Ghandi organized an ambulance service of over a thousand unpaid volunteers in the South African War, saving many lives. Achievement one.
Ghandi led a major protest movement there which led to the restoration of the rights of Indian settlers. His non-violent approach and ability to inspire others to do the same brought this about whereas a violent approach would have failed against the stronger government forces.
In India, he was a major force in ending British occupation - again an ostensibly stronger force. Additionally, his non-violent approach may have ultimately subverted a bloody war of independence in which many would have died. He began his independence efforts when the British government passed laws allowing incarceration without trial (sounds familiar).
During the indpendence movement, he also found time to improve the legal status of India's "untouchables" and for a time, brought an end to growing violent clashes between Muslim and Hindu factions by refusing to eat until the riots ended. He also brought education to many rural areas of India.
In addition to all of the measurable achievements, he showed how much can be achieved without violence, even in the face of extreme provocation. This has strengthed the influence of successors who argue for peaceful resolutions.
As a young lawyer, there was nothing about his life or position that said he could go on to do these things, yet he chose to try anyway, making a huge difference to the lives of millions. So I reckon that just goes to show that we don't have to be prisoners of history. Wars can be prevented and the World changed.
You think mankind will incinerate itself. I think there is cause to hope. If everyone thinks like you, then they'll be right. If everyone thinks like me, then we have a bright future. I believe my way of thinking is the better one and I'll continue to pass it on to anyone who has ears to hear.;)
Need to do it as an application - don't want to keep the persons choices on a central server and want very interactive behavior from the app.
There's no need to preserve people's choices on the server. If you want to make them persistant, then they can keep a cookie containing the nature of their query(ies). That doesn't provide them with assurance that their query wasn't logged though, so you can have an OSS app that works client side if you want, and simply downloads the latest dataset of voting history. This is slower however. You can actually have very interactive behaviour with the web-based app. Can even do some bars and graphs without problem. MySQL backend provides for pretty effective searching and is a good way of managing their queries (easier than coding a non-RDBS application for the client, I would think).
Up to you, of course, Just offering a suggestion as to how I would do it. I don't think the lack of trust on the client should be a problem as the nature of their queries isn't going to be half as scary to the powers that be as the simple fact that someone is bothering to query at all.;)
Anyway, good luck with this, and do give me a shout if you get anywhere. It's given me an idea for a related UK project. Don't forget to keep a secret envelope containing all this stuff to be opened in the event of mysterious car crash. I've got one.;)
My Linux box can, running Firefox. The site represents all the chinese characters fine. Although I don't have the relevant language knowledge installed (can't read Chinese) so it doesn't really help.:(
For bonus points, use troops from an ethnic group that is (for whatever reason) opposed to the ones you need to suppress.
You've just given me the vision of a future US government importing some of the Arab forces they're currently training in Iraq for maintaining order. Thank-you. That's the best laugh I've had all day.
I've spent a little time in Norway also. Lovely place (shame about the whaling). I find it hard to imagine that Norwegian military training is a psychologically brutal as US training. Even so, it conditions people to obey orders.
But as to following unreasonable orders? Well from the pre-soldier's point of view, they are all unreasonable. Go out and get shot at for the sake of some people you don't know? Value your life at less than the goals of people who boss you around all the time? And most of all, kill people on command. That last does not come easily to 98% of people. We have built in instincts against that for good reason. But I heard an interesting talk from a trainer in the US army about conditioning people to overcome this.
And one of things he focused on was not the conditioning itself, but the stress that comes with acting on it. It's not for nothing that the US military is interested in drugs that damage short-term memory formation.
But stress and discomfort increase when you know you are doing wrong.
The chief goal of US military training is to break the bonds with civilian life, bonds to family and loved ones, in preperation for replacing them with emotional bonds to the army. But this is not 100$ effective and, with time and introspection, becomes more complex. Turning the army against the civillians would place a soldier in a great deal of psychological conflict and it the effort would have to be preserved with heavy propaganda and strict prevention of non-confrontational contact with the "enemy."
You also have to consider how long this effort would last. The army still needs to recruit, still needs support. If not backed by a willing civillian population there will be problems with both of these.
In short, simple army supression of a population is not possible. Supplement with intimidation laws (curfews, public gathering restrictions, sedition, et al.), secret police (e.g. don't have to go through normal procedures (e.g. warrant restrictions, DMCA provisions on can't tell anyone we're investigating them, no knowledge of the evidence against you, et al.) then you start getting somewhere. But even so, these are desperate measures. If the whole world is under one government, then perhaps you can make this last longer than it ought, but a country that does this is crippling itself. Hence the diversion of militarisation.
