You're missing the point completely (and have a lot of angry-sounding posts on this article!).

Pros and cons / price and utility.

The utility of a platter disk is a lot of space. The cost is low.

The utility of a SSD is a lot of speed (heat/noise/droppability also in the list). The cost is high.

For me, it sounds like the GP, and many others, the pros and cons are solidly on the side of the SSD. I too ended up deleting some stored videos and images on my laptop. Like the GP, I sometimes miss some of the extra data that is now on a different computer, but it's totally worth it. Getting an SSD was the best upgrade I've done in the past 10 years. I would make the same decision again any time.

Who in the what now?

Let me flip the tables. With no copyright laws, how does the GPL work? Answer, the GPL cannot function in the absence of copyright law. If you were to remove all copyright laws, the GPL no longer could function. If you've never read the GPL, you might be interested to do so. Look at how many instances of the word "copyright" appear in the license.

Once again -- if you are against the existence of copyright laws, by the very nature of this, you are against the GPL. The GPL (and BSD license, lest we forget!) is completely dependent upon copyright law to existence, function, and most importantly, be enforced. How else would you propose to enforce GPL? EULA? I've always heard it said that EULAs can't stand up in court.

Secondly, you said I misunderstood copyright law. Tell me EXACTLY what I misunderstand. No broad statements, no claims that I don't "get" the GPL. Just tell me what facts I am wrong on.

What don't you believe? I've been completely up front on on everything I believe.

I got the impression from this message that english is not your first language? If that's true, I apologize for saying you sounded like you were full of shit, because I think we're just having a failure to communicate. I'm genuinely fascinated in what insults you imagine I am leveling against the GPL and why you think I'm lying?

You have not pointed out one fact that I am wrong about. In fact, the only thing you keep saying is that I am a liar, dishonest, retarded, I don't understand copyright law and I don't get the GPL. Let's not talk about our feelings, and let's just get down to facts.

Yes, the BSD license also exists because of copyright, you're correct (see my other posts on this articles for more information). This point has never been under any dispute. As I did say in a different thread, the BSD license imposes fewer restrictions on redistribution than the GPL does, so in practice it's slightly closer to public domain.

Again, saying that the GPL (and the BSD) license relies on copyright is in no way a criticism, merely a statement of fact. Do you disagree?

If you are anti-copyright in its entirety, you are anti-GPL. The GPL can aim for whatever end results are wanted (and there is certainly a great of material put out by FSF/RMS about the goals of the GPL), but the foundations of the GPL are based upon copyright law. There's no getting around that...

Enlighten me? Because it basically seems you're just completely full of shit. Have you brought any facts to this discussion? I mean honestly, what statement of mine do you disagree with? Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

Incidentally, if you're asking my personal opinion, I would probably lean more towards the BSD license philosophically. In my personal politics I tend more towards the libertarian than the paternalistic. I'm a live and let live type. I view most attempts to control how other people live as somewhat unsavory at best. Having said that, I appreciate both licenses for their flexibilities, use GPL programs, and have donated to both GPL and BSD projects.

I think you're confused about my point then.

The GPL solely exists because of copyright law. If you are anti-copyright, you are anti-GPL. The GPL cannot exist in the absence of copyright. That's not at all a criticism, merely a statement of fact. You can be against ASPECTS of copyright law and still a fan of the GPL, but as the original comment merely said "against copyright" I thought it was pretty clear what was meant.

If nothing was copyrightable I suppose a reasonable facsimile of the GPL could be made using contracts, but it would be much more complex, cumbersome for contractors and contractees alike, and I suspect harder (or impossible?) to enforce.

What criticism are you referring to?

Not sure what you're replying to, but the poster to whom I replied said he was both a Libertarian and anti-copyright.
  I'm a libertarian (not with an "L") and believe there should be some amount of copyright law. Copyright enables the GPL -- that's a good thing!

I don't see it that way at all. I do agree that copyright today is in many ways disgustingly perverse (exorbitant statutory fines, extradition, 100+ year control, for starts). However, GPL doesn't "subvert" copyright at all. Copyright was--and always has been--to allow the right holder (ie, creator) some level of control in terms of use. If that use is the GPL--fine. If that use is licensing--fine. If you want to sell your right--fine.

I think we do agree that the GPL is genius because it works within the current legal framework.

No, not really. The wikipedia article on copyleft looks like a good starting point though!

The reason I say that if you're against copyright, then you're against the GPL is that the GPL relies on copyright to function. The BSD license is closer to a world without copyright, as the BSD license functions more like public domain.

I wouldn't say I was frothing though I do think the blurb is moronic.

I also think the average age on slashdot is substantially higher than it was 10 years ago.

Very interesting, I had not heard that before.