Looks like the Electric Universe folks were a bit off -- off on what exactly? I mean, it is NASA's folks who might be not just off but OFF on comets and their composition, because they have to tweak their dirt-ball nonsense to fit observable facts. Really, if you take it just on common sense level, how is it possible for a lose pile of dust to hold together in space while traveling with some tremendous speed bombarded by the high powered solar wind of energetic particles? By what kind of force does that happen and why it came together to be held like that in the first place? One can calculate, the mass of some comet and the rate of comet's particle discharge, so after rather some short time of several hundred years that comet would be gone. Is that what happens? So, we would never see Halley again then?
Some of the waste of resources and money in the late of 90ies and beginning of 2000 was that it was part of the culture of mismanagement at that time. We had huge parties, fishing trips for seals and tech support teams over the S.F. Bay, which would cost the company 25-30k a piece and those boots in Los Vegas conventions with big guys for 250k a piece, and so on. What bothered me most when the reality hit hard was that there was no plan B. Higher management and people in charge just assumed the bull market of the 90ies would last forever, well it didn't, so they had to lay off people instead putting some cash aside when it was still possible.
I agree, also, "Best in the world" sounds like bragging to me, because there's no objectivity here. Who determines who is the best? In this case, Russians themselves, therefore, it is not credible, there's no outside verification of the claim.
All he has are allegations, no facts. He constructs his argument around the idea that "many open-source contributors work for large IT companies" and therefore there has to be a potential for copyright IP abuse, simple on the basis of statistical probability that such cross-over would have to occur. Nonetheless, he doesn't give any facts. None, zero. Then he goes on to point out that OSS is a ticking bomb before some serious court case will blow it up. Well, good news is that in court there would have to be some hard evidence and facts, allegations is not enough, not even close, especially in software cases where someone would have to show that copyrighted code was used, abused, etc. No code, no case, in my opinion, and no worry so far as the case with SCO shows, the case which is in big trouble for the lack of evidence.
Santa Cruz in the news... just to mention, while you travel near that place in California, visit Mystery Spot, a place that will alter your sense of gravity, a tourist attraction, it has been the place where gravitation forces seem to act wired, something very like the city of S.C. itself. In a few words, if you take your friend with you and he/she is taller then you, in Mystery Spot those roles will be reversed, guaranteed, no bull.
If someone purchased a domain name that is not his name but some other candidate's then the question is why did he do that? Legal issues aside, what did he hope to gain from such domain-name that was not his name but his opponent's? Obviously, one doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that he did that for a political gain. That said, it is a political game par excellence. Does it serve the public in some meaningful way?, probably not and it is misleading as well, so there's no value here for the society at large. Therefore, it is just that: a political ploy to gain advantage by any means. That also most likely shows that the person has no well-grounded social agenda of his own and tries to gain advantage by any means necessary.
In addition to what you said, "It doesn't not agree with my morality", one can expand this into more collective experience. What Goggle is saying is the following: Chinese g. provides and defines the links that exclude certain sites. That set is defined as "accessible", by default, certain sites are not included, but then Goggle tries to save its face by saying since they're not accessible, therefore it can't be accessed anyway - not the fault of ours. However, the same rule is not enforced in other googglebot searches pertaining to other courtiers. For the sake of "the best possible search experience for our mainland China users..." Goggle is defining for those users what the best experience is. Clearly, Goggle is giving up without the fight. Why should they fight? Because that kind of, let's say it aloud, self-imposed censorship, goes against the established and best practices of the Internet.
"...if google wants in, then they must comply. Simple." - no, that's not that simple. Google doesn't have to comply if they want to stand on the higher moral grounds; it's about freedom and basic human values. If companies that want to do business with China comply with those restrictions, soon enough most of the world media will comply and the news and information will be indirectly altered. Is this kind of world you want to live in?
