But there's strong evidence to suggest that the picture were absolutely fake. It's not inconceivable that NASA realized that without pictures, many people wouldn't believe the landing took place, so they faked them.
As you can see from the other replies, the arguments you are making have been effectively countered already.
Even ignoring that, you are engaging in a logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad ignorantiam or an "Appeal to Ignorance". An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it.
In this case, you are claiming that the inability to explain anomalies on the photos must be taken as proof that they are fake. It's like saying "we don't know how the universe was formed, so it must have been formed by God."
They present these claims as factual, so they should be sued for defamation and slander by every scientist and astronaut that worked on the Apollo program. They should be left penniless, destitute, with judgements against them that they can never hope to pay off. Let them see how much of an audience they get when they are living in refrigerator boxes under bridges.
Try reading the article next time.
on
ISP Chief on Spam
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The ISP is being inundated by spam sent through outside networks to them, not by their users spamming.
That's the most common problem. I run my own domain and do battle with the spammers on a daily basis. I don't have trouble with spam going out of my network. I have problems with spammers trying to send it in. I am blasted by spammers typically operating out of Brazil, China, Korea, and Russia. Complaints to the ISPs seldom even result in even an autoresponse -- much less any action.
Mandrake is trying to make profit from offering services to the community and through added value in boxed sets (e.g. StarOffice). {list of services deleted}
Most people realize that OpenOffice.org will do everything that they need, so why pay $70 for the boxed version of Mandrake that includes StarOffice?
If I'm not mistaken, they ask to buy shares or buy services: what's wrong with that?
Short answer: It is not working.
Longer answer: Most people don't buy services unless they need them. For example, because I can change my own oil, I don't pay someone else to do it. If Mandrake does their job really well, few people will need support services. If a lot of people do need support, then there is a problem with the product and sales will drop relative to more trouble-free distributions.
As to selling stock, it's not a long-term business model (as many former dot-com CEOs can now attest). One share represents X% ownership of a company and you cannot sell more than 100% ownership in your company. Stock price is based on the value and financial health of the company. A company that's begging for money and hinting that they are at the brink of financial collapse won't be able to issue stock at a high price.
BTW: following your reasoning: their would almost nobody that buys any commercial software targeted at broad audiences. Most of their friends have it for free, so why pay for it?
Obviously, you did not follow my reasoning. Traditional commercial software is sold with a license that prohibits such transfers. It is not available for download to anyone who has broadband. Open source software is just the opposite: it is available for download and the license specifically permits you to transfer the software. So I can legally download Mandrake Linux and burn a set of CDs for each of my friends.
I do not know what kind of friends you have, but my friends pay for their commercial software. They do not get it for free.
Mandrake gives away their primary product to anyone who has a fast enough connection to download it.
Every year, more and more people get a fast enough connection to download it.
The number of copies that they sell in retail packages is already too low to cover their expenses.
Yeah. Sounds like a real solid business model. Reality:
Most people will find a way to rationalize why they should keep their money whenever possible. (Just look at all of the people that think it's okay to cheat on their taxes.)
People like to get bargains. Very few people would want to pay money for an OS when their friends downloaded it for free.
The majority of people who claim to be part of the "open source community" are just leeches who want free software. They don't contribute code, money, testing, documentation, or anything else.
Mandrade could make money selling distros by following the OpenBSD model, copyrighting the ISO images and not making them available for download. Alternatively, they could write proprietary installers and configuration tools that are not open source, witholding those from people that download the OS components. What they have now is a losing business model that will only get worse as more and more people have access to broadband.
I think this is up to people to choose. They choose who deserve their money.
And I'm all in favor of that. I fully support your right to give your money to any organization that you want. If you want to donate to Gnome, go for it. If you would prefer to donate to The Salvation Army, that's fine too. You can even donate to the American Nazi Party.
What I object to is the government subsidizing of the donation to Gnome with a tax deduction. While I think that it is wonderful when a charity that directly helps the needy gets that status, I do not feel that Gnome's work rises to that level.
