Slashback: BitKeeper, Maine, Novell

Slashback is back, with a largish handful of updates and new information about previously run stories. Topics this go-round include Xbox sales in Australia, the Novell / MySQL connection, Adam Smith (no, not that Adam Smith)'s bizarre anti-GPL statement mentioned yesterday, and more. Read on for the details.

I thought Adam Smith was in favor of free markets and the exchange of ideas. mrjive writes "The plot thickens. In response to yesterday's story, it turns out that the attack on the free software movement was attached to the end of the letter in question by Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash, who happens to have Microsoft as his biggest beneficiary. The original authors of the letter have sent an angry response for essentially twisting its original purpose. Read the full scoop here."

For the even-fuller scoop, see Roblimo's article on NewsForge.

Not bottling it up inside of himself. An anonymous reader writes "Richard M. Stallman has responded to comments made a week ago in response to his own Linux kernel mailing list post about the BitKeeper controversy. 'A technical issue or project sometimes raises ethical issues,' Stallman began. He did not stop there. More on the (newly cached and therefore a little bit Slashdot-immune) Linux and Main . Be gentle."

Free knowledge for sale for free, etc. OverCode@work writes "The complete LaTeX source to Loki Software's game programming book, Programming Linux Games, is now available on the author's site. This book was reviewed here a while back. Mad props to the publisher for letting this happen."

Everybody'sSQL haggar writes "MySQL (commercial license) will be shipped as standard with NetWare according to this announcement. I consider it a follow-up to the Slashdot story about the PostgreSQL port for NetWare. Apparently, the options for NetWare users are widening, thanks to open-source products!"

An iBook in every (lobster)pot! Call Me Black Cloud writes "Some time ago Maine awarded a contract to Apple for laptops for school kids. MacCentral has an interview with Maine governor Angus King where he discusses the success of the program. Despite the Maine state legislature's attempts to kill the program, it continues on. Why? Well, a $1M grant from the Gates Foundation certainly helped. Over the summer Apple delivered 18,000 iBooks and installed 239 wireless networks in 239 schools."

So long as they're not mandatory. Polo writes "I noticed that the Garmin Rino 110 and 120 are shipping. If you don't remember, these are FRS/GMRS Radios with integrated GPS. You can transmit your position to other units so they can hear you and see where you are. Pretty cool. This is a follow-up to an older story"

What the market will bear. His Nastiness writes "Just a follow-up that I ran across that indicates that Steve Ballmer may have just been blowing hot air on not selling the XBox in Austrailia anymore. See the previous thread here."

Comments

Huh?

[joyoflinux]

Why is the Gates Foundation sponsoring a campaign to buy Apple laptops? Not a troll, just wondering.

Re:Huh?

[VitrosChemistryAnaly]

This is a guess.

Maybe the Gates Foundation is run independent from Microsoft? I mean, maybe it seriously has no agenda and could get a better deal on iBooks for the 7th graders than they could get from a large PC maker.

I obviously have no idea. Anyone who does know, please step up and tell us.

Re:Huh?

[chimpo13]

The article says that the Gates Foundation kicked in a million dollar grant, and that the state of Maine thought, rightfully so, that Apple was a better product.

A quote, "The bids were roughly similar in price, but the iBook had a greater value than the other laptops".

I'm sure Gates will be a bit more careful in the future and add stuff like "Here's a million dollars worth of M$ stuff".

Re:Huh?

[DAldredge]

Yes I am 100% sure that the Gates Foundation (Funded by the largest single holder of MSFT stock) is 100% independent of Microsoft Corp. Wink. Wink.

Re:Huh?

[stratjakt]

How does a post with the topic "Huh?" get (+4 Insightful)? Not a troll, just wondering.

Re:Huh?

[the_2nd_coming]

the gates foundation can not give things away, they can only give money....it is a charity that is not affiliated with MS other than the fact that the Chairman of each board is the same man.

Re:Huh?

[einhverfr]

Aside from the idea that one post can be labled "redundent" but the post below it "insightful" (hmmm luck of the draw?)....

Anyway, here in Washington, money is often provided to the schools from GF with out specifications on what it has to buy with it (aside from computer tech.). Many of the schools go Mac...

Re:Huh?

[Linux_ho]

...it is a charity that is not affiliated with MS other than the fact that the Chairman of each board is the same man.

And the fact that all the money came from overcharging Microsoft customers...

Re:Huh?

[Lars T.]

I'd say from overcharging MS stock buyers (most of Gates' wealth is MS stock), but same thing.

Re:Huh?

[Lars T.]

Only if they found a very clever way of hiding it from the SEC.

Both parties are controlled

[SexyKellyOsbourne]

... itturns out that the attack on the free software movement was attached to the end of the letter in question by Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash, who happens to have Microsoft as his biggest beneficiary.

No surprise -- Microsoft is a huge contributor to both parties, including the Democrats -- whom some believe are supposed to be our saviors from the "evil, corporate Republicans." They're not -- they're on the inside what Republicans are on the outside.

If you really want a change, don't vote for either party -- vote Libertarian if you're on the right, Green Party if you're on the left, and independant otherwise. Both parties are in the pockets of big business, and that's bad both for those who advocate freedom from the government as well as those who despise deregulation.

The more we have third party, the closer we get to fairer, European-style representation.

Re:Both parties are controlled

[GoatPigSheep]

so you think there is something wrong with bill gates' personal foundation (which has nothing to do with microsoft) donating money to desperately underfunded schools? I don't. I hope those kids put those laptops to good use.

Re:Both parties are controlled

[Fiveeight]

It's really not that much better here in the UK. We have three main parties (actually more like 2.5, but I'll get to that.)

The Labour party are currently in power, they're easily the most professional politicians (read that as you will), and they're going to be in power forever, because the opposition is so hopeless. They're also big fans of big business, "streamlining" the justice system and good suits. They're also hopelessly corrupt in a million small, depressing ways that make you wonder how they maintain any self-respect. But hey, they "care", so it's alright.

The reason the Labour party is going to be in power forever is, the Conservative party. They got beaten (demolished) in 1997, and they seem to have become less credible with every passing year. The reason that they got trashed in '97 was their corruption (real honest-to-god cash for favours stuff), unbearable arrogance and sheer incompetance. Since then, they've had two near-identical leaders who've spent most of their time playing right-wing catchup with the government and missing opportunities to /actually oppose/ things. They have at least finally managed to ditch all the old ex-ministers they had, which considering they were some of the most hated men in the country, was probably a sensible move.

And the .5 party, the Liberal Democrats. Don't have that many suppporters, too close to the government on a lot of things, no doubt all funded by arms companies and crooked businessmen. Unlikely to win a general election. Still, some of their stuff appeals to naive knee-jerk liberals like me, and I have a Liberal Democrat MP because of that. They were also honest at least once when they pointed out that better services require more money, as opposed to mythical "efficiency savings" made by selling public utilities to large companies for fire sale prices and then paying whatever they ask for to keep them running.

Re:Both parties are controlled

[donutello]

What makes you think the Green party or the Libertarian party don't have Microsoft amongst their biggest supporters?

Re:Both parties are controlled

[pubjames]

And the .5 party, the Liberal Democrats.

I think some people might argue that nowadays it is the Conservatives that are the .5 party, not the Liberal demoncrats!

Re:Both parties are controlled

[dylan_-]

And if you can say with a straight face that school children have enough free time and, to be blunt, mental maturity to be able to learn to use Linux while they're in 7th grade, I'll buy you a 1GB stick of DDR RAM.

Well, I can. Did you guys all have Macs at school or something? All we had was a BBC B and a ZX Spectrum at home. Guess what? We managed. Anyway, with KDE3 what's so difficult? Want to write something, you click the Writer icon. Want to go on the Internet, click the Konqueror or Mozilla icon. Want to draw something, click on the KPaint icon (at least until someone says "hey, look what I can do, you click on GIMP and then logos and you can make cool pictures with your name on!").

Email me for my address to send the RAM to... ;-)

Re:Both parties are controlled

[horza]

That's a pretty good description of the state of UK politics. A little off-topic, but to fill in a bit extra for our American cousins: Labour used to be the far left, ie _very_ socialist. Fiveeight is right in that the Conservatives were the reason Labour got in '97, but I should add that it was also because Labour refused to commit to anything; how can you criticise the policies of a party that doesn't have any?

It had a 'progressive' leader Tony Blair. Once safely in power, Blair kicked out the socialist old-guard that helped him into power and pulled in mostly people the same as himself. He's slightly right of centre. Over the years he's become more Conservative (capital C) than the Conservatives. This put the Conservatives in a quandry, and split the party. They've spend more time fighting each other than fighting Labour, with half of them wanting to push further right to try and differentiate themselves from Labour, and the other half wanting to push the other way and seem more caring.

The important thing is that we have a strong civil service which, whilst in theory under the control of the government ministers, pretty much runs the country autonomously. They are not corrupt and fairly resistant to commercial lobbying. They also listen to the people (at least the DTI certainly does) and are the reason we are unlikely to see anything like software patents or the DMCA here. Also the basis for one of the funniest TV series. :-)

Phillip.

Re:Both parties are controlled

[aron_wallaker]

I believe the comment you are replying to is talking about the anti-GPL letter, not the purchase of iBooks by Maine using money from the Gates foundation. As such, your comment has absolutely no relevance to the parent. Nice work moderators! :)

Re:Both parties are controlled

[squiggleslash]

These lists confused me initially as apparently, at face value, the US Navy contributed $3,510 to Harry Browne, according to the lists. The Navy? The taxpayer funded US Navy?

Then I read the small print, by the side of the lists. They're counting (much simplified) large contributions from individuals as being corporate contributions from the employers of those individuals. So, if a sailor contributes $1,000 to Browne, it comes up as being from the Navy, not from the contributor themselves.

Your lists therefore are suspect in terms of concluding that Microsoft was a donator to either campaign. More likely, in a company the size of Microsoft, you're going to get people who are greens and libertarians. And some of them are wealthy enough to make contributions that count.

Re:Both parties are controlled

[Tetsujin28]

And if you can say with a straight face that school children have enough free time and, to be blunt, mental maturity to be able to learn to use Linux while they're in 7th grade, I'll buy you a 1GB stick of DDR RAM.

My kid's 10. Fifth grade. Uses Debian every day.

Re:Both parties are controlled

[dylan_-]

Wait, you had a BBC C and ZX Spectrum at home?

No; BBC B was too expensive for us! ;-) BBC B at school and Spectrum at home...Anyway, I didn't say iBooks were necessarily a Bad Idea but I took exception to the suggestion that children would find Linux too complicated to use. It's simply not true. And I want that RAM :-)

Vote Grammar Nazi!

[yerricde]

vote Libertarian if you're on the right, Green Party if you're on the left

What are you supposed to vote in the middle? Libertarian National Socialist Green Party?

Re:Vote Grammar Nazi!

