I doubt its about cleaning up the comments section.

AOL, the parent company of HuffPo, is currently refocusing its business on driving ad sales.

In line with its ambitions to become a platform for live broadcasting and programming, the company also said that it had acquired Adap.tv, a video advertising company that allows purchases across the Internet and on television. The cost was $405 million.

“AOL is a leader in online video, and the combination of AOL and Adap.tv will create the leading video platform in the industry,” Tim Armstrong, AOL’s chairman and chief executive, said in a statement. “The Adap.tv founders and team are on a mission to make advertising as easy as e-commerce, and the two companies together will aggressively pursue that vision.”

It's no secret that HuffPo is doing quite badly at selling ads.

When The Huffington Post’s weekly iPad magazine Huffington transitioned from a pay model to free last August, advertising was intended to sustain the tablet-native title, as consumers had resisted paying for it.

Almost a year postlaunch, it looks like advertisers are rejecting it, too.

A review of six recent issues found just one sponsor, for United Healthcare. Most issues feature a couple of promotions for HuffPost apps but no outside ads.

This part is the speculation. HuffPo has an audience, but can't sell ads. What is it that will bring advertisers to them? Targeted ads. But you can only target your ads if you know who is reading your page. How do you then convince your audience to register instead of browsing anonymously? By removing anonymous posting.

Plausible?

I don't see the distinction. OEMs already can (and do) customise Android. If the customisations go even further than that, essentially every OEM will be producing their own fork of Firefox, all of which will be incompatible with that of other OEMs. This will likely mean every OEM has its own small pool of proprietory apps. I don't see how that can compete with the iOS or Android ecosystem.

I'm not even going into the horror of how to manage upgrades.

Further, what's in it for the customer, the actual user of the phone? OEM customised experiences tend to be viewed as restrictive and loathed by their users (just see what Samsung users say about Touchwiz, HTC users about Sense, Motorola users about MotoBlur etc..). The demand for Nexus and stock Android phones also suggests that heavy OEM customisation is not popular.

Or, maybe they realised they made a mistake after the purchase.

LG seems extremely hesitant, and even confused about its future plans for the OS. Asked how webOS could be used to create "disruptive" smart TV products absent any of the content deals that have thus far stunted TV innovation, LG CTO Dr. Skott Ahn simply said that he believes "the environment will change from an app environment to a web environment." Further asked to name the core benefit of the webOS platform for smart TVs, Dr. Ahn simply remained silent for 10 seconds, prompting LG's North American VP of smart TV Samuel Chang to add that "we're at the nascent stage" of smart TV development.

Granted this is all hearsay and subjective. But if LG bought webOS and found that it did not suit their needs, and their mobile strategy requires a separate platform from iOS and Android, that might push them towards early adoption of FirefoxOS.

From the same link you posted:-

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has caused a storm of controversy by saying in a television interview that the people of Egypt should not look to the United States Constitution when drafting their own governing document because it’s too old and there are newer examples from which to draw inspiration. ...
“Yes,” she concluded, “why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?”

No, Justice Ginsburg simply stated that there were more modern sources of legislation you can use as a sample when you want to draft a constitution today. Note the context. Her comment was not directed at the values embodied in the US Constitution. She most certainly did not say the US Constitution was bad.

The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, using the language of that time. Are you saying that constitutions drafted today should use the same language?

Your innuendo is misleading and deceptive.

Point 1. You do realise of course, contracts which are illegal or provide for illegal activities are void in most jurisdictions and cannot be enforced. For example, if A contracts with B to kill someone for money, A cannot sue B to force him to carry out the murder, nor can B sue A to pay up once the murder is committed. So saying 'Snowden had a contract and he broke it' means nothing.

Point 2. Your argument is specious. People who work in the courts, the Justice department, the AG's chambers etc can and often do make mistakes. Sometimes, they carry out acts which are against the law i.e. illegal which is why so many cases go before the Supreme Court on appeal. Some laws even when passed may violate for example the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land and are struck down by the courts.

