This is something we learn in the first weeks of calculus: "if X then X" does NOT assume that X exists. In the most retentive case it simply says "if X exists as an assumption, then X must be an assumption".

More frequently used in the context of mathematics is: "if X is a true assumption, then X is a true assumption", which is just a relative expression and doesn't even say if X is possible.
Now the mutable part is something completely different. Then I must say "if X between times t0 and t1, then X between times t2 and t3" (most often t0=t2, t1=t3, depending on what you want to say). Now set Y = "X between ..." and you get "if Y then Y".
In mathematics, most claims are time-independent (an even number stays even), so that part is rarely useful.

That's the key to logic: don't make bold steps, but small ones that hold up to scrutiny. We have no idea what happens outside of the time interval in the mutable form, thus we sure aren't going to claim anything about it.

I think his point was that the improved UX and hardware let you do more, which is called progress.

But having it run wholly inside a web browser, instead of a native GUI that has optional (clearly interfaced) internet storage support but can be controlled by my own firewall... this does not really enable you to do more (but it enables "them" to do more, e.g. built-in app obsolescence via DRM, profiling via tracking, etc.) and therefore is not progress.

Splendid! Your offer is graciously accepted!
Please download all of these and then... well... I guess... just have them?

The Higgs boson is supposed to be "the end of the story" only according to bad media reporting.
In reality, pinpointing the Higgs particle was supposed to enable us to ask more meaningful questions... Now it seems that we still have to ask the same questions as before (only slightly more precise), which is nice but not what some have hoped for.

If I were to take a very long, very rigid (say: diamond) stick with me on one end and someone else sitting on the moon on the other end, then by pushing the stick a bit back and forth we could communicate via the Morse alphabet (ignoring orbital movement, wind drag, etc. for a moment). You'd obviously need something even more rigid (and stronger) than diamond, but keep in mind that light takes some 1.3 seconds for that distance, so this is the maximum speed information can be transmitted with.

This means that the stick must be "soft" enough such that the pressure wave from morsing propagates through with slightly under light speed, so we have an upper bound for the hardest and strongest material in the universe.
I doubt that this would be sufficient to withstand the much larger dimensions involved with this black hole, so even with the "best" material, see the comment above mine.

Why not look at developing countries that don't have strict patent enforcement and build a 'free software nation' there [...]

Because he wants to see his own country improve?
Because he thinks he can make the most global impact this way? (influence is usually USA->India, not the other way around)
Because it's hard to establish an existence in a foreign country with as little personal wealth as he has? Also language, etc.
Because it's not necessary (see below)?

Why isn't it necessary? (First note that the software policy has little overall influence in the question whether a whole "nation would flourish", e.g. mandating all software to be GPL by law in Ethiopia won't stop the children from starving.)
China's local software industry has grown to be quite impressive over the past decade. You might say that they are stealing everything from the USA, but then it's a simple fact that they'd be much more backwards if they had strong copyright laws. Russia has substantially stronger copyright, but still insufficient by US standards, so it's not really necessary to foster the spread of ideas there as it already happens with less barriers than in western countries.
So what happens when the the Chinese run out of stuff to copy? I expect them to become dominant in software development anyway, because (aside from work ethics and sheer numbers) their system allows for motivated, creative and ambitious individuals to build their own enterprises based on the available knowledge and become self-made men. Kinda like it was in the USA during the golden age of software development, before all that patent craziness emerged that lead to the current status-quo-perpetuating structure.

As a side note: in general, people only care about the one or two main views of a ideological leader. Did you know that Ghandi was a huge racist for most of his life (and later simply didn't comment on the topic)? I guess you can find faults with everyone....
Regarding Stallman, even though I don't agree with lots of his minor views (e.g. cell phones, because I'm too convenience-addicted to care about it), I think his consistent stance on software freedom has been quite beneficial to society. And he continues to serve that often-mentioned valuable anchor function.

Hmm, your ranting style makes it even harder to read than something from Stallman, but I'll try anyway...

Again, I wouldn't limit myself to 3 models if all you can come up with globally is 4. You don't mention dual licensing with requiring copyright assignment (yep, selling the software AND "begging" AND contracts), another strategy that is successfully employed by a number of FOSS projects.
Also that's a pretty big "unless" there, as shown by the existence of thriving billion-dollar businesses focused on GPL software (e.g. Red Hat).
Bluntly put: just because I can't capture humans and sell them as slaves (which used to be one of the biggest "economic sectors" in Roman times), this doesn't mean that any system forbidding this is worthless and not suited for monetising human resources.