[Tumbleweed]

>> vote Libertarian if you're on the right, Green
>> Party if you're on the left

> What are you supposed to vote in the middle?

The previous post was wrong - vote Libertarian if you're in the middle. What was that Ross Perot party called again? Are they still around? THAT would be the one to vote for if you're on the 'Right'.

Re:Vote Grammar Nazi!

[Ian Bicking]

You're thinking of the Reform Party. Buchanan destroyed the party in a deliberate and malicious manner, no doubt in concert with the Republican Party, where his true allegiances probably remain. The only viability it may have is in Minnesota, where Ventura split it off into the Independence Party, and though he's not running again I believe there is a viable candidate for governor this time around. The split was specifically because of Buchanan.

The Reform Party was never that right-wing. It wasn't much of anything except a platform for certain charismatic, non-party candidates. To the degree it was anything, it was pretty middle-of-the-road -- fiscally conservative (but not radical like Libertarians) and socially liberal (in a hands-off style).

Re:Vote Grammar Nazi!

[smyle]

Wrong again. If you're on the right (like me), vote Constitution Party. It's like libertarianism, but with morals.

Re:Vote Grammar Nazi!

[smyle]

As well they should - I think we can all agree that murder is morally wrong (my right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose). The constitution party (as a platform) believes fetuses are human, therefore defining them as such in a legal sense would be tantamount to making abortion illegal.

As for their other "moral" stances (drugs, gambling), they deal very little with the individual and deal greatly with government regulation (in other words, the same thing as libertarians). The only other stance they have taken (IIRC) that would be contrary to the libertarian viewpoint is opposition to same-sex marriages - they explain why, but I don't recall at the moment.

Re:Vote Grammar Nazi!

[Tetsujin28]

As well they should - I think we can all agree that murder is morally wrong (my right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose).

Yes, we agree that murder is morally wrong. But morality is not why it should be illegal. Murder is legitimately illegal not because killing is inherently or morally wrong, but because each person has the right not to be killed -- a right which can be waived (by, for example, threatening the life of another).

Similarly, your right to swing your arm ends at my nose, but I believe that's because I have a right not to have my nose hit -- not because there's something inherently wrong about swinging an arm. If my nose isn't in the way, or if I agree to let you hit my nose, then you should be allowed to swing as far as you like.

This gets into the distinction between morals and ethics. As I understand the terms, ethics deals with how our actions affect other people -- that is, it refers to generally agreed-upon rules about how we treat and deal with one another. Morality, on the other hand, deals with how a persons actions affect the actor himself, often (but not always) with regard to spiritual or religious consequences. That's why actions that do not have any direct effect on another, non-consenting person (such as masturbation or consensual sex outside of marriage) might be considered by some to be immoral, but I don't think they can be unethical.

Thinking about these terms in this way, I think ethics are a perfectly reasonable basis for law, but morals, while important, are not a legitimate basis for law.

To bring this back to the Constitution and Libertarian parties: I don't see how the Consitution Party can be considered very similar at all to the Libertarian Party, when (for example) the Constitution Party's position on drugs discusses a state's right to implement the death penalty to enforce drug restrictions, but says nothing about whether it is a legitimate function of government to regulate what a person does with his own brain chemistry. Or when the Constitution Party declares that marriages must be heterosexual because God wants it that way.

The Libertarian and Constitution parties do agree on the need for a more limited Federal government, but that seems to be where the similarity ends. It's important to recognize that the Libertarian belief in limited goverenment (of all types, not just national) arises from a more fundamental ethical principle: that it is wrong to initiate force against a non-consenting other.

rms...

[larry bagina]

RMS wrote:

It is a stretch to conclude anything about the general attitude or character of a person from one action, so I would not say the people who distribute non-free software are "evil people" in a general sense. I will say they have done one thing that is evil: distributing a non-free program.

Evil \E"vil\ ([=e]"v'l) n.

1. Anything which impairs the happiness of a being or deprives a being of any good; anything which causes suffering of any kind to sentient beings; injury; mischief; harm; -- opposed to good.

The only one being impaired of happiness. or suffering is Richard Stallman. Methinks someone is a little too big for his britches.

Re:rms...

[Freedom Bug]

From the Jargon file, ...snip... `evil' does not imply incompetence or bad design, but rather a set of goals or design criteria fatally incompatible with the speaker's. This usage is more an esthetic and engineering judgment than a moral one in the mainstream sense. .... snip ...

Seems about right to me. "Fatally incompatible" sums it up pretty well.

Gates Foundation != Microsoft

[yerricde]

Why is the Gates Foundation sponsoring a campaign to buy Apple laptops?

For one thing, the Gates Foundation and Microsoft Corporation are completely separate bodies; GF might have simply chosen what computer would benefit students the most. For another, MS Office and MS IE run on Macintosh computers.

Re:Gates Foundation != Microsoft

[NeoSkandranon]

News flash: Gates Foundtion purchases iBooks for schools. In other news, Gates Foundation's top donator, its namesake Bill Gates announces his plan to cut funding by 75%

Re:Gates Foundation != Microsoft

[n-baxley]

GF might have simply chosen what computer would benefit students the most.

Not to stomp on the Gate's foundaton, but they didn't choose this technology. They dontated money for educational computers and Maine decided to go with Apple.

Re:Gates Foundation != Microsoft

[markhb]

First, I believe that the $1M was a one-time donation, not an ongoing funding commitment.

Second, if the economic bubble hadn't burst when it did (and the state Appropriations Committee had been a little bolder when the initial bill came through), the Gates Foundation wouldn't have had any ability to affect future spending: Gov. King's plan was to fund an endowment to the tune of $50 million that would have allowed the state to continue the laptop program off of the interest earned. That has been scaled back substantially (not least because the state is facing a deficit in excess of $500M), and at the moment it's an ongoing-expense program. The state website is at http://www.state.me.us/mlte/,
for those who are interested.

Remainder of my .sig: be the majority of voters.

Maine is Smart

[tekunokurato]

I've lived in Maine for about six years now, even though I'm in Mass for college at present. Education was one of the major draws when my parents moved there, and it will continue to be one of the major draws for other families, especially with this program in place.

I was back to visit for the Pop!Tech conference this past weekend; at Governor King's suggestion (he spoke briefly), I took a look at the Camden middle school, and it was incredible. The students were thoroughly engaged, and the teacher had the liberty to roam the isles and show them how to do things on their individual computers.

Yeah, I wish the program had used a linux distro, but anything is better than nothing. It's a really special thing.

Re:Maine is Smart

[swdunlop]

Before you congratulate us too much, remember that Camden, ME is a very upper-scale tourism town. Due to the recent inroads by MBNA, property valuations are very high compared to the number of school students in the Camden-Rockport area.

Yes, the laptop program is a nice idea. But from what parts I have encountered, it is a great demo in search of application. Jobs has been pushing it as way to push his digital video focus, which is not necessarily the most important thing for our children here. I'm glad you enjoyed the conference; just remember that there was a considerable amount of smoke and mirrors involved in the demos.

Oh no......

[nullset]

*looks at the overcode.net server, sitting next to him*

*grabs a fire extinguisher*

at least John warned me that the box was gonna be slashdotted......

(if you don't believe me, look up my IP address and then overcode.net's IP address, or email me nullset onthesite overcode.net)

--buddy

Re:Oh no......

[Daniel_Staal]

Ok! Ok! I believe you! Pictures/load graphs would be fun though. (How much load does a Slashdotting cause?)

Re:Oh no......

[OverCode@work]

Now you know why the server is in YOUR room and not MINE. :)

-John

Re:Oh no......

[OverCode@work]

Webalyzer usage page
Apache server status page

Note that Webalyzer updates at 6am, so today's stats aren't yet posted.

This isn't a front page slashdotting; I've had that happen before, with a CGI script no less, and it brought my box to an absolute crawl.

-John

Bitkeeper license breaks separation of jobs

[yerricde]

The only one being impaired of happiness. or suffering is Richard Stallman.

Or anybody who wants to work on both the Linux kernel and revision control software. Even if working on Linux and working on Subversion are separate jobs, the restrictions of the Bitkeeper license apply to the person and thus cross from one job to the other, as I mentioned in my other comment.

Re:Bitkeeper license breaks separation of jobs

[Gregg M]

You don't seem to understand. This license effects users of software. It has nothing to do with developers. People aren't using pieces of Bitkeeper in their own programs.

Is the use of software now subject to a license? As far as I'm concerned you are not bound by a license for just use of the software. If I want to use Bitkeeper code then his license applies to me.

Re:Bitkeeper license breaks separation of jobs

[iCEBaLM]

You don't seem to understand. This license effects users of software. It has nothing to do with developers. [...] Is the use of software now subject to a license?

It is you who does not understand. Yes the use of software is bound by a license. It's called the END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT which in the case of BitKeeper prevents any DEVELOPER from using BitKeeper if they work on a competator of BitKeeper.

Your opinion means nothing as you have no grasp of the legal system in place.

-- iCEBaLM

Re:Bitkeeper license breaks separation of jobs

[kubrick]

Even if working on Linux and working on Subversion are separate jobs, the restrictions of the Bitkeeper license apply to the person and thus cross from one job to the other

From my reading, it applied to the person or organisation the developer is working for; Larry and IBM negotiated a special exemption, for example.

So, by being a Subversion developer, it's possible for you to stop hundreds (or even thousands) of your fellow employees from being able to use the free version of Bitkeeper to work with the Linux kernel, even in their own private time at home. (And of course one cannot be a developer of a competing system and use the free version of Bitkeeper as a trivial case of this restriction.)

Comments not related to Xbox??? wtf??!

[Ted_Green]

Either the press need to learn to actualy quote people acurate, or Microsoft needs to stop talking out of both ends (probably both.)

A Microsoft spokeswoman said that Ballmer's remarks were not specifically related to the Xbox, and that the company was committed to selling the console in Australia. http://www.gamemarketwatch.com/news/item.asp?nid=2 582

versus


Microsoft would be forced to reconsider selling the Xbox video game system in Australia, or seek changes to the law, following the acquittal in July of a Sydney man alleged to have sold chips that modify a Sony PlayStation 2 to play imported games, Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer said yesterday. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/18/10345613 04223.html

Gates Foundation and iBooks

[IdleTime]

Just a short note on the GF and iBook debacle.

I thought Microsoft had a large interest in Apple, interest as in stocks? Didn't they basically save Apple's ass a couple of years ago?

Then it doesn't matter what they buy, does it? Now, if they had tried to buy Walmart PC's with Lindows, I bet the foundation would have cried Foul Play!

Re:Gates Foundation and iBooks

[stratjakt]

The Gates foundation is a charitable orginization. It has nothing to do with Microsoft except that the MS founder started it.

General Mills pumps a ton of charity dollars into various anti-hunger orginizations. But they don't force the charities to spend it on Lucky Charms.

