Well, I am an old school Unix sysadmin, and I'm really nice when it comes to people asking questions, specially if they are noobs. I actually love teaching when the person asking really wants to learn.

I agree with the rest of your post, and I certainly ignore the tone or choice of words, eat through that, straight to the meaning. I have said "you are right" to people I seriously despise. I'm a logic machine. If your logic holds up, it doesn't matter who you are, I'll praise your arguments. There is only one exception: When someone destroys language. If I'm talking to someone, either in English or in Spanish (my native tongue), if he either writes or speaks poorly, that translates as almost physical pain, it becomes as unbearable as bad music, and I simply can't stop listening, and, Yes, I will disregard anything said. I'm not proud of that, but I can't help it.

All of ancient Greece disagrees with you. Flawless logic is as important as Rhetoric.

I have no idea who Roy Haznowitz is. Also, fuck you.

Big mistake. The idea that any rude comment or any comment that you disagree with is a troll. Any clear view on a subject, any unpopular opinion is a troll.

I've been marked as a troll, for example, for my ideas regarding religion (I understand that religion is detrimental for modern humans, that teaching religion to children is a form of abuse, and therefore indoctrinating anyone under 18 should be illegal).

Truth is, regardless of what you think about my idea (please don't turn this into a religious discussion, I only used it as an example), that doesn't mean I'm trolling, it only means I have a radically different idea, and that yours and mine are incompatible, it doesn't mean I'm intentionally trying to upset you. If you are so sensitive, the problem lies with you, not with my comment.

Also, the idea that anything rude must be a troll. Rude comments win (if the underlying idea has any basis) because rude shows conviction, certainty. If I say "nanotechnology is a good idea, you should be more open-minded", I sound weak. If I say "Fuck this anti-science bullshit. We need to get rid of fear of technology, anyone that doesn't understand the benefits of nanotechnology after reading this article is a backwards idiot that has no place in modern society", I'm essentially saying the same fucking thing, but with different wording. This PC society we live in tells us we need to be nice to everybody. That is simply not truth, if you understand that something is simply wrong, and you are certain of your ideas, grow some fucking balls and express them in a way that is actually effective.

The Final Irony: Complaining about privacy ... in your facebook page. WTF.

I agree 100% with your post, and I run a very similar setup.

What pisses me off about people saying "we can't provide you with this free contents if you don't let us profit from ads" is the following: You are connecting to the internet using a router that most likely runs GNU/Linux, using a browser that is most likely open source to browse the web, then hosting your content on LAMP servers, probably using some Free CMS. All of that was developed for FREE by the community. So, we could write an entire OS plus everything you need to host content on the web cheaper than ever, but you want us to pay through the nose for your poorly worded articles and your dick jokes? Is that where you draw the line for what should be free? Truth is, the internet grew as big as it is right now thanks for Free Software. If people still had to pay thousands of dollars for proprietary operating systems, webservers, mailservers, etc. The Internet would be 10% of what it is right now in size, and it would belong only to major corporations. There would be no slashdot, no wikipedia, and certainly no destructoid or whatever the whinny bitch from the article is called.

We had Free content before. We will continue to produce Free content. You want to profit from your site? Great, make something worthwhile and put it behind a paywall, those interested will pay.

Copyright and Patents are not a human right, or an undeniable/natural right. They are a made up concept, a contract between society and the copyright/patent holder. "We will allow you to restrict usage of this particular work if you continue to make other works like this for the benefit of society". Sure, it doesn't work that way, but that's what's supposed to be anyway. So, since we are giving someone a privilege, society should be able to set the rules, and take back the privilege if the rules are broken. So the contract should be more like "We will allow you to restrict usage of this particular work for a limited period of time, but you must offer this work under reasonable prices and policies, you must respect your users, and you must play nicely with the rest of the market. Also, you have to deposit all of your source code and any other information you used to create your work, and after that period expires, or if you break the contract, they'll be released to the public domain.". That sounds like a much more rational contract. You want the privilege of copyright or patents? Great, we'll give it to you. We'll give you anywhere between 5 and 15 years of copyright or patent protection, how much will depend on the kind of work you are releasing. In exchange, you have to deposit with us all relevant information regarding your work, for example, source code in the case of software, manufacturing procedures and blueprints in the case of hardware, etc. If you breach this contract, you'll lose all protection, and after the the original protection is over, we'll still release all that information. If your breach of contract is bad enough, we'll also release all those secrets early.

This fine is like making the penalty for bank robbery 25% of the money stolen. Everyone will be robbing banks ... it's not a penalty, or a fine, it's a tax. Well, microsoft's benefit from locking down the market far exceeds 731 million dollars, so it's not a fine, it's just tax.

Threaten companies with losing copyright and patent protection, and see how quickly they start to behave.

