While Richard Stallman is not paid directly by the Free Software Foundation, they do support his work in numerous ways. You can read some of the ways in which the FSF supports RMS in this recent fundraising appeal published by the FSF.
So, I think that your statements are an accurate assessment of things like Computer Algebra Systems. Such systems approach mathematics in a way similar to how humans have traditionally tried to solve mathematics. However, there are other ways of doing mathematics with computers. Such as various systems of simple abstract rules. I'm not saying it will necessarily lead to breakthroughs in traditional areas of mathematics, but, it is one of the few areas of research that is truly trying to approach mathematics in computer-centric way.
By framing the discussion in terms of "open source" vs. "proprietary" you have framed the focus of the argument on the quality of the software. However, if you want to establish reasons why people should trust the software, and why it is good, then you should frame the issue in the context of a broader social and ethical movement -- the free software movement. This movement, which is over 25 years old is founded on the idea of guaranteeing freedom to each and every user. I believe that an argument founded in people who wish to guarantee user-freedom for all that you have a much stronger foundation than if you talk about the software in terms of brands, products, and vendors.
Root your conversation in the people who want to all software to be free, that is, software that carries the following four freedoms:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0),
* the freedom to study how the program works and its source code, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1),
* the freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2),
* and the freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3).
I believe if you do this, you will be more likely to convince others as to why you should trust projects lead by individuals who have shown a clear commitment to the free software movement and who have garnered respect within this movement. Once you have established trust, and a trusted source, then convincing people about the practical merits and usability of the software should be easy.
After the film festival, Blair Witch was sold to Artisan Entertainment, which is now owned by Lions Gate.
My question was not how to get into a film festival. It was how to go big after the film festival without selling your movie to a big producer/distributor.
It seems that with independent film making, the common path is: 1) get small to medium budget, 2) produce movie, 3) show movie at film festival, 4) sell rights to big producer. Is there way to get your movie to "go big" without doing this fourth step and not starting with a big budget?
Even though Rosen and Popowich do not intend to sue free software developers for patent infringement, their plans nonetheless put us in danger.
Software patents are the greatest danger to free software developers and users -- and we are too few to win their abolition alone. But we are not in this danger alone. Software patents also threaten the developers and users of proprietary software, and the developers and users of custom software. Everyone involved with software is in the same boat with us, and we need to ask them to join with us to oppose software patents.
That is why all the campaigns to prevent or abolish software patents -- from the League for Programming Freedom to FFII to End Software Patents -- try to make common cause for all software developers on this crucial issue. With our combined strength, we sometimes win.
Rosen and Popowich's "business model" would undermine this common cause against patents. That is shortsighted and dangerous. If we are to argue convincingly against the "Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory" patent licenses, that discriminate unreasonably against free software, our own actions must not legitimize the practice of using patents to demand money from software developers and users.
Rosen and Popowich are in the same boat with the rest of us. But instead of helping everyone escape, they plan to cut spears from the wood of the hull to threaten some of the other passengers. This is dangerous for everyone in the boat.
We need to pull together if we want to get out of this. So don't use any "business model" based on software patents. Support the End Software Patents campaign (EndSoftwarePatents.org).
Posted on behalf of Richard M. Stallman (rms@gnu.org).
You are right, "most of the stuff being offered is in English." But, that is why we are asking people to collect materials and post them to the wiki. We need everyones help, this includes non-english speakers who can help us find free texts in other languages.
Thank you, and if know another language besides English, please add it to the Wiki, too!
-Josh
One thing that impresses me about RMS is his ability to patiently articulate answers to questions that reporters surely already know the answers to and that have been asked of him dozens, if not hundreds of times. To leave myself wide-open to the inevitable ad hominem attacks, I should say that I work for the FSF and I helped to edit his writing and publish it. But, that aside, I've read a lot of his talks, interviews, etc. It just amazes me how he is able to deal with the endless snide (and often immature) remarks, and to continue to not defer the questions.
He is very steadfast and focused and he tends to keep things simple: Call it GNU to give credit to all of the volunteers over the past 20+ years who helped make the GNU project; call it libre or free software and bring the focus on liberty; and let's make sure that users have software that carries the four freedoms in the free software definition, and stand against any legal or technical barriers that may stand in their way.
