From RAM (framebuffer) to the video display there's usually no CPU involvement, true. But the CPU puts the frame in the memory (or updates the memory if they use "dirty rectangles"). Next generations of computers after Z80 (16 bit ones like Atari ST and Amiga and x86 PCs) use hardware blitters and it makes it possible to redraw every frame completely, instead of messing with "dirty rectangles". Drawing the frame is still the business of the application running on the CPU. So, lots of pixels to move to the framebuffer, for each frame.

This devices are listed in the leaked "NSA Toolbox Catalog" document, that was reported in this Spiegel article:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/catalog-reveals-nsa-has-back-doors-for-numerous-devices-a-940994.html

Some pictures:
Cottonmouth-I, USB spying device
http://www.spiegel.de/static/happ/netzwelt/2014/na/v1/pub/img/USB/S3223_COTTONMOUTH-I.jpg
Cottonmouth-II, USB spying device
http://www.spiegel.de/static/happ/netzwelt/2014/na/v1/pub/img/USB/S3223_COTTONMOUTH-II.jpg
Cottonmouth-III, USB spying device
http://www.spiegel.de/static/happ/netzwelt/2014/na/v1/pub/img/USB/S3223_COTTONMOUTH-III.jpg
Firewalk, ethernet spying device
http://www.spiegel.de/static/happ/netzwelt/2014/na/v1/pub/img/USB/S3223_FIREWALK.jpg
Ragemaster, monitor cable spying device
http://www.spiegel.de/static/happ/netzwelt/2014/na/v1/pub/img/Bildschirm/S3224_RAGEMASTER.jpg

There's many more in that cataloge, including software and hardware tools and devices.

You are the one missing the point.

The whole point of the issue is that anonymity is impossible in the surveillance state. The Government does not need to arrest journalists to get to their sources. It has set in place a system that works around the "process that every collage journalism major learns".

Way to go, attacking the person with uninformed opinions. It was Snowden's choice to disclose the information without hiding behind anonymity, and I see a number of practical and moral reasons for that, one being exactly that the Government would have known anyway.

Is it seriously your argument? The fact that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot are not good examples (which the OP did not even mention, so I don't see why you do) means that there are good ones? Why don't you provide one? As far as I know, every place that abandoned private business by nationalisation has ruined it's own economy. That doesn't mean we should not work to find a better solution. I'm all for making this world fair for everyone.
But the fact is that Communism has failed everywhere, even in the few places where it came to power by democratic means (like Chile), while Capitalism is still "working" (far from perfect, looks like it's moving towards something bad itself). But lets acknowledge that we don't have an alternate working solution at the moment, and move forward in trying to find one.
Check this video by Slavoj iek: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgR6uaVqWsQ

He is clearly well fed, but considering going hungary, or maybe Venezuela.

I was reacting to your statement that I quoted. No, he did not say "independent nation-state", and perhaps that's one piece of the confusion.

No, I don't think "nation" is less ambiguous, it's just that it's a "newer" notion (that you also suggested would fit his categorization) that has appeared in the timeframe that the author seems to target: during the last struggle for independence of a lot of the countries. But no, I don't think nation is a better idea just an alternative that seems to fit his line of thinking.

And in regards to the European thing, no I was not thinking about Europe. What struck me was India in comparison with China and Japan. I think he used a double standard in the case of those countries.

In the end I think the exercise that this guy has performed is useless, with a clear bias, and it should have been obvious that it would cause controversy.

A lot of people are not getting it, and it's the author's fault. He calls the article and talks repeatedly about the "age of a country", when in fact, as you say, he is calculating the time since the last successful struggle for independence. No wonder people don't understand what he is doing, since even he doesn't know. What would you call the time since the last struggle for independence? Birth of the modern nation? That is a new concept, and by that standard, all nations are very young. And in that case don't use the word "country" (it means a lot of other things, compared to nation).

Nobody is forcing anyone to connect to the internet (well, except EA and UbiSoft if you really need to play their games).
People who think the Internet should not exist, should just unplug that cable from the computer, or better, they shouldn't get a subscription from the ISP. It's THAT simple! No more fear of those crazy cyberwarrior ninjas and their electronic katanas.

Yes, but the fact still remains, that allowing anyone to take good and necessary features, publish the description of those features like they are implementation details (which is what patents should be), then sue the hell out of those who do get the whole thing right just to rob some of their success, is still wrong.

Testing is for finding bugs.
Debugging is for fixing bugs. More precisely, it's a step in the process, explaining why the bug happens.

Such a new whale species, and already extinct.

That's most likely a lie. Please tell us where he says something like that.

Meanwhile here's what I found of him saying about the BSD license:

From: http://linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html?page=2

> How about the "unplanned" international banking crisis? It's actually quite "planned". Pulling the ropes of the monetary system is one of the few things that is still heavily "manipulated" to influence the economy by governments all over the world. That's why we have National Banks (or the FED, or whatever it's called in your country) that have a monopoly on the production of money and some serious strings to pull on the economy.

TL;DR

Maybe it's time for capitalism and the free market thinkers to acknowledge the fact that corporations have as much power to destroy the balance of the free market, as the governments. A corporation is a quasi monopoly.
Or we could start by saying that temporary monopolies like copyright and patents were never meant to enter the hands of powerful entities, such as corporations. The potential for abuse is too great. The copyright or patent should end as soon as the artist or inventor has been payed by selling his invention to a corporation. The corporations should pay for the right to publish the work or use the invention, not for a tool with which to kill competition.