Nazi style government is the credit card of social engineering. It can get you out of an unpleasant situation, but it will not last and the bailiffs have a tendancy to string you up with piano wire.
If you have to send the army in, you're in pretty big trouble.
What most "free data" anarchists seem to consistently overlook
Who are these "free data anarchists" ? I'm an anarchist and I believe people should be able to choose privacy. I don't think most of the people you're trying to argue against fall into the category you have defined.
And anti-DRM advocates are modern day equivalent of those earlier technological luddites who feared radio. In order for computing systems to become more personal we must begin constructing them with more security.
I can make my computer as personal as I like without handing over the control of it to a third party. Security is fine. I'd like the security under my control, please. Not someone else's. Also, what mass protest movement was there against radio? I don't remember these people that you liken us to?
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One Nation, under God, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All."
If the last three words are not valid, I guess the first three words aren't valid either.
That's a beautiful turn of phrase. Worth becoming one of/.'s stock quotes. I'm in the UK and I've always found it disturbing how little children are taught to recite their alleigiance.
There is a post further up from a serviceman talking about what would happen if the Army were called in on its own people. It would be a bit much to ask soldiers to go up against their own.
The technique of pulling this off, is dissassociation. You'd need to turn the "us" of army and population into a "us and them" of army and population. You'd need a communist witch hunt for the modern day, convince the soldiers that they were protecting the country from traitors of some sort. But it would be hard, really hard.
Don't get me wrong - I don't underestimate the training techniques of the modern army. I was once on a Greyhound bus with a few recruits just finishing bootcamp. It was amazing how suggestible they were to anyone who wanted to make them do things (me). But to describe the army as full of "flag-waving jar-heads" is to do them a disservice. Very few people wouldn't think something was wrong when sent against their own country. Especially if we're talking the sort of mass-unrest that would actually require military intervention. And for every group of "jar-heads" there is a commanding officer who has demonstrably better reasoning skills.
The army is not typically drawn from the sons and daughters of the rich. And it's them who would have the necessary dissasociation to regard a mass of citizens as enemy who need to be slapped back down. The army is built of ordinary people (as much as anyone is ordinary) so you're trying to turn people on themselves. Very very dangerous. If a government tries that tactic, you know they are truly afraid.
I went through my angry phase in my early twenties. Settled down a bit and am revving back up.
And here. Not quite hit the big 30 yet, but I can see it quite well from where I am. *sob*. And yet, I'm also finding myself revving up for a bit World changing. And the nice thing is that by this point, I'm so much more able to achieve things than when I was younger.
As I posted elsewhere, the secret is to find satisfaction in making one-person's contribution.
And to whoever posted about Usama, yes - he has shown what one person can do, but Ghandi achieved more.
Sounds fun. I could do this as PHP based web-site. Could maybe even offer hosting.
Tricky bit is keeping up to speed on the the bills and resolutions. You'd need to organize a group to do this and divvy up responsibility for different areas, so that there weren't big delays and ommisions. Maybe post for volunteers on one of the more political boards.
E-mail me if you actually get as far as that. I'm in the UK but as another poster pointed out, you're exporting this crap now. Plus I love banging out toys like this.:)
Yeah. I know this is a bad thing. But I'm starting to suffer from 'outrage fatigue'. It's getting damn tiring hearing about our rights being eroded and getting angry about it.
Anger's function is to enable us to do something about the situation. Frustration and fatigue build up when we can't. If you do a few things to act against the erosion of rights, whatever, you may find that your anger discharges in a positive way, rather than burning you out. Doesn't mean overthrowing your Government, or anything - You're one person. So keep it in perspective and make one person's contribution, write a letter to your congressman on an issue, interest / inform someone in the situation who wasn't previously informed, go on a protest. The key is to keep things in perspective and realize that you have in however small a way, taken action against what bothers and get some satisfaction.
I'm not meaning this as a lecture or moral obligation. Just that if you're starting to burn out with the anger, turning it outwards at a better target will feel good for you.
Now you're getting it.;) You can't define information without it being in the context of someone / thing knowing it. Describing the behaviour of information depends on describing the medium in which operates. I'm describing much more than gossip however. We can apply this to any sort of information, from Nuclear secrets to movies, and it is irrelevant to moral attribution (whether gossip or the enigma codes).
