Seems like it would be cheaper to just stand up your own Slashcode server and call it NextDot or something. I'd rather spend the money on hosting than give it to Dice.
A bunch of them did. One that I signed up for even raised $350. There were lots of pledges of support, until it came time to actually agree on editorial principles. Then it turned out, the users all hated each other when it came down to brass tacks. Most of us came to slashdot because of a connection to free software or the open source movement. That includes everybody from radical communists to wild west libertarians. We're more likely to agree on what web framework to use than what editorial policies to have.
There is no possible way for this community to be a community without a benevolent dictator.
Why would anybody get fired? They weren't making money off us, all they did was fail to squeeze blood out of rocks. Their bosses would be idiots to fire them for that. Just because what they do doesn't work for this community, doesn't mean that is a bad thing from their perspective. They never wanted to be what we wanted them to be.
I'm just glad they're moving on. Live or die, we'll be better off without them, and they'll be better off without us. There are other bits in the bucket.
4. Ramrodding CO2 = pollution stories down everyone's throats without ever addressing the facts and science of the other side of the debate, instead focusing on personal attacks as defence.
Plus the average slashdotter probably uses ad blocking which makes their advertising model not work very well.
You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts.
If you disbelieve facts and call it an opinion, don't hold your breath waiting for people to want to "debate" it.
BTW, this is exactly what puts the "coward" in "anonymous coward." You admit to being a regular, and yet you don't have the courage to use your own pseudonym.
The "ethics" complaint is already known to have been a lie, based on rumors. There is no substance to the accusation itself. Even if you believe the accusation, the only thing to believe is that some people believe a rumor about somebody's personal life. That isn't ethics, and doesn't involve journalism. That you're still trotting out the lie, yes that really does raise questions about your true motives. Especially when there are lots of examples of serious, serious ethical violations in attacking people seen as being "on the other side." Simply saying it isn't you, while standing next to them and repeating the same lies about it, that isn't going to convince anybody of what you want to convince them. People do learn from it though, sure.
And since when is social justice a bad thing? It is just laughable when people think "social justice warrior" is an insult. You do know that justice is good, right? And that people who fight for something good are seen as... good people?
One of the spin-off anti-beta sites raised a thousand buckeroonies, we're such big spenders, sure, sure, we can fund it... or at least, we might be able to fund one nostalgic slashvertisement.
I totally agree. The first thing I teach security trainees is that if it is your own security, you have to know and care about thousands of technical details. If you're being hired to deal with somebody else's security, then you have to follow the standard Best Practices because the goal is to provide a measured level of security precautions, not to promise end results. It isn't art, it isn't creative writing, it is a matter of providing the correct type of service.
Just like, the job of a security alarm company is not to keep burglars out of a house, their job instead is to operate certain sensors according to the manual. And if you're worried about your own home's security, there are a long list of things to worry about that are different than what a security alarm company provides.
And yeah, if your "best practices" are coming from blogs, instead of standard engineering practices for your industry niche, then they are guaranteed to be crap. It does not matter if you believe the blogger to actually know anything, or not. Blogs by people who "know something" are not a better source here, because they will tend to represent "fad" that is often flying in the face of the actual Best Practices in the industry. Indeed, the blogs that discuss consensus "best practices" are boring and have no new information, and very few readers.
Lastly, calling people out by name to say nasty things about them for no apparent reason only tells me that you are a hater, and that so-and-so is hated by some subset of haters. Haters hate, so there is no information content there.
A) "Best practices" are a set. The entire set, which is known to be incomplete, includes all the practices that are candidates for being best in different situations. That is why it is "best practices" and not "best practice." I do admire your dedication to rejecting absurd absolutes, but you missed the mark on this one. That pluralization changes the entire character of the statement. B) While in general this is a "pet peeve" of mine, you state it way too broadly. There are times and places for various different password policies. Since you make the complaint without narrowing it, it simply fails. Another thing to consider: Assume I run a silly website, but users have to log in. Users who repeat passwords can get their accounts hijacked more easily. It may be that those users aren't important enough for me to take that risk. I might reasonably decide that it is worth the annoyance of a password policy that will prevent password reuse, because it reduces the chance of getting swept up in a broader security breach of people with repeated passwords. See also: use of password managers;) C) What does this even mean? Yes, your appliance is an appliance. I don't like pejorative, but I feel like you're talking like an appliance. If the data was important, when they were asked, "Did you back up all your data?" they would have said, "AAHHHHH SHIT, wait, wait, I'll bring it back in a few hours, sorry!" Of course they don't have backups, but did they care? The user is the one who knows if their data is worth caring about. I guarantee you, if they told me what data they had, I would care even less than when I just assumed they had backups.;) I dunno. Maybe you just meant, IT guys run *nix, so their computers run just like an appliance instead of a torture device.
