You know $5 is outright insulting. I don't know about you, but the idea of paying me for lost data at such a low price is horriable. The 140 page paper, that I spent 90 hours a week for five weeks writing -- yeah, $5 isn't going to cover that. Especially when the crash killed 20 hour of continuous work. I mean, come-on. This is just assinine. $5 may cover the incidental, 1 page document that is lost once in a while. But $5 isn't going to do it for me when it comes to lost emails, important documents. I backup, and store things on another computer, but still.
well, think about if you were using open office and it crashed. How much money would you get in damages?
My personal hero in the Open Source community is Bill Gates. He has done so much to spur to growth of good software and open source its hard not to pay some tribute to this man.
after all, if microsft was gone, who would be there for the open source community to emulate?
No, but why would I? If GNU releases a program today I would say that GNU is behind it. If someone then adds this program, and some more GNU programs, and some external program together and distributes it as a whole... Then I would say it is not unreasonable that GNU asks for some credit for its work, for example in the form of a mention on the box or something.
And I, in turn, don't mind doing so. I credit the people whose software I include in my own, even when the license doesn't require me to do so. It is simple professional courtesy; I expect it from others and I give it to others.
I can understand Software that is forked from something stallman created (such as emacs or gcc).
But what about things like the linux kernel? It was created under the gnu license, but has almost no actual code created by stallman.
Last I looked, Windows IIS ran fewer than 1/3 as many sites as Apache, but had 3 times as many defacements. In perspective, you're 9 times as likely to be hacked if running Windows.
This also means that vulnerabilities are found a lot faster in windows based systems, because people are looking. (which allows microsoft to start working on a new patch)
Although open source has the possibility of more eyes peering at the code, if noone is looking for them, they won't be found.
As to RMS, a lifetime of effort, bearing fruit such as the GPL and Linux, to mention just the obvious ones. More importantly, he "donated" to humanity an entire movement which seeks to protect us from... people like Bill who will not rest until they somehow enslaved us all.
you sound like a fucking nut.
enslave us all? then who would buy products from microsoft?
RMS doesn't deserve any credit for linux. IT would be like crediting original creator of the radio for every sound heard from the speakers.
How does his license offer any protection? I could easily release software under the public domain license.
Bill "donates" a negligeable fraction of his ill-gotten fortune to "charitable" causes which somehow inevietably result in government procurment deals for his products and tax breaks. Bill's charity is the Dickensonian kind, of a fat pig in a luxury carriage tossing a few silver coins to wretched poor in rags on the street on Christmas. "Self-serving" is a term we use for that.
self-serving? I hardly call opening up a foundation for fighting cancer self-serving.
Jealous is the word we use for people like you.
You would have lost your money, but that is beside the point.
really? so there is no store you have gone to today that uses windows as its POS? you must not get out very much.
I see. So the measure of intelligence is an ability to foist one's "product" on the unsuspecting public. By that measure, the inventor of "pet rock" was a true genius, far above Bill. And I am getting an ominous feeling that I am feeding a garbage-covered troll.
the inventor of the pet rock didn't change the way we use computers. Bill Gates did. He brought desktop computers to the masses (mainly because of its ease of use).
Having moral clarity is not the same as being a pushover pacifist. Indeed, it means standing up to those who would do wrong. RMS is doing that.
violating the GPL is not wrong. When source code is released publicly, it cannot be un-released. Everyone still can get to that original source. if RMS was really spreading freedom, he wouldn't require (IE force) people using the source to also release their changes.
A linux _distribution_ is (or was, at some point) 95% GNU software and 5% kernel. If you were the man behind that 95%, wouldn't you want to be credited for the part you did? RMS never wanted to rename the kernel, he wanted to rename distributions. And you know what, he has a pretty damn good point there.
you are very naive to think that RMS actually wrote 95% of that software. 95% may have been released under his license..but lets give credit where credit is due. If I release a program under the GPL today..would you say that RMS is behind it?
Integrity, self-respect, moral clarity, admiration of peers... I'd say RMS is infinitely wealthier then Bill will ever dream of being. It all depends what your "currency" is..
really? Bill Gates donates billions of dollars a year to many charatable causes. What does RMS donate?
if RMS really had moral clarity, he (and the FSF foundation) wouldn't go after people for violating the GPL.
if RMS had integrity and self-respect, he wouldn't have tried to change linux to GNU/linux.
free software is fine, but the majority of people in this world don't enjoy getting rehetoric forced down their throats.
not that he would comprehend anything, ever. I sense you are belonging to the same school of thought Bill does: The Society of Insanely Greedy Psychopaths.