BTW most people don't know what gnome is and a few donations by linux geeks won't change the amount that goes to real charity.
You are probably right.
P.S. I am sorry that you felt the need to mark me as a Slashdot foe because of our difference of opinions. Hopefully, rational discussion of our disagreement will change your mind.
Did you read what you posted? The key relevant items expressly listed as qualifying include:
* advancement of education or science
* lessening the burdens of government
I expected that reply, but I do not believe that further enhancements to Gnome significantly advance education, science, or lessens the burdens of government in any real way.
Since I've had some sleep and am feeling a bit more coherent, I ask that you please hear me out. Linux is available and viable as an OS already. There are articles on Slashdot every week proudly proclaiming that various governments and private corporations are switching to Linux. Were we talking about a situation where Linux was not a viable alternative for pricey commercial software, then I would feel differently about this. But right now, Gnome is simply one of many Linux add-ons and it already works very well. I can't see where enhancements to it will make much difference to those countries and individuals that have a real need for charitable contributions.
As I said in another posting, the money is so far removed from those needing the charity that I'm having trouble with it. We are talking about charitable donations to fund peripheral activities associated with volunteer development and enhancement of a Linux GUI that some third world country might choose to use. That just doesn't stack up next to paying for antibiotics to fight river blindness or the distribution of condoms in AIDS-ravaged countries.
I am Mexican. Mexico is a developing 3rd world country
I have visited Mexico on several occasions and while there are desparately poor regions, overall Mexico is probably better described as a 2nd world country.
Just what do you think we are? a bunch of freaking retards?
Not at all. Nor was I truly addressing the issues of developing countries with real economies. I was more thinking about true, destitute, no-food, no-potable-water, no-healthcare, millions-dying-of famine and disease, etc. third-world countries like Sudan.
Donations of computer hardware and software to projects like the one that you mentioned should be tax-deductible. I am completely in favor of that. But the Gnome foundation is simply too-far-removed from that scenario for me to be comfortable. Think about it: they want donations so that they can fund conferences and other peripheral activities associated with enhancing Gnome. What does that really translate to in aid to the less-fortunate and to developing countries? It's not like they are developing software to help farmers with crop rotation, or to provide medical information as an expert system in remote regions. It's a highly-polished GUI and I find it unlikely that further tax-subsidized tweaking will make a lot of difference to third-world countries. It is also a lot different that a project to teach computer skills and build an industry in a developing country.
I really don't think that, idealogically, we are that far apart.
*LOL* This discussion would have been ever so much more entertaining in person. You are tenacious, persistent, and firm in your beliefs. Fine fuel for a fun after-meal discussion group. (Surely you didn't think I had anything against you personally just because I disagree with your opinion on the current subject!)
My apologies for taking things too personally in the first place. I, too, think that many of the discussions on here would be a lot more civilized and fun in-person. I guess the anonymous cowards would just have to show up with bags over their heads.
Your whole 'taking money away from worthwhile charities' argument is total crap.
No, it is not. Many people earmark certain dollar figures and percentages for charity. I know some of those people personally. You and your wife don't do it that way? That's fine. But there are more people in the world than you and your wife.
And your statement that gnome and other OS projects shouldn't be charities may have some merit, because they aren't what one thinks of in terms of traditional charities,
Thanks for saying that.
but I and others think they are worthwhile and may some day help in a small way to make the world a better place.
My concern is that the "help" is too small to justify making Gnome a tax-deductible charity.
Get over yourself.
I have tried. Really I have. But I am so damned impressive, intelligent, and knowledgeable that I just can't.
Thank you for taking the time to post that. Given the attitude on here, you would think that Gnome is destined to cure cancer, wipe out AIDS, and end world hunger. It's just a graphical user interface to Linux.
They chose to go that way because it helps getting more people to donate. *Tax Deductable* can be a good incentive.
