GNU carries a philosophy and Linux does not.

I agree completely with this, which is why I think that trying to prepend "GNU" onto Linux is a rather foolishidea.

The GNU project was a project to develop a free OS and tools.

All works developed for the GNU project were released under the GNU license. Numerous other projects were released under the same license as well.

Linux was a project to develop a free drop-in (and superior) replacement for Minix, and although released under the GNU license, and was distributed with GNU tools, it was never actually part of the GNU project, any more than AIX or HPUX would have become part of the GNU project by replacing their standard tools with GNU equivalents (I personally used an HPUX system at university which had all of the standard tools replaced with GNU ones, but that wouldn't suddenly change the name of that system to GNU/HPUX).

The notion that without the GNU tools, a Linux distribution would not be usable, and therefore the GNU prefix should be applicable to Linux also ought to apply to Minix itself, which like Linux, was never part of the GNU project (and was released under a different license), but was practically unusable out of the box, and most users of it took the source code to the GNU tools, which was freely and readily available, and compiled them to run under Minix to create a usable system. Minux, starting from approximately v 3 onwards, actually started being distributed with the GNU tools to make it more fully functional out of the box, but nobody ever tries to call Minix GNU/Minix.

Linux is Linux. GNU/Linux is just a name that people who were tired of waiting forever for Hurd wanted to call it so they feel like they had some closure.

If they were hired through official channels, sure.

More specifically, the pirates were the people who hired the scribes, particularly when they were doing so with some intent to discredit the original author.

... then I can see absolutely no reason that a package that is clearly marked fragile, and probably nowhere near as fragile as this monstrosity, should be mishandled in transit *EVER* again.

I hope they pull this off.

I look forward to an age where couriers can actually be relied upon to deliver such goods without subjecting them to g forces beyond what their structural integrity can withstand.

Actually, the documentary said in a subtitle that I was supposedly a pirate for downloading it for free.

And as land would remain scarce, so would most types of food,which require land to grow the food upon.

The one time I downloaded a documentary that was released for free by the owners on pirate bay (while evidently also being released as a for-pay downloadable movie), a running subtitle not far into the film started going by, and chastised me for downloading it off of pirate bay instead of buying it.

I didn't even watch the rest of the film, and I no longer even remember what it was supposed to be about, but the experience kinda soured me against trusting people who willingly put their content onto pirate bay. If they are going to suggest that I'm a criminal for doing something they evidently were explicitly going to actively permit, I have no interest in what they have to say.

I never suggested that they could... only that laws would be passed prohibiting it.

Even supposing that this person somehow got their robot for free, he or she would still need to buy land to build their house on unless they wanted to build it somewhere that absolutely nobody else had any interest in being.

Even assuming that such DRM were feasible to implement, it still could not stop people from printing guns which do not conform to legal standards in the first place, but may still be entirely functional.

Of course, I expect that once this is fully realized, home manufacturing of any kind, without some sort of license and thus subject to regular inspection, is I'm afraid likely to be outlawed in the not too distant future.

Actually, the term even predates the printing press, and was used to refer to the activities of people other than those who were initially contracted to create the work to reproduce the work, typically attempting to discredit the original creator. People who would participate in such endeavors were called "pirates", and looked upon with similar contempt by society. when and where they were identifiable, even though there was no real laws prohibiting this kind of reproduction. The activity originally called piracy as it applies to creative works bears more resemblance to what we call plagiarism today than mere copyright infringement, but given the difficulty, expense, and effort that was required to make duplicates of works ta the time (everything having to be done entirely manually), the notion of copying something without also trying to take any of the credit probably hadn't even been given any serious thought of at the time. It probably still would have been discouraged, however, because such unauthorized copies may have been made at lesser expense, and may have been perceived to be more likely to contain errors, which could harm the public perception of the original creator.

I believe the argument against that, however, is that if you are going to ever allow anyone else to see or use what you own, then one should forever forfeit the right to claim any control over it, since one cannot reasonably control what others do with it.

Copying of creative works that were not recognized as legitimate by its creator or those who had financed their creation has been called "piracy" since even before copyright itself had been invented.

Words can have more than one definition, you know.

Where are they going to get the money to buy their robot? They've been put out of work *BY* robots.