you will find a trail of legislation put in place to "protect" people attending the Olympics which are just thin excuses to trample civil rights. The legislations are imposed with no sunset clauses that expire them after the Olympics and are usually quite harsh.
When Australia hosted the Olympics I remember that amongst other legislation introduced, the army was now allowed to point and fire their weapons at Australian citizens with immunity to legal ramifications. The Olympic Charter was a farce leading up to this Olympics and China has made an absolute mockery of it. I truly pity England getting the Olympic games and will be looking at the changes to their legal framework with great interest.
I use boxes to put gear in, store and forget them. Use an old diary to write what is in the boxes so you don't have to dredge through them to find something that you may need. If you are storing a new box and you see one with a expiry date on it that hasn't been used then you can send it of for recycling. It gets rid of a lot of crap.
China is going to allow the free press to use a unrestricted internet
China will let people line the road to watch the cycling.
China will fix air pollution.
China is going to allow protests against the government.
China will use real fireworks, next time.
Does anyone believe that China will do something that hasn't got anything to do with 'face' anymore?
I remember seeing a documentary on this. One of the experiments cited was in Israel where evaporation rates of water have been measured judiciously. They found that evaporation was decreasing, less moisture in the air leads to less rainfall and increasing incidence of drought. i.e. Photons striking water molecules results in evaporation, smog prevents photons from getting through.
It made me wonder if global dimming is contributing to the polar cap melt because not enough snow is falling??
But you guys still do recognize the Queenie as your head of state, so you're not really independent,... unlike, of course, the United States - the nation that told King George III to go fsck himself 232 years ago,...:-)
232 years ago? I don't understand, isn't King George III still the President?
Speaking as someone from the country with the largest territorial claim over Antarctica, I think it's better not to do any studies or drilling there. That way, when all of the mindless idiots in the world have finished wasting their oil as fuel, we will still have some to make useful and durable things like plastics.
Fuckit, let's suck up the remaining oil and have cheap petrol for the next twenty to thirty years, or at least till I retire and am about to die. Either way I think it's better to make it another generations problem than to worry about it ourselves at least then if there really is global warming future generations will know it actually *is* a problem and they won't have to waste any more time debating about it like we are now. And if we can't do anything about it then, well at least we can have a great fucking party.
I jest, but we do like making things harder for ourselves as a race. Maybe we should be called the Human race to extinction.
They're only paving one side of the street with it. This way they can test the air quality on either side of the street and see if there's any difference.
My Apple ][(purchased in 1977) was eventually expanded to include 128k memory, AppleSoft ROMs, 40 char lower case display Z-80 CP/M coprocessor board, dual 160k floppies, 80column display card and monitor, serial and parallel ports, and modem before I put it aside in 1984 after Apple cut off support.
Once you go down the road of name calling, there's no point in continuing this conversation with you.
That's ok George, I was getting a little tired of your inflexible dogma, how unfortunate for you to be trapped inside it.
Oh and it's not a road George, theres only One Microsoft way.
I'll leave this with anyone else that might be reading. Open Source may have intrinsic values; but it's only useful to someone if they have food to eat and they were able to stay alive against things like Malaria.
That's great George, what Open Source delivers is a means to break the poverty cycle through access to cheap education and delivery of cost effective infrastructure, which has more value than a handout. It's the difference between giving a person a fish and teaching them how to catch a fish, but you seem unwilling to get it. That is what sincere Creative Capitalism is all about, enabling those communities to function without external aide.
Someone like Bill Gates is doing something about it and it's silly to criticize him for it especially when they're not doing one millionth as much as Mr. Gates.
I didn't tarnish the image of your hero George, he did it himself. You say I'm critcising Bill Gates but I'm saying he has earned distrust based on the way he ran Microsoft from inception. That's not criticism, that's just the way things are, Bill Gates ran Microsoft. Microsoft, convicted monopolist, commits corporate crime - that's reality. A Leopard cannot change it's spots and while Microsoft participates in human rights abuses in China then anything the BAMGF does for poor people is kinda hypocritical isn't it.
As far as criticising *my* contributions to charity, it really illustrates your argument has no substance. Just because I don't have the same financial capacity as Mr Gates doesn't mean what I do has no value. How mean spirited of you. Your attempt to slur people's Open Source contributions illustrates that the insecurity of Microsoft zealotry has reached new depths.
Sure, it's hard for some people to get beyond the Bill Gates bashing but history is going to remember him in a very positive light and not those who bash him.
I'm sure Billy Willy Gates will have the best history money can buy George, no matter what people say about him, but the question remains...
That was how it was with Dell and most of the other major computer makers.
I wonder why I was modded down for saying so?
Salespeople usually don't have a clue what they are talking about. I asked one what the clock speed was on one CPU, he replied, "Eastern standard time".
George George George George, I think a the questions you are asking are overloading your 16 bit memory model, lets look at your thread.
