Should a Democratic donor who asks to audit or to use this code be denied access?
If that's the case, I wonder where tax lies. There are no stipulations there either. Is it a donation an investment? Should those who provide funding be able to receive the fruits of that funding?

Donors don't deserve access to things they help to fund?

This actually reminds me of the debate over publishing tax-payer funded research. One side says America's competitors/adversaries would be given a leg up, so the results of publicly funded research should be kept secret, the other side says the fruits of research should not be excluded from those who provided the funding no matter who else might use it.

I wonder if we can be consistent in both cases.

Shouldn't it belong to every donor, then?

From that ITU internet control fiasco a while ago, we have a pretty good idea of what would happen if the FCC were a world-wide organization.

This makes me wonder why you didn't choose Judaism or Zoroastrianism.

What was it about the other religions that made you avoid/reject them, and what was it about Islam that convinced you?

Firstly, stop assuming that everyone who is against Islam is supportive of Christianity. Secondly, it's pathetic that among nerds and supposed intellectuals a quip about the Bible can successfully derail a discussion about Islam, when we know for certain that a quip about the Quran rightfully could NOT do the same to a discussion about Christianity.

Lastly, the fact that Muslims are the victims du jour in the geopolitical world does not mean Islam itself should be put upon a pedestal or given special treatment in the social world. Too many of my fellow liberal atheists, in their enthusiasm to accommodate the downtrodden, go too far to make excuses for things they'd normally never accept.

Hear hear. If they they would make low res/low bit rate streams of their content freely available, even with ads, they'd get many more people on their side, and those who pirate films/music would have no more legit excuses to hide behind.

Interestingly, if you look at the comparisons on the latter half of the report, German internet users are more likely to support blocking copyright infringement, and support heavier fines, than their US counterparts.

I can imagine if they started with questions about piracy habits first, that people would likely try to cover their asses later on when they got to asking about purchasing habits. Took a glance at the PDF and saw only 4 or 5 of the survey questions, but they didn't mention how, or in what order, they were asked.

Construction with precast concrete has been around for a long time. They require molds, and typically are limited in form because the more molds you need to make the more expensive the project gets.

With printed concrete, 10 unique slabs should have the same, or close to the same, unit price of 10 identical slabs, which (when the price approaches precast in the near future) opens up all design possibilities for architects currently restrained by budget.

When I think of FOIA, I think of individuals keeping tabs on government, not individuals keeping tabs on other individuals. Transparency on what the government does is very much different from transparency on what private citizens do.

Can't have Ghandi without Great Britain, sad to say. He most likely would have died young, and as a nobody, had he done the exact same thing while under the rule of another country.

You are a pacifist only because there are others willing to use violence to keep the peace. Without them, you would continually be on the move in search of safe neighborhoods as crime areas expand.