The authors claim that the GPL V3 draft is not in the spirit of the GPL V2 license. However, I believe that the extreme liberalness of the language used within the preamble is perhaps what we should base our understanding of "spirit of" from. For instance, the Preamble states:
" To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. "
This excerpt is especially stirking when applied to DRMd software. When someone distributes a DRM'd software system that it is often the case that the maker of the software system has more rights than the reciever of them. For instance, a person recieving a TiVo software system, they have implicitly been denied certain rights due to the nature of the software distribution (which, in this case, is dependent upon a hardware system).
I believe that the article, "The Dangers of Problems with GPLv3" hinders largely upon this notion of "spirit" and upon developers' trust with the FSF and future drafts of the GPL. I belive that RMS has been more than clear about his beliefs. Furthermore, the FSF has worked hard to share as much of their philosophy as they could with the world. As a person who has spent a good deal of time with the written philosophy of the FSF, I believe that the GPL V3 is very much in the spirit of the GPL V2 and is clearly in-line with the spirit of the GNU Project and Free Software Foundation.
However, it is important that when entrusting an organization with your copyright, you should take a good look at the organization and read their beliefs and arguments and to look beyond just the clauses within the license. "The Dangers and Problems with GPLv3" fails completely to do this kind of research or background check, and as such, I believe that they have failed to make a solid argument as to why the GPL V3 is not in the spirit of the GPL v2. I will leave it to the rest of the slashdot community to closely examine the language of this article and reveal that there is a lot of huff and puff and hot air but not a lot of substance or strength to the arguments.
I can't believe that with Republicans in the majority, that htey would push for a Federal law like this. They are more than happy to make Evolution a state and county issue and to not regulate the sciences --- but they are going to attempt to regulate this? This is such crap and it strikes home in a deeply personal way, so excuse my venting.
I have been slowly working on a project called the Free Textbook Project that I'd liek to target at schools. As well as something called the Piaget project, which is a collaborative and interactive mathematics learning environment. Others at the MIT Media Lab are doing similar things. These would all be banned, as well as Wikipedia, as far as I can tell. GMail is banned, and really, most any other internet technologies. I don't see how one can find appropriate language on a national level.
Dear Ty Coon,
We are writing to inform you that we are now offering high-priority, premium data communications lines for select companies. With our high-priority line, you are gauranteed a stable VOIP system that can handle all your telecommunication needs. You may seem hesitant, but why? You may hear people decrying, "what if the power goes out?" Well, who doesn't have a cell phone these days! So there is no excuse left, our high-priority line for select businesses offers a stable and secure VOIP system with an IT Support staff and additional training for nearly half the cost of your tellecommunications system. So make the switch today. If you act soon, you can recieve a great deal on bluetooth headsets and Blackberry 69000 series ultra phones.
Sincerely,
Ms. Mabell Revenu
President of Sales
When businesses switch, the rest will follow. What follows is an idea that I heard from Eben Moglen (http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/).
It isn't feasible for my grandmother, and everyone else, to switch, but, companies can afford it and they can also afford to pay enought for new routers to be put in and new lines to be built. Once they drop their telephone lines and just have IT staff, the cost isn't much more. Especially if they used a Free Software VOIP system.
Now, once businesses do switch, start switching, then the telephone companies could be in deep trouble. They will have to raise my grandmothers phone bill. If they keep losing companies, the more they will have to raise household homes.
What this could possibly lead to is subsidization. The telephone companies would demand that the government subsidize the cost of household users, because the companies are no longer supporting us.
Well, then comes the choice: do we invest in a larger Internet infrastructure and allow it to be a publicly funded commodity and get people to use VOIP, or do we put public funds in the pockets of the phone companies?
I should disclaim what I said, and state that I may have distorted some of Eben's original statements, as I don't have a great memory:-)
Some things require a person to do a fair amount of work up front before they can be enjoyed in their intended manner. Learning a UNIX like system could be argued as a prerequisite to enjoy FOSS written for those systems. Or, in Literature, a good example comes from Ezra Pound, who stated:
"Anyone who is too lazy to master the comparatively small glossary necessary to understand Chaucer deserves to be shut out from the reading of good books for ever. . . . As to the relative merits of Chaucer and Shakespeare, English opinion has been bamboozled for centuries by a love of the stage, the glamour of the theatre, the love of bombastic rhetoric and of sentimentalizing over actors and actresses; these, plus the national laziness and unwillingness to make the least effort, have completely obscured the values."
