The FSF also calls for browsers to support loading modified (or saved) Javascript instead of what is given to you by the server. So, in your example, you would just make sure that your browser loads your copy of their 'clean' source code, rather than something they've patched and re-served.

Well, the source is already technically available, since they ship you non-compiled javascript code. FSF's has several problems with this. 1) Gmail has not granted the user the right to modify the Javascript code. 2) Even if (1) is conceded, the FSF is arguing that the obfuscated code transmitted to the client browser does not truly constitute source code. They would like a link to be placed in a comment in the obfuscated code to the original, un-obfuscated code. There is a broader problem, however; even if a website transmits GPL'd code in the clear, the user does not have any easy way to replace the transmitted code with their modified code. They would like browsers to support hot-swapping websites' scripts with modified copies.

Haskell FTW!

I got a 5, and got credit for two semesters of college physics. I accepted the credit for the first semester (mostly mechanics), but decided to waive the credits and retake the second semester (E&M). It was (at least for me) the right decision; I would have lived if I hadn't, but I would have struggled to keep up in upper division courses.

A few days ago smbc comics was hit with a Java exploit in the form of a popup that installed a trojan on users machines. People affected were discussing it here; from this it looks like mostly Windows machines were infected, but at least one user claims Ubuntu was affected.

Precisely; "common use" predicates possibility and feasibility, and so is asking "when will X be commonly used?" is a stronger question that "when will X be possible or feasible?".

They do if you draw a distinction between possibility and feasibility.

See previous posts.

The poll didn't ask when it would be possible, or even feasible, but only when they would be commonly used. I believe that by the time such technology is viable (we already have the technology) we'll likely have much better transportation systems in place.

Their method relies heavily on the unknown language being related to a known language by some degree. At their heart of their technique is Bayesian statistics applied to lexical and frequency analysis; for this approach to work, there must be some basis for comparison.

I agree; results are meaningless if you can't review the process and attempt to replicate the results.

Well, that's just it -- this is an improvement on the collection method. I'm not suggesting schools have fingerprint readers at schools, I'm merely stating that this method will likely produce more accurate census data, which could then be used for any of the reasons mentioned.

There's a difference between a right to privacy and the right for you to keep you existence unknown from the government. I agree that privacy is terribly important, but you can't deal with absolutes; yes, people have died for freedom, but that does not mean we must reject anything that encroaches upon it the slightest. The government isn't collecting this information to spy on its citizens, its doing so to provide services to them and properly run the government. You claim the Indian courts will protect privacy; if this is truly the case, then it is likely that anyone misusing this data would be prosecuted.

As long as reasonable attempts are made to keep this information secure and out of the hands of the police, this is a case where the privacy concerns are far outweighed by the benefits. India has the world's second largest population; think about how difficult it must be form them to keep track of even simple census data. The U.S. has a population one fourth the size of India, and still has trouble taking taking a census only once every 10 years. This will allow India to better allocate aid to impoverished regions, or even just track what percentage of children actually attend school.