The point I was making was that updates are not universally better than their predecessors.
Most of the software I rely on is years old. I almost agree with the "expert" advice, except I follow it in a different direction. Software that frequently has updates available is not to be trusted. I agree that in order to safely run software, you need to install updates, because security bugfixes almost never have a separate channel than other changes.
However, another way to maintain updated systems is not to install updates, but to uninstall anything that updates frequently. You still have only updated software running.
(Obviously this fails if you use unmaintained software. It only works for "experts" who can analyze easily if software is abandoned or just stable.)
I didn't see any experts in the article suggesting blindly installing updates without testing (if possible, like in a corporate environment for instance) or reading the release notes.
If they don't know that is the result their advice will achieve, they're not very expert.
The biggest challenge to security is user actions, so if they don't understand how users use, they aren't very expert. Speaking or writing words will not cause users to read other, larger numbers of words. That is just not a technical result that is achieved by giving advice.
You missed the point. Not affecting everybody means you don't know how many people will be affected, and can't calculate costs accurately. It raises the cost of information. How much does a disruption cost that affects everybody? Easy to calculate. What if it can affect any number of people, and you have no idea in advance which ones? Very difficult to calculate, and worse, it costs real money unrelated to solving the problem in order to increase your level of information and be able to make claims about the cost of disruption.
This is how information theory is being applied in modern business. Some information costs money just to collect it or estimate it, and other information is already available. Predictability of costs is more important than absolute cost. Nobody cares about risk, they care about unquantified risk.
Parallel construction is usually legal. It is actually what they are supposed to do if they can't use some evidence for a technical reason; find another path to evidence that is legit. The principle is "the tree of the poison fruit," not "the forest that had a tree with poison fruit."
If you don't learn what they can do, how can you hope to stop them from doing what they're not supposed to be able to do?
The government could always do a search, find nothing, and not charge anybody. What legal or civic principle does that violate? Would you prefer the incentives to be aligned so that they get punished if they don't at least throw a weak charge at you?
An important part of your argument that you don't say anything about, but that you must have considered or been aware of, are the 62 charged with real crimes, or as you say, "Most people break the law in many small ways, just hit them with all of them?" I checked already, and 108 people have plead guilty to felonies already in this case. Felonies. Plead guilty. 108. Not just the 62 that were actually searched. And it may be that more of those searched will also be charged in the future... after further searches that may or may not uncover evidence.
It is a real investigation, not a fishing expedition. You may not care about felony fraud, but most Americans consider it a real crime.
So let me see if I understand this. Alice gives me a letter, and asks me to read it and to give it to Bob. (We are all three parties to it.) The government, wishing to investigate Alice or Bob, can serve me a warrant for the letter, and demand all other of my papers that I have relating to the two? And I have no standing to contest the warrant, because it's served "against" Alice and Bob even though it's going after papers that are in my possession and of interest to me?
Is this what the Framers meant by "papers" in the phrase "Persons, Papers and Effects"?
My advice, watch less cable news. They're not teaching you about the Constitution or the Framers, they're filling your mind with infotainment.
The 4th Amendment does not protect you from actually being searched. It protects you from searches that were done without correct process being used as evidence of crimes. The purpose of the process is to require the government to state the reasons for searching and places to be searched, so that those reasons are available to the political discourse. It was never believed that it would magically stop the po-po from searching you. Rather, it was believed that forcing them to have formal reasons would allow the rest of the checks and balances to function. You need to understand English history here. The way they would prevent the commoners from rising up in protest at a false arrest was to make very bad-sounding but non-specific accusations against a party. This might go on for years before they're finally charged with some much smaller, or politically more controversial, thing. That is what the requirement to have a search warrant and swear about a real reason is for. It is not to stop the police from coming in your door, it is to make sure you have enough information to apply Freedom of Speech in opposition of the law or official responsible.