So save the moronic MSFT-centric conspiracy theories until MSFT hands out iBooks to its employees.

Re:Gates Foundation and iBooks

[ChemGuy]

IIRC, a couple hundred million bucks worth of non-voting stock (out of Apple's market cap of many billions) and a promise to continue development of Office for Mac.

It was really a gesture of support. If they "saved Apple's ass", it was purely in a symbolic way.

Re:Gates Foundation and iBooks

[shking]

I thought Microsoft had a large interest in Apple, interest as in stocks?

No. They had a large interest in Apple (see below), but they've sold the shares

Didn't they basically save Apple's ass a couple of years ago?

No. They bought a swack of stock ($150 million I think) to settle a lawsuit out of court. Apple had sued them for breaking a contract & "borrowing" some of their technology

Re:Gates Foundation and iBooks

[gaudior]

So save the moronic MSFT-centric conspiracy theories until MSFT hands out iBooks to its employees.

They already have. Microsoft purchases Apple products all the time. The entire Mac BU needs them. (and I have heard that BG actually prefers his TiBook to his Dell. I can understand that.)

Re:European-style representation

[shadowj]

I don't buy your story. Here's the flip side: quite often, a two-party system reaches equilibrium, giving you two parties that are as different as Mastercard and Visa. There's really not a lot of distance between the Republicans and the Democrats.

Canada has managed quite well with a multi-party system; sure, they get some single-issue parties (like the Bloc Quebecois), and yes, they make trouble, but they also get stable, mostly competent majority governments most of the time.

RMS is trolling!

[FurryFeet]

Whichever way you cut it. Activism doesn't belong in a technical list, even if he says that it's an ethical discusion. In Slashdot, he would be already at (-1, Offtopic). (Well, he wouldn't, but he should).

Re:RMS is trolling!

[namespan]

As does most of the crappy slashdot criticizing tripe that appears on this sorry excuse for a website....

Re:RMS is trolling!

[wfrp01]

Are you seriously criticizing the LKML for not being more like Slashdot? Please say it isn't so.

Re:gps radio

[jasonkohles]

The don't communicate via satellite, they get their position from the gps satellites just like other gps receivers, then they can transmit their position to other users using the radio.

Info on the Gates Foundation

[Chromonkey]

First read about them here: Gates Foundation

Here's a few highlights of the year ending 12/31/2001

Financial Position highlights
Amounts are in thousands of dollars.
Net assets: $32,751,466
(note: That's BILLIONS)

Grants Paid

Global Healthcare: $855,567

Education: $177,944

They are the largest private contributor fighting global health issues (and it is believed to be the largest driving force behind malaria eradication in the world)

Re:Info on the Gates Foundation

[JohnGalt42]

Note that the Grants Paid information is in terms of thousands of dollars:

Global Health $855,567
Education $177,944
Libraries $43,176
Pacific Northwest and Other $36,868
Special Projects $33,403

TOTAL: $1,146,958

Re: Info on the Gates Foundation

[Black Parrot]

Global Health $855,567
Education $177,944
Libraries $43,176
Pacific Northwest and Other $36,868
Special Projects $33,403

Spotting them buying iMacs: Priceless

Re:Info on the Gates Foundation

[ruck]

Um, either you're being redundant or you're wrong. Look carefully at the site... The total is indeed $1,146,958 thousand or over a billion dollars. Not too shabby (yes, I know, only a small fraction of his net worth, Bill is evil, blah, blah).

Re:Info on the Gates Foundation

[djupedal]

If you look at the ratio of giving vs. net worth, MS is very near the bottom of the corporate list.

Re:Info on the Gates Foundation

[scotch]

Mod parent odwn (-1: lack of reading comprehension skills and/or inability to do math coupled with major chip on shoulder.).

Re:Info on the Gates Foundation

[deblau]

They are the largest private contributor fighting global health issues

Three cheers for our brave charity! I love to hear how big corps are fighting global health.

Re:Info on the Gates Foundation

[Martin Spamer]

So (using figures from the link) they have a fund worth 32 Billion, spent 12Million on Property and Equipment, receive 6 million in tax refunds & credits and payout just over 1 Million in grants.

Impressive. /sarcasm.

It renforce the view that this is some fancy tax avoidance scheme.

Re:Info on the Gates Foundation

[Lars T.]

Didn't Gates recently diversify his portfolio from mostly MS stock to adding a lot of pharmaceutical companies?

Re:European-style representation

[aussersterne]

This strikes me as truly a bizarre comment.

the savagery of the multiparty system that plagued Europe during the Middle Ages through the 18th century and continues to plague it more today than ever

So what you're saying is that "those savages in Europe" haven't changed their governing methods at all since the Middle Ages? There is no democracy in England or France or Germany, merely a plague of some kind passing for democratic government? What exactly are you saying?

It seems like you're saying that it's a good thing if a sizable percentage of US voters have no direct voice in US government and that any system which offers a voice to the minorities among the populace is a savage and unwise one.

You know, everyone is always accusing Europeans of anti-Americanism. I think that Americans are at least as anti-European.

More on the Gates Foundation

[Call Me Black Cloud]

Their website has a lot of information on what it's done, and I must say, the foundation rocks. Click on the "Grants" link for a graph of grants given. $5.5B. That's a lot of mo... In 2001 (from the annual report), "...we gave over $1 billion in grants in support of more than 2,050 grantees." You may hate the company, but that monopoly is doing some good somewhere!

Here's more about the grant to Maine.

Re:More on the Gates Foundation

[Ian Bicking]

People are always complaining about MS, but besides business practices it really is a very ethical company. It's a criminal company, but it's not evil, not even close.

And I've been quite impressed with what I've heard about the Gates Foundation. Not just because it's big and gives away lots of money, but it does things that seem constructive and oriented at real change. There's a lot of charities that are totally cheesy and popular with the rich. Charities that deal with Rich Problems, like breast cancer and park beautification. Or ones that just don't change anything, and just enable the social problems. A lot of tutoring and education programs unfortunately fall in this category. I'm sure the Gates Foundation gives to those too, but it gives to a lot of things that are meant to make a real difference.

Re:More on the Gates Foundation

[donutello]

I'd just like to make one thing clear. There is no relationship between Microsoft and the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation beyond the fact that Bill Gates started both organizations and practically runs both.

Re:More on the Gates Foundation

[horza]

There is no relationship between Microsoft and the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation beyond the fact that Bill Gates started both organizations and practically runs both.

That's like saying I'm no relationship to my brother, other than that we have the same parents. Where do you think the cash for the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation originally comes from?

Phillip.

Re:European-style representation

[Anonymous Coward]

'Bicameral' means 'two chamber' and refers to a two-house legislature, the House and the Senate in the case of the United States Congress. It has nothing to do with the political parties involved.

While I agree that the bicameral (two-house) system is quite efficient and is a good legislative solution, please remember that the Constitution has absolutely nothing to say about political parties.

Re:European-style representation

[Usquebaugh]

Who the fuck modded this up.

You have a two party system because it's modeled on Westminster.

The current system has virtually no input from the population and is becoming more and more like the royal courts of Europe used to be. A quick example is the number of career politicans and the number of Father/Son teams. Republican = Democrat there is so little difference as to be insulting.

You can stick your head in the sand and trot out the party line about democracy, freedom, liberty etc but please do not try and use examples to back you up that you obiuosly have not researched.

Research how closely related by blood American politicans are to European. Then go on to research where your current politicans were educated? Then see if you can guess why the population of America has virtually no say in their goverment or laws?

The two part system gives the illusion of a democracy when in reality all we do is change dictators.

how to debate Richard Stallman

[Anonymous Coward]

1. claim he said things which he didn't
2. describe your feelings about his definition of "freedom"
3. claim that the GPL "forces" you to do things
4. be sure to never address the issue he raises
5. ???
6. profit!

how easy!

Re:how to debate Richard Stallman

[wfrp01]

If you really believed in freedom then the GPL would just be the same as the public domain. That's freedom. The BSD license is far closer to a truly free license, the GPL isn't even remotely close to a free license.

Or so says Larry McVoy.

The freedom to take someone else's freedom away does not equate to "more freedom". When one individual gains a priviledge, while many others lose priviledges, the world is not "more free".

Poor Larry's plaintiff wail in defense of true freedom rings hollow the minute you realize the only freedoms he really cares about are his own.

Yes, Larry, in defense of freedom, the GPL places restrictions on what you can do with code. That's the way it works. The GPL restricts you from taking away other people's freedoms.

Re:how to debate Richard Stallman

[Omnifarious]

Even this isn't correct. The GPL takes no freedoms away at ALL. Copyright law is pretty clear on the point of copying. You only get to do it with the copyright holder's permission. So, in the absence of the GPL, you don't get to copy the software.

Seems to me like you have lots more freedom under the GPL. It restricts you much less than what ordinary copyright law would.

Only those who resent not being able to take GPL software, 'extend' it, and sell it back with those extensions hidden in a cloak of secrecy could possible have any issue with it at all.

I think most of the resistance to the GPL as the default model for all software is a resistance to a change in the way business is done in the software industry. The record industry refuses to change their business model, and we blast them for it. But, some of us refuse to, and it's thought prudent and wise.

Every project and piece of software that goes GPL represents one more wave in a sea-change that's sweeping the industry. Such changes are scary.

Re:how to debate Richard Stallman

[juggy]

Sorry, I cannot agree with this position. I am a strong supporter of OpenSource and Public Domain Software, however, I do not like the GPL. Why?
Because it is not really free. You put the restriction on it, that it may only be used in a certain way (distribute source, make your changes available again). Furthermore, I detest the virus-like effect the GPL has. For example, someone can just insert a snippet of GPLd code into your code (this person doesn't need to necessarily know about that), you don't realize it and keep improving your code - and after some years some retarded guys come and think they can bash at you if you (and the other persons who worked on the code) decide to make it closed source (which is the right of the coders to decide, IMHO).
Think about bzip2 - the guy wanted his code to be actually usable by companies in their closed-source apps so that the best possible compression technique can be used more widely. But initially - without really understanding what GPL really meant - he barred that way. When he changed the license to BSD/OpenSource (which is also my favourite) he got flamed over and over.
So if you want to make something truly free, if you are really ready to give up all your rights on it, the GPL is not the right license.

Just my opinion - you don't need to agree on it, but think about it for a moment, ok?

P.S.: Wonder if I will get flamed, troll-modded... for this? ;-)

Re:how to debate Richard Stallman

[poot_rootbeer]

The GPL restricts you from taking away other people's freedoms.

Such as what?

"The freedom to ensure you get credited for any work that you have done"? That's not a freedom, it's an ethical standard.

"The freedom to exert control over the way work you have done may be used"? That's not a freedom either, that's an artificial right.

Not a GPL flame, but you're throwing around the word "freedom" in ways that don't make any sense. You're not doing the GPL community any favors by obscuring and sensationalizing the issues.

