I found that it was too pedantic to be informative, but just pedantic enough to be funny.

It's sillier if you look at the before and after:

Before:
(3) publishes, exhibits, or otherwise makes available anything obscene to any group or individual; or
After:
(3) publishes orally or in writing, exhibits, or otherwise makes available anything obscene to a group or individual; or

Looking at the picture, I think you're paying for the pear.

Fixed that for you. Remember, URLs are case sensitive!

He would probably patch and take over the botnet for his own purposes.

To be fair, if you're using native libraries for rendering and UI, it's not likely to make a huge difference what language you're using; for the most part you're not lifting the heavy weight.

Anyone else read that as "Girl Adoption Soaring; Are There Good Migration Strategies?"?

*goes hunting for coffee*

[...] We caught the animal in a trap as part of a very large effort and only kept it for a few hours while we measured it and collected samples [...] then picked it up to bring it back to the exact spot where we found it. [...]

And to think that people don't believe in UFOs!

But, unlike using the same password on multiple sites, none of the client sites actually know your password!

Simply using the same password on foo.com and bar.com means I have to trust foo.com not to impersonate me at bar.com and vice versa. With OpenId, neither of them can abuse this since they still cannot authenticate as me.

If your OpenId provider has a session cookie with you, then you don't even need to put in the password, just hit 'OK' to authorize the requesting site. After the first time, you don't even need to do that.

For example, if StackOverflow used a regular login system, I'd need to put in my username and password every time I want to log in. With OpenId, I just put in my OpenId and am automatically logged in!

It lets you do fun stuff like this: atstream.henk.ca.

Not really useful though. =)

The [GPL] license has nothing to do with users at all. It's not an EULA, it's a copyright license.

Users make copies too.

It allows developers to make copies of the source code, under certain conditions, and it restricts the times when that's allowed. That's not freedom, that's "digital rights management" in its worst sense.

It isn't. DRM artificially removes rights that users had beforehand, such as the rights given under fair use laws. The GPL, as a copyright license, provides the developers and users with certain rights, it doesn't remove any. That it provides fewer rights than, say, the BSD license, does not make it DRM.