It probably woundn't have changed the outcome, but claiming that this is the litmus test for the redistribution clause is just a strawman. Obviously he saw the need for it (I remember reading somewhere how he explained the need to make sure it stays free), the printer story just started the thought process. The effects (some call them benefits, but let's stay neutral) of the clause are clear to you and me today.

Apart from that, a company surviving has little to do with not being able to use one narrow business model. But just to employ the same amount of drama: manufacturers saw a huge drop in profits in England when they outlawed 14 hour / 6 days workweeks for children during the industrialisation... and certainly a lot of companies who relied on that business model had a hard time adapting.

The FSF has made it clear that the GPL should not be used for art, documentation and other assets. Software is a tool, and it's source code has a completely different share-benefit behaviour than a nice painting or a poem.
For most games, the art (music, video, image data) and context (game lore, setting, names) are way more important than the glue code used to piece together the engine and 3rd party libraries. Why shouldn't the engine be Free Software? Sure, the engine producers can't continue to sell it, so it'd be more like the Linux kernel instead of WinNT... and that's a model shown to work very successfully. (I'd even claim that a set of Valve/Activision/EA/...-backed shared game engines would be much quicker than Linux to reach heavy adoption)
Most of the mentinoed libraries are FOSS anyway nowadays, and the game companies could go on selling games just like they do now.

Desktops? How about the Canonical approach? ;)
The number and variation of business models for monetising the FOSS desktop is no way near explored (part of this means also influencing user attitude, e.g. like flattr, or to donate more regularly). Just look at what has been come up with only in the last 10 years, and then wait for the next 10 (or invent something yourself and get rich).

Claiming that you have to be Apple in order to make the hardware model work is flat out false. Isn't Sony successful with the Playstation? Would it change anything for them if they made the current PS software freely available? The DRM has to stay, so simply do it like the next example: TiVo.
Or let's see what becomes of Ouya. Sure, they aren't developing the whole system themselves, but this only showcases the very strength of Free Software: sharing.

Correct, your "blessed n" (let n=3) may not be applicable absolutely everywhere everytime, but:
a) I haven't claimed that. You have claimed that the GPL is totally worthless for businesses in general. I think that is false, and that it's monetisable enough, as seen in a big number of real world examples.
b) Your majority is my minority. The cases where it "doesn't work" are quite often the same cases where "we need to sell these new-fangled CDs for 20.- because that was the established price for vinyl, and it doesn't matter at all that the production costs are 1/50th" ... aka "lazy profits".
c) Yep, it possibly lowers the GDP. But as mentioned, so did banning child labour. I think capitalism and the opportunity for private profits are very important, but so are privacy and software freedom, if not more. We have to consider the weights in which we mix them, and much more GPL'd software would be a Good Thing (TM) IMO.
d) In a few cases, it's simply the dilemma of the dying industry: when cars came up, should we have forced with every purchase a subvention for horse carriage producers, in order to support an inferior but established model?

Somehow lots of bits in your comment sound deluded to me, and this is not meant as an insult, just a repetition of the "attitude reasoning" in my previous posting. You haven't shown me any merit of your position so far, even though I'd actually like you to, because there should be something to it as there is a substantial amount of supporters.

Even though I have met quite a few people with your opinion (and just spoke with a guy declaring the GPL incompatible with money-making last week), I'm honestly unable to follow this reasoning.

You're saying that there are only three business models with the GPL, but without it, there are... four? The license just removes the plumpest of them: pretending ideas were property and exchanging them for money.
OK, an economist might provide you with more than one difference count without the GPL (and probably more than three business models for the GPL). But looking at the plethora of GPL software out there and seeing how it thrives in our economy-focused society (Linux, LibreOffice and the GPL-equivalent Mozilla products are highly successful and thus visible, but the vast majority simply goes by well enough), I think the complaints about monetising the GPL are due to the lack of creativity and skill rather than the license being an evil socialist trojan horse set to destroy businesses.

So where does this attitude come from? My speculation is somewhat clichee, but since we know advertising and public campaigning do work, those huge loads of FUD by Microsoft must have had some impact somewhere, i.e. you and many others have been influenced by exactly that vague, self-reinforcing mantra of avoiding cancer-like Free Software...
I'm sure you're a nice guy if we'd meet, but you can't prove to me that by taking one option (out of many) away for monetising software, you can't still make billions via the GPL.

Regarding your last sentence: so we agree on the issue that slavery is bad but we're split on the issue of whether or not proprietary software is bad?

What if people "like you" (no offense meant) succeeded in stopping the abolishionists back then? Basically it boils down to: they are allowed to try as hard as they can, and if they succeed in changing the general public opinion, everybody will post-rationalise it as a good thing and demonise the nay-sayers.

