I almost think the FSF published this only to spark a license-related flamewar on Slashdot... Personally, if I were inclined to do coding and release that code, I would probably go with the GPL; If I am to release my work for free (in both senses), I don't want some asshole taking that code and closing it up later on. But I can definitely see why some people might prefer a slightly less copyleft license, so I'm not going to bother trying to change other peoples viewpoints.

Isn't "Rapture" what Google is doing with their Chromebooks? Moving all the user data into the clouds?

Try convincing the big content bigwigs of that...

Whilst I agree (and I'd mod you up if I could), I think it is also important to be cautious that the measures taken to "prevent the leakers from "mysteriously disappearing" because someone at their organization found out what they leaked." is not also used to cover up Mr. Assange's hotel expenses and other luxuries. Donators have a right to know if their money is being used to combat wrongdoings and expose corruption, or if it's being used to give Mr. Assange a yacuzzi in his hotel room.

From the looks of it, you're also on MDMA... But hey, I don't judge.

Well that was a quick argument... Now what am I going to do with the rest of my day?

Whilst bypassing a proxy filter can be difficult, most browser-based and local filtering can easily be bypassed by a quick registry hack, or even just a hidden away option for example, my previous employer allowed access to Facebook and news-sites during lunch hours, using a combination of a registry entry to lock down IE6 settings, and obtaining the settings from a script hosted on the LAN. All you had to do was unlock the settings, and input the proxy address manually. And if I'm not mistaken, the proxy only filtered on a DNS basis, so IPs were cool.

Industry analysts find it hard to overstate EA's satisfaction.

I think that was just a rumor perpetuated by a disgruntled blogger/EA Employee, calling themselves EA Louse./

To me, that sounds like a Publisher's wet dream... They'd just need to come up with the marketing to "justify" it, I'm certain the gaming community would swallow it whole.

Well, to me this isn't about "Fuck Games, I want mah Linux!", this is about the legal right to do as you please with your own property, and this is something that I would think is in everybody's interest. But instead we've seen gamers ride to the defense of Sony, forfeiting their rights as consumers, in favor of getting their latest game-fix. Most arguments I've seen are along the lines of "Piracy is bad!" (Don't get me wrong, Piracy is bad, but the lengths some people go to decry it are astounding), or "Well, now PSN will be full of Hackers. And to me, those arguments pale in comparison to what Sony is trying to establish as some sort of "standard practice", and why that is bad. And I guess that on some level, I expected some overlap between the Gamer and the Geek, but I guess I was wrong.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why gamers will never be taken seriously. This attitude of "Fuck rights! I want mah GAEMS!" that has been displayed by many gamers during the entire GeoHot Vs Sony episode has me seriously perplexed.

True. But as a dev, you'd want to expose your product on as many markets as possible, and I fear that some devs may not be too careful about what license aggreements they accept, and bam, suddenly the entire gaming community is tied up in ridiculous licensing distputes. But I may just be a bit pessimistic, I dunno...

Now what I wonder, should we care about speed? As many others have pointed out, getting from point A to point B as quickly as possible seems to have become somewhat irrelevant. Nowadays when everybody and their dog is carrying a smartphone, capable of processing, sending and receiving large amounts of information, "on-the-go", the need to physically be in another location seems to decrease.