I've seen several people comment that they have their home directory config files under version control. If you're using git for that, it's a fairly simple next step to then "backup" the repo to github.
"It's only config files; nobody would be interested in those."

Wont this legitimize any and all collections of personal information as long as the tax gets paid?

No.
Tax is levied on alcohol and tobacco, yet there are still licences and regulations behind selling either one.

I use the graph to see whose fork of a codebase is most up-to-date, or has potentially useful revisions not merged into the master. I've come across a few projects whose "master" repo is all but dead, and a dozen other people have continued development independently - sometimes having created duplicate bugfixes, etc.

Developers come and go (often without warning), so what I'd *really* like to see is an interface where the codebase is the focus, and no one user or team "owns" any kind of one-true-fork. All forks should be considered fundamentally equal, and judged on their individual merits (recent activity, most activity, most contributors, etc.).
And having issues, pull requests, etc. tied to one single fork is just wrong. If something affects the "main" fork, then it quite likely affects all the others, too, and those forks' maintainers should be allowed to accept or reject those items as it relates to their own fork.

They don't have to serve their constituents, they only have to do it *very slightly better* than the other party.

Not even that; they just have to say they will.
How many campaign "promises" are actually implemented, by any politician, in any country? Generally very few, from what I can tell.

Personally, I think that, at the end of an elected representative's term, they should be held to account in a court of law for every campaign "promise" they didn't fulfil; each such incident bringing a charge of fraud and/or treason.

Why is it that people who have evaded authorities find it irresistible to gloat about how "clever" they are to have outwitted cops.

I'd imagine that they generally don't.
The cops sure as hell aren't going to make an international song and dance about all the suspects who've slipped through their grasp, so the only such people you'll hear from are the self-aggrandising gloaters.

You're not likely to hear from anyone who's keeping a low profile, by definition.

Okay, so what US laws did Wikileaks break? How are the legal proceedings against the organisation going? Anyone been extradited to the US to stand trial?
No?
So on what legal grounds did Visa, Mastercard, et al, block payments to Wikileaks? I'm pretty sure they haven't blocked donations to Bradley Manning's defence fund; he being the only person actually charged with a crime directly relating to Wikileaks' activities.

If they expected something like that to be enforced, they should have made sure a clause to that effect was part of the license under which the software was released.

As they did, by choosing a copy-left licence.

From a practical point of view, though - attempting to track something as ephemeral as all previous developers' intentions would be a royal pain in the keister.

Not at all. The intentions of the previous developers are, for all practical purposes, described by the license under which they chose to distribute their contributions.

That probably wouldn't be easy as too many things are evolving too rapidly in Linux ATM

Two words: Debian Stable
Or, if they stick to Ubuntu, three words: Long Term Support

Er, is this supposed to be implying that Valve is going to drop any games where the developer does not come back and write a Linux version? Because I have no idea what you are saying here.

I believe he's saying that Valve are seeing an increased likelihood that Microsoft might flip a switch in Windows, which will make Steam, or Steam-powered games, stop working. Linux, for Valve, is (partly) a hedge against that. There is no one company (other than Valve itself) that can come along and "turn off" Steam for Linux.
If Steam continues to function on Windows, then that's great for Valve. If it doesn't, however, then Valve are wise to have a fall-back plan. It's a lot better to have 90% of your income wiped out (all those Steam games that don't run on Linux), than to have 100% of it wiped out, and be scrambling for a fix while the coffers run dry.

Facebook is alreadly living proof of the fact that people don't care about their privacy.

Most people don't care about anything, unless and until it affects them personally.
This is (in theory) why governments enact "nanny state" legislation; to prepare for, and protect its population from, bad things that those who will be affected haven't even considered yet.

Few people consider about the cost of hospitalisation after a car accident, until they're in one. Hence national health services.
Few people consider the cost of leaving embarrassing photos on Facebook, until it comes up in a job interview. Hence this legislation.

Videodrome for the Internet generation?

Personally, I'd put Microsoft's initial monopoly down to:
* Making "good enough" software
* Getting their software pre-installed on computers
* Achieving ubiquity before the Internet/networking really took off (software is easier when you don't consider security)
* Bob

Perhaps it's the difference between inviting people into your walled garden, and building a wall around the people in your already highly populated garden?

Climate change won't be an existential threat to humankind. It might cause us severe problems but it will not obliterate us from the face of the Earth. It is not like the Earth is suddenly becoming inhabitable for humans due to global warming.

Ask a Venusian how it worked out for them.

I am waiting and waiting for the Linux community to come to this realization that desktop linux has to take into account a mouseless touch-screen userbase that is set to grow rapidly, especially once GNU/Linux distros appear on more tablet PC's.

Where have you been these past couple of years? Gnome 3? Unity? KDE Plasma Active?