The Gates Foundation in South America

[herko_cl]

I have a close friend who works for a medical research institution here in Chile. They research contraceptives and provide free reproductive health care for extremely poor people. They are supported, to a large extent, by grants from the Gates Foundation. Think what you may about Microsoft, I think Mr. Gates has done some really good things through the Foundation.

AFAIK, the Gates Foundation is also responsible for vaccines for millions of African kids, in places where the government can't or won't do it.

Re:The Gates Foundation in South America

[miffo.swe]

Well if we should take about numbers the holocaust is NOT the biggest slay of all times. Hitler pales in comparison to what happened to South America and the native indians in the USA. Their culture is pretty much exctinct by now. The Jewish culture flourish and seems to do rather good in comparison dont you think? Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin was other people we rarely hear about even if they did worse things than hitler ever had the time to do.

I have no problem setting theese things into perspective but no matter how someone rearrange the wordings you cant do one wrong and one right and come out even. What Microsoft has done to modern computing by killing off every brilliant idea out there in its infancy is pretty much the holocaust of computers.

The only still living viable competitor is Linux since all other has either been killed off or deminished. Not because MS is better but because it actively has killed every single would be competitor it has seen. If you follow news flows and current events in Washington you can see that they activly try to lobby for laws forbidding or crippling the GPL since linux cant be touched by MS normal means of killing competition. Economics dont bite as good at something that is free. Bill gates stands behind this and he surely knows that its utterly wrong and that it cripples the computer industry. Heck look at the figures, who is makeng silly amounts of money on the expence of the rest of the computer industry? I think this boils down to bad karma and an attempt to justify it.

I am by no definition anti jewish. Call me whatever you want i like to call myself big mouthed and i stand for that. No toe is to tender. The Jewish people is no exception.

Re:European-style representation

[Rutulian]

What???? Do you any idea what you are talking about?

Have you ever read Madison 10? The entire document is about the need for factions and the worry that there might not be enough. And what do you mean by forefathers? Last time I checked there weren't provisions for Republican and Democratic parties in the Constitution.

BTW, there were no democracies (at least in their current incarnation) in Europe in the Middle Ages. The only thing that even comes close is the Roman Republic which collapsed several centuries before the time period known as "the Middle Ages." So your first statement makes absolutely no sense.

Ignore parent comment

[yerricde]

Apparently, BitMover has removed the most objectionable term (the non-compete agreement) from the no-cash BitKeeper license. Please moderate down the parent comment.

Re:Ignore parent comment

[anshil]

"Please moderate down the parent comment."

Never tell anybody else what to moderate!

And again and again and again, the point is not if the restriction is in there or not, if you need to pay or not, the point is that they can put any restriction in there any time they like (free or forpay version). And suddendly the linux kernel is dependant on the goodwill of Bitmover, thats all what RMS is saying, if you make (important) free software on the back of properitary products you're not free anymore.

Re:European-style representation

[bsharitt]

You know, everyone is always accusing Europeans of anti-Americanism. I think that Americans are at least as anti-European

I'm not anti-European, but I do like the two party system. I think the United States should colonize Europe and ciliize the savages.

MSoft didn't save apple (common misconception).

[juuri]

This gets battered around a lot, but Microsoft has a very tiny interest in Apple. When someone tells you "I heard Apple was bailed out...blah blah..." they are probably more than a little confused.

Microsoft's supposed bail-out was an investment of $150 million dollars into a company that had over 4 billion in reserves at the time. Apple still has over 4 billion in "liquid" like investments.

Re:MSoft didn't save apple (common misconception).

[ceejayoz]

An investment of that size - while small in relation to their cash reserves - helps boost investor confidence... basically, MS says "we think Apple's going to do well".

Re:MSoft didn't save apple (common misconception).

[asv108]

If microsoft wanted ot kill apple it could have just never ported office and ie a few years ago, but MS rightfully sees Apple as an opportunity, not a threat. Also, MS would be under much more scrutiny if it wasn't for Apple.

Re:Gates Foundation?

[rodgerd]

For all the faults I would lay at the feet of Microsoft - in terms of technical and business issues - Gates himself is quite a philanthropist, and deserves brownie points for spending some of his enourmous fortune on helping people out.

what's the point of hexadecimal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I randomly punched 4494400 on my calculator, I pressed the HEX button to see what it does, and it just divides the number by 10.

Bitkeeper License

[rossz]

Seems the major problem open source developers are having with the BitKeeper license is that it places a certain requirement on them, just like the GPL. The GPL community response to criticism has always been, "don't use GPL code if you don't like the license." Seems perfectly reasonable. If you don't like the BitKeeper license, then don't use BitKeeper. When you get down to the basics, it's the same damn issue.

Re:Bitkeeper License

[istartedi]

Perhaps you've gotten the mistaken idea that Free Software advocates will actually choose a line of reasoning and stand by it. They won't. They will change their reasoning to suit the moment. The only position hardcore advocates like RMS consistently maintain is that Free Software is good and anything else is evil. The only real argument they have in favor of that position is that depriving anybody of anything is evil. Even that argument falls flat, because it's essentially the same as arguing that only pure Communism is good. In theory, that might be true but we don't live in theory. The misaplication of theory, even when well intentioned, is itself evil when those who apply it know the practical outcome will be evil. RMS knows it too. Socialism is a great leveler, but it's a lousy innovator. Introducing it into a business that has historicly flourished under capitalist incentives while depriving *nobody* of basic rights makes no sense. So what do they do? They try to say that software is a right like food or emergency healthcare. Why? Just so they can maintain their dogma; no other reason that I can see.

Re:Bitkeeper License

[Malcontent]

"arguing that only pure Communism is good."

If jesus was alive today he would be called communist too.

Re:Bitkeeper License

[FreeUser]

The GPL community response to criticism has always been, "don't use GPL code if you don't like the license." Seems perfectly reasonable. If you don't like the BitKeeper license, then don't use BitKeeper.

Which is precisely what RMS is saying, and what other kernel developers in the past have said (and been flamed into oblivion on the LKML for saying).

Unfortunately, Linus isn't personally affected by the constraints (he isn't contributing code to CVS or subversion), and he finds it convinient. Whether his stance is simply one of valuing his own convinience over the freedom of others, or he is taking a political stand about being apolitical I do not know. I do know that I disagree with his decision, and I think RMS is right on this particular issue.

However, if I felt really strongly about it I could fork a version of the kernel and maintain it with subversion I suppose (I think others have actually done that sort of thing already). Ultimately Linus will do what he likes, right or wrong (he is frequently right, and he is frequently wrong, like most human beings), and whether you like RMS or like to denigrate RMS, the GPL he wrote has certainly done much to insure that we are free to follow Linus, RMS, or whomever else we like, or to not follow them and fork the code as we see fit.

However, that freedom does not mean people should feel obligated to remain silent when they see something they find ethically reprehensible, such as the licensing terms Bitkeeper snuck in after the fact, in short, after the Linux community had already snorted a few sucker lines and formed a habit. Indeed, part of preserving said freedoms requires we step forward and speak out on these sorts of issues when they arrive, whether or not it is a polular or trendy thing to do, or these freedoms we so enjoy and take for granted will be reduced to little more than a passing fad and a distant memory.

Re:Bitkeeper License

[IamTheRealMike]

If you don't like the BitKeeper license, then don't use BitKeeper. When you get down to the basics, it's the same damn issue.

It's not the same issue - the GPL stops you from taking away other peoples freedoms, (free) BitKeeper stops you from working on projects based on a seemingly arbitrary set of conditions that may or may not change at any point. The restrictions on the GPL are there in order to benefit everybody. The restrictions on BitKeeper are there to benefit McVoy.

Note that I don't necessarily have an opinion either way on this, other than perhaps RMS would be better advised spending his figuring out a way for us all to get paid to write free software.

Re:Bitkeeper License

[Ian Bicking]

Seems the major problem open source developers are having with the BitKeeper license is that it places a certain requirement on them, just like the GPL.

THIS IS FALSE. The GPL does not restrict users in any way. The GPL has qualifications on the freedoms it grants -- you must fulfill certain requirements if you wish to distribute GPL code. But there are no restrictions on using GPL software. There is no EULA.

The BitKeeper license restricts use of BitKeeper. When Larry compared his restrictions to the GPL he was misrepresenting the GPL (not to mention trying to direct attention away from the real issues involved, which have nothing to do with the GPL).

Re:Bitkeeper License

[istartedi]

Jesus *is* alive today, and *when* He comes back I'm sure He will make an excellent dictator. Until then, we are better off without the cheap imitations.

Jesus cast out demons too. Some people tried to follow him and because they weren't ready, they ended up being driven insane by the demons. The moral? Don't try to live under such a high ideal unless you are good and ready. See also, Peter's walk on the water. Experience has shown that at present, no society is pure enough to live according to the "everybody give and ask nothing in return" ideal.

Re:Bitkeeper License

[Malcontent]

"Experience has shown that at present, no society is pure enough to live according to the "everybody give and ask nothing in return" ideal."

Interesting perspective. So tell me something is there a middle ground between the idealized world of jesus ("everybody give and ask nothing in return") and the one we have today ("the stong kill and eat the weak")?

Re:Bitkeeper License

[istartedi]

The strong kill and eat the weak? As far as I know, the cannibals of New Guinea have given up that practice. Even war criminals like Slobodan Milosevic don't actually eat their victims. OK, you are probably referring to some kind of metaphorical "eating" such as the taking of posessions or repression of the people.

The middle ground seems obvious to me: Democracies or representative republics with mixed socialist/capitalist economies. Also, NOT world government since different cultures work differently. That's right. Contrary to what you might think if you knew me, I'm not a capitalist idealogue. Socialist democracy works great in Sweden. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. OTOH, don't try to export it here.

Socialism is only evil when it's forced on people who don't want it, and/or when those who are in charge of making sure it doesn't become corrupt are corrupt themselves. Take a country like China for example, which seems to have both problems. They need to hold officials more accountable and/or give the officials less power. OTOH, It is often said that in the Nordic countries socialism works well. I wager that's because most of the people there like it that way, and because most of the officials aren't corrupt.

Now, before you get the idea that I think the Swedes are "better people" than Americans because they are socialist, think again. It just so happens that socialism has a stronger resemblance to the ideal than capitalism, but that resemblance is superficial because coercion is involved. Remember, you didn't ask me what I thought was the best way to approach the ideal. You asked me for middle ground.

Who comes closest to the ideal? The closest I've seen is in communities like the Amish and in some types of communes. These are people who voluntarily choose to live a communal lifestyle. At certain times (especially during disasters) people also exhibit a community spirit that's close to the ideal. The US Southeast after a hurricane is probably as close to the ideal as most people that I know will ever see. However, even in that situation, with everybody taking what they need and giving what they have, there is the occasional looter or price-gouger. But I've never heard of cannibalism occuring. :)

Re:European-style representation

[Analysis Paralysis]

This does not speak well of your knowledge of history. When the American War of Independence finished in 1783, Europe was a collection of monarchies with only some starting to devolve power to "elected" assemblies. The French Revolution of 1789 replaced their monarchy with a dictatorship with democracies only slowly evolving thereafter.

