Well, given that it's a self-selected sample of people who have signed up for a Sony website, and probably have accounts on the PSN, are you surprised?
I mean, if I go onto an Xbox Live forum where I'd need to have an XBox Live account (and therefore quite likely an XBox)... I would expect fanbois to be all over that as well, and the prevailing belief would be that it's the Best Thing Ever.
It was never going to be an unbiased group, not on playstation.com -- I suspect if you went on there and repeatedly bashed the Playstation they'd ban your account.
If SCEA was ever interested in protecting consumers, they never would have brought suit against GeoHot in the first place.
That part is so they can act like part of the motivation is so people don't write hacks to their modded systems that lets them cheat at the on-line games.
I'm of the opinion that it's 99% protecting of their IP/locking down the console, and 1% protecting consumers... and even that only as a PR thing.
Look, it isn't called grok sco, it's called grok law. Why not re-purpose toward legal issues in general or at least some broad subcategory?
Well, if you read her mission statement, she clearly said it was for SCO related stuff.
While we all appreciate the work that PJ has done... she's free to follow other pursuits. She's invested 7 years in it; maybe she feels it's time to move on.
Yeah:'( I am starting to wonder whether I'll find one I want to be with before I'm 60. I am starting to wonder whether I am simply v-sexual - only able to have any relationships with virtual entities. I don't want to be an expert in the theory of human relationships. This is one place where an applied subject is of more interest.
Dude, they even have web sites nowadays which are designed to make the process easier... some of them even give you matches based on some personality scores that they use to determine you might get along.
So, you're either an impossibly difficult to get along with person, tremendously ugly, or expect that you're going to get a Playboy Playmate. Girls wouldn't be walking around with "Talk Nerdy To Me" t-shirts if the geek wasn't at least something of a desirable demographic.
Go to match.com or eHarmony or something... you might find that stably employed, educated, and not criminally insane actually act in your favor.:-P
Why does everyone on Slashdot sound so helpless when it comes to meeting people? The extent to which being tech savvy has increased hugely over the years -- if 50%+ of relationships are people who met online, you should have a leg up in terms of understanding how to begin the process.
Why sell one cure when I can sell a thousand palliatives.
I can see pharma companies sitting on cures in order to "maximize shareholder value" by selling stop-gap measures. The revenue stream lasts far longer that way.
Really? So when science says "souls don't exist" and religion says "souls do exist", the two ideas can coexist? That's some mighty fine doublethink you've got going on there.
Not really... not unless you insist on being a dick about it.
In my mind, a god or an afterlife or reincarnation would all pretty much exist outside of the universe as we know it. At which point, science doesn't need to say anything about it, and the two can exist quite peacefully. What happened before the big bang? How big is space? How high is up?
Saying that they can coexist just fine requires changing the definition of either "religion" or "science" beyond all recognition - and it's not going to be science that does the changing.
Actually, it doesn't... the Catholics have the Jesuits, whose job it is to be the active science guys on behalf of the Vatican.
The two are only incompatible when religion expects you to vacate what you know about the world around you, or science insists that any form of spirituality is misguided and stupid.
Maybe in your small little world it is not possible for the two to coexist... but, I know people who have PhDs in the physical scientists who are devoutly religious. In their minds, the two address very different domains of human endeavors, and do not pose any conflicts. To them, physics exists in its entirety, god is real, no problem.
Only the most rigid and dogmatic view of either preclude the existence of the other. You appear to come down on the dogmatic view that only science exists, and that all religion is bullshit.
Sure judges are smart..yeah right! The human race has 68% of the population with average intelligence or one standard deviation from the mean. You are trying to say that judges, all judges, are above the average of 68%? I highly doubt it.
Why?
Assuming all judges are lawyers, and have therefore graduated from law school... they've already demonstrated a certain baseline of being smart and completing university (twice if I understand how that works). You need to be able to perform complex reasoning, grasp complex concepts, and follow and analyze two differing arguments... that, and keep track of and understand/apply relevant case law so that your judgments are actually legally sound.
