Which, even despite I'm in one of the attacked countries, does not make me happy.

Rather odd way at looking at things. Denying defensive weaponry and other things to build up a resistance surely is an effective way to resolve a conflict. Because then it cannot even be called a conflict; if there's only one properly armed side, how can you call it a conflict?

If you however think there is someone who is defending himself, and has a right to defend himself, just help or don't interfere. Imposing a weapon import embargo on a state that cannot defend itself means its citizens will be "dealt with" by the other side.

When comparing things to the other wars, people seem to miss one important thing: insurgents in Libya have insisted that there is, really, no division among Libyans. In that way, the situation is unlike the one in Yugoslavia: supporters of Gaddafi are "artificially" separated from insurgents. Not by difference of tradition, difference of language, difference of customs, but by their opinions of the current leader. Is there a religious difference, as in Iraq? What are their differences?

Why not attempt a diplomatic solution? Why not first just threaten Gaddafi to deploy troops, and demand negotiations and observers? Perhaps I did not track the events enough, but I don't remember anyone making such demands. It was immediately "They're suppressing a rebellion, lets attack them".

Nobody went into Libya to prevent a conflict, but to encourage one. If lives were all the world worried about, they would have let Gaddafi go when he wanted to take the money and run, instead of telling him "no".

That's just speculation. What's your evidence?

Why put the money into DoD at all?

Violating sovereignty of another nation state (even the one led by an unstable dictator) is in the interest of the world's "pinnacle of freedom and democracy"? Taking sides in an internal conflict is right and justified? I don't remember the United States being so proactive during the war in my homeland. In fact, I remember certain embargoes while we were attacked. It must be just my memory.

For some reason, my logic must be screwed up as well, since I don't see anyone talking about bringing down the regime of Kazakhstan, where Nursultan Nazarbayev won with alleged support of 95% of citizens. Which is quite an ordinary thing after 20 years of rule, right? What about Sudan, Yemen? Oh, let's not forget the Democratic Republic of Kampuchea and its leaders, who, after they lost power, were supported by China and the United States.

It seems I'm a pretty much messed up person, for opposing the senseless war. Since you worry about universal healthcare and education, you are probably a pretty messed up person yourself. Since of course the "security", "stability" and "spread of democracy" are a priority, right?

I have no idea, since English is not my primary language. What do you think it means?

Libya is engagement in conflict, not a prevention of conflict. Prove me otherwise.

While developing the software, developers at least consumed food. Hence they needed to ensure funding for the food. Despite that I have, in effect, implied organization as necessary, I intended to say that nothing is unpaid for.

I release stuff as free software. I label it as such (not as open source). At the same time, I don't expect to make a living off of that software.

I don't have software-unrelated skills. I don't want to do unskilled labor. What can I do? I can write software for living.

I want to make people happy. What kind of software I can write? End-user software. How do I make money off of that? By selling it. How do I tell people that I'd appreciate their money? Well, by asking for it. How does libre software fit into all this? It doesn't really -- it's a hobby of mine.

People working on Unix were employed at Bell Labs. Which turned it into a big commercial thing. Linus Torvalds was a student when he began writing the kernel. Linux and GNU contributors were primarily hobbyists with obviously other source of income, paying for development instead of users. Alternatively, they were employees of enthusiastic companies (or those that needed to satisfy a market) and *gasp* they were making money off of it! Apache started off as a fork of NCSA httpd, did it not?

Do you think Linux would kick off if it weren't zero-cost to redistribute, aside from being libre? Do you think Apache would, when NCSA's httpd was zero-cost?

I apologize for not making a distinction between self-hosted web-based blogging service and a blogging tool for interaction with remote services, but with integration of the local desktop environment.

Sometimes it's hard to make a distinction.

I'm always looking for ways to be supportive of FSF's stances, but they are a puritan organization. As such, they present views that they know won't gain mainstream acceptance but that's ok, since something more reasonable will gain it. And that's where I stand: I don't consider words of FSF to be holy, but I will support a more "secular" view.

Same here. It's unreasonable to consider an offering "libre" to be truly possible without being fully "unpaid". Not because they are linguistically indistinct concepts, but because they are not to be expected. Licensing schemes, as they exist today for end users, typically allow software that costs thousands to develop (if not monetary, then in food) to be available for lower prices. "Splitting the cost."

Software needs funding before it exists. It's unreasonable to offer people a "donation jar" to fund software that doesn't exist yet and is unproven. Rare examples of success are not always truly success. Most software is funded a-priori in good faith that somehow one can pay it back. How? By selling a-posteriori. Selling software that must be freely copyable by the recipient is possible, and explicitly supported by FSF, this is rarely feasible nowadays if developing software is your primary work in life. This is because you will rarely have the success of Blender in order to sell other merchandise. A lot of work done under free software platforms is done by volunteers, but a lot of highest quality work is done by companies that have other means of earning money. It's really hard to get quality software written fast when it's not your primary thing in life and with free software, it's hard to make it a primary thing. And if you can't think of writing free software as of a profession because you don't have the financial backing to write free software, FSF bluntly says you shouldn't think of it as your profession. I can't dig it out right now, but it's either somewhere on FSF's site, on GNU site, or on Stallman.org.

It's easy to pretend "libre" isn't followed by "unpaid". It's also easy to see that it's just a pretense. Let's hope that FSF's list of high priority projects does prove me wrong, that you indeed can stick out a donation jar and expect the money to flow a-priori. Because then I will indeed dedicate myself to working on tons of free software projects that I've either started already, or just wanted to work on. I want to work on a good blogging tool for GNU/Linux and Mac. Can I get a-priori funding for that? Or is it easier to dismiss pride and ideals and just sell on the Mac App Store, not opening the source since something like this might happen?

GitHub replaced it for those who use Git. I don't, and many other people don't. I use Mercurial and SVN and hence mostly use BitBucket and Google Code. However I contribute(d) to some mature projects on SF.net, so it's pretty much still around in my 'verse. GitHub mostly isn't because it requires use of Git.

It used to be. Then they closed it. Then last FLOSS version was forked as GForge and others. I guess they're opening it again.

A lot of crime happens on the streets. What conclusion does that draw?

Well, if some franchises could kill off 70+ years of history of an entire universe, I guess we could pretend characters of Firefly didn't die.

Gmail's "Mute" ftw.

Oh dear, not that excuse again. Apple solved it without owning a local representative in Croatia. Why can't Google, with a significantly greater local and localized presence? Even worse thing with Microsoft and their XBLA and Phone 7; they actually own a local company Microsoft Hrvatska, yet they not only don't want to sell in Croatia, they also can't process Croatian sales.

Oh, and despite Checkout being here, Android Market paid apps are unavailable in Croatia.

I have multitasking on my jailbroken iOS 3.1.3. Let me tell you, that device has barely enough memory to run one app. Most work just fine, but Twitter for iPhone is a major resource hog, and trying to multitask it with, let's say, Opera and Stanza? No-no.

It's easy to go "why the hell is that an innovation", especially considering Windows Mobile had it 10 years ago. On the other hand, it really wasn't working out well on WM, and on iOS, it would've made the experience horrible.

In retrospect, I'm happy with how the situation was handled with iOS, but maybe, just maybe, Microsoft should have not repeated the same mistakes and put them into spotlight once Apple has resolved their issues.