Works for me. Press alt-enter.
YMMV depending on the game, maybe?

*Some* of the laws they have bought (retroactive copyright extension is the one that immediately pops into mind) are objectionable and illegitimate (IMO).. but wholesale copying of copyright protected (taking into account my above distaste for retroactive copyright extension) songs? Yeah, that should be illegal, and those who choose to do it should be punished appropriately ($250K / song is disproportionate for noncommercial copying.. but $750.. I think that's reasonable).

Which means - and to my understanding, the RIAA was actually quite clear on this - they will still file lawsuits related to cases already in progress, but will not begin any new cases against new individuals.

And even still.. I believe the RIAA said they reserve the right to begin filing lawsuits again in the future.

Either way.. so long as the lawsuits they file are legitimate (ie. the person being sued actually broke the law) I, personally, have no problem with it..

If I have ad blocking software installed, that means I don't want to see ads (unless I explicitly approve them).
If I have script blocking software installed, that means I don't want to run scripts (unless I explicitly approve them).

How difficult is that to understand?

I don't care if the Noscript developer relies on ads for revenue. If I have ad blocking software installed, I don't want to see ads, period.. that doesn't mean "except on noscript's site, of course!". If the Noscript developer doesn't like that, it's too fucking bad.

This behaviour is disgraceful, and Noscript should be blocked by Mozilla (is this possible? Or, at least, not hosted on their site..) because at this point, it's clearly malware.

letting users choose.

Oh, wait.. we can already do that.

PDAs/Smartphones which have the desired functionality have existed for many years before the iPhone/iPod touch.
And using C# with the .NET compact framework is much nicer than developing for the iPhone (background processes, yeah!)

and if the guy he named is a fag.. no harm (ie. libel) done either..

Should be labelled as "adult material".

As I said.. the prices are ought of whack. $15 for a 10GB plan for light users seems more reasonable. For basic surfing (no online gaming, limited use of streaming media, and no P2P downloads) this is more than sufficient - and at a price lower than what many people who need this level of service are currently paying.

Definitely disappointing, but not surprising.
The problem is, residential broadband networks were never designed to handle the uses many people make of them nowadays (particularly due to P2P) - there are some heavy users who transfer terabytes of (sometimes of dubious legality) information every month.. it is unreasonable for these people to pay the same price as someone who just checks their e-mail and sends photos to their grandchildren.

The caps and prices here are quite unacceptable - double the cap and half the price, and maybe we're talking..

So long as they license it on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.. is there an issue?
An open standard need not be a free (beer) standard..

I don't know if people are intentionally ignorant.. or just plain stupid.
Distributing (what Tannenbaum is charged with) != downloading!!

And so.. in order to calculate the actual damages.. we'd need to know the actual number of times he distributed the files to someone else.. and there really is no way of determining that.

Talking about how much it would cost to do so suggests this?

As far as I'm concerned, MS should win this case - I haven't seen anything that would suggest MS defrauded customers.. only that some uneducated customers had expectations different of what Vista Capable meant from what it actually did. I have not seen anything that - since the program was publicly announced - suggests the certification requirements changed.

MS clearly spelled out what "Vista Capable" and "Premium Ready" meant. If customers chose not to read this information, it is nobody's fault but their own.

they want their antitrust claim back.

Seriously, Firefox is up to more than 20% marketshare. IE doesn't have a monopoly.

Probably because it's in the best interests of their clients. Yes, public education is a stated goal of their campaign.. and these videos may have a benefit to that. But not by much - as these legal proceedings in and of themselves do not make for particularly compelling watching.

On the other hand, these videos would also assist defence lawyers arguing against the RIAA. There's also the potential for a 30-second sound byte of an RIAA spokesperson saying something stupid appearing on the 6 o'clock news. And the potential to pull short clips out of context (a la negative political ads).

On the whole, I think it's understandable but disappointing for the RIAA to be opposing this.