My point is, saying "if the legal system itself is doing something, how can it be illegal" does not make any sense.

Parent post speaks the truth.

Fact: Obama has come out swinging in support of the surveillance programs. He should be held responsible for it.

Also fact: Politicians from both parties, GOP and Dems created and voted in the laws that allowed the surveillance programs. They supported the surveillance programs and continue to support it. They should also be held accountable for it.

My point is that Obama is just a figurehead. Don't focus all your anger on him and lose sight of the fact that there is a whole bunch of politicians of all stripes behind him cheering him on. Im sure they would love it if you scapegoat Obama and let them walk free.

True. But I wonder how long will it be before the researchers apply the same techniques to analyse block by block the political beliefs of the residents. It may even be hyper accurate if you assume quote reasonably that :-

1. those who tweet about their political beliefs tend to be more passionate about it and are more likely to vote; and
2. those who don't are apathetic to politics and are less likely to vote.

If they can gauge something as subjective as 'happiness', gauging something more definite like the voting predisposition of the residents of an area would appear to be a simpler task.

Well, there you go. =)

Is it time to panic now?

So? These things you typed out so laboriously, are obviously the other triggers.

Let me link the relevant part from the link I posted.

Of course, Tunisians didn't need anyone to tell them this. But the details noted in the cables -- for example, the fact that the first lady may have made massive profits off a private school -- stirred things up. Matters got worse, not better (as surely the government hoped), when WikiLeaks was blocked by the authorities and started seeking out dissidents and activists on social networking sites.

I stated, "The details in the released cables was one of the triggers that sparked the Tunisian revolution." Nothing you said contradicts what I posted.

Interesting whitewash.

The details in the released cables was one of the triggers that sparked the Tunisian revolution. Maybe not new or important to you, but I imagine the Tunisians would beg to differ.

Lets see, his partner Mr. Greenwald (the one actually reporting on Snowden) thinks :-

Mr Greenwald said the British authorities' actions in holding Mr Miranda amounted to "bullying" and linked it to his writing about Mr Snowden's revelations concerning the US National Security Agency (NSA).

He said it was "clearly intended to send a message of intimidation to those of us who have been reporting on the NSA and [UK intelligence agency] GCHQ".

He told the BBC police did not ask Mr Miranda "a single question" about terrorism but instead asked about what "Guardian journalists were doing on the NSA stories".

Intimidating the 'enemy' seems to be the point.

The fact that its reported as a Level 1 incident is not reassuring, actually.

The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES) seems to be highly subjective :-

As INES ratings are not assigned by a central body, high-profile nuclear incidents are sometimes assigned INES ratings by the operator, by the formal body of the country, but also by scientific institutes, international authorities or other experts which may lead to confusion as to the actual severity.

And also, under Criticisms :-

Deficiencies in the existing INES have emerged through comparisons between the 1986 Chernobyl disaster and 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster. Firstly, the scale is essentially a discrete qualitative ranking, not defined beyond event level 7. Secondly, it was designed as a public relations tool, not an objective scientific scale. Thirdly, its most serious shortcoming is that it conflates magnitude with intensity.

This is an interesting point you raised. Can you cite any law or cases to show that internet users can only download something off the internet if they have a reasonable expectation of legitimacy regarding that object?

I ask this out of genuine curiosity, as I have not been able to locate anything of that sort at all.

In the absence of such legal precedent, your assumption would appear to be invalid.

Hublan is right, actually. Let me make this as clear as I can. If you are sued for defamation in England, the burden of proof lies on you to prove that the person you called a paedophile, was in fact a paedophile. The alleged paedophile can just sit back and watch you flounder. If there is no evidence from either party, you will generally be found guilty of defamation.

Show me where I claimed UEFI has been cracked.

And FYI, Secure Boot is not the same thing as UEFI. If you disagree, take it up with MS.

And lastly, look at the title of TFA I linked. It says, oh "Microsoft ‘Secure Boot’ Cracked".