Remember why Firefox succeeded in the first place? While Mozilla suite and all its incarnations were dying a slow death?

Because it was mean and lean and barebones.
And had an extension system to add extra functionality for those who wanted to add stuff.

Nowdays? It's slow and bloated. It includes a dictionary. It includes Web developer tools, Responsive design mode, Remote debugging. It includes a bloody inline PDF reader for $DEITY sake! Really, you think absolutely EVERYBODY wants all of that?? And Firefox now is on its way to include AI bloat in its monolithic codebase (also; there is no way such highly polarized subject could backfire if installed by default without opt-out possibility, right?)

It's trying it's best to be monolithic everything AND a kitchen sink again. It's trying to become Mozilla suite again. At this point, I'm amazed they aren't trying to merge it with Thunderbird into one monolithic product again. Perhaps even add an office suite and graphic editor and package it all in one monolithic package! Really?! The fact that I must warn that it was distopian sarcasm there unless someone at Mozilla approves such idea is telling a lot.

Please turn direction 180 degrees back to its origins. Put only absolute minimal stuff needed for opening a web page into core Firefox. Put EVERYTHING else in Addons/Extensions. Offer to install them on first run if you think they are soooo great, fine. I'd even live (but hate) if you silently preinstalled them if you really must, but absolutely let me easily uninstall EVERYTHING you installed but barebones webpage renderer, URL bar, and (maybe) a back button.

Let me quote some Antoine de Saint-Exupéry for you: "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
Words to live by.

well, over here, employer can put it in your contact that you're not allowed to work in competing company for up to two years after you quit, but they have to continue paying you at least 50% of salary you had while you were working there. And that clause becomes null and void if you are laid off (or your ex-employer agrees to pay you 100% of your salary), or if you quit without notice due to employer gross misconduct, or if such ban would unproportionally burden your further work and carrer.

And Croatia is not really the country you would call very protective of the slaves^Wworking class.

Except, in most countries (like most of EU and USA) you as an author CANNOT release the code into public domain (unless you die, stay dead for 70-90 years, and hope copyright protection does not extend in that time, which is a hope against current trend of practically infinite copyright). For example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_in_the_United_States

That is totally incorrect. It is the copyright that places restrictions (remember "all rights reserved" phrase?). If there was no license at all, standard copyright would be in effect and you would have no right to copy, modify, translate, etc. work at all (except as governed under fair use and similar exceptions).

The license is actually copyright holder GIVING UP some of his/her copyright protections, sometimes (but not always, see WTFPL for example) in exchange for some other promise on users side (for example, proprietary licenses might allow you to to make 5 copies of some program IF you agree to give them e-mail to spam you; or GPL might allow you to copy that program without limits IF you agree you'll also allow others makes copies of your derived work, etc.)

So, authors should excercise their moral rights (at least here in Europe, they're inalienable rights of authors enshrined in copyright law) and sue publishers for mutilating their works deliberately.

I'll second http://gwene.org/

It will turn any RSS to newsgroup, and you can read those with any NNTP newsreader (for which I already have setup .newsrc syncing between accounts).

I guess by use of VPNs, as it works now (see http://btguard.com/, https://www.ipredator.se/ etc). So essentially it won't get sold, but rented (it might get rented for indefinite amount of time for fixed one-time price, though - depending on the bussiness model chosen). Of course, your latency will go up compared to normal IPv4, but hey...

Also, you CAN transfer an IP range, and not just give it up.
See for example https://www.arin.net/resources/request/transfers.html, but other RIRs have similar policies. You just agree with potential customer that you'll transfer part of your IPs to them after they make a payment to you. So while you're not technically selling them IPs, practically you are (you're transfering them your IPs only after they give you their money). But it would be more "gray" than "black" market...

Still, about half of the Europe (as in the continent) is not in GMT+1, but in GMT, GMT+2, and GMT+3.

