Slashdot Mirror
NACI: Gov't of South Africa Pushes Open Source
GNU lover writes "National Advisory Council on Innovation in South Africa
has issued a release concering the use of Open Source and the digital divide." The use of open source in the 3rd/2nd world is one way to get around licensing costs - at least more honest then pirating.
At times of war, such as now, we have to be the best and on our toes. The enemy and the evil that lives in the middle east are devious and cunning. They have no regard for human lives (as we sadly remember from a few months back), they are not human and they advocate religions of pure violence.
I'm trying to imagine a more inflammatory beginning. It actually strains the mind to do so. Pure violence? PURE 100% VIOLENCE? They are not human? Did this philosophy come out of a crackerjack box? The thinking behind it obviously did.
And you posted as an AC because obviously either the user registration process is beyond you or you are afraid to stand up for what you (supposedly) believe. That's just lovely.
When you grow up, you can come join the rest of us who realize life isn't entirely binary (black/white, on/off, good/evil) and that how you think about other people says a lot about who you are, then come back and join the discussion. And feel free to stand up and be counted by name.
Then maybe you'll be able to contribute to the discussion in an adult fasion. There are those who actually understand that the enemies of our way of life _are_ entirely human and this is the greatest part of the tragedy. It'd be really convenient to kick them out of the species, but life don't work that way.
God, that kind of rubbish makes me ill. But I guess that makes for a great trolling, now doesn't it? I only hope you're a slashtroll, because if you aren't, you've got some serious psychological damage.
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
Those numbers were refuted long ago. The casualty reports cited have no basis in reality. The actual number of civilian deaths is closer to 1000. Professor Herold's estimate is so far off because he counted the same casualty reports from different sources together, though duplicating most counts.
While civilian deaths are regrettable, they are impossible to avoid.
The number of lives saved is estimated to be in excess of 100,000 over the next few years, mostly woman and children. They have been saved because food supplies can now reach famine stricken areas. Something not possible when the Taliban ran things.
Next time you post flamebait, at least try to get your facts straight you mindless toad.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Does it really matter if it's 1000 vs 3000? Ok, so the numbers were bad, but the point about unknown deaths remains as well. But in the end it doesn't matter. Many civilians are dead. Why are we attacking them? They killed civilians. Is this tacit Hammurabi-style "eye for an eye" justice, or is it just okay when we do it?
Oh, 100,000 lives will be saved. That's our justification. If that had anything to do with anything, why didn't we root out the Taliban before they attacked us? And if that 100k saved means 1k dead is OK, then certainly it wouldn't make a difference if the number dead was 3k -- the number dead in the WTC. Which would make what -they- did OK. And you thought al Queda wasn't a humanitarian organization! They save lives!
Obviously I don't believe that blowing up the WTC was justified. But neither are the deaths of civilians at our hands.
The enemies of Democracy are
Yes, but here's my question:
Why does setting the 'foe' setting to -5 not put these posts under my -1 threshold? I mean, Taco said orignially that it was supposed to be a "kill-file" like feature, and it sure as hell isn't.
I don't want to browse at 0! But since Taco 1) won't prevent page-widening posts and 2) won't make the foe-list work how it -should-, I may have to.
The enemies of Democracy are
Does this imply the presence of Karma Pimps?
Yes...they're also known as moderators...
You're using her as bait, Master!
.. would be to clean up the "HTML" produced by Microsoft Word for their report. My eyes are burning!
to all of you posting your stuff to this fucking idiot, and i say it in the nicest way.. How the hell do you know he's legit? his email is fake and promotes the hatred of linux. and "claims" he is Linus Tolvolds LOL. L.Torvalds linuxisforfags@yahoo.com)[hahaha] : "Click Here To Start" gee, on text, wow. so amazing how it does nothing. now im not trying to Troll, or flame. But i already saw someone post their information and this is a scam or stupid joke. So i just want to point the facts out and hope that no one falls for this and posts their info as i said i had already seen. -c00lant
This isnt true, at the point of purchase, it's a purchase, a transaction, and you have all the rights of first sale. The grey area is clicking the "i agree" to form a binding contract to license the use of the software encoded on the product you already purchased. Having already purchased, for instance, Word, when you form the binding contract by clicking the "i agree" microsoft then is required to give you 'compensation' lacking that a contract is not formed, and clicking 'i agree' means nothing. Something more than the Word that you already purchased for instance, a penny counts. And, since you cannot install the product by clicking 'i do not agree,' clicking 'i agree' is required to access the Word that your bought. This is a form of coersion, and invalidates the contract as well. Not having the ability as one of the members of the contract to negotiate the contract, weakens the contract to the users benefit as well. Also, to form a binding contract, you must be in a sound state of mind. Agreeing to MS's terms is a form of insanity, invalidating the contract. And finally, just install after a few beers, cant form a contract when drunk.
---