http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible — just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding.
Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can.
All of that is immaterial. The license lets him set any price he wants for the binary. He could charge a thousand dollars for it if he wanted, as long as he provided the source code once you paid.
Any lock is hackable. Just because Onity got targetted doesn't mean they are suddenly less secure than all the others.
"Any lock" doesn't have a connector on the outside which you can plug into to open it. They were less secure than other locks.
They didn't want to ship them even after the knowledge was made public. It's not like there was any chance in hell they would have done it if nobody had known about the problem.
When he says patents hurt startups, he really means they hurt Google. Google is the underdog in the current patent world war, and they have the most to lose.
Actually, Bitcoin is not at all good for microtransactions, due to blocksize limits and the necessity of transfer fees.
You still need to multiply by nuclear accidents per year to get your final numbers.
MS was handed something to sign, it signed it. If there are distribution limitations on the thing signed, that is not MS's problem, because MS IS NOT DISTRIBUTING IT.
They are distributing it to you when they give it back to you after signing. At that point, the GPL3 specifies that MS must also give you the key.
When you distribute it further, you must then pass that key on to anyone you distribute to.
Technically, yes, but the reason they don't want to is because if they did, they would be forced to distribute signing keys to everyone who ever installed that binary, which would sort of ruin the security of the system, as a rootkit developer could just grab a key too.
Each to their own mate.
I agree: Everyone should drink mate tea, not this coffee or beer nonsense.
I've gotta agree with the other guy, that's the dumbest thing I've heard all week.
The high cost in volunteer time. Just because volunteers are paying those costs, doesn't mean they don't exist. And it isn't a good excuse to take advantage of them.
You can't afford an afternoon every few years to keep your political system running well?
How do you ensure that you have volunteers from "all" sides of the political spectrum instead of just "both" sides?
I don't. That's up to everyone to do for themselves. If you don't volunteer, you have nobody to blame but yourself.
"Coercion" is a very specific word here. It means forcing someone to vote for a certain candidate. This is something a democratic voting system must eliminate to be reliable.
"GO vote for Mitt Romney, or we'll break your fucking knee caps," seems to work regardless of the voting method used.
That is why voting is private. You can threaten someone to go vote some way all you want, but you have no way of knowing if they did or not.
That is not the case for remote voting, where you can stand next to them and make sure they vote the way you want.
Having the vote on a workday is completely insane to start with.
And why audit to detect something when you can just prevent it in the first place?
"Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines." -- Bertrand Russell
