Besides Linus' very personal opinion, this, and the discussion here on HN, once again highlights a major cultural difference between the US and most of the rest of the world in two areas: (bad) language and legal liability.
In the area of language, Americans in general seem to way more sensitive to "bad" language than most other (at least Western) cultures.
As far as legal liability is concerned, it seems to me that the US has gone completely overboard in banning normal human interaction that might lead to undesirable consequences from professional environments in order to avoid legal issues.
In both cases, the term "professional" is used as a euphemism for "enforced conformity".
And I agree with Linus, this "acting" professional (and "acting" is exactly what it is, not "being" professional), leads to repressing normal human interaction which then expresses itself in much more damaging and underhanded ways.
I suppose the big empty space on the right is where "Respects users' privacy in their own business practices" should be.
But of course this is only about the Big Bad Government.
It's an interesting cultural difference how privacy suddenly becomes in issue in the US now that it's about the government, and totally fine when people were being tracked an profiled for profit.
"They abandon their principle that code is free speech by suggesting that some code needs to be regulated."
Typical false dichotomy of libertarian extremist. Speech is regulated all the time, based on intent or effect (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater), and the formal protection of free speech is a regulation in itself. (Much like, hey, Net Neutrality.)
One typical sign of extremism is calling everybody that applies thought or nuance unprincipled.
Although Merkel is just being opportunistic, I'm optimistic that, like with ACTA, we are slowly seeing that the complete sell-out of European civil rights to US interests is no longer politically sustainable.
Whether they mean it or not, the fact that the staunchest supporters of the US feel the political need to speak out is significant in itself.
The US has gone a bridge to far by treating the citizens of a friendly nations as the enemy.
I'm surprised that on HN people cannot distinguish between Netflix business need to use DRM in their content delivery system (which is undesirable but defensible), and Netflix nefarious scheming to break the open web in order to make that an easier delivery system for DRM-ed content.
It's like defending a company that wants to dump toxic waste into our drinking water with the argument "well, they have to leave it somewhere".
Screw that. They want to use DRM, fine. But not at the expense of a free and open web.
This isn't about DRM. This isn't about copyright. This isn't even about greed. This is about power and control.
As far as I know, the US is the only country where sugar-free soda is referred to as "diet".
The notion that it would help lose weight is totally new to me, I'm presuming that is because most countries outside the US would never allow it to be marketed that way.
It's not Russia that doesn't let him leave the airport, it's the US by revoking his passport in a clear violation of human rights.
No country on the planet can just let him pass the border without violating it's own laws. This is exactly why revoking his passport is such a disgusting move that violates all common decency.
If there was ever one specific moment in history in which the US changed from a flawed democracy to a totalitarian state, it's the moment they took Snowden's passport.
The fact that people are not prepared to stand alone doesn't mean they don't care about privacy.
Very few people are in a position to make a difference alone, and even fewer dare to act. There's only one Snowden.
The rest of us, we vote, support civil liberties organisations, sign petitions, and the most active amongst us lobby and demonstrate.
The notion that the way to change things is by individual sacrifice, and if we don't we obviously don't care enough, is an fundamentalist libertarian fantasy.
The real world doesn't work that way. Real people don't work that way. At least 99% of us don't.
Protest. Lobby. Seek publicity. Take the government to court. Put up a fight.
Note that when the EU data retention directive (which is often used here under the header "see, others are doing it to", even though it doesn't even come close to what the NSA does) was initiated, that's exactly what many telecom providers and ISP's did, before and after this came into affect. It didn't stop it, but it least it has brought it out into the open, making it an (still ongoing) public issue.
The remarkable part of what's happening in the US is the utterly quiet and extremely forthcoming complicity of major companies who otherwise don't seem to have any problem throwing a lot of resources at manipulating governments foreign and domestic.
And in the case of Microsoft, in it's monopolists heydays, even up to the point of structurally breaking the law.
Also, it's not like they are only quiet about it because the law tells them so: they actively deny it, hell, they even advertise with pure lies about the privacy of their services.
These companies aren't victims anymore. They are complicit.
Lastly, it should be quiet obvious that with absolutely no restriction in the wiretapping of foreign nationals, they are breaking the law in every country they do business in. Those foreigners, like myself, have no voice in US legislation.
From my perspective as a non-American, Microsoft is complicit in a full frontal attack on our civil liberties. We can't stop the US government, but we can certainly stop Microsoft e.a. from doing business here.
You can reduce this argument all the way to writing your own OS and building your own hardware. And no, that is not ad absurdum, there are valid real world business cases for both.
It all depends an a simple cost/benefit calculation. There's no absolute right or wrong choice.
Also, not having the knowledge to do something is a way bigger vulnerability than outsourcing the execution.
My preferred approach is to figure out how to do it ourselves, immediately followed by finding a 3rd party to outsource it to once we know exactly what we need so we can focus on other things. And of course always make sure we are able to take it back.
You just answered your own question. Their customers are developers, i.e., a scarce and expensive resource who's time is most effectively spent developing rather than configuring, tuning, monitoring and otherwise maintaining server parks, virtual or not.
Methinks this is not about morality or (the lack of) compassion, but being more aware of your environment, i.e. mindfulness.
I would suggests the other people simply weren't consciously aware enough to notice, but would have gladly given up their seat if someone else pointed it out to them.