doing. "User-experience designers" are just glorified fashion designers who keep changing around the interface to go with whatever happens to be en vogue at the time. I may dislike Chrome (the final straw for me was an arrogant reply, GNOME style, from a developer in reference to a feature request for movable toolbars) but at least they are consistent and Chrome updates don't break everything.

Well, just take what Firefox is doing and do the opposite.

It seems counterproductive to continue dumbing down the interface. The majority of Firefox's user base are geeks. Those that aren't are mostly using Firefox because their geek friend/relative/spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend installed in on their computer. Alienating your primary user base is NOT a good idea.

I think that all of Mozilla's user "experience" designers should be forced to read this : http://hallofshame.gp.co.at/index.php

It is old but still *very* relevant.

Oh yes, your addon is one of the first things I install. Though you might want to update the versioning so that it states it is compatible with the latest SeaMonkey.

SeaMonkey has a very different interface from Firefox 4+ : http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/6435/seamonkey2g.png.

I am not a fan of the data manager either; unfortunately I don't see Firefox retaining the classic cookie manager for long, given the obsession with putting everything in a tab. But that is really the only area of SeaMonkey where I take issue with that does not come from upstream.

The main reason I like SeaMonkey is that the developers are unapologetic about targeting it towards power users and state so right up front (https://wiki.mozilla.org/SeaMonkey:Reasons). They also give you options; even with the new "data manager", the old cookie/passwords interfaces still remain.

SeaMonkey also is faster, less bloated, and uses less memory, which is ironic considering the entire reason that Firefox was created is because the Mozilla Application Suite (which SeaMonkey is the continuation of) was considered to be slow and bloated.

IMHO, I think the best thing to do for Thunderbird would be to combine efforts with SeaMonkey. A standalone client could still be made but the combined resources could benefit both projects.

Mozilla jumped the shark when they replaced started taking design decisions away from programmers and putting them in the hands of "user experience designers" who are nothing more than glorified fashion designers. Mozilla's "user experience team" has 25(!) people on it (http://blog.mozilla.org/ux/who-we-are/). How many people does it take to design an interface for a browser? Every new release of Firefox copies more things from Chrome and dumbs down the interface in the process.

I like having a status bar. I do not want the add-ons manager, the preferences manager, or the download manager in a tab because I am using a windowing operating system with a high resolution display. I do not like being forced to wade though about:config because putting some semblance of actual configurability in the options screen is not in vogue. I do not want to have to install 20 add-ons just to get some semblance of a usable browser.

I ditched Firefox for Seamonkey. It is the continuation of the original Mozilla suite, based on the up-to-date Firefox code but without most of the stupidity (unfortunately, they don't have enough developers on the project to undo ALL of the stupidity that comes from upstream). It is also compatible with most Firefox addons (either directly or through porting which is mostly a simple find/replace affair).

The US is like the modern day Roman Empire. Eventually, the rest of the world will get tired of being bullied by the US and stand up.

So, basically, some defense contractor bribed a few key state officials and got them to convince everyone that taxpayer money should be used to outfit the police cars with (very expensive and profitable) radiation scanners.

Investment implies risk. The potential rewards for investment are high (in this case, getting games more in line with your personal preference rather than dealing with the mass market junk of the big corporations) but so are the risks. This is nothing unique to Kickstarter.

Sorry but I still don't see a problem. Microsoft and Apple are simply getting a taste of their own medicine. It's just desserts as far as I'm concerned.

Microsoft charges Android phone makers $5-$15 PER PHONE for only a handful of patents.