However, as noted before, Google and others will try to comply for the sake of doing business with China. What is the price to pay for freedom of information? How much Google would lose if they didn't comply? It is ironic that companies such as Google was created in California, where freedom is a cherished value, but now Google is a big name and so they, like everything in the capitalist world is money driven. And, yes, this is about money, isn't it? At least they should say that up front instead of telling a lie of "improving service".
collective2.com is a website where you can set up your own trading system for free and compete with other traders by making trades in real-time. Your system is rated by % of return. You can have more than one system, either futures, equity options, currencies, commodities, or just stocks. Now, what's interesting there is that you can sell your services by subscription. It is great learning tools and potential to make some money if your system is a successful one.
Anyone can say any numbers of things but in the case of G.W. Bush "affordable high-speed Internet access be available to all Americans by 2007...", without specific plan is just a game of words to appear politically correct. Besides even if there was money and will-power to do that it wouldn't be easy and probably not by 2007. 2010-12 would be more realistic, but obviously it wouldn't be possible to do that by extending fibre optic technology into rural areas (huge expense), there would have to be inclusion of BPL (broadband over power lines). But that is politically charged issue with the radio industry. So, here we have it, several big problems right at the start.
Few years back when IBM first started looking into Linux as the means of support for mainframes and later zSeries they picked four Linux developers: Red Hat, SuSE, Turbolinux, and believe it or not Caldera. Out of those Caldera was out and behind in development, so they were counted out. Turbo and SuSE were the strongest and delivered timely products for S/390, AS400, RS6000. But Turbo had to close its US operations and laid off its staff in South San Francisco in July 2001 and 2002. So, naturally only SuSE and RH remained. But RH was far behind in development of mainframe products as compared to SuSE and Turbo, simply put Red Hat was not even a player among mainframe community who were already well versed with SuSE and Turbo. In other words IBM just naturally picked the best out there for their mainframes, that's all it is to it, they rewarded SuSE, because they got most consistent and best software development from them.
It's like saying that NASA is infallible, or something, right? But the truth is that they manipulate data to fit their agenda. Now they are "discovering" water on Mars while several independent scientists were already postulating it more than 10yrs ago to be only dismissed by NASA, etc. The same is about the Face on Mars. Once they discovered water there they'll take a second look at Cydonia and lo and behold they'll discover that those were indeed artificial objects. They want to claim credit for "their" discoveries even though others were first, and so it goes.
According to the 7th edition of the Black's Law dictionary "profanity" is defined as "profane, adj., (Of speech or conduct) irreverent to something held sacred." Something held sacred evokes the idea of something religious and of higher value. Therefore, now we have a new form of priesthood as exemplified in FCC's rulings. They're the new priesthood of making sure our language does not get polluted with profanities. And they want to decide it for us, right? I can voluntarily abstain from indecent words and phrases, but it my decision. My words is my own religion, not theirs.
But what is so sacred about language, one might ask, that we need to make sure that FCC's priests can let us know if something is, or not, profane? Soon enough there will be people who will want to control not just broadcasted language via radio or TV but also in public gatherings, bars and restaurants, or on internet. Folks, where is this going to take us? Do you want to live in the world with all those controls? I would say f'k 'em.
The bottom line is: did you research available information? The common-sense idea of Warren Buffett, or though he is a wise man in financial matters, can't be applied here to a completely different subject. But this is psychological issue. In order to appear balanced in judgment and with certain distance as if observing both sides of the matter, some people pretend they know better by the virtue of that said calculated distance, however, basically masking their own ignorance. If you want to prove anything you need to make some effort of providing the proof, merely saying something doesn't exist because it is far fetched doesn't cut it.
Did you check what NASA did to "prove" their point? Those pictures where manipulated with the high altitude filer to give the appearance that the Face is just a natural object. Earlier photographs showed something entirely different.
Check another proof on this matter at: http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/proof_files/proof.asp
On the face value P. Plait's argument against R. Hoalglan's views is appealing to average intelligence. But that where it ends. Plait doesn't present scientific based or even logically sound debunking that can only be done after careful examination of someone's position and research. On the other hand, the hypothesis that Face of Mars is an artificial object from a distant civilization, is a carefully crafted argument that required several scientists to research the subject and present their view against the prevailing dogma that says something like that can't be. As for me I go with the science wherever that leads, an unknown civilization of the past?, so be it.
