Please, define "freedom". If you mean by "freedom" such economical and political system that USA has, then I agree with you. It's not what the terrorists want. However, by "freedom" I meant more something like "autonomy", freedom from oppression as a nation, freedom from political, military and economical pressure from outside states.
The society they want certainly isn't one in which I would choose to live, but somehow I still feel that I would rather be oppressed by my countrymen than the richest, most powerful (and unfortunately currently also the most dangerous and least intelligible) country in the world.
Here you may have a point, but your other comments confuse history with modern politics, and see issues very one-eyedly. US of A has killed in its wars more innocent civilians than any terrorist group or all of them combined will ever be able to kill.
You know, it's stuff like this that the terrorists want. They want us to lose our freedoms to overzealous anti-terrorism laws, they want us to live in fear. Suggestions like this article must make Bin Laden smile.
Bullshit. "Terrorists hate freedom" is just bushite propaganda. Terrorists want freedom. They want americans to stop messing with their countries and freedom to take their own fate to their own hands. And yes, they want the american hands off their oil wells and other properties. They may use fear as a tool to achieve their ends, but fear as such isn't their object.
Just read and think carefully what Osama bin Laden really says. His rules and his message is very clear: "Your security is in your own hands. And every state that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security." That this cruel, admittedly slightly disturbed terrorist sounds much more intelligble, rational and humane than american government is really frightening.
The Americans didn't blow up anything. The Soviets bought computer chips and used them to control the operations of the pipeline.
Didn't they? They sabotased the chips to blow up the pipeline. Americans are the ones responsible for the explosion.
With your logic I wouldn't be responsible for an explosion of an aeroplane if I would have intentionally manipulated its components in a way which would have led to their malfunction and the plane crashing.
Which one really is the rogue state which uses terrorist means to reach its economic ends?
You are absolutely right. George W. Bush and others have missed the point when they said that the attack was against "freedom" or "democracy". What the terrorists were trying to achieve was just the freedom and democracy - power to express themselves and decide for themselves. Their views of these are just bit different from how westeners think. And their means to these ends are horrible.
The terrorists do not represent the majority of arabs in the world (if they even are arabs at all), but they are mirror sharply and strongly - maybe too strongly - the feelings the arabs or many other people may have.
What they feel is a threat, and that threat is United States and the whole capitalistic world. They are threathened by the capitalistic economy which makes them its slaves, and they feel they are repressed by an imperialistic power. It does not only threat them economically, it also threaths them culturally. It threaths to take avay from them their very identity.
I'm afraid to say this at this kind of situation, but the thruth is, that the United States has given too much reason for this kind of anger by very selflisly and one-eyedly seeking its on good in every corner of the world. A lot of people in the world can cope with it, they like to play the same game, but a lot don't.
So what is yet to be understood by Americans and also other capitalistic countries is that it is maybe not always wise to try to make every civilization in the world to join the same game. They may have their game, which they enjoy as much as we do our.
Interstitials are supposed to load after everything else in the page is loaded, and if user changes to another page in the site, it is supposed to continue loading from where it was left in the previous page. So the interstitial should view only after it is completely loaded, and the loading should happen completely in background.
I'm in charge of a comparatively big web site, which is completely financed by selling ad space. I'm not personally neither too fond of popups and stuff, but as advertisers are just not interested in banners, we have to accept more aggressive ads simply to survive - if even that is enough.
Where to get money for developing linux?
on
Linux Is Going Down
·
· Score: 1
I don't know about US, but here in Europe the governments support financially numerous non-profit organizations working in varying fields. The financial support may not be enormous, but it sometimes is enough to employ the necessary persons to work within the organization. Support is given to all kinds of organizations, but if you want more, you have to have very good reasons, such as promoting equality, democracy, tolerance or similar things.
Now Linux is really something that promotes equality and democracy. Being completely free it gives equal opportunities in information society to all. You don't need to have money or position to buy expensive licenses if you have Linux. It is enough that you have an old computer, and there you have everything you need to learn and create things which allow your voice to be heard in the internet or your idea to be accomplished otherwise.