And, yes, some people who score as having "average" intelligence can go on an do tremendous things and accomplish a lot. At which I'm of the opinion that the tests aren't infallible, and don't measure everything that counts.
I would think you've already set a fairly minimum bar to be able to be a judge. Certainly more than a lot of jobs might. The very nature of the job does imply some intelligence beyond what is required to be, say, a greeter at Wal Mart.
All the files I've ever created, along with all the files anyone else has created, along with all the files of finite length that nobody has ever created, are waiting right there for you in/dev/random.
Yeah, but I can never find the one I'm looking for, so it's not a very good system.
I can't wait another 50,000 years... I need my TPS report now.
If you read TFA, the guy was a REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER in California according to TSA records. That gave them reason to believe he may have had contraband files on his PC, especially after they found many files were encrypted (another red flag). This wasn't some joe-blow they picked at random.
I believe TFA makes it pretty clear that "the border search doctrine allows such actions even without reasonable suspicion or cause".
So, the ruling says that despite the fact that "this wasn't some joe-blow they picked at random", it could be... and it would be equally valid.
Don't try to kid yourself that only when they have some suspicion or information... it upholds the notion of suspicion-less searches. Meaning, anyone, any time, for no reason and without justification.
Look past the fact that this particular guy was a sex offender... the ruling does. The scope of this is far broader than just that.
Do you not recall the widespread popularity of the "Beep! Beep! Your Ass!" tee shirts in the early to mid 1970's?
Thankfully, most of the early mid 70s I was far too young to remember a lot of the cultural stuff... I think I was eight when Star Wars came out.:-P
Order a pizza, indeed. You're missing the point of his popularity.
Not at all... I wasn't seriously advocating that he order pizza, that would have made the show completely lame.
It's more that he was willing to expend vast amounts of energy on complex schemes to try to catch the Road Runner. Hence my assertion the Road Runner was more of a Moby Dick kind of thing -- an obsession that he can't put down. I think in one or more cases, he actually used food as a lure for the Road Runner, giving credence to the notion that he could have eaten something else.
When he squared off against Bugs Bunny, he was clearly the bad guy, and deserved it. But, the Road Runner was just sort of this overly cute character who didn't invoke any empathy, and therefore it would have been hilarious if he'd gotten caught.
Even when they morphed the Coyote somewhat to go up against the Sam the Sheepdog, there was tension, and you had a sense of a 'just' (if not silly) conflict. They had a job to do, and the Coyote/Wolf character was just outmatched.
I just never found a reason to root for the Road Runner. It always seemed more that he was taunting the Coyote just for the fun on it.
The fact that we were rooting for him for so long, made his distributors some profit, until Looney Tunes became 'politically incorrect' for promoting violence, and taken off the airwaves in the USA.
Alas, a sad time in history. I remember watching them years later after they'd been edited to hell and were no longer funny.
So, only the stupid or careless get apprehended with inappropriate information on their mobile devices. Sounds like Darwin at work to me...
This isn't about being stupid or careless and getting apprehended with inappropriate/illegal information.
This is about them being able to confiscate your laptop, digital camera, phone, and pretty much damned near anything... on a whim, without suspicion, and without recourse.
Some jackass of a border guard who is having a bad day or doesn't like my haircut can decide to basically appropriate my laptop and anything else he pleases, on a whim, with no grounds, warrant, suspicion, or defensible reason.
If you think that's Darwinism, you're a fool. If you think this is the sign of a free society, you're a bigger fool. This smacks more of banana republics and the stereotype of "papers please" and other crap from the Communist Bloc countries in the 80s.
Horseshit. Evolution has been observed as new species happen, and the fossil record is pretty clear on how it has worked from the past. We don't know every detail for every species, but to say evolution has yet to be proven is at best disingenuous, and at worst an outright lie.
there is absolutely no reason that evolution should be granted any merit beyond intelligent design
Except, there is no evidence to support intelligent design in any meaningful way other than to say "we have an alternate theory which should be listened to", and it's all predicated on the fact that something seems so complex to you that it couldn't have possibly evolved. There is however physical evidence and observations of evolution.
