You're correct in just about everything you're saying
If you're ever looking for further information on this stuff, the book "Free as in Freedom" has a little on the further history of Free Software from the RMS viewpoint.
Off the top of my head: How about no visibly defined function parameters
I might be totally misreading you here, but are you saying that you can't put a function prototype into a function definition?
It's not just social networking sites though. Virtually ANY site you use has one of these clauses, collects personal information about you that you expect to remain private. It's getting to the stage where if you want to use the internet (a large portion of it), you have to agree that the website can do whatever the hell they want with your data, even though they said they wouldn't.
Take slashdot for instance:
From http://geek.net/index.php/terms-of-use/
Geeknet reserves the right, at Geeknet's sole discretion, to change, modify, add or remove portions of these Terms periodically. Such modifications shall be effective immediately upon posting of the modified agreement to the website unless provided otherwise (e.g., when implementing major, substantive changes, Geeknet intends to provide users with up to fourteen days of advance notice). Your continued use of the Geeknet Sites following the posting of changes to these Terms will mean that you accept those changes.
From http://geek.net/privacy-statement
Geeknet reserves the right to update and change this Privacy Statement from time to time. If Geeknet makes material changes to its privacy practices, a prominent notice will be posted on this web page. Each time a user uses the Sites, the current version of the Privacy Statement applies. Accordingly, a user should check the date of this Privacy Statement (which appears at the top) and review for any changes since the last version. If a user does not agree to the Privacy Statement, the user should not use the Sites.
Especially given the high risk of flying in the past decade we...
What high risk would that be? Since the big 9-11 panic, there have been exactly two incidents, both of which the TSA, curtailment of rights, scanners, and silly rules failed to stop. Both incidents WERE stopped by the passengers. Meanwhile, paranoid security has resulted in at least one death (security shot a guy dead because he was acting strange and didn't speak English).
The amusing aspect of this in the U.K. is that two panics are now colliding in an amusing way. We have the OMG terrorists! panic slamming into the OMG pedophiles! panic. It seems nobody wants creepy security goons ogling their children through their clothes.
Honestly, it's only a matter of time before some ill-thought comment leads a parent who is already cringing to beat one of those goons to a pulp like social convention tells them to.
Nor does this law criminalize any of the things these suddenly non-anonymous posters will say.
No, it'll just make them sure that now they'll be identified and possibly "stopped" by those who don't appreciate their positions.
Your boss is a militant for party X? You'd better don't say anything bad about them, or you'll find yourself out of a job.
1995 US Supreme Court precedent in support of anonymity:
* "... Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority."
* "... the most effective advocates have sometimes opted for anonymity."
* "... the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry."
* "Anonymity thereby provides a way for a writer who may be personally unpopular to ensure that readers will not prejudge her message simply because they do not like its proponent."
* "This tradition [of anonymity] is perhaps best exemplified by the secret ballot, the hard won right to vote one's conscience without fear of retaliation."
* "Of course, the identity of the source is helpful in evaluating ideas. But `the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market` (Abrams v. United States, [250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting)]). Do not underestimate the common man. People are intelligent enough to evaluate the source of an anonymous writing. They can see it is anonymous. They know it is anonymous. They can evaluate its anonymity along with its message, as long as they are permitted, as they must be, to read that message. And then, once they have done so, it is for them to decide what is `responsible`, what is valuable, and what is truth."
Um, you don't suppose that might have something to do with the vastly improved security measures do you?
Backward logic is fun.
As a programmer who does scientific computing (and apparently cares about software/platform freedom), you should be coding for OpenCL rather than proprietary CUDA.
"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker
