There are a number of underpinnings to what's broadly called anti-egalitarianism (which is a facet of the philosophies or schools of Fascism, the New Right, etc.). On one hand, there are the people who benefit from anti-egalitarianism and sponsor propaganda to that effect, similar to the anti-republican (in the "form of government" sense, not the "American political party" sense) and anti-democratic propaganda produced by aristocrats to discourage people from supporting democracy because of the "ignorant masses". The general basis for it is a nifty piece of circular reasoning where undereducated and ignorant people are derided for being undereducated and ignorant by the very people who have historically tried to ensure that they stayed undereducated and ignorant.

One way to think of it is a bit like a murder investigation -- look for motive. The very people who benefit most from anti-egalitarianism are people who occupy privileged positions which would vanish in a more egalitarian society -- the wealthy CEOs, princes, and oligarchs of all forms. Thus, they have the greatest incentive (and are in fact pretty much the only ones who have an incentive at all) to promote anti-egalitarian sentiment. It is, however, easy to promote simply because people, especially in the middle of the economic spectrum (petit-bourgeoisie, or the "small business owner" in many cases), occupy a precarious class position which they are constantly having to fight to maintain. Part of the result of this is a general social separation from the people directly below them (the working class), which is a natural result of fighting hard to stay above working-class people and to live out, in the USA, the myths of the American Dream and social advancement. Thus, while they might not instigate anti-egalitarian classism, they are more susceptible to aiding those who do instigate it and becoming the lackeys of the very group above them which utilizes them as a shield.

One way to consider this is to imagine three people, A, B, and C. Person A is a slave, Person B is a servant, and Person C is a master. In this situation, Person C might use Person B to keep Person A in bondage by threatening to eliminate Person B's (relatively more) privileged position. Even if it would be more advantageous for A and B to unite against C, this seldom happens, for a variety of reasons, often related to the machinations of Person C.

Even more insidious, especially in the cases of sexism and racism, is when people who occupy roughly the same class position are pitted against each other. It is advantageous to rulers for a permanent underclass to exist (as black people and women have been throughout the history of the United States, often the lowest of the low) because they can be exploited most readily. The easiest way to maintain this is to sponsor bigotry that will keep this group separated from other groups -- black from white, for instance. Then, this underclass will have to fight almost entirely alone to gain even a modicum of freedom, rather than being helped by their brothers and sisters to gain it. Why? Because our society today forces people to be competitive or be destroyed, rather than to unite in a non-competitive way. Thus, black workers gaining more rights could be seen as a threat to the privileged position of some white workers, and so forth. The easiest way to sustain a system is to throw a few scraps to a few select groups, and in doing that to turn them into defenders of the system for fear of losing their privileges.

Virtually all of these complaints are about kernel drivers or software distros have little to no control over. I am not defending Canonical, just saying that any change to these changes things for distros everywhere.

I agree. The GP basically presents two options: either a world of "untargeted" advertising (where everyone is annoyed by ads, but less swayed by them) and an insidious, manipulative, exploitative world of targeted ads. I'd prefer a third option.

Their behaviour isn't without precedent. It's similar to the "company town" mentality where companies would force workers to live in a locked-down town with limited access to alcohol, carefully limited access to media such as books and newspapers (this before the time of television), workers would be paid in company scrip, church attendance was compulsory, etc. It was incredibly effective at isolating the workers, pitting them against each other, and making them less reluctant to engage in labour disputes like going on strike, since that would lead to a quick eviction where them and their families would be left with a few possessions and pockets full of worthless company IOUs that could only be used at the company store. The same kind of thinking is observable in the widespread drug testing that began in the 90s. The idea is twofold. They must both have the "perfect worker" (one who is entirely socially normalized and one who doesn't engage in any behaviours, or have an positions or beliefs the company disapproves of, two things which are mutually contradictory in many cases) and they must also have the controllable worker, who is willing to live according to company diktat. It's similar to the common demonization of anti-authoritarianism by, of course, authorities. Constantly monitoring employees for non-approved behaviours, on or off the job, is par for the course if you accept the idea that the employer has de facto ownership of the employee.

They are an example of the free market. Just not the kind of example libertarians intend.

This will also apply to arrested and "detained" people, not just convicts. What this means (and how this will be used) is a form of harassment of protestors, especially when their more expensive personal goods "go missing" into a cop's pocket.

Or perhaps they liked it, given that Spain has always had an uncomfortable relationship with its monarchy and the fascists who propped it up for decades.

Why not both? Resisting (and teaching others to resist) helps to keep people from beginning to take these things in as normal and supposedly necessary. Second, even in countries with good electoral systems, voting someone out isn't always easy -- unless people strongly favour another cand

In questions like this it's basically a form of people simply being used to the old lights. Even if CFLs put out cleaner light that is easier to see by, they still prefer the dim, yellowish incandescents simply because that's what they are used to and, dammit, all these durn kids should get off their lawn!

That's because his goal is to erode copyright. The GPL is only part of it. Understand that and you will understand more of why he does what he does.