As for the current state of affairs in Europe, parties are either given seats in direct relation to their voter numbers (proportional representation - used in most European democracies) or using the winner-takes-all system (single-member district plurality system, used in the US and Britain).

Both have downsides, neither is ideal. However having just two major parties does lead to a convergence of policies as both try to appeal to a broad "centre ground" spectrum of voters - as seen in both the US (where both candidates were accused of being in the pockets of business/media corporations) and the UK (the current Labour government being seen as following many of the previous Conservative policies). This results in a denial of choice to the voter, with low turnouts being a typical sympton. Another possibility is that of extremists gaining votes simply by virtue of being of only ones to offer something new.

As for dullards, the US has had an undistinguished record recently with Clinton being the only one who seemed to know what he was talking about policy-wise (as long as he kept his trouser zipper shut). Bush Snr and Reagan had their policies pretty much set by unelected advisors, and as for Bush Jnr...well saying he seems an improvement over Dan Quayle is the only compliment I can pay him. Europe's problem has been more with corruption rather than talent(German ex-Chancellor Kohl, French President Chirac and Italian President Berlusconi being examples).

Re:European-style representation

[Iamthefallen]

Oh no, not ciliize us? Whatever shall we do!

Re:European-style representation

[Iamthefallen]

Yeah! And if we're lucky we'll see it evolve into a one party system and there will not be any reason for all the petty bickering that hinders progress at the moment, that's when democracy will finally be true democracy, one man, one vote, one party!

It is sorta neat-o

[fatboy]

You can transmit your position to other units so they can hear you and see where you are.

I have been doing it since 1997. :)

Re:European-style representation

[irix]

they also get stable, mostly competent majority governments most of the time

No, we get stuck with a middle-of-the-road Liberal party in power becuase the other interests in the country can't get their act together and get them out. And thanks to the lack of term limits and anything resembling the power of the US house/senate, we get essentially a dictatorship that has been in power so long that they are corrupt.

At least you have change in government every now and again, and some way to oppose a decision taken by the president.

Re:gps radio

[kbielefe]

If you want to actually send your position over a satellite, get a ham radio license. Ham radio operators have been doing this for years. They can even use a handheld radio to send their GPS position over the International Space Station using APRS. Of course, no one makes a nice all-in-one GPS/handheld unit for us.

I don't know if these rino units will really catch on. The range of these things is only about a half a mile with buildings and stuff around. At that range, you can almost always see a common landmark, if you can't see each other. Still, if you're going to use both a GPS and a radio, it's better than lugging both around. And they look pretty cool, besides. A better application might be on cell phones. Then the first sentence of every conversation wouldn't be "where you at?" Aren't they doing something like this for 911 reasons anyway?

Re:European-style representation

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Your post was, of course, utter bullshit. The bit about "there is so little difference [between the parties] as to be insulting," particularly so. If you let your political opinions get sufficiently out of whack with the mainstream, then I suppose it's possible that Republicans and Democrats might look pretty much the same to you. Both parties advocate various degrees of laisse faire capitalism, for example. This is not inherently a bad thing.

Our system of government is not designed to be the best of all possible systems. It's designed to be just good enough. That's why it's stood unchallenged for over 225 years.

And your little remark about "the illusion of democracy?" The United States of America is not now, and never has been, a democracy. Pure democracy is a system fraught with more flaws than you can shake a pointed stick at. After all, the saying goes that a dictatorship is a country where you have to do what one stupid asshole says, and a democracy is a country where you have to do what one million stupid assholes say.

So the USA is not a democracy. It's a representative republic. Is this the perfect system? I doubt it. But is it the best one we've-- as a species, I mean-- come up with so far? Yes, definitely. Name one government that has worked as long or as well as the United States'.

WELCOME

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the Software Police State. You will be given public housing. However, we are a police state with Three (count em, three!) dictators. You can CHOOSE which dictator you wish to be ruled by. WHICH WILL YOU CHOOSE??

Dictator #1: GENERAL BSD ...

General BSD is a benevolent dictator, despite his devlish appearance. Here are his rules for living in the BSD Housing Project:

INSIDE THE HOUSE: You can do whatever you like.

OUTSIDE THE HOUSE: You can do whatever you like.

Note: Someone might move into your house when you're gone, move all the furniture around, and change the locks. They will replace your favorite beer with wine coolers (yuck).

Dictator #2: GENERAL STALLMAN ...

Stallman is a loud and obnoxious dictator. If you live in a Stallman House, you must follow these rules:

INSIDE THE HOUSE: You can do whatever you like.

OUTSIDE THE HOUSE: If you ever leave the house, you will be escorted by a Stallmanist agent, who will whine to you about freedom, and also how to pronounce certain words.

Note: People may enter the house while you're gone, but they're not allowed to touch anything. And they won't be allowed to drink any of your beer (yay). Did I mention the whining?

Dictator #3: GENERAL MCVOY ...

General McVoy is a bit of an asshole himself. He whines all the time about how he needs to pay his army, and how nice it is of him to let you live in HIS house temporarily, and when are you going to get a job so you can pay for the house.

INSIDE THE HOUSE: You are monitored 24 hours a day. Remember, it's McVoy's house, you freeloader! And you better drink McVoy's favorite beer or he'll take your house away!!

OUTSIDE THE HOUSE: You are not allowed to leave the house. Sorry.

Re:What could he be doing in *North* America?

[ndogg]

There are a lot of people out there that would like to save the world (myself being one of them.) Mr. Gates happens to be in a position to accomplish part of that goal. That doesn't mean that he can actually do so. A lot of his donations go to medical research, which will help everybody, not just foreign people.

You might also want to take note that he has a section of his foundation that is dedicated to helping out the poor in his area. That doesn't exactly seem, to me anyway, the way to give the country you owe your millions to the middle finger.

Besides, what's so wrong about bragging rights? It gives the affluent a reason to give in the first place. Sure, it would be better if they did it purely for altruistic reasons, but that's not being realistic.

Besides, how often do you really hear about the Gates Foundation in the news anyway (besides here on slashdot, since we're somewhat biased anyway)? I could walk up to ten people right now who would not know that the Gates Foundation exists until I told them about it. I'm actually surprised at how quiet the Gates (and even Microsoft) is about all those contributions.

I have read lots of literature on Mr. Gates, and all of it leads me to the same conclusion, he really does care about all the contributions he makes, and it really isn't about bragging rights, but he's more than happy to show anyone all his contributions. He just doesn't have the same altruistic motives when it comes to business.

Re:European-style representation

[Malcontent]

"Is this the perfect system? I doubt it. But is it the best one we've-- as a species, I mean-- come up with so far? Yes, definitely."

I don't think so. It is not nearly representitive enough. For most people in the US voting is a futile experience because of the winner take all system. If you live in Montana and want to vote democrat you might as well not even bother. Same if you are a republican in NY.

I know lots of people like you are perfectly content and are convinced that the US is the greatest country in the world and all but complacency is a bad thing. We can make our system lots better by utilizing all kinds of methods to achieve a more representitive govt. The first thing we have to do is to get rid of winner take all.

"Name one government that has worked as long or as well as the United States'."

America is only 200 years old ya moron. Most countries are older then the US.

laptops

[daoine_sidhe]

I live in Maine, AND was one of the estimators involved with the laptop program. Our company was subcontracted by apple to do the physical installations (244 of them in all) in every school, and I have this to say: we spoke to many of the teachers; yes, many were against it to start. By the end of THEIR training, the vast majority of them were in love with the program. It comes down to this; you CANNOT overspend on education. That combination of words has no place in America; or shouldn't, at any rate. Yes, the laptops were expensive, and yes some kids may damage them; but the state was also given a (quite hefty) warranty program by Apple, and rules on whether they (the laptops) go home with the students or not are set individually by each school. It gives not only the schools a sense of independence and technological edge, but the students as well. They know that they are some of the only students in the world involved with a technology initiative this big. Also, it's well known that students who start using computers early and often are those people who don't need a dissertation on double-clicking in order to get "online" later in life :-).

Re:laptops

[IamTheRealMike]

Also, it's well known that students who start using computers early and often are those people who don't need a dissertation on double-clicking in order to get "online" later in life :-).

Sorry, this program stinks. The money would have been much better spent on subsidies for students to buy their own computers, rather than arbitrarily handing out laptops that the kids may, or may not want. Considering that many schools already have desktop computers students can use, and I'd guess many kids have computers at home, why bother giving them a third? If the problem is that they aren't available inside the classroom all the time, then for students who actually want that, being able to buy laptops very cheaply would at least mean they could use a PC if they wanted to. I know if this had happened at my school, it would have driven me insane - simply switching between the Mac keyboard and the PC keyboard at home and school all the time would have been a nightmare. It would have irritated some of my slower-typing friends too.

The Maine government has gone about this totally the wrong way. There is no good reason for all the machines to even be the same, and considering that you can get cheap PC laptops that fulfill all the needs of the non-multimedia-using students just as well, grossly overspent too.

Re:laptops

[poot_rootbeer]

It comes down to this; you CANNOT overspend on education. That combination of words has no place in America; or shouldn't, at any rate.

The question is not on HOW MUCH is spent on education, it's HOW money is spent on education.

Would the money spent to get a computer for every student have been better spent on buying updated textbooks, ergonomic desks, art supplies, or on repairing instruments for the school band? Given the price tags on each of those items, my guess would be that the tools of traditional education would end up of more value to the students.

Rhino irrelevant.... use mobile phone/GPS

[anonymous cupboard]

The Rhino isn't that relevant unless the FCC controls the frequencies somewhat better than CB.

In Europe we already have combined GPS/GSM unit like the Benefon Esc! NT2002. The principle is so basic that they are even giving them to hunting dogs (who have a tendancy to get lost in the Finnish woods). True a glorified walkie-talkie requires no infrastructure and is cheaper to operate, but an infrastructure plus a pay per call means that the GPS solution will work in more places (try using a walkie-talkie around a mountain).

Re:European-style representation

[ndogg]

The Hellenic Civilization (ancient Greece) lasted for 400 years. The Roman Empire lasted, essentially, for almost 1000 years. Ancient Egypt lasted for over 3000 years. Both Japan's and Britain's imperial system still exists, even if they don't hold the same powers anymore. What's your point?

Come back in 10000 years, and if nothing has changed (politically and socially), then go ahead and tell us that.

It's Simple

[LadyJessica]

I don't know why people have trouble with this. This isn't about the GPL, or Stallman per se. It's about the fact that you can't develop for both the Linux kernel and a source code control system (e.g., CVS) at the same time without paying for BitKeeper.