Yes, but it's an incentive that I feel should be reserved for humanitarian efforts and things that are simply more important than improvements to a GUI for Linux. I don't think that we should be elevating Gnome to the same stature as charities the feed the homeless and those that work to cure tropical diseases (for example).
Your various claims in this thread depend heavily on some supposed special insight into the minds of others
That's why I enjoy being insightful.
The universally negative responses you have elicited in this thread demonstrate that you have no such insight.
Now you are simply lying. There have been messages strongly in support of what I wrote. For example:
Damn straight.
Just wanted to say I agree with you wholeheartedly.
My posts have received both positive and negative moderation.
You also ignore the audience. If I got on an NRA-run web site and said that most Americans were in favor of some form of gun control, I would receive almost universally negative replies. But that would not mean that what I said was untrue.
Strawman. The actual claim I refuted was:
If you get a deduction, the rest of us have to make up for it.
which remains false.
The argument was not a strawman argument. Nor was my contention false. Who do you think pays for deductions? All taxpayers do. Just because it does not happen the same year that you take the deduction does not mean it doesn't happen. Do you think that you can take a $100 deduction and the Federal government just prints another $100 to make up for it? No. The $100 is made up by all of the other taxpayers.
Maybe it's the numbers being too big that is confusing you. Try this:
Island with three people.
Plane delivers goods once a month.
Pilot charges $300.
Government on island taxes everyone $100 each to pay for plane.
You take a deduction that knocks $50 off of your taxes.
Plane comes. Government has $250. Pilot wants $300.
Government borrows $50 from other island
Now government needs $50 + $10 interest($60)
Government raises everyone's taxes by $20 the next year to pay for your deduction.
But if you use Gnome application you could donate if you like it. Think of it like a compensation for you using something nice and showing them your appreciation.
I already do that for lots of software. What I object to is the tax-deductible nature of the donation to Gnome.
Bullshit. It was intended to support non-profit organizations, and it's doing that.
No, it's intended to support certain types of non-profit organizations. From the IRS web pages:
The exempt purposes set forth inIRC Section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and the prevention of cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erection or maintenance of public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening of neighborhood tensions; elimination of prejudice and discrimination; defense of human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.
I find it hard to see how the development of a snazzy computer interface falls into the intent of the law.
Let's take a look at your assertation that somehow what Gnome is doing by *shock* allowing it's product to be sold by SUn/Red Hat/etc is somehow wrong.
It's not wrong and I never said that it was. What I see as wrong is treating Gnome as some kind of charity when they primary beneficiaries of their work are major, for-profit corporations.
No. The charity work that they do still benefits the needy. Suppose FedEx sponsors Gnome. Both Win. Gnome gets much-needed money to further develop a needed free GUI and Fedex gets good press.
NO NO NO NO NO!!!!
Let's make it simple:
1. You decide to donate $200 to charity.
2. Because they are now tax-deductible, you donate $100 to Gnome and the other $100 to the charity that would have gotten the whole $200 had Gnome not been tax-deductible.
3. The Feds give you $30 off of your taxes for your donation to Gnome.
4. Gnome puts the $100 towards improving Gnome.
5. Sun, RedHat, and Mandrake sell the improved Gnome, making millions of dollars.
6. The improvements to Gnome do not, in any way, significantly affect whether it is appropriate for use by a third-world government.
7. Where it is adopted by third world governments, computer software makes up such a tiny percentage of their budget that the savings is insignificant and does nothing to improve the lives of the citizens.
I would like to see how you came up with this "fact".
I made it up. Actually, I considered what I have read about the government of Sudan and their finances and realized a couple of things:
1. Their government is very small relative to the number of people in the country. 2. Computers are rare even in their government offices.
If the Sudan government could put Linux on every one of its computers, that would save them about $200 per computer, depending on what MS OS they might use.
They can already. Mandrake, for instance, is ready to go. That is, providing they have the hardware to support it. Many of their computers are not nearly that modern, though.
That adds up just as quickly as small $20 donations from generous souls like yourself.