I disagree that people will blab about things that have no value, however. What Joe did last night is relevant to the people who know him. Just as they might think the same about you talking about computer protocols. The information will spread amongst those who assign value to it. To others, it's not information, just noise.
Well then lets talk in specifics. Let's apply some realism to the idea that fitten discovers the cure to cancer.
In order to develop this cure, you have done research, spent time and effort, purchased cancer-developing mice, et al. You must now put effort into concealing all this.
"it's up to me to spread that around."
If you mention it once, then you do not have to do any work to spread it. The greater the value of information, the more it will spread with less effort.
What you are proposing is a very very finely balanced situation (you are the only one that knows with no tell-tale evidence). Let one person in on the secret and the effort to contain that information has increased dramatically. Two people in on it, more so. A research group, you'll need to take quite dramatic security measures. In each case we're moving away from your hypothetical ideal (perfectly balanced on the top of my hill). A very small amount of work is needed to disturb this careful balance, which in anything other than your hypothetical woke up one morning with a vision scenario, is going to be less than the work needed to contain it.
Essentially, my analogy was to illustrate that information kept secret is not the lowest energy state. And the greater the value of the information the less the onus is on you to spread it around, and the harder it will be to contain.
So there you go, the same explanation stripped of the boulder and hill image as you asked.
If you want to come up with a different specific example than discovering the cure for cancer and all that ails me (which would have to include Visual Basic, please), then go ahead. Try and find something where the Information has value (my height of hill / weight of boulder) where the information doesn't want to be free. I've illustrated my principle, and am happy to move on to testing it.
Analogies are used for explanation, a comparison to help someone understand a concept as was used here. You clearly understood the explanation of "Information Wants to Be Free." Therefore, analogy successful. Information wants to be free is not a slogan. It is a nice and poetic way of saying it takes effort to prevent its flow.
I've read through all of this thread and haven't found a mention of
Inkscape yet. Don't know how it compares with others out there, but I've just started using it and find it kind of fun. Good for my basic requirements, anyway.
A good analogy would be to liken closed (non-free) information to potential energy, such as a bolder on top of a hill. There is only one way it can go, and it's natural state is at rest at the bottom of the hill (lowest energy state). In the same way, the natural state of information is to be free and it requires resistance to prevent this.
What you are talking about when you say it is easier for information to be forgotten, is merely valueless facts. This is not the same thing because information has worth.
I referenced Bush because he's the one who is setting up the "Free Speech Zones" that we were discussing. This is where anyone who would make him look bad on television is confined (i.e. those who would boo him, those who would wave banners where the cameras could see, etc.) Anyone wanting to assasinate him is, allowing for sanity, not going to make themselves part of this group. They'll make themselves part of the flag-waving, cheering crowds who are aloud in media range of the president.
As to integrating into a huge mob of people? Absurd! You pull out a gun in the midst of a crowd of protestors, point it at the president and see how quickly you get mobbed and flattened. And if you did, see how quickly you can run away through that "huge mob" you describe. And you see all those coppers who are positioned to keep order? Do you see where they're keeping order? That's right - they're paying special attention to the protesting people, as they always do.
Trying to use a mob of protestors as cover for an assasination is only a hinderance compared to not using them.
The only scenario in which a mob will be a benefit to an assasination, is when it's a mob of people who all want to assasinate the president. And if that's the case, it ain't assasination you're dealing with. It's an intifada.
the large majority of Americans seemingly just don't care any more.
It's a minor point in your overall post, but I'm glad you added the word "seemingly." With the media as solidly locked down as it is, how do you know that there isn't a Hell of a lot more resentment out there than you think? A million marched in Edinbrough recently, and got minimal converage (and half of that anti-anarchist hysteria).
I think more people care than most people realize. But the biggest trick the private media will pull, is to convince you that you're on your own.
Linux should focus more on becoming user-friendly so it gets a bigger customer base
I have a non-negotiable arrangement now that friends / family / etc only get my computer support ("Help, the mouse isn't working" stuff) if they're running Linux. Windows users get the Linux installation offer or nothing.
Who cares about useability? It's ease of maintenance for the local IT guru that really matters to Linux uptake.;)
Slashdot Mirror
So my advertising is the factor that decides my culpability?
WTF did Ghandi achieve? World peace?