I personally wouldn't be working in web business if there wouldn't be linux: my academic background is in humanities, but I once installed Linux, Apache, Perl & PHP to my computer and started studying. Then I accomplished my idea and now the web site I created is the biggest in its field in this area - actually quite huge. This would not have been possible with for example Microsoft products, I would never have afforded to buy them.
Though the politics all around the world are supporting some kind of corporationalism, the governments of most of the European Union countries are lead by social democrats, mostly in their 50's, who have been active in leftist movement in the 60's and 70's. They at least should have sympathy towards this kind of modern grass-root movement for creating equal possibilities to participate in information society for everyone. The point with the Linux maybe shouldn't be only in that it is better, but also in that it is something that promotes the values common in our shared heritage based on liberté, égalité, fraternite. Linux is something that makes possible grass-root movements in information society, and grass-root movements are something that most of the leading politicians really can appreciate.
And now to the point: is there, or should there be, an European (and why not even global) civic organization, which would beg for financial aid from governments to employ full-time some talented linux developers to develope linux especially in those fields which need more intensive work, coordination and devotion. The organization would argue the need for the developement not (only) by technical reasons, but by political reasons: how linux makes the world more equal and democratic place to be and work, and how it creates new possibilities for everyone to get their voice heard and to employ themself.
I personally don't really see how linux companies can succeed in the long run, but to maintain same kind of possibilities to jump into information society that I have once had, I really hope that linux will survive and even strengthen its position.
As an european and leftist in my opinions - though working in very capitalistic business - I would never like to live or raise my children in America. The freedom offered in the US isn't the same freedom which I'd like to have. The freedom in US - and ok, in growing number of places - is mostly freedom to run your business and get rich. Those who succeed in this game have their freedom, the rest of the people are much more limited in their freedom. What do you do with the freedom of expression when you can't make yourself heard? Or when you can't express yourself because of education that your parents didn't afford? With freedom of movement without no way to move? With freedom of opinion when your opinions are fed to you by multi-millionaire-owned TV networks?
Fidel Castro, one of the last surviving voices which speak against US imperialism (ok, now I'm being too dramatic) makes some very interesting points in his interview in Granma Internacional. Maybe it is worth checking out, just to get some perspective for things.
Slashdot Mirror
Please, define "freedom". If you mean by "freedom" such economical and political system that USA has, then I agree with you. It's not what the terrorists want. However, by "freedom" I meant more something like "autonomy", freedom from oppression as a nation, freedom from political, military and economical pressure from outside states.
The society they want certainly isn't one in which I would choose to live, but somehow I still feel that I would rather be oppressed by my countrymen than the richest, most powerful (and unfortunately currently also the most dangerous and least intelligible) country in the world.
Here you may have a point, but your other comments confuse history with modern politics, and see issues very one-eyedly. US of A has killed in its wars more innocent civilians than any terrorist group or all of them combined will ever be able to kill.
Bullshit. "Terrorists hate freedom" is just bushite propaganda. Terrorists want freedom. They want americans to stop messing with their countries and freedom to take their own fate to their own hands. And yes, they want the american hands off their oil wells and other properties. They may use fear as a tool to achieve their ends, but fear as such isn't their object.
Just read and think carefully what Osama bin Laden really says. His rules and his message is very clear: "Your security is in your own hands. And every state that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security." That this cruel, admittedly slightly disturbed terrorist sounds much more intelligble, rational and humane than american government is really frightening.
The Americans didn't blow up anything. The Soviets bought computer chips and used them to control the operations of the pipeline.
Didn't they? They sabotased the chips to blow up the pipeline. Americans are the ones responsible for the explosion.
With your logic I wouldn't be responsible for an explosion of an aeroplane if I would have intentionally manipulated its components in a way which would have led to their malfunction and the plane crashing.
Which one really is the rogue state which uses terrorist means to reach its economic ends?
You are absolutely right. George W. Bush and others have missed the point when they said that the attack was against "freedom" or "democracy". What the terrorists were trying to achieve was just the freedom and democracy - power to express themselves and decide for themselves. Their views of these are just bit different from how westeners think. And their means to these ends are horrible.
