Don't get me wrong, I like classical music, it isn't bad, but style-wise it's on the far side of the moon from today's garbage. I still listen to some contemporary stuff and I've expanded into other things like '40's swing, but the stuff spewing out of 80% of the stations today just makes me want to hurl.
Keep on pushing groups like Britney and O-Town, RIAA. Strauss, Wagner, Beethoven, Liszt, and Tchaikowsky are cackling from their graves with glee!
I've been doing some testing in preparation of a possible move:
HP Pavilion N5440 laptop, 256Mb RAM
Lycoris Desktop/LX Amethyst Edition, beta build 50 (you can d/l the ISO for free from their site to play with it, or buy build 46 for $30 and upgrade for free--it's EASY)
Lycoris installed PERFECTLY. It recognized every device in the laptop. It's also INCREDIBLY easy to use. I had tried Mandrake 8.1, and Lycoris, as strictly a DESKTOP OS, beats the pants off it.
It can see Windows shares just fine, but mounting a shared folder is a little tricky. I recommend making a folder for a share you want to access and mounting it from the command line. For example, I have another HP laptop running Win2k that's called "HPLAPTOP2". I made a folder called hplaptop2 in my home directory and type the following:
smbmount//hplaptop2/drive_c hplaptop2
It asks for a username/password when you do this, and then you're good to go!
Office 2000 installs and runs darn near perfectly (as in I had no problems, but they recommend turning Clippy off--like who doesn't?)
Visio 5 and Visio 5 technical plus run like a dream, but you have to choose the default installation option (don't do custom or complete)
CodeWeavers claims Visio 2000 and Quicken run, but I don't have either program
Crossover comes with a really nice installer that will automatically install many well-known programs for you, as well as the standard TTF fonts. The result: your Word documents, for example, look EXACTLY the same on the Linux box.
About a third of my Windows programs are usable. I use Mozilla 1.1 for the browser, and with Office and Visio I have just about everything I need.
Basically, you CAN start migrating your people NOW for most tasks. Sure as hell beats the M$ tax.
Other industries should take heed. Broadband is really convenient, and if people aren't willing to pay for it, what does that say for other things?
- HDTV
- Palladium ("All the bloatware you've come to expect AND DRM!")
- Office XPdoubleplus
- Digital media devices ("It's NEW! It's DIGITAL! Twice the clarity, half the storage, and half the freedom!")
Just because some pointy-headed bean counter comes up with a bright idea doesn't mean people will plunk down the cash for it. Dare I have hope? Naaaaah...
I once ranted about a completely different subject, but it was also about what I considered an invasion of privacy (the suject was roadblocks to check seatbelts). One person replied: "End this madness. Vote Libertarian." I know, it sounds trite, and if people continue to think that way, then they have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning, but, they really ARE the only ones (in my mind) who would really try to fix the privacy issues in this country. So I'm going with them. It's not like voting any other way is working...the same people in office seem to be content to do whatever they want, our concerns be damned.
To the people who say increased security--whatever the cost--is a Good Thing(tm):
LIFE IS RISK
Sheesh, a hundred years ago there were head-on train collisions because an ENGINEER'S WATCH STOPPED! Do we even want to get into risks of disease and famine? Anyone remember the Black Death? The Irish Potato Famine? And I'm sure life for people in the Dark Ages was positively peachy. How about life in the Roman Empire (senators and other bigwigs DON'T COUNT). They were always on the brink of starvation. A flight leaves JFK every three minutes and you're so worried that you might be on the one flight that contains a terrorist that you want to live in a police state? Get friggin real. You're lucky--damned lucky--to live in a free country at all; we are a historical aberration. Usually it works the other way around; the powerful simply make the weak do whatever they want, on pain of death. Try taking your high-and-mighty "I want to be safe" rhetoric to anyone who has suffered under the Nazis (the entire population of Europe from the English Channel to Russia would be a good start, and don't forget anyone who emigrated to the US from Europe in the last fifty years). Don't be surprised to see where they tell you to stick it.
Already making the transition...
Extra HP Pavilion laptop: $1800
Copy of Lycoris Desktop/LX: $40
Codeweavers Crossover Office and Crossover Plugin: $80
I've been showing the technology off to my friends. That's what we need to do.
