If I were going to troll you, I would have posted in all lower-case, called you names, and made unfounded assumptions about your character.

Nice job.

p.s. I'm quite liberal.

Sorry, but if you think making pot legal will stop organized drug crime in any way, you're mistaken. They'll continue to rake in money for pills, cocaine, opiates, underage girls, etc. They would likely even become more violent to protect those remaining assets after losing their pot income.

And if you think a pot tax is going to raise significant revenue, you're also mistaken. Especially when the market for illegal pot exists, with no taxes, and everyone who smokes it already knows where to get it that way. The criminal pot element will always exist. It even still exists with alcohol and cigarettes. People try to skirt taxes on everything all the time, buying across state borders or making their own.

The irony is that the same people who yell for pot taxation would be much of the same hypocrites still buying it on street corners to save a buck.

Like I said, heard it before.

I didn't make anyone decide to stick a weed in their mouth. No more than I put a gun in a robber's hand, or a pen in an investment banker about to make an illegal deal. People are responsible for their own actions. Just as people know what's legal and what's not.

People who willingly break the law are the problem. Especially when they do it for petty selfish reasons.

I know it's hard for you to grasp these simple concepts because you're so convinced that this is some matter of liberty or freedom, when in reality it's just someone who has a hard time coping with life who needs an artificial substance instead of facing their problems.

Besides, heard it all before, like I said. It's all broken record cookie-cutter responses at this point.

I know that there is a good number of people on the internet who don't want to hear it, but legalizing marijuana just so that you can get high is a pretty selfish thing to be expecting the president to deal with. There are, and have always been, way more important issues than sending that kind of nonsense to his desk.

If you want some kind of drug-related reform done, then it should focus on the system of punishment. Pot itself should stay illegal, because despite all the claims to the contrary, there is more than enough evidence to indicate that it has a negative impact on a person's health, mental well-being, and mental acuity. Alcohol is as well, but there's simply no chance in cutting society's ties to that particular substance (even though we see how damaging it can be). But the point is, pot is not exactly a serious crime in and of itself. Simple possession of a personal amount shouldn't warrant anything more than a fine. Unless someone is like a repeat offender for selling, or is selling/transporting large quantities (which would be more indicative of a stronger criminal element backing), then I can't see sending someone to prison for numerous years. Non-violent drug crime sentences should be reformed to not only free up overcrowded prisons, but to take the opportunity to actually reform some of these people. Get them skills, jobs, and a purpose. Standing on a street corner is not being a contributing member of society.

Medical marijuana use isn't included in what I've mentioned here, because normal people can't use that. The people who abuse prescriptions to get it, however, should be treated just the same as anyone obtaining any other drug illegally.

I now expect to hear the standard rhetoric of why I'm wrong and that pot is good and safe and why people should be allowed to use it, and/or that I'm ignorant and just don't understand, but trust me, I've heard it all before.

In other words, the internet has a guilty conscience for expressing such a sad display of blubbering over Jobs, a man who was well known to be a world-class selfish asshole regardless of any accomplishments under his belt.

I think it's disrespectful that suddenly so many people are showing such mock interest in a man who they normally wouldn't give a shit about. What a ridiculous society we live in, that they use a man's death to justify prior overreactions.

If every important technology figure who dies from this point forward doesn't get the same respectable coverage that Dennis Ritchie has, then they only further disrespect him by proving my point.

I don't understand what your point is.

I've been buying video cards since long before ATI and Nvidia were the only choices. Or before 3D was standard, for that matter. Everything from Trident, to Voodoo, to Matrox. I still remember when Nvidia came along and was a joke compared to anything 3dfx made. Then in the end, Nvidia ended up buying them out. Times change.

So my point still stands. Before Nvidia's huge faulty GPU blunder, when they had a better card for a better price, that's what people should have probably gotten over ATI. Today, if people feel safe buying from Nvidia still, and if Nvidia actually makes a better card, then that's fine too. But trust plays a huge part into a purchase, equally so as bang for buck. Intel and AMD haven't done anything shitty like that to their consumers. Even if Bulldozer is a total failure of a product, at least people know that up front. It's not defective, it's just not up to par.

You pretty clearly didn't read the cards tested. The Radeon 6990 wasn't on the Ultra page.

Once again we see that the top tier Nvidia is priced wayyyy over the top Radeon, but performs way worse.

I don't understand why there's so much brand fanboyism with computers. This would obviously indicate that it makes sense to buy Radeon if you want your money's worth, since this holds true down to the lower performance cards as well. It's basically been this way for years. Yet, oppositely, Intel has been blowing away AMD's processors for a while now, so you get your money's worth by buying in that direction for that particular product. It just makes sense.

Besides, after the way Nvidia shit all over their loyal fans with that GPU debacle, I'll have a hard time trusting them again, as should anyone else. There are still video cards and laptops floating around out there, particularly on Ebay, which are just waiting to die on some unsuspecting second-hand consumer. I'm always having to warn people about buying anything used with Nvidia products in them until they do their research. Not everyone I know was so lucky though, because I still have a perfectly good laptop laying here with just a dead Nvidia graphics chipset in it, which they gave to me out of disgust when it died immediately after their warranty period expired.

