To an extent, this was what he was warning against (though he set no time constraints) -- that eventually people would complain about the existence of copyright regardless of length of time. He argued that making the law too broad and absurd (arguable - I'm not debating whether he was right on this issue) would cause people to view the entire thing as an unnecessary evil.

What we see in the past is copyright being extended and broadened continually over time, and people eventually arguing against it as a whole once they have a means to violate it easily.

Of course it is not perfectly what he predicted (and it is extremely late), but it does kind of fit some of the points.

Perhaps.

No, by the fact that there is a rising Pirate Party in a few countries. I don't dispute that it is currently very disorganized and ill-defined, but it exists.
It is by the fact that more and more people are obtaining copyrighted content from the internet illegally.
It is by the fact that more and more people think that this is okay.

Right now, many governments of the world and the recording industry are trying to fight it. Whether they are winning or not, only time will tell. In that respect, not everything he said has come true, but what hasn't come true still has the potential to.

The main point the GP was trying to make is that he predicted that in the future it would become extremely easy to copy something; so easy, in fact, that anybody could do it. That did come true, and that did take 160 years.

You could probably pretty easily write an extension for mediawiki that attaches to the 'ArticleAfterFetchContent' hook and augments the page with content fetched on the fly from Wikipedia. That would be easy enough to do. Just make sure that when the user is editing the page, the function you attach to the hook does not activate (otherwise you will end up saving the wikipedia content into your page, and it will be there twice when a user visits the page).

Were you on your rollerblades while you were playing with your legos?

Another simple way to reproduce:

1) Turn off immediately switching to new tab
2) Go to the slashdot index page
3) Middle click "Read More..." on any article
4) Try to scroll down the page
5) ???
6) Profit!

But in all seriousness, this can be a problem when browsing slashdot!

By blocking, BitZtream is talking about blocking for a significant amount of time. Technically, all calls are blocking, but there is a significant difference between blocking for a few milliseconds or blocking for a few tenths of a second. For example, reading from a pipe can block for a long time if nothing is writing to the other end; however, you can tell the read function to be non-blocking, and just return an error or nothing if there is nothing to read at the moment.

Obviously, these are system calls. And, being system calls, they are talking to another process, namely part of the kernel. However, this does not make your program multithreaded, because if it did, by that definition, there would be no such thing as a single threaded program on any OS that uses process switching.

So does this mean that it won't take several hours to compile it anymore?

Link to PDF version for those without access to Nature. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.2030

No, no, no. You divide the larger by the difference.

See the third definition.

The problem with voting in people with strong principles is that they often expect everybody else to also have strong principles, and pass laws accordingly. For example, libertarianism in the strictest sense works if everybody has strong principles and foresight. In the long run, it is disadvantageous to be anticompetitive as a company because it prevents you from improving your product. Soon (or several years) after something significantly better arrives at a better price than you can give, it will take over. However, people in charge of companies do not think that way. They think in the short term, as does any competition they may have at the moment. Therefore, they cannot be trusted to not be anticompetitive.

This is only one example why strict libertarianism does not work, and also only one example why relying on politicians with strong principles does not work. Thinking of other examples is an exercise left to the reader.

Same sort of thing here. The only time I see even the beginning of my password is when I type too fast in the terminal, and start typing my password before sudo or login turns off echoing.

I would totally buy a pen that could do that! Let me know when you make it!
:)

He said, "...invented to benefit the people...", not "...invented to benefit people..."

You are twisting his words instead of coming up with a real counter-argument.

Note: there are real counter-arguments, but you have not produced one here.