Santorum (R-PA) was right up with the best of them in being as vague as possible. I am so not voting for him next time. I just hope the LP puts a candidate up.
I once worked for a company where we were in such a union. Association of Scientists and Professional Engineering Personnel (ASPEP). They had a collective bargaining agreement and were able to get a (slightly) better deal for their employees. The dues were more than reasonable (pennies, really) but the progress they got was limited. Some employees complained that they didn't push the company hard enough, but the company was barely staying afloat as it was so there wasn't much that could be done anyhow. Nevertheless, I thought it was a neat idea.
Let me preface the following statement by saying that I'm a registered Republican. Both of my parents are Republicans as well, and we all voted for GWB.
I had a talk with my father not too long ago and we were talking about Ashcroft. I told him that, as much as it terrified me to say it, I was actually beginning to understand why people voted for a dead man instead of him. My father agreed.
I think we've created a monster here. A Republican Ashcroft may be, but to classify him as a Conservative begs a stricter definition od Conservative--what KIND of conservative is he?
I believe he is a SOCIAL conservative, but not a CONSTITUTIONAL one. Otherwise he would realize just how badly he's running roughshod over not only the first and fourth amendments, but the ninth and tenth as well. It's this type of "Conservative" that scares the hell out of me. I think he's applying his religious views instead of thinking about freedom.
I can't stress this enough. When people call themselves or others "Conservatives", we all--on the left, right, or middle--need to call them on it and ask them to clarify it, because the (I think intentional) blurriness is getting this country into trouble. As for myself, I'll be voting LP in the future.
Um, what's the problem with his statement? In the last paragraph he had already transitioned to EAST Germany and the Stasi, i.e. the Communists, not the Nazis. He even parenthetically said in his above statement, "compared to the east". He's talking about EAST Germany, you know, the part behind Churchill's Iron Curtain.
Ok, go back your argument. I'm just keeping you honest:)
The problem is, we're too comfortable in this country. We have Starbucks coffee, 500 TV channels, and you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a supermarket or strip mall. Simply put, COMFORT TRUMPS RIGHTS. As long as people feel comfortable, they don't care if they lose their rights. People won't do anything to change things here until enough of them have nothing to lose by trying. If I had to guess on people who might actually care about freedom, I'd bet on Central and South America. Any posters from there care to weigh in?
Good Lord. I wonder how many "patriotic" Germans were saying things like this in 1937. "Oh, stop worrying, it's HARMLESS!" There are so many things wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin.
You'd be surprised how deep the good 'ole boy network goes. I have an uncle who is an elected politician and he once bragged how he could fix friends' tickets because he knew the judges (he also knew the other towns' politicians, who controlled their cops, of course). Remember, a lot of the cops, politicians, and judges know each other, and are often of the same party in neighboring towns. What's good or bad for one will be the same for the others. If the FBI (instead of locals) came for something frivolous, the locals might not want to make any waves, especially if push comes to shove (or if the party running the county is the same one that's in the White House, like now). Unless a local politician's ego gets bruised or something, they usually cooperate.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds suspiciously similar to the gun-control argument: "A child might accidentally get hold of (gasp) a GUN, so...let's TAKE THEM ALL AWAY! No child must be allowed to suffer!" Sorry, but it doesn't wash. Children are minors and must be protected, but their rights do not carry any more weight than the rights of others. If you wish to give up YOUR Internet privileges and, being a responsible parent, take away YOUR CHILD's Internet privileges, I would concede that as possibly a responsible course of action. Taking away everyone else's Internet privileges, however is a non-sequitur. Your child's need to be protected doesn't give you the right to deny the Internet from other people. You, as parent, are responsible for protecting your child, and you have the means to do that. Stop your Internet service. Your child will surely never come across kiddie porn that way.
I know what it's like to love a child so much that would utterly destroy ANYTHING that would threaten her/him.
In principle this sounds reasonable, but it isn't. You're not entitled to use any amount of "force" in destroying such threats if those means would cause harm to others and other methods are available that are just as effective. If someone breaks into your house and threatens your child, by all means go ahead and kill that intruder if need be. You could light the intruder up with a shotgun and I wouldn't bat an eyelash. That doesn't mean, however, that you could spray the guy with so many bullets that they streamed out of your house into other people's homes. If someone threatened your child, say, at the store (but otherwise did nothing), you couldn't seek out that person and pre-empt an attack by disabling that person. The point is, there are limits. You aren't entitled to destroy the Internet just because that's a sure-fire means of protecting your child from kiddie porn. If I went and nuked Chester, PA, I guarantee that would knock out nearly all crime in this area where I live, but that doesn't make me entitled to do it. I take this as an axiom: THE ENDS NEVER JUSTIFY THE MEANS. Never, ever. If you disagree, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.