Why are all evolution vs. intelligent design debates always really just deism vs. atheism debates? Why can't anyone consider the possibility of intelligent design without asking 'who'?
Because only someone with a vested interest in there being a 'who' is proposing ID. Science starts with a point of view which is inherently atheist, and absent any evidence to suggest any basis for theism, keeps it that way. Without evidence to suggest some "supernatural" force, we assume only natural forces have been at play. So, until we see some physical proof to suggest that a deity or other outside actor was in mucking about with the life-forms, it's an extraordinary claim with absolutely no proof or evidence to support it.
Seriously, what evidence is there to suggest intelligent design? I would say there is no credible, factual, physical evidence other than supposition by people who engage in wishful thinking.
After all, evolution is simply a theory, not a proven fact. What should give it any further merit over any other not-disproven theory?
Again, horseshit. You don't seem to know what the scientific definition for theory, or if you do, you're intentionally ignoring it to try to muddle the conversation with your mumbo-jumbo.
If gravity hadn't been deemed a "law" several hundred years ago, it would still be considered a "theory". While something could come along to invalidate what we think about gravity, an awful lot of stuff has been shown which is consistent with the notion of gravity.
Full disclosure: I am a Bible thumper, and I have friends who believe in intelligent design who are atheists. Intelligent design does not predicate a deity.
Anybody who says they're an atheist who believes in ID is either lying, an agnostic, or a crack-pot.
Because the only explanations become: deity, space aliens, or some "unknowable actor", which for all intents and purposes gets us back to deity.
Show me one falsifiable experiment you could do to learn anything about Intelligent Design. If you can't, your entire position is a fairy tale, and cannot be construed as science. Science has testable, verifiable and falsifiable hypothesis... if you don't have the ability to offer those, don't call yourself science, and don't try to put yourself on equal footing with it.
All you're doing is saying "well, it's possible that the bogey man came in and did something, and since you can't disprove it, my theory is as good as yours".
Christianity collapses entirely without the Creation story.
I don't think it does... literal, unyielding Christianity might.
The Catholics introduced the Jesuits almost 500 years ago... part of their job is to handle the science, and be able to explain/integrate that into religious life.
I've known a Jesuit who was a physicist and an astronomer. Brilliant guy, open, completely accepted science in all of its forms.
I never had a really deep conversation with him on the matter, but his attitude was always "yes, there is a spiritual aspect we need to consider, but we have to remember that science is real, and we can't ignore it".
It seems to be some of the, for lack of a better word "newer" denominations which insist on being backwards and denying science. It seems like they're incapable of recognizing any of it as parable, and the ones who insist it be all construed as 100% literal, lest is all collapse on itself.
I find it quite sad to see so many jurisdictions enshrining an ignorance of basic science into law, and defending the right of people to be both incredibly wrong, and to have their heads up their asses at the expense of verifiable scientific facts and discourse.
If your god intended you to be a drooling idiot, he wouldn't have given you the capacity to think.
I don't have a problem with religion, but when it decides that stupidity is the best course, and that it's best to ignore what we actually know about the world around us, it's quite pathetic.
I fail to see why religion needs to be compatible with basic science... I realize there's a lot of different variations on Christianity, but even the Vatican has accepted basic science. It seems like the more you demand the right to deny evolution and the like, the more likely you are to be a wacky, radicalized person who insists that only your interpretation of the bible is correct -- and that anybody who disagrees with you is evil.
The friggin' Scopes Trial was in 1925 -- but it seems like some people are still convinced that there is a need to live in the dark ages and pretend we haven't learned anything... though, TV and Wal Mart don't seem to be a problem.
This is like not marking children wrong on anything factual because everybody is entitled to their own opinion, and maybe little Billy really felt that 2+2=5, and we don't want to hurt his feelings.
I don't know about your internet, but mine involves alternative routes to a particular physical location. Not just because that's how the Internet works, but because there are competing providers.
