The real problem is the fact that, at least as far as intelligence or exercising genuine self-responsibility is concerned, 95%+ of human beings are literally not worth the oxygen they breathe.

Almost every single brainless, technophobic fucking moron out there uses Facebook, and various other forms of centralised social networking. Even Eric Raymond, not long ago, started advocating Google+, and dared to actually become *indignant* about people warning him of what a corporate abomination it was.

Stop using Facebook. Start re-using public key encrypted Usenet, and p2p DCC chat nets with IRC as an entry point, which is what used to be done in the old days.

The feds literally were not able to touch that, which is the entire reason why all three IRC nets were DDoSed in January 2001. It wasn't a technology which they could easily control or monitor, so they simply wanted to destroy it. Then we got Twitter. Do you really consider that a fucking coincidence?

You might have noticed the degree of rage in this post. I've been getting banned more recently from virtually every forum other than 4chan, and there is a reason for that.

I. CANNOT. STAND. the continual, brainless fucking stupidity and myopia of the rest of my species, at this point. I can't stand the fact that you are all craven, gutless, stupid Good Germans, who don't want anything other than a giant nanny state to change your nappies and microwave your bottle.

This situation is NOT because of Google. It is not because of the NSA. It is not because of Verizon. It is because of YOU. If you are someone who uses ANY form of social media, YOU are to blame. YOU are part of the problem. No one else. YOU.

From http://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-audio-listen-to-aol-ceo-tim-armstrong-fire-a-patch-employee-snapping-a-photo-2013-8 :

We hear that Lenz, based in New York, would always take pictures of people talking on company-wide conference calls so that he could post them on Patch's internal news site.

Is Wayland interested in being truly portable, (as in offering support for the BSDs, and making things sufficiently and open that it can be potentially used with as-yet undeveloped operating systems) or are they committed to pretending that Debian Linux is the only alternative to Windows that exists, a la Freedesktop.org?

I could think of a couple of reasons.

a} A sane audio subsystem.
b} Generally a lot less crap running in the background, at least by default.
c} The BSDs are developed by adults, in general terms.

Before you respond to that last point critically, understand that I actually do know what I'm talking about. I've used Linux for ten years, and compiled both the Linux kernel and the GNU userland from source numerous times; and as a result, I am prepared to say with the authority that that gives me, that Linux is a steaming pile in technical terms, in comparison with FreeBSD.

A 50% chance of passing away prior to the start of the gathering and a 50% chance of passing away after the start of the gathering.

I don't think you have much of a future as an insurance actuary.

Linus' foul mouth, more than anything else, is due to his consistent overestimation of his own importance. It's just arrogant, alpha wannabe bluster; and occasionally, as in the case with nVidia, it can be really destructive.

From the article: "Vortex isn't available publicly or even in a closed beta form..."

As vapourwear goes, it would seem rather vapid then.

Are you sure the damage is just limited to the configuration changes you made? The attorneys in my organization believed that the language could be extended to anything that runs on the same set of servers, and anything that interacted with the same database.

And it's even worse for libraries (e.g. iText) - there, the thought was that it could require sharing every bit of code used to run the web site. Not surprisingly, we're not using or contributing to anything licensed under the AGPL.

Bruce Schneier agrees with you:

Why do otherwise rational people think it's a good idea to profile at airports?

From paper discussed here: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/07/another_new_aes.html

In the case of AES-128, there is no known attack which is faster than the 2^128 complexity of exhaustive search. However, AES-192 and AES-256 were recently shown to be breakable by attacks which require 2^176 and 2^119 time, respectively.

Is it sexist that male strippers exist?

If the answer is no, then it isn't sexist that booth babes exist either.

The problem is the fact that anything else gets said. If that is what the license requires, then that is what the license requires. The stuff about, "being a big believer in free and open," is extraneous, subjective garbage; and is exactly the issue, here.

If I do what I am legally required to do, then I should neither be applauded for being a member of the cult, or condemned if I am not a member of it. If I am legally in compliance, then I should not have to know or care about the opinion of "the community," one way or the other.

If the opinion of "the community," matters, then put it in the license as something I am legally required to do. Otherwise they can and should shut the fuck up.

As another point, when you say that this is basic ethics, you make it sound as though you're talking about something universal; when in fact, you are not. You're talking about the ideology of one specific group of people; and said ideology for the most part doesn't have anything in common with how the rest of the population thinks, at all.

So in other words, you're damn right that I'm going to be pedantic to the point of legalism, and demand anyone else engaging in this conversation to do likewise.

Then this should be made specific and overt. If a relevant or necessary demand is missing from the license, the license needs to be rewritten to include said demand.

The term, "spirit," by its' very nature, refers to something undefined, non-specific, and acorporeal. I'm surprised that anyone who identifies as an atheist in particular, would be comfortable with using it.

I say again; if there is a "spirit," or an "ethos," associated with the FSF or the GPL, and such has heretofore been implicit and "intuitive," then it should be made explicit, specific, and tangible, so that there can be no misunderstand, and no excuse.

My understanding of version 2 of the GPL, as the clearest example, was that if I modify the source code of a work governed by said license, I must make publically available, both the unmodified source code, AND the source code of my own modifications, to anyone who asks for it, as a condition of using/developing said work.

My understanding was not, however, that I am required to subscribe to any other belief, whether it be political, social, or in any other form, that may or may not be advocated by the Free Software Foundation.

In other words, if I use the GPL, I need to provide source with binaries. That's all.

I do not need to worship Richard Stallman as God. I do not need to subscribe to the philosophy of Karl Marx or Leon Trotsky in general terms. I don't need to believe Stallman's self-aggrandizing lies about how the very concept of source code availability supposedly originated with him, and did not exist before him. Hell, I don't even need to like him, or anyone else associated with the FSF, as people at all.

All I need to do, is provide source with binaries. That's it. Nothing else.

They've started doing that around here, now? I've been gone for a while. Given how fascist everything is getting everywhere else, it would be consistent.

I've got mod points today, and I figured that a good use of them would be beating the Stallmanite trolls into submission, who I knew would be infesting this thread. Unfortunately, there are far too many of them to be stopped by a measly five points.

The vitriol directed towards Aaron Swartz, additionally, is nothing short of disgusting. Until someone is able to offer me concrete proof to the contrary, I am going to continue to believe that Swartz was the victim of assassination by the American government. If you want to convince me that I am wrong in believing that, then as I said, you had better have an extremely compelling argument.

Jimmy Wales does not deserve induction into the Hall of Fame, either. Wikipedia has long since degenerated into a cess pit of pro-establishment pseudoskeptics, who ruthlessly delete anything which is not entirely in line with their agenda. Wales has also done absolutely nothing to try and restrain said people.