I can also imagine would it would be like to lose my child to something like that
Then don't make pornographic movies with your child! Sheesh, we're not talking about kidnapping, we're talking about porn. No one "loses their child" to this sort of thing; they exploit their children. Please calm down and think the issue through. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean to say that you don't want your child EXPOSED to it. That's a reasonable concern, but I have to stress that in that case, it's your child, and your responsibility. BE THE PARENT. Police your child on the Internet; either buy monitoring software, or sit there with your child, or drop your ISP service. I don't care how you do it. Let your child know that it's his or her backside if you catch him/her looking at porn if you have to. I don't care; the point is, you are the parent, and no one else. If you care that much, then it's your duty to invest whatever time, money, or effort is required to protect your child. It's grossly selfish of you to expect everyone to make such a sacrifice just so your child can be protected. That's your job. And don't tell me that it can't be done. I grew up in a really strict Irish Catholic neighborhood, and let me tell you, some of my friends' parents DEFINED strict. Lay down the law.
I can say without precedence that in that situation, the world as a whole losing their internet "privliges" doesn't hold a candle to the suffering of one child.
I assume you mean "prejudice". Not a problem. As to your point, excuse me, but like hell it does. See above. There is no shortage of parents who seem perfectly able to protect their children. Protect yours.
Read your first sentence again. And again. And again. Yes, it probably HAS made you overzealous. You're thinking only of YOUR KID, and not of the larger issue.
Case in point:
I have a close friend who I've known for 25 years. Three years ago he took the big plunge: he got married, bought a house, two new cars, and now has a son. In that short time he went from being a die-hard conservative to someone who could quote Karl Marx ("I need the rich to give me more money, I'm struggling and they don't need it!") I kid you not.
What I told him:
- YOU got married.
- YOU bought two brand-new cars instead of buying used.
- YOU decided to have a child now instead of later on.
- YOU dropped out of college after two years instead of toughing it out.
- NO ONE MADE YOU DO THESE THINGS.
- YOU'RE THINKING ONLY OF YOURSELF.
The last line applies here. You would apply an extremely dangerous precedent to EVERYONE so that you can feel better about YOUR CHILD. Kiddie porn isn't the issue. The precedent is.
The concept is far older than that. I remember a quote from Cardinal Richieleu (sp?) something like: "Let a man write three sentences and I will find enough to imprison him for ten years." Same idea.
It's crap like this that make me embarrassed to be a software developer (and yes, I do work in industry--it's stil sickening). It's greed run amok. Oh, every election year we get all high and mighty about the American Entrepreneur and the American Dream, but when it comes down to brass tacks, instead of OUTDOING our competitors, we're trying every underhanded tactic (legal or technical) in the book to lock them out so we don't have to. Please excuse me while I go vomit.
Ugh. That's why I live in PENNSYLVANIA. I could get up on my roof and see NJ if I wanted to, but it may as well be another country. I'll never understand why you people have to regulate EVERYTHING to hell and gone. I think there should be a sign at the Commodore Barry that reads: "YOU ARE LEAVING THE AMERICAN SECTOR".
You don't need strong religious convictions to see that such a practice is wrong, period. The question is, do people have the backbone to stand up for their beliefs? The day that Congress decides to Lo-Jack everybody, will you decide to emigrate? Sadly, I think most people wouldn't. You're right, though, this is creepy...indeed beyond creepy, the mere IDEA of being physcially tracked all the time is truly frightening.
Those of you in countries like Venezuela who have or are considering Open Source to protect your national security: Palladium/TCPA will do more to keep you dependent on proprietary solutions than any draconian licensing scheme. Imagine all your.DOC files in encrypted format, such that you become totally dependent on proprietary software with NO WAY OUT. This technology is your enemy. If you are considering mandating Open Source, you may want to consider mandating Open Hardware as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Even drug dealers know to give the first one away free. Get you hooked, and you'll keep coming back for more.