It doesn't really because most third-world countries have so few computers relative to the number of citizens.
Plus, what we are talking about here is improvements to an already polished GUI. How many changes are necessary before you believe that it is usable? I thought it was pretty darned good already. Not only that, how much will the donations stimulate the development?
I assume you visit many third world countries or you wouldn't be making this statement?
No, but I have helped someone who was trying to bring computers to third-world villages. It didn't happen because it was just not feasible.
Once third world countries have computers that can run it, I'll donate to Gnome.
I have a better idea: Donate to organizations fighting AIDS in Africa. Or send money to the Carter Center to help with their efforts to combat river blindness.
Don't get me wrong. I love computers. I have six of them in my office. But I don't think that they are going to solve the problems of the third world.
What would be the point of "developing" text-based software for 386-based PCs? The machines being donated by corps to the third world are typically Pentium or PII systems they'd been using until a year or two ago.
Because that is not what the majority of machines in the third world are.
Asking anyone in the third world to try to educate themselves using 386 based machines as you describe would be futile -- the skills required would be hopelessly outdated before they even turned the machine on.
PCs in third world countries are used to do work in government offices, not educate people in villages without electricity. 99.9% of people in third world countries have never even touched a computer and the vast majority of them will die without ever using one.
I just checked with a bunch of third world countries. It turns out that they would benefit more from food, medicine, and education than from a better version of Gnome.
Not very much. How much better off is society since Mozilla 1.2 came out than back when they ran Netscape 4.7? How much better off is society with Office XP than they were with Office 95? How much better off is society with the 2.4 Linux kernel than they were with the 2.0 Linux kernel? Please, quantify it.
Charity to poor trash is merely a waste of resources designed to make the giver feel good.
If you have money, then you are living proof that you can be "trash" without being poor.
Generally, the kind of people that spend money on drugs and prostitutes are not big donors to charity.
Do any evidence, other than your imagined special insight into the motives of others, to support your rather strong claim that giving to Gnome 'diverts money away from worthy charities'.
My insight is not imagined. I've worked with non-profits and know the psychology and practices of the donors.
Nonsense. I'm willing to bet that your tax bill is calculated on your own income, just like everyone elses.
So you believe that the tax rates are not, in any way, influenced by deductions? You think that every person in the U.S. could double their deductions and the tax rates would not go up? Economics wasn't very big in your school, was it?
You lack the understanding of what this particular charity does.
I fully understand what it does.
Gnome is an open source GUI for Linux
Is that what's on that Mandrake system over in the corner of my office? Don't talk down to me.
which helps to further the technology of humankind without secluding that technology from the masses.
Please! Now you are just getting grandiose. The primary beneficiaries of the Gnome foundation's work are companies that sell products that incorporate Gnome and rich kids who like to play with it. Most computers in third-world countries are hard-pressed to run Windows 3.1, much less a GUI like Gnome.
If you don't know what Open Source is, I suggest you read Eric Raymond's book [amazon.com] before you go denouncing Open Source organizations as charities.
I was releasing open source software in the early 1980s, so don't lecture me.
But don't call Gnome an undeserving charity just because it doesn't feed starving children in Africa.
Why? I judge how deserving a charity is by how much they improve the lives of those they purport to help and by how much those people needed help. Curing river blindness or fighting famine seems a lot more important than making Gnome into an even nicer GUI.
What do tax deductions to charitable organizations have to do with profitable corporations?
In this case, the tax-deductible contributions are funding the development of a product that is sold by Sun, RedHat, and others.
What corporations benefit from supporting a Gnome conference? Is Sun getting a free display at the conference? HP? IBM? Who?
Every corporation who sells Gnome as part of a package. Every corporation that uses Gnome benefits from the further development.
No one.
Wrong. See the above.
BTW, if you were offended by the "name calling", reread your own post -- I just parodied your own statement from the flip side.
I did reread my post (at your suggestion). What I found was "self-indulgent computer programmers." "Self-indulgent" is not a horrible insult. It simply means "indulging one's appetites, desires, etc., freely."