Yeah, but in practice depending on where you live and how your ISP is set up, you'll probably find the address allocated to your cable modem is fairly static, or at least consistently within a range. I just don't think that if you're in a fairly major center this isn't already fairly well established.
Fairly consistently, if I'm using my iPad and using anything with location-based stuff, it pretty much knows where I'm at for all but a few places I've been (and that's without 3G, purely based on my wifi).
I also see a lot of embedded ads that know what city I'm in. Sadly, I fear that just by brute force, most possible locations for most ISPs are already fairly well mapped out and your location is already well known.
I alternate between being creeped out by this, and liking the fact that things like Urban Spoon work when I travel.
The BSD has it's place though, and you're point is valid, it is more open than GPL, and in some ways BSD'ers are even more generous with their time than GPL'ers, perhaps they're just a little too generous at times:).
But, at the end of the day... it is their time, and their code. So your opinion about how someone else allocates their labors is irrelevant.
The arrogance of someone to say "how dare you give away software that someone doesn't have to give to the end user" is exactly why I say that some really staunch GPL advocates are worried about the ideological purity of code.
Essentially, those people would impose their own ideology on the people who would release under a license which didn't place obligations on someone else. In effect, telling them they're wrong.
The GPL is a political ideology, and those who most strongly advocate it would claim that their ideology is better than someone who wants to be "free" in the sense that I can take it and do as I please.
I'm not saying both don't have their place, I'm saying that GPL to the exclusion of BSD (or the reverse) is completely unnecessary. Rabid *-ism is stupid in all of its forms. The GPL is no exception.
But if you're going to start casting stones, you might want to check the ground you're standing on before you start.
My stance on the relative difference between GPL and BSD, and when they're comparatively "better" has been fairly established since the late mid-to-late 90s.
I don't care about how you perceive BSD fans nowadays as I'm not the one making those statements. And, I can't tell you how often I see GPL people talking like Communist revolutionaries who are obsessed with the ideology... "it's more free because it's libre"... and you guys whine about the Apple people wearing black turtlenecks and doing beat poetry? I've thought RMS was a bit of a crank since I hear him speak in 93.
I've both used BSD code in commercial software and submitted bug-fixes to GPLd code. They each have their place and their application -- I'm in favor of both of them.
That doesn't mean there aren't times when I'm not grateful to be able to take some really useful piece (BerkelyDB, for example) and building something useful with it because it accomplished a lot of the plumbing to build something on top of it without worrying about if I'm legally covered. Or, grab a copy of Linux and set up a server.
I think the notion that there is one "correct" form that "free software" can take is mostly rubbish.
I always thought that Wiley Coyote depicts very well the agony of working as an engineer.
It's more like Moby Dick or something equally obsessive. Think of the Road Runner as unobtanium or the Grail.;-)
Of course, deep down, we're all rooting for him to catch the little bugger. And, really... if he had the money to order all of that crap from ACME, why didn't he just order a pizza?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, given that it's a self-selected sample of people who have signed up for a Sony website, and probably have accounts on the PSN, are you surprised?
I mean, if I go onto an Xbox Live forum where I'd need to have an XBox Live account (and therefore quite likely an XBox) ... I would expect fanbois to be all over that as well, and the prevailing belief would be that it's the Best Thing Ever.
It was never going to be an unbiased group, not on playstation.com -- I suspect if you went on there and repeatedly bashed the Playstation they'd ban your account.
That part is so they can act like part of the motivation is so people don't write hacks to their modded systems that lets them cheat at the on-line games.
I'm of the opinion that it's 99% protecting of their IP/locking down the console, and 1% protecting consumers ... and even that only as a PR thing.
Well, if you read her mission statement, she clearly said it was for SCO related stuff.
While we all appreciate the work that PJ has done ... she's free to follow other pursuits. She's invested 7 years in it; maybe she feels it's time to move on.
Dude, they even have web sites nowadays which are designed to make the process easier ... some of them even give you matches based on some personality scores that they use to determine you might get along.
