The stock markets are becoming giant government sanctioned casinos were speculators gamble our wealth.
Traders very often look only to graphics identified by stock symbols without bothering to understand the fundamentals of the company behind them, unsurprisingly the system keeps falling under its own weight, but nobody has what it takes (including Mr Obama) to sit down and reflect how to fix the speculative nature of stock markets (hint: if short selling is bad, as seems to be the consensus of many governments, why the simple buying and selling of share with speculative intentions is not equally questionable?).
In normal markets you can also speculate, but unlike stock, in many localities such activity is illegal. But the same activity performed by rich financiers is OK, after all they are bankrolling our politicians.
Most companies' business plan involves serving their costumers.
If shareholders like the respective business plan then they invest in the company and share the rewards, but the focus of any company should be costumers: they are the people that make the company viable.
Here in England, the home of football, women were forbidden to play in first division fields for the best part of the 20th century. Way to encourage them to play the game.
Chose a sport, any sport, and you will be able to find sexist apologists for misogynistic attitudes whose arguments' only basis was the deeply entrenched prejudices they held. Listen to the male BBC commentators during the Wimbledon tennis tournament, and you will still hear sexist remarks that go mainly unchallenged by the mainstream media.
The same can be applied to many male dominated professions, were sexism and outright sexual hostility is at the root of low participation of females in the field.
I used to be available 24/7. When I went on holiday my mobile, and pager were turned off and I was completely an utterly uncontactable.
A company that needs to contact somebody during his honeymoon is something to keep quiet about while feeling a lot of shame, not something to bring up as a typical working environment when in reality is an example of something dysfunctional (i.e. most companies are not like that by a long stretch).
We had women working under the same regime, and surprise, surprise, we had more women working for us than most of our competitors (we had flexible time for parents, possibility to work from home and many other benefits that allowed parents in general and women in particular to attend to their family's commitments).
Companies that try to function like if they were in a social vacuum should be shunned and are not typical (at least in my extensive working experience).
Here in the UK people working in education are really worried about the lack of male teachers, which would otherwise be positive male role models for the students.
Men from poor countries have no qualms whatsoever to work as nurses in rich countries, in many other countries (not only Muslim ones mind you) men prefer male nurses and thus you have more parity.
It is the first time that somebody claims that women are better equipped to deal with bodily functions, blissfully ignoring that most doctors are male.
If they aren't then all this discussion does not concern them. As a matter of fact the UK government protested strenuously about not having access to the source code of the software in some US made fighter jets, the problem was solved to the *client's* satisfaction (the agreement was undisclosed, but if the UK government was demanding access I can't imagine they did not get it in some way).
As for your second example, I don't know what you are smoking. I still have to see any software that accepts any liability of any kind, proprietary or not, in any case litigators would go after the person that packaged the full solution and offered it commercially, I fail so see how any developers, who most likely would have put disclaimers on their software, would be liable about how a third party decide to use their software...
Thy allowed the murderers of 9-11 to commit their atrocities.
It seems only people like you and me, who are easily identifiable, are at any danger of being caught by the CIA if needed, any other people should not really worry much.
When did Stallman send the GPL Ninjas to beat you up for not releasing your code under the GPL?
I think most people whining about this are like little children in the playground: they see that all the clever children are playing with a better toy but insist to play with the rubbish one they have, and latter claim they are being bullied by the other children....
Since such a judgement is completely subjective, by holding that "closed mindness" against somebody what you are really saying is that you don't agree with him, but your wording masks a genuine disagreement with an alleged fault in the character of your opposite.
Which is of course a fallacious way of conduct a discussion.
Release your software in any way you wish, what Stallman and any proponents of FOSS say is that releasing non FOSS software is counter-productive for users of that software and for society as a whole, since cultural advancement is hindered.
If you don't like that message so be it, but equating âproposing* that people, *freely*, release their software for the benefit of society to some kind of enforcement is most disingenuous.
Now, if what you want is to do whatever you want with software that was not produced by you, well, we all want to be free loaders, but in most civilized societies we have reached the conclussion that such state of affairs would not be a good idea, so copyright is put in place to fend off freeloaders.
