+1 This. This is exactly what needs to be done.

My wallpaper folder have around 5000 images in a folder with zero organisation other than filename.

Isn't the problem here that Android aspires to be more like Windows than Linux?

Sun was the victim of the horrible management of a sub-par business model. Releasing the JS from GMail doesn't affect the business model because there is none other than reaping in maximum profit from displaying ads inline. Look at Mozilla, that's doing just fine and in fact expanding well within it's means to create a larger sustainable business model that is competing against larger more financially capable businesses.

That's what we've really been needing.

That the carriers want control of this. I'm not sure why the need to be involved to be honest. My using my phone to make a payment is a decision for me and my phone, it has nothing to do with the network. The networks are basically fearful that this pushes more power into the hands of the phone makers and want to try and prevent that. On one hand they're right that obviously a global powerhouse of security such as RIM will benefit from this hugely. But ultimately the buck should stop with the phone manufacturer. As best as I know, you can't remote wipe and set up ridiculous security on SIMs, you can on phones.

What features would you like to see removed?

Do people not understand the meaning of beta? Mozilla are fixing around 10 bugs a day in trunk. If this was RC, there'd at least be half a point here. But this is retarded flamebait, you should all be ashamed of yourself. A few points: Application button versus alt+[letter]: I generally use my mouse more than shortcut keys. Chrome versus Firefox: I like things like feeds and history drop downs Target location in URL bar: Took a while to get used to but I like the change Status bar versus Addon bar: I like the ability to customise Chrome is a nice browser for some people and it's a good third alternative for me. But I don't feel it fits my needs. Everyone should make a choice based on their own preferences rather than attempting to validate their choices on a public forum like this to make up for their own shallow existences.

An Addon for this is already out: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/235283/

They'll be wherever you want them to be. Either on the Addon bar or on the navigation bar.

All the stuff that you're referring to. TV, iPod, etc, etc aren't even effected. Very little is effected by this. It only means that when surfing, if a site provides raw video using the VIDEO tag, your browser will either play it or it won't. In some cases, sites will have a fallback of flash. You'll barely notice the change. Apple will still opt for H.264 on ipods. And so will DVD/Blueray producers.

No it isn't. I'd rather not pay the fee at all. The only BBC show I've watched since paying my fee is Top Gear. That's once a week and it doesn't last the whole year. On top of that, the BBC pimps the show off to stations like Dave and Blighty. How is that worth my money. The only good thing about the fee is that some of it goes towards Channel 4 who do actually produce content I want and watch but even then, I watch most of that on 4oD anyway. The license fee is antiquated and should be abolished. Let's see how the BBC far when they have to balance their books.

Which is why I'm that much more baffled over their 'beef' with Yahoo in regards to Yahoo Mail. They really need to sort that out, it's annoying.

Correction: That was HTML5 (JS, audio and Canvas) on whichever systems could hack it. Flash was the fall-back.