Maybe not?

I'm on board with OSS. But I don't think it goes far enough. The right to modify the code you run is a good one. But I am calling for OSS licenses to pick up another clause, the Zero-Kill clause, where in using the software in any weapons platform (be it sniper rifles or predator drones) is forbidden. People should have the right to not fear being killed by open source software.

Additionally, I am calling for another clause to protect human rights. People should be free from fear that OSS will be used to restrict their freedoms in other ways. This includes forbidding use of the software for censorship or oppression.

I'm not entirely sure how this got modded insightful. The patent system is certainly not built upon owning an idea. They cover a particular implementation, a certain solution to a problem, not just an idea. If you invent a machine that makes unicorn farts, you can patent that machine. If I make a unicorn fart machine that operates in a different way, I am free to do so. Now the market has two different unicorn fart machine styles, and we are arguably better off as a society.

As an engineer with some hands on experience filing and working around patents, I can honestly say that a large part of the patent system still works as intended. I believe inventors should be protected, especially when it's a David and Goliath situation, and patents still offer some of that protection. I also believe that the patent system encourages inventors in at least two ways. It lets you know that there is at least one solution to your problem, and that somebody thought it was worthwhile enough to patent it. It also forces an inventor to be more creative and come up with different solutions to the problem than what has already been done. Sometimes when you have to think of a different solution, you end up with a better solution.

That being said, I think business method patents are stupid, and that software patents are evil. And if you're going to file a patent on something, you sure as shit better not try to sue me on "trade secret" grounds. (yes, that actually happens)

What about when the press uses a quad copter with a camera to go behind the gates of a company doing something nasty, or a wealthy politician's compound where something illegal is going on? Seems like this would make it harder for whistle-blowers to do their thing.

The more prescient (or paranoid) among us have been nursing alternative "real-name" identities on-line for a while now. I started one of mine about 4 years ago; he uses Google+ and posts the odd comment to online forums (not this one). I had another one about a decade ago, but I lost the password to it's keystone account. I think the key is going to be having enough dummy accounts, that I can have them be in each others' circles. But I really don't know if it will be worth it to go to that much trouble.

"minimize liability" = "If I have to hit a human, make sure I kill him instead of maim him."

Well, at least it wasn't a... eukaryotic strain of flu virus?

I think porn is the obvious solution here. Just get the major porn sites to require IPv6, and the problem will solve itself.

This is a fair point. The traditional meaning of "may" involves some permission being granted by one party to one party ("May I?" = "Will you allow me to?"). Since they obviously aren't telling you that you give them permission, the only possible meaning would be that they are giving you permission to make a recording. Never thought of it like that before, but that's literally what they're saying.

That is so wrong on so many levels.

There's some savings to be had by, if you have a geographically distributed system across time zones, moving loads to lower commercial rates based on time zone.

For those that don't know, commercial rates vary, and spike at peak demand time (~14:00) Moving peak load by forward or back 2 time zones would move you out of peak rates.

Looks like they added some stealth technology to that "L"