The terrorists do not represent the majority of arabs in the world (if they even are arabs at all), but they are mirror sharply and strongly - maybe too strongly - the feelings the arabs or many other people may have.
What they feel is a threat, and that threat is United States and the whole capitalistic world. They are threathened by the capitalistic economy which makes them its slaves, and they feel they are repressed by an imperialistic power. It does not only threat them economically, it also threaths them culturally. It threaths to take avay from them their very identity.
I'm afraid to say this at this kind of situation, but the thruth is, that the United States has given too much reason for this kind of anger by very selflisly and one-eyedly seeking its on good in every corner of the world. A lot of people in the world can cope with it, they like to play the same game, but a lot don't.
So what is yet to be understood by Americans and also other capitalistic countries is that it is maybe not always wise to try to make every civilization in the world to join the same game. They may have their game, which they enjoy as much as we do our.
Interstitials are supposed to load after everything else in the page is loaded, and if user changes to another page in the site, it is supposed to continue loading from where it was left in the previous page. So the interstitial should view only after it is completely loaded, and the loading should happen completely in background.
I'm in charge of a comparatively big web site, which is completely financed by selling ad space. I'm not personally neither too fond of popups and stuff, but as advertisers are just not interested in banners, we have to accept more aggressive ads simply to survive - if even that is enough.
I don't know about US, but here in Europe the governments support financially numerous non-profit organizations working in varying fields. The financial support may not be enormous, but it sometimes is enough to employ the necessary persons to work within the organization. Support is given to all kinds of organizations, but if you want more, you have to have very good reasons, such as promoting equality, democracy, tolerance or similar things.
Now Linux is really something that promotes equality and democracy. Being completely free it gives equal opportunities in information society to all. You don't need to have money or position to buy expensive licenses if you have Linux. It is enough that you have an old computer, and there you have everything you need to learn and create things which allow your voice to be heard in the internet or your idea to be accomplished otherwise.
I personally wouldn't be working in web business if there wouldn't be linux: my academic background is in humanities, but I once installed Linux, Apache, Perl & PHP to my computer and started studying. Then I accomplished my idea and now the web site I created is the biggest in its field in this area - actually quite huge. This would not have been possible with for example Microsoft products, I would never have afforded to buy them.
Though the politics all around the world are supporting some kind of corporationalism, the governments of most of the European Union countries are lead by social democrats, mostly in their 50's, who have been active in leftist movement in the 60's and 70's. They at least should have sympathy towards this kind of modern grass-root movement for creating equal possibilities to participate in information society for everyone. The point with the Linux maybe shouldn't be only in that it is better, but also in that it is something that promotes the values common in our shared heritage based on liberté, égalité, fraternite. Linux is something that makes possible grass-root movements in information society, and grass-root movements are something that most of the leading politicians really can appreciate.
And now to the point: is there, or should there be, an European (and why not even global) civic organization, which would beg for financial aid from governments to employ full-time some talented linux developers to develope linux especially in those fields which need more intensive work, coordination and devotion. The organization would argue the need for the developement not (only) by technical reasons, but by political reasons: how linux makes the world more equal and democratic place to be and work, and how it creates new possibilities for everyone to get their voice heard and to employ themself.
I personally don't really see how linux companies can succeed in the long run, but to maintain same kind of possibilities to jump into information society that I have once had, I really hope that linux will survive and even strengthen its position.
As an european and leftist in my opinions - though working in very capitalistic business - I would never like to live or raise my children in America. The freedom offered in the US isn't the same freedom which I'd like to have. The freedom in US - and ok, in growing number of places - is mostly freedom to run your business and get rich. Those who succeed in this game have their freedom, the rest of the people are much more limited in their freedom. What do you do with the freedom of expression when you can't make yourself heard? Or when you can't express yourself because of education that your parents didn't afford? With freedom of movement without no way to move? With freedom of opinion when your opinions are fed to you by multi-millionaire-owned TV networks?
Fidel Castro, one of the last surviving voices which speak against US imperialism (ok, now I'm being too dramatic) makes some very interesting points in his interview in Granma Internacional. Maybe it is worth checking out, just to get some perspective for things.