The logic used by the IRS is dubious and daunting. That someone could potentially use something you are giving away for a commercial purpose... does not make sense as reason to deny exemption status.

The propagating effects could be devastating, even beyond open source software. This is basically a blank cheque for them to deny exemption arbitrarily and extrajudicially; if you dig far enough and raise the threshold for degrees of separation as high as you want, you could come up literally any reason you want.

I'm also curious what IRS stands to gain from this decision. An organization that makes no profits pays no taxes. So, what's in it for them to decide this way?

So, Microsoft's argument was that they needed to hijack thousands of computers, secretly redirect them and put people in financial strain... so that someone else couldn't hijack thousands of computers, secretly redirect them and put people in financial strain?

Great plan, fuckwits!

So *that's* why my DDNS suddenly went dark today, with no apparent explanation.

Port 80 forwarding to the right LAN IP. Server daemons are running. I can access all the services directly by WAN IP (not very useful). Updater client running just fine. No firewall configs in the way. No-IP reports the correct IP. No news posting on No-IP's website about any sort of outage or technical issues.

Well, I was lost -- that was everything. ... and that was all because of this horseshit? Guess what... I'm not even *in* the US, so now the US courts think they have jurisdiction over countries? (OK, that's not new)

Fuck all involved. Hope they get their asses sued to hell. And this judge canned for such a dumbass decision.

Fuckin' eh, man. Sorry.

If they did it right, one should be able to navigate entirely using the keyboard, the mouse being optional.

I was pretty skeptical that this would just be a CLI superfluously decorated with GUI candy, but I ended up being pleasantly surprised. At the very least, this has potential.

Three-ton motorized projectile that is expected to autonomously navigate roads with other multi-ton motorized projectiles, bicycles, pedestrians, wildlife and any arbitrary conditions you haven't even imagined yet... I think "on a budget" is about the scariest phrase you can utter in this context.

Mensies?

Something tells me the occurrence of such claims will be increasing dramatically.

It's not much guarantee of *any* job.

Typical ruling class: manipulating their underlings for the purposes of self-perpetuation. Only when their entirely selfish ambitions are exposed, will they relent just enough to create a facade of change, but never enough to relinquish power and restore a healthy balance.

This is the toxic parasite of American over-individualism that exists in just about every facet of its society.

Sorry to be so cynical of what know are noble goals, but how exactly is being complicit in the very cause of political corruption supposed to end political corruption?

The extraction of wealth through massive and long-term fraud, the extreme deterioration of the middle class and degree of political corruption with impunity has become so immense in the last few decades... makes this effort a laughable piss-ant by comparison. Incredibly powerful interests with huge political influence will end this by snapping a finger the moment they perceive it as a threat.

The only way to win a game rigged against you is not to play. I understand that "not playing" means something pretty scary and undesirable, but I don't know if there's any other option left.

Fair point, but what's the alternative?

BitLocker? Nope, might as well be called BootLicker, given Microsoft's complicity with the federal surveillance apparatus.

LUKS/CryptSetup might be OK for Linux users. But I need Windows for applications and drivers.

DiskCryptor (more like DiskCripple) has nowhere near the complete feature-set of the TrueCrypt suite.

There's eCryptFS... again Linux-only. You might be able to concoct some virtualized, networked Frankensystem to work with Windows, but that won't encrypt the OS.

And none of these options, as far as I'm aware, have TrueCrypt's plausible deniability feature, as fragile as it may be.

The best option *is* a TrueCrypt fork after the independent review has completed its final phase. And I think that's what the author is trying to say without actually saying it. Yay for 'Murican freedom.

There is really nothing more to say.

"Legal" means whatever you want it to mean when you're the one who gets to determine what it means.