Do you also think it's fair to allow people who don't pay taxes to have a say in how your tax money is spent?

All of the characters except River and the Preacher could've been fed to the wraiths and the show would've been better for it.

Wraiths = Stargate Atlantis. Reavers = Firefly. Something tells me you didn't pay much attention.

Yeah. If we win, the government might actually leave you alone. Or worse, leave your neighbor alone, and we all know you can't abide that.

In the United States of America, you and your neighbor are the government. But I know it's easier to just avoid responsibility by creating this fictional "other".

I usually find "Did anyone else read xxxxx?" posts contrived, unfunny whoring for Funny moderation, but this time I actually read the same thing as you. Since the advent of "Mandriva", "Mangina" certainly seems plausible.

Uh, like the original? :D

What about "craftsman," "craftswoman," and "craftspeople"?

It's quite common lately. Kind of like a more physical version of Hackers. Think of it as a collective term for people who make stuff for fun and perhaps a little profit rather than invent and patent and scream bloody murder if someone brings out something similar. Anything from knitted laptop covers to 3D printing and home CNC.

How is that different from a "hobbyist"?

Yeaaaaaah man, my team, like, *totally* beat your team, duuuuuuuuude. Rah rah go tribe, beat up their tribe, it's all about us winning against them!

...says the person who obsessively posts replies to a thread until they have the last word. :)

Or they can just use their botnet, which they paid nothing for.

I2P is nice but isn't it written in Java?

Freenet is written in Java as well, but you didn't have any problems with that when you were recommending Freenet in your GP post.

Your argument is that the labor is what's ultimately being sold, with the implication that on the Internet digital information (music, literature, film, etc.) isn't the product in itself but a proxy for the value of your labor. Clearly you're arguing for the service model of value exchange and applying the universally accepted principle of "theft of services" to describe what happens when someone utilizes your labor proxy without your permission or compensation.

Unfortunately the service model doesn't fit.

One glaring mismatch is that due to the nature of digital information your labor proxy can be duplicated infinitely for effectively zero cost -- especially when uncontracted parties duplicate it using their own resources -- but you have only performed the original labor once. Since in the real world you can't have absolute control over the number of digital copies of your labor proxy available for download, your original labor has an indefinite value under the service model, and you have a non-determinable number of customers. By contrast, a landscaper can agree to cut your lawn once for 50 dollars but refuse to service you a second time, and thus controls both the value and dispatch of his labor.

Another mismatch is that the service model requires a mutual agreement for each transaction. Without an agreement neither party has an obligation. In a service transaction you wouldn't give the landscaper 50 dollars for nothing, and the landscaper wouldn't cut your lawn for free (nor without your permission). A digital copy of the product of the original labor -- especially an uncontracted one -- does not constitute a service agreement. The theft of services principle isn't applicable where the receiving party does not or cannot agree to the transaction.

The service model just doesn't describe what you envision, so the burden is on you to create a new model that will gain wide acceptance. I wish you luck, but I don't think you'll get very far misrepresenting your vision as something it cannot be.

This is the clearest (if a little oversimplified) layman's illustration I've seen of what was proven in this paper.

On Slashdot, I haven't seen much from the GNAA lately and goatse is finally starting to die.

Spoken like someone who doesn't browse at -1.

Tell your friends it's Linux, not GNU/Linux!

ftfy

Yes, that's the satirical point. :)

No worries sharing the data since you've got nothing to hide, right Eric Schmidt? Oh, wait, you really don't have anything to hide -- the data you're handing over is on private wi-fi networks. Thanks for coughing it up to the gubmints, they (like Google) would never use that data for nefarious purposes.