Actually that will work equally well on a "Linux PC". Indeed, you need not even have an operating system installed. PC and BIOS != operating system.

I contest that definition. Both because it lessens the language by muddling and overloading a term with definitions better covered by other terms and because I cannot find it defined as such in any other dictionary but Merriam-Webster.

Evolution is, today, at its heart a scientific term that means something very closely defined. A gradual, rarely sudden, change over time, brought upon by evolutionary pressure and happenstance -- how well a change survives collision with the environment of its host.

Usually this change, by its nature, is beneficial in the sense that it must, by necessity, be advantageous to survive the environment. However this is not a hard rule. Beneficial traits can easily evolve away for no real reason other than the evolutionary pressure being lessened. If suddenly the pressure returns it can spell doom for the species, but sadly that is how evolution work -- it is entirely blind and unintelligent.
Likewise evolution need not go from a simple state to a complex state. Indeed, this has nothing to do with the definition at all. If there is evolutionary pressure for more complex states than that is what will happen eventually, if not then it won't.

The definition of evolution that your cite from Merriam-Webster is born out of a need for simplistic minds to have a certain ordering on evolution, a step-ladder if you will of evolutionary states, so that petty humans can raise themselves on a pedestal and claim evolutionary superiority. This ordering is false. The only way you can really define any ordering on evolution is by time; and until you build a time machine and go back in time the term "devolution" has no meaning. You can talk about regression from a state to one previously held and that would make sense, but it is still evolution. /rant

While ultimately futile it does force the trolls to be creative, which would be an improvement.

I guess you're against a calendar also, since it provides dangerous future location information to a potentially malicious third-party should they get access to it!

Really, the feature IS sane. Like I stated encryption and better handling of sensitive data is always nice, but the whole thing isn't what it has been made into.
The implementation was amateurish to be sure, but not nearly the glaring security hole people are decrying it as. We're talking about the most logical thing in networking; caching results you don't expect to change soon to save both bandwidth and time.

A perfectly sane feature has now been curtailed effectively by public outcry against perceived violation of privacy. While I agree that it is a good thing the stuff now gets encrypted locally (yay, more encryption of sensitive information!) the grand result is nearly nothing. The way this thing worked was by having a cache of locations stored locally and for those who worry about invasion of privacy this turn of events doesn't change anything - if Big Brother wants to know where you are and where you've been, he need do nothing more than to store where you connect from on his side - something he has always been able to do.

The comment that spawned a multitude of replies. Not because of the content, but because of grammar. Welcome to /., enjoy your stay.

Welcome to media in general. We're soaking in it.

No-one is a fair judge and the question is an extremely hard one. I do have a perfect solution: dictatorship and no concept of economy beyond actual, tangible resources. Sadly this requires perfect humans, especially in the dictatorship role and is essentially a non-solution with how human nature works. We're not perfect little machines.

I believe there is inherent flaws with how society works and the very concept of profit is essentially "money from nothing" with no tangible ties to actual resources, but unless we all suddenly decide to work together perfectly and in harmony with the needs of all taken into perfect measurement I got no real solution, only a feeling of wrongness. I know this is being intellectually dishonest, but I have not the power of will to devote my life to revolution - I prefer to finish my computer science graduation and living my imperfect life in an imperfect world.

I'm talking about the philosophical concept, not the USA implementation. I stated that quite clearly previously in the thread. The philosophical concept has an established meaning, thank you, which goes back to roman times, maybe further and has evolved and been elaborated on. It does not cover lies, it covers truth and opinions. It is universally regarded in human rights theory as the right to seek information and ideas, the right to receive information and ideas and the right to impart information and ideas. It has nothing to do with threats or willful untruths.

If you want to argue semantics or a specific implementation I'm all for that, but don't just assume I'm automatically talking about America or its constitution just because I say freedom of speech.

Aha, semantics. You're taking the term and interpreting it literally, disregarding its established meaning as a subset of freedom of expression in favor of your opinion. You're allowed to that and I'm allowed to not wanting to participate :)

Because threatening a person is not an expression of opinion, it is a verbal attack. Where you draw the line between an expressed opinion and a threat depends on the court, the circumstances and the exact wording of the threat.

An expressed opinion is such a thing as "I hate X" (a shallow opinion in itself, but an opinion philosophically covered by freedom of speech). Saying you "hate christians" or "hate muslims" is an opinion. Saying you would "kill the next christian I see!" is not an expressed opinion, but a statement of implied future action - which can be illegal depending on the context and most certainly has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It is a threat. Saying you "think all muslims should be killed" is an opinion, but implies a threat so it could potentially be viewed as criminal speech - not for the opinion, but because of the implied threat.

Likewise telling somebody that you "own a stable firm with promising returns" and "just needs some venture investment" when in fact you're planning to con somebody out of their money and do not plan to return any money is deceit and illegal and has nothing to do with expressing opinions.

Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression covers ideas, opinions and the like. It does not cover threats, lies , etc. And no, the "idea of wanting to kill somebody" or "the idea to steal money by lying" is not "opinions".

What exactly are we disagreeing upon? :)
I was merely working to elaborate upon the meaning of the term. I don't wish to discuss the exact implementation of a select nation, unless we are to change the topic to such?

Oh and the last thing was a bait: It is called freedom of expression and is used more or less as being synonymous to freedom of speech. Rarely do you talk about freedom of speech strictly in the vocal sense, although the literal meaning would imply such.

You seem to have little concept about the difference between need and greed. Excess and starvation. These are extremes, but valid variations exist.
In short: you're greedy when you exploit others for advantages beyond your basic need, or more commonly above the need of those your exploit. Most people (sadly) is guilty of this to differing degrees, indeed I think no-one completely devoid of this particular survival strategy, but that does not make me blind to or undisgusted with how the economy of resources works today ie. capitalism.

You would be surprised how unsupervised the nightsky is, taking the whole of the Earth into consideration. Also, anyone who manages to pull off such an operation most likely have the brains to benefit from the gold without being obvious. Like for instance setting up various production centers and selling gold-based products (for instance: electronics) cheap but not stupid cheap. Just enough to compete and make a solid profit over a longer term.

Anyway, the gold was a hypothetical example.

Who exploits the work of others most in the world? Greedy people. Who sells the productivity and work of others most in the world? Greedy people.