For those who have time to know better than P. Plait, check this article: http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/proof_files/proof.asp
Philip Plait in his article "Richard Hoagland's Nonsense" has done nothing to debunk the hypothesis that Face on Mars and other artifacts in Cydonia region on Mars that might be of artificial origin build by some ancient civilization. In fact, P.P. has its own website where he can say anything, but there's nothing there that is consistent with independent-minded research of scientific value. On the other hand people who investigated those structures on Mars are scientists who did careful studies in telemetry, fractal geometry, and digital imagery (by M.J. Carlotto).
P. Plait says: "Leading the way with this nonsense is none other than Richard C. Hoagland. He is the guy who has been touting the idea that the "Face on Mars" is not just a big hill -- which is what it really is -- but is instead a giant statue surrounded by pyramids, a city, a fortress, etc." - this is obviously an assertion but no proof of anything by Plait about the opposing argument. He basically says he doesn't like the idea of artificial origin of Cydonia structures and that's where it ends. So, it is rather a laughable for someone with Phd degree to supposedly debunk something without really doing effort in some scientific corroboration. So, this is another of those FUD hysteria that surrounds this matter. Don't tell me that merely claiming something can't be is a proof of anything. P. Plait and other professional "debunkers" need to do better than that.
If you want to make up your own mind on in this subject, check this website: http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/asom/pressconf_nyc.asp
This is good point and it'd show that in software/hardware business it is most often the bottom line in dollars that matters the most, not the user preference for this or that Linux distro that happens to be dear to us.
It that HP goes with the regional strong player for Linux desktop distribution. They're trying to sell their hardware by adapting to the existing situation, not necessarily picking the overall "best" Linux desktop distro. This strategy is probably sound, time will tell, but it is true that by being market player in Asia for a long time Turbolinux had developed Asian language features critical to users there, that alone is a big plus in going with Turbo.
One may wander why Turbolinux and not say Red Hat is being shipped by HP and it seems they are just picking the strongest player there. TL had strong presence in Asia from its beginnings even though they had to close their US offices in July 2002 due to the mismanaged capital they had. They kept going in Asia and so now are apparently the most recognized Linux brand there. Their new desktop product in version 10 had no reviews amongst Linux analysts, I wonder if someone had the chance to try that distro recently.
"If you don't like Western Civilization, please feel free to pack your bags and join another" - hmm, so, that supposed to be some kind of rational argument? I don't see Western civilization as exclusively responsible for scientific progress. In fact much of the Greco-Roman tradition was inherited from other sources. Just ponder upon the following example. Most European languages (98%) are part of a larger family of Indo-European branch. So, the inclusion of other cultures and traditions is inherent even in the way we talk and express our ideas.
Why should one naming convention, based on one mythological tradition, be established for all time? As we expand our understanding of the Solar system and the universe there's a need for more names and it is appropriate to include other traditions as well.
People own property, cars, books, etc., and the ego thinks that they "own" something. But then when people die none of that can be taken with them. So, do they really own anything? Apparently not. But in the IP world software can be assigned a value, like everything else in the world of ego. So, those who produce software under the impression that they own it can't own it forever, when they die nothing of that can be theirs.
What R. Stallman and others try to do is to say "hey, forget ego, let's free our spirit and make it a value". In that case the value is only the name of the author that programmed the software, no financial value, a lot less of ego involved. This way the game is purer and simple: you know in advance that you own "nothing" and therefore don't live in the illusion that other people may have. What is the value of not living under illusion? That's the next question.
In my opinion Gartner would be one of the least reliable sources of information on open source software, TCO, ROI, etc. They earned their reputation on supporting proprietary solutions and in particular Microsoft. In the last two years, however, they gradually modified their stance and now are more couscous, especially since the security problems of Microsoft are undeniable.
One possible place to look for help are actual case studies and down-to-earth approach for business solutions such as Andrew Grygos' article "Should Your Business Use Linux?" - you can find it on: http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit010.html.
