Property ownership starts with self ownership. To earn money one has to spend his own time and effort, one has to use his own health and life, the time not spent enjoying but working. Property is thus extension of our own bodies and time given to us to spend on this planet.

To deny people ownership of the fruits of their labour is to deny people self ownership and it is disgusting. Noone should be born into slavery.

Your hands and your head and legs and the rest of it belongs to you. The collective does not own you and it cannot own what you produce. You can trade with others for what they produce or give it away, but that is your choice, your life. Your body your choice, yes?

Well, not according to you. You would steal from those who produce but how is it different from taking their body away? Taking 1 of every 2 chairs away from a chair maker is somehow different from taking away 50% of his life on the planet? It is not. That 50% of life is gone from him and nobody can fix that.

Your ideology is also insane in another regard. If somebody can produce chairs and another person cannot you want to take away from the one who can. What if there are people with no eyes? Let us then make it 'fare' for them and take everybody's eyes out. Some people are missing limbs, lets hack everybody's arms and legs off. There were people who died...... let us just murder everybody to make it fair for those who are dead but also for all of those who never lived at all.

Your ideas are horrendous if someone takes 1 minute to examine them, they lead to slavery and murder while providing superficial justification for the feeble minded.

I don't argue that they sell, but really... if they were just selling the vehicle, it would cost half of what it does.

Tesla, and Mercedes, can charge what they do because there are enough people out there that are willing to pay top dollar for a brand name.

In Tesla's case, it's also because it doesn't really have a competitor that offers anything resembling the same automobile features... all the other EV manufactures can't boast anything close to Tesla's range, and most look like crap (and the few that don't have abysmal range, not good for anything but commuting, and if I could afford to own a second car, I would be able to afford to own a Tesla in the first place).

Then just friggen call it Linux plus mostly gnu stuff. Calling it gnu/Linux is essentially rebranding it, suggesting that Linux is part of gnu. It is not. Linux may be GPL, but it is not part of the GNU project, where everything else that refers to the gnu project explicitly on its appellation is.

Have it on my 8GB 4s. It's fine. Had to do it cabled in stead of OTA (needs 4.6GB free to install OTA), but it's working like it did before plus new features. Just pushed through a lab's worth of iPad2 and it's fine there too.

- wrong, income taxes are legalised theft of life, creativity, time on this planet. It is slavery imposed by the violence of the collective on behalf of those, who perceive it to be to their advantage, whether it is so or not and against those, who are in a minority. This is how income taxes started in USA in the first place, top 2% of people were forced to be paid up to 7% of their income in taxes so that the vast majority wouldn't have to pay alcohol and some import taxes anymore (of-course the result is that everybody pays insane amounts of taxes, both on income side and on consumption).

- wrong, nobody has any responsibilities towards anybody unless they are your children, then you have responsibility to them.

- because it is in your best interest to recognise that if I cannot own property, then neither can you.

That's what society used to be: very few people owned any property, everybody belonged to the select few, who had the so called 'birth right' to it. You couldn't earn property, you could only be born into it or be given it by somebody who was born into it.

Meritocracy is a much more fair system to everybody, except for those, who lost that birth right of-course.

- wrong. I do not comply, I use the 5 flag strategy to ensure that something like you has a very limited access to my property.

- irrelevant.

- parents, fine. That is none of anybody's business.

What you are born with physically is of nobody's business.

- I am yet to see an ape that is forced to pay income taxes.

- irrelevant what you have or have no moral issues with. I already know what your 'morality' is. Socialist/Marxis morality is violence and theft, nothing else. I have no qualms and no doubts about your level of 'morality' and thus I do what I can to avoid such as yourself.

The distros you mentioned actually maintain the distribution of Linux that they provide, so prefixing it with a a distro name is entirely fine.... GNU does not officially support or maintain their own distro of Linux... if they did, then that distro could also reasonably be called GNU Linux. There is no such distribution, however, while calling it GNU/Linux suggests that Linux is in some way affiliated with the GNU project, which it is not, and why I have as much problem with that name as I would somebody calling a Linux machine that may be running Virtualbox most of the time a Windows computer.

Also, Minix distributions at the time that the Linux kernel was first being built depended on GNU to no much less of a degree for utilities and applications (beyond the kernel source code itself) than Linux does, but nobody ever suggested that such publications of Minix should have been called GNU Minix (if it had been, Tanenbaum probably would have dropped usage of GNU software from Minix almost immediately).