Hence my remark that your claim "Europe is in GMT+1" shows as much elitism and unawareness of timezones, as you accuse the OP of.
Just pointing out your hypocrisy, no need to get so upset about it :)

(and you'd be amazed how many people in those other timezones there are - way way more then in just the example city of Moscow. But I'll leave finding that number as a homework, you might learn few things about Europe in a process)

Yes, there always needs to be some incentive to force them to make a change. However, a market itself will be force enough to force it. Not yet though for those looking only on short-term (and hence losing market in the long term) - I guess it will be at least two to three years before interesting stuff appears on internet as IPv6-only, and IPv4-only people will not be able to get to those. But from that moment onward, it will start hitting such IPv4-only ISPs harder and harder every day with customers leaving for ISPs that lets them see "whole Internet" without blackholes.

You know, there are quite big parts of Europe which are *not* in CET timezone.
In fact, most populous city in Europe is in GMT+3 (MSK), not GMT+1 (CET)...

Sure, there is possibility for such a black market of reselling IPv4 address space to happen, but I don't think it will happen (at least not much).
It is not even expected that people will be giving back their pools of IPv4 addresses, much less that anything depends on it at this time. In fact it may even be counterproductive on wasting time to return IPv4 pools by now.

IPv6 is going to be more and more present and value of IPv4 lower and lower. And even people with IPv6-only would probably have means to access IPv4-only networks, with their ISPs (or other third parties) providing IPv4 connectivity via NAT64, DS-Lite and other solutions (so they wouldn't be likely to shell out big bucks for IPv4 VPNs on black market)

NAT-PT was obsoleted due to quite a few problems, see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4966

Anyway, you would still need support for both IPv6 and NAT-PT on router appliance (and if you have working IPv6 on it, you can run dual stack quite easily on most OSs and many devices already). And NAT-PT was only intended as temporary IPv4 to IPV6 transition mechanism, not as "solution" anyway. So you'd have to do transition sooner or later anyway.

However, if you insist on leaving local network on IPv4 (which will actually make your problems worse as time goes by, but whatever, your choice) you can implement 4to6 (see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2473) instead of NAT-PT.

But I really would recommend some other transition method - either classic Dual stack, or perhaps DSlite or NAT64+DNS64.

See http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml
224/8 to 239/8 are actually used for multicast. We use them in our company for example (makes for *great* bandwidth saver for media streamings and stuff)
240/8 to 255/8 (so called E-classes in old days) however were "reserved for future use".

The problem with reusing them is exactly what you state -- way too many firewalls and routers around the world drops those, and so they are effectively unusable for global (Internet) routing - you would need to fix the whole world before you could safely use them (who'd want IPv4 adresses that won't work on 99% of the Internet?), and apparently fixing the whole world is much much more complicated than just deploying IPv6.

that one didn't work, it was actually http://winmedia.merit.edu/arin

While those are tehnically correct, they are irrelevant really. Watch http://www.ipv4depletion.com/?page_id=326, current rate of burning IPv4 address space is about 1.5 /8 (called "A-class" in good ol' pre-CIDR days) per month. So even if they didn't reserve even *single IP* for 127.0.0.1, nor for private class A,B,C nor /16 for AutoIP; you'd still only extend the IPv4 deadline for what, less than two months?

Even if none of the E-classes (240-255 /8) were reserved, you would get less than additional year (you can play nice what-if IPv4 endgame results with the tool at http://www.ipv4depletion.com/?page_id=77 )

And given that the industry quite cheerfully ignored IPv6 for more than a decade, I think that one can say with surety that just one threatening anonymous call to, say, cisco CEO would've helped waaaay more :-)

Yes, that is exactly why there was a (completely ignored, of course) warning about 7 years ago that is last moment to start implementing IPv6 in devices, so that when 2010 came, all legacy IPv4-only devices would be dead.

But did they listen? Noooo... But that is not the end of the world. People will just buy more new IPv6 enabled equipment than they would normally and throw away their old stuff (we all love this consumerist society, yes?), and we'll be running IPv4+IPv6 for some time before IPv4-only sites start to become unreachable without hacks anyway.

But due to ignoring the problem for the last decade, there *will* be some pain and expenses which could've easily been avoided. For example, if companies started demanding 8 years ago that all new routers/etc they buy must be IPv6 enabled, all their old stuff would be replaced by now with no additional expense. As they didn't, they'll have to shell out some extra monies and upgrade their hardware much sooner than their useful life is over.

Maybe that will teach companies to listen to techies in the future (yeah, right)