Granted, Ezra would probably be marked as a troll, hehe.
UMass Amherst defaults all classroom projects under the GNU GPL.
What school are you refering to in this slashdot post? I don't understand the need for protecting it when they should be exposed.
Beyond it being a poor analogy. Philosophically there are big differences in the analogy made. The largest being that in the creation of the GPL 3, Stallman has prevented certain actions from taking place under very particular circumstances. That is, he is restricting the use of software when someone chooses to put it under the GNU GPL v3. Whereas the religious zealout he is compared to is cited as removing physical objects that already existed and destroyed them. Furthermore, instead of creating a legal option for the people, he created a culture of fear by leveraging the national religion as a political tool to justify his actions. To equate Stallman to a tyrant, religious or not, is unfair. Stallman has a simple mission with the GNU Project. When Torvalds chose the GPL as his license for the Linux kernel, that was his choice. When other chose to hop on board instead of building their own kernel, that was their choice as well. (Stallman, in fact, was creating his own kernel when Torvalds released Linux).
There is no shortage of competition in terms of licenses and software, and if anything, the GPL version 3.0 is more compatible with more licenses than GPL Version 2.0 was. In that sense, Stallman has allowed for more interoperability in the software world, rather than less.
It's not nice that they modded you down to a "troll".
Thanks Game Master, how very narrow minded and pointed your reply was. I actually spent a full day doing research and came across a lot of solutions and ideas. But, when I posted to slashdot, I decided to broaden and simplify my language, in hopes of creating a post that might create interesting discussions and thoughtful responses. Instead of guiding it with specific examples of solutions I had come across. I understand, that you being a troll and all, it is inherent in your nature to be mocking and condenscending, presumptious and rude, others have tact and even the ability to abstract and reason. Many slashdotters responded with insightful and broad remarks and some even found the idea interesting. But thank you for the link, anyhow!
Let's say a developer someone left out an "@see" in their code so the Doxygen didn't create a nice hyperlink as it could have. Well, in some cases, it might be nice for the documentation person to immediately make this change rather than checking it out. Let's say, perhaps, that if a minor change is made by user DaveDocumentor to a wiki page of type SourceCode, that the developers are sent an email with the diff so that they can make the change ot the CVS repository. This would speed up the time it takes for proper documentation to be created, while also creating a nice form of communications. A Diff of appropriate format is alway sent to the appropriate person and the minor change was made immediately to the documentation. Assuming the person who gets the diff goes ahead and makes the change to the CVS tree eventually, it won't be a problem. But, having yet another person checking out files in the CVS tree can be more of a haltle than it is worth. There could be a smaller margin of error in the scheme I presented. Or, maybe not. But, it is somethign worth considering.
Great, this is really helpful advice. I had been thinking more along these lines---I didn't actually want people to use the wiki as the editor, as some trolls have yelled at me for in these posts. But, I think this is the type of set-up I want. Where code, API docs, and everything is closer to all the other documentation. One giant "wiki", or something along those lines. Doxygen, CVS, and other tools are all compatible with this type of environment it seems, so I figured, one step closer to a nice community based development/communications environment. But clearly, I'm STUPID for poking my head out in this direction, haha.
We all know there real secret plan is to completely buy out AOL and then time warner, and then the movie industry, and then all government anyhow. And then once everyone has downloaded google earth, a virus will be leashed upon us. Imagine the Ring and Snow Crash combined with a beautiful Siren singing to draw you to the nearest monitor, cell phone, or television. And then they can have ultimate control and we will have a perfect utopia with no evil anywhere on earth.
Slashdot Mirror
While Richard Stallman is not paid directly by the Free Software Foundation, they do support his work in numerous ways. You can read some of the ways in which the FSF supports RMS in this recent fundraising appeal published by the FSF.