Furthermore, even a straightforwards, ignorant reading of the 4th Amendment doesn't create any problem in your proposed case. In that case, the 4th Amendment requires that they have a reason, know what they want to search, swear to a judge something-something that is reasonably related to that claimed reason, and for the judge to sign their name. That is it. There is nothing in the 4th Amendment about, "and the party being searched has to agree to the search," or "and if the party hid the pig in their neighbor's barn, then you can't search," or "and the party has a right to challenge the search before it happens," or any of this other handwaving nonsense of infotainment you've internalized.
You, Alice, or Bob can challenge the evidence, including challenging if it was obtained legally, if and when you've been charged with a crime and are facing trial. That is the exact system the Framers framed! The mechanism is, and always was, to protect you by controlling what information can be used against you at trial, not by physically preventing searches by police. If they searched you illegally, and couldn't charge you with any crimes, then the 4th Amendment successfully protected you from the things it protects you from. You might still have some legitimate civil liberties complaints, but those will have to be dealt with through the legislative process, or by petitioning the government for redress of grievances.
If you ever make it into law school, you'll learn the difference between morals and ethics, and which one you're supposed to use in making a decision.
If a decision fails both morally and ethically, you're actually implying that the decision has poor ethics because it was a moral decision. I know, I know, it isn't what you meant to say. But that is what it means in a legal setting.
An ethically and morally correct decision would imply that it was morally neutral. If you want to insult a judge, you'd need to accuse them of unethical moralizing.
Except that when the user (defendant) hears and tries to protest they are told that they don't have standing because they don't own the servers that have the information and that because the information is housed on a third party computer it's not theirs, it belongs to the company - who was just told they don't have standing because the information belongs to the user. It's a rigged game to prevent ANYONE from having standing to make the government follow its own laws.
Time to break out the woodchippers.
Sorry coward, you made that part up. Just because you don't know how trials work, doesn't mean you don't have standing to challenge evidence at trial.
It isn't the system that is rigged, it is your own brain that is rigged to feel oppressed and hopeless.
floppy's proposal would make real changes to how things work, so I don't see how just waving your hands about the part you think is worse stops it from being real change.
I would say your idea doesn't affect his at all, and isn't even important. Certainly it doesn't address the issue in the current context.
I will say, you at least have the NSA on your side in opposing encryption. I'm a lot more concerned about abuse of process, myself. Must be the white hat.
Unfortunately, I have a feeling that no matter how blatantly bad and stupid these companies get with takedown abuse, it won't be until some senator or congressperson's page gets sent a spurious takedown notice. Anyone with any awareness or interest in the issue already knows how bad the situation is.
Maybe this incident will get more press, but I'm not holding my breath.
Dear, dear child. Welcome to slashdot. I don't want to trigger you or make you feel like this isn't a safe space, but Senators and Congresscritters have staff who read their email and answer their phones. They won't do something when a false notice is issued to them, because it will be quickly and easily Dealt With by their staff calling the company, informing them who they sent the notice to, and then saying "thank you" after they agree to withdraw it.
If they didn't inform you, no problem, they never charged you either. There might be other issues with it, but not ones that the person not charged would have standing to deal with.
They are actually allowed to do a search, find out what they were looking for wasn't there, and not charge you. There is no reporting requirement for a DA to NOT charge you with a crime. But if they want a Jury to be told about how awful whatever they found was, you will in fact be told.
When you say you're "pro-copyleft" you're implicitly saying you're pro-copyright, because you're necessarily using copyright law to say "we reserve the authority to restrict distribution and sue you if you don't follow our requirements (i.e. distribute the source)"
Well... two wrongs don't make a right. When you talk about getting sued by supposedly "free" software projects... it doesn't make you look too good.
The basic error you're making is that you're injecting absolutes where there aren't any. Let me explain it in abstract terms.
Joey is pro-square, but he doesn't like rectangles generally.
Oh, wow, that was easy. There is no conflict there; liking a subset of a category that is otherwise disliked is not actually contradictory or hypocritical. A mistake of such a basic nature, combined with an arrogant, "doesn't make you look too good," sure doesn't look too good.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems like it would be cheaper to just stand up your own Slashcode server and call it NextDot or something. I'd rather spend the money on hosting than give it to Dice.
A bunch of them did. One that I signed up for even raised $350. There were lots of pledges of support, until it came time to actually agree on editorial principles. Then it turned out, the users all hated each other when it came down to brass tacks. Most of us came to slashdot because of a connection to free software or the open source movement. That includes everybody from radical communists to wild west libertarians. We're more likely to agree on what web framework to use than what editorial policies to have.
There is no possible way for this community to be a community without a benevolent dictator.
