No, I think fetlife already has that covered...

I've been wondering that since the 90s... SMS is a crude hack that was past due for replacement before most people ever heard of it.

It may be worse than I thought. Our last few stories seem suspicious. I think perhaps slashdot has been at least partially compromised. Hopefully the new management notices soon....... *waits impatiently*

Same here. This may be the lamest troll thread I've ever seen on /.

Ivory. If you can make convincing fake ivory and sell it you might save elephants.

This is a perfect use case for AltME, which is set up specifically for running your own private, secure server, that logs all messages. It is very easy to install, set up and to maintain (I've been running servers with no problems for a few years now).

I have mod points right now but your post was so misguided that I feel obligated to post here instead of using them...

The only person confusing 'free' and 'open' here is you. TFA contains only a single occurrence of the word 'open' and then only in relation to standards, not software. RMS has never been a proponent of 'open source' software per se, and takes every opportunity he gets to distinguish the difference between the OSS movement and the free software movement.

He was never a supporter of OSS, he is a supporter of "free software". Nor is he now "taking it to the next level"; he has been at that same level for longer than many of the people reading this have been alive. He has always said that all non-free software is a bad thing. His goals have been clearly stated since the original announcement of the GNU project in 1983. The only reason the attacks on standards that are 'open' but not 'free' are roundabout in this article is that it is a minor side issue to his main point about web applications; if he were writing about standards I expect he would be quite direct on his opposition to any standard that is 'non-free'.

If anyone is the unclear on what the difference between 'free' and 'open' is in this context, I suggest reading 'Why âoeOpen Sourceâ misses the point of Free Software'.

All of that having been said, I do not personally agree with RMS about the inherent wrongness of using or working on 'non-free' software. In fact I have made my living working on a commercial web application for the last several years. Despite this, I fully support his idea of making it easy to know how the software you run is licensed (even in the browser) and giving users the choice of whether or not to allow software licensed in a way they do not appove of to be run on their machines. With regard to the idea of allowing modified Javascript code to be used, I like the idea in principle, but having worked on a large web app and having had to debug issues caused by cached obsolete Javascript, I have concerns about the practicality of ever using such a feature.

Finally, I think you are a jerk and a troll. Comparing RMS to the Church of Scientology? Really? Get a life.

I agree that this is a great idea, and with your criticism of the implementation. I would like to see this as a website, compatible with the existing tool, funded by Google, and written by someone other than me (although I am willing to help). It could be sort of like MySpace for science ;-)

The deepening of your voice due to testosterone is irreversible, so when going through a sex-change your voice doesn't change. Most of us just practice changing our voices the same way you would if you were faking it.