It seems likely that they will use the Pixel Qi display. See this story: "Breaking News: OLPC & Pixel Qi to Share XO Laptop Screen Patents AND All Current & Future Display IP" , http://www.olpcnews.com/hardware/screen/breaking_news_olpc_pixel_qi_to.html
So it's basically rat poison, but with continuous-buttons, but less powerful, and less useful. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs0GMeL2zA0
So, I think that your statements are an accurate assessment of things like Computer Algebra Systems. Such systems approach mathematics in a way similar to how humans have traditionally tried to solve mathematics. However, there are other ways of doing mathematics with computers. Such as various systems of simple abstract rules. I'm not saying it will necessarily lead to breakthroughs in traditional areas of mathematics, but, it is one of the few areas of research that is truly trying to approach mathematics in computer-centric way.
By framing the discussion in terms of "open source" vs. "proprietary" you have framed the focus of the argument on the quality of the software. However, if you want to establish reasons why people should trust the software, and why it is good, then you should frame the issue in the context of a broader social and ethical movement -- the free software movement. This movement, which is over 25 years old is founded on the idea of guaranteeing freedom to each and every user. I believe that an argument founded in people who wish to guarantee user-freedom for all that you have a much stronger foundation than if you talk about the software in terms of brands, products, and vendors. Root your conversation in the people who want to all software to be free, that is, software that carries the following four freedoms:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0),
* the freedom to study how the program works and its source code, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1),
* the freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2),
* and the freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3).
I believe if you do this, you will be more likely to convince others as to why you should trust projects lead by individuals who have shown a clear commitment to the free software movement and who have garnered respect within this movement. Once you have established trust, and a trusted source, then convincing people about the practical merits and usability of the software should be easy.
After the film festival, Blair Witch was sold to Artisan Entertainment, which is now owned by Lions Gate. My question was not how to get into a film festival. It was how to go big after the film festival without selling your movie to a big producer/distributor.
It seems that with independent film making, the common path is: 1) get small to medium budget, 2) produce movie, 3) show movie at film festival, 4) sell rights to big producer. Is there way to get your movie to "go big" without doing this fourth step and not starting with a big budget?
Even though Rosen and Popowich do not intend to sue free software
developers for patent infringement, their plans nonetheless put us in
danger.
Software patents are the greatest danger to free software developers
and users -- and we are too few to win their abolition alone. But we
are not in this danger alone. Software patents also threaten the
developers and users of proprietary software, and the developers and
users of custom software. Everyone involved with software is in the
same boat with us, and we need to ask them to join with us to oppose
software patents.
That is why all the campaigns to prevent or abolish software patents
-- from the League for Programming Freedom to FFII to End Software
Patents -- try to make common cause for all software developers on
this crucial issue. With our combined strength, we sometimes win.
Rosen and Popowich's "business model" would undermine this common
cause against patents. That is shortsighted and dangerous. If we are
to argue convincingly against the "Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory"
patent licenses, that discriminate unreasonably against free software,
our own actions must not legitimize the practice of using patents to
demand money from software developers and users.
Rosen and Popowich are in the same boat with the rest of us. But
instead of helping everyone escape, they plan to cut spears from the
wood of the hull to threaten some of the other passengers. This is
dangerous for everyone in the boat.
We need to pull together if we want to get out of this. So don't use
any "business model" based on software patents. Support the End Software
Patents campaign (EndSoftwarePatents.org).
Posted on behalf of Richard M. Stallman (rms@gnu.org).
Thanks! If you know of any more please post them either to http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Books or its discussion page!
You are right, "most of the stuff being offered is in English." But, that is why we are asking people to collect materials and post them to the wiki. We need everyones help, this includes non-english speakers who can help us find free texts in other languages. Thank you, and if know another language besides English, please add it to the Wiki, too! -Josh
One thing that impresses me about RMS is his ability to patiently articulate answers to questions that reporters surely already know the answers to and that have been asked of him dozens, if not hundreds of times. To leave myself wide-open to the inevitable ad hominem attacks, I should say that I work for the FSF and I helped to edit his writing and publish it. But, that aside, I've read a lot of his talks, interviews, etc. It just amazes me how he is able to deal with the endless snide (and often immature) remarks, and to continue to not defer the questions.
He is very steadfast and focused and he tends to keep things simple: Call it GNU to give credit to all of the volunteers over the past 20+ years who helped make the GNU project; call it libre or free software and bring the focus on liberty; and let's make sure that users have software that carries the four freedoms in the free software definition, and stand against any legal or technical barriers that may stand in their way.