I agree with this comment 1000% percent. I wouldn't give physical access to my or office house to a device running logic I can't audit. Sure, there are a lot of devices in my house with source code I don't have (car, tv, etc.), but they don't have legs and arms.

Well, only if you have an iRobot.

When the brain implants finally arrive, I'll be the first in line, and when I can finally download my brain to the fucking matrix, don't even warn me, just plug me in. I'm as pro-tech as they come, and not afraid of innovation. But when it comes to certain stuff, I don't see why we need the innovation in those areas. Certain things define us as humans, and they are beautiful as they are, no need to add tech. I don't need sex tech, an ordinary old fashioned set of tits and pussy do just fine. And I don't need a machine to wipe my ass. When I'm old or sick enough to be unable to take care of myself, I'll know it'll be time to die. And if I ever have a child, I'll change the fucking diapers myself. We've questioned for years the kind of kids that get raised by the nanny instead of the mother, why are we so eager to jump to a digital nanny? If you don't want to change diapers, don't have kids, it's that simple. And regarding other household tasks, robots aren't really the best approach, because we simply don't have the A.I to back them. If we're talking about simple tasks that don't require much logic from the robot, such as cleaning clothes or doing dishes, we already have dedicated appliances that do that far more efficiently than any robot ever could, and if we're talking about walking to the table, picking up the dishes, discarding the waste, washing and storing the rest, going to your room, picking up your laundry off the floor, then washing it ... well, we've got two areas we need to develop first: Power sources and A.I. We can't get our smartphones to last more than a day, how are we going to power such robots for more than 5 minutes? We've got the mechanics mostly figured out, but they still require a big fat cable on the back. Regarding the A.I, we're not even close to having such logic working properly. We don't have strong A.I, and we don't have any DSP capable of doing actual object detection with any kind of reliability, so we can't even start to imagine such a tech making it to the homes anytime soon.

People is also afraid of a god that doesn't even exist, of a hell which is equally imaginary, of gays/zombies/terrorists destroying society, of apocalypse, and a bunch of other retarded crap. Yet you talk to them about banning guns (or any other real, actual threat) and they call bullshit.

Truth is, we don't have any strong A.I, so being afraid of robots is like being afraid of cars: No matter what it does, it's just a machine controlled directly or indirectly by a human. In the case of the car, it's being controlled directly. In the case of a robot, it can be controlled directly, or through instructions previously laid out.

The general population don't code. You won't find a single coder that is afraid of robots (well, I'm sure a few weirdos out there think there are robots with thick Austrian accents out there, but not counting the wackos ...). Why? Well, if you understand how code actually works, and you understand the fact that we don't yet have developed anything that even resembles strong A.I, what is there to be afraid of? You should be afraid of the assholes that control the drones, not of the drones themselves, and in that perspective, they are no different from any other machine.

The Uncanny valley is a stupid concept for primitive people.

Dude, read the GP post. I was replaying to a guy regarding "Industrial origami", a system to design metal pieces that can be bended into shape by hand.

I used to do something similar with aluminum and a CNC machine, but it was never that easy to bend ...

I've been watching videos of this tech for the past 20 minutes. Most are just CGI concepts of a certain folding product. Those that have been actually filmed, are heavily edited, with cuts after each fold, some are also accelerated 4x.

Something tells me this tech doesn't work as well as they say it does.

Nothing is as fishy as not showing at least one honest video with no editing of the actual product.

You can either get a VPS that supports IPv6, and log in from there ... another solution that works fairly well.

You use a reverse tunnel, created on demand based on an HTTP request. Here's what you do:
Run a script on your machine that checks yourpage.com/sshtunnel, if it gets, say, NO_TUNNEL, it does nothing (or even better, make that a script and return 404 or some other header to signify FALSE). If, instead, it gets a json or csv, or whatever else you want (I used JSON) with an IP address, a port, and which username it should use, your machine will create a tunnel to that destination. Like this: ssh -f -o UserKnownHostsFile=/dev/null -o StrictHostKeyChecking=no -nNT -R {remote_port}:127.0.0.1:22 {remote_user}@{remote_host}. So, if where you can expose a port on your laptop, you just fill out a form on your website, and when your machine next checks /sshtunnel it gets served your current data, and your machines connects to wherever you are. All you have to do now is ssh user@localhost -p {remote_port}.

If wherever you are, you don't have access to port forwarding, you can have a cheap VPS (there are many available for as low as 5 bucks a month), and have your machine connect there, this will increase your latency, but it'll be barely noticeable if you choose your VPS location wisely (i.e as close to your home as possible).

The userknownhostfile and stricthostkeychecking disabling are required since you will be using key authentication against a machine that moves around all the time.

The list was sold. Yes, it happens more often than you think. If the company itself didn't sell it, then somebody on the inside made an extra buck. That's why nobody will acknowledge your complaint.