With a replicator there's no need for money.

The basic function of money is to serve as a substititute for trade. If you can replicate stuff the stuff you need (foot and shelter basically) you don't need to trade anymore and therefore don't need money.

I'm not saying that people would stop trading. I think that people will still seek status and therefore status symbols. But if you could replicate all the basic stuff then the whole thinking of I have to work a day/a month/a decade to work for something goes away. You just create it out of thin air (more or less). So you can't judge stuff by their monetary value anymore, because there's nothing to base it on.

IANAL, but clauses in a contract that which create a duty and/or burden on the customer which is generally unknown and/or has nothing to do with the normal performance of the contract are null and void.* It doesn't matter if they are hard to find, they could be printed in 48pt bold text right on the frontpage and it wouldn't matter.

I assume that sending your private info over to the man every time you shot a picture falls under that broad category.

*In the jurisdiction I live in. The Free Market Utopia a.k.a. USA most likely has different laws.

Maybe at your local coffee shop or at a hotel? You open your laptop and scan for networks hoping to find an unsecured one - you're now wardriving.

Don't you mean warsitting? Or maybe warstarbucking?

curl http://bit.ly/eaHU1C

I see what you did there. Interestingly, the author mentions that bigger url shorteners such as bit.ly offer more trust than your mom-and-pop url shortener. Kinda disproves his point entirely. Also, e.g. on Twitter, if you mouse over a shortened URL it displays the target as a tooltip. (But which Twitter user is patient enough to wait?)

Emacs.

It's not commercial, but it's arguably *very* popular.

The bloke who complained about YouCut on his blog states there that quantum computers won't solve NP-hard problems in polynomial time. And I've read elsewhere that some crypto-systems are resistant to quantum computer challenges.

Who should I believe?

The real question is: Do you want ignorant fucks who think intellectualism is a swearword, who are only looking after their own bottom line, and who will lie through their teeth and eat their promises as soon as they get elected run your country?

Apparently you do and unfortunately so do we. /bashing politicians since christmas 1998

Thankfully that idea is floating around. Apparently, the co-editor of mashable is interested: http://twitter.com/#!/benparr/status/15569949812592640

Or maybe crowd-fund it via kickstarter.

I don't get it.

Can't they run context-sensitive ads like on GMail? Or don't delicious users go to the web site? I know I do when I want to look something up.

You can export your bookmarks here: https://secure.delicious.com/settings/bookmarks/export

It's a standard Netscape bookmark file, so I expect other services to be able to import from it. But I haven't researched it yet.

[ I like ]

Why? :-(

LNK PLZ, K TNX BYE! ;-)

Um, yeah.

You might be liable to plagiarism or some contract violation if you've signed an NDA, but you're not a thief. Thieving implies taking something physical that is potentially subject to scarcity. That's the whole point.

If physical objects such as food where not subject to scarcity, humans would never have evolved the concept of thieving. We share by default. Our self-interest may override that impulse and the whole reason why some people think information is anything like property is because their self-interest is completely out of whack. (Read: They lazy, greedy bastards.)

You're a victim to the fallacy that information is like property.

In truth they're nothing alike and as such analogies that compare the two are useless.

Now, if you've tried a car analogy, you might have a shot... /ducks