So RMS should be allowed to try as hard as he can, and if he succeeds, we'll simply call him a visionary and you a short-sighted [insert-contemporarily-fashionable-slur].
As things like these rarely happen at the same time everywhere and often take decades, for some people, the "he succeeds" part has already happened, as seen from the huge propagation of GPL'd software.

Back to the legitimation part... as we see from history, individuals and movements try revolutionary ideas and succeed or fail, that's just reality. But then (sorry Mr. Godwin) the Nazis tried as hard as they could too, and it only brought misery and destruction. Now what's the difference?
Certainly the methods play a role. Recommendation vs. coercion, within-the-framework vs. illegal, etc. And norming against both a moral (e.g. weighing of personal freedom v.s. the societal benefit) and ethical (e.g. human rights) framework. Here (as indicated in another comment), I see RMS much closer to Ghandi than to a 3rd Reich ideologist.
Anyway, that's a completely different debate.

But one point stands: just because RMS holds a position somewhat far from the median, it doesn't mean that he's a loony (I mean the medical sense, not the insult because you don't like him). People with much more extreme ideas (like the abolishion of slavery, or much earlier free speech for every non-wealthy man and *gasp* even women) have succeeded and we can't really claim that they were insane, even though their contemporary opponents probably called them crazy fanatics.

I think that smoking should be illegal, and I stand up to my opinion. This doesn't mean that I'll force anybody I see smoking to quit (by threat, coercion or whatever), and it also doesn't mean that I'm a tyrannical fanatic. It just means that when asked, I'm going to explain my position (I guess you know all the pro and contra in this case) and if I get a vote, I'll cast it. I believe it's better for society. (AND THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! .. !!!)

Likewise Stallman doesn't force people not to use proprietary software. He also doesn't force anyone to use GPL software... it's not complicated.
a) you write some code on your own, you can fully choose the license yourself (unless you're writing it for your employer, in which case it's usually proprietary).
b) you want to copy some code... if it's GPL, you're free not to copy it, or to take it and respect the terms, as with any other license.

There is no forcing of people involved whatsoever, unless you refer to the application of "state force" (fines, lawsuits, ...) if you break the law by violating a license you previously agreed on.

You're posting quite an imputation here.

First of all, we know that power corrupts. If made world dictator with limitless power and no accountability, most people would end up doing _far_ worse stuff than outlawing a licensing model.

Secondly, the whole world dictator reasoning mechanism is absurd, as you can pick any tidbit someone made on the record somewhere and blow it out of proportion. E.g: RMS is pretty big on individual choice, so can we agree that as world dictator, he would definitely never force a private individual to do anything against it's will?

Lastly, he's just stating his opinion that software shouldn't be proprietary. You can't prove that there absolutely must exist some proprietary software or else humanity is doomed... means, why shouldn't his model work?
Well, obviously there'd be short-term difficulties for companies relying on proprietary software, but then again, if we were to take _your_ personal opinion on everything as unbreakable world law, it quite probably would have very annoying short-term difficulties for many people as well.
Luckily we do have a reality where ideas from different sides get modified and merged, netting that fancy thingy called compromise.

Personally I don't mind RMS being that far-end anchor who consistently holds up an ethically sound position. Kinda like Ghandi in his later years, just on a clearly less essential topic.

I fully agree here. At the same time I assert that the joined government of Germany and France could easily be smaller than the sum of the two separate ones.

To you it isn't, to me it is. Not that they are the most important ones, but having the option/capability when needed is very valuable.

Schools standardisation is about mobility. Again, your education (both university and the more basic part) should be considered compatible in another state. The EU often failed in this and sometimes still does, but it's getting better.
It's about putting less barriers to people to move around, about personal freedom.

Please note that I'm not for wholesale centralisation, because federalism goes perfectly fine with unification. You keep some things at state level (and the regional and municipal alike), but what's the point nowadays for Germany and France to keep separate militaries, but e.g. Texas and California don't have each their own air force?
And there really is no reason for electricity tolls between these two, but this goes hand in hand with them being separate countries.

Far more than just the military, basically most of the infrastructure.
Example: I often hear disrespect towards the UPS, and correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I assume you can simply send a letter to your friend whether he's at the other end of the city or at the other coast. Until recently you had to add extra stamps for cross border mail in nearly all EU member states, and it took 4-5 extra days (even if the letter was just to someone right across the border, 30km distance). Small things like that, but huge in number, and all slowing down mobility, interaction, development.