Oooh Santa, can I get an upgrade for my Archos Jukebox Recorder 20?
This is how bad today's music has become...
I've started switching to classical music.
Don't get me wrong, I like classical music, it isn't bad, but style-wise it's on the far side of the moon from today's garbage. I still listen to some contemporary stuff and I've expanded into other things like '40's swing, but the stuff spewing out of 80% of the stations today just makes me want to hurl.
Keep on pushing groups like Britney and O-Town, RIAA. Strauss, Wagner, Beethoven, Liszt, and Tchaikowsky are cackling from their graves with glee!
I've been doing some testing in preparation of a possible move:
//hplaptop2/drive_c hplaptop2
HP Pavilion N5440 laptop, 256Mb RAM
Lycoris Desktop/LX Amethyst Edition, beta build 50 (you can d/l the ISO for free from their site to play with it, or buy build 46 for $30 and upgrade for free--it's EASY)
CodeWeavers Crossover Office 1.2 (newest version), $50
Verdict:
Lycoris installed PERFECTLY. It recognized every device in the laptop. It's also INCREDIBLY easy to use. I had tried Mandrake 8.1, and Lycoris, as strictly a DESKTOP OS, beats the pants off it.
It can see Windows shares just fine, but mounting a shared folder is a little tricky. I recommend making a folder for a share you want to access and mounting it from the command line. For example, I have another HP laptop running Win2k that's called "HPLAPTOP2". I made a folder called hplaptop2 in my home directory and type the following:
smbmount
It asks for a username/password when you do this, and then you're good to go!
Office 2000 installs and runs darn near perfectly (as in I had no problems, but they recommend turning Clippy off--like who doesn't?)
Visio 5 and Visio 5 technical plus run like a dream, but you have to choose the default installation option (don't do custom or complete)
CodeWeavers claims Visio 2000 and Quicken run, but I don't have either program
Crossover comes with a really nice installer that will automatically install many well-known programs for you, as well as the standard TTF fonts. The result: your Word documents, for example, look EXACTLY the same on the Linux box.
About a third of my Windows programs are usable. I use Mozilla 1.1 for the browser, and with Office and Visio I have just about everything I need.
Basically, you CAN start migrating your people NOW for most tasks. Sure as hell beats the M$ tax.
Other industries should take heed. Broadband is really convenient, and if people aren't willing to pay for it, what does that say for other things?
- HDTV
- Palladium ("All the bloatware you've come to expect AND DRM!")
- Office XPdoubleplus
- Digital media devices ("It's NEW! It's DIGITAL! Twice the clarity, half the storage, and half the freedom!")
Just because some pointy-headed bean counter comes up with a bright idea doesn't mean people will plunk down the cash for it. Dare I have hope? Naaaaah...
Twp points:
I once ranted about a completely different subject, but it was also about what I considered an invasion of privacy (the suject was roadblocks to check seatbelts). One person replied: "End this madness. Vote Libertarian." I know, it sounds trite, and if people continue to think that way, then they have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning, but, they really ARE the only ones (in my mind) who would really try to fix the privacy issues in this country. So I'm going with them. It's not like voting any other way is working...the same people in office seem to be content to do whatever they want, our concerns be damned.
To the people who say increased security--whatever the cost--is a Good Thing(tm):
LIFE IS RISK
Sheesh, a hundred years ago there were head-on train collisions because an ENGINEER'S WATCH STOPPED! Do we even want to get into risks of disease and famine? Anyone remember the Black Death? The Irish Potato Famine? And I'm sure life for people in the Dark Ages was positively peachy. How about life in the Roman Empire (senators and other bigwigs DON'T COUNT). They were always on the brink of starvation. A flight leaves JFK every three minutes and you're so worried that you might be on the one flight that contains a terrorist that you want to live in a police state? Get friggin real. You're lucky--damned lucky--to live in a free country at all; we are a historical aberration. Usually it works the other way around; the powerful simply make the weak do whatever they want, on pain of death. Try taking your high-and-mighty "I want to be safe" rhetoric to anyone who has suffered under the Nazis (the entire population of Europe from the English Channel to Russia would be a good start, and don't forget anyone who emigrated to the US from Europe in the last fifty years). Don't be surprised to see where they tell you to stick it.
