Alternately, those individuals could have patronized other content providers that are willing to provide entertainment on terms and at a price that is more agreeable. Rather than feeling entitled, that is.

Yes they do.

If you are running, or exerting more energy you will exhale more often than other people who may not be exerting the energy.

Not every person has the same C02 per action. Some people are more efficient and others are less.

When have you ever seen IP lawyers overreach their position in any "honest" way? Their methods are ham-handed shotgun approaches. Shoot randomly and hope it hits something.

If those facilities, offices, and data centers are owned by the American company, then perhaps Germany should be looking into laws which permit that instead of trying to make other nations' corporations behave by their laws. You can't even _do_ that in China, you have to partner with a Chinese firm to even have that kind of presence there. If Germany wants that level of control, perhaps they should institute it.

There's no inherent need to permit a foreign corporation to own land and an effective business; force them to incorporate in Germany, in which case they can be regulated. If they haven't already, in which case they can be regulated, and this whole conversation is stupid. But it's stupid anyway, because this is what corporations do, and it makes more sense to control them from that angle.

When you think about it, domains are only as valid as people's willingness to use the commonly accepted DNS system and servers. It would be no more difficult on a technical level to replace the standard DNS servers with alternates of your own choosing.

I really wasn't trying to insert abortion into the conversation. Except for the fact it another deeply polarizing issue about safety vs liberty. And the debates about it go on shooting stereotypes and other stuff, instead of actually looking at the issue at hand. I am actually quite happy you figured my comment was suppose to be about pro-choice, because I am actually pro-life, but I try hard to understand why good people choose pro-choice. But I didn't want to bring the abortion debate into the post but express similarities in the two debates, about Safety vs. Liberty. Where the political spectrum splits these core ideas.

The arguments the the Right use for Gun Control is the same the Left does for Pro-Choice.

These debates is what gets people really riled up and stand behind their politician... However they are too polarized to get anything done on either side. Other than pissing off the other 50% That is why they talk big during the elections then often do little afterwards. Sometimes the most passionate speeches will be about blocking the bill so it doesn't pass.

We are wasting too much resources on this and should focus on better topic.

That's a nice theory, but in practice, the only way to preserve a free and civilized society is constant vigilance and preparedness. Unarmed law-abiding citizens and armed criminals is a recipe for nothing good.

I think .biz was helpful, in that I don't trust any domain name that ends in .biz.

Just like a certain US Vice President I won't name* who suggested emptying both barrels of a shotgun into the door when threatened by an intruder, thus violating firearm safety rules and possibly committing murder by not identifying the target and leaving oneself unarmed by expending the ammunition in one shot.

* but his name rhymes with hidin'.

India seemed to do pretty well with passive resistance against the UK.

The government can overwhelm some of us for a time but it can't handle all of us forever.

So a well-armed populace won't be any help overwhelming the government? The situation in India was with a nation rejecting an overseas power. The UK was a weary empire, and passive resistance was the appropriate response to them. Passive resistance is not going to work in the USA, against the Federal government.

Your little personal firearms don't stand a chance against the military or even the police really.

Any police department can be subdued, even with their urban tanks and full-auto weapons. They are not properly trained to handle insurgency. And perhaps we should be raising the question as to why our government doesn't allow us to have anti-tank weapons and full-auto firearms but to prevent insurgency. If we had these weapons stockpiled by well-regulated militias, we wouldn't have to keep hearing this ironic "you can't stop a tank with your hunting rifle" screed from the left.

Linus is not going to change because one Intel developer didn't like how he says things. It's not about whether she likes it, it's a matter of what works for the community as a whole. So far, we've had a couple decades of kernel success and advances. I'm inclined to side with Linus. On the other hand, she did get her name out there, which I'd have never even heard if she hadn't done it.

In a civilised country the populace shouldn't feel that they need to carry a weapon when walking the streets to be safe.

OK, whatever. Not everyone lives in a tidy little city where there are ample, well-trained, non-corrupt police and a moral populace. And the government doesn't get to choose what I "need to" do.