A great list. To add, there ain't nothing wrong with tobacco that ain't also wrong with alcohol. Just like any other toxic and extremely addictive drug, it should be 100% legal, but regulated tightly: tax it as much as the market will bear, forbid all ads, mandate plain brandless packaging.
Please, don't use Tor to harass and be an asshole. Real freedom fighters need Tor, not you and your lulz.
Almost everyone needs anonymity, at least some of the time. The more people use Tor (without cheating), the more robust is the network, so your uppity attitude is completely out of place. Tor is for lulz as much as it is for freedom fighting.
His first sentence is all about ejaculating uncontrollably into his own clothing, somehow because of video games. Interesting, perhaps, but it surely is not insightful.
Actually, his first sentence makes a cognitive leap from observing an involuntary visceral reaction to the Valve branding, to concluding that it is now time for some new underwear. An average slashdot moderator is not in the habit of thinking this far ahead.
Just out of curiosity: Given a "black box" implementation of a random number generator, is it possible to test its output sufficiently to gain some faith in its proper randomness?
gnasher719 gave a nice answer, and I just want to add more. For statistical purposes, a true and fair RNG printing a string of zeroes and ones would at the very least print a normal number, and to test for that, one would have to count the frequencies of substrings of every length, in every base, which of course can be done, but may get expensive if one wants a lot of confidence.
What gnasher719 calls cryptographical randomness cannot be tested in practice, but in theory, one can run the countable set of all computer programs in parallel, and see whether they can predict the digits of the RNG sequence with probability better than 1/2. Of course, this is completely intractable in the foreseeable future, with or without functional quantum computers.
There seems to be some biological revulsion to homosexuality
What does this even mean? Is that a statement about science or related to science? It's gotta be, since biology is a natural science. So cite your references, or stop spreading lies.
Preventing you from lifting other people's work without compensation is not oppression.
If by "lifting" you mean stealing, then you are not talking about anything resembling the patent law.
Actually how a gizmo does A,B,C is critically important for a patent. As another device can do A,B,C, but in a different way, and it would not violate the patent.
This is irrelevant to my argument, as I am saying that technology has no impact on patentability. It does, of course, affect the patent.
The overall problem with software patents is they define the What (A,B,C) but not the How.
Yeah they do. How? With an algorithm that takes this and gives you that. In short, with a computer. Any software that can do the same is, well, functionally the same. It is entirely consistent that we cannot write around patents, and so the problem is with their very existence. They just do more harm when it comes to software, since the latter is almost always built on top of the older software, and even a "simple" by today's standards program can have thousands of patentable algorithms in it. The kind of harm they do is the same, though, regardless of the technology involved: innovation is taxed or prevented, monopolies distort the free market, and our freedom of expression is abridged.
I'd expect this much if anything. SCOTUS cannot fix the software patents. It is not even clear what a "software patent" is. IANAL, but the way I understand the patent law, there is absolutely no difference. If you have a gizmo that does A, B, and C, then you can patent it, and how exactly it meets these claims in terms of technology is irrelevant. The patent law itself is oppressive: it infringes on our right to free expression, while providing no discernible benefit to the public. Only the lawmakers can fix this clusterfuck, and they can do so trivially, by gradually shrinking the protection term, giving the manufacturers some time to adapt. But they, of course, lack the will to do so, since they respect the opinions of plutocrats way more than those of the general public.
RMS also advocates a way to get to the same goal in discrete steps, by making patents unenforceable in certain fields (like the medical field or the general purpose computing field). The precedents exist: the surgeons are allowed to ignore patents while curing people. This is much better than defining "software patents" within the law, since any such definition will probably be circumvented by technological means. Rent-seekers could simply inject enough non-software payload into a device and patent it anyway.
I program, therefore I am.