Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
Two quick comments:
1) Last Iraqi war? We've been bombing them constantly for thirteen years, and killing them through sanctions since before that.
2) The already frightening death toll rises even higher if you consider the number of those in the Iraqi army who are only there for a means of a support for their family. 80% of Iraqis depend on their government for food, and many must enlist to assure that their families are able to eat. Their options are watch their mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons, and daughters starve to death or support them by working for the government.
Of course, my stance is that EVERY death should be avoided, not just those of civilians. Just because your leader is claiming to have a dick as big or bigger than my leader doesn't mean that you need to commit hundreds of thousands of troops to fight and possibly die.
Even as a very strong anti-war activist, I find offense to the idea that people would want to restrict free software from being free. While I hate the thought that my code could be used to kill people, I also have to accept that it is just as likely to save people with advances in medical technology, etc. Open source is a progressive movement, and just because it benefits an act that can be seen as non-progressive, you're causing as much harm as good by limiting it. Parallels can be drawn to the recent Supreme Court case involving civil disobedience by anti-abortion activists. No matter how much I disagree with their cause, they have the same right to liberties as I do, and I support their ability to voice them. Freedom is no longer freedom if it only belongs to a select few.
And in the end, it works out all right. I use Open Source technologies heavily in my struggle to keep this war from materializing. There are uses for server technology, desktop publishing and imaging, encryption, communications software, etc., that would not be available to me without Open Source due to my status as a volunteer - working completely without funding. Additionally, I'm much more trusting of Open Software, as there's no way to tell with closed products if the government has a backdoor to every word you say, every rally you organize; and suddenly federal marshalls start appearing before your act of civil disobedience even gets underway.
It's tough to see code you right used in a way you don't agree with, but limiting its use in ANY way puts you on the same level as corporations with thick EULAs designed to circumvent freedoms to individuals.
Slashdot Mirror
Two quick comments: 1) Last Iraqi war? We've been bombing them constantly for thirteen years, and killing them through sanctions since before that. 2) The already frightening death toll rises even higher if you consider the number of those in the Iraqi army who are only there for a means of a support for their family. 80% of Iraqis depend on their government for food, and many must enlist to assure that their families are able to eat. Their options are watch their mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons, and daughters starve to death or support them by working for the government. Of course, my stance is that EVERY death should be avoided, not just those of civilians. Just because your leader is claiming to have a dick as big or bigger than my leader doesn't mean that you need to commit hundreds of thousands of troops to fight and possibly die.
Even as a very strong anti-war activist, I find offense to the idea that people would want to restrict free software from being free. While I hate the thought that my code could be used to kill people, I also have to accept that it is just as likely to save people with advances in medical technology, etc. Open source is a progressive movement, and just because it benefits an act that can be seen as non-progressive, you're causing as much harm as good by limiting it. Parallels can be drawn to the recent Supreme Court case involving civil disobedience by anti-abortion activists. No matter how much I disagree with their cause, they have the same right to liberties as I do, and I support their ability to voice them. Freedom is no longer freedom if it only belongs to a select few. And in the end, it works out all right. I use Open Source technologies heavily in my struggle to keep this war from materializing. There are uses for server technology, desktop publishing and imaging, encryption, communications software, etc., that would not be available to me without Open Source due to my status as a volunteer - working completely without funding. Additionally, I'm much more trusting of Open Software, as there's no way to tell with closed products if the government has a backdoor to every word you say, every rally you organize; and suddenly federal marshalls start appearing before your act of civil disobedience even gets underway. It's tough to see code you right used in a way you don't agree with, but limiting its use in ANY way puts you on the same level as corporations with thick EULAs designed to circumvent freedoms to individuals.