On way to state it is that they started as the friendly libre desktop and then at some point decided to become the "cheaper macintoch".

It's not just the design, they, or rather Mark, gave a full u-turn to the entire philosophy of the project. Sould we go back in time, you'd find that the project was full of idealism. Ubuntu was a philantropic project, free CDs were shiped, at Canonical's expense, to those willing to help others become free.

The promise was that together, as a comunity, we could overcome the technical and political issues that held FOSS back.

That's not the way ubuntu is advertised nowadays. Now ubuntu is advertised as this wonderful OS that does some of the same things MS and Apple can do but won't run any of the software you bought for those.

Personally, I blame the iPad. Ok it's Mark's fault first, but the iPad showed that people would ignore the problem of software incompatibilty as long a the thing was easy to use, had a web browser and was shiny.

So Mark decided to give the finger to the communy, called "Ubuntu is not a democracy" and embarked in a campaing to make ubunty the desktop version of an iPad: Shiny, dumbed down and incompatible with most Windows software, but with Firefox.

Actually I'm surprised ubuntu hasn't decided on Google chrome as their default browser, but even Mark realizes that would be handling the keys of the kingdom to a potential rival.

The obviousl problem is that, most people, including most ipad owners, already have a Windows PC where they do most of their work and any matter of serious gaming.

MS is the path of least resistance, and since it comes with most computers, it's "free". Apple is the luxury vendor. Ubuntu was de idealist but has lost it's original vision. Ubuntu really has nothing going for it nowadays. Mark is trying to fix that problem techically where it was a political problem to begin with.

Personally I'm bothered that it bothers them. Obvisouly there is no rule yet that you can't use premium call services to get paid by telemarketeers because they are just people. The regulator seems to think that it's wrong that telemarketeers are compensating him for wasting his time. Why? They are a bunch of corporate sellouts thats why.

This is actually a great argument to lessen the extent of copyrights. It is supposed to serve to promote the Arts and Sciences. If the studios are not there to make good movies they are in fact, not promoting the arts.

Anime did it first https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89X-Driver

Basically is a short, 6 episodes series about a small taskforce of old fashioned, conventional car drivers, driving non-AI cars, tasked with chasing and stoping runaways, AI cars that start running out of control due to AI malfunctions or, often enough, computer viruses.

The belief that thousands of people working for a dozen different companies all work together in secret to destroy our health. That no pharmaceutical company will try to make a fortune selling a cure because they like selling treatments.

You know I'll just drop this https://xkcd.com/808

Oh I see the obligatory xkcd comic http://xkcd.com/1022/

The more vague and broad a law is the more inconvenient people we can incarcirate! We should strive to make sure the dirty peasants know that the moment they get out of line we will slam the book against them with as many vaguely defined crimes as possible!

Rather, TPB is not a sustainable model. What peopel really want is to be able to buy episodes from websites using micro payments.

You shouldn't chastise people for changing their opinion tough, that's exactly what you are complaining about in the next sentence when you say they refuse to be wrong.

If they said something different and then change their statement that's an acknowledgement that they were indeed wrong.

Unless you are expecting people to give a 180Â turn everytime they have imperfect knowledge:

• The earth isn't warming.
• Yes, look at this graph.
• OMG we are goingt to burn to death by tomorrow *jumps off the window*

That's just childish, and not because you can prove someone's opinion wrong does that mean that the person will necessarily take your position immedatelly and without reserve, that's just childish too.

Me onthe other hand, I don't mind seeing ads that much and if they help the site author I'm willing to endure them. What I don't like is business tracking us down and profiling us and potentially sharing this with government agencies. That's why I use Adblock, Ghostery, Privoxy and other tools. And why I don't bother much with Do-Not-Track me ideas.

That's how I read it at first, getting a scan using laser blood? AWESOME!

Wrong and, wrong.

Firstly, the point of MongoDB is building a NoSQL database. And it does not query via REST, CouchDB does that. MongoDB has its own querying interfase which requires external drivers. It does return JSON. But that's meaningless, JSON is analogous to Python's dicts or Ruby hashes or even to a degree to PHP arrays.

On the other hand writing web pages in Javascript sucks, specially without multiline strings. You really want a templating language. Which will render into HTML so you are also need to understand HTML. And then you need to use CSS to style the thing, except generating CSS by hand is tedious if your design is complex so you want something more powerful like SASS or LESS.

The point is making web apps easier to write not having a "full stack" language.

Because people have never found out that relying in a proprietary web app has shortcomings...

It's like they are not even trying to hide it anymore.

It's kinda hard to make this statement since, at face value, it should be apparent that lawyers are defending the wrong party more than half the time. After all, when two people disagree either one is wrong or both are wrong. And yes I know even criminals have rights, and if they didn't have a lawyers they'd be punished unfairly, which begs the question of why do we have a system that applies unfair punishments?

I understand your concerns but I still think the justice system is broken.