The grievance here, I thought, was generally against sleazy business practices (bullying, monopolization, patent trolling ...), none of which are in any way exclusive to Microsoft of course, but for which M$ (and by extension Bill Gates) has kind of become an icon.

The user can say I don't want to run Windows. There may be consequences, but you can do it.

There fixed that for you, M$.

(Oh, did we forget to mention that that health certificate, de facto, requires you to run M$ Windows? That although there are Linux solutions around, 95% of ISPs don't support it?)

The quoted text doesn't really give any reason not to have sex in space - though several for why it is a bad idea to try and have a baby.

Giv'em Nixon.

oh wait, he's dead.

The last army standing will be Chuck Norris but yeah, good point.

Attacking someone's borders.

I draw the line at cloning. (Period)
>

How about cloning whole humans to harvest their organs in an efficient manner?

"someone" wouldn't need to do much extrapolation at all to drag me down, if they notice regular bumps over the pothole on the road to the town whore house [or whatever]. I wonder why the author I quoted above can be, as he writes, certain the app will not be used to track my movements. Not that anyone would care about my movements per ce, but let's imagine I'm a celebrity, politician, or something.

So it doesn't log which potholes you run over? Sorry, I'm not particularly afraid of having my movements tracked, but I'm trying to make sense of the quoted sentence...

...is roughly the number of transistors (or so I read) in my processor. All the diodes in my display are also powered from the same outlet...

Seriously, can anyone explain to me in what manner this question is meaningful?

That's a point of view (or several). Saying that there is no reasonable other views possible, just shows your own narrow-mindedness.

Bulls eye, several times over. I look forwards to a time when "Internet" is a mesh of WiFis organically recovering from physical attempts at sabotage in seconds, but saying that one want us to "build a communications infrastructure that cannot be controlled from the top" is just silly. It's a matter of materials and economics - as long as we need to rely on kilometres of cables, we will need to rely on whoever controls the kilometres of cables (which for economical reasons will have to be just a few large players, i.e. states). If we rely on satellites we rely on whoever controls the satellites. I just hope it will remain infeasible to control radio waves in the air.

lawsuit coming in, 5, 4, 3 ....

Mummy... why is that software developer hurting slashdot?