Obviously RMS has set himself up for flaming. People on any mailing list people tend to be very touchy about what they consider topical. :-) On the other hand, if you are a kernel developer using BitKeeper, then you can't work on CVS without paying money to BitKeeper.

Re:Gates Foundation?

[User 956]

Gates himself is quite a philanthropist, and deserves brownie points for spending some of his enourmous fortune on helping people out.

You realize, of course, that with Microsoft's estimated $40 billion in cash, they make nearly 500 million dollars every three months just in interest.

One five-hundredth of that is really nothing. If Gates really wanted to make a difference, he would have donated more.

Re:Gates Foundation?

[User 956]

Oh, and I forgot to mention that philanthropy is a wonderful tax write-off, especially as Gates can donate money to his own foundation, from which he receives money back via administrative and charitable expenses.

Re:Gates Foundation?

[Michael Woodhams]

Robert Cringley had an interesting take on this in one of his old weekly columns.

"The single most driving force in the development of Bill Gates today or any day is his competitive nature. The guy simply has to win, and will do pretty much whatever it takes to succeed. ... And if he can't win, then he'd rather not play." ...

"The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has committed $750 million to childhood vaccination programs, primarily in the Third World.

"This change in focus doesn't mean that Bill Gates is any less competitive, just that he has once again redefined the game into one at which he knows he can win. When you are the richest man in the world, nobody can beat you at giving money away."

The Melinda Gates Foundation

[stox]

It should really be named the Melinda Gates Foundation. She must be quite a woman. Until Bill made the best decision in his career, his charitable contributions from 1976 to 1997 amounted to be a big fat ZERO!!! It does appear the Melinda has had an enormous influence. In the past few years, the Gates Foundation has grown to one of the largest charitable contributors in the world when measured by dollars, but still is one of the smaller ones when you look at the percentage of the endowment they donate to charities. John D. Rockefeller gave 10% of his income every year to charity, beacause he realized that he built his fortune through the society and he owed that society a substantial debt. Maybe, someday, Bll Gates will come to the same conclusion.

Until then, I wil stand by my conclusion that Bill Gates has been a tightwad, of previously un-imaginable proportion.

Re:The Melinda Gates Foundation

[Qrlx]

Bill is still a tightwad at heart, or he would have been giving money earlier.

My belief is: Had Bill been more charitable earlier on, the whole anti-trust thing never would have happened. Look at Carnegie, we think of him as some great philanthropist but he was just as much of a monopolist as Gates is.

Basically, if you're really rich you have to be looser with the money in ways that the public will see. Like tipping more at restaurants, donating playgrounds, curing AIDS, that sort of shit. Of course anyone who is that rich is stingy behind closed doors, but that's not the point. The point is to not be so wealthy and give so little back that someone like me can completely rationalize the pirating of Microsoft software because, well, they've got $40 billion in the bank, they really don't need a few hundred from me, and what have they done for me lately?

If Bill really wants me to think he's a philanthropist, make Microsoft software free for K-12 schools. Anything less is just PR.

Microsoft's Evil

[_Sprocket_]

People are always complaining about MS, but besides business practices it really is a very ethical company. It's a criminal company, but it's not evil, not even close.

I completely disagree with this. But then, my code of ethics may not be the same as yours. And that might be why the "evil" tag makes sense to some while a rather outlandish claim to others. So under what code of ethics is Microsoft "evil"?

There seems to be a rather common code of ethics amoung techies. It centers around enabling various components and systems to interoperate. The ability to interoperate in a desired manner is good. Anything that interferes with that interoperation is bad.

Of course, its not a perfect world. Bad things happen. Overcoming and/or fixing bad things is part of the challenge. But sometimes bad things happen on purpose. Anything that interferes with interoperability on purpose with the sole intent to interfere is evil.

When Microsoft is being labled as evil, it is based on this code of techie ethics. Microsoft interferes with interoperability on a regular bassis from incompatible file formats, to obscure protocols (or incompatible extensions to open protocols), to restrictive licenses... and the list goes on. And while they may not be the only "evil" company out there, Microsoft has certainly fine tuned the art.

Of course, Microsoft also tends to run afoul with more traditional ethics too. For example, Microsoft has a rather tough time keeping truthful - whether it is PR, advertising copy, documentation, policy, or court testimony.

Granted - Microsoft could be running on its own ethical code. Or perhapse it has adopted ethical codes that have lead other large corporations in to scandle. But in any case, it shouldn't come as much of a suprise if few around here buy in on the idea of Microsoft as "ethical" or "not evil".

Re:Microsoft's Evil

[Ian Bicking]

Granted - Microsoft could be running on its own ethical code. Or perhapse it has adopted ethical codes that have lead other large corporations in to scandle. But in any case, it shouldn't come as much of a suprise if few around here buy in on the idea of Microsoft as "ethical" or "not evil".

If you think Microsoft is evil just because they are an obstruction to interoperability, then you seriously need to get some perspective. Microsoft didn't get anyone killed (Shell). Microsoft doesn't construct killing machines (Lockheed Martin). Microsoft doesn't have horrible working conditions (Nike). Microsoft doesn't even pollute (like countless companies). Microsoft doesn't price fix (ADM). Microsoft hasn't hidden information related to the danger of their product (tobacco companies). Microsoft hasn't destroyed public infrastructure (GM). Microsoft doesn't launder drug money (Banamex, now part of Citibank).

The only people MS has directly hurt are some other software companies. Indirectly, this has created an environment where consumers have less choice, and the choices are of less technical merit. I find that hard to consider "evil" -- evil is one end of the spectrum, and that spectrum goes so much further than that. Calling Microsoft evil would imply there's some equivalence in what they do and in murder. There isn't.

I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to accept your perspective as valid. It shows an ignorance of the real evils in the world and a tremendous selfishness to equate our inconveniences with real suffering.

Re:Microsoft's Evil

[_Sprocket_]

If you think Microsoft is evil just because they are an obstruction to interoperability, then you seriously need to get some perspective. ...
I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to accept your perspective as valid. It shows an ignorance of the real evils in the world and a tremendous selfishness to equate our inconveniences with real suffering.

I don't see the traditional and "techie" moral codes as being incompatible. One can still label sabotaging software as "evil" without loosing perspective of its relationship to murder. Granted, it does run the risk of trivializing the more fundimental evils... and confusing people who don't adopt the techie moral code. But then differing moral codes have always caused some degree of confusion or debate. For example, I don't agree that building "killing machines" is evil (but then, I wouldn't call them "killing machines" either). I think I understand your perspective... and why you would make that moral call. So I don't believe I am confused by it. I simply disagree.

On a side note - one could make arguments that Microsoft price fixes, hides danger related to their products, and has at least damaged public infrastructure. And while the products produced by the software industry may seem trivial compared to murder and pollution... I would argue that it should not be discounted too much. Information technology leads to rather suprising shifts in more mundane aspects of life - from facilitating scientific discovery to the slow erosion of restrictive regimes. If Microsoft's actions have interferred with the growth of that technology, who knows what collateral damage they may have caused?

Re:Gates Foundation?

[NineNine]

I suppose you donate 1/500th of your assets, you cock? It's charity. He doesn't have to give a fucking dime. Post how much you have, and how much you donate towards fighting malaria.

Re:Gates Foundation?

[User 956]

I suppose you donate 1/500th of your assets, you cock?

Gates' donation was 1/2000th of the yearly interest ($500 million quarterly) on Microsoft's $40 billion in cash.

I donate way more than 1/2000th, and more than 1/500th, motherfucker. The ACLU gets $50/year, the NRA gets $75/year, and the EFF gets $20/year. That's a little over 1/427th of my income. I'd invite you to do the math and figure out my salary, but you're obviously not that bright.

Re:European-style representation

[shadowj]

I find it simply astounding that someone would think that there's only slight difference between Democrats and Republicans.

It's all a matter of perspective. If you've spent all your life being told that the political spectrum runs from 1 to 10, with the Republican at one end and the Democrats at the other, certainly it will appear that there are vast differences between them.

Spend a lot of time outside the US, though, immersed in other political systems, and suddenly the spectrum appears to run from -100 to +100 (or maybe there's even a second or third axis)... and the two US parties look pretty similar from that vantage point.

I don't recall mentioning anything about voting Green, forcing the Democrats left, or anything of the sort, by the way. I merely disagreed with someone who seemed to think that our current two-party situation was somehow ordained by the founding fathers, and was perfection embodied.

In any case, I doubt that it's possible (or desirable) to dramatically modify the state of US politics on a short time scale by any means. Any sort of dramatic change will need to come about in the same way that we arrived at the present situation... over a period of many decades, with a huge number of incremental changes, and with the full cooperation of the majority of the voting public.

Except kids don't need computers...

[sheldon]

They need books and teaching.

As much as I'm into technology, kids will learn material far better by reading a book, listening to a lecture, and doing the homework. I don't even agree with the use of calculators prior to high school.

Most computers purchased for educational use are simply wasted money. Same with televisions and other audio-video equipment.

Yeah yeah, I know... keep the kids engaged. Whatever, you can also keep the kids engaged by having a teacher who knows what the fuck they are talking about and thus make the class interesting. Best class I ever had in high school was World History my junior year. Not one film strip, not one movie, not one poster. We read books and the teacher lectured and not one person in that class left without knowing what the Magna Carta meant or what year it was signed.

Republicans and Democrats

[Mad Marlin]

Who the fuck modded this up.

The moderators.

You have a two party system because it's modeled on Westminster.

We do not have a two party system, it is just that currently (and usually) only two of the parties are able to garner enough votes to even be considered.

The current system has virtually no input from the population and is becoming more and more like the royal courts of Europe used to be. A quick example is the number of career politicans and the number of Father/Son teams. Republican = Democrat there is so little difference as to be insulting.

The system has virtually no input because virtually nobody votes. It is rare to even get a 20% turnout. There are major differences between the parties, it is just that they are rarely talked about on political TV ads. Instead, the ads state:

• Our candidate supports education.
• Our candidate supports police.
• Our candidate supports the military.
• Our candidate will bring jobs to the area.
• The only time the other candidate won't be raising your taxes is when he is too busy kicking old women and little children.

You can stick your head in the sand and trot out the party line about democracy, freedom, liberty etc but please do not try and use examples to back you up that you obiuosly have not researched.

As an example of such un-researched examples:

Research how closely related by blood American politicans are to European. Then go on to research where your current politicans were educated? Then see if you can guess why the population of America has virtually no say in their goverment or laws?

How many people reading this are American citizens of age 18 or over who are not voting? I think that I can guess why they have virtually no say in their government and its laws.

The two part system gives the illusion of a democracy when in reality all we do is change dictators.

The are four main political views in America today. They are Libertarianism, Conservativism, Liberalism, and Socialism. The Libertarians and Conservatives have generally resided in the Republican party, although some conservatives are in the Democratic Party. Liberals and Socialists (the mainstream ones at least) are generally Democrats. The Libertarians and the Socialists have recently been splitting off as there own parties, the Libertarian and the Green parties. Neither of them will ever amount to much on any presidental election (lets hope) since they are to exteme for most people, and too extreme for comprimise.