Since I also do IT consulting, my advice is to focus on what applications are used by employees in what departments. Can those be substituted with open source software? In growing number of cases most office programs can be substituted with OpenOffice and CrossOver combination, or better yet with SoftMaker suit that is becoming a very reliable solution for office work and includes file formats for MS Word, etc. Their website is: http://www.softmaker.de/index_en.htm By doing TCO, say with SoftMaker, it is obvious that open source solutions win big time against MS Office, etc.
"Maybe these US programmers should simply adjust" - they could if there was a viable alternative to adjust to. To begin with, I suspect so-called superiority of Indian technical workers goes only so far to explain the fact that more and more companies outsource to India. From one of my corporate IT employments I recall more than one case of Indian software engineers who would qualify as complete slacker. One could only see them when it was a payday. After showing up for few hours they were gone again after lunch and with the paycheck in their pocket. In times of dotcom lax and artificial supervision such situations would occur. But it was surreal to watch that happen with consistent regularity. Finally, they were laid off when that company had to cut its workforce by half.
I have to add that I know also very bright Indian programmers who earn their well-deserved living in software development, or technical support. Yet, it isn't convincing to me that "in general" Indian engineers are better than Americans, because as pointed out it depends who, when and what.
The other thing is that if I'm required to train an Indian, or other national, in order to replace my position that isn't fair. It is a suicidal mission of sorts, because I'm being used to undermine my own ability to support myself. For many years American workers enjoyed the benefits of good economy and now when harder times arrived it is not easy to switch the gears into less subsistence. I'm not jealous that Indian workers get those jobs. But it is self-serving paradigm that we're all part of: one that pitches us against another. It was selfish of us to accumulate wealth for ourselves but it is also selfish of them to think that they have the right to do the same at our cost.
What needs to change is the economic system that invents ways to survive at the cost of those who are left out on cold. It is almost certain that when Indian IT workforce becomes more and more adept in what they're doing they will also expect to be paid better and better. Then, one company after another will start outsourcing services again say to China, or somewhere else. The cycle will repeat.
Slashdot Mirror
Looks like the Electric Universe folks were a bit off -- off on what exactly? I mean, it is NASA's folks who might be not just off but OFF on comets and their composition, because they have to tweak their dirt-ball nonsense to fit observable facts. Really, if you take it just on common sense level, how is it possible for a lose pile of dust to hold together in space while traveling with some tremendous speed bombarded by the high powered solar wind of energetic particles? By what kind of force does that happen and why it came together to be held like that in the first place? One can calculate, the mass of some comet and the rate of comet's particle discharge, so after rather some short time of several hundred years that comet would be gone. Is that what happens? So, we would never see Halley again then?
Some of the waste of resources and money in the late of 90ies and beginning of 2000 was that it was part of the culture of mismanagement at that time. We had huge parties, fishing trips for seals and tech support teams over the S.F. Bay, which would cost the company 25-30k a piece and those boots in Los Vegas conventions with big guys for 250k a piece, and so on. What bothered me most when the reality hit hard was that there was no plan B. Higher management and people in charge just assumed the bull market of the 90ies would last forever, well it didn't, so they had to lay off people instead putting some cash aside when it was still possible.
I agree, also, "Best in the world" sounds like bragging to me, because there's no objectivity here. Who determines who is the best? In this case, Russians themselves, therefore, it is not credible, there's no outside verification of the claim.
All he has are allegations, no facts. He constructs his argument around the idea that "many open-source contributors work for large IT companies" and therefore there has to be a potential for copyright IP abuse, simple on the basis of statistical probability that such cross-over would have to occur. Nonetheless, he doesn't give any facts. None, zero. Then he goes on to point out that OSS is a ticking bomb before some serious court case will blow it up. Well, good news is that in court there would have to be some hard evidence and facts, allegations is not enough, not even close, especially in software cases where someone would have to show that copyrighted code was used, abused, etc. No code, no case, in my opinion, and no worry so far as the case with SCO shows, the case which is in big trouble for the lack of evidence.
