Speak for your self.
I like free websites. Websites like slashdot. If the ads on slashdot would lose effectiveness because advertisers can't target any more, slashdot will lose revenue. So maybe then they'll try to find an alternative revenue stream. Advertorials. Paywalls. Whatever.
It costs real money to operate a serious website. If you make advertisements ineffective by rejecting third party cookies, then the website owner will try to find another revenue stream. Maybe sell all account data to the highest bidder?
Believe me. Ads are annoying, but the alternatives are evil.
No, this is completely normal. For example, governments have a monopoly on violence (see wikipedia). Citizens don't have the freedom to shoot each other, for example. A police officer does have the right to shoot under certain circumstances.
This isn't something from the past few years. Governments have reserved certain rights to itself for many centuries, in order to maintain civil order and sovereignty.
So, it's also completely normal that the government reserves the right to hack into computers under certain circumstances. For example, permission from a judge is needed. You can compare this to a search warrent for a private home, also the exclusive right for the government.
Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple and Oracle all have a whole lot more users than NetBSD. To most people, NetBSD brings absolutely nothing that Linux doesn't bring. NetBSD may run in some routers, but Linux probably runs in a *lot* more routers. Even FreeBSD may run in more routers than NetBSD (JunOS is FreeBSD based..).
So, to most of us, NetBSD is "meh, don't care". Sorry.
No it isn't. Wikipedia was known by the general public before you linked them from your comment. Furthermore, the content on wikipedia isn't infringing.
I've got copies of music available on my private server at home. That server can be reached from the internet. If you'd somehow found out the url of the copied songs, then you'd be publishing (i.e. making them known to the general public) them, which would be infringing. And my personal copies are legal since I'm allowed to make a private copy of music I own.
Copyright law protects Security By Obscurity. So the judge was correct in this case.
In order in infringe on copyright law, you'll have to make a copied work public. So, as long as you don't publish a copied work (i.e. keeping it obscure), it's not an infringement. This, for instance, allows you to make a private copy of a copyrighted work without infringing on copyright law.
In this case, a private copy was made. Nobody knew where to find the copy, except for the person who placed the copy online. So, while the copy was on the internet, it wasn't public. Geenstijl made the copy public by making the URL known to the general public. Therefore Geenstijl infringed on dutch copyright law.
Leveraging always beats prototyping.