I can bet you have used at least one computer today that has a Microsoft operating system installed. I would say that Bill Gates is clearly more intelligent than RMS. Otherwise, we would all be using GNU software.
I will always be paid to write software to fill someone's needs. And paid pretty damned well, I might add.
If you think my job will ever go away from "free software", you're obviously not a programmer.
I think jobs will only go away if proprietary software is outlawed..which will most likely not happen in the next 50 years.
besides, free software can help proprietary software developers. Many times, code can be reused and implemented in a proprietary model, saving lots of development and debugging time.
Actually, you're still the idiot...yes..99% of companies do want to make a profit but there are SOME that make enough to survive and provide FREE medical treatment etc...they even made a movie about one of these places...go educucate yourself a bit more before makeing assinine statements that are over generalized.
I think you need to learn the difference between company and non-profit organization. Look it up.
Are you copying the video card? Or taking it? You're taking it, hence *stealing* from the store. That actually works doubly. You've stolen their stock, *and* perhaps depriving them of a sale.
what about when money is taken electronically from a bank account, without consent of the actual owner? Nothing has been taken physically, but it's still considered a form of theft.
Did you even read over this sentence before you posted it? I think you answered your own question, although it should have been painfully obvious in the first place
obvious.....really? What's obvious to me is that you didn't understand what I was talking about.
I don't think a new ATI video card is worth paying for, but I don't go into a store and take it (IE get it for free).
When you take something from someone else, and they no longer have it, that's stealing.
When you go over to someones house (after they invite you in, of course) examine an object of theirs, and go home and make your own... That's copyright infringement. Assuming, of course, that object was in fact under copyright and not public domain or anything.
Quit buying into their shit.
right, and what about when you copy their bank account number or Credit Card? what about identity theft? It's still called theft even though nothing has been physically taken.
If you don't think something is worth paying for, why do you have to download it for free?
Don't be so disingenious. Clinton was too busy "not having sexual relations" because a bunch of dickheads (mostly GOP) were hellbent on trying to make an issue out of nothing and bring the presidency down. Clinton was just defending himself
you mean disingenuous?
Im only being as disingenuous as:
1) focusing on the exact time that Bush waited in an elementary school when he received the news that the the U.S had been attacked. 2) "blood for oil" 3) comparing Bush to Hitler
Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and every other dictatorship suffer from the same malady, what the Japanese called Victory Disease. A successful madman, like Hitler, overwhelms anyone who disagrees, whether explicitly by murder or implicitly by the shadow of his popularity. You can see the same thing happening in the Bush administration. The leader has a closed mind by definition of being a genius madman, the followers have closed minds by virtue of being followers, and those who do not follow are sidelined.
Comparing the bush administration to hitler is a joke. Saddam Huessein was a murderous dictator who killed thousands of innocent people. The only people that believe he should have stayed in power are as crazy as he is.
After all, 9/11 is Clinton's fault. He had a chance to take out osama bin-laden..but he was too busy "not having sexual relations" in the whitehouse.
Going broke over just text messaging reeks of extortion
You could say that about anything. You know going into it that you have to pay for messaging. All the cellphone companies I have used (cingular,at&t wireless(before thay were bought by cingular, and now nextel) have made it blatently obvious that there is a charge per message (usually around.10).
I send around 500 messages a month and I didn't want a $50 phone bill so I switched to a messaging plan (Unlimited text messaging for $7.95 a month). I know almost all companies have similar plans.
We wondered about things like cookbooks and reference titles - would people just take the snippet they need and not buy the book? In fact, by letting people search inside, sales of these types of books have gone up more than average
you can't read the entire book. Only a few pages from it. The only way this would be like the music situation on the internet, would be if every book had a free e-book equivalent, allowing anyone to test the book out before purchasing.
Perhaps it's you who have the narrow view of the world. I'm not the one who wants to control what other people can see, say, or do. If I don't want to hear or see something, I turn it off, leave the room, or ignore it.
your original post was this:
"How can we tell them not to censor the web when we censor just about everything here at home. I mean, yes, the web is pretty well uncensored in the US, but TV isn't, and neither is radio. In fact, there's no free non-censored medium in America. You have to pay for Internet, Cable, Satellite TV, or Satellite Radio in order to have the right to free speech in a country who's first amendment to the constitution guarantees that right. How can we expect Iran to have free speech/expression if we don't really even support it?"
right. So hearing "fudge" instead of "fuck" is really agaist freedom of speech? I think a small amount of control over the media is a good thing. I would be more concerned with a television show against the president being censored.
