In the past, the GNU operating system tapes cost hefty money, for what is worth.
Also, I don't see anyone getting mad at people not paying. I only see one HN poster saying it's a shame that organization depending on GNU on their infrastructure don't support the work of the FSF, especially after what emerged in the wake of heartbleed (I know OpenSSL was not a GNU project, but the problem is similar).
"Pony up" must mean something different for me than it does for you. I don't know what it means to OP, in my comment I mistakenly assumed my understanding of the phrase was fairly universal.
To get an idea of what happens to old physics when new physics is discovered, realize that Newton's laws are still correct, and can be derived from QM. That's what you get when you do a good job of actually checking the truth with experiments. All theories have implicit tolerances embedded within the known precision of the experiments used to confirm them, and with these tolerances you can say "Newton's laws are right" without denying other, finer details. Similarly, scientists 1000 years from now will agree with everything we presently know about the Standard Model, because all of our beliefs are tempered by how closely we know our experiments are looking.
>Quantum entanglement
I should add that entanglement isn't "shaky" at all, it was predicted from the start and has been observed in countless experiments to date.
On one hand, on some scales, Newtonian mechanics is correct "enough" to give results that work, and so in that sense it is just incomplete in that its domain is restricted. On the other, relativity and QM change everything. These new theories may reduce to Newtonian mechanics given certain assumptions, but Newtonian physics assumes things about the structure of spacetime that are fundamentally incorrect (e.g. velocity is not additive). In this sense, one can fairly say that Newton's mechanics are not just incomplete or missing some fine details, but wrong.
I think there is more to the foundations than just the best numbers we can come up with for a given experiment. Our numbers for the gravitational constant, for example, are pretty similar (if more precise) to the numbers in 1891, but the setting in which that number is completely changed. There is no aether, no absolute space, velocities don't add (even though it's "mostly" right on most scales we experience and measure, it is false), space and time get mixed up, etc. Those were all pretty foundational ideas just over a hundred years ago.