He might start whistling into it and launch nuclear missiles. :P

You do realize that survey consistently find 90% support for more substantial or effective firearms control, particularly background checks?

Still, it is to be expected that more people support a ban on home production than those who otherwise support gun control. An easily available technology for producing a wide variety of guns (which do not yet exist, as such) would subvert all existing controls on sales (background checks, magazine size limits, anything). So logically, anyone who supports any legal oversight at all has to support very strict controls if not outright bans on home production.

You're right. As far as terrorism is defined as the instillment of fear and distrust in the population for political ends, this fits the bill.

Will we have to give it human rights?

Google is not a person.

"Corporations are people, my friend." :-P

We don't bar women into Engineering or Computer Science

(Well, we kinda still are in many ways, but we shouldn't and we're working on that, so your point stands.)

An encryption that someone needs to wait only seven weeks to get broken by the manufacturer is not, in any sense, a useful encryption.

Indeed, there is a wide-spread institutional bias that stereotypes women as having superior computer skills.

That's why so few men become programmers.

If people choosing to not listen to you is censorship, then be prepared for a lifetime of 1984.

Are you familiar with the concept of a megabyte, and how many bytes that is?

Don't celebrate too early.

Is my position that people who want to own stuff have to decide between supporting the industry that produced it and not owning it? Hell yes, that's what I'm saying. It doesn't matter if it's some sleek electronics gadget produced in China under bad labor and environmental controls or entertainment IP produced by someone who actively campaigns against the rights of fellow human beings.

You certainly have the right to spend money on anything you want. You can buy stuff from the KKK too. You just don't get to delude yourself that you are not contributing, in a tiny way, to making the world a worse place.

So it must refer to statements he's made on his personal blog, etc.

Yeah, personal blog, interviews, being on the board of directors of a powerful anti-gay lobby group, details like that. This isn't some personal character trait, it's something this man spends time and resources promoting. If you give him money and publicity, you give it to the causes he uses it for.

Considering art on its own merits is not the same as contributing financially to its creator, particularly when that creator has consistently used his resources for evil. This isn't about some random things he said in 1990; Card is a board member of the NOM.

The separate judgement works both ways. If the quality of Ender's Game is not to be judged by the views of its author, then neither can it exonerate or excuse them. So we're left with a rather good science fiction series written by a raging homophobic bigot with few redeeming qualities. If the ardent racist Howard Phillip Lovecraft were still alive, the same would apply to him.

Read the book in a library, and rent the DVD.