Does God kill a kitten every time someone bares a breast?
no, only when someone masturbates.
Why can't we lapse drug laws? or prostitution laws?
Anyone who believes that they live in a completely free society is an idiot. Regardless of which country we live in, we all give up certain freedoms for the good of our society. This is a necessity. The fact that I have an issue with one particular thing in America does not mean that I am any less patriotic, nor that I love America any less than you. Many of our greatest patriots have been people who have voiced beliefs which were different from the mainstream. If everyone blindly followed what there government told them was right, we'd still have slavery, and only white men who own land would be able to vote.
I believe murder should be legalized. My ideals are different than the mainstream. Does this make me a great patriot?
If I'm the moron, then how come I'm the one who's managed to express himself without resorting to personal insults? And how am I a hypocrite? Just because I question some of the actions of our government? Was Henry David Thoreau also a hypocrite
I hardly consider the same point over and over expressing yourself. I also do not consider you a Henry David Thoreau. Why is the U.S. such a terrible place again? (and if so, why do you live here again if you think it's so terrible?). I question the actions of our government as well, because I have the freedom to do so (do you see a pattern yet?)
not that it's any of your business, but I do not live in my mom's basement. I'm married, gainfully employed, and a home-owner. It is possible to dissagree with you without living in one's mom's basement
Then you need more life experience. I only assumed so because you have such a narrow view of the world.
Actually, I think I'll stay here and have my beliefs, thank you very much. Just because I don't believe the same things as you doesn't make me any less American
I never said it did. You can say the U.S. is a non-free country all you want, but the fact that you are living here enjoying all the freedoms of being an american tells me something. You are a hypocrite and a complete moron, who probably hasn't ventured too far past your mom's basement.
Well, the national outcry over a blurry nipple is one that I can think of. And the subsequent fines. As I believe Kim Campbell said, any society where you can't look around and find something offensive to someone is not a free society.
you obviously aren't looking hard enough. Here are some things that could be classified as "offensive":
1) President Bush bashing (which happens on a daily basis..would a non-free society allow this? 2) howard stern 3) michael moore
If you don't think the U.S is a free country, go somewhere else (surprise surprise..you have the freedom to do this if you live in the U.S).
Unless you're American and there's oil there, of course, which makes the whole matter completely different
You think this is an american problem? what about France, one of the many countries against the war on Iraq who were also scamming the food-for-oil programs.
I think a country needs to "liberate" itself. The US had numerous bloody wars to get to the point to where its at. If enough people are against a topic in a country, they need to overthrow the powers that be themselves, that's all there is to it. Same thing goes to the whole "woman being battered" in a few of the middle eastern countries. Sure, I think its wrong, like anyone. But that's *my* belief, not necessarily theirs. These people have a whole set of beliefs that they have, too. They've been living with it for quite a long time. If a number of people wish to change things, they must do it *themselves*, not rely on the support of a country halfway around the globe that should be taking care of its own problems instead of spending billions overseas. If they do it right, they'll change things for the better and the beliefs just might stay around for awhile.
Imagine if the world had had your views during world war 2: "I think the torture and murdering of jews is wrong, but maybe the people in germany don't. We should just them sort out their own problems"
Ever see penguins grouping before going into the ocean? The ones closest to the water don't go in because they're afraid they'll get eaten by the seals. Therest are waiting for the crowd to move. Eventually theres so many penguins, the crowd accidently pushes one happless penguin into the water.
All the penguins shutup and stare at the volunteer. If he doesn't get eaten, all the penguins start diving into the water in a continuous flow.
We need countries like Venezuala to openly use FOSS so that other countries can gather courage and join them.
I just hope that this isn't another maneuver to get better pricing
to gather courage? I think if FOSS can really compete against proprietary software, it will. We don't need the government shoving it down our throats.