Santa Cruz in the news... just to mention, while you travel near that place in California, visit Mystery Spot, a place that will alter your sense of gravity, a tourist attraction, it has been the place where gravitation forces seem to act wired, something very like the city of S.C. itself. In a few words, if you take your friend with you and he/she is taller then you, in Mystery Spot those roles will be reversed, guaranteed, no bull.
If someone purchased a domain name that is not his name but some other candidate's then the question is why did he do that? Legal issues aside, what did he hope to gain from such domain-name that was not his name but his opponent's? Obviously, one doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that he did that for a political gain. That said, it is a political game par excellence. Does it serve the public in some meaningful way?, probably not and it is misleading as well, so there's no value here for the society at large. Therefore, it is just that: a political ploy to gain advantage by any means. That also most likely shows that the person has no well-grounded social agenda of his own and tries to gain advantage by any means necessary.
In addition to what you said, "It doesn't not agree with my morality", one can expand this into more collective experience. What Goggle is saying is the following: Chinese g. provides and defines the links that exclude certain sites. That set is defined as "accessible", by default, certain sites are not included, but then Goggle tries to save its face by saying since they're not accessible, therefore it can't be accessed anyway - not the fault of ours. However, the same rule is not enforced in other googglebot searches pertaining to other courtiers. For the sake of "the best possible search experience for our mainland China users..." Goggle is defining for those users what the best experience is. Clearly, Goggle is giving up without the fight. Why should they fight? Because that kind of, let's say it aloud, self-imposed censorship, goes against the established and best practices of the Internet.
"...if google wants in, then they must comply. Simple." - no, that's not that simple. Google doesn't have to comply if they want to stand on the higher moral grounds; it's about freedom and basic human values. If companies that want to do business with China comply with those restrictions, soon enough most of the world media will comply and the news and information will be indirectly altered. Is this kind of world you want to live in?
However, as noted before, Google and others will try to comply for the sake of doing business with China. What is the price to pay for freedom of information? How much Google would lose if they didn't comply? It is ironic that companies such as Google was created in California, where freedom is a cherished value, but now Google is a big name and so they, like everything in the capitalist world is money driven. And, yes, this is about money, isn't it? At least they should say that up front instead of telling a lie of "improving service".
collective2.com is a website where you can set up your own trading system for free and compete with other traders by making trades in real-time. Your system is rated by % of return. You can have more than one system, either futures, equity options, currencies, commodities, or just stocks. Now, what's interesting there is that you can sell your services by subscription. It is great learning tools and potential to make some money if your system is a successful one.
Anyone can say any numbers of things but in the case of G.W. Bush "affordable high-speed Internet access be available to all Americans by 2007...", without specific plan is just a game of words to appear politically correct. Besides even if there was money and will-power to do that it wouldn't be easy and probably not by 2007. 2010-12 would be more realistic, but obviously it wouldn't be possible to do that by extending fibre optic technology into rural areas (huge expense), there would have to be inclusion of BPL (broadband over power lines). But that is politically charged issue with the radio industry. So, here we have it, several big problems right at the start.
Few years back when IBM first started looking into Linux as the means of support for mainframes and later zSeries they picked four Linux developers: Red Hat, SuSE, Turbolinux, and believe it or not Caldera. Out of those Caldera was out and behind in development, so they were counted out. Turbo and SuSE were the strongest and delivered timely products for S/390, AS400, RS6000. But Turbo had to close its US operations and laid off its staff in South San Francisco in July 2001 and 2002. So, naturally only SuSE and RH remained. But RH was far behind in development of mainframe products as compared to SuSE and Turbo, simply put Red Hat was not even a player among mainframe community who were already well versed with SuSE and Turbo. In other words IBM just naturally picked the best out there for their mainframes, that's all it is to it, they rewarded SuSE, because they got most consistent and best software development from them.
It's like saying that NASA is infallible, or something, right? But the truth is that they manipulate data to fit their agenda. Now they are "discovering" water on Mars while several independent scientists were already postulating it more than 10yrs ago to be only dismissed by NASA, etc. The same is about the Face on Mars. Once they discovered water there they'll take a second look at Cydonia and lo and behold they'll discover that those were indeed artificial objects. They want to claim credit for "their" discoveries even though others were first, and so it goes.
