Apparently there was a firefight, so he resisted arrest. If you murder someone, the police come to get you, and you engage them in a firefight, what are they supposed to do? Keep sending in police to get shot at until you are brought out alive and unharmed?

Now you can claim that there was not a firefight and the reports are false - that we went in there, everyone put their hands up, and we killed bin Laden anyway. That is a different argument.

The man forfeited his right to a trial, a court, a judge, and a verdict when he and his people opened fire.

You said, "everyone who gloats about this in any way, including writing "funny" reviews, is somewhat less than human." But you are also saying that it is ok to celebrate something. Can you detail what exactly you think is acceptable, namely what sort of celebration is permissible?

What snide comments are you referring to? I hope you are not making a generalization about the US response to this in any way based on some Slashdot posters. As far as revenge, pride, and invulnerability go, I don't think any of that matters. The man committed a crime in which thousands of Americans were killed. He deserved to be brought to justice.

And again, I argue that most people are celebrating the delivery of justice after a ten year wait, not death. Here is an article on the issue:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/05/opinion/main20060085.shtml

It makes the point that to believe that people are celebrating the death of bin Laden would mean these celebrations would not occur (or I'd say would even be less fervent) if bin Laden had been captured rather than killed. We will never know now, but I strongly believe there would be an equal celebration of his capture.

I've seriously had enough of the small crowd of people, sitting atop their high horse, saying that no one should be celebrating anything here.

Someone was brought to justice for a terrible crime in which thousands of people died. That bin Laden resisted arrest and got himself killed is irrelevant. He needed to either be captured or killed, and he chose the latter by (apparently) resisting capture. What's being celebrated here is that justice has been done, and there is nothing wrong with it.

If you had the principles you seem to be accusing others of lacking, you would wish he were still alive, but perhaps captured. I myself don't care one way or the other so long as he is no longer capable of causing harm in the world.

Tried this a month ago, and again just now, after building I just get a dialog telling me it "Application failed to initialize." Seems like it isn't quite mainstream yet. I'll continue playing with it but DVD ripping seems much easier.

Blurays look noticeably better on my projector setup. The sound quality is great. I enjoy some of the added features. But DRM (for which there is no sugar-coated solution yet on GNU/Linux), higher cost, and more offensive crap such as advertisements which can't be skipped at the beginning of the disc have put me off. Not to mention this nonsense of certain bluray discs requiring firmware updates - this hasn't bitten me yet with a PS3, but what Joe Sixpack is going to want to deal with that?

Beyond that, if nobody could ever make one penny from their music, music would be better off as there wouldn't be loads of factory-produced, industry sponsored vapid pop being rammed into everyone's heads, drowning out music which has more value.

Why was this modded insightful? As the originator of the free software movement Stallman simply wants the software people receive on the phone to be "free." See the definition of that here: http://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software This has nothing to do with the ridiculous notion that people must write any software themselves (though they could if they chose to). For an example that comes closer to the mark, see Android.

my father invented the question mark

RMS brings up the client vs. server issue, it is not being addressed by this article. FTA: "The client and server sides raise different ethical issues, even if they are so closely integrated that they arguably form parts of a single program. This article addresses only the issue of the client-side software. We are addressing the server issue separately."

While I might not agree with their style, they've drawn attention to what is obviously subpar security and possibly prevented a more serious/malicious break-in. FTA: "There seems to be no harm done. From what they can tell, it was someone making the point that CMS was hackable," said James Gillies, spokesman for Cern.