So, you're either an impossibly difficult to get along with person, tremendously ugly, or expect that you're going to get a Playboy Playmate. Girls wouldn't be walking around with "Talk Nerdy To Me" t-shirts if the geek wasn't at least something of a desirable demographic.
Go to match.com or eHarmony or something ... you might find that stably employed, educated, and not criminally insane actually act in your favor. :-P
Why does everyone on Slashdot sound so helpless when it comes to meeting people? The extent to which being tech savvy has increased hugely over the years -- if 50%+ of relationships are people who met online, you should have a leg up in terms of understanding how to begin the process.
Start looking for possible places here.
Giving treatment to symptoms over an extended period of time will make you far more money.
To quote Doctor Who
I can see pharma companies sitting on cures in order to "maximize shareholder value" by selling stop-gap measures. The revenue stream lasts far longer that way.
Don't know about you, but I've found that #1 can lead to #2 -- and has on several occasions.
I fear this guy will likely get himself a lawsuit or a restraining order for his troubles.
Pretty much any major company is going to react badly to you publishing their private keys for their encryption.
The best I have for CO in this context is "Case Officer", but, like the GP ... not sure that is the term used by the parties here.
Not really ... not unless you insist on being a dick about it.
In my mind, a god or an afterlife or reincarnation would all pretty much exist outside of the universe as we know it. At which point, science doesn't need to say anything about it, and the two can exist quite peacefully. What happened before the big bang? How big is space? How high is up?
Actually, it doesn't ... the Catholics have the Jesuits, whose job it is to be the active science guys on behalf of the Vatican.
The two are only incompatible when religion expects you to vacate what you know about the world around you, or science insists that any form of spirituality is misguided and stupid.
Maybe in your small little world it is not possible for the two to coexist ... but, I know people who have PhDs in the physical scientists who are devoutly religious. In their minds, the two address very different domains of human endeavors, and do not pose any conflicts. To them, physics exists in its entirety, god is real, no problem.
Only the most rigid and dogmatic view of either preclude the existence of the other. You appear to come down on the dogmatic view that only science exists, and that all religion is bullshit.
That is a sad, sad statistic.
So, greater than 50% of science teachers in the US don't actually believe in science?
Why?
Assuming all judges are lawyers, and have therefore graduated from law school ... they've already demonstrated a certain baseline of being smart and completing university (twice if I understand how that works). You need to be able to perform complex reasoning, grasp complex concepts, and follow and analyze two differing arguments ... that, and keep track of and understand/apply relevant case law so that your judgments are actually legally sound.
And, yes, some people who score as having "average" intelligence can go on an do tremendous things and accomplish a lot. At which I'm of the opinion that the tests aren't infallible, and don't measure everything that counts.
I would think you've already set a fairly minimum bar to be able to be a judge. Certainly more than a lot of jobs might. The very nature of the job does imply some intelligence beyond what is required to be, say, a greeter at Wal Mart.
Yeah, but I can never find the one I'm looking for, so it's not a very good system.
I can't wait another 50,000 years ... I need my TPS report now.
I believe TFA makes it pretty clear that "the border search doctrine allows such actions even without reasonable suspicion or cause".
So, the ruling says that despite the fact that "this wasn't some joe-blow they picked at random", it could be ... and it would be equally valid.
Don't try to kid yourself that only when they have some suspicion or information ... it upholds the notion of suspicion-less searches. Meaning, anyone, any time, for no reason and without justification.
Look past the fact that this particular guy was a sex offender ... the ruling does. The scope of this is far broader than just that.
Thankfully, most of the early mid 70s I was far too young to remember a lot of the cultural stuff ... I think I was eight when Star Wars came out. :-P
Not at all ... I wasn't seriously advocating that he order pizza, that would have made the show completely lame.
It's more that he was willing to expend vast amounts of energy on complex schemes to try to catch the Road Runner. Hence my assertion the Road Runner was more of a Moby Dick kind of thing -- an obsession that he can't put down. I think in one or more cases, he actually used food as a lure for the Road Runner, giving credence to the notion that he could have eaten something else.