Why would anybody get fired? They weren't making money off us, all they did was fail to squeeze blood out of rocks. Their bosses would be idiots to fire them for that. Just because what they do doesn't work for this community, doesn't mean that is a bad thing from their perspective. They never wanted to be what we wanted them to be.
I'm just glad they're moving on. Live or die, we'll be better off without them, and they'll be better off without us. There are other bits in the bucket.
4. Ramrodding CO2 = pollution stories down everyone's throats without ever addressing the facts and science of the other side of the debate, instead focusing on personal attacks as defence.
Plus the average slashdotter probably uses ad blocking which makes their advertising model not work very well.
You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts.
If you disbelieve facts and call it an opinion, don't hold your breath waiting for people to want to "debate" it.
BTW, this is exactly what puts the "coward" in "anonymous coward." You admit to being a regular, and yet you don't have the courage to use your own pseudonym.
Adults try not to contradict themselves when they are wasting their time like you have just done.
BTW, pro-tip adults know that /. is a waste of time.
How would you know what adults think? You haven't even been born yet. Go sign up so I can tell you to get off my lawn.
The "ethics" complaint is already known to have been a lie, based on rumors. There is no substance to the accusation itself. Even if you believe the accusation, the only thing to believe is that some people believe a rumor about somebody's personal life. That isn't ethics, and doesn't involve journalism. That you're still trotting out the lie, yes that really does raise questions about your true motives. Especially when there are lots of examples of serious, serious ethical violations in attacking people seen as being "on the other side." Simply saying it isn't you, while standing next to them and repeating the same lies about it, that isn't going to convince anybody of what you want to convince them. People do learn from it though, sure.
And since when is social justice a bad thing? It is just laughable when people think "social justice warrior" is an insult. You do know that justice is good, right? And that people who fight for something good are seen as... good people?
That was the `80s Bill. I think he has actual hobbies now, like fighting malaria and ruining education.
One of the spin-off anti-beta sites raised a thousand buckeroonies, we're such big spenders, sure, sure, we can fund it... or at least, we might be able to fund one nostalgic slashvertisement.
Stay tuned!
Yay! It will either get better, or finally die.
Honestly, I'd rather see it die than muddle along like this. And, it could be great again!
I see it as win-win. I'll either come here more, like I used to, or less, like I should already.
Websites existed well before ads came around.
Sizzling Steak may not have come before the programmable philosophic engine, but I'm pretty sure they beat out the WWW.
I totally agree. The first thing I teach security trainees is that if it is your own security, you have to know and care about thousands of technical details. If you're being hired to deal with somebody else's security, then you have to follow the standard Best Practices because the goal is to provide a measured level of security precautions, not to promise end results. It isn't art, it isn't creative writing, it is a matter of providing the correct type of service.
Just like, the job of a security alarm company is not to keep burglars out of a house, their job instead is to operate certain sensors according to the manual. And if you're worried about your own home's security, there are a long list of things to worry about that are different than what a security alarm company provides.
And yeah, if your "best practices" are coming from blogs, instead of standard engineering practices for your industry niche, then they are guaranteed to be crap. It does not matter if you believe the blogger to actually know anything, or not. Blogs by people who "know something" are not a better source here, because they will tend to represent "fad" that is often flying in the face of the actual Best Practices in the industry. Indeed, the blogs that discuss consensus "best practices" are boring and have no new information, and very few readers.
Lastly, calling people out by name to say nasty things about them for no apparent reason only tells me that you are a hater, and that so-and-so is hated by some subset of haters. Haters hate, so there is no information content there.
A) "Best practices" are a set. The entire set, which is known to be incomplete, includes all the practices that are candidates for being best in different situations. That is why it is "best practices" and not "best practice." I do admire your dedication to rejecting absurd absolutes, but you missed the mark on this one. That pluralization changes the entire character of the statement. ;) ;) I dunno. Maybe you just meant, IT guys run *nix, so their computers run just like an appliance instead of a torture device.
B) While in general this is a "pet peeve" of mine, you state it way too broadly. There are times and places for various different password policies. Since you make the complaint without narrowing it, it simply fails. Another thing to consider: Assume I run a silly website, but users have to log in. Users who repeat passwords can get their accounts hijacked more easily. It may be that those users aren't important enough for me to take that risk. I might reasonably decide that it is worth the annoyance of a password policy that will prevent password reuse, because it reduces the chance of getting swept up in a broader security breach of people with repeated passwords. See also: use of password managers
C) What does this even mean? Yes, your appliance is an appliance. I don't like pejorative, but I feel like you're talking like an appliance. If the data was important, when they were asked, "Did you back up all your data?" they would have said, "AAHHHHH SHIT, wait, wait, I'll bring it back in a few hours, sorry!" Of course they don't have backups, but did they care? The user is the one who knows if their data is worth caring about. I guarantee you, if they told me what data they had, I would care even less than when I just assumed they had backups.