Already making the transition... Extra HP Pavilion laptop: $1800 Copy of Lycoris Desktop/LX: $40 Codeweavers Crossover Office and Crossover Plugin: $80 I've been showing the technology off to my friends. That's what we need to do.
Santorum (R-PA) was right up with the best of them in being as vague as possible. I am so not voting for him next time. I just hope the LP puts a candidate up.
I once worked for a company where we were in such a union. Association of Scientists and Professional Engineering Personnel (ASPEP). They had a collective bargaining agreement and were able to get a (slightly) better deal for their employees. The dues were more than reasonable (pennies, really) but the progress they got was limited. Some employees complained that they didn't push the company hard enough, but the company was barely staying afloat as it was so there wasn't much that could be done anyhow. Nevertheless, I thought it was a neat idea.
I had a talk with my father not too long ago and we were talking about Ashcroft. I told him that, as much as it terrified me to say it, I was actually beginning to understand why people voted for a dead man instead of him. My father agreed.
I think we've created a monster here. A Republican Ashcroft may be, but to classify him as a Conservative begs a stricter definition od Conservative--what KIND of conservative is he?
I believe he is a SOCIAL conservative, but not a CONSTITUTIONAL one. Otherwise he would realize just how badly he's running roughshod over not only the first and fourth amendments, but the ninth and tenth as well. It's this type of "Conservative" that scares the hell out of me. I think he's applying his religious views instead of thinking about freedom.
I can't stress this enough. When people call themselves or others "Conservatives", we all--on the left, right, or middle--need to call them on it and ask them to clarify it, because the (I think intentional) blurriness is getting this country into trouble. As for myself, I'll be voting LP in the future.
THE ENDS NEVER JUSTIFY THE MEANS.
Never, never, never.
Learn it, live it, love it.
Ok, go back your argument. I'm just keeping you honest
The problem is, we're too comfortable in this country. We have Starbucks coffee, 500 TV channels, and you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a supermarket or strip mall. Simply put, COMFORT TRUMPS RIGHTS. As long as people feel comfortable, they don't care if they lose their rights. People won't do anything to change things here until enough of them have nothing to lose by trying. If I had to guess on people who might actually care about freedom, I'd bet on Central and South America. Any posters from there care to weigh in?
Good Lord. I wonder how many "patriotic" Germans were saying things like this in 1937. "Oh, stop worrying, it's HARMLESS!" There are so many things wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin.
You'd be surprised how deep the good 'ole boy network goes. I have an uncle who is an elected politician and he once bragged how he could fix friends' tickets because he knew the judges (he also knew the other towns' politicians, who controlled their cops, of course). Remember, a lot of the cops, politicians, and judges know each other, and are often of the same party in neighboring towns. What's good or bad for one will be the same for the others. If the FBI (instead of locals) came for something frivolous, the locals might not want to make any waves, especially if push comes to shove (or if the party running the county is the same one that's in the White House, like now). Unless a local politician's ego gets bruised or something, they usually cooperate.
And I've never even USED bnetd. That's how upset what they did makes me.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds suspiciously similar to the gun-control argument: "A child might accidentally get hold of (gasp) a GUN, so...let's TAKE THEM ALL AWAY! No child must be allowed to suffer!" Sorry, but it doesn't wash. Children are minors and must be protected, but their rights do not carry any more weight than the rights of others. If you wish to give up YOUR Internet privileges and, being a responsible parent, take away YOUR CHILD's Internet privileges, I would concede that as possibly a responsible course of action. Taking away everyone else's Internet privileges, however is a non-sequitur. Your child's need to be protected doesn't give you the right to deny the Internet from other people. You, as parent, are responsible for protecting your child, and you have the means to do that. Stop your Internet service. Your child will surely never come across kiddie porn that way.
I know what it's like to love a child so much that would utterly destroy ANYTHING that would threaten her/him.
