As stated below you could use the compatibility reporter extension or you can just do the following.

  1)Type about:config into the URL field.
  2)Context Menu > New > Boolean
  3) type: extensions.checkCompatibility.X.x
  4)Set the value to False

  Where X.x is the version number of the browser you want to override (e.g.. 5.0, 5.1, 5.2 or 6.0, 6.1, 6.2, etc..).

  See http://kb.mozillazine.org/Extensions.checkCompatibility for more details.

  That is essentially what the compatibility reporter extensions does though it also allows you to report to Mozilla whether a flagged extension works or not.

"The Baroness is also former head of the British Joint Intelligence Committee ... "

  You'd think the Baroness would know better than to use an over sized can; perhaps this was plan B with plan A being the use of Destro's head. Can you imagine how they would have reacted to that guy's noggin?

  I can practically hear Cobra Commander screaming about idiots from here!

From the end of the article, " Specifically, Nevercookie prevents abuse to both the Adobe Flash Local Storage Object (LSO) and Microsoft's Silverlight Isolated Storage (MIS)." "

  Doesn't BetterPrivacy already eliminate LSOs and other stored data?

  I don't have Silverlight so I don't know if it eliminates that data but unless these "Evercookies" are somehow different than "Supercookies" you can eliminate this issue right now.

I don't know how that porn comment should be taken. He may very well be completely against sexually explicit material and on a crusade to ban it from the company's products but then what major company who isn't in the adult entertainment industry is publicly pro porn? It's a politically toxic subject that most public entities are against when it comes up.

    That being the case, I don't believe he is out to actively prevent people from accessing porn and the comment either didn't come out right or is being misinterpreted. Here is how I see it in the context of the discussion.

    "Freedom from programs that steal your private data, freedom from programs that trash your battery, freedom from porn."

  The common thread between the first two is that they are both things that are unexpected and you don't want so presumably so is the third. Contextually, I think "freedom from porn" means freedom from unwanted exposure to porn. You can run into pornographic content when you don't necessarily want to online so I think what Jobs is getting at is you won't find it in the App Store just like you won't find the other two negative kinds of programs.

  This isn't at all unprecedented, you won't find pornographic magazines sitting in the racks at Target or Wal-Mart or find XXX movies in their DVD section. If you want to take it to electronic stores, you won't find XXX movies at Amazon or those crazy sexually explicit games on Steam.

  The argument is usually "clearly mark the section as adult" and "put in access controls" Those things still expose you to porn in that you know it's there, right behind that Adult button and that alone makes a lot of people uncomfortable. I'm not anti-adult material in any way but if I drive down the road and see some kind of adult entertainment shop amongst the other kinds of businesses it stands out. You can't see inside but you know what's in there. Porn, in a way, is like drugs. Even though it's widely consumed it's just not something that's generally put in public since it's considered a very personal and private thing. There is nothing at all unreasonable about saying no adult content in the App Store.

  At some point in the past an Apple exec (possible Jobs) said the iPhone OS platform is being used differently than traditional PC platforms so far as how people use it to get at data. Rather than hit a search engine to find things, people on iPhone OS prefer to use specialty apps built around gathering and manipulating specific data sets.

  The point he was trying to convey, I think, is that the public can rest assured that the App Store will not carry programs to help people find porn. However, as long as they're bundling a web browser that can play video (he's rallying against Flash, not web video) and iPod capabilities you're certainly free to access all the porn you like the old fashioned way, by specifically seeking it out or loading it from your computer.

  If Apple starts including filters (beyond parental controls) to scrub web content or forces you to browse through an Apple proxy server or something then I'll see a problem but right now I just see a widely accepted business practice.

I've only used Bing a few times as I see no compelling reason to not use Google but your Honda Civic test sounded odd to me so I decided to reproduce it myself.

  I typed Honda Civic into Google in one tab and then opened Bing in another and typed Honda Civic. You are correct in that it does provide information about the Honda Civic, Used Civics, Manuals, etc.. but the way you presented the information leads one to believe that Bing is providing a mish mash of links/data but that's not what's happening at all.

  Google provides results in the flat way that everybody knows, it simply presents what it thinks are the most relevant links based on your search query. It then presents other possibly relevant search queries as a footer to the search results.

