you first

At the NSA they KNOW a bigger haystack is a better haystack, so why not extend that idea to a programming language.

By understanding all the languages you get the strengths of all the languages and none of the weaknesses, programmers can just ignore the weaknesses then they arent there,

Why should programmers have to put up with those pesky syntax errors when you can just make the language accept any (stupid) command.

Forward to the future !

+1

The value of open source is that end users can choose to take repsonsibility of the software for themselves, or get someone else to do it for them.

A lot of moneypeople expected volunteers to do all the work and were not willing to accept any responsibility themselves. You would think they would learn from their mistake wouldnt you.

You dont have to trust Uncle Sam, you have to (trust/dont trust) the source code.

What they said they would do bears little resemblence to what they have tried to do.

Elections are fought on many topics, its naive to think the winning party has popular support for every policy they took to the election.

The Government did not win a majority in the senate, the people chose not to give them a mandate.

A recent essentila poll showed that 38% of people think Australia (and others) shoudl oppose a price on carbon, 39 opposed the idea, others dont know.

Never mind, revenge is a sweet dish in politics, one term Tony is going to lead his party to a historic defeat that his party might never recover from.

Na, it will all be needed to make big domes to protect the cities.

I hear they make computers out of the stuff.

Yep, big linnup of corporate freeloaders trying to get in early in the exploitation of others.

We need to abandon freedom 0 (The freedom to run the program, for any purpose),
The Free software movement should not demand that software be allowed to be used to make society less free. We cant just concern ourselves with software, we are not an island,
We need a non-commercial licence

How can anyone take them seriously when they use proprietary closed source drivers...

They are just a gimmick.

"The hysteria and FUD and the billions of dollars and euros wasted on "climate modeling" is absurd"

Understanding reality is not hysteria, trying to deny it is.

We dont have to agree, its ok for people to have differences of opinion. No big deal.

I dont accept your arguments that they are accessories to copyright infringement (assuming thats a law); From wikipedia

An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal. The distinction between an accessory and a principal is a question of fact and degree:

        The principal is the one whose acts or omissions, accompanied by the relevant mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"), are the most immediate cause of the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act").
        If two or more people are directly responsible for the actus reus, they can be charged as joint principals (see common purpose). The test to distinguish a joint principal from an accessory is whether the defendant independently contributed to causing the actus reus rather than merely giving generalised and/or limited help and encouragement.

IMO It is reasonable to expect the site administrators to know that there is copyright infringing material on their site. But it is not reasonable to expect the site administrators to know if downloading material from a specific torrent would constitute a copyright infringing. Nothing you have said about the words they use or the way they organise their links has any bearing on that.

The uneducated masses just look at the end result, they see a site that makes it easy to get copyright infringing material, and they blame the site. A simplistic analysis and little value. Try digging a bit deeper.

The law should judge people based on their actions, not on their beliefs. TPB adminstrators have gone out of the way to setup the systems so their actions are not contributing to copyright infringment.

If they can setup a system so they can advocate their views without being accessories then i think that is a good form of civil disobedience. Societies cant progress if people blindly do what they are told.

It could be argued their inaction is contibuting to copyright infringment, but ive not heard the argument about that being illegal.

The fact that you resort to personal attacks say more about your values that it does about me, so grow up.

If you cant see both sides of an argument it suggests bias, not wisdom.

Being an advocate of a crime is not the same thing as being an accessory to a crime.

I know its easy to make things black and white, but everyone who has followed it should be able to understand they go out of their way to make it as grey as possible. If it was black and white it would have been delt with long ago.