The problem with the Libertarians is that they fail to realise that we actually do need a government, even a federal government, and we always will. They mainly only side with Conservatives because they aren't Democrats, who generally think that the solution to anything is a large government program.

The problem with the Greens/Socialists is that they want to replace the system of primarily corporate development and activity, which, while it has problem, actually works, with a system that has been demonstrated to not work on several occasions, all for the benefit of spotted tree frogs and the like. They will never get anywhere, because the American public likes their SUV's, McDonald's, non-fair-trade coffee, and cheap sweatshop clothing, and don't want to be told to change, and definitely not that they are evil.

Re:Republicans and Democrats

[3Bees]

Urrrrrkkk, no coffee, brain hurts

We do not have a two party system, it is just that currently (and usually) only two of the parties are able to garner enough votes to even be considered.

Pay attention in a couple weeks at election time, or better yet in a couple of years when we get the chance to de-throne George II. On a national level there is very little formulazation of the two-party system (apart from the way that commitees are formed and government election money is aportioned), but at the intersection of the local/state and the national there is quite a bit.

Check the laws on how votes are tallied, on how districts are formed and on how electoral votes are decided are often implicitly if not explicitly two party. A lot of this comes not from a specific party bias (parties tend to die off and get replaced every 50-70 years aprox. in the US), but from a paradigm of politics that views candidates as being the important piece of the puzzle. This is viewed best in contrast to a proportional view (most of European government) that put the emphasis on the party: that is to say, on the ideology.

The system has virtually no input because virtually nobody votes. It is rare to even get a 20% turnout. There are major differences between the parties, it is just that they are rarely talked about on political TV ads. Instead, the ads state

You are not considering the why behind these non-votes. The reasons are/could be legion but all boil down to a percieved dis-empowerment at the personal level. A great deal of this could be seen to arrise from the fact that the winner takes all in an election. If you vote for a loser, your vote is discarded entirely. Also, as you state, there are differences between the parties, but not between the candidates. But, who do you vote for? Even if you vote the party line, you are still voting for candidates, not parties. See how much that affects the advertisements?

The are four main political views in America today. They are Libertarianism, Conservativism, Liberalism, and Socialism.

That is such a gross generalization and simplification that it is not even worthwhile responding to this or the paragraphs of useless platitues and personal assumptions that follow it.

Not true

[kryps]

>>> It's about the fact that you can't develop for both the Linux kernel and a source code control system (e.g., CVS) at the same time without paying for BitKeeper

This is just not true. As mentioned before there is absolutely no need to use BitKeeper for kernel development. Many core kernel developers (e.g. Alan Cox) do not use BitKeeper at all and just send regular patches against development releases to Linus.

-- kryps

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Two different issues

[Goonie]

You make some good points. BillG's choice of charities seems to be reasonably enlightened, and he gives away a lot of money in absolute terms every year. However, that doesn't mean that Bill and MS don't deserve criticism on their ethical grounds. Firstly, one possible criticism is that Billg's personal wealth is so enormous that in relative terms his generosity is not that high - and even if he gave away 99% of his wealth, he would still be an incredibly wealthy man. Therefore, by keeping much more of his wealth than he could conceivably use, he is still greedy. Secondly, it is argued that he gained his wealth by unethical and sometimes illegal means, hoovering up excess profits from business and individuals around the world by illegally leveraging its monopoly in some areas to bully competitors in others.

The second criticism applies most directly to Microsoft the company, and I personally think pretty indisputable.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

BitKeeper/RMS: it's not about philosophy

[g4dget]

These philosophical arguments are tedious. Of course, BitKeeper can publish their software under whatever license they like, but that doesn't mean that we have to like it or use it or acquiesce.

What RMS is saying that if you use software with that kind of license, it's going to be bad for you and for others in the long run. It's similar to saying that SUVs are bad for the world or that smoking is bad for you--you may disagree, and you may insist on your right to do something that's legal, but there is no reason why others should stop complaining about it.

Of course, RMS may be wrong, but nobody seems to have made a convincing counter-argument. And whether the GPL is "more free" or "less free" is completely irrelevant to anything.

Re:European-style representation

[UncleFluffy]

America has the longest continually operating government at least since 1000 AD

Nope, the oldest continually operating government is the Tynwald, which is a bicameral democratic legislature (just like the US), and has been running for a little over 1000 years.

(I'd link, but can't be bothered to pander to people too lazy to Google)

Re:Gates Foundation?

[User 956]

Microsoft != Bill Gates.

That's right, Microsoft actually has less cash on hand than would be necessary to buy all of Bill Gates' shares, which, as of Oct 21 2002, are worth 59 billion dollars. Microsoft only has $40 billion in cash on hand, so the $2 billion/year interest figure is actually a conservative estimate.

Keep in mind, Microsoft also hasn't paid dividends to its shareholders in over ten years, and given that Bill Gates is a 12% shareholder, that amounts to a hefty amount of taxes that he's not paying. By not paying dividends, he avoids paying the top marginal tax rate of 39.6 percent that would apply to income distributed as dividends. By taking earnings entirely through stock sales, he lowers his tax rate to the maximum 20 percent that applies to capital gains. According to the most recent SEC reports on insider trades, Mr Gates sold more than $2.9 billion in Microsoft stock in 2001, benefiting enormously from the lower tax rate that applies to stock sales.

So, as I was saying... If Gates really was such a great individual, he would have donated more, and wouldn't be dodging federal tax laws (while simultaneously screwing smaller Microsoft shareholders).

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:European-style representation

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Worked for whom? Why, for the people for whom the system is intended to work, of course. That set started with white male property owners and has grown larger over time. Today that set includes any recognized citizen (by birth or naturalization) over the age of 18 of any race, gender, or national origin.

And I disagree with your assertion that the American system of government doesn't work for "the poor or the recent migrants." Our country offers as many opportunities to poor people as any country in the world, and more than most. My girlfriend's father, for example, immigrated to this country in 1975. In Vietnam, he had been a lawyer and a politician. After he immigrated, he took a job as a janitor while he attended night school to learn English and to become an accountant. Today he makes an upper-middle-class living working for city government and as a real estate agent. His wife works a part-time job as a secretary because she wants to; they don't need the money. They've put two kids through college, medical school (my girlfriend), and law school (her brother). Our government worked just fine for them, as it continues to now.

And as for the rest of your comment... where did you get your education? You start by saying the idea of executive veto is "rediculous," but you don't say why. Then you say that the founding fathers "only had monarchies to examine," which is demonstrably false. The founding fathers were, to a man, classically educated men. They were students of history, and all intimately familiar with the democratic and republican ideals of government. Saying they "only had monarchies to examine" is so wrong it's practically laughable.

Finally...

I never cease to be amazed at the self-congratulatory arrogance of the common American citizen.

Get used to it, friend. Our country, while certainly flawed in many ways and of course with an imperfect history, is nonetheless the finest nation the world has ever seen.

Re:European-style representation

[Twirlip of the Mists]

"Not nearly representative enough?" What does that mean, exactly? Would you suggest that we abandon the representative ideal altogether and go for pure democracy? I won't bother to explain what's wrong with that idea. Read some Plato for insight, if you're so inclined.

If we're on the same page about the democracy thing, then it's really just a matter of degrees. When I go to the polls-- next month, in fact-- I will vote for my chosen representative. Why I vote for him is entirely up to me; maybe I agree with his position, maybe I respect his character, maybe I just like the way he parts his hair. Whatever my reason, I choose.

At the end of that day, one of the candidates will have more votes than the other or others. That guy goes to the legislature.

Therefore, our system as it stands now is directly representative of the majority. That's how our government is designed to work, and it works well.

Your suggestion that we "get rid of winner take all" is confusing to me, because it seems to contradict the idea that the government represents the majority. You can't say, "the government shall be composed of representatives elected by the majority, and these four legally recognized minorities, to whom we shall throw a bone every two years." That's not fair, and it's not practical. The only reasonable system of representative government is the idea of representation of the majority.

Re:Gates Foundation?

[spectecjr]

That's right, Microsoft actually has less cash on hand than would be necessary to buy all of Bill Gates' shares, which, as of Oct 21 2002, are worth 59 billion dollars. Microsoft only has $40 billion in cash on hand, so the $2 billion/year interest figure is actually a conservative estimate.

Oh, that's a classic.

Are you telling me you're so naive as to believe that he could actually cash that $59billion in?

That's $59b on paper. Liquid assets, maybe $10b - max. Possibly a lot less.

Stocks are great if you're a grunt. If you're seen as the head of a company, YOU CANNOT SELL THEM. Not in large quantities -- it sinks the stock value, and sinks the company. Hey presto, what was once $59b suddenly becomes worth $1M.

Simon

MySQL vs PostgreSQL

[leandrod]

> MySQL (commercial license) will be shipped as standard with NetWare according to this announcement. I consider it a follow-up to the Slashdot story about the PostgreSQL port for NetWare.

Let's see if I got it right. MySQL gets money to deliver something far inferior on features, programming integrity and scalability to PostgreSQL which was free.

Incidentally, that shows one of the copyleft virtues: using dual licensing with GNU GPL, MySQL gets more resources even being far inferior to its non-copyleft counterpart.

Re:Gates Foundation?

[User 956]

Are you telling me you're so naive as to believe that he could actually cash that $59billion in? That's $59b on paper. Liquid assets, maybe $10b - max. Possibly a lot less.

In theory, he could cash at least $40 billion of it, if he wanted. Don't believe me? Believe this.

Would you care to prove your ignorance further, or are we done for the evening?

Re:Gates Foundation?

[rodgerd]

Microsoft != Bill Gates.

And the proper response to generosity isn't to whine about wanting more, dickwad. A million bucks to one project (Gates donates to any number of health initiatives) means a hell of a lot to the people on the recieving end.

I repeat: Yay Bill!

Re:European-style representation

[UncleFluffy]

The Isle of Man is not a sovereign nation. Never has been.

It certainly has been in the past. As for now, although it recognises The Queen as head of state (as many sovereign nations do) and is strictly speaking a crown dependency, it sets its own taxes, passes its own laws and elects its own President.

So the Tynwald doesn't count as a national government.

Did anyone say anything about "a national government" ?

RE: -1: egocentric troll

[gaj]

My mother should have taught me better than to feed the trolls, but what the hell ...

So then, you have no idea at all what the NRA is really about, do you? They do more than any other group to educate children about gun saftey with their "Eddie Eagle" program. They work hard to make sure that the laws of our country are actually applied, as opposed to simply used as PR for political campaigns. They help to organize and promote a wide array of shooting sports. And, of course, they work their asses off to ensure that we don't lose our right to bear arms.

