I think it is probably a bad idea to rely on the expensive patent process to protect open source. Isn't it better to make the software available and visible so that it can be clearly established that it is prior art, i.e. already known by all, when someone tries to patent drawing rectangles on the screen, or whatever? I'm probably ignorant, but what's wrong with that approach? Is it less certain to succeed in a court, or is it possible to patent something that someone else has already done and explained how to do?

Sorry for being dense, but how does that verify that my vote is affecting the the announced result of the election? Couldn't they just announce "X got 60% of the votes" anyway? (By jamming in a lot of false ballots, or by just lying?)

It's easy: car pool!
With two people in the car, the amount of useful work* is doubled!
* = hauling people around, as opposed to hauling a large heavy metal box around
A fundamental problem about cars and energy efficiency is not about the engine, or how to improve its efficiency with 20% or so, it is about how we construct our societies, roads, public and goods transportation. When we build ourselves into a car centric, there is really isn't that much we can do to reduce our energy consumption.

This very useful comment was found in TFA.

Perhaps this microwave-proof clothing works?

Yes, cocaine has that effect on some people. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc

Actually, your idea that he shouldn't reveal atrocities because he was ordered not to has not been in vogue since the Nuremberg trials.

Thinking of Wikipedia as simply any privately run website that the owner can censor as s/he sees fit, misses the point.

You are technically correct, but Wikipedia is used by us all to collect our common knowledge. If we can't find a way to do that in collaboration in a democratic way, without resorting to censorship by some arbitrary guy, then we must find another medium.

It is almost as bad as if some company claimed ownership or copyright on the contents of Wikipedia and prevented everyone else from using (copying/pasting) the information.

But I may be wrong. The idea of a democratic encyclopedia with essentially anonymous contributors maybe is a pipe dream. Perhaps there actually has to be an identifiable publisher/censor for all information, in order to reveal the bias exists in all articles.

Perhaps the author tag should be made more explicit on wikipedia, like a source code "blame" mark.

Yes. As comparison, a regular light bulb gives you about 15 lumen per watt.

Freedom of speach (FoS) is about being able to express opinions. It is not about being able to transfer files anonymously. If there is FoS, one should be able to post opinions and ideas in one's own name, without fear of punishment. A move to strictly annonymous communication is actually a step away from FoS.

Defending FoS means fighting against the powers that try to prevent that right, like governments, or self-proclaimed "guardians of morality".

Although FreeNet could be useful for groups that need guerilla methods to defend FoS, FreeNet itself does not defend FoS.

Sadly, it seems like many people think that FoS is a technical problem, and they then stop thinking about how to really defend it.