It all derailed when it started referring to "verbal threats" and "verbal abuse" as "violence". Sorry, but unless a dev is at my door with a baseball bat, it's just words. Additionally, we've all dealt with people who are crude, terse, mean, or just flat out obnoxious prima-donas. It only impacts you if you give a shit. I've dealt with some of those in my career and all that matters to me is whether they are productive and talented. Telling me "you made a stupid fucking mistake" isn't any worse than "Please don't take this too harshly and please don't think I am picking on you. I like you and you are a swell fellow and all. However, I feel it is necessary that I impress upon you that this isn't really a bug and having this trivial and non-broken thing filed as a bug has consumed a little bit of our time that we would rather not be wasting on things like this. Also, here is a pat on the back and an atta-boy so you don't feel I am being mean to you, okay?".

Granted, it might be a little unprofessional to use crude language with people. CEOs and other muckety-mucks do it all the time, however. It's also a little different between using crude language and lashing out at people with crude language to insult them and put them down. But, again, that's just the way things are and it is just the way some people are. It really does not have to impact you in the slightest if you don't want it to (and it doesn't hurt to learn to give it back - especially if you can do so cleverly, with wit, and without the matching vulgarity).

I don't doubt this sort of thing does put some people off from contributing and participating. I sure as hell wouldn't participate in anything that involved Linus and other well-known and super-smart guys, because I know I'm not at their level and I would just constantly be on the receiving end of "how fucking stupid can you be?!". But you know what? Maybe that's okay. Maybe it weeds out people who don't have the spine to deal with it or who take everything so personally that everything has to become a drama rather than just getting work done.

Of course, Linus could be less of an asshole (even when his points are very fair). But I don't see why he should feel he *has* to be less of one. *shrug*. I also think it's a little different than if he was someone's direct boss in a workplace and he was walking outside of his office to constantly berate, ride, ridicule, and harass his employees for being totally incompetent.

He's a pretty douchy constant self-promoter and bragger. I also remember one of the few times I've sat around watching the TWiT (This Week In Tech) network with Leo Laporte and he was on it (the $10m/yr indie podcasting network with like 20+ shows and like 40 hours of content a week) and he asked him if he could use "This Week In..." for ONE of his shows that he wanted to do on his own network.

Next thing you know, JC was building an entire network of his own where EVERYTHING was "This Week In..."

That's pretty fucking low and douchey.

Personally, I kind of like the idea that what I've busted my butt working to get is mine and can't be taken away to give to some snivelling, lazy-assed bastard who thinks he or she is entitled to what I've worked for but are too lazy to work for it themselves.

That's fine, but "intellectual property" has nothing to do with that.

intellectual property reinforces inequality

That's the whole idea.

"Religion".

I don't think you understand what that word means, yet like so many religious people, try to spread it around to every context to poison any argument.

Also, of course there are a lot of militant atheists out there. The same way there are/were a lot of militant "black people" out there. Guess what? When people trod all over you, threaten you, treat you like second class citizens, and impose their will (via legislation and political power) on you -- you're probably going to be a tad mother fucking militant.

"Stop being intolerant of my intolerance you assholes! C'mon guys!"

Gotta wait for radio talk show hosts to tell him what side to come down on.

That's because we haven't been in a war for about 70 years.

How about the action in Syria? Pakistan? Lybia? How about the shit we've stirred, threatened, or supported in Yemen? Egypt? Iran? Bahrain? Tunisia? Turkey?

Hey, don't worry. Everything is going to be better in a few years, because we're going to elect someone who isn't Bush *or* Obama. All of today's sixteen year old kids will be ready and eager to vote in 2016 and they all know -- just like the teenagers from six years ago and ten years ago and fourteen years ago -- that 220 years of shitty presidents and politics is finally going to be over, because for the first time every they are going to vote in a real stalwart hero into office. This guy will totally be a man of his word and focus on the fundamentals and not a bunch of vote-buying bullshit that tramples over principals in an effort to appease constituents by appealing to their demands for things based on religion or other irrelevant things. This time, everything is totally gonna be different!