The point I was making was that updates are not universally better than their predecessors.
Most of the software I rely on is years old. I almost agree with the "expert" advice, except I follow it in a different direction. Software that frequently has updates available is not to be trusted. I agree that in order to safely run software, you need to install updates, because security bugfixes almost never have a separate channel than other changes.
However, another way to maintain updated systems is not to install updates, but to uninstall anything that updates frequently. You still have only updated software running.
(Obviously this fails if you use unmaintained software. It only works for "experts" who can analyze easily if software is abandoned or just stable.)
I didn't see any experts in the article suggesting blindly installing updates without testing (if possible, like in a corporate environment for instance) or reading the release notes.
If they don't know that is the result their advice will achieve, they're not very expert.
The biggest challenge to security is user actions, so if they don't understand how users use, they aren't very expert. Speaking or writing words will not cause users to read other, larger numbers of words. That is just not a technical result that is achieved by giving advice.
You missed the point. Not affecting everybody means you don't know how many people will be affected, and can't calculate costs accurately. It raises the cost of information. How much does a disruption cost that affects everybody? Easy to calculate. What if it can affect any number of people, and you have no idea in advance which ones? Very difficult to calculate, and worse, it costs real money unrelated to solving the problem in order to increase your level of information and be able to make claims about the cost of disruption.
This is how information theory is being applied in modern business. Some information costs money just to collect it or estimate it, and other information is already available. Predictability of costs is more important than absolute cost. Nobody cares about risk, they care about unquantified risk.
Parallel construction is usually legal. It is actually what they are supposed to do if they can't use some evidence for a technical reason; find another path to evidence that is legit. The principle is "the tree of the poison fruit," not "the forest that had a tree with poison fruit."
If you don't learn what they can do, how can you hope to stop them from doing what they're not supposed to be able to do?
The government could always do a search, find nothing, and not charge anybody. What legal or civic principle does that violate? Would you prefer the incentives to be aligned so that they get punished if they don't at least throw a weak charge at you?
An important part of your argument that you don't say anything about, but that you must have considered or been aware of, are the 62 charged with real crimes, or as you say, "Most people break the law in many small ways, just hit them with all of them?" I checked already, and 108 people have plead guilty to felonies already in this case. Felonies. Plead guilty. 108. Not just the 62 that were actually searched. And it may be that more of those searched will also be charged in the future... after further searches that may or may not uncover evidence.
It is a real investigation, not a fishing expedition. You may not care about felony fraud, but most Americans consider it a real crime.
So let me see if I understand this. Alice gives me a letter, and asks me to read it and to give it to Bob. (We are all three parties to it.) The government, wishing to investigate Alice or Bob, can serve me a warrant for the letter, and demand all other of my papers that I have relating to the two? And I have no standing to contest the warrant, because it's served "against" Alice and Bob even though it's going after papers that are in my possession and of interest to me?
Is this what the Framers meant by "papers" in the phrase "Persons, Papers and Effects"?
My advice, watch less cable news. They're not teaching you about the Constitution or the Framers, they're filling your mind with infotainment.
The 4th Amendment does not protect you from actually being searched. It protects you from searches that were done without correct process being used as evidence of crimes. The purpose of the process is to require the government to state the reasons for searching and places to be searched, so that those reasons are available to the political discourse. It was never believed that it would magically stop the po-po from searching you. Rather, it was believed that forcing them to have formal reasons would allow the rest of the checks and balances to function. You need to understand English history here. The way they would prevent the commoners from rising up in protest at a false arrest was to make very bad-sounding but non-specific accusations against a party. This might go on for years before they're finally charged with some much smaller, or politically more controversial, thing. That is what the requirement to have a search warrant and swear about a real reason is for. It is not to stop the police from coming in your door, it is to make sure you have enough information to apply Freedom of Speech in opposition of the law or official responsible.
