And Microsoft can remove the infringing feature without having to purchase a license to do so.

That's not a bug, it's a feature (for real). To their system, blah.blah@gmail.com is the same account as blahblah@gmail.com, and it was designed that way intentionally.

The mod community is GOOD for the industry. Haven't you ever heard of Counterstrike?

I believe he means non-Hollywood actor.

You fail to mention that you have to be good. With the ability to play good music, it becomes rather likely that someone who hears you play will go and show his friend some video of you playing and be like "Hey, look at this guy! He's really good!" It's called "word of mouth" and it's far more trustworthy than anything a record label could produce.

I'm not sure you have any idea what you're talking about.

You're comparing something that's highly rich in features, like Firefox, to an extremely bloated frontend. If it uses 75 megs of RAM to run something extremely simple, what do you think would happen with something just as complex as Firefox? Does extrapolation mean nothing to you?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Flickr pictures Creative Commons, for the most part? Doesn't that kinda defeat your point about needing performance rights for them?

And the domain was registered by GoDaddy... I find it hard to believe that Microsoft or Asus would use such a service.

Then perhaps they shouldn't try to pawn their creation through a medium which isn't designed to give them total control over their product.

You simply need a wire hanger.

http://blag.xkcd.com/2009/04/13/the-pursuit-of-laziness/

...who guarantees that a person who looks at drawn image of underage girls today won't look for photos tomorrow?

And why should we just assume that they will?

That same sort of slippery-slope argument could be used to ban any number of things. Who guarantees that someone buying a hammer isn't going to use it to murder their neighbor tomorrow? Who guarantees that someone buying a condom isn't going to go out and rape some woman tomorrow?

Why should an act which victimizes no one be banned because the person just might do something more sinister tomorrow?

If you want an in-game browser with tabs, Xfire has it (granted it's technically just displaying pages in an instance of IE, but whatever).

If you get screwed over by DRM and have the ability to unscrew yourself over (via cracking the game yourself), is that unethical?

Is it any more unethical to have someone else crack the game for you in order to do the same thing (this is assuming you own a protected copy of the game)?