Slashdot Mirror
You know $5 is outright insulting. I don't know about you, but the idea of paying me for lost data at such a low price is horriable. The 140 page paper, that I spent 90 hours a week for five weeks writing -- yeah, $5 isn't going to cover that. Especially when the crash killed 20 hour of continuous work. I mean, come-on. This is just assinine. $5 may cover the incidental, 1 page document that is lost once in a while. But $5 isn't going to do it for me when it comes to lost emails, important documents. I backup, and store things on another computer, but still.
well, think about if you were using open office and it crashed. How much money would you get in damages?
0.
My personal hero in the Open Source community is Bill Gates. He has done so much to spur to growth of good software and open source its hard not to pay some tribute to this man.
after all, if microsft was gone, who would be there for the open source community to emulate?
No, but why would I? If GNU releases a program today I would say that GNU is behind it. If someone then adds this program, and some more GNU programs, and some external program together and distributes it as a whole... Then I would say it is not unreasonable that GNU asks for some credit for its work, for example in the form of a mention on the box or something.
And I, in turn, don't mind doing so. I credit the people whose software I include in my own, even when the license doesn't require me to do so. It is simple professional courtesy; I expect it from others and I give it to others.
I can understand Software that is forked from something stallman created (such as emacs or gcc).
But what about things like the linux kernel? It was created under the gnu license, but has almost no actual code created by stallman.
He nor the FSF deserve any credit what so ever.
Last I looked, Windows IIS ran fewer than 1/3 as many sites as Apache, but had 3 times as many defacements. In perspective, you're 9 times as likely to be hacked if running Windows.
This also means that vulnerabilities are found a lot faster in windows based systems, because people are looking. (which allows microsoft to start working on a new patch)
Although open source has the possibility of more eyes peering at the code, if noone is looking for them, they won't be found.
As to RMS, a lifetime of effort, bearing fruit such as the GPL and Linux, to mention just the obvious ones. More importantly, he "donated" to humanity an entire movement which seeks to protect us from ... people like Bill who will not rest until they somehow enslaved us all.
you sound like a fucking nut.
enslave us all? then who would buy products from microsoft?
RMS doesn't deserve any credit for linux. IT would be like crediting original creator of the radio for every sound heard from the speakers.
How does his license offer any protection? I could easily release software under the public domain license.
Bill "donates" a negligeable fraction of his ill-gotten fortune to "charitable" causes which somehow inevietably result in government procurment deals for his products and tax breaks. Bill's charity is the Dickensonian kind, of a fat pig in a luxury carriage tossing a few silver coins to wretched poor in rags on the street on Christmas. "Self-serving" is a term we use for that.
self-serving? I hardly call opening up a foundation for fighting cancer self-serving.
Jealous is the word we use for people like you.
You would have lost your money, but that is beside the point.
really? so there is no store you have gone to today that uses windows as its POS? you must not get out very much.
I see. So the measure of intelligence is an ability to foist one's "product" on the unsuspecting public. By that measure, the inventor of "pet rock" was a true genius, far above Bill. And I am getting an ominous feeling that I am feeding a garbage-covered troll.
the inventor of the pet rock didn't change the way we use computers. Bill Gates did. He brought desktop computers to the masses (mainly because of its ease of use).
Having moral clarity is not the same as being a pushover pacifist. Indeed, it means standing up to those who would do wrong. RMS is doing that.
violating the GPL is not wrong. When source code is released publicly, it cannot be un-released. Everyone still can get to that original source. if RMS was really spreading freedom, he wouldn't require (IE force) people using the source to also release their changes.
A linux _distribution_ is (or was, at some point) 95% GNU software and 5% kernel. If you were the man behind that 95%, wouldn't you want to be credited for the part you did? RMS never wanted to rename the kernel, he wanted to rename distributions. And you know what, he has a pretty damn good point there.
you are very naive to think that RMS actually wrote 95% of that software. 95% may have been released under his license..but lets give credit where credit is due. If I release a program under the GPL today..would you say that RMS is behind it?
Integrity, self-respect, moral clarity, admiration of peers ... I'd say RMS is infinitely wealthier then Bill will ever dream of being. It all depends what your "currency" is..
really? Bill Gates donates billions of dollars a year to many charatable causes. What does RMS donate?
if RMS really had moral clarity, he (and the FSF foundation) wouldn't go after people for violating the GPL.
if RMS had integrity and self-respect, he wouldn't have tried to change linux to GNU/linux.
free software is fine, but the majority of people in this world don't enjoy getting rehetoric forced down their throats.
not that he would comprehend anything, ever. I sense you are belonging to the same school of thought Bill does: The Society of Insanely Greedy Psychopaths.