When he squared off against Bugs Bunny, he was clearly the bad guy, and deserved it. But, the Road Runner was just sort of this overly cute character who didn't invoke any empathy, and therefore it would have been hilarious if he'd gotten caught.
Even when they morphed the Coyote somewhat to go up against the Sam the Sheepdog, there was tension, and you had a sense of a 'just' (if not silly) conflict. They had a job to do, and the Coyote/Wolf character was just outmatched.
I just never found a reason to root for the Road Runner. It always seemed more that he was taunting the Coyote just for the fun on it.
Alas, a sad time in history. I remember watching them years later after they'd been edited to hell and were no longer funny.
Cheers
This isn't about being stupid or careless and getting apprehended with inappropriate/illegal information.
This is about them being able to confiscate your laptop, digital camera, phone, and pretty much damned near anything ... on a whim, without suspicion, and without recourse.
Some jackass of a border guard who is having a bad day or doesn't like my haircut can decide to basically appropriate my laptop and anything else he pleases, on a whim, with no grounds, warrant, suspicion, or defensible reason.
If you think that's Darwinism, you're a fool. If you think this is the sign of a free society, you're a bigger fool. This smacks more of banana republics and the stereotype of "papers please" and other crap from the Communist Bloc countries in the 80s.
To clarify this .... I fail to see why religion needs to be incompatible with basic science".
I think the two can coexist just fine.
Horseshit. Evolution has been observed as new species happen, and the fossil record is pretty clear on how it has worked from the past. We don't know every detail for every species, but to say evolution has yet to be proven is at best disingenuous, and at worst an outright lie.
Except, there is no evidence to support intelligent design in any meaningful way other than to say "we have an alternate theory which should be listened to", and it's all predicated on the fact that something seems so complex to you that it couldn't have possibly evolved. There is however physical evidence and observations of evolution.
Because only someone with a vested interest in there being a 'who' is proposing ID. Science starts with a point of view which is inherently atheist, and absent any evidence to suggest any basis for theism, keeps it that way. Without evidence to suggest some "supernatural" force, we assume only natural forces have been at play. So, until we see some physical proof to suggest that a deity or other outside actor was in mucking about with the life-forms, it's an extraordinary claim with absolutely no proof or evidence to support it.
Seriously, what evidence is there to suggest intelligent design? I would say there is no credible, factual, physical evidence other than supposition by people who engage in wishful thinking.
Again, horseshit. You don't seem to know what the scientific definition for theory, or if you do, you're intentionally ignoring it to try to muddle the conversation with your mumbo-jumbo.
If gravity hadn't been deemed a "law" several hundred years ago, it would still be considered a "theory". While something could come along to invalidate what we think about gravity, an awful lot of stuff has been shown which is consistent with the notion of gravity.
Anybody who says they're an atheist who believes in ID is either lying, an agnostic, or a crack-pot.
Because the only explanations become: deity, space aliens, or some "unknowable actor", which for all intents and purposes gets us back to deity.
Show me one falsifiable experiment you could do to learn anything about Intelligent Design. If you can't, your entire position is a fairy tale, and cannot be construed as science. Science has testable, verifiable and falsifiable hypothesis ... if you don't have the ability to offer those, don't call yourself science, and don't try to put yourself on equal footing with it.
All you're doing is saying "well, it's possible that the bogey man came in and did something, and since you can't disprove it, my theory is as good as yours".
I don't think it does ... literal, unyielding Christianity might.
The Catholics introduced the Jesuits almost 500 years ago ... part of their job is to handle the science, and be able to explain/integrate that into religious life.
I've known a Jesuit who was a physicist and an astronomer. Brilliant guy, open, completely accepted science in all of its forms.
I never had a really deep conversation with him on the matter, but his attitude was always "yes, there is a spiritual aspect we need to consider, but we have to remember that science is real, and we can't ignore it".
It seems to be some of the, for lack of a better word "newer" denominations which insist on being backwards and denying science. It seems like they're incapable of recognizing any of it as parable, and the ones who insist it be all construed as 100% literal, lest is all collapse on itself.