Furthermore, even a straightforwards, ignorant reading of the 4th Amendment doesn't create any problem in your proposed case. In that case, the 4th Amendment requires that they have a reason, know what they want to search, swear to a judge something-something that is reasonably related to that claimed reason, and for the judge to sign their name. That is it. There is nothing in the 4th Amendment about, "and the party being searched has to agree to the search," or "and if the party hid the pig in their neighbor's barn, then you can't search," or "and the party has a right to challenge the search before it happens," or any of this other handwaving nonsense of infotainment you've internalized.
You, Alice, or Bob can challenge the evidence, including challenging if it was obtained legally, if and when you've been charged with a crime and are facing trial. That is the exact system the Framers framed! The mechanism is, and always was, to protect you by controlling what information can be used against you at trial, not by physically preventing searches by police. If they searched you illegally, and couldn't charge you with any crimes, then the 4th Amendment successfully protected you from the things it protects you from. You might still have some legitimate civil liberties complaints, but those will have to be dealt with through the legislative process, or by petitioning the government for redress of grievances.
If you ever make it into law school, you'll learn the difference between morals and ethics, and which one you're supposed to use in making a decision.
If a decision fails both morally and ethically, you're actually implying that the decision has poor ethics because it was a moral decision. I know, I know, it isn't what you meant to say. But that is what it means in a legal setting.
An ethically and morally correct decision would imply that it was morally neutral. If you want to insult a judge, you'd need to accuse them of unethical moralizing.
Except that when the user (defendant) hears and tries to protest they are told that they don't have standing because they don't own the servers that have the information and that because the information is housed on a third party computer it's not theirs, it belongs to the company - who was just told they don't have standing because the information belongs to the user. It's a rigged game to prevent ANYONE from having standing to make the government follow its own laws.
Time to break out the woodchippers.
Sorry coward, you made that part up. Just because you don't know how trials work, doesn't mean you don't have standing to challenge evidence at trial.
It isn't the system that is rigged, it is your own brain that is rigged to feel oppressed and hopeless.
floppy's proposal would make real changes to how things work, so I don't see how just waving your hands about the part you think is worse stops it from being real change.
I would say your idea doesn't affect his at all, and isn't even important. Certainly it doesn't address the issue in the current context.
I will say, you at least have the NSA on your side in opposing encryption. I'm a lot more concerned about abuse of process, myself. Must be the white hat.
Unfortunately, I have a feeling that no matter how blatantly bad and stupid these companies get with takedown abuse, it won't be until some senator or congressperson's page gets sent a spurious takedown notice. Anyone with any awareness or interest in the issue already knows how bad the situation is.
Maybe this incident will get more press, but I'm not holding my breath.
Dear, dear child. Welcome to slashdot. I don't want to trigger you or make you feel like this isn't a safe space, but Senators and Congresscritters have staff who read their email and answer their phones. They won't do something when a false notice is issued to them, because it will be quickly and easily Dealt With by their staff calling the company, informing them who they sent the notice to, and then saying "thank you" after they agree to withdraw it.
If they didn't inform you, no problem, they never charged you either. There might be other issues with it, but not ones that the person not charged would have standing to deal with.
They are actually allowed to do a search, find out what they were looking for wasn't there, and not charge you. There is no reporting requirement for a DA to NOT charge you with a crime. But if they want a Jury to be told about how awful whatever they found was, you will in fact be told.
Right, because a person who considers justice as a pejorative, and an applied pejorative as proof of a misguided agenda, really has some insight?
I'm not sure you have to go that far to do some quality work on gene pool cleansing.
I'm just hoping to deny access to people who think that a warrior for justice must automatically be a bad thing.
It's one thing to disagree over what real Justice is, but rejecting even their own definition of it is a dangerous sign.
English doesn't have "rules." Those are called "styles," and there are many to choose from. Your teacher was a liar, and an idiot.
When you say you're "pro-copyleft" you're implicitly saying you're pro-copyright, because you're necessarily using copyright law to say "we reserve the authority to restrict distribution and sue you if you don't follow our requirements (i.e. distribute the source)"
Well... two wrongs don't make a right. When you talk about getting sued by supposedly "free" software projects... it doesn't make you look too good.
The basic error you're making is that you're injecting absolutes where there aren't any. Let me explain it in abstract terms.
Joey is pro-square, but he doesn't like rectangles generally.
Oh, wow, that was easy. There is no conflict there; liking a subset of a category that is otherwise disliked is not actually contradictory or hypocritical. A mistake of such a basic nature, combined with an arrogant, "doesn't make you look too good," sure doesn't look too good.