    Bing takes the approach of providing the user with what it deems are the most relevant categorized search results based on the original query. In other words, it's not just jumbling used cars and manuals in with product information, it clearly categorized the results into Used Civics, Manuals, Product information, etc.. and provided a link to see more results like those after the top hits in each category.

  I didn't spend much time on this comparing each specific category result on each engine but they seemed to provide similar results in each category based on a quick glance at the top hits.

    Bing, Google, whatever. They all find information. Pick the layout you like best, the one you think provides you with better results or the one from the company you hate the least.

  Personally, I'll stick with Google just because it seems smarter and has more conveniences. The ability to quickly solve a math equation or get a word definition with just a single search query, for example. Then there's the awesome freebies like 411-GOOG; I used that when my battery died one day to call around for quotes to decide if I should just get a jump or buy a new one from AAA.

  Google is better at figuring out what you meant when you misspell. I typed in the name of a local pizza joint to see if they'd both find it. I inserted a simple misspelling (one letter added) on Bing and it couldn't find any results. I then typed the same misspelling into Google and it gave me the result I wanted with the misspelling as well as providing me a "did you mean?" link with the proper spelling.

  Bing did find it when I provided the proper spelling but the place has an odd name that's easy to get wrong. Google would have found exactly what I wanted where Bing would essentially be useless unless I manually played with alternate spellings.

  Bing wins on pointless visual fluff but Google is just smarter about helping you find what you want as quickly as possible, IMO.

'"What we have at the moment is rather like wasted muscle tissue. We need to find ways of improving it by training it and stretching it, but we will get there,"

  Worms! They'll Jazzercise the muscle tissue! Why, by the time they're finished it'll be as strong and flexible as Hercules and Gumby combined!

At least you're classified as a life form, all I have are these noodly appendages and meatballs for eyes.

  -- FSM

The problem I have is that on my phone the web browser is bound to the up direction on the circular directional wheel... With the OK button in the middle. I have frequently hit the up direction accidentally when I meant to press OK. And that launches the web browser. It doesn't ask for confirmation... Just pops up the web browser and immediately starts loading a page.

This is the first I've heard of this practice and I know I accidentally called up a data app using the wheel by accident recently so I checked my bills but there are no data charges on it. Maybe it's because I'm one of those crazy "telephones make phone calls" people and still use a Razr.

Being the kind who would rather be safe than sorry and remembering my old moto phone allowed me to customize what each of those wheel buttons did, I went to go and change it. Trouble is, that phone was bought before Verizon started forcing their standard user interface onto all phone models.

Under the forced Verizon UI the only wheel button that is allowed to be modified is the down button which doesn't map to any of their services by default so not only do you get charged if you accidentally hit the button but you can't even remap or disable the button to ensure you never accidentally press it!

Worse still, according to TFA even if you specifically call Verizon and tell them to disable all data services the very act of pressing the button only to get a message saying you can't access that results in the fee being applied because data was technically transmitted.

I was fully prepared to contact the the FCC, the FTC, the BBB and my government reps about this if I had actually seen these charges but since I haven't I can't verify that this problem actually exists.

If you have been bitten by this then by all means contact the folks above because that's about as abusively scammed as you can get by a major company.

This, to me, sounds like the system that brought us the notion of "too big to fail"

Corporations should never have been able to get into to that position but it is possible to reel them in with enough political and populist will.

That's neither here nor there. I would address the subject of "corporate prison" or "corporate execution" in the following way.

A company sentenced to termination would have all assets liquidated and distributed. First priority is to pay off all obligations to the rank and file employees (pensions, benefits, remainder of the year's salary, things of that nature) and any outstanding debts. Anything left over would be distributed amongst the share holders since they're essentially just a bunch of rich gamblers playing an inherently risky game. It's not like this would happen overnight and they wouldn't have time to get out.

None of the distribution would apply to any members of the executive team, their salaries, bonuses, golden parachutes, stocks or what have you are forfeit as they are, essentially, the criminal minds behind the operation. Ideally, I'd like to see their personal assets seized, liquidated and redistributed along with the corporate assets.

