>> Wasn't Amazon AWS not long ago banning Parler off their cloud when they decided they didn't like Parler's political leanings?

>Parler violated Amazon's terms of service against hateful content.

Theyâ(TM)re the same picture.

Here is the actual text of claim 1 from the US patent. The other claims are dependent (i.e., are narrower in scope). The patent examiner found that the claim here is for something novel and non-obvious, which may be true. It may also be true however, that what is claimed is not what CSP actually does, in which case CSP would not be infringing this claim.

A method of preventing unwanted code execution in a client/server computing environment executing a client-side script by an internet browser, said internet browser comprising functions, objects and properties, and their instances, wherein the client/server computing environment comprises at least one server-side resource in network communications with the internet browser, wherein the internet browser receives the script from at least one script source and executes the script, wherein the at least one script source includes any one or combination of: messages received from the at least one server-side resource in response to requests made by the internet browser; the script entered by a user of the internet browser through a debug console; the script entered by a user through the internet browser address bar; the script contained in third party browser add-ons attached to the browser; and the script retrieved from a local storage device, the method comprising:
        determining safe and at risk or restricted portions of the internet browser, wherein at least one of the portions of the internet browser comprises instances of the functions, objects and properties;
        determining at least one of the at least one server-side resource to be a trusted resource;
        determining trusted and untrusted portions of the script wherein trusted script includes script contained in messages received from the trusted resource using the network communications, and untrusted script refers to script received from untrusted script sources;
        receiving, by the internet browser, from the trusted resource at least one message using the network communications containing one or more passwords; and
        in response to the receiving, preventing, by the internet browser, unwanted code execution by:
                re-writing said at risk portions of the internet browser to require presentation of the one or more passwords to the internet browser in order for the internet browser or any script to execute said at risk portions, wherein re-writing is executed during runtime of the internet browser and includes altering the internet browser by a rewriter program executing in the internet browser,
        wherein the trusted resource includes the one or more passwords within each messages containing trusted script sent to the internet browser using the network communications subsequent to the at least one message, in order that the trusted script contained in the each messages is permitted to execute said at risk portions of the internet browser.

Yes - you are right - I've fixed that now. Though it didn't alter the overall conclusions but an embarrassing mistake none the less!

No extra cost to warming [...] Sea level is rising as we warm up from the little ice age, and much land is subsiding.

Whatever the cause, we would need to mitigate sea level rises with measures such as relocation or sea walls, all of which are costly. The best available science points to AGW as the cause of the rise, and therefore it makes sense to pay for the mitigation with AGW sources.

it benefits agriculture and humans do well in warmth, much better than cold.

The problem is that the "warming" is an average of far wilder fluctuations in weather. The earth doesn't just get uniformly a bit warmer, and the localized effects can be devastating. More importantly, even if a bit of warming is beneficial on the average, continuing the trend - especially past a certain threshold into a feedback loop of uncontrollable warming - is obviously foolish. Unless you claim to know exactly how much greenhouse gasses we can release into the atmosphere for best effect, it would be prudent to not find out the hard way.

Pollution from cars--hmm, not much lately since the advent of catalytic converters.

"Today’s on-road vehicles produce over a third of the carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides in our atmosphere", says the Union of Concerned Scientists. The bottom of that article discusses the pollution's effects on public health.

According to the CPI Inflation Calculator, 18.3 cents today is worth about 11 cents in 1993, so a loss of around 40%, not 75%. But your point stands.

Because a good deal of the cost of gasoline has been externalized. Below are some examples:

1. The efforts of the US Navy to maintain peace in the middle east shipping lanes. The US consumed some 134 billion gallons of gasoline in 2013, and the budget of the US Navy is about $150 billion. It's reasonable to assume that a few cents per gallon should be charged to help pay for the Navy.
2. The increased incidences of respiratory diseases due to air pollution. Medical care is expensive in the US, and things that harm public health should at the very least help pay for it.
3. The costs of global warming.

Obviously, gasoline is not the sole driver of these, but it makes sense to better account for the true cost of using gasoline. Note that the gasoline tax has not changed in absolute terms since 1993, which means it's lost about 40% of its value to inflation.

This isn't to say that the 12 cent proposal is fair, or that sharply increasing gasoline prices is wise, but that a gradual increase to match its true cost is sensible.

Google basically was/is the sole supporter of Mozilla anyway.