Honestly, the whole GNU/Linux naming thing comes across as Stallman throwing up his hands in frustration at Hurd not being completed, finding he biggest name on the block that happens to depend on GNU software, and then trying to piggyback the popularity of GNU on top of the notoriety of Linux, using that as an excuse to not rush on the development of Hurd, or at the very least, trying to buy more time until Hurd is completed.

Really, it had always been Stallman's intent that absolutely any OS which might be developed in the future, and which extensively depended on GNU should itself be publicly labeled or branded as GNU, even if it is not part of the GNU project, then that requirement should have been stipulated in version 1 of the GPL. Such a requirement would have likely flown like a proverbial solid lead balloon when the GNU project first started, however... and I can see no reason it should be somehow any more acceptable to apply it to Linux today.

Nissan Leaf would go from 25K to 18K
Or, much more likely it would be available for $18k with the current range or $25k with double the range. In fact Nissan is seriously talking to existing owners about how much they would be willing to pay for a model with double the range as they see Tesla coming down range at them.

My wife's friend who works for Rigid gets a company truck and a fuel card that covers his gas for work, he's supposed to report personal use but I believe if he doesn't they just use a standard IRS formula and take it out of his annual bonus.

VS what, a car from the 1970's? Everything from the mid 80's on is a complete fender replacement in the case of an accident. It's the price we pay for fuel economy. Heck, many fairly minor accidents result in the vehicle being totaled due to crumple zones, that's the price we pay for safety. In both cases it's a minor percentage of the total cost of the vehicle fleet.

I doubt it, my wife's last van is 11 years old and while it has some rust her sister is still driving it just fine, my 11 year old Vibe has hardly any rust and I live in the middle of road salt hell (NE Ohio), it's not the 70's anymore, cars don't rust out in 8 years.

Right now there are plenty of stations listed on gasbuddy in LA proper, and the greater LA area at $3.47-$3.49, of course there are quite a few listed at $4.99!

According to their terriff sheet summer consumption at 200% of baseline is $0.19564 for delivery and and $0.12396 for generation which actually comes out to $0.3196 per KWhr so I assume the $.35 includes some kind of taxes.

Good call -- I was using "grandma" as a proxy for "people who aren't that computer-savvy", but I imagine my mother who's in her 60's runs Lubuntu just fine :)

So why didn't he insist before Linux came around that *ALL* OS's that make extensive use of GNU tools and utilities take on the branding of GNU to refer to them?

Linux wasn't the first.... There were several releases of Minix that depended on GNU no less heavily, for example. And Minix isn't even GPL, let alone part of the GNU project. I think if anyone had ever even suggested that release of Minix should have been called GNU/Minix, it would have made quite a few people in both the Minix and the open source community in general uncomfortable, to say the least. Linux itself is based on Linus Torvald's experience with Minix, and originally, Linus used a Minix system to develop Linux.... the software tools that came with Linux where GNU because most of the tools that came with the version of Minix that he used were also GNU, not because there was ever supposed to be an affiliation between GNU and Linux beyond the license that Linus chose to release it under.

My point is that Stallman wanting it to be called that is just trying to draw attention to his own project by piggy-backing on Linux's popularity, making him no better than a patent troll, IMO. That's not to belittle the significance that GNU software plays in the state of Linux, but this still amounts to a blatant rebranding of what is supposed to be a trademarked term. If he wants to call something GNU/Linux, then he should make his own distribution, and have that distro officially supported by the GNU project. Linux may depend on GNU software, but the GNU project does not maintain it, which is what calling it GNU/Linux suggests.

If Stallman had always wanted any OS that might ever be made which extensively depended on GNU software to exist to be branded with GNU, then that requirement is something he should have stipulated in the very first version of the GPL.

When somebody can make a decent range electric car that doesn't look like a piece of shit *coughleafpriusvolt*, and isn't priced at nearly double what you'd otherwise spend on a decent-looking brand new car made by another auto manufacturer, I might consider buying one... Tesla is the only player so far in the electric vehicle market that has made attractive cars with respectable range. But until Tesla can actually compete with gasoline cars on the amount it will actually cost to own one, they are just never going to be anything but a luxury automobile. That's not to say that they won't sell... they certainly will, But they are selling their name... not the vehicle. And there are lots of people out there who will pay top dollar for a brand name. However, not everyone can practically afford a luxury car, even though they can quite comfortably afford an otherwise really nice looking car that isn't a hybrid or EV.