I'd take issue with them nominating themselves as the one true source, but that's neither here nor there. The real question is whether people will be willing to pay exorbant prices for relatively ancient hardware on the grounds that it very slightly increases the amount of "freedom" they have. Given that 99.95% of people will have no idea what this is about and further wouldn't care if they did (as we're talking about an increase that is difficult if not impossible to measure and arguably doesn't exist) I wouldn't hold your breath on this becoming anything more than an isolated instance.

In short, unless one can prove that even a tiny percentage of computer BIOSes and the like are phoning home or contacting the NSA with daily activity reports exactly no one, on the grand scale, will care. It reminds me of all the efforts to create a "free" CPUs or graphics cards in the past. Sure, you could do it and have them as long as you're okay with 10 or 15 year old technology that is incapable of doing anything that is currently useful. But it's Free! :D

Sorry, you live in that world. The fact that violence hasn't entered your life as yet does not change the nature of the world or alter reality in the slightest. Some people see the world for what it is and reasonably take precautions. Others deny the nature of the world and hide behind "specially trained armed response police". I would never want to deny people their right to self delusion but I draw the line at when they wish to push their delusions on others.

Just because the wolf hasn't come to pound on your door yet doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Count your blessings and be thankful for that, but do not think that simply because it hasn't happened yet that it cannot happen to you.

The entire thing is an overly complicated way to say something which is fairly simple: 6 - 5 = ??. The number of ways to present that are numerous but the simplest would likely have been: You have 6 Apples, you eat 5. How many are left?

Assuming you just don't want to go with: 6 - 5 = ??. Odd that we could teach it the simple equation way for the last.. oh.. forever?

Not only that but they'd likely say something along the lines of: "This will cut your Internet bill in half and double your speeds" to which the people in the area would reply "Right, do that then."

Prices are high because government causes un-natural monopolies and shields their pet companies from competition via exclusive contracts for areas. End this practice and watch prices fall and quality rise.

Given the history of such proponents and of such laws there is exactly zero reason to believe that if this law isn't fought and defeated that these same people won't be back next year wanting to ban lead, also known as 'affordable', ammo entirely.

The history of gun control is one of dishonesty, misdirection and incrementalism. It is also unlikely, though possible, that this is really about serious concerns about the relatively tiny amounts of lead and more likely just a way to try and ban ammo in a politically acceptable manner.

They want bans, they should provide incontrovertible evidence that this is not only a serious problem with direct and provable harm but that the only reasonable solution is this ban. Otherwise, it should be voted down immediately.

I've been there 10 times in the last year and a half and am married to a Chinese woman. Want to try that again? :)

The US has problems to be sure but if you think this is an accurate statement then you clearly have no idea at all what you're talking about and likely have never been to either place.

If you have then you're wearing such heavily colored glasses that you cannot see the reality of the situation.

That's actually the logic of why if you're already that close to the gun and its wielder the recommended course of action is to attack vice trying to get out of range. You're right you're not going to be able to get out of range but on the other hand the lethal point, that point in which the gun can cause damage, is actually really really small. If you keep it off you the gun can do no harm.

I've nothing wrong with her trying and I didn't think what you said had anything to do with color. I'm not sure what the color of all those involved are anyway and it wouldn't matter either way.

She can try all she wants. However, in the end either she has to accept the results or leave the community. The community is under no obligation to change itself to fit her whims/desires, no?

The general rule of guns vs knives is that it is best to run from a knife but attack a gun. This is mainly at relative close quarters but the logic is that a gun is really only deadly at one point extending out of the barrel and that point is actually pretty small. If you can keep it off of you then the gun is harmless. A knife on the other hand can do damage more easily, again in closeish quarters, and as such it is best to retreat and attempt to counter-attack from range. You are correct that the best way to deal with the bat would be to move in very close and if possible flatten the attacker. Interestingly, as I stated that's the same idea with the gun if you're already within range for such a move.

I'm going to counter your example by saying that yes you're right most rapes are committed by people known by the person raped. However, if you think a person who has a gun at hand isn't going to shoot someone they know who is in the process of trying to rape them you're smoking crack.

I realize that the plural of anecdote isn't data, however those I have personally known seriously regrets not having a gun at hand to shoot their rapist.

As to your second point that isn't logical. Responsibility for an external act does not transfer simply because someone didn't take a theoretical step to protect against that act.

One could argue that if hit in a car and I'm not wearing a safety belt that some responsibility for the extent of my injuries may be mine, but that does not transfer nor impact the responsibility of who caused the accident.

I believe he's asking you to assume that a gun is an inanimate object incapable of independent action and that it is the person wielding it that ultimately makes it dangerous or rather uses it in a dangerous manner.

Can it be used more effectively than the other items listed? Sure. Does that negate the point? It does not. You want to imbue it with special powers beyond those of the person holding it as it seems what you really want to do is blame the thing and ignore the user.

A baseball bat in the hands of a mad man is most certainly a deadly weapon and without adequate resistance can easily kill a goodly number of people in a relatively short period of time. Longer than a gun perhaps but that really depends on the targets and environment.

A sword would be even more effective and again absent adequate resistance would be extremely deadly even in the hands of the untrained mad man.

While you're mentioning the evil uses of the canceling properties it seems highly disingenuous not to mention the practically infinitely more common instances:
The 90 pound woman defending herself against a rapist.
The gay man defending against the mob intent on beating him senseless.
The old and the infirm defending against the young and strong

And so on.

A community is a group of individuals banding together for common purpose with agreed upon customs and norms, spoken or unspoken. Any software development project with almost any degree of openness quickly forms into a community as a natural consequence of human behavior.

The norms of that community are well established and nothing you've said changes my points. :)

Okay, in that case she's been a part of it for a while now and has (so far as I know) suddenly decided she doesn't like the way things are. That's fine. Asking for change and such is fine to a point. However, this is also closely related to the ridiculous idea that people have a right not to be offended or to hear things they don't like. No such right exists.

If they are unwilling to change, and I unsurprisingly tend to agree with Linus's stance on the fakery involved in being "professional", then she can either deal with it or leave. The people on that list were the way they were long before she got there even if she has been involved with it for the last few years.

What is insightful about this? It isn't the same thing at all.

What you're referring to is a group already part of a society campaigning for equality within the society. One could argue that they could have simply left but those who were doing the campaigning didn't have that option nor was it necessarily the appropriate option. They also were not attempting to force society to adopt their standards and beliefs but to force society to apply its own standards and beliefs to them and treat them equally.

If this person on the LKML was saying that she wanted to be allowed to curse and such because she had been told women shouldn't do such things then your point would be valid, or at least more so. Instead she's demanding that everyone else change to accommodate her desires and world view.

Yet also a fair statement. After all, when you attempt to join a community you either abide by the rules and customs of that community or else you leave and go elsewhere. You do not demand that community change to meet your world view.