Slashdot Mirror
Who Opposes Open Source Software In Government?
Skapare writes "Linux Journal is doing a story with a roundup of who the players are that are opposing open source in governments. The one I find interesting is the Gates connection to BSA. But I think we all need to become familiar with this round-up of special interest groups not operating in our interests (as taxpayers)."
First post thats who!
NOT ME!!!
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
oh is it asking who opposes the government using it?
in that case, i do. it's a security risk beyond measure if people could see the source of the computers the government is using.
His son said "Daddy what are all those X's for?"
As the light turned green he changed the subject fast,
Started talking about football as they drove right past...
What do you say?
Me
suddenly the leader of the goat people appeared and started shoving random things from tibet up his ass. he ate a block of man milk soap and then greased a goatish whore and slid her all the way in his penis hole. then chris pirillo appeared and slashed dots and screamed of death by adam sessler and the greatness of thumb drives in your ass. he lit black cats and shoved them up his ass, and the methane caused him to explode, right as the pain came, the goatman licked his anus and made it all better
the end
A super choice would be this!
~~~
It's not that most of them are corrupt, it's that most of them are too stupid to know better. Our politicians reflect the fact that the average person by sheer virtue of being a citizen is entitled to vote.
It's a stupid, illogical and immoral political goal to let every jackass and ditz vote. Democracy, not religion, in any form where the mob, not those who have served their country, gets to vote is the opiate of the masses. It lets John Q Citizen feel like he's in control. But he's not.
By empowering everyone to vote, you disempower the best and brightest to make positive political change. The best and brightest who have served are who should be voting, not your average dumb fuck who has never served his or her country in the military or (peace || ameri)corps.
If 75% of the public couldn't vote, we'd have the system we want. It'd be clean, effective, respectful of civil rights and technologically progressive. But no, you bumbling foolish defenders of the popular right to vote, you'll never have a good government while the frightened masses call the shots.
The PATRIOT Act wouldn't have passed if the soccer moms and country-club dads of America who put their selfish interests above national service early on were told, "hey we don't give a fuck what you think" by the government. Why? Because why would the politicians care what those who can't vote think. They'd be a lot more concerned because the people WHO DO CARE would be voting. You know those types, the ones who generally care about their country and don't vote Republicrat because that's what their family has always voted for or something similarly stupid.
You don't need to vote if the government runs well and respects your rights. I'd rather live under a dictator who does both than a democratic system of government that considers my rights subject to the whims of the mob. Get the government out of our lives, disenfranchise everyone who isn't a veteran of the military, peacecorps or americorps and let those who do care fix the mistakes.
I learned to hate the idea of submitting myself to the mob in our education system. I got a taste of what the Columbine killers went through, just a taste mind you. It was there that I learned why dictators consider mass participation the easiest way to power: the masses don't think, only a minority do and when properly manipulated the masses will crush those who do think.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Take a look at the FSF website for more information regarding the benefits of Free Software.
Fancy that: To understand the "benefits" of Free Software, read the propaganda from the organization that has failed to produce its own kernel and has never produced its own "distribution" of its own OS ala "Red Hat". (I'll start calling it GNU/Linux when there's a GNU distribution and GNU support.)
There are many disbenefits to Free Software, especially from the DEVELOPER's standpoint. But of course, YOU never pay for software and YOU never pay for the SUPPORT. In the end, I can only draw the conclusion that many Free Software advocates are really just Free Loading users who hide under the banner of the Free Software movement. They parrot the ideals just because it sounds good, and they hurl invectives at anybody who opposes them, because in the long run, they always want "free as in beer".
Who among the beer companies actually gives away their beer, or the recipes for their beer? See what I mean?