If the internet is that essential you can spend the money you would be dumping on full desktop systems to purchase redundant internet connections. If that fails, go to Starbucks and user their wireless...

They give that version the name unstable for a reason. Try if if you don't mind your shit breaking every once in a while.

I've never had dependency problems with apt-get. Where are you getting this?

Obviously the FSF cannot sue over someone else's copyright without their consent. The quote I provided clearly stated:

They do, however accept reports of suspected GPL violations and assist GPL developers in upholding their rights.

That would be the Free Software Foundation ( http://www.fsf.org/licensing ).

How much success has there been comparing object code to determine whether source code copying has occurred?

I never said that GPL was about complete freedom. I did not say GPL was about freedom to distribute however you want. While you may not agree with the restrictions of the GPL, I think you would have a hard time arguing that it is not fair. After all, the fact that you accepting the license means that you are getting someone else's work for free. I think its only fair to return the favor. The bottom line is that the GPL is the best known way of ensuring a healthy source-sharing community. The Microsoft way does not allow derivative works and forks and the BSD way relies solely on the good will of developers to contribute back code. Can all systems of code sharing work? Absolutely.

You must not have read what you quoted, because I only talk about the freedom to: a) obtain the code b) modify the code The only stipulation I mention is that this is guaranteed to everyone. Closing the source of the program obviously removes my freedom to modify the code you produced doesn't it? You remind me of people that say things like, "America is a free country. I can do whatever I want." Yes, America is a free country, and no, you cannot do whatever you want. The GPL guarantees everyone certain freedoms, but no, you can't do whatever you want with it.

Maybe your confusion is due to the fact that you think the GPL zealot crowd actually cares about copyright. What we care about is freedom. In the GPL's case, it is guaranteeing everyone the freedom to take a program and modify it however they desire. In this case, the concern is about the freedom to use software one has purchased however one desires. As far as I know, this has not been settled by court as copyright infringement. Incidentally, you don't have to support everything about copyright or detest it completely. You can see good and bad implications and places where there is room for improvement. Its perfectly reasonable for me to want to see GPL content covered by copyright and not desire that 40-year old books also be covered.

Whenever I've had to deal with multiple emails, I have used gmail's ability to download mail from other servers and tag them automatically for me...

I my post was on capitalism because that is the word the GP used. Capitalism exists with government interference, and in that case cannot be considered free enterprise. For example, corporations that received assistance from the government during the bail-out, while still part of a capitalist system, are not operating on free enterprise principles, as they depend on the government.

It would seem that by economics of scale (you can fit several hundred people on a train), if you can get most people to use the rail system, it would become profitable within a short time. While Amtrack is certainly a money hole, I would be surprised if something like the NYC metro system or the Deutsche Bahn had the same problem. As for the US Military, while it is not likely to ever turn a profit directly, it can shape foreign policy in a way that would improve trade, thus assisting the economy overall.

How is desiring that the government only concern itself with governance anti-capitalistic? it seems that you are using the terms free enterprise and capitalism interchangeably. While free enterprise is definitely a major factor in capitalism, equally important factors are that capitalism is privately funded and the objective is generating capital (i.e. financial wealth). Publicly funded projects focussed on helping a community or the greater good are not in line with capitalism in any way. One distinct characteristic of laissez faire capitalism is that if it does not turn a profit it fails. Publicly funded projects often have no such limiting factor, which is one reason many people prefer to see projects that are not relevant to governance to be managed by the private sector.

What exactly does the new driver offer that makes such a huge difference? I'm using 180, which is offered through the Ubuntu repository.

I always wondered why marriage has anything to do with the government anyway.