According to the 7th edition of the Black's Law dictionary "profanity" is defined as "profane, adj., (Of speech or conduct) irreverent to something held sacred." Something held sacred evokes the idea of something religious and of higher value. Therefore, now we have a new form of priesthood as exemplified in FCC's rulings. They're the new priesthood of making sure our language does not get polluted with profanities. And they want to decide it for us, right? I can voluntarily abstain from indecent words and phrases, but it my decision. My words is my own religion, not theirs.
But what is so sacred about language, one might ask, that we need to make sure that FCC's priests can let us know if something is, or not, profane? Soon enough there will be people who will want to control not just broadcasted language via radio or TV but also in public gatherings, bars and restaurants, or on internet. Folks, where is this going to take us? Do you want to live in the world with all those controls? I would say f'k 'em.
The bottom line is: did you research available information? The common-sense idea of Warren Buffett, or though he is a wise man in financial matters, can't be applied here to a completely different subject. But this is psychological issue. In order to appear balanced in judgment and with certain distance as if observing both sides of the matter, some people pretend they know better by the virtue of that said calculated distance, however, basically masking their own ignorance. If you want to prove anything you need to make some effort of providing the proof, merely saying something doesn't exist because it is far fetched doesn't cut it.
a /proof_files/proof.asp
Check this: http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydoni
Did you check what NASA did to "prove" their point? Those pictures where manipulated with the high altitude filer to give the appearance that the Face is just a natural object. Earlier photographs showed something entirely different.
a /proof_files/proof.asp
Check another proof on this matter at: http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydoni
On the face value P. Plait's argument against R. Hoalglan's views is appealing to average intelligence. But that where it ends. Plait doesn't present scientific based or even logically sound debunking that can only be done after careful examination of someone's position and research. On the other hand, the hypothesis that Face of Mars is an artificial object from a distant civilization, is a carefully crafted argument that required several scientists to research the subject and present their view against the prevailing dogma that says something like that can't be. As for me I go with the science wherever that leads, an unknown civilization of the past?, so be it.
a /proof_files/proof.asp
For those who have time to know better than P. Plait, check this article: http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydoni
Philip Plait in his article "Richard Hoagland's Nonsense" has done nothing to debunk the hypothesis that Face on Mars and other artifacts in Cydonia region on Mars that might be of artificial origin build by some ancient civilization. In fact, P.P. has its own website where he can say anything, but there's nothing there that is consistent with independent-minded research of scientific value. On the other hand people who investigated those structures on Mars are scientists who did careful studies in telemetry, fractal geometry, and digital imagery (by M.J. Carlotto).
a /asom/pressconf_nyc.asp
P. Plait says: "Leading the way with this nonsense is none other than Richard C. Hoagland. He is the guy who has been touting the idea that the "Face on Mars" is not just a big hill -- which is what it really is -- but is instead a giant statue surrounded by pyramids, a city, a fortress, etc." - this is obviously an assertion but no proof of anything by Plait about the opposing argument. He basically says he doesn't like the idea of artificial origin of Cydonia structures and that's where it ends. So, it is rather a laughable for someone with Phd degree to supposedly debunk something without really doing effort in some scientific corroboration. So, this is another of those FUD hysteria that surrounds this matter. Don't tell me that merely claiming something can't be is a proof of anything. P. Plait and other professional "debunkers" need to do better than that.
If you want to make up your own mind on in this subject, check this website: http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydoni
This is good point and it'd show that in software/hardware business it is most often the bottom line in dollars that matters the most, not the user preference for this or that Linux distro that happens to be dear to us.
It that HP goes with the regional strong player for Linux desktop distribution. They're trying to sell their hardware by adapting to the existing situation, not necessarily picking the overall "best" Linux desktop distro. This strategy is probably sound, time will tell, but it is true that by being market player in Asia for a long time Turbolinux had developed Asian language features critical to users there, that alone is a big plus in going with Turbo.
