I suppose you are implying GPL prevents this. You are naive to think that it does anything of the sort. Many of the larger GPL'd projects thrive by this very thing. Not alot of people would spend big $ for enterprise licenses from these projects, if they weren't going to turn around and make alot of money themselves. It's how the world goes round, and plenty of GPL'd projects actively and knowingly participate in it.

"this generation doesn't care to preserve the freedom of others in using their computers, the way Stallman wanted"

It's an ideal, and no one should diminish someone else's hard work just because they don't subscribe to the same ideal you do. They might even believe in the ideal, but we all find a different means to an end. They wrote the code, who the fuck are you to say they "don't care"? They care about contributing to the rest of us, and that is bigger than the rest of it. GPL vs. permissive is droplets in the ocean. They are giving to the rest of us unconditionally, and that IMO is the most gracious form of giving.

"What exactly would be the outcome of a "GPL-only" world?"
It becomes its own world and can't interact with the rest of the world. It's your choice, but it's not the only choice. If I take the time to submit fixes for something that is permissively licensed, I don't think "OMG someone might make money off this, I'm not preserving idealogy X", I think "Great, someone else in my situation who has a job writing closed source software will benefit from this. We can all help each other out." Yeh someone else is making money off my work, but that happens anyways. Even in the GPL world if someone pays for enterprise support, they are somewhere making a profit beyond what they are paying you. You give them a tool, they take it and make a bunch more money with it than they gave you. If you have a business model that allows you to make a living providing software as a service using you GPL'd code, someone else is just as capable of coming along, taking all your code, keeping it under GPL, and providing the same service. Since you did all the heavy lifting they don't have the same startup costs. Maybe they aren't as snide and condescending as you are, and get more customers than you, and soon put you out of business. No you are all butthurt cause someone took your code and made a bunch of money off of it, and you thought by making it GPL you would stop that from happening.

Many of us can't force employer to become open source, nor would their business model work if it were open source. If the elitism here is any indication of what it'd be like to work in a GPL only world, then I wouldn't want to anyways.

I'm sorry, I recant, I misread and missed the "unless" part.

You made a lot of assumptions about the scenarios under which someone might want to use a open source project in another closed source project.

Yeh, somewhere there's probably film/pictures of someone leaving the bomb. You could probably correlate it with other pictures/videos from earlier that would help you backtrack the person's tracks.

I agree, most top games are primarily DirectX. Even if a game supports both, usually it will opt for DirectX if available.

DirectX was kind of an after thought addition to Windows anyhow, when they shut out the low level access that was being used previously for game graphics. I suppose that is where the name "Direct" came from, to emphasize it was the replacement that gave them similar direct access.

Hopefully this will shift things towards OpenGL and we can see more+better frameworks in more languages available for OpenGL.

On the other hand, you hit on potentially another reason for the decline of DirectX, and possibly OpenGL: the "demise of the PC". I do NOT believe the PC will die off anytime soon, but I can't deny that there are alot of casual users that no longer have any desire to put themselves through dealing with a PC, especially if they sit in front of one all day at work. A declining user base will mean commercial efforts shifted elsewhere, which won't be a good thing for the rest of us PC users.

It's one more prettier.

More an aside than a joining in. "They hurt!!" They do indeed sometimes, but hurts little enough that they still keep on whacking at each other, and it looks pretty silly from the outside.

"Oh, the scientific illiteracy found on mock technical sites like Slashdot."

Slashdot doesn't publish articles. They aggregate/filter news and provide summaries. The summaries are often inaccurate or sensationalized. It has nothing to do with the article itself. Slashdot doesn't right the article, just the summary and provides a link. Trying to discredit slashdot's summary says nothing about the article itself.

"There is a lightning strike so electrically violent, the movement of electrons forces gamma rays into existence. And yet, if this bolt hit me, my body wouldn't notice the fact."

The electricity from the lightning doesn't strike you directly. It couldn't, given that you are inside the shell of the aircraft. If you'd RTFA with an ounce of reading comprehension, you'd see it is about being in the vicinity of the strike such that you are exposed to the gamma radiation.

You are trying so hard to twist the words to fit your conspiracy theories.

"Clearly Dwyer doesn't understand the difference between electrons and photons, or electricity and the electro-magnetic spectrum. But I promise you, Dwyer supports Obama's holocaust in Syria, and Obama's policies and beliefs connected with 'global warming'."

Between those two sentences, you made the logical leap of associating ham with a hamster. Dwyer isn't an alarmist: article states that dark lightning might be such a rare occurrence that it's difficult to say if anyone has been exposed to it. We were talking about lightning, and you are talking a war in Syria.

Read the article. They speculate the occurrence of dark lightning is much rarer than regular lightning.

Yeh, just a bunch of idiots arguing about who the idiot really is, using falsehoods and half-truths. It's like barbarians trying to fight to the death with nerf swords.

You completely twisted his words you "worthless sack of s***". He never said the suspect shouldn't have due process. As far as I can tell he was probably alluding to the fact that they are lucky they are in America where you get due process. If you are so quick to twist someone's words so you can find a reason to delegate them to worthlessness, then you have nothing to contribute to the world and are the very essence of worthlessness. Chill out and learn some reading comprehension.

It is like if I said "I'm lucky to be alive" and you interpreted that to mean that I am a proponent of being dead.

They made sure no one would confuse the F-16 with those other Falcons that don't fight.

"Congress does not have power to pass laws that either prohibit individuals asking such things from other individuals or require that anybody complies under any type of penalty to provide such information."

They already have passed such laws, and such laws have been enforced in the past.

"An employer can ask an employee for any of this info, an employee can absolutely refuse (or comply, up to him). Neither action nor response to either action should be legislated and the government officials that cannot recognise this simple fact should be summarily removed from power at once."

You fail to understand that in asking for the information, an employer can discriminate against someone based on their answer or refusal to answer. Corrupt/ignorant employers shouldn't be in a position to strong arm people into relinquishing their private information. If you don't put a stop to it, sooner or later every corporation will be abusing their employees and taking away their right to privacy, and there won't be jobs available that allow you to maintain your right to privacy.