The two terms are not mutualy exclusive

Or he found a way to sneak in energy without the researchers knowing it.
The problem is that there is still no credible known mechanism for producing or storing it inside the box.

The opinion "Doesn't work" is still valid, but after this one should atleast acknowledge that it is at the very least an ingenious hoax....

And what magic do you propose to use in order to expand the FIXED length address fields in the IPv4 header?

You might want to checkout QuickMSG (Disclaimer: I wrote it and this is a shameless plug). http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
It is open source, decentralized, secure, and not tied to a phone number since it uses email as a transport medium.
Right now I only have an android app and a command line version for linux (I can only do so much at a time), but the protocol is completly open. Basicly PGPmime with a messaging format on top.

Have you ever looked at static linking in detail?
A .a file is basicly a collection of .o files. The linker only links those that are needed.
So they have a single .a file instead of two or more .a files. This allows them to prevent difficult interdepencies between those .a files.
The end result might still be a very small subset of the complete library.

You are trying to sell the wrong thing.
Software is not scarce, the only way to sell it like it is scarce is by artificially making it so. That is what closed source software (or like you mentioned patents) do.

Making mony with GPL licensed code is not that hard, (many others are doing it), but you have to sell the thing that is truly scarce: Your time and knowledge.
Have them pay you to make it or improve it, or sell support.

I don't know which platforms you use, but I am guessing they suck in general.
For all platforms I use gcc is just fine.

By your logic the BSD license encourages tyranny when compared to the public domain.

So far you have only proven that you can add and subtract the number 1.

Unfortunatly it took them years to formalize that.
Trolltech turned out to be ok, but untill you have the licenses actually reflect that you just can't be sure and it would be foolish to blindly trust them.

If only the one piece of software was just one executable....
Even then it was conversion work I as a user should not have to do.

Bullshit.
All programs had '/usr/bin/python' set as their interpreter.
Some developpers asumed it would be python 2.5, the others assumed it would point to 3.0.

Why is it my fault (the user of a package) that python developpers make a mess of their versioning system?
They made a new and incompatible language and gave the interpreter the exact same name and you think I am not qualified??????

All these crappy python applications asume that /usr/bin/python is just the right version for them.
Both python 2.5 and python 3.0 install with a version number (e.g. /usr/bin/python2.7 ), and under the generic /usr/bin/python.
What did you want me to rename exactly? And why should I as a user need to rename stuff just because python developpers can't be bothered to use decent versioning?

Upgrading python is a real pain.
The different versions don't even implement the same language.
Last time I had to upgrade to 3 for one piece of software all other packages seized working... why? Because they started with '#!/usr/bin/python' which now pointed to version 3 instead of 2.5. I had to edit all of them to use /usr/bin/python2.5

On the other hand I don't expect much better from those who think whitespace is part of the language anyway....

No they do not.

Since most of the deniers seem to get their arguments from quality sites like youtube they probably thought it was a good place to post a video with some real research.
The mistake they make is thinking the deniers are interested in science at all....