I think the poster you're replying to has a very interesting and sensable giving program. ACLU to protect most of our Constitutional rights (they read more into the 1st Amendment than I think is warranted and ignore the 2nd, but that's for another rant), NRA to cover the 2nd (in addition to all the other good they do), and the EFF because the "mainstream" groups don't really get how technology changes the challanges to our liberty. Very nice.

What you, dear troll, seem to be saying (in your delightfully ignorant way) is: "I don't like the NRA, so they shouldn't get any special status." Very enlightened of you. Guess what? Millions of people disagree with you. They are off all races and creeds, both men and women, young and old. They span the political spectrum from way off the Right edge to just shy of falling off the left edge. What they have in common is an abiding belief in our basic right to defend ourself and those we love against those who would rob us of our property, or liberty or our life.

Almost correct

[Arker]

BTW, there were no democracies (at least in their current incarnation) in Europe in the Middle Ages. The only thing that even comes close is the Roman Republic which collapsed several centuries before the time period known as "the Middle Ages." So your first statement makes absolutely no sense.

Actually the nordic lands were ruled by a somewhat democratic system into the early part of the middle ages IIRC. The Kings were elected. They didn't become hereditary in this part of the world until relatively late.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

A better term is up

[Arker]

but that one tends to get avoided because people take it as a slam on everyone else.

But Libertarianism is 'middle' in relation to right and left, it's just off a bit on a different axis as well. Take the quiz and look at the Nolan chart and you'll see what I mean.

I don't think Americans are anti-European

[maddogsparky]

You know, everyone is always accusing Europeans of anti-Americanism. I think that Americans are at least as anti-European.

Americans don't think of Europe as a threat and Europe hasn't really tried to prevent the US from doing what it wants. So what do Americans think about Europe? Most of the ones I have met don't talk about Europe much, unless it is in the context of a business trip or vacation or speaking about their family history (try asking a third-or more generation caucasian American what nationality their family is; you'll likely get a list of European countries). I'd hardly call that anti-European.

From the things I've heard Europeans say, a significant number (not necesarily a majority) seem to be anti-American. It usually depends on where they are from, their economic status or what their personal experience with Americans. But then again, many Americans are anti-government (or at least, not supportive of the current government, depending on who is currently in power) or anti-big-business. So who/what are they (and we) really for/against?

Our old pal Rep. Adam Smith

[jdfox]

Here's a small Wisdom McNugget from my congressman, Rep. Adam Smith. Yes, it's Redmond's good old "Burger and Fries Metaphor(tm) again.
Some time back, Slashdot noted that MS had a congressional spam-o-matic page about the DoJ lawsuit, placed in a section where they knew only MS religionists would be bothering to read. Slashdot responded by posting up an article saying "Use this MS page to write your Congressman. Give our side of the story, politely." So I did, politely.
By way of reply, Rep. Smith placed me on his spam list, with monthly doses of more or less the same marketing horseshit as in the above McNugget, with no means of removal. Emails to the congressional sysadmin went unanswered, naturally, so I had to phone up Smith's office, and explain to some hapless young secretary at length how to remove my name from the mailing list.

It's worth noting that Rep. Smith and Agent Smith have never been seen together in the same photo. They are almost certainly the same person.

Re: -1: egocentric troll

[Derwen]

They do more than any other group to educate children about gun saftey with their "Eddie Eagle" program.

So how exactly does Eddie the Eagle help with gun safety, then? ;-P

Bill Gates vs. Adolph Hitler

[BigBlockMopar]

Gates himself is quite a philanthropist, and deserves brownie points for spending some of his enourmous fortune on helping people out.

The problems with Microsoft don't stem from Bill Gates being evil. I've met the man (albeit briefly), and I don't believe that he's evil. I don't even believe that it's the money.

I believe that Bill Gates is utterly convinced that the Microsoft way is the right way. Mercilessly killing the competition saves the world from the threats of what he perceives as unreliable and overcomplicated software produced by everyone else.

His vision is powerful, and he's (through luck and ruthlessness) achieved a position where he's capable of realizing it. Of course, he's blind to its inherent flaws. His competitive streak is so fierce that *everything* gets turned into a game, including (and I'm not kidding), "Let's see if I can run this lavalier microphone through my shirt faster than you can put a battery into the transmitter."

Similarly, I don't doubt for a second that Adolph Hitler was convinced that everything he did was for the good of the German people. Of course, the recants of history tend to be less forgiving than the heat of the moment. Something about hindsight being 20/20, and the discovery that Auschwitz wasn't really a sausage factory.

Bill Gates would never have ended up as an ordinary average Joe. He's too intelligent, too competitive by nature and too committed to his dream. I have a lot of admiration for the man, as flawed as his vision and his horrible software may be.

Having said that, there are a few reasons why Linux isn't yet ready for mass adoption on the desktop.

Re:Gates Foundation?

[Dalcius]

"Sure, it's just a miniscule ammount of the welth that he does have, but I bet that he gives away a larger portion of his wealth than do most people living above the poverty line - period."

Sorry if this is redundant, but it doesn't seem that you understand. Gates can give away 75% of what he has right now and 100% of everything he makes and still live comfortably off of what he has left and the interest it makes.

I'm above the poverty line, but by no means wealthy. However, I can't do that.

Percentages mean nothing if you don't take into account the constant of cost of living.

Past that, I will agree, Gates is doing a LOT more than he could if he wanted to. He seems like just a nerd who likes designing software. I blame Ballmer and other management mostly for Microsoft's failures, but that's another thread.

I still don't like Gates, but I like others much less.

Re:European-style representation

[aminorex]

Now that strikes me as a truly bizarre statement.
Chretien is as corrupt as a month-old haggis.
The best PM they've had in 50 years was Trudeau
and he was responsible for the insipid spineless
"multiculturalism" that has turned Canada into
a toy of political correctness. Canada is one
messed up place, with loons at the helm. About
the only good thing you can say about the government
of Canada is that they don't kill very many people
in other countries, compared to the U.S. or U.K.

So many comments, so few moderation points...

[budalite]

Geez, I don't know whether to moderate or go comment. OK, I'll comment. I am SO confused about this election stuff. When I was growing up in back in the ought-50's, the party lines were clear. Well, sorta. There were military sorts who wanted "1984" for everyone not of the ruling class, worldwide. They were called Republicans. They acted like the British Tories. Old Money. There were the "Save the Poor (but ignore the minorities)" Democrats. Then the Southern Democrats got blind-sided by Johnson who managed to make it uneconomical to practice racial descrimination. Used to be all social outcasts were downtrodden Democrats. Now all them folks in the hills have become Republicans, wailing that the Democrats are coming to try to take their guns. Then, while the totalitarian Tory/Nixonites were snoozing, the anti-gun-control, anti-big-government, anti-federalized-medicine, and anti-Census Reagonites took over the Republican party. (The Repubicans were Tories, but now they are Labour?) Democrats were labeled "tax and spend" but they are only party that make Fed. Surpluses happen. (every time so far. really. Unfortunately, they do not seem to know how they do it.) The Republicans re-labeled themselves as anti-big-government, but they always enter office with a huge surplus and always leave with a huge deficit and much more government. Heck, even Bikers are now chic and becoming Conservatives (Tories?).

I cannot figure out if I am a compassionate Republican or a pragmatic Democrat. The British have the "Liberal Democrats" but over here that's considered redundant. When I was a kid (in my 20s), I was a flaming liberal. As near as I can tell, my political views have not changed an iota since 1972, with the exception of certain hawkish tendencies toward anything terroristic. I am also now considered a Conservative. (Ok, barely.) Over the years, my waist size passed my inseam and my radical viewpoints became mainstream. I am beginning to think that is no need to worry about the world not changing for the better. I do think we might need to get the damn thing slowed down a little bit. Whew! I am SO Confused.

Re:European-style representation

[Tetsujin28]

Oh no, not ciliize us? Whatever shall we do!

What the matter, you don't like cilia?

Re:Gates Foundation?

[User 956]

Speaking of proving ignorance, congradulations for a job well done.

I agree. You certainly deserve congratulations.

Bill Gates IS NOT MICROSOFT. Bill Gates is a shareholder of Microsoft. In fact, he holds close to 12.5% of the stock source [quuxuum.org] so, if he was able to dip into the cash of the company, he would be entitled to 12.5% of that $40 Billion - $5 billion, not the whole thing.

Yes, I believe I've mentioned his 12.5% stock holdings in my previous postings on this subject. Your redundancy is greatly appreciated, just in case my last few posts disappear into thin air.

And as I was saying, those cash reserves are just that, cash reserves, that can be used, by the company, to buy back stock. And they've done so. Last year, they bought back 89 million shares. So, if Gates wanted to sell, Microsoft certainly has the money to buy. Obviously, he hasn't, because a) he doesn't need the money, and b) there's no point in paying taxes on stock sales for money you don't need.

But you'd know that, if you knew how to read, because I've said it a few times now.

Re:Gates Foundation?

[User 956]

Enough said.

As I was saying, those cash reserves are just that, cash reserves, that can be used, by the company, to buy back stock. And they've done so. Last year, they bought back 89 million shares. So, if Gates wanted to sell, Microsoft certainly has the money to buy. Obviously, he hasn't, because a) he doesn't need the money, and b) there's no point in paying taxes on stock sales for money you don't need.

He may not have sold $59 billion, but he did sell $2 billion worth of shares in 2001, going back to what I was saying about donating 1/2000th of your yearly income being insignificant. For you or I, it would be the equivalent of giving $30 to a homeless person.

Re:Gates Foundation?

[User 956]

Ohh, and btw, on a $60k salary $145 isnt a lot to give. Try for 10%, its a good number.

What are you, a fucking mormon?

Are you going to admit wearing the magic underpants, or are you afraid that will damage your credibility?

Re:European-style representation

[Malcontent]

"Not nearly representative enough?" What does that mean, exactly? "

It means exactly what it says.

"Your suggestion that we "get rid of winner take all" is confusing to me, because it seems to contradict the idea that the government represents the majority."

No it does not. It's actually a very myopic way of trying to build a representitive govt especially when combines with the absurd electoral collage. In the past 200 years there have been so many mathematical advances in game theory that to rely on a simple majority winner take all system is just silly. Let me see if I can explain a bit.

In the last election there were four people running for the president. Al Gore, George Bush, Ralph Nader, and Pat Buchanan. If instead of picking just one candidates the people were allowed to rank them in preference the outcome of the election would have been different. Not only that but people would not be discouraged from voting for third party candidates for fear of "throwing their vote away". For example If I really liked Pat Buchanan I would rank him the highest candidate and them bush would be my second choice and then I would choose gore and nader in that order. These votes would all be given numbers and in the end the highest rank candidate woudl win. This way I would not have to worry about Al Gore winning the election just because I voted for Pat.

I urge you to read this this book if you think that winner take all is some kind of an ideal form of representing the wishes of the majority. We can do much much better as a nation and we should.