I find it quite sad to see so many jurisdictions enshrining an ignorance of basic science into law, and defending the right of people to be both incredibly wrong, and to have their heads up their asses at the expense of verifiable scientific facts and discourse.
If your god intended you to be a drooling idiot, he wouldn't have given you the capacity to think.
I don't have a problem with religion, but when it decides that stupidity is the best course, and that it's best to ignore what we actually know about the world around us, it's quite pathetic.
I fail to see why religion needs to be compatible with basic science ... I realize there's a lot of different variations on Christianity, but even the Vatican has accepted basic science. It seems like the more you demand the right to deny evolution and the like, the more likely you are to be a wacky, radicalized person who insists that only your interpretation of the bible is correct -- and that anybody who disagrees with you is evil.
The friggin' Scopes Trial was in 1925 -- but it seems like some people are still convinced that there is a need to live in the dark ages and pretend we haven't learned anything ... though, TV and Wal Mart don't seem to be a problem.
This is like not marking children wrong on anything factual because everybody is entitled to their own opinion, and maybe little Billy really felt that 2+2=5, and we don't want to hurt his feelings.
Yeah, but in practice depending on where you live and how your ISP is set up, you'll probably find the address allocated to your cable modem is fairly static, or at least consistently within a range. I just don't think that if you're in a fairly major center this isn't already fairly well established.
Fairly consistently, if I'm using my iPad and using anything with location-based stuff, it pretty much knows where I'm at for all but a few places I've been (and that's without 3G, purely based on my wifi).
I also see a lot of embedded ads that know what city I'm in. Sadly, I fear that just by brute force, most possible locations for most ISPs are already fairly well mapped out and your location is already well known.
I alternate between being creeped out by this, and liking the fact that things like Urban Spoon work when I travel.
But, at the end of the day ... it is their time, and their code. So your opinion about how someone else allocates their labors is irrelevant.
The arrogance of someone to say "how dare you give away software that someone doesn't have to give to the end user" is exactly why I say that some really staunch GPL advocates are worried about the ideological purity of code.
Essentially, those people would impose their own ideology on the people who would release under a license which didn't place obligations on someone else. In effect, telling them they're wrong.
The GPL is a political ideology, and those who most strongly advocate it would claim that their ideology is better than someone who wants to be "free" in the sense that I can take it and do as I please.
I'm not saying both don't have their place, I'm saying that GPL to the exclusion of BSD (or the reverse) is completely unnecessary. Rabid *-ism is stupid in all of its forms. The GPL is no exception.
My stance on the relative difference between GPL and BSD, and when they're comparatively "better" has been fairly established since the late mid-to-late 90s.
I don't care about how you perceive BSD fans nowadays as I'm not the one making those statements. And, I can't tell you how often I see GPL people talking like Communist revolutionaries who are obsessed with the ideology ... "it's more free because it's libre" ... and you guys whine about the Apple people wearing black turtlenecks and doing beat poetry? I've thought RMS was a bit of a crank since I hear him speak in 93.
I've both used BSD code in commercial software and submitted bug-fixes to GPLd code. They each have their place and their application -- I'm in favor of both of them.
That doesn't mean there aren't times when I'm not grateful to be able to take some really useful piece (BerkelyDB, for example) and building something useful with it because it accomplished a lot of the plumbing to build something on top of it without worrying about if I'm legally covered. Or, grab a copy of Linux and set up a server.
I think the notion that there is one "correct" form that "free software" can take is mostly rubbish.
See, I never really could empathize with the Road Runner.
I always found it far more hilarious to see Wile E. Coyote get his ass handed to him by Bugs Bunny than the Road Runner.
When Bugs decided you needed to be taught a lesson, he made damned sure you knew he was teaching it to you. ;-)
I put on my robe and wizard hat. ;-)
It's more like Moby Dick or something equally obsessive. Think of the Road Runner as unobtanium or the Grail. ;-)
Of course, deep down, we're all rooting for him to catch the little bugger. And, really ... if he had the money to order all of that crap from ACME, why didn't he just order a pizza?