Ghandi organized an ambulance service of over a thousand unpaid volunteers in the South African War, saving many lives. Achievement one.
Ghandi led a major protest movement there which led to the restoration of the rights of Indian settlers. His non-violent approach and ability to inspire others to do the same brought this about whereas a violent approach would have failed against the stronger government forces.
In India, he was a major force in ending British occupation - again an ostensibly stronger force. Additionally, his non-violent approach may have ultimately subverted a bloody war of independence in which many would have died. He began his independence efforts when the British government passed laws allowing incarceration without trial (sounds familiar).
During the indpendence movement, he also found time to improve the legal status of India's "untouchables" and for a time, brought an end to growing violent clashes between Muslim and Hindu factions by refusing to eat until the riots ended. He also brought education to many rural areas of India.
In addition to all of the measurable achievements, he showed how much can be achieved without violence, even in the face of extreme provocation. This has strengthed the influence of successors who argue for peaceful resolutions.
As a young lawyer, there was nothing about his life or position that said he could go on to do these things, yet he chose to try anyway, making a huge difference to the lives of millions. So I reckon that just goes to show that we don't have to be prisoners of history. Wars can be prevented and the World changed.
You think mankind will incinerate itself. I think there is cause to hope. If everyone thinks like you, then they'll be right. If everyone thinks like me, then we have a bright future. I believe my way of thinking is the better one and I'll continue to pass it on to anyone who has ears to hear.
Cheers,
-H.
Need to do it as an application - don't want to keep the persons choices on a central server and want very interactive behavior from the app.
There's no need to preserve people's choices on the server. If you want to make them persistant, then they can keep a cookie containing the nature of their query(ies). That doesn't provide them with assurance that their query wasn't logged though, so you can have an OSS app that works client side if you want, and simply downloads the latest dataset of voting history. This is slower however. You can actually have very interactive behaviour with the web-based app. Can even do some bars and graphs without problem. MySQL backend provides for pretty effective searching and is a good way of managing their queries (easier than coding a non-RDBS application for the client, I would think).
Up to you, of course, Just offering a suggestion as to how I would do it. I don't think the lack of trust on the client should be a problem as the nature of their queries isn't going to be half as scary to the powers that be as the simple fact that someone is bothering to query at all.
Anyway, good luck with this, and do give me a shout if you get anywhere. It's given me an idea for a related UK project. Don't forget to keep a secret envelope containing all this stuff to be opened in the event of mysterious car crash. I've got one.
I searched. Found Democracy by Leonard Cohen!
(can't read matrix code)
My Linux box can, running Firefox. The site represents all the chinese characters fine. Although I don't have the relevant language knowledge installed (can't read Chinese) so it doesn't really help.
For bonus points, use troops from an ethnic group that is (for whatever reason) opposed to the ones you need to suppress.
You've just given me the vision of a future US government importing some of the Arab forces they're currently training in Iraq for maintaining order. Thank-you. That's the best laugh I've had all day.
I'm not sure it's funny, mind you.
I've spent a little time in Norway also. Lovely place (shame about the whaling). I find it hard to imagine that Norwegian military training is a psychologically brutal as US training. Even so, it conditions people to obey orders.
But as to following unreasonable orders? Well from the pre-soldier's point of view, they are all unreasonable. Go out and get shot at for the sake of some people you don't know? Value your life at less than the goals of people who boss you around all the time? And most of all, kill people on command. That last does not come easily to 98% of people. We have built in instincts against that for good reason. But I heard an interesting talk from a trainer in the US army about conditioning people to overcome this.
And one of things he focused on was not the conditioning itself, but the stress that comes with acting on it. It's not for nothing that the US military is interested in drugs that damage short-term memory formation.
But stress and discomfort increase when you know you are doing wrong.
The chief goal of US military training is to break the bonds with civilian life, bonds to family and loved ones, in preperation for replacing them with emotional bonds to the army. But this is not 100$ effective and, with time and introspection, becomes more complex. Turning the army against the civillians would place a soldier in a great deal of psychological conflict and it the effort would have to be preserved with heavy propaganda and strict prevention of non-confrontational contact with the "enemy."
You also have to consider how long this effort would last. The army still needs to recruit, still needs support. If not backed by a willing civillian population there will be problems with both of these.