Joshua Gay
let's just generate new limbs!
The authors claim that the GPL V3 draft is not in the spirit of the GPL V2 license. However, I believe that the extreme liberalness of the language used within the preamble is perhaps what we should base our understanding of "spirit of" from. For instance, the Preamble states:
" To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. "
This excerpt is especially stirking when applied to DRMd software. When someone distributes a DRM'd software system that it is often the case that the maker of the software system has more rights than the reciever of them. For instance, a person recieving a TiVo software system, they have implicitly been denied certain rights due to the nature of the software distribution (which, in this case, is dependent upon a hardware system).
I believe that the article, "The Dangers of Problems with GPLv3" hinders largely upon this notion of "spirit" and upon developers' trust with the FSF and future drafts of the GPL. I belive that RMS has been more than clear about his beliefs. Furthermore, the FSF has worked hard to share as much of their philosophy as they could with the world. As a person who has spent a good deal of time with the written philosophy of the FSF, I believe that the GPL V3 is very much in the spirit of the GPL V2 and is clearly in-line with the spirit of the GNU Project and Free Software Foundation.
However, it is important that when entrusting an organization with your copyright, you should take a good look at the organization and read their beliefs and arguments and to look beyond just the clauses within the license. "The Dangers and Problems with GPLv3" fails completely to do this kind of research or background check, and as such, I believe that they have failed to make a solid argument as to why the GPL V3 is not in the spirit of the GPL v2. I will leave it to the rest of the slashdot community to closely examine the language of this article and reveal that there is a lot of huff and puff and hot air but not a lot of substance or strength to the arguments.
-Joshua Gay
I can't believe that with Republicans in the majority, that htey would push for a Federal law like this. They are more than happy to make Evolution a state and county issue and to not regulate the sciences --- but they are going to attempt to regulate this? This is such crap and it strikes home in a deeply personal way, so excuse my venting.
I have been slowly working on a project called the Free Textbook Project that I'd liek to target at schools. As well as something called the Piaget project, which is a collaborative and interactive mathematics learning environment. Others at the MIT Media Lab are doing similar things. These would all be banned, as well as Wikipedia, as far as I can tell. GMail is banned, and really, most any other internet technologies. I don't see how one can find appropriate language on a national level.
Dear Ty Coon, We are writing to inform you that we are now offering high-priority, premium data communications lines for select companies. With our high-priority line, you are gauranteed a stable VOIP system that can handle all your telecommunication needs. You may seem hesitant, but why? You may hear people decrying, "what if the power goes out?" Well, who doesn't have a cell phone these days! So there is no excuse left, our high-priority line for select businesses offers a stable and secure VOIP system with an IT Support staff and additional training for nearly half the cost of your tellecommunications system. So make the switch today. If you act soon, you can recieve a great deal on bluetooth headsets and Blackberry 69000 series ultra phones. Sincerely, Ms. Mabell Revenu President of Sales
When businesses switch, the rest will follow. What follows is an idea that I heard from Eben Moglen (http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/).
:-)
It isn't feasible for my grandmother, and everyone else, to switch, but, companies can afford it and they can also afford to pay enought for new routers to be put in and new lines to be built. Once they drop their telephone lines and just have IT staff, the cost isn't much more. Especially if they used a Free Software VOIP system.
Now, once businesses do switch, start switching, then the telephone companies could be in deep trouble. They will have to raise my grandmothers phone bill. If they keep losing companies, the more they will have to raise household homes.
What this could possibly lead to is subsidization. The telephone companies would demand that the government subsidize the cost of household users, because the companies are no longer supporting us.
Well, then comes the choice: do we invest in a larger Internet infrastructure and allow it to be a publicly funded commodity and get people to use VOIP, or do we put public funds in the pockets of the phone companies?
