Yet you are trying to force me at gunpoint to pay for technology that is not needed.

Oh the irony...

This will be as popular as the "internet ticks" crap that Swatch tried to sell to everyone.

I'll describe the entire Earth in only 2:

Mostly Harmless

I'll describe it in one:

shit

As a trained firearm owner, I agree there is no need to be rude to people who don't know in this kind of exchange. I think it is wise to educate people as Broken scope did, you do not shoot if you don't have to, and if you have to shoot, you shoot at the center of the threat. No need to be rude about it, though.

Our current climate of the past ten years has been all about pushing the concept of pre-crime. It seems that politicians, media, and scare-mongerers are driving us toward the inevitability of a future where every student is forced - by law - to undergo psychological evaluation during the school year (and adults, perhaps forced to undergo regular psychological evaluation as part of the government mandated "free" health care coverage). Waver much off the accepted "norm" and welcome to pharmaceutical based alteration sentences reinforced by an alternate sentence of incarceration if you refuse. Not because of crimes you have committed, but by crimes everything from your genes to your attitude toward authority or critical-thinking or being too social or not social enough suggest you could theoretically, possibly, maybe, be suspected of potentially in some greater-than-zero probability be able to commit.

This is why you constantly see news coverage during tragic events like shootings veer quickly toward "how could we have caught this with mental evaluation" and "why wasn't he taking more meds?". After all, we are too weak as a society to accept that it might be better to accept a dozen or two dead people from a horrible crime than to violate billions of citizens (over the years).

"Broken scope" correctly pointed out that you wouldn't attempt a trick shot in a life-or-death situation, but your overall point is true. Most criminals who are shot in self-defense don't die, which was your point. Also, 80% of the time a gun is presented in self-defense, it's not fired. So st least 90% of the time, noone dies.

    I once had an intruder intending violence climb through a window into my home. As they did,they found themselves looking down the twin barrels of my shotgun. They left very quickly. I've never fired at anyone, but I have defended my family. That's statistically the most common scenario.

we've been getting these once-in-a-lifetime storms every ten years or so nowadays

We're speaking in the context of Github. Github, specifically, makes the improbable "exploit" of this loophole much more probable. Maybe not particularly
likely, but likely enough to be a risk that should be considered.

As part of my job, I contribute to an open source project, using Github. I sync my Github to upstream so it's up to date, and commit our changes to it.
That way, our contributions are publicly accessible. In fact, they are publicly accessible in the context of a complete copy which includes our contributions.
That last sentence is key. What Github users publish on Github is a copy of the devel branch with their contributions added (but also including all contributions
from anyone else, including contributions not yet approved for the release version.)

Suppose I work for SpaceX, maintaining the SpaceX blog via Wordpress.
Using Github, I make our contributions to Wordpress public (as part of a complete Wordpress devel tree.)

Someone else at SpaceX invented a widget which is patented.

Orbital Science, a SpaceX competitor, could commit a Wordpress plugin which somehow relates to the patent.
My Github would automatically fetch their commit.
Now my company, SpaceX, is distributing code related to the patent, without ever having heard of Orbital Science's plugin.
Our patent is therefore nullified by the terms of GPLv3, if Wordpress were GPLv3.
That's WHY Wordpress is not GPLv3, but GPLv2, because v3 says:

Each contributor (SpaceX) grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version (including the Orbital Science plugin they've never heard of, but which was automatically mirrored).

Note that the license includes the right to modify it, such as by deleting 99% of it, leaving only the Orbital Science code, without any other part of Wordpress.
Therefore, Orbital Science can force SpaceX to license their code just by doing a Github commit to any project that SpaceX has a Github for.

Is it likely that Orbital Science would do that? Would some judges follow the actual text of the license and allow OR to pull that trick?
Maybe, maybe not. If you've committed $20 million in R&D to _anything_ you have a patent on, would you want to risk a competitor doing a sneaky trick like that?

One defensive solution, if you HAVE to contribute to a GPLv3 project, is to explicitly leave copyright with the individual author, who publishes it on his personal Github rather than having the company post it on Github. Assuming the author doesn't have any patents and never will, that works okay.

Malice intends to cause harm. This is just not giving a shit if your actions and carelessness causes harm.

How does that foot in your mouth taste? It's not a virus, and not OSX specific - it's just a web page with some annoying Javascript.

I don't have a dogmatic position on full-gonzo genetic engineering myself, and have arguments about it versus the historic hybridization or just singling out mutations that we prefer (e.g. seedless oranges). I am not at all convinced that our current grasp of biology is complete enough to make actual genetic engineering a wise practice. I do have a problem with existing IP law, as it leads to "rent collection" and concentration of wealth. Nature never intended for a creature to be able to create once and profit past the grave. Enforced monopolies do not exist in nature.

In a minor sense, since the javascript is software.

really there should be a good way to kill the page without resetting everything in the browser.

Yup just like how no governor of a state would in his right mind talk about selling a senators seat to the highest bidder.

Ask Illinois about that.

Actually yes.

if you know of a NSA or Govt operation going on, get an operative to place a unit near them and start intercepting their cellphone traffic so you can spy on the guys spying.

Now imagine making hundreds of these things all placed at specific locations but with a backend system that lets you enable or disable at will. Now you have a cellular snoopnet covering a very wide area.

We need to be just as understanding and willing to give the benefit of the doubt as HBO is when someone inadvertently shares their IP against copyright.

That is, not at all.