In short, simple army supression of a population is not possible. Supplement with intimidation laws (curfews, public gathering restrictions, sedition, et al.), secret police (e.g. don't have to go through normal procedures (e.g. warrant restrictions, DMCA provisions on can't tell anyone we're investigating them, no knowledge of the evidence against you, et al.) then you start getting somewhere. But even so, these are desperate measures. If the whole world is under one government, then perhaps you can make this last longer than it ought, but a country that does this is crippling itself. Hence the diversion of militarisation.
Nazi style government is the credit card of social engineering. It can get you out of an unpleasant situation, but it will not last and the bailiffs have a tendancy to string you up with piano wire.
If you have to send the army in, you're in pretty big trouble.
What most "free data" anarchists seem to consistently overlook
Who are these "free data anarchists" ? I'm an anarchist and I believe people should be able to choose privacy. I don't think most of the people you're trying to argue against fall into the category you have defined.
And anti-DRM advocates are modern day equivalent of those earlier technological luddites who feared radio. In order for computing systems to become more personal we must begin constructing them with more security.
I can make my computer as personal as I like without handing over the control of it to a third party. Security is fine. I'd like the security under my control, please. Not someone else's. Also, what mass protest movement was there against radio? I don't remember these people that you liken us to?
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One Nation, under God, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All."
If the last three words are not valid, I guess the first three words aren't valid either.
That's a beautiful turn of phrase. Worth becoming one of
There is a post further up from a serviceman talking about what would happen if the Army were called in on its own people. It would be a bit much to ask soldiers to go up against their own.
The technique of pulling this off, is dissassociation. You'd need to turn the "us" of army and population into a "us and them" of army and population. You'd need a communist witch hunt for the modern day, convince the soldiers that they were protecting the country from traitors of some sort. But it would be hard, really hard.
Don't get me wrong - I don't underestimate the training techniques of the modern army. I was once on a Greyhound bus with a few recruits just finishing bootcamp. It was amazing how suggestible they were to anyone who wanted to make them do things (me). But to describe the army as full of "flag-waving jar-heads" is to do them a disservice. Very few people wouldn't think something was wrong when sent against their own country. Especially if we're talking the sort of mass-unrest that would actually require military intervention. And for every group of "jar-heads" there is a commanding officer who has demonstrably better reasoning skills.
The army is not typically drawn from the sons and daughters of the rich. And it's them who would have the necessary dissasociation to regard a mass of citizens as enemy who need to be slapped back down. The army is built of ordinary people (as much as anyone is ordinary) so you're trying to turn people on themselves. Very very dangerous. If a government tries that tactic, you know they are truly afraid.
I went through my angry phase in my early twenties. Settled down a bit and am revving back up.
And here. Not quite hit the big 30 yet, but I can see it quite well from where I am. *sob*. And yet, I'm also finding myself revving up for a bit World changing. And the nice thing is that by this point, I'm so much more able to achieve things than when I was younger.
As I posted elsewhere, the secret is to find satisfaction in making one-person's contribution.
And to whoever posted about Usama, yes - he has shown what one person can do, but Ghandi achieved more.
Sounds fun. I could do this as PHP based web-site. Could maybe even offer hosting.
Tricky bit is keeping up to speed on the the bills and resolutions. You'd need to organize a group to do this and divvy up responsibility for different areas, so that there weren't big delays and ommisions. Maybe post for volunteers on one of the more political boards.
E-mail me if you actually get as far as that. I'm in the UK but as another poster pointed out, you're exporting this crap now. Plus I love banging out toys like this.
Yeah. I know this is a bad thing. But I'm starting to suffer from 'outrage fatigue'. It's getting damn tiring hearing about our rights being eroded and getting angry about it.
Anger's function is to enable us to do something about the situation. Frustration and fatigue build up when we can't. If you do a few things to act against the erosion of rights, whatever, you may find that your anger discharges in a positive way, rather than burning you out. Doesn't mean overthrowing your Government, or anything - You're one person. So keep it in perspective and make one person's contribution, write a letter to your congressman on an issue, interest / inform someone in the situation who wasn't previously informed, go on a protest. The key is to keep things in perspective and realize that you have in however small a way, taken action against what bothers and get some satisfaction.
I'm not meaning this as a lecture or moral obligation. Just that if you're starting to burn out with the anger, turning it outwards at a better target will feel good for you.
Hope this helps,
-H.
Now you're getting it.
I disagree that people will blab about things that have no value, however. What Joe did last night is relevant to the people who know him. Just as they might think the same about you talking about computer protocols. The information will spread amongst those who assign value to it. To others, it's not information, just noise.