One may wander why Turbolinux and not say Red Hat is being shipped by HP and it seems they are just picking the strongest player there. TL had strong presence in Asia from its beginnings even though they had to close their US offices in July 2002 due to the mismanaged capital they had. They kept going in Asia and so now are apparently the most recognized Linux brand there. Their new desktop product in version 10 had no reviews amongst Linux analysts, I wonder if someone had the chance to try that distro recently.
"If you don't like Western Civilization, please feel free to pack your bags and join another" - hmm, so, that supposed to be some kind of rational argument? I don't see Western civilization as exclusively responsible for scientific progress. In fact much of the Greco-Roman tradition was inherited from other sources. Just ponder upon the following example. Most European languages (98%) are part of a larger family of Indo-European branch. So, the inclusion of other cultures and traditions is inherent even in the way we talk and express our ideas.
Why should one naming convention, based on one mythological tradition, be established for all time? As we expand our understanding of the Solar system and the universe there's a need for more names and it is appropriate to include other traditions as well.
People own property, cars, books, etc., and the ego thinks that they "own" something. But then when people die none of that can be taken with them. So, do they really own anything? Apparently not. But in the IP world software can be assigned a value, like everything else in the world of ego. So, those who produce software under the impression that they own it can't own it forever, when they die nothing of that can be theirs.
What R. Stallman and others try to do is to say "hey, forget ego, let's free our spirit and make it a value". In that case the value is only the name of the author that programmed the software, no financial value, a lot less of ego involved. This way the game is purer and simple: you know in advance that you own "nothing" and therefore don't live in the illusion that other people may have. What is the value of not living under illusion? That's the next question.
In my opinion Gartner would be one of the least reliable sources of information on open source software, TCO, ROI, etc. They earned their reputation on supporting proprietary solutions and in particular Microsoft. In the last two years, however, they gradually modified their stance and now are more couscous, especially since the security problems of Microsoft are undeniable.
One possible place to look for help are actual case studies and down-to-earth approach for business solutions such as Andrew Grygos' article "Should Your Business Use Linux?" - you can find it on: http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit010.html.
Since I also do IT consulting, my advice is to focus on what applications are used by employees in what departments. Can those be substituted with open source software? In growing number of cases most office programs can be substituted with OpenOffice and CrossOver combination, or better yet with SoftMaker suit that is becoming a very reliable solution for office work and includes file formats for MS Word, etc. Their website is: http://www.softmaker.de/index_en.htm
By doing TCO, say with SoftMaker, it is obvious that open source solutions win big time against MS Office, etc.
"Maybe these US programmers should simply adjust" - they could if there was a viable alternative to adjust to. To begin with, I suspect so-called superiority of Indian technical workers goes only so far to explain the fact that more and more companies outsource to India. From one of my corporate IT employments I recall more than one case of Indian software engineers who would qualify as complete slacker. One could only see them when it was a payday. After showing up for few hours they were gone again after lunch and with the paycheck in their pocket. In times of dotcom lax and artificial supervision such situations would occur. But it was surreal to watch that happen with consistent regularity. Finally, they were laid off when that company had to cut its workforce by half.
I have to add that I know also very bright Indian programmers who earn their well-deserved living in software development, or technical support. Yet, it isn't convincing to me that "in general" Indian engineers are better than Americans, because as pointed out it depends who, when and what.
The other thing is that if I'm required to train an Indian, or other national, in order to replace my position that isn't fair. It is a suicidal mission of sorts, because I'm being used to undermine my own ability to support myself. For many years American workers enjoyed the benefits of good economy and now when harder times arrived it is not easy to switch the gears into less subsistence. I'm not jealous that Indian workers get those jobs. But it is self-serving paradigm that we're all part of: one that pitches us against another. It was selfish of us to accumulate wealth for ourselves but it is also selfish of them to think that they have the right to do the same at our cost.
What needs to change is the economic system that invents ways to survive at the cost of those who are left out on cold. It is almost certain that when Indian IT workforce becomes more and more adept in what they're doing they will also expect to be paid better and better. Then, one company after another will start outsourcing services again say to China, or somewhere else. The cycle will repeat.