Ah, but then we can supply the following counter-measure: put some good addresses into the list too!
The crackers and spammers won't know which are which.
If they use the list to perpetrate, then their IP address is immediately tagged as being malicious.
If they use the list to cull their own list of nonexistent addresses, then they inadvertently cull your good address also. So you win again.

The difference is that the code is distributed for free. No judge is going to award damages for the redistribution of something that is free. At least, not actual damages, like $$$ per infringing copy. The breach of the terms (like not redistributing the source code) could be translated to some punitive damages, perhaps. Probably the best outcomes you can hope for are: the violator of the license is either asked to stop distributing the software, or else to come into compliance: replace the GPL'ed part with a from-scratch workalike, so that the program is no longer distributed with any GPLed code, or else make the whole program GPLed.

That unfortunate statement betrays a serious misunderstanding of copyright, patents, and the nature of software.

You're paid to write the original documentation, and are voluntarily editing the Wikipedia.

This is about being paid to edit the Wikipedia.

The policy should be: if you're paid to write, get the fuck out!

I'm not going to dig through the history of every article, and follow link to the authors, to check whether it is a paid shill.

Pay me, or you don't get to extort your users with your locking scheme! :)

I just blocked LinkedIn today from being able to deliver SMTP to my mail server.

Some linked-in dickhead (link sausage? haha) thought it was a good idea to send an invite to a public mailing list that I run.

Fiberglass is actually a composite made of epoxy (or other) resin, with glass fibers embedded in it for tensile strength.

Until you have a biodegradable epoxy to go with your biodegradable cellulose cloth, there isn't any point.

I don't think fiberglass itself is used for strength in other applications, but for its fire-retardant properties (insulation wool, glass cloth). Good luck with cellulose there.

Anyone who knows their own password, and is already logged into the gun, can fire the gun, if they just speak "sudo fire", and then say their password.

Plus they can keep killing people with just "sudo fire" with no password for a configurable amount of time since the last "sudo".

... plus "Wait, let me quit Skype and re-start; I will call you back".

For instance, it would be nice if the lastest version of Skype for Windows didn't sometimes freeze for 45 seconds at a time when merely sending an instant message, with no audio or video call in progress.

A translator for Skype? Bah, that just needs a fixed vocabularly of audio files consisting of "can you hear me now?" and "I cannot see you!" in 50 languages.

If you want subjects who don't mind not bathing for four weeks, just go to any CS lab.

You know, no matter how large a dinosaur you find, how can you prove that it's the largest?

Not without digging up every cubic meter of the Earth's crust to some reasonable depth.

Pass by reference is the norm? That is moronic and encourages bugs. We should avoid destructive manipulation such as variable assignment as much as possible in programming; reference parameters exist to make it possible to modify a caller's variable.

If you have reference parameters in the language, then any foo(var) call can potentially modify var. If it doesn't today, then someone can change it tomorrow to give himself access to var inside foo.

The C convention of taking an explicit address is safe against this.

Pass by value should be the norm. Pass by reference shouldn't even exist.

Lisp is purely pass by value; there is no pass by reference: just that some types have reference semantics (cons cells, arrays, etc).

Some old ideas indeed make much more sense. But all of those still-relevant old ideas came from Lisp, and none from Fortran.