Ooops.
Well then lets talk in specifics. Let's apply some realism to the idea that fitten discovers the cure to cancer.
In order to develop this cure, you have done research, spent time and effort, purchased cancer-developing mice, et al. You must now put effort into concealing all this.
"it's up to me to spread that around."
If you mention it once, then you do not have to do any work to spread it. The greater the value of information, the more it will spread with less effort.
What you are proposing is a very very finely balanced situation (you are the only one that knows with no tell-tale evidence). Let one person in on the secret and the effort to contain that information has increased dramatically. Two people in on it, more so. A research group, you'll need to take quite dramatic security measures. In each case we're moving away from your hypothetical ideal (perfectly balanced on the top of my hill). A very small amount of work is needed to disturb this careful balance, which in anything other than your hypothetical woke up one morning with a vision scenario, is going to be less than the work needed to contain it.
Essentially, my analogy was to illustrate that information kept secret is not the lowest energy state. And the greater the value of the information the less the onus is on you to spread it around, and the harder it will be to contain.
So there you go, the same explanation stripped of the boulder and hill image as you asked.
If you want to come up with a different specific example than discovering the cure for cancer and all that ails me (which would have to include Visual Basic, please), then go ahead. Try and find something where the Information has value (my height of hill / weight of boulder) where the information doesn't want to be free. I've illustrated my principle, and am happy to move on to testing it.
Analogies are used for explanation, a comparison to help someone understand a concept as was used here. You clearly understood the explanation of "Information Wants to Be Free." Therefore, analogy successful. Information wants to be free is not a slogan. It is a nice and poetic way of saying it takes effort to prevent its flow.
I've read through all of this thread and haven't found a mention of Inkscape yet. Don't know how it compares with others out there, but I've just started using it and find it kind of fun. Good for my basic requirements, anyway.
Tony Blair said they did. He should be deeply ashamed of that.
A good analogy would be to liken closed (non-free) information to potential energy, such as a bolder on top of a hill. There is only one way it can go, and it's natural state is at rest at the bottom of the hill (lowest energy state). In the same way, the natural state of information is to be free and it requires resistance to prevent this.
What you are talking about when you say it is easier for information to be forgotten, is merely valueless facts. This is not the same thing because information has worth.
1. I didn't know we were only talking about Bush.
I referenced Bush because he's the one who is setting up the "Free Speech Zones" that we were discussing. This is where anyone who would make him look bad on television is confined (i.e. those who would boo him, those who would wave banners where the cameras could see, etc.) Anyone wanting to assasinate him is, allowing for sanity, not going to make themselves part of this group. They'll make themselves part of the flag-waving, cheering crowds who are aloud in media range of the president.
As to integrating into a huge mob of people? Absurd! You pull out a gun in the midst of a crowd of protestors, point it at the president and see how quickly you get mobbed and flattened. And if you did, see how quickly you can run away through that "huge mob" you describe. And you see all those coppers who are positioned to keep order? Do you see where they're keeping order? That's right - they're paying special attention to the protesting people, as they always do.
Trying to use a mob of protestors as cover for an assasination is only a hinderance compared to not using them.
The only scenario in which a mob will be a benefit to an assasination, is when it's a mob of people who all want to assasinate the president. And if that's the case, it ain't assasination you're dealing with. It's an intifada.
Does unlimited free speech and movement trump the safety of elected officials/dignitaries/world leaders/etc.?
You're absolutely right. Because if I were going to assasinate Bush, I'd turn up wearing an anti-US t-shirt and waving a placard.
the large majority of Americans seemingly just don't care any more.
It's a minor point in your overall post, but I'm glad you added the word "seemingly." With the media as solidly locked down as it is, how do you know that there isn't a Hell of a lot more resentment out there than you think? A million marched in Edinbrough recently, and got minimal converage (and half of that anti-anarchist hysteria).
I think more people care than most people realize. But the biggest trick the private media will pull, is to convince you that you're on your own.
Normal people aren't ambidextrous aardvark afficionados either.
If you were an afficionado of aardvarks, would you talk about it?
Linux should focus more on becoming user-friendly so it gets a bigger customer base
I have a non-negotiable arrangement now that friends / family / etc only get my computer support ("Help, the mouse isn't working" stuff) if they're running Linux. Windows users get the Linux installation offer or nothing.
Who cares about useability? It's ease of maintenance for the local IT guru that really matters to Linux uptake.