You, on the other hand, felt the need to refer to me as a "self-righteous liberal prig". There is no way that "self-righteous" or "prig" could be considered anything other than insulting and excessively so, at that. Liberal? Well, I'm happy with that, though I'm sure that you meant it in an insulting manner.
Slashdot Mirror
But there's strong evidence to suggest that the picture were absolutely fake. It's not inconceivable that NASA realized that without pictures, many people wouldn't believe the landing took place, so they faked them.
As you can see from the other replies, the arguments you are making have been effectively countered already.
Even ignoring that, you are engaging in a logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad ignorantiam or an "Appeal to Ignorance". An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it.
In this case, you are claiming that the inability to explain anomalies on the photos must be taken as proof that they are fake. It's like saying "we don't know how the universe was formed, so it must have been formed by God."
They present these claims as factual, so they should be sued for defamation and slander by every scientist and astronaut that worked on the Apollo program. They should be left penniless, destitute, with judgements against them that they can never hope to pay off. Let them see how much of an audience they get when they are living in refrigerator boxes under bridges.
The ISP is being inundated by spam sent through outside networks to them, not by their users spamming.
That's the most common problem. I run my own domain and do battle with the spammers on a daily basis. I don't have trouble with spam going out of my network. I have problems with spammers trying to send it in. I am blasted by spammers typically operating out of Brazil, China, Korea, and Russia. Complaints to the ISPs seldom even result in even an autoresponse -- much less any action.
Mandrake is trying to make profit from offering services to the community and through added value in boxed sets (e.g. StarOffice). {list of services deleted}
Most people realize that OpenOffice.org will do everything that they need, so why pay $70 for the boxed version of Mandrake that includes StarOffice?
If I'm not mistaken, they ask to buy shares or buy services: what's wrong with that?
Short answer: It is not working.
Longer answer: Most people don't buy services unless they need them. For example, because I can change my own oil, I don't pay someone else to do it. If Mandrake does their job really well, few people will need support services. If a lot of people do need support, then there is a problem with the product and sales will drop relative to more trouble-free distributions.
As to selling stock, it's not a long-term business model (as many former dot-com CEOs can now attest). One share represents X% ownership of a company and you cannot sell more than 100% ownership in your company. Stock price is based on the value and financial health of the company. A company that's begging for money and hinting that they are at the brink of financial collapse won't be able to issue stock at a high price.
BTW: following your reasoning: their would almost nobody that buys any commercial software targeted at broad audiences. Most of their friends have it for free, so why pay for it?
Obviously, you did not follow my reasoning. Traditional commercial software is sold with a license that prohibits such transfers. It is not available for download to anyone who has broadband. Open source software is just the opposite: it is available for download and the license specifically permits you to transfer the software. So I can legally download Mandrake Linux and burn a set of CDs for each of my friends.
I do not know what kind of friends you have, but my friends pay for their commercial software. They do not get it for free.
Yeah. Sounds like a real solid business model.
Reality:
Mandrade could make money selling distros by following the OpenBSD model, copyrighting the ISO images and not making them available for download. Alternatively, they could write proprietary installers and configuration tools that are not open source, witholding those from people that download the OS components. What they have now is a losing business model that will only get worse as more and more people have access to broadband.
It they are so appealing, why do they always have to beg for money?
I think this is up to people to choose. They choose who deserve their money.
And I'm all in favor of that. I fully support your right to give your money to any organization that you want. If you want to donate to Gnome, go for it. If you would prefer to donate to The Salvation Army, that's fine too. You can even donate to the American Nazi Party.
What I object to is the government subsidizing of the donation to Gnome with a tax deduction. While I think that it is wonderful when a charity that directly helps the needy gets that status, I do not feel that Gnome's work rises to that level.
BTW most people don't know what gnome is and a few donations by linux geeks won't change the amount that goes to real charity.
You are probably right.