Fanatic: "A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause." or "a person whose enthusiasm for something, esp. a political or religious cause, is extreme"
Stallaman is an extreme enthusiast for user's freedoms, if you want to call that enthusiasm extreme, that is your prerogative.
But Stallaman has enough long reasoned philosophy about software licensing (which is what the GPL is all about) which many people, including for profit corporations, are embracing, that to claim he is delusional ( delusion: "a mistaken idea or belief") is at least highly debatable.
As for the childish meme that Stallman promotes any kind of communist or socialist ideology, well, it is frankly a baseless, tired statement.
Multiple for profit companies use GPLed software to make business and people like you, forget that humans are not rewarded only by money, also the GPL is based on a conceit that does not exist in communist societies: copyright (which is only understandable in a capitalist society, where the state is not automatic owner of whatever the populace produces).
So to insinuate Stallman uses a capitalist conceit because his love of communism is frankly a catch 22 that people spreading this nonsense need to explain satisfactorily.
But go on, keep trying to spread nonsense with no base in reality, we will gladly keep correcting you.
Slashdot Mirror
Hardware manufacturers can put a different OS on their wares and go to the market with that.
If MS alienates hardware houses as big as HP, do you honestly think they will be winners?
What you are advocating is not to bring ever products to a market once it is inhabited by a big player.
.... then they would have a reasonable expectation that their PC is working when they sit on their desks.
Or do people that punch in on a punch clock in the wall are expected to start up that device on their own time also?
It is a very nice OS, its graphical interface is based also in X and runs in fast commodity hardware.....
Check itÂout!
The stock markets are becoming giant government sanctioned casinos were speculators gamble our wealth.
Traders very often look only to graphics identified by stock symbols without bothering to understand the fundamentals of the company behind them, unsurprisingly the system keeps falling under its own weight, but nobody has what it takes (including Mr Obama) to sit down and reflect how to fix the speculative nature of stock markets (hint: if short selling is bad, as seems to be the consensus of many governments, why the simple buying and selling of share with speculative intentions is not equally questionable?).
In normal markets you can also speculate, but unlike stock, in many localities such activity is illegal. But the same activity performed by rich financiers is OK, after all they are bankrolling our politicians.
Most companies' business plan involves serving their costumers.
If shareholders like the respective business plan then they invest in the company and share the rewards, but the focus of any company should be costumers: they are the people that make the company viable.
Typical. It is women's fault if they can adapt to the juvenile male banter.
What a load of bullshit.
Were the rivers are made of milk and the trees drip honey?
You just described 90% of modern jobs, irrespective of the field.
Lets take football for example.
Muslim country? Well, lets not go there.
Other religious conservative place? Ditto.
Here in England, the home of football, women were forbidden to play in first division fields for the best part of the 20th century. Way to encourage them to play the game.
Chose a sport, any sport, and you will be able to find sexist apologists for misogynistic attitudes whose arguments' only basis was the deeply entrenched prejudices they held. Listen to the male BBC commentators during the Wimbledon tennis tournament, and you will still hear sexist remarks that go mainly unchallenged by the mainstream media.
The same can be applied to many male dominated professions, were sexism and outright sexual hostility is at the root of low participation of females in the field.
I used to be available 24/7. When I went on holiday my mobile, and pager were turned off and I was completely an utterly uncontactable.
A company that needs to contact somebody during his honeymoon is something to keep quiet about while feeling a lot of shame, not something to bring up as a typical working environment when in reality is an example of something dysfunctional (i.e. most companies are not like that by a long stretch).
We had women working under the same regime, and surprise, surprise, we had more women working for us than most of our competitors (we had flexible time for parents, possibility to work from home and many other benefits that allowed parents in general and women in particular to attend to their family's commitments).
Companies that try to function like if they were in a social vacuum should be shunned and are not typical (at least in my extensive working experience).
Here in the UK people working in education are really worried about the lack of male teachers, which would otherwise be positive male role models for the students.
