Run quickly on some extremely resource-constrained system perhaps?

Don't confuse someone speaking about an area completely outside of their field of expertise with someone speaking about their field of expertise.

RMS basically has the right answer, but only limited to his field of work. Copyright and patents are both examples of capital, or private property, this meaning concepts of "ownership" which go beyond personal property. Personal property is the things you use as part of your everyday life, objects which are like an extension of yourself. This deserves protection. Capital, or private property, is things you own in order to exert power over other people, to restrict their life in accordance with your interests. This is the concept which needs to be discarded, which creates a ruling class controlling a working class, is precipitating fascism and destroying the ecosystem etc. RMS is ethical enough to get this when it comes to the things he's familiar with, but since he's so focused on the world of software he hasn't quite made the leap to realise that it being possible to own things like factories or the homes other people live in is the same kind of problem.

Copyleft, incidentally, makes use of the law of "copyright" to create a relation which doesn't work in the personal interests of everyone, but works in the interests of the community. This is what makes it different to the normal use of "copyright". (In quotes because it is actually a restriction, not a right. Taking away the rights of others is not a right.)

The idea that you should pay attention when someone tells you to be nice to other people but reject requests to be nasty to other people makes perfect sense to me.

Memes can be anything which can be used in internet postings. Like the first couple of things which come to my mind when you say "meme" are "Longcat is LOOOOOOOOOONG" and "Millhouse is not a meme". What characterises memes is that the community keeps using them over and over again (hence an idea which replicates itself). People who think they can create something and instantly call it a meme are just lazy.

It's very easy to make contracts, they often don't require a signature. If you go into a shop, pick up an item, give the right amount of money to the cashier and walk out with it, that money becomes owned by the store and the item becomes owned by you because a contract got formed. This message just isn't enough to form the kind of contract needed to shift house ownership.

It's a perfectly sensible question to ask something which has been marketed to you as "AI". That the technology has been marketed misleadingly is the responsibility of the marketers.

Nicotine needs to be regulated so that dealers can't do this sort of thing. And all the drugs which are currently banned need to be legalised and regulated so that dealers can't do this sort of thing (or at least they can avoid being hunted for prison by not doing this sort of thing).

Chose randomly next Monday, looked up the schedules on BBC 1, 2, 3 and 4, 0 police procedurals out of 66. There was one detective show.

Their early work was absolutely right, and they can still be used to send charity to where it will do the most good per pound if you just ignore the AI cultists.

While the FSF's principles are generally laudable, there are far more basic ones which should be appealed to here. If you go into a shop and buy a spade, say, you can use that spade to dig until it physically falls apart, the manufacturer can do nothing to stop you. It must be written in law that this is how all purchases work. If you buy an item, (rather than renting it,) you get the right to use that item as advertised in perpetuity, limited only by inevitable constraints such as physical durability. If the manufacturer tries to make you agree to some terms in order to use the item, they get prosecuted for extortion, and if they do anything which makes it unusable for all or part of its advertised purpose, they get prosecuted for criminal damage, the same consequences as would face someone who creeps into your house and breaks one of your things or takes it hostage unless you make some agreement with them.

Another option: just let them in, There's no rule saying that every nation on the planet has to oppose free travel for human beings.

I still refer to it as Twitter due to intense "bad will". Specifically, I'm not changing what I call something because a Nazi wants me to.

The Labour government in the UK is very right-wing. They've been throwing left-wingers out. The powerful seek to infiltrate all bodies of power, including those who are supposed to represent the people.

It's sad to see people associating "democracy" with money bringing power. In a properly working democracy, the richest person should have no more political power than the poorest.