P.S. I am sorry that you felt the need to mark me as a Slashdot foe because of our difference of opinions. Hopefully, rational discussion of our disagreement will change your mind.
Did you read what you posted? The key relevant items expressly listed as qualifying include:
* advancement of education or science
* lessening the burdens of government
I expected that reply, but I do not believe that further enhancements to Gnome significantly advance education, science, or lessens the burdens of government in any real way.
Since I've had some sleep and am feeling a bit more coherent, I ask that you please hear me out. Linux is available and viable as an OS already. There are articles on Slashdot every week proudly proclaiming that various governments and private corporations are switching to Linux. Were we talking about a situation where Linux was not a viable alternative for pricey commercial software, then I would feel differently about this. But right now, Gnome is simply one of many Linux add-ons and it already works very well. I can't see where enhancements to it will make much difference to those countries and individuals that have a real need for charitable contributions.
As I said in another posting, the money is so far removed from those needing the charity that I'm having trouble with it. We are talking about charitable donations to fund peripheral activities associated with volunteer development and enhancement of a Linux GUI that some third world country might choose to use. That just doesn't stack up next to paying for antibiotics to fight river blindness or the distribution of condoms in AIDS-ravaged countries.
I am Mexican. Mexico is a developing 3rd world country
I have visited Mexico on several occasions and while there are desparately poor regions, overall Mexico is probably better described as a 2nd world country.
Just what do you think we are? a bunch of freaking retards?
Not at all. Nor was I truly addressing the issues of developing countries with real economies. I was more thinking about true, destitute, no-food, no-potable-water, no-healthcare, millions-dying-of famine and disease, etc. third-world countries like Sudan.
Donations of computer hardware and software to projects like the one that you mentioned should be tax-deductible. I am completely in favor of that. But the Gnome foundation is simply too-far-removed from that scenario for me to be comfortable. Think about it: they want donations so that they can fund conferences and other peripheral activities associated with enhancing Gnome. What does that really translate to in aid to the less-fortunate and to developing countries? It's not like they are developing software to help farmers with crop rotation, or to provide medical information as an expert system in remote regions. It's a highly-polished GUI and I find it unlikely that further tax-subsidized tweaking will make a lot of difference to third-world countries. It is also a lot different that a project to teach computer skills and build an industry in a developing country.
I really don't think that, idealogically, we are that far apart.
*LOL* This discussion would have been ever so much more entertaining in person. You are tenacious, persistent, and firm in your beliefs. Fine fuel for a fun after-meal discussion group. (Surely you didn't think I had anything against you personally just because I disagree with your opinion on the current subject!)
My apologies for taking things too personally in the first place. I, too, think that many of the discussions on here would be a lot more civilized and fun in-person. I guess the anonymous cowards would just have to show up with bags over their heads.
Peace.
Your whole 'taking money away from worthwhile charities' argument is total crap.
No, it is not. Many people earmark certain dollar figures and percentages for charity. I know some of those people personally. You and your wife don't do it that way? That's fine. But there are more people in the world than you and your wife.
And your statement that gnome and other OS projects shouldn't be charities may have some merit, because they aren't what one thinks of in terms of traditional charities,
Thanks for saying that.
but I and others think they are worthwhile and may some day help in a small way to make the world a better place.
My concern is that the "help" is too small to justify making Gnome a tax-deductible charity.
Get over yourself.
I have tried. Really I have. But I am so damned impressive, intelligent, and knowledgeable that I just can't.
Thank you for taking the time to post that. Given the attitude on here, you would think that Gnome is destined to cure cancer, wipe out AIDS, and end world hunger. It's just a graphical user interface to Linux.
They chose to go that way because it helps getting more people to donate. *Tax Deductable* can be a good incentive.
Yes, but it's an incentive that I feel should be reserved for humanitarian efforts and things that are simply more important than improvements to a GUI for Linux. I don't think that we should be elevating Gnome to the same stature as charities the feed the homeless and those that work to cure tropical diseases (for example).
