Well, Instapaper has been doing a fine job reading CNN's articles for me, both desktop and mobile... an extra click or two, but worth the effort.

"I'm Spartacus!"

Speed reading through the comments, and "daily cardio maxing" jumped out at me. Half a dozen tabs opened now on it, and about to dive in. Thanks for giving a fellow diagnosed-ADHD-as-an-adulter something to look at that isn't work that might help me out with life :)

I thought that's what was happening with the CubeSats they were deploying with this mission (https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nasaspaceflight.com%2F2022%2F11%2Fartemis-i-cubesats%2F), but apparently not. Maybe next time.

Time for eWorld 2.0!

With the rampant deforestation (still) going on, maybe we could use some of those converters here on Earth.

For those who'll say "it's been done before:" no, not like this.

Current wireless charging amounts to dropping your device on a pad. You can't grab your device to use it (since you'll break the power link), and of course this limits just where your device can sit.

The Slashdot post (and the source link) undersells the story. Here, Apple would have wireless charging that doesn't depend on resting the device on a contact pad -- you'd just have to get within range of the charger. Imagine plunking down your iPhone anywhere on your desk and knowing that it'll top up. This kind of technology has been discussed for a while, but hasn't really been implemented on a practical level.

Problem is, this presupposes that the unreasonable man is effective. DRM and walled gardens are much more present than they were when Stallman first warned about them; Linux has made little progress in PCs outside of the data center; most attempts at selling products based on openness (Firefox OS, Jolla) are dead or dying.

When Shaw made that quote, he was also assuming that the unreasonable man was engaged with the world, actively trying to change it. Stallman is lately defined more by what he avoids, by a retreat into a safe space where his world view is never challenged. A revolutionary doesn't change the world by running away from it.

The FSF needs its principles, but the current state of FOSS is such that adhering to the ideology in its absolute form hurts you more than it helps.

Stallman uses a junky laptop, only the most basic of internet services, and no personal cellphone at all. What kind of example is that? Not much, at least not for someone who's supposed to be an important advocate. The irony is that he's highly dependent on other people to get things done, and many of them are using some form of the proprietary software he refuses to touch.

Yes, rail against DRM, warn against the risks of being reliant on walled gardens, but remember what they say about perfect being the enemy of good. Stallman arguably hurts the FSF's cause because his insistence on a purist lifestyle is not only unrealistic, but limits his ability to spread his message.

Here's the problem: if he's leading by example, he makes a great case for proprietary software.

Stallman is so insistent on FOSS everything that there's very little he can actually do by himself. He uses a garbage laptop (to maintain 'pure' firmware, of course) and only the most basic of internet services. He's missing out on so much, both technologically and in life, that your iPhone-toting aunt is probably more liberated than he is.

You're using extreme arguments -- it's software, not a crime against humanity. The FSF leadership should certainly embrace Linux and open source programs where they can, but they shouldn't turn themselves into digital hermits in the process. Set an example that's realistic and positive, one where the leader can actually participate in the real world instead of retreating from it.

You hit the nail on the head, and I'd add that the leadership (namely Richard Stallman) is sometimes more of a liability to the FSF than an asset.

It's a group built around ideas, to be sure, but it's hard to sound reasonable when your leader is the definition of unreasonable: forcing people to refer to a product a certain way (it's Linux in real life, Richard, not GNU/Linux), refusing to accept that any use of closed-source software is okay, and so on. Paradoxically, he's more trapped and enslaved than many of the people using the closed software he rails against. If Stallman were around in Tunisia during the Arab Spring, he wouldn't have been out on the streets securing real, meaningful freedom (because that would involve using the "evil" Facebook and Twitter)... he'd be too busy asking the existing regime to use FOSS.

In other words: argue for free and open software by all means, but don't pretend as if your only options are to either switch completely to FOSS or else be forever tainted as a human being. The FSF needs a leader who is cool with you running open source apps on Macs and Windows PCs, and understands that it's the goal of free/open source code that matters, not how "pure" you are.

That can only mean one thing... China wrecked one of our satellites.

The "password hacking attempt" at the bottom of the page had me concerned for a moment, but after seeing that it was just iterating common words found on my FB page with random l33tsp34k, I stopped worrying. I liked how they labeled one of my best friends (best man at my wedding) and my god daughter as stalking targets. I wasn't that impressed with the site.

My first machine had memory measured in K...

Wait, I'm thinking about my Mac 512ke. That was actually my second computer. My FIRST computer was a Texas Instruments TI-99/4A. That had 16K of memory, and a cassette deck for storage.

I has an old.

These lawsuits were started before Cook was CEO -- the point is that he basically inherited lawsuits that Jobs started.

And while it's tempting to follow up with "he should just drop all the lawsuits," it's not that easy -- aside from spooking the public and investors, an exit from legal action wouldn't guarantee that others would do the same. Samsung has at least made some grandstanding that it will never, ever settle. That could just be talk, but Samsung isn't exactly known for its humility or compassion toward competitors.