I see the difference. The point is that it's not about "general well-being of the populace" at all.

What extent of "encouraging" do you find acceptable? For example, should we tax people higher if they don't exercise enough, and then use that money to give everyone else free gym passes?

Well, why are we punishing people who earn money through hard work? Why is sweat-of-the-brow taxed higher than rent?

As long as you have one rate set higher than the other, you can make that argument either way. Why not set a single flat rate on all kinds of income? Isn't it only fair?

I'm fine with that, so long as said flat tax also extends to capital gains. We could even just take the present budget, measure the current taxation income, and work out a flat tax rate for personal+corporate+capital, and see what it'd need to be to maintain the same level of it. I'm pretty certain that the end result would end up way better for the 99%. Which is exactly why such a thing would never pass in DC.

You might want to be careful with that line of thinking. For example, forcing you to exercise would also measurably lengthen your life; do you want the government to be able to mandate such a thing?

No respect for the American judicial system, you mean? That's quite different from society as a whole. I think if you ask random people whether they believe that the judicial system in question genuinely represents them, you might find that distinction to be quite visible.

Which is, frankly, ridiculous, because it circumvents the entire notion of constitutionally protected rights. You don't need to get rid of the First Amendment, for example - you just need to enact laws that make most people felons, and then you can selectively strip them of their rights as needed. And this all can be done with a simple legislative majority.

If you believe that everyone who doesn't wear a shirt "looks like a hobo", you're a part of the problem. Stop being judgmental towards people who choose convenience in their clothing over some rather arbitrary and outdated criteria based solely on looks.

The problem is that it's already a crowded market. And furthermore, Amazon, Google and Microsoft have all discovered it, and now want their slice - and they all already have solid cloud compute platforms to use as a backend; so it's going to get even more crowded in short order.

(Full disclosure: I'm on the MS team that is working on the Azure IPython/Jupyter notebook service that just went live on PyData, which is one piece of that.)

If you get software and don't pay for it, guess what- it's free. To you.

Microsoft "shared source" licenses were actually more restrictive than that, as they had only allowed read-only access to the code, even for private and personal use without redistribution - i.e. fixing a bug and building your own version would already be a violation of the license.

If that is really what is meant by "accessing the source code" by the article submitter, then this is the way to go. You can just use MS-RSL verbatim for that. Just, please, don't call it "open source". Even Microsoft, back in the day when it was still doing this kind of thing and calling GPL a "virus", had the decency to not appropriate the term and use "shared source" instead.

And note how this has largely failed for Microsoft. Very few people actually bothered to do anything with those "shared source" projects, and there was no community to speak of as a consequence (and as you rightly note, it's a misnomer anyway). I don't think there are still any MS projects shipping under any of these licenses anymore; pretty much everything is either AL 2.0 or MIT now, including things like CLR that used to be "shared source".

Thing is, given that Python and R have set the bar to F/OSS effectively (at least for the "core" that's necessary to run things, if not the associated tooling), anything less than that will quite rightly be seen as deficient. Whether they have something else to offer that could compensate is another question, but from my experience talking to people in that community, it's a fairly major point that I doubt they can easily compensate for.

For the scientific community, this has actually been more important recently as people want to be able to reproduce other people's experiments. Which is part of the reason why why F/OSS tools like scipy and IPython/Jupyter have been growing very fast.

There is a very big difference between just dumping things into the oceans as is (which is what the article you've linked to is about), and encasing them into a strong protective shell that prevents leaking, and picking specific places that are studied in advance to guarantee enduring safety and proper long-term disposal.

There are some valid objections to using subduction zones for this, but everything that I've read indicates that it is, at worst, an engineering problem that could be solved if desired, not a dead end. The only reason why it's not seriously explored is because of the treaty prohibiting it, and the treaty was originally intended to deal with exactly the kind of thing you've linked to.