Brand loyalty doesn't do you any good if you're in second place. Or worse, when you're stuck with dead equipment. Look at benchmarks, do some research, and buy what's best for the price. That's the point of PCs vs Apple: we can put any brand of product in it for any aspect of operation to achieve the best performance at a good price. It's silly to do anything otherwise.

I think some people have made a bigger deal out of this than need be, because they're implying some kind of malicious intent when there is likely none.

Yes it's a big deal, particularly if a website is passing sensitive information in say an HTTPS GET request, and you're looking at that site on like public wifi or a school network or something where it's easy to snoop on others' traffic. But the intention was to check if their Webzine feature would work with the site (which is an interesting feature, just not one I really use), not harvest your web browsing history. It just wasn't thought through at all. In fact, I would go as far as say that whoever implemented the feature is a bonehead, because the security implications are obvious. They're going to have to take their knocks on this one.

That being said, I love their browser, and one blunder isn't enough to make me throw it to the curb. I don't trust my private data over an insecure network connection to begin with, so this was less of an issue for me (assuming their own servers weren't breached, allowing someone to snoop). I use OpenVPN when I want to do something "important." If I were to want to browse openly though, I'd either clear the cookies first, or I'd just use a separate browser (Opera is usually my alternate) where I'm not logged into anything. That'd be fine for just Googling or Wikipedia searches.

Anyway, they aren't the first company to make a big mistake. They won't be the last.

You know why they're doing this, right? For years, the only thing that has really made Mozilla Corp. any money is their Google partnership. In fact, they got a little greedy over the years because of it, and have really whored Firefox out with lots of changes primarily to lure in people, and rushed out versions to look competitive with other browsers (sometimes even dropping features just to meet unnecessarily rushed release dates), to the point that they turned it into the same bloated mess which was the origin of the product to begin with (breaking away from the bloated Mozilla Suite). And their users noticed, and they complained. Mozilla mostly ignored those people at first, giving this and that bogus reason, until it actually started to affect their dollar signs, so they put some effort towards cleaning up their mess of code a bit.

But the point is, Google has Chrome now. They don't really need to keep Mozilla afloat anymore with partnerships if they took a notion to. So Mozilla is scared of losing their allowance from big daddy Google. Instead, they've gotten in bed with the company which they trained people to hate for years to keep the money coming in.

I know that sounds harsh and trolling, but it's also the sad reality of what Mozilla Corp. has become. They've done a good job of turning their own user base against them so far, to the point that most of the people I know have already dumped it for Opera or Chrome. So let's see how this new partnership works out for what's left of their users.

How long until some Microsoft-hater-fueled group tries to get an injunction against this in somewhere like Europe, where they've had a much easier time pushing Microsoft around? That would hurt all of Microsoft's customers in Europe (aka, the majority of computer users there), because it would essentially eliminate all of Metro and a good portion of the cross-architecture functionality that they're building into the OS.

But hey, who cares about that, as long as you're keeping the playing field even for all of the other commercial operating systems! Except, you know, there aren't any for Microsoft to hurt, remember? OSX already integrates similar technology in its Dashboard widgets (not to mention Microsoft really isn't a threat for the kind of people who would use Apple to begin with.) And Linux isn't really a commercial product for desktop users, but could implement something similar any time they wanted. And let's not forget Chrome OS, the entirety of which IS a web browser, but also free so no competition problem there.

Just wait, somebody will try it, though, and there will be plenty of tech-retarded out there to back them up.

No, you seem to not understand Steve Jobs' role. And how that role was pretty much nothing.

Jonathan Ive's role was designing the iPhone. All of it, essentially, down to the materials that were going to be used to make it look as pretty and shiny as it does. Of course an actual engineering team designed its guts, but they already knew what to put in it.

Jonathan Ive received the award for the iPhone, and for most of the other Apple products, because he actually deserved it. Steve Jobs on the other hand received awards because most other people have no idea how a company works.

I dunno, if you call repackaging existing things with a pretty outside as taking a risk, then there's a lot of really innovative Chinese companies out there.

Don't worry, Jonathan Ive will still be coming up with plenty of new product designs like he always did, still made in the same low-quality Chinese manufacturing plants (by a company which most PC users acknowledge make junk PC parts), and sold by Tim Cook, who has been in charge for almost the last year already anyway.

Some people will miss Jobs for whatever reasons, but the company has already proven that it doesn't really need him around to yell at everybody.

Steve regularly took credit for things which other people did all the time. The people who came up with those things didn't like it very much, either.

The point is, though, many Apple fanatics have thought and continue to think that Steve Jobs was single-handedly responsible for designing most of the products at Apple. When the guy died, it was even more evident how misinformed the average person was. His book, however, can now finally help set things straight. Sure, the average Apple user will likely never read that either, or even comprehend the extent of what it reveals regarding Jobs' influence on actual product design, but the information is at least out there now in the man's own biography. Perhaps it will bring a few peoples' opinions back down to reality.