One would think that trying to organize a "discussion panel" would imply they are interested in a conversation.
There is a slight chance that this particular set of organisers was indeed looking for an open, honest, critical conversation. From experience I would be surprised if this were the case. Surprised as in "Jesus swings by and turns my glass of water into Pinot Grigio" surprised. I study subjects from the social sciences, I have had to deal with this issue and the people pushing it for several years now. And my patience and goodwill have both been worn thin.
[...] for whom there is enough evidence [...]
If there was evidence of those people doing something wrong, they would not be on the No-Fly list but in a prison cell. The very fact that they are free to take a leisurely stroll out their homes' front door means that their being on the list is a grave violation of their constitutional rights.
[...] 45% goes to Bethesda. You know, the guys that made the Skyrim. [...] they created the engine, a ton of assets, models, textures, sprites, effects, the whole game [...]
...and already got paid for it all by everyone who bought a copy of Skyrim. That includes the mod makers and the mod users. Bethesda was not taking their fair share, they were simply being greedy fucks, cashing in on someone else's work that directly translates into more sales for a still hugely popular game that was released in bloody 2011.
The silver lining, of course, will be a sudden drop in "My computer mysteriously broke down, and of course it wasn't me (or any of the gazillion applications I managed to sneak past the firewall onto my harddisk)." type calls to IT helpdesks all over the world. Yes, there are overreaching admins and locked-down-to-death platforms, but the damage done by insecure, outdated or plain crappy software run without official sanction in offices every day is not exactly peanuts, either. And there are few things as crippling to a company than 'inheriting' such a - usually undocumented and fragile - shadow infrastructure once the people responsible leave.
Sensible companies develop sensible IT policies and provide procedures to get required software included into the platform in a stable and supported way. Yeah, I know. They are few and far between. But they exist, and they do hold a significant advantage over their competitors. And the more such measures as the one announced in TFA are being recognised as state of the art and prescribed as such by certifications and standards, the more financial incentive there will be to be sensible. It took until the mid-Eighties for seat belts to be mandated by law. Give IT time. (Ha ha.)
The "related" links
Could someone kindly explain to me how those articles relate to the topic at hand? I sure have not the faintest clue.
[...] not understanding that women don't like hearing dick jokes is a sign of social immaturity [...]
It is so good to find you here on Slashdot to explain to us how all the women in the world universally feel about a given topic. So those amongst my friends who sport breasts must all be transsexuals. Else they would not come up to me and tell me dick jokes on a regular basis.
Thank you so much. The world just became a much simpler place.
Think of it this way: If you were distributing software for home users, how would you recover the cost of making and testing updates to correct security vulnerabilities?
You do realise that those vulnerabilities are neither god-given nor the result of unpredictable fluctuations in the space-time continuum? They are defects in the product. What happens when Toyota ships a faulty model? They have to swallow the cost of a recall. What happens when Microsoft ships faulty software? They have to swallow the cost of issuing a patch.
The software industry already operates under a degree of leniency with regards to defective products that the majority of industries would not dare dream of. Do not paint them as the victims here. The only way to "recover" the cost of fixing bugs is to make sure you do not make them again in your next product.
I would say the world is going more lefty, with governments consolidating their power bases and censoring/silencing criticism. It's the left that wants to grow the size of government and have it spy on/manipulate as much of peoples' lives as it can. It does this under the guise of benevolence, of 'caring' about the plight of some group, real or imagined, varying by context. The right wants smaller government and more liberty for the individual. [...]
May I ask which country you are from? When I look at the political spectrum here in Germany, then it is the 'right' wing who simultaneously wants to a) eliminate social services, b) massively grow 'the government' wherever law enforcement and the military are involved and c) put everyone and everything under complete surveillance. It is the left end of the spectrum who wants a leaner government in most departments and strong protections and safeguards for privacy.
Right and left does not (exclusively and universally) mean what you think it does.
[...] Scotland has a heck of a lot more in common with Britain than mainland Europe; linguistically, geographically, historically, and culturally [...]
For some definition of "in common", yes.
To quote myself:
[...] Could you kindly point out examples [...]
So far I have seen only vague accusations.
[...] WHICH BY THE WAY, GPL-FREEDOMITES TEND TO DO... "hey look this file doesn't have a license, let's GPL it" [...]
If a file does not have a license the "freedomites" fall back to default copyright, which in most cases translates to "DO NOT TOUCH!". Could you kindly point out examples where people who advocate usage of the GPL have deliberately taken third-party code with no license attached and released it under the terms of the GPL? Usually it is the other way around: People take GPL'd code and re-release it in closed source software.
ASHes to ASHes, DOS to DOS.