Your hate is a perfect match for the terrorists hate. Whilst other people rise above it, you demonstrate that your religion is as flawed as theirs.

I guess you don't follow US politics. The house has a Republican majority. And they've been blocking the president in everything they can. They are responsible for the problems in the Affordable Care Act.

Let's put this in geek terms:

You're using "free" in the RMS sense, where the market itself is liberated. You and I agree on this. A free market is one that has been liberated from monopolists and others who want to lock it down for their own benefit.

The Koch brothers want a free-as-in-BSD market where they are free to manipulate it as they see fit without allowing others to benefit.

Which freedom is more important - that of the market or that of the actors in the market? I suppose the answer boils down to your demographic. If you're one of the billionaires who doesn't want to work for a living, you probably want the latter version so that you can run roughshod over rules meant to keep one person from screwing it up for everyone. If you are literally anyone else on the entire planet, you should probably prefer the first definition.

I'm smart enough to know it, but dumb enough not to bother. I'm not an extensive UI customizer (outside of when using Linux and a tiling window manager) - you dance with the date you brought. If I'm on a Mac, I use it like a Mac because that's how all apps, settings, and utilities expect you to use it. Why fight against the current? I'll use the keyboard prefs to put the control key in the right place, but other than that, OK, today I'm a Mac user.

Same with Windows. Sure, I could install a shell that works the way I'm used to everywhere else. But that's struggling against The One True (Terrible) Way and seems futile. Worse, it means I'll only be proficient on that one particular computer, and somewhat lost when using someone else's. When in Windows, I do as the Windows does.

You can know all about the alternative interfaces and still not choose to use them. Personally, I just adopted the approach of not using Windows at all, ever, unless I absolutely have to. It's served me pretty well so far.

You didn't know all along... you worried about it, you feared for it, but you didn't know

Only retarded idiots like yourself do not KNOW the inevitable will occur.

It affects all other choices you make, which is sad for you.

Because it shows that video level knowledge of what happens to animals in the abattoir wasn't enough to stop you from being a cause of them being killed.

It did as little good as watching a video of the beheading would do.

My story: Been using Linux and BSD heavily since the 90s. I don't really care if you spell "restart foo" as "/etc/init.d/foo restart", "/usr/local/etc/rc.d/foo.sh restart" "service foo restart", "systemctl restart foo", or just "pkill foo && foo". As an end user of the init systems, those are fungible.

As a developer of things that uses the init systems, there's a huge difference. SysV and BSD inits are close enough in functionality that if you learn one, you can pick up the other. systemd changes that totally, in ways that many of us aren't convinced are actually better. I love learning new stuff! I just changed jobs to learn new stuff! New stuff is cool... but only as long as there's a reason for it. I don't see systemd as being advantageous, at least on the server machines where I spend my days.

I'll be happy to pick up systemd if and when 1) there's no alternative short of maintaining my own private Debian fork, or 2) I can see a reason I'd want to rip out the tried and true, Unix-philosophy-conformant "do one thing and do it well" init systems we have today. As of this moment, systemd seems to do way too much. Given that it's a single point of failure for an entire host, that makes me distrustful.

Do you eat meat?

No it's not. That's nothing but self serving prurience. It makes you feel proud that you can feel. Which does precisely nothing towards solving the problem of ISIS.

All that's needed is the knowledge that it happened. There is nothing further served by seeing it.

Classic strawman. No one has said ISIS will stop beheading people if they can't post it to YouTube.

This is about decency. Just because ISIS don't have any doesn't mean we should drop ours.

It's not in the public interest to show the video. Certain members of the public may find it interesting, but that's a different thing.

The news aspect is fully served by informing people that the beheading has happened. No one needs to see it. It's just prurience.

The people who HAVE seen it and are commenting about the effect it had on them. Well, the world doesn't revolve around them, and how profound it makes them feel to watch a snuff video.

Yes.

You have no argument.

Which makes no rational sense. Fox News is a very right wing tabloid like TV station. The Guardian is a mainstream left broadsheet. The closest you get to Fox News in the UK is Sky News, especially when hosted by Kay Burley. But it's far less extreme than Fox.

I bought a Synology NAS and it comes with something called Cloud Station, which is basically Dropbox. You install the client on your machines and it keeps your ~/CloudStation folder in sync with your own NAS. Your data never leaves your personal control. I currently have about 4TB of open storage, which is a little more than the 8GB or so of Dropbox I've accumulated over the years.

I'm sure other NASes offer similar arrangements. Pick one you like, install it, then forget the whole idea of paying some company $$$ per month and praying they care about your privacy.

Yes, it would, because the infantile mind doesn't recognize a power grab or the early steps of establishing a soft tyranny when they happen before its eyes.

I'd recommend a copy of Jeffrey Grupp's book The Telescreen if you want to know what's really been done to this culture.