http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_of_humour

Huh? Because I think that X is not dead yet? You're reading too much in my comment.

Why, did the machines running X ever outnumber the Macs at any point in history? Also, Windows is not UNIX, and neither is Android, which isn't even a desktop OS, so why would their prosperity be a measure of the "death" of X as a windowing system for UNIX?

First the ribbon, then the user interface formely known as Metro, and now they've taken Firefox, too! I feel trapped into a nightmare, where every application is becoming WinAmp.

I'm confident, however, that sooner or later this will end - and they'll introduce new revolutionary software products with a uniform appearance, and user interfaces exposing consistent and predictable behaviour. Why, Microsoft have already started, they've reintroduced the Windows 3.1 look-and-feel (flat controls, window title in the middle, system-modal dialog boxes taking up the whole screen) and they're selling it as a novelty. I'm less convinced, though, by the Windows 1.0 features they've been introducing as well (windows can't overlap, but hey, with the upcoming improvements you'll be able to run one application and a half at the same time! Conditions apply.)

Do the same people who are responsible for this initiative also get to make choices involving weapons?

You get code without symbol names and types, and that's assuming the authors hadn't outright obfuscated the code, otherwise you also get an entangled code flow.

For comparison we can paste the minified jQuery code into the excellent deminifier that was suggested in your link and compare the outcome with jQuery's open code; I can't directly paste snippets here because slashdot's lameness filter doesn't want me to.

They aren't focusing on "the script that makes text blink on some random website". They're worrying about the rising importance of Javascript in everyday computing, which should matter a lot for the FSF given that free software enthusiasts generally start coding on the software / hardware platforms that they use at home or at the school.

We're quickly heading into a future where personal computers are merely a frame running applications which actually are web sites residing on a remote host. So pushing for the adoption of free Javascript frameworks is getting just as important as promoting free C libraries and binaries has been until now.

The FSF had long seen this happening and they've been advocating for freedom in Javascript for years; while a lot of people laughed at them with straw men such as "meh, Stallman wants free blinking text", once again their position - which once appeared to many as a paranoid's stance - is reavealing itself to be quite insightful.

Your arguments makes the same level of sense as saying that every software is open source because disassemblers exist. Hint: they don't give you back source code.

Christian Arabs used the name Allah to designate the christian God long before Islam even existed.

Google Drive is recommended as an alternative

Or, you know, FTP.

I'm not talking about glasses uploading automatically. I'm talking about them using remote storage on Google servers for anything that they shoot, which is already an option on Android, and will surely be even more important on Glass, even more so if we suppose that the glasses won't have the computing power and storage capacity required for realtime image processing which is going to be an important application for that kind of device.

A dorky headpiece that could soon be worn by millions of people, continuously taking billions of high resolution photos and video clips with precise date/time/gps locations, and sending all of that data to a single commercial entity whose business is to harvest and process personal data, with a track record of privacy stumbles, an extremely high computational capacity and already knowing lots of details about millions of persons including faces, names, email and street address, whole phone books, geographic locations.

Fire your lawyers then. In Italy you can fire people you no longer need, it's called "justified objective reason", and it applies in cases of crisis, downsizing, restructuring, or ceased utility of the job position in general.

Where the hell did I say that? I didn't even qualify the fact as a “problem”, that's just how those things are designed to work. And why should BWR designs be “bad”? They’ve been used successfully for decades.

We’ll be able to discuss that when molten salt reactors exist on the market.

It depends on the design. The turbines of BWRs do become radioactive and must be properly disposed of.