In the case of technology companies who provide ongoing services to their customers, be it software patches or replacement parts; all source code, patents, design schematics, etc.. would be released into the public domain providing free market opportunities to service the markets that were left without support and/or provide competition to the remaining players in the market. This should result in plenty of players ready to service the departed corporation's customers rather rapidly.

Clients may have had long term contracts or what have you and would be forced to incur additional expenses as a result but that could just as easily have happen if the company declared bankruptcy or a disaster happened. With all info on the products now public they would have the option of bringing service in-house if they so chose.

Utility industries would be a bit more difficult to deal with but I'd prefer the state take them over with responsibility only to maintain the infrastructure while generating revenue by leasing access out to businesses who wish to compete for customers. Exceptions could be made to provide cheap or at cost service to other state entities (anything tax funded, basically).

Much of the above is execution, the jailing could simply involve the public domaining of their existing IP. The corporation is still in business but is now subject to full out competition and any client who no longer wishes to do business with "a felon" can rapidly make that choice without concern about product transition periods or expenses.

I'm (probably obviously) not an expert by any means or even an expert in training. I'm just another citizen with an opinion on how our society can be a better place.

If P2P has been an "underground" phenomenon where consumers were distributing "their" bandwidth to share files and ISPs have generally not been very happy about it; how do things change now that this new company wants to pay consumers to do the same thing for legal content so they can make a profit?

Commercial bandwidth is expensive and this company is basically saying they'll do an end run around having to pay for it by giving consumers what will no doubt be chump change while they pocket the rest.

It seems to me that consumers don't even have the right to be profiting off the bandwidth they are getting from their ISP because that's not the terms under which they agreed to use it. It's one thing to share but quite another to resell.

I think bandwidth caps are a load of crap as much as the next guy but this seems like a clear violation of the ISP's rights.

some kind of atomic monster with a canon in it's chest that can propel lemons at deadly velocities!

Very true.

  However, this would seem to be the very definition of how the free market is supposed to work. Customers want Internet based television; prefer it over cable/satellite.

  Consumers steadily begin to use the net more. Hulu can then begin to charge more for ads while broadcast TV stations lower their rates.

  I would think advertisers would prefer Hulu simply because their ads can not be skipped over and users can't just change the channel during the break. That suggests they can charge more for the ads in such a business model since the ads are more effective. End result, less ad volume (compared to broadcast TV) and happier viewers or the same ad volume with more profits.

  It seems the cable and satellite TV providers are the ones that lose here but why should NBC/FOX care about them? The cable providers are already in a favorable position as the access point for new media distribution. If TV as a service goes the way of the dodo then they are free to charge more for Internet access provided they ditch the stupid caps.

  As long as content providers keep trying to fight customer demand they will continue to miss out on the revenue opportunities that exist. As for copyright infringement, that'll always be around but they can minimize the impact it has by not driving consumers towards it out of an unwillingness to change.

If anyone wants to enter full Apple marketing land they can click this link to see the full list of "150 features".

  Some that popped out at me: They now seem to be adopting a few Google Chrome ideas such top of the window tabs and the search box now auto suggests sites as Google's browser does... didn't Google take a lot of fire for that? Will Apple allow you to turn it off?

  On the Windows side, they are now using standard Windows... windows (titlebar, scrollbar, etc..) to give it a more native appearance as well as native font rendering with Apple's font rendering still available as a toggle.

  They claim to have first browser support for HTML 5 offline and have integrated an sql-like database (that is user accessible and query-able) for holding everything that's needed to run advanced web apps offline.

You think Mac OS X has too much visual eye candy? Really?

  That's interesting because a lot of the Mac users I encounter think Mac OS X is very dull looking. My own system has the graphite appearance on (the one visual option Apple gives you) and that's just a lot of gray. Even the folders are a muted, flat blue-gray color in Leopard.

  I actually think Apple needs to crank it up to compete with Vista because that UI is visual tour de force in Aero mode. In basic mode, on the other hand, the UI just looks awful; awash in a hellish sea of oversized light blue gradient. That was Win 7 in a virtual appliance.

  I like the OS X use of animation but the overall "bling factor" is quite low.

You know you want to.