This is the correct and obvious answer. This isn't 1997, when you had to specifically download a browser on a desktop computer when you decided you wanted to try out the information superhighway. Every single phone/tablet/laptop/desktop ships with a built-in browser today, and zero of them ship with Firefox. Every device ships with some version of Chrome or some version of Safari. You have to really, really want Firefox, and even when you do, it's basically for desktop, which is already a smaller market than mobile. Unless Mozilla tries again to create its own mobile platform that will magically compete with Android, it's just going to die a slow death. It doesn't matter how good Firefox is. It doesn't matter how much it listens to its users. Unless 10s of millions of people decide Chrome or Safari doesn't cut it, they'll never even try Firefox.

Exactly. Zoom won because it's OSS.

ESPN3.com (formerly ESPN360.com) has always blocked ISPs that don't pay for the streaming service. It has never been free. For example, if you have Comcast, you can watch the streams. If you have Time Warner, you cannot, since Time Warner doesn't pay for the service. But, they let you log into your ISP account from another network in order to watch the streams, too. So, if you have Comcast at home but not at work, you can still log into ESPN3 with you Comcast account from work and watch the streams.

ESPN has never said this is a free service for anyone who wants to watch. Not sure why this is on Slashdot.

"Cameras are in common use. This doesn't give the cops the right to set one up to look inside your house through a pinhole in your curtains. If they attempt to look inside the house, in any way, with any technology that ever comes up, without a warrant this is a violation of your expectation of privacy and they should be locked up. Not disciplined, but subject to the exact same penalties as if I put a camera in the bathroom of a woman's house."

That's because the police are not allowed to invade your home's curtilage (area directly around the home). Peeking through the curtains invades the two inches directly in front of your window. However, if do not draw your curtains, there's nothing to prevent the police from using a camera with a telescopic lens to spy on you from across the street. As Kyllo noted, the police can fly helicopters in the airspace over your house and use magnifying cameras to take pictures of the top of your greenhouse in order to discover the pot you're growing, despite the fact you've put up ten foot fences around the green house (all without a warrant). Because the police are not invading your curtilage, they're allowed to do it.

Kyllo confronted a different issue: you normally feel like you are protected from invasion of privacy when people don't have technology that defeats your efforts to protect your privacy. Five hundred years ago, if you didn't want someone to spy through your window, you could build a moat. Then the telescopic lens was invented. How do you defeat that? The amazing technology that is curtains. But Scalia was saying that in 2001, most people didn't have thermal imagining scanners, so you didn't have to worry about others scanning your house. It was reasonable to believe that information was private. That's why Kyllo won his case.

To go back to the author of this article's question, yes, the Supreme Court's ruling is still sound. If thermal imaging scanners are in general use by the public today, then you and I do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding our thermal emanations. So, if the police used a thermal imaging device today, the evidence gets admitted (if the technology is in general use).