Men from poor countries have no qualms whatsoever to work as nurses in rich countries, in many other countries (not only Muslim ones mind you) men prefer male nurses and thus you have more parity.
It is the first time that somebody claims that women are better equipped to deal with bodily functions, blissfully ignoring that most doctors are male.
There are few career choices that pay more.
Check any statistics and many IT jobs are regularly in the top 10 or top 20 better paid professions.
As for career satisfaction, well, that is subjective.
OpenOffice: free (and one or two adds on your window).
Sorry to burst your righteous bubble, but I am sure they will be takers.
I studied music to professional standard and I needed very little maths (basic arithmetic should suffice).
Most of my classmates did not have much of a maths background and they became very proficient musicians.
Is the military distributing its software?
If they aren't then all this discussion does not concern them. As a matter of fact the UK government protested strenuously about not having access to the source code of the software in some US made fighter jets, the problem was solved to the *client's* satisfaction (the agreement was undisclosed, but if the UK government was demanding access I can't imagine they did not get it in some way).
As for your second example, I don't know what you are smoking. I still have to see any software that accepts any liability of any kind, proprietary or not, in any case litigators would go after the person that packaged the full solution and offered it commercially, I fail so see how any developers, who most likely would have put disclaimers on their software, would be liable about how a third party decide to use their software...
They said there were WMDs in Iraq.
They have no idea were Osama bin Laden is.
Thy allowed the murderers of 9-11 to commit their atrocities.
It seems only people like you and me, who are easily identifiable, are at any danger of being caught by the CIA if needed, any other people should not really worry much.
Stallman has never defended piracy...
Honestly, installing an OS is an almost janitorial task nowadays in any organization ....
Can we please move on?
Most people using Linux receive it in a machine with it installed already.
Can we please move on to discuss relevant, up to date issues?
That such thing is moderated as insightful is frankly tasteless.
When did Stallman send the GPL Ninjas to beat you up for not releasing your code under the GPL?
I think most people whining about this are like little children in the playground: they see that all the clever children are playing with a better toy but insist to play with the rubbish one they have, and latter claim they are being bullied by the other children ....
But what about if the new ideas are rubbish?
Since such a judgement is completely subjective, by holding that "closed mindness" against somebody what you are really saying is that you don't agree with him, but your wording masks a genuine disagreement with an alleged fault in the character of your opposite.
Which is of course a fallacious way of conduct a discussion.
... in so few sentences?
Who is forcing you to do anything?
Release your software in any way you wish, what Stallman and any proponents of FOSS say is that releasing non FOSS software is counter-productive for users of that software and for society as a whole, since cultural advancement is hindered.
If you don't like that message so be it, but equating âproposing* that people, *freely*, release their software for the benefit of society to some kind of enforcement is most disingenuous.
Now, if what you want is to do whatever you want with software that was not produced by you, well, we all want to be free loaders, but in most civilized societies we have reached the conclussion that such state of affairs would not be a good idea, so copyright is put in place to fend off freeloaders.
Zealot: "a fanatic or an extreme enthusiast"
Fanatic: "A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause." or "a person whose enthusiasm for something, esp. a political or religious cause, is extreme"
Stallaman is an extreme enthusiast for user's freedoms, if you want to call that enthusiasm extreme, that is your prerogative.
But Stallaman has enough long reasoned philosophy about software licensing (which is what the GPL is all about) which many people, including for profit corporations, are embracing, that to claim he is delusional ( delusion: "a mistaken idea or belief") is at least highly debatable.
As for the childish meme that Stallman promotes any kind of communist or socialist ideology, well, it is frankly a baseless, tired statement.
Multiple for profit companies use GPLed software to make business and people like you, forget that humans are not rewarded only by money, also the GPL is based on a conceit that does not exist in communist societies: copyright (which is only understandable in a capitalist society, where the state is not automatic owner of whatever the populace produces).
So to insinuate Stallman uses a capitalist conceit because his love of communism is frankly a catch 22 that people spreading this nonsense need to explain satisfactorily.
But go on, keep trying to spread nonsense with no base in reality, we will gladly keep correcting you.