They also imply it is entirely optional to actually note your copyright in your files, when it is really bad practice not to unless you really want to make it impossible for people to understand the copyright history when e.g. merging your code into another project.

No need for copyright notice on every file, a single LICENSE file is enough. If people want to merge files or copy parts of the code, then they can note the licensing. This attitude isn't helping when you imply that people aren't doing enough, even when they write open source code and license it appropriately.

When doctors say it's bad to collect too much information, they're talking about medicine not liability. Liability determines the motivations, and tells us how both doctors and the NSA will act:

If Doctors or the NSA don't identify someone: Major liability (although doctors only have to ID patients they encounter, not everyone in the general population)
If Doctors or the NSA have false positives: No liability (because it was an honest mistake, by people doing their best)
If Doctors or the NSA don't treat/investigate someone who's identified: Major liability
If Doctors or the NSA treat/investigate someone correctly: No liability (even if the patient dies or the person becomes a terrorist)
If Doctors or the NSA are negligent when treating/investigating: Major liability (NB: negligence is NOT determined by outcome, but by professional standards)

When politicians hold agency witch-hunts after disasters they make the liability unlimited, and we get the NSA breaking laws (even the constitution!) to adjust.

Firefox would do better to spend more time focused on protecting users, rather than limiting options to what they think is less confusing. Lots of bad things use JS and ordinary people have few options to protect themselves... disabling JS is one of the best. Advertising, tracking, right-click "protection", and just poorly written websites are a real issue for users, and often times disabling JS actually works.

Extensions are fine and all, but built-in Options are more important (always available, easily discoverable, safe to experiment with) and disabling JS should be there.

Unlimited replacement pilots.
Pilots don't have to travel.
Local pilots who know an area can assist or take over.
AI can be integrated, or even replace the pilots without much of a change. ...

He's been banished from Pax Americana*, so don't mistake his presence for endorsement. Rather, remember why he is banished.

*The minor resistance of local officials, like the Ecuadorian embassy or Pirate Party, is a normal part of the system. Politics by other means.

Just do this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reamde

Therefore we should expose doctors to "ruthless market competition"? No. We should be tempering labor laws and industry regulation to ensure high quality staff, not pretending that the market is a cure-all.

Ironically, conservatives in the US argue against "socialist" medicine, while holding up the US medical system as the best in the world. Can't be both a "medieval guild" and an exemplar of capitalism. I'd say its closer to a guild and that's part of why it works so well.

Maybe this will help:
1. Open and Standardized is good.
2. DRM is not Open. (This is simply its nature.)
3. DRM can be Standardized with HTML5 extensions.

The problem is confusing point one with the FOSS attitude of wanting systems that are open. Standardization is not advocated by any open source group or in any open license. Standardization is an artifact commonly associated with free/open systems, but it's presence doesn't mean the system is free or open.

Intel should make a new architecture that's better than ARM (battery life, performance/watt) and then work with Microsoft for Windows support. Atom+Windows is a delaying tactic, letting Intel and Microsoft collect as much rent as possible. Making a new architecture would be a savior for both companies:
* Intel can gain market share from exclusive Microsoft support. Notice how Windows doesn't really support ARM because the device has to be locked down; so you can't just throw Window on whatever cheap hardware you buy from Taiwan.
* Microsoft can gain near-monopoly status in small devices by tying Windows support on the new architecture to their other software (Office/AD/Exchange/.Net/SqlServer) rather than supporting open standards. All they need to do is use "unique" hardware features as justification, i.e. the encryption/network transport/cross chip memory access system/etc.. only works with Windows on the new architecture.

Ironically, Intel and Microsoft would be called "innovators" for recreating their monopolies like this.

No, not when it comes to the internet. If hotmail.com was sold and became a p0rn site, it'd be a media apocalypse. Eventually people would understand the difference but they don't today.

What should be done, relative to the popular ignorance on this subject, is simple: the buyers of used domains should be careful to guard their reputations, allowing caches to expire, 404'ing inbound links from old affiliates, etc... A more interesting discussion would be, What technical steps should be taken when buying a used domain?

Thank you. I've changed my mind because of this.

Anchoring also explains hive-mind voting: the higher score is read as a signal of the "appropriate" score.

collusion: Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, esp. in order to cheat or deceive others.

So you were arguing that we should "expect collusion" and that it's OK? That might account for the "Troll" mods...

Irony: denying the collusion of money and power, regarding the occupy wallstreet protests.