In principle this sounds reasonable, but it isn't. You're not entitled to use any amount of "force" in destroying such threats if those means would cause harm to others and other methods are available that are just as effective. If someone breaks into your house and threatens your child, by all means go ahead and kill that intruder if need be. You could light the intruder up with a shotgun and I wouldn't bat an eyelash. That doesn't mean, however, that you could spray the guy with so many bullets that they streamed out of your house into other people's homes. If someone threatened your child, say, at the store (but otherwise did nothing), you couldn't seek out that person and pre-empt an attack by disabling that person. The point is, there are limits. You aren't entitled to destroy the Internet just because that's a sure-fire means of protecting your child from kiddie porn. If I went and nuked Chester, PA, I guarantee that would knock out nearly all crime in this area where I live, but that doesn't make me entitled to do it. I take this as an axiom: THE ENDS NEVER JUSTIFY THE MEANS. Never, ever. If you disagree, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.
I can also imagine would it would be like to lose my child to something like that
Then don't make pornographic movies with your child! Sheesh, we're not talking about kidnapping, we're talking about porn. No one "loses their child" to this sort of thing; they exploit their children. Please calm down and think the issue through. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean to say that you don't want your child EXPOSED to it. That's a reasonable concern, but I have to stress that in that case, it's your child, and your responsibility. BE THE PARENT. Police your child on the Internet; either buy monitoring software, or sit there with your child, or drop your ISP service. I don't care how you do it. Let your child know that it's his or her backside if you catch him/her looking at porn if you have to. I don't care; the point is, you are the parent, and no one else. If you care that much, then it's your duty to invest whatever time, money, or effort is required to protect your child. It's grossly selfish of you to expect everyone to make such a sacrifice just so your child can be protected. That's your job. And don't tell me that it can't be done. I grew up in a really strict Irish Catholic neighborhood, and let me tell you, some of my friends' parents DEFINED strict. Lay down the law.
I can say without precedence that in that situation, the world as a whole losing their internet "privliges" doesn't hold a candle to the suffering of one child.
I assume you mean "prejudice". Not a problem. As to your point, excuse me, but like hell it does. See above. There is no shortage of parents who seem perfectly able to protect their children. Protect yours.
Correction: Reread the first TWO sentences. So sue me :)
Case in point:
I have a close friend who I've known for 25 years. Three years ago he took the big plunge: he got married, bought a house, two new cars, and now has a son. In that short time he went from being a die-hard conservative to someone who could quote Karl Marx ("I need the rich to give me more money, I'm struggling and they don't need it!") I kid you not.
What I told him:
- YOU got married.
- YOU bought two brand-new cars instead of buying used.
- YOU decided to have a child now instead of later on.
- YOU dropped out of college after two years instead of toughing it out.
- NO ONE MADE YOU DO THESE THINGS.
- YOU'RE THINKING ONLY OF YOURSELF.
The last line applies here. You would apply an extremely dangerous precedent to EVERYONE so that you can feel better about YOUR CHILD. Kiddie porn isn't the issue. The precedent is.
The concept is far older than that. I remember a quote from Cardinal Richieleu (sp?) something like: "Let a man write three sentences and I will find enough to imprison him for ten years." Same idea.
It's crap like this that make me embarrassed to be a software developer (and yes, I do work in industry--it's stil sickening). It's greed run amok. Oh, every election year we get all high and mighty about the American Entrepreneur and the American Dream, but when it comes down to brass tacks, instead of OUTDOING our competitors, we're trying every underhanded tactic (legal or technical) in the book to lock them out so we don't have to. Please excuse me while I go vomit.
Ugh. That's why I live in PENNSYLVANIA. I could get up on my roof and see NJ if I wanted to, but it may as well be another country. I'll never understand why you people have to regulate EVERYTHING to hell and gone. I think there should be a sign at the Commodore Barry that reads: "YOU ARE LEAVING THE AMERICAN SECTOR".
I think that's the sound of hundreds of M$ employees spitting their coffee all over their monitors.
You don't need strong religious convictions to see that such a practice is wrong, period. The question is, do people have the backbone to stand up for their beliefs? The day that Congress decides to Lo-Jack everybody, will you decide to emigrate? Sadly, I think most people wouldn't. You're right, though, this is creepy...indeed beyond creepy, the mere IDEA of being physcially tracked all the time is truly frightening.
Those of you in countries like Venezuela who have or are considering Open Source to protect your national security: Palladium/TCPA will do more to keep you dependent on proprietary solutions than any draconian licensing scheme. Imagine all your .DOC files in encrypted format, such that you become totally dependent on proprietary software with NO WAY OUT. This technology is your enemy. If you are considering mandating Open Source, you may want to consider mandating Open Hardware as well.