I should disclaim what I said, and state that I may have distorted some of Eben's original statements, as I don't have a great memory
Some things require a person to do a fair amount of work up front before they can be enjoyed in their intended manner. Learning a UNIX like system could be argued as a prerequisite to enjoy FOSS written for those systems. Or, in Literature, a good example comes from Ezra Pound, who stated: "Anyone who is too lazy to master the comparatively small glossary necessary to understand Chaucer deserves to be shut out from the reading of good books for ever. . . . As to the relative merits of Chaucer and Shakespeare, English opinion has been bamboozled for centuries by a love of the stage, the glamour of the theatre, the love of bombastic rhetoric and of sentimentalizing over actors and actresses; these, plus the national laziness and unwillingness to make the least effort, have completely obscured the values." Granted, Ezra would probably be marked as a troll, hehe.
UMass Amherst defaults all classroom projects under the GNU GPL. What school are you refering to in this slashdot post? I don't understand the need for protecting it when they should be exposed.
Beyond it being a poor analogy. Philosophically there are big differences in the analogy made. The largest being that in the creation of the GPL 3, Stallman has prevented certain actions from taking place under very particular circumstances. That is, he is restricting the use of software when someone chooses to put it under the GNU GPL v3. Whereas the religious zealout he is compared to is cited as removing physical objects that already existed and destroyed them. Furthermore, instead of creating a legal option for the people, he created a culture of fear by leveraging the national religion as a political tool to justify his actions. To equate Stallman to a tyrant, religious or not, is unfair. Stallman has a simple mission with the GNU Project. When Torvalds chose the GPL as his license for the Linux kernel, that was his choice. When other chose to hop on board instead of building their own kernel, that was their choice as well. (Stallman, in fact, was creating his own kernel when Torvalds released Linux).
There is no shortage of competition in terms of licenses and software, and if anything, the GPL version 3.0 is more compatible with more licenses than GPL Version 2.0 was. In that sense, Stallman has allowed for more interoperability in the software world, rather than less.
It's not nice that they modded you down to a "troll".
Thanks Game Master, how very narrow minded and pointed your reply was. I actually spent a full day doing research and came across a lot of solutions and ideas. But, when I posted to slashdot, I decided to broaden and simplify my language, in hopes of creating a post that might create interesting discussions and thoughtful responses. Instead of guiding it with specific examples of solutions I had come across. I understand, that you being a troll and all, it is inherent in your nature to be mocking and condenscending, presumptious and rude, others have tact and even the ability to abstract and reason. Many slashdotters responded with insightful and broad remarks and some even found the idea interesting. But thank you for the link, anyhow!
Let's say a developer someone left out an "@see" in their code so the Doxygen didn't create a nice hyperlink as it could have. Well, in some cases, it might be nice for the documentation person to immediately make this change rather than checking it out. Let's say, perhaps, that if a minor change is made by user DaveDocumentor to a wiki page of type SourceCode, that the developers are sent an email with the diff so that they can make the change ot the CVS repository. This would speed up the time it takes for proper documentation to be created, while also creating a nice form of communications. A Diff of appropriate format is alway sent to the appropriate person and the minor change was made immediately to the documentation. Assuming the person who gets the diff goes ahead and makes the change to the CVS tree eventually, it won't be a problem. But, having yet another person checking out files in the CVS tree can be more of a haltle than it is worth. There could be a smaller margin of error in the scheme I presented. Or, maybe not. But, it is somethign worth considering.
Great, this is really helpful advice. I had been thinking more along these lines---I didn't actually want people to use the wiki as the editor, as some trolls have yelled at me for in these posts. But, I think this is the type of set-up I want. Where code, API docs, and everything is closer to all the other documentation. One giant "wiki", or something along those lines. Doxygen, CVS, and other tools are all compatible with this type of environment it seems, so I figured, one step closer to a nice community based development/communications environment. But clearly, I'm STUPID for poking my head out in this direction, haha.
You should be moddedup higher. Give it up for the Potato!
We all know there real secret plan is to completely buy out AOL and then time warner, and then the movie industry, and then all government anyhow. And then once everyone has downloaded google earth, a virus will be leashed upon us. Imagine the Ring and Snow Crash combined with a beautiful Siren singing to draw you to the nearest monitor, cell phone, or television. And then they can have ultimate control and we will have a perfect utopia with no evil anywhere on earth.
"Unfortunately, there is no way to patch user ignorance, and the way this virus propagates is through user ignorance,"
:-)
Isn't the purpose of this article to patch user ignorance?
If I were more creative, and funnier, I would come up with many witty and similar analogies to the phrase "patching user ignorance."