So this implies that without the investments of the USA and Russia, we'd have the moon landing 40 or 50 years later?
You may accuse me of drinking too much of Tyson's koolaid, but I do believe what he says. So we'd have a more stretched out scientific development, or simply put: slower progress. I'd much rather have what the US did, thankyouverymuch.

I strongly disagree here. SpaceX, Boeing, etc. are mainly commercialising and rationalising existing knowledge and experience, and if it weren't for NASA, they'd have to make the same huge investment (which they wouldn't, I think we can realistically agree on that).
The Soviet space programme was insanely expensive as well, but cheaper because it had cost significantly less to produce the very same device for them.
If you work in research (I do), it's clear that when trying to make things happen that were deemed extremely hard to do before, cost efficiency often must wait.
Now if you wan't to discuss the financial aspect of the space shuttle maintenance, that's a different and less-glorious-for-NASA topic.

What's your opinion on the Texas Nationalist Movement? Is it a severe threat to the unity of the USA?

Anyways, thanks for the discussion, you can wrap it up if you wish.

Do this with a friend: place your phone on your open palm. Let your friend repeatedly hit your hand from below, not too hard, but enough to make the phone jump 1-2 cm. You probably won't have any troubles preventing the phone from dropping on the floor.
Now take two or three pens, stick them between the fingers of your clenched fist and make sure they are somewhat parallel. Place your phone on them and let your friend hit the sticks from below. You probably don't want to do that, as your phone would land on the floor pretty soon. Using sticks that better approximate your hand, or even better, a display dummy hand, won't help much.

It's not replicating the mechanical arrangement of your joints, but doing something useful with it. The instantaneous sensory feedback your hand gives you about it's own position and the probable position of the phone (pressure, slight air movement, etc), a good deal of which isn't exactly conscious, is quite hard for us to replicate today (with the resources most robotics teams have). Computers still struggle with the fuzzy matching your hand-eye coordination provides to your muscles in order to move in the right direction.
Add to that the visual tracking problem you mentioned, and it turns into quite a feat.

Funny that we're so far apart that each seems to consider the other's viewpoint untenable.

I assume you're a US citizen. Imagine what your country would look like today if the USA and the CSA both decided to be better off without each other. Or even earlier, if the midwest were to split off separately from (New) France and form a standalone country. And if Texas had chosen to stay independent in 1845. Imagine a Northern American continent with New York, Illinois, Texas and California in four different countries. Would the achievements of todays USA be matched by now? Some maybe, but I think it'd look rather bleak for the moon landing and similar great feats and they quite probably wouldn't sum up to the powerhouse the USA is today. (cynics may now throw in that on the up side, we wouldn't have all that hassle with it)

Now bear with me: imagine if we unified the USA and Canada over night. Merge the constitutions, resolve law discrepancies and whatnot. A New Yorker is already closer in mentality and culture to a Quebecian than to a citizen of Houston. The Canadian laws are easily livable since they're already lived with by millions of very similar people, there is nothing intrinsic preventing that. Just work hard at the merger and give it a honest and hard try.
The majority of the reasons against this are irrational (like nationalism) and those that make sense are usually short-term problems.
But... what would that bigger country look like in 100 years? I can't tell you exactly, but for inspiration take a look at the USA itself, at Qin's China, at the Swiss Federation, Germany, etc, pp.

Currently different EU member states' foreign policies are working against each other over resource offers from both Russia and China. It's identified as a problem by many politicians. There is a terrible inefficiency that could be avoided if they were more coordination and a common interest, instead of prioritising one's own state.

Where I live, the schools are organised in a highly federal way. You get a coherent primary, secondary and middle school legislation for at most a million people (in most cases much less) at a time. This is good and helps specialise for regional needs as well as test new systems, BUT doesn't take away from the fact that every regional system converges to a precisely defined, standardised Matura/Abitur (see it as a "high school diploma"). Imagine if your high-school education was declared incompatible two states (in the USA) further. That's what often happens in the EU, and we need to push unification in this area a lot further.

Basically it's a pyramid scheme: you need to optimise some things at municipal level, then at the regional, then at the "national" for a few million people. But as seen with bigger nations, why stop there? That would be just foolish. Point is, further coordination in many areas requires structures usually found inside a country. So if we actually do the improvements, work together, coordinate, merge things for efficiency and rationalise, etc. We end up being a single country in all but name. But the most reasonable way to create those unified-country structures is to... unify the countries!

So, with all this in mind, I really can't fathom how someone could claim the unification of the EU to be something not worthwhile. Well-meaning of the Europeans assumed, of course.

Sorry for packing too much in the last sentence, with "orthogonal and detrimental" I mean that it's orthogonal in it's rate of appearance (aka independent), and it's detrimental to the result of the unification.