I can bet you have used at least one computer today that has a Microsoft operating system installed. I would say that Bill Gates is clearly more intelligent than RMS. Otherwise, we would all be using GNU software.
I will always be paid to write software to fill someone's needs. And paid pretty damned well, I might add.
If you think my job will ever go away from "free software", you're obviously not a programmer.
I think jobs will only go away if proprietary software is outlawed..which will most likely not happen in the next 50 years.
besides, free software can help proprietary software developers. Many times, code can be reused and implemented in a proprietary model, saving lots of development and debugging time.
Actually, you're still the idiot...yes..99% of companies do want to make a profit but there are SOME that make enough to survive and provide FREE medical treatment etc...they even made a movie about one of these places...go educucate yourself a bit more before makeing assinine statements that are over generalized.
I think you need to learn the difference between company and non-profit organization. Look it up.
Are you copying the video card? Or taking it? You're taking it, hence *stealing* from the store. That actually works doubly. You've stolen their stock, *and* perhaps depriving them of a sale.
what about when money is taken electronically from a bank account, without consent of the actual owner? Nothing has been taken physically, but it's still considered a form of theft.
Did you even read over this sentence before you posted it? I think you answered your own question, although it should have been painfully obvious in the first place
obvious.....really? What's obvious to me is that you didn't understand what I was talking about.
I don't think a new ATI video card is worth paying for, but I don't go into a store and take it (IE get it for free).
When you take something from someone else, and they no longer have it, that's stealing.
When you go over to someones house (after they invite you in, of course) examine an object of theirs, and go home and make your own... That's copyright infringement. Assuming, of course, that object was in fact under copyright and not public domain or anything.
Quit buying into their shit.
right, and what about when you copy their bank account number or Credit Card? what about identity theft? It's still called theft even though nothing has been physically taken.
If you don't think something is worth paying for, why do you have to download it for free?
Don't be so disingenious. Clinton was too busy "not having sexual relations" because a bunch of dickheads (mostly GOP) were hellbent on trying to make an issue out of nothing and bring the presidency down. Clinton was just defending himself
you mean disingenuous?
Im only being as disingenuous as:
1) focusing on the exact time that Bush waited in an elementary school when he received the news that the the U.S had been attacked.
2) "blood for oil"
3) comparing Bush to Hitler
Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and every other dictatorship suffer from the same malady, what the Japanese called Victory Disease. A successful madman, like Hitler, overwhelms anyone who disagrees, whether explicitly by murder or implicitly by the shadow of his popularity. You can see the same thing happening in the Bush administration. The leader has a closed mind by definition of being a genius madman, the followers have closed minds by virtue of being followers, and those who do not follow are sidelined.
Comparing the bush administration to hitler is a joke. Saddam Huessein was a murderous dictator who killed thousands of innocent people. The only people that believe he should have stayed in power are as crazy as he is.
After all, 9/11 is Clinton's fault. He had a chance to take out osama bin-laden..but he was too busy "not having sexual relations" in the whitehouse.
I was relating it to P2P, not guns.Napster, kazaa, and warez p2p have all been advertised as a tool for sharing and finding music.
Then the lead-pipe-company should be held responsible for not taking reasonable care that their lead pipe wouldn't be used to harm somebody...
that would only be relevant if the lead pipe was advertised as a tool for harming people by the company that created it.
Going broke over just text messaging reeks of extortion
.10).
You could say that about anything. You know going into it that you have to pay for messaging. All the cellphone companies I have used (cingular,at&t wireless(before thay were bought by cingular, and now nextel) have made it blatently obvious that there is a charge per message (usually around
I send around 500 messages a month and I didn't want a $50 phone bill so I switched to a messaging plan (Unlimited text messaging for $7.95 a month). I know almost all companies have similar plans.
We wondered about things like cookbooks and reference titles - would people just take the snippet they need and not buy the book? In fact, by letting people search inside, sales of these types of books have gone up more than average
you can't read the entire book. Only a few pages from it. The only way this would be like the music situation on the internet, would be if every book had a free e-book equivalent, allowing anyone to test the book out before purchasing.
