You're completely missing the point.

Nobody cares about a single codec. Someone makes a good proprietary codec ? Good for them !

The problem arises when it becomes a required base part of the web.

Remember the GIF debacle ? Remember that many open source image editor did not have the capability to save gif images ? That's exactly what is at stake here.
Have one company control a base standard of the web makes it control who can or cannot create the tools to create web content. Of course big players like Google or Mozilla have the funds to pay royalties, but what about that guy who made a simple command line tool to split/merge h264 videos ?

You can argue that the MPEG-LA has made the codec royalty free but truth is they can instantly make it illegal to open source any software using h264.

That's what the fuss is all about, not just throwing two bucks at a video codec.

Use a macbook air.
It's not gonna be dumb but should be light enough.

What you don't seem to hear in this argument is that Moore's law is only about manufacturing process. It has no direct impact on performance so there is no point in mentioning it as far as performance is involved.

What could be somewhat relevant would be a hardware architecture improvement vs software architecture improvements comparison.
History shows us that it is indeed more relevant like when Intel went from the Pentium 4 to the Pentium M (i.e. Pentium 3 with a vengeance) eventually leading to the Core architecture.

I sympathize with F.Ultra since it always irks me when someone talks about Moore's law in a discussion about processor speed.

The device is only a mean to get people to pay for applications...

Depending on your version of photoshop you could just run it natively using Wine.

I did just that with CS2 for like 3 years professionally. Works (almost) perfectly with just (very) minor window management issues if you're using compiz.

It wouldn't as a compromised machine would just need to wait until the db gets back online...

I for one won't have any good old days with this one.

Getting and installing the 64-bit flash plugin directly from adobe and not from the repository package fixed the non clickable flash issue for me.

Just though you might want to know. Plus there seems to be other ways to solve the problem.

Man, i wish i could distinguish the evil bits from the good ones...

And maybe using a camera. Guess you forgot all those spy movies from previous century :)

I believe you're the mistaken one. As adequately put by Virginie Despentes in her book King Kong Theorie, some ideas are so ingrained in our own culture that we end up failing to even see them in action. The most interesting part is that you accept those ideas even if they are detrimental to yourself just because "it's the way things go".

You can also think about The Matrix, ie. when you're part of a system you easily become blind to its limitations and can even come to defend them (becoming an agent).

To get back to your point, what i mean is it would be ok to acknowledge an portrayed idea, or some kind of interpretation of a piece, but not adhere to it. On the contrary, dismissing the idea as non existent or something like that does not reflect a better or more elaborate point of view.

More simply put, not seeing is bad, seeing but not caring is somewhat better.

Man, i wish i could mod you up !

You seem to be forgetting the open jdk ( http://openjdk.java.net/ ).

Of course when you introduce a new type of warning, it will show up a lot in any kind of big project. Developpers didn't have feedback about this particular warning before so they didn't code according to it. Once they start being notified, they will (hopefully) produce code that won't cause this warning and therefore it won't be as common.