Applets got a (mostly undeserved) reputation for being slow and unwieldy and a (mostly deserved) reputation for having security/runtime issues. Javascript lacks a ton of the features flash/silverlight have, isn't really all that fast, and making it cross browser compatible can be a real bear.

Whats the problem with Silverlight other then you don't like the company that made it? It's fast, secure, full featured, and works just fine in all the browsers people actually use.

Every single bit of Silverlight works perfectly on the mac except for one proposed feature (com) that nobody is going to use. I'd hardly call that "marginally" working.

I really don't see why everybody is acting like the sky is falling over this. The level of cross platform compatibility is not changing in any significant way. Virtually nobody is going to use the Windows only com automation. It only works in a full trust out of browser Silverlight app. 99.5% of Silverlight use is in browser and of that remaining 0.5% most are partial trust apps. I can't think of why somebody with these requirements wouldn't just use WPF honestly.

Here's a more comprehensive listing of the changes to come.

Try developing some stuff in Silverlight and see if you can claim using the above technologies is anywhere near as fast/easy/reliable/etc with a straight face. XHTML+CSS is a huge pain in the ass compared to Xaml. Javascript is slower, harder to maintain, and has less features then C# + .Net. I've been a Silverlight developer for a year now and can't believe I used to use anything else.

I've had the exact opposite experience. The Silverlight Netflix player beats the crap out of every Flash based player (inc hulu) I've used.

The Xbox 360 can stream tv/movies/music using a Zune pass, tv/movies using a Netflix subscription, and it plays CDs/DVDs. You don't need to hack it at all.

Don't breed. I didn't and I have have sufficient extra time and money for travel without debt (aside from a fairly ordinary mortgage payment).

If your landlord finds water streaming out from under your doors into the hallway, s/he will go in and disable whatever water related appliance is causing the issue. Your right to flood your living space is superseded by everybody else's right to not be flooded. Similarly, if a computer application is causing wide spread problems for other people, I won't shed tears for people having that app taken away and a refund given. This sort of system can be abused, but as it is currently intended, it should be fine.

I'm no botanist, but I'm pretty sure most plants die if you cut all their leaves off. But yes I agree with your larger point. Unless a legitimate trade can be established, this will do nothing to stop the illegitimate trade.

Because Opera has decided to try to litigate thier way to market share. I generally try to avoid products that are promoted in that manner.

and you're 1/300 millionth the cause of this nations financial problems.

If everybody bitches about 100% of taxes and only 20% of expenditures, we'll still have 80% of the expenses which eventually we'll have to pay for. Only because we bitched about every tax, good taxes won't get passed significantly more then bad taxes.

Contrast that with a system whereby people bitch about 50% of expenditures and 50% of taxes. We would then have 50% of the expenses to be paid, and they would be funded by the 50% of the tax proposals that made sense and didn't get bitched about.

The amount the government spends is based on the number of projects people approve. Trying to starve the government into inaction by complaining about taxes will just give you a screwed up tax system, a lot of debt, and no appreciable reduction in spending.

Hence my recommendation that we start complaining about the government spending money. The fact remains that the government does some worthwhile things that we need to fund. Taxes such as this carbon one are a sensable way of funding them. Categorically complaining about every tax and not complaining about many real expenditures is what has caused us to be so debt ridden.

[Citation Needed]

The articles argument is flawed. As I read it, the argument went thusly:

1) By 2015 the carbon price will be about $15/ton
2) United States currently emits about 9 billion tons of CO2 per year
3) The United states carbon output will not change as a result of this legislation
4) 2+3 -> In 2015, United States will emit about 9 billion tons of CO2 per year.
5) There will be about 300 million Americans in 2015
6) Any tax on carbon gets passed on directly to consumers who enjoy no financial benefit in return.
7) 4+5+6-> A group of 4 Americans will have an increased liability of $1800 annually as a result of this legislation

Several of these premises are false.

1- accepted
2- accepted
3 - Probably false though debatable
4- true/false depending on (3)
5 - accepted
6 - False. The taxed money isn't simply thrown in a hole and burned. The government will use that money and thereby reduce the need for other taxes or, more probably, use it to offset the rampant deficit spending already taking place. When the government does things (build roads, starts wars, provides social services, etc) that costs tax payers money. Unless a government is building a large surplus for no reason, taxes do not cost people money. Tax systems just determine who has to pay what portion of the money already spent with the aforementioned projects (build roads, starts wars, provides social services, etc). In this case, everybody will pay some, but those whose actions negatively affect society pay an additional price for it and are thereby incentivized to lessen the harmful behavior. This sort of tax pays for the things we bought and encourages sustainable business practices to boot. A real win-win.

If you want to complain about something, complain whenever the government tries to spend money, not when it tries to collect it. Approving every proposed government project and then screaming bloody murder over every government tax is how got to have the budget problems we now have.