Perhaps it's you who have the narrow view of the world. I'm not the one who wants to control what other people can see, say, or do. If I don't want to hear or see something, I turn it off, leave the room, or ignore it.
your original post was this:
"How can we tell them not to censor the web when we censor just about everything here at home. I mean, yes, the web is pretty well uncensored in the US, but TV isn't, and neither is radio. In fact, there's no free non-censored medium in America. You have to pay for Internet, Cable, Satellite TV, or Satellite Radio in order to have the right to free speech in a country who's first amendment to the constitution guarantees that right. How can we expect Iran to have free speech/expression if we don't really even support it?"
right. So hearing "fudge" instead of "fuck" is really agaist freedom of speech? I think a small amount of control over the media is a good thing. I would be more concerned with a television show against the president being censored.
Does God kill a kitten every time someone bares a breast?
no, only when someone masturbates.
Why can't we lapse drug laws? or prostitution laws?
Anyone who believes that they live in a completely free society is an idiot. Regardless of which country we live in, we all give up certain freedoms for the good of our society. This is a necessity. The fact that I have an issue with one particular thing in America does not mean that I am any less patriotic, nor that I love America any less than you. Many of our greatest patriots have been people who have voiced beliefs which were different from the mainstream. If everyone blindly followed what there government told them was right, we'd still have slavery, and only white men who own land would be able to vote.
I believe murder should be legalized. My ideals are different than the mainstream. Does this make me a great patriot?
If I'm the moron, then how come I'm the one who's managed to express himself without resorting to personal insults? And how am I a hypocrite? Just because I question some of the actions of our government? Was Henry David Thoreau also a hypocrite
I hardly consider the same point over and over expressing yourself. I also do not consider you a Henry David Thoreau. Why is the U.S. such a terrible place again? (and if so, why do you live here again if you think it's so terrible?). I question the actions of our government as well, because I have the freedom to do so (do you see a pattern yet?)
not that it's any of your business, but I do not live in my mom's basement. I'm married, gainfully employed, and a home-owner. It is possible to dissagree with you without living in one's mom's basement
Then you need more life experience. I only assumed so because you have such a narrow view of the world.
Actually, I think I'll stay here and have my beliefs, thank you very much. Just because I don't believe the same things as you doesn't make me any less American
I never said it did. You can say the U.S. is a non-free country all you want, but the fact that you are living here enjoying all the freedoms of being an american tells me something. You are a hypocrite and a complete moron, who probably hasn't ventured too far past your mom's basement.
Well, the national outcry over a blurry nipple is one that I can think of. And the subsequent fines. As I believe Kim Campbell said, any society where you can't look around and find something offensive to someone is not a free society.
you obviously aren't looking hard enough. Here are some things that could be classified as "offensive":
1) President Bush bashing (which happens on a daily basis..would a non-free society allow this?
2) howard stern
3) michael moore
If you don't think the U.S is a free country, go somewhere else (surprise surprise..you have the freedom to do this if you live in the U.S).
Unless you're American and there's oil there, of course, which makes the whole matter completely different
You think this is an american problem? what about France, one of the many countries against the war on Iraq who were also scamming the food-for-oil programs.
I think a country needs to "liberate" itself. The US had numerous bloody wars to get to the point to where its at. If enough people are against a topic in a country, they need to overthrow the powers that be themselves, that's all there is to it. Same thing goes to the whole "woman being battered" in a few of the middle eastern countries. Sure, I think its wrong, like anyone. But that's *my* belief, not necessarily theirs. These people have a whole set of beliefs that they have, too. They've been living with it for quite a long time. If a number of people wish to change things, they must do it *themselves*, not rely on the support of a country halfway around the globe that should be taking care of its own problems instead of spending billions overseas. If they do it right, they'll change things for the better and the beliefs just might stay around for awhile.
Imagine if the world had had your views during world war 2: "I think the torture and murdering of jews is wrong, but maybe the people in germany don't. We should just them sort out their own problems"
Ever see penguins grouping before going into the ocean? The ones closest to the water don't go in because they're afraid they'll get eaten by the seals. Therest are waiting for the crowd to move.
Eventually theres so many penguins, the crowd accidently pushes one happless penguin into the water.
All the penguins shutup and stare at the volunteer. If he doesn't get eaten, all the penguins start diving into the water in a continuous flow.
We need countries like Venezuala to openly use FOSS so that other countries can gather courage and join them.
I just hope that this isn't another maneuver to get better pricing
to gather courage? I think if FOSS can really compete against proprietary software, it will. We don't need the government shoving it down our throats.