No, what's funny is you trying to deny the massive overlap between those groups.

Yes, that's the kind of sociopathy I was talking about, thanks for the example.

Yes, that's the kind of sociopathy I am talking about, thanks for the example.

That would make sense if it was big companies who use that word, but it isn't.

You realise that the people here who can actually "report all movement" are Uber?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ka...

And they're not really very concerned about privacy either when it suits them:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...

Not at all strange. They are sociopathic libertarian company devoted to "disruption", which is generally code for "we break the law if it gets in the way of us making money and we think we can get away with it".

No, it doesn't. At all. It means exactly what you are talking about.

Do you realise at all that people die in wars?

Like, people who are not Kim Jong-Un?

Except, you know, that in other societies women are interested in science and technology.

So no. You are quite simply wrong.

Nothing clear about it whatsoever. It means people can actually make a profit, which means they will actually put in the effort to make things that community will benefit from.

And no, with a few notable but very specific exceptions, you can't really make money off GPL'd software.

Sure, if they want to maintain their own fork that nobody uses, they can do that.

If it's MIT licensed it's probably a bit too open for him.

Can you name a person who has been scared to go to a police station because he downloaded an mp3 at some point?

Who is not insane?

Well I don't know about anyone else, but I'm convinced! I'm glad you didn't try to cloud the issue by any kind of pesky evidence or anything!

Actual, real-world programs do more than "implement algorithms". Turing-completeness is completely irrelevant in pretty much every single practical programming situation.