That's why I enjoy being insightful.
The universally negative responses you have elicited in this thread demonstrate that you have no such insight.
Now you are simply lying. There have been messages strongly in support of what I wrote. For example:
My posts have received both positive and negative moderation.
You also ignore the audience. If I got on an NRA-run web site and said that most Americans were in favor of some form of gun control, I would receive almost universally negative replies. But that would not mean that what I said was untrue.
Strawman. The actual claim I refuted was:
If you get a deduction, the rest of us have to make up for it.
which remains false.
The argument was not a strawman argument. Nor was my contention false. Who do you think pays for deductions? All taxpayers do. Just because it does not happen the same year that you take the deduction does not mean it doesn't happen. Do you think that you can take a $100 deduction and the Federal government just prints another $100 to make up for it? No. The $100 is made up by all of the other taxpayers.
Maybe it's the numbers being too big that is confusing you. Try this:
But if you use Gnome application you could donate if you like it. Think of it like a compensation for you using something nice and showing them your appreciation.
I already do that for lots of software. What I object to is the tax-deductible nature of the donation to Gnome.
Bullshit. It was intended to support non-profit organizations, and it's doing that.
No, it's intended to support certain types of non-profit organizations. From the IRS web pages:
The exempt purposes set forth inIRC Section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and the prevention of cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erection or maintenance of public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening of neighborhood tensions; elimination of prejudice and discrimination; defense of human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.
I find it hard to see how the development of a snazzy computer interface falls into the intent of the law.
Let's take a look at your assertation that somehow what Gnome is doing by *shock* allowing it's product to be sold by SUn/Red Hat/etc is somehow wrong.
It's not wrong and I never said that it was. What I see as wrong is treating Gnome as some kind of charity when they primary beneficiaries of their work are major, for-profit corporations.
No. The charity work that they do still benefits the needy. Suppose FedEx sponsors Gnome. Both Win. Gnome gets much-needed money to further develop a needed free GUI and Fedex gets good press.
NO NO NO NO NO!!!!
Let's make it simple:
1. You decide to donate $200 to charity.
2. Because they are now tax-deductible, you donate $100 to Gnome and the other $100 to the charity that would have gotten the whole $200 had Gnome not been tax-deductible.
3. The Feds give you $30 off of your taxes for your donation to Gnome.
4. Gnome puts the $100 towards improving Gnome.
5. Sun, RedHat, and Mandrake sell the improved Gnome, making millions of dollars.
6. The improvements to Gnome do not, in any way, significantly affect whether it is appropriate for use by a third-world government.
7. Where it is adopted by third world governments, computer software makes up such a tiny percentage of their budget that the savings is insignificant and does nothing to improve the lives of the citizens.
That is what I object to.
You really like to focus on that misconception that the donations support the programmers who contribute.
I don't care if it supports them, buys them donuts, or pays for the rental on a conference center.
In fact you are so completely enamoured of that misconception that I'm going to just "walk away" at this point
Okay. Bye!!!
I would like to see how you came up with this "fact".
I made it up. Actually, I considered what I have read about the government of Sudan and their finances and realized a couple of things:
1. Their government is very small relative to the number of people in the country.
2. Computers are rare even in their government offices.
If the Sudan government could put Linux on every one of its computers, that would save them about $200 per computer, depending on what MS OS they might use.
They can already. Mandrake, for instance, is ready to go. That is, providing they have the hardware to support it. Many of their computers are not nearly that modern, though.
That adds up just as quickly as small $20 donations from generous souls like yourself.
It doesn't really because most third-world countries have so few computers relative to the number of citizens.
Plus, what we are talking about here is improvements to an already polished GUI. How many changes are necessary before you believe that it is usable? I thought it was pretty darned good already. Not only that, how much will the donations stimulate the development?
I assume you visit many third world countries or you wouldn't be making this statement?
No, but I have helped someone who was trying to bring computers to third-world villages. It didn't happen because it was just not feasible.
