I appreciate (and assume) that the way you mean "need" is along the lines of "the perceived need of those implementing it", and not a need in the true sense of an essential thing that must not be absent. There really is no need. An individual is still much more likely to be killed by their own goverment (typically: shot by a cop) than be harmed in any terrorist attack. If there's a need at all, it's for strongly encouraging surveillance of police and swift, certain, vigorously enforced legal consequences for any failure to perform their legitimate jobs. That's if security is the actual goal.

Like I think you're saying, the "need" comes from a desire to shit all over the Constitution while maintaining a thin veil of legitmacy.

I've never seen a full-service gas station in my state, nor a neighboring state I sometimes visit. I might have a real problem if I had to depend on one for any reason. I've heard that some states have nothing but full-serice stations because of union clout, but I wouldn't want to count on that alone to move entire shipments across the country. Naturally, YMMV.

Now if I exercise a little benefit of doubt and put a little thought into how your idea might work (see my above post on why stupid insecure people refuse to try this -- it deprives them of their deep-seated need to say "hah you're wrong!"), such systems being commonplace may create more demand for full-service stations. The truck-driving jobs lost might be partly offset by new jobs being created since these stations will need attendants. This is consistent with the overall American trend of replacing solid blue-collar jobs with entry-level service type jobs.

I wonder how long that hypothetical arrangement could last? Eventually you can expect that someone will create an economical, reliable way to make these cars self-fueling or self-charging.

He was just joking. When stupid people talk, they generally assume everyone else is as stupid as they are. Thus they ignore what you clearly are saying and how it was obviously intended to be interpreted, because that would make sense -- and you're as stupid as they are, right? -- so that just can't be what you meant. Then they twist the meaning around, play idiotic word games, and perform various mental gymnastics. Then they ascribe the results to you; the fascinating part is that they can do this themselves while believing that you are responsible. Then they state what was obvious all along, patting themselves on the back because of how "wrong" you are and how "right" they have been all along. Finally Daddy will be proud and find time for them, or those bullies back in school will regret picking on them, or whatever their problem was that made them so insecure in the first place. Until next time someone posts anything ever-so-slightly controversial, anyway.

Nothing short of turning a three-line post into paragraphs of legalese covering each potential interpretation of all terms used would satisfy them, as though such personalities aren't destroying the fun of this site already. Even in that case, I suspect they'd find a way to be a nuisance.

The article briefly mentions that there are humans inside [yes, I read it]. Until then, I was wondering how they planned to handle refueling (and maybe in the future, recharging). When they figure that one out, imagine what this kind of system will do to the trucking industry.

If your reading comprehension were as strong as your desire to feel right, you would have noticed that I never claimed boxing causes Parkinson's. I said "anything like Parkinson's". "Anything like" includes conditions that present similar symptoms, even if the causes are different, such as post-traumatic encephalopathy. This is why I didn't propose a given cause, nor did I say the causes would be the same.

You know, I don't usually respond in such a "low-brow" fashion, but I'm going to tell it to you straight: you're a bitch, you're quibbling over stupid shit like a bitch, and bitches like you are sorely degrading the enjoyment of this site. I'm sorry Daddy didn't make you feel special, or bullies picked on you, or the woman said "let's just be friends", or whatever your problem is, but splitting hairs and smugly refuting claims that were never made, just so you can convince yourself of how clever you are and how dumb someone else is, well that isn't going to fix it. If you practice insecurity, you will become more insecure as a man, not less. That much I can promise you.

Yes, and the number of people doing so can be expressed with a figure known as the average life expectancy. Of course, you knew that. It's just that for some reason, a lot of fellow Slashdotters derive an unhealthy pleasure from reading a simple and easily understood statement and looking for ways to twist it around, playing with the interpretation until they find an excuse to quibble.

I've read several of your posts in this discussion. You seem completely or almost completely unable to disagree with someone without completely distorting their stated views. The nature of your distortion is to take a relatively moderate statement and interpret it in the very most extreme manner possible. You then take your own interpretation and ascribe it to the other person. Then you proceed to berate them for it, somehow feeling justified. Really you look like you're just arguing with yourself, since it's not the other person's views you're contesting.

Do you derive any satisfaction from this? If you really wanted to do something useful or constructive, perhaps you could learn about a technique called reductio ad absurdum along with how and why it can be used. Hint: if you have to put words in someone else's mouth in order to make a point, you're doing it wrong.

Of course it isn't, but in ancient times most men didn't live long enough to worry about anything like Parkinson's.

Apparently you're not the only one who thinks so. I once bought a pair of boxing gloves to spar with friends. The cardboard box had this big bold warning on the side: "WARNING: Boxing is a contact sport"

I wish I were joking.

You say that, but someone already thought of that.

The whole point of due process is to ensure that yes, this is indeed the guilty party to be punished. Historically, the witch hunt was one popular alternative.

Whenever you relieve yourself of a responsibility by giving it to someone else, you accept that that person is not you and may not make the same decisions that you would make. If Stallman is to be blamed for anything, it should be in the form of Stallman blaming himself for choosing a maintainer who does not more closely share his views.

Now that persuasion has failed, I suppose he could fork it.

It seems like every time there is a discussion that remotely touches on the subject of freedom, someone in some form or another has to rehash this same discussion. The subject matter changes, the circumstances change, the exact pseudo-logic has a few variations, and it's articulated with varying degrees of skill, but at heart it's really the same discussion.

So he tries to persuade people to agree with him, perhaps passionately, perhaps vehemently, maybe even not so nicely ... but (to my knowledge) he has never used force or fraud to coerce people into behaving the way he thinks they should. That sounds perfectly freedom-loving to me. I'm really not seeing the problem here.

If your opinion of the guy is correct, then his methods will cause fewer people to listen to him and he will thereby undermine his own efforts. This means such a situation would be self-correcting. I've never heard of RMS using force or threat of force to make you call it "GNU/Linux". The degree of power he has over you is determined entirely by how much you decide to listen to him*. The ability to recognize this is generally called perspective.

It's as though some people have an entitlement mentality, a manner in which they are self-centered. It leads to them feeling like they've been wronged or mistreated somehow when they discover that someone doesn't agree with them, won't support or otherwise validate them (probably the part that really bothers you), and speaks against them.

* I started to add "and use his software", but then I realized that's not true - you could use Emacs with the LLVM debugger ... or not, whether anyone else likes it or not, because the GPL and LLDB's NCSA license are compatible. RMS deliberately chose a license allowing this to happen. Did you fail to recognize the significance of that? That freedom means people might do things with which he disagrees does not remove his right to disagree. Are you suggesting it should? If not, what exactly are you trying to say, if you are not in fact expressing another entitlement mentality?

There is one good lesson they're teaching this boy: those with authority are not to be trusted.