Then why are you on /. ?

The GPL advocates are definitely more subtle about it -- they usually don't stage frontal assaults on BSD. They don't have to. GPL advocates have successfully created an environment where their concept of "freedom" is widely taken to be the one and only true definition. Any attempt by BSD advocates to challenge the GPL definition of freedom is seen as trolling. Like many "hot button" social issues, it's difficult to have a reasoned discussion, and even when you do, few minds are ever changed.

I believe free software (whether as in speech or beer) is a gift, and the person giving the gift has an absolute right to impose whatever conditions they want on recipients. People who can't/won't accept the conditions must decline the gift. Taking the gift and not abiding by the conditions is not a morally acceptable alternative.

I also believe that giving gifts doesn't create immunity from criticism. People who don't like the conditions attached to a gift have an absolute right to complain. If enough people agree that the conditions are unreasonable, pressure from the community may convince the giver to modify their terms. If few people agree, pressure from the community may convince the complainer to sit down and shut up.

Let me know when your favorite MS Office alternative can open and flawlessly display every Office file that I have, or may receive from somebody else. I also need a guarantee that files I create with it can be sent to people using MS Office, and they'll be able to use them without incident.

The network effect isn't fair, but it is reality. I absolute hate the ribbon UI, but not enough to suffer the compatibility issues of switching to something else.

Dell would probably be happy to sell the chips. The real question is, would competing manufacturers want to buy them? For example, I'm quite sure that HP would phase out and eventually stop selling systems with AMD processors. Big companies don't like sending money to their competitors.

Google seems to have recently started enforcing AsSense TOS in ways that they were never enforced them before. It's their business, and they have the right to set whatever TOS they want. I also have the right to think they're a bunch of assholes.

See also: the-great-google-adsense-purge-of-2010

I eagerly anticipate a PayPal transaction.

Sorry, I can' do PayPal. However, if you post your checking account and bank routing number, I will arrange an ACH transfer.

Does anybody know of a similar device that includes Homeplug?

No, unfortunately. There also aren't any plug computers that can run off POE (Power Over Ethernet).

Being small and cheap is a key part of plug computers appeal. There are many technologies that would go well with a plug (e.g. WiFi, Homeplug, POE, USB, ESATA, RS232, RS422, I2C, etc.), but including them all would be size/cost prohibitive. The manufacturers have to make a judgment call about where the "sweet spot" lies. The result is often a "one size fits nobody" situation, where the plug is 90% right for your application, but the missing 10% is a deal killer. Building a custom plug is impractical at low volumes.

P.S. I bought a Shevaplug last year. I had no idea what I'd do with it, but it sounded cool. Honestly, I still don't know what to do with it. Luckily I can afford to blow ~$100.

So I should dumb myself down with a hammer before writing code?

You can do it that way, but I prefer whiskey.

(Obligitory XKCD reference)

Even atheists like to hedge their bets. Read about the soul catcher software license, featuring the SBDAWF.

(As a certified Old Fart, I actually remember MJSS and their "unique" EULA. I thought it was hilarious. I also never pirated their software, just in case!)

I quoted from another blog that I've come to trust over a period of time. YMMV. That's why I provided the link. Feel free to form your own opinion.

Actually, the poll results are basically in alignment with my personal biases. I think it's the right result, reached the wrong way. That kind of thing bothers me more than outright fabrication. I hate it when "my side" uses bogus arguments to advance the cause.

It all depends on how to you define "human rights", and what means you advocate to achieve them. For example, my personal definition of human rights includes freedom OF speech, specifically including speech that is hateful and offensive. Other people define human rights to include freedom FROM that kind of speech.

The fatal flaw in the poll is sample bias. The membership of AAAS is not representative of "scientists" as a whole. There are no requirements to join this organization, other than a willingness to pay a ~$150 annual fee. It's likely that members have an "interest" in science, but may not be scientists themselves. Also, the organization clearly has a "liberal" political orientation, which likely discourages "conservative" scientists from joining. This is a classic case of self-selection.

I'm not passing any judgment on AAAS or it's members. I'm saying that it's wrong to represent a poll of AAAS members as a "poll of scientists". The statement may be literally true, but it's extremely misleading, to the point of intellectual dishonesty. It's like taking a poll of NAACP members, and then reporting that "90% of People strongly approve of President Obama".

The Half Sigma blog points out a serious flaw in the design of this poll...

There is a Pew research study purporting to poll "scientists." The question I immediately want answered is, what's a "scientist?" The answer, as far as Pew is concerned, is anyone who is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The AAAS is a liberal organization with stated goals such as "Increase diversity in the scientific community," "Use science to advance human rights" (sometimes in collaboration with leftist-sympathizing Amnesty International), "Sustainable Development" and "Women's Collaboration".

You don't in any way have to be a real scientist to be a member of this organization. All you need to do is send them $146. School teachers are especially encouraged to join, and no one should confuse a grade K-12 school teacher with a real scientist.