Once third world countries have computers that can run it, I'll donate to Gnome.
I have a better idea: Donate to organizations fighting AIDS in Africa. Or send money to the Carter Center to help with their efforts to combat river blindness.
Don't get me wrong. I love computers. I have six of them in my office. But I don't think that they are going to solve the problems of the third world.
What would be the point of "developing" text-based software for 386-based PCs? The machines being donated by corps to the third world are typically Pentium or PII systems they'd been using until a year or two ago.
Because that is not what the majority of machines in the third world are.
Asking anyone in the third world to try to educate themselves using 386 based machines as you describe would be futile -- the skills required would be hopelessly outdated before they even turned the machine on.
PCs in third world countries are used to do work in government offices, not educate people in villages without electricity. 99.9% of people in third world countries have never even touched a computer and the vast majority of them will die without ever using one.
I just checked with a bunch of third world countries. It turns out that they would benefit more from food, medicine, and education than from a better version of Gnome.
The advancement of technology helps society.
Not very much. How much better off is society since Mozilla 1.2 came out than back when they ran Netscape 4.7? How much better off is society with Office XP than they were with Office 95? How much better off is society with the 2.4 Linux kernel than they were with the 2.0 Linux kernel? Please, quantify it.
Charity to poor trash is merely a waste of resources designed to make the giver feel good.
If you have money, then you are living proof that you can be "trash" without being poor.
Or $100 less to spend on drugs and prostitutes.
Generally, the kind of people that spend money on drugs and prostitutes are not big donors to charity.
Do any evidence, other than your imagined special insight into the motives of others, to support your rather strong claim that giving to Gnome 'diverts money away from worthy charities'.
My insight is not imagined. I've worked with non-profits and know the psychology and practices of the donors.
Nonsense. I'm willing to bet that your tax bill is calculated on your own income, just like everyone elses.
So you believe that the tax rates are not, in any way, influenced by deductions? You think that every person in the U.S. could double their deductions and the tax rates would not go up? Economics wasn't very big in your school, was it?
You lack the understanding of what this particular charity does.
I fully understand what it does.
Gnome is an open source GUI for Linux
Is that what's on that Mandrake system over in the corner of my office? Don't talk down to me.
which helps to further the technology of humankind without secluding that technology from the masses.
Please! Now you are just getting grandiose. The primary beneficiaries of the Gnome foundation's work are companies that sell products that incorporate Gnome and rich kids who like to play with it. Most computers in third-world countries are hard-pressed to run Windows 3.1, much less a GUI like Gnome.
If you don't know what Open Source is, I suggest you read Eric Raymond's book [amazon.com] before you go denouncing Open Source organizations as charities.
I was releasing open source software in the early 1980s, so don't lecture me.
But don't call Gnome an undeserving charity just because it doesn't feed starving children in Africa.
Why? I judge how deserving a charity is by how much they improve the lives of those they purport to help and by how much those people needed help. Curing river blindness or fighting famine seems a lot more important than making Gnome into an even nicer GUI.
What do tax deductions to charitable organizations have to do with profitable corporations?
In this case, the tax-deductible contributions are funding the development of a product that is sold by Sun, RedHat, and others.
What corporations benefit from supporting a Gnome conference? Is Sun getting a free display at the conference? HP? IBM? Who?
Every corporation who sells Gnome as part of a package. Every corporation that uses Gnome benefits from the further development.
No one.
Wrong. See the above.
BTW, if you were offended by the "name calling", reread your own post -- I just parodied your own statement from the flip side.
I did reread my post (at your suggestion). What I found was "self-indulgent computer programmers." "Self-indulgent" is not a horrible insult. It simply means "indulging one's appetites, desires, etc., freely."
You, on the other hand, felt the need to refer to me as a "self-righteous liberal prig". There is no way that "self-righteous" or "prig" could be considered anything other than insulting and excessively so, at that. Liberal? Well, I'm happy with that, though I'm sure that you meant it in an insulting manner.