When using a site that implicitly (or explicitly, it's probably in the FAQ somewhere) caters to Americans, don't assume that the convention on what to call the United States in your home country is used here. It's not about being polite, it's about being expedient so people don't have to re-read your comment multiple times.

Our immune system already enforces a "no derivatives" clause. Procreation is only possible with an elaborate workaround that keeps the immune system from noticing what's going on.

If states can pursue and kill any hacker as they please without due process, then improperly-secured servers should be grounds for aiding the enemy.

I'm not suggesting either of these should be done, but it would level the playing field. If the sysadmins and their bosses don't like that liability, they shouldn't hook up important infrastructure to the internet.

If you don't want me to have a serious discussion about the subjects you bring up, you don't have to tell me twice. It destroys any shred of credibility you might have in future discussions, but I suspect that's something you've gotten used to.

Total hyperbole -- even so, I'll bite. Would it really be that bad? A 4-year-old that actually wants to vote is not someone I would underestimate, and it's possible that getting people involved in the political process sooner would make them care a little more and net us a smarter electorate in the end. It's true that kids are more vulnerable to suggestion and aggressive marketing, but that sort of drawback sticks with a significant fraction of the population into adulthood. If children were informed about their rights as voters, I don't see how it would hurt our nation.

To put it bluntly, fuck that. This would only give the wealthy elite another very powerful tool to disenfranchise less-wealthy voters.

Do I think people who don't own land should be able to vote? Yes. People who don't pay taxes? Yes. Convicted felons in prison? Yes. 16-year-olds? Yes. (In fact, I'm leaning towards not having an absolute age restriction at all.) Every citizen with a civic conscience, no matter how much I may agree or disagree with them, should be able to vote for the people that rule them.

Free market capitalism is as removed from reality as ideal communism, and just as unworkable in practice with large groups of people. Social Security has zero contribution to our national debt -- if anything, Congress needs to stop looting it for purposes entirely unrelated to public welfare.

As for Bradley Manning, I wish we as a nation would grow a spine and stand up against the injustice against him, the injustice against other whistleblowers, and the injustices he helped expose. We need to drag the authoritarians kicking and screaming through an equitable process to make this happen, but it's something we would all be better off doing.

Thank you, roman_mir, for telling it like it is. I often rage at your comments, but it's good to see that we agree on some important things.

The servers the sites are hosted on are typically private, but the information they send out over public infrastructure (the internet) is public speech. The client is not forced to listen to and process all that data, luckily, because some of it can be malicious. Likewise, the client doesn't have to request the loading of an ad just because the source code of the page recommends it.

The freedom of the client to choose what it wants to process supersedes the content provider's desire to render the page a certain way. Flipping that on its head would only be disastrous for internet users.

As infuriating as a video like that would be, it still wouldn't convince me to asphixiate myself with car exhaust.

Actually, yes, it does. Sorry to burst your authoritarian bubble there, but U.S. citizenship and due process are not things the U.S. government can remove without consent. If you hear otherwise, the U.S. government was doing something outrageously illegal.

The War on Terror is deliberately blurry to the point that any organization suspected of subversion can be considered an enemy. Even if they aren't citizens, does that make it just? You live in a fantasy world where the U.S. government can do no wrong.

I'm not sure, but if the UK is anything like the US, I wouldn't be surprised if customers had no choice in the end.

You answered your own question. Carrier-grade NAT would allow ISPs to charge a premium for a residential IP (and an even bigger premium for a static IP).

The whole point of IPv6 is to do away with the scarcity of end-to-end static IPs. From a business perspective, IPv6 would destroy the investment these existing customers have made.

The only one available in their area. If customers have a choice of two (or three!) ISPs, they will all use carrier-grade NAT.

IPv6 alleviates scarcity, and thus profits made on that scarcity. This is why it will not be implemented without government intervention.

Do you know what this is? It's the world's smallest violin, and it's playing just for you.

If students are motivated enough, they can find plenty of online math resources on their own.

Except that redistribution rights are important today. Why should a company be able to restrict me giving away copies of programs?

As far as Stallman is concerned, it's the philosophy that comes first, not "industry support" of whatever the current fad is.

Your political dog-whistling really doesn't have any bearing on the merits of Free software.