Yeah, because the Senate and House have sure had strong spines over the last two presidents, huh?

They've done nothing but consistently rolled over and played "yes-men" to the executive branch - essentially operating this country for a dozen years as a one-branch government.

Blaming it on the GOP or anyone else is also sort of undermined by everything else he failed to do in the last six years.

Anyone remember how the first thing he was going to do was not only shutdown Gitmo, but get us out of Iraq? In fact, you could "take that to the bank"?

Remember how it was going to be the most transparent presidency, ever?

Remember how Bush didn't need anyone to "let" him do anything, because he was the decider?

Remember the last six months to a year, how Obama frequently talks about how he needs to do things directly and is going to find ways to do them despite lack of support in the house and senate?

Yeah, if they really want to accomplish something, they could do it. He doesn't, so he doesn't.

Hey, we haven't been at war in almost 70 years. That's saying something, right?

. . . right?

Is that really what it's meant to do?

2012 - European Union (how's that going, guys?)
2009 - Barack Obama (for strengthening international diplomacy and cooperation)
2007 - Al Gore (promoted a film that promoted his carbon credits scam)
2001 - Kofi Annan "and the United Nations" (did dick all during the Rwanda and Balkin genocides).
1994 - Yasser Arafat
1992 - Rigoberta Menchú Tum (was found to have fabricated most of the achievements she was being praised for)
1979 - Mother Theresa (I guess we're awarding it to her for the media sensationalized fabrication of her and not the real apathetic version of her?)
1973 - Henry Kissenger (for engaging in Vietnam Peace Accords while simultaneously secretly bombing Vietnam).
1945 - Cordell Hull - Secretary of State during Roosevelt. He denied the Holocaust and forced Jewish refugees back into the arms of the Nazis.

An awful lot of people (especially in the last 35 years) who really don't seem to be contributing much (if anything) to peace.

I'd like to see Shakira

Yes.

There's not going to be any problem with anyone hosting anything in the US. What do you think all these lovely "trade agreements" are about?

The NSA will promise to "partner" with friendly foreign intelligence services and it will all be one big happy family except daddy has his hand under your skirt.

I guess the best we can hope for now is that there are some more brave whistleblowers out there who will risk their lives to keep this story front and center. And if that fails, the best we can hope for is that there are some brave saboteurs.

Thirty-three is the magic number.
Yes it is.
It's the magic number.

Even though ADE 651 manufacturer James McCormick was found guilty of three counts of fraud and sentenced to 10 years in prison in May, the ADE 651 is still being used at thousands of checkpoints across Baghdad. Elsewhere, authorities have never stopped believing in the detectors. Why? According to Sandia Labs' Dale Murray, the ideomotor effect is so persuasive that for anyone who wants or needs to believe in it, even conclusive scientific evidence undermining the technology it exploits has little power.

It has nothing to do with the "ideomotor effect" and everything to do with the stream of money that is still bouncing back and forth to some contractor somewhere and some congressmen, somewhere else. I wonder if they even bothered to hold a "show-and-tell" for military brass and congress-people, where the bomb-detecting robots performed perfectly under controlled conditions.

It's an example of the corrupt reverse of what economists call the "velocity of money". As long as that money's flowing, and a little bit sticks to the hands of everyone who touches it along the way, then there is no incentive to do too much to rock the boat.

Considering most retiring high-level military brass ends up as "consultants" to defense contractors or lobbyists for defense contractors, and as long as the people getting killed are not the sons and daughters of privilege, we cannot expect some lieutenant colonel somewhere is going to care enough to make the people above him mad about slowing the velocity of money.

There are people out there right now who are enjoying the profits from building faulty facilities in Iraq where enlisted people were electrocuted in showers. The worst that could possibly happen is that the company changes its name and carries on. In the case of the showers, Haliburton didn't even have to change its name. Hell, they didn't even have to be low bidder on those contracts because they were no-bid.

There are not many people more cynical than the ones who populate the military/industrial complex (and now, the intelligence/industrial complex). And now with the increased prosecutions against whistleblowers, we'll probably hear less and less about these failures.