I asked you how many real dollars has gone to feed people; not some speculative price tag on people's donated time for source code.
which took it to a question about "real dollars" from private contributions
Again, you are dodging the question of how much money someone like Richard Stallman or anyone else in the Open Source movement have donated to poor people.
where you challenged my sincerity and changed the original premise of the question from
What does that have to do with the specific question I asked? How many people has Open Source fed with food, how much medicine has Open Source supplied, how much money has Open Source projects or leaders given to poor people?
which introduced medicine and expected me to know about people's personal lives, from the original question which was
With all due respect, how many real-world problems has Open Source solved? How many kids have been fed? How many billions, millions, or even thousands of dollars has Open Source contributed?
So since I can't help you understand, the answers are don't know, don't know and don't know. If you can't accept that Open Source contributions to the community has it's own intrinsic value to everyone I can't help you. Open Source is Creative Capitalism, it's the purest expression of an idea that empowers those who choose that freedom far more than them remaining dependent on donations.
But thank you George, your attempt to slur the Open Source model by making me re-assess how the Open Source Community can do so much better in that space, so go ahead, change the question again and accuse me of not answering it, your dogmatic argument is forcing me to challenge my own ideals and evolve them.
Unfortunately your less than sincere approach has also allowed me to asses Mr Gates motivations. You have made me realise that Mr Gates wants the third world dependent on his model - not one that actually frees them - so he can squeeze every bit of cash out of them that he can while apparently cleaning up his image - sheer genius. One can only hope that Melinda is a positive influence but remember, a leopard never changes it's spots, and there is a reason why people don't trust Gates and Co. People who forget that history are doomed to repeat it.
You can use the word shill all you like
Why thank you George the Shrill Microsoft Shill boy.
As for the EC,
I told you, I don't care, George the Shrill Microsoft Shill boy. Perhaps it's payback for the US using ECHELON to pilfer contracts from Airbus to Boeing, or perhaps it's because Microsoft and Mr Gates have sewn so much distrust in their motivations and people are so sick of windows zealotry and the ignorance of those who push the Microsoft adgenda that those politician in a new democracy see Microsoft as an evil poison that must be stopped at all costs.
I don't care because I prefer to use my energy to go forward, but this is all for you George, if you think Open Source can do better with Charitable Organisations why don't you donate *your* time to making it happen instead of attacking the ideals of those who crave freedom for all of us.
If a linux distro was charged at the same price (or half) as a windows machine maybe the sales guys could derive profit from not paying license fees on installed.
It would be one hell of an incentive for salespeople to start pushing linux installed on machines.
Again, you are dodging the question of how much money someone like Richard Stallman or anyone else in the Open Source movement have donated to poor people.
No, you've changed your question from With all due respect, how many real-world problems has Open Source solved? How many kids have been fed? How many billions, millions, or even thousands of dollars has Open Source contributed? to the above. Perhaps you now realise that Open Source is not a company like Microsoft i.e Richard Stallman is not on the board of Open Source inc with Open Source shareholders. To answer this question, I don't know how much money people who write Open Source software donate. You aren't satisfied that Open Source contributors already donate their time to write software that anyone can use and continue to try to maneuver me into an answer where you have a basis to critcise the significant contributions the Open Source community has made to ALL communities.
But to follow your forced reasoning, Open Source Software has donated 7.5 Billion dollars of labor for Debian Linux alone, and that does not include the labor donated for the rest of the Open Source offerings. I don't know how to qualify this into how many kids have been fed, because this is the value of the software *available* to charities to use. I am using a foam clue stick here but by all means move on to telling me that I'm avoiding your specific generalisations about subjective specifics.
I only ask this because you seem to be highly critical of Bill Gates and his company doing good for the world so I'm simply turning this question around on you.
Well I donate to three charities, one of the same ones Mr Gates donates to (Amnesty), I wish I could do more. And which company are you refering to? Microsoft doing good? Well I guess "do no evil" was taken. Yes, I'm critical of Bill Gates because he and Microsoft have earned distrust and cynicism of thier motives. Maybe after five or ten years in the BAMGF that will have changed.
You know, I'm sick of the term "convicted monopolist"
Well I've never seen anyone use the term "convicted monopolist" to refer to M$ but I rather like it. I thought the term "corporate criminal" was more appropriate because they commit corporate crime - notice the present tense. But convicted monopolist commits corporate crime has a certain ring to it.
The breaking of anti-trust rules (which are extremely nebulous especially when it comes to the EC) results in a fine just like parking in a red zone results in a fine.
So you're saying since they are still parked there we should fine them again. Could be a good idea you have there.
The US case was done and over with and Microsoft got fined. In the case of the EC, that's simply another way of imposing a tariff on Microsoft since the EC can declare Microsoft guilty of something if they simply have a majority of the small-to-medium server market as defined by the EC.
Well I guess windows just won't run on a mainframe. When someone said that a better word than "fan boy" should be used to describe M$ fan bouys, I started using the word "shill" because I actually wanted to use the word "shrill", but now I realise that Shrill Shill can work too. I'm not saying you are a shrill Microsoft shill, *yet*, but - with respect - criticising a countries legal system for enforcing the laws of the land could be construe as such behavior. I don't care, so blathering on about how hard done by Microsoft is will only earn you ridicule.
What does that have to do with the specific question I asked?
Your question is structured for a specific response, when, with respect, it required the subjective answer I provided.
How many people has Open Source fed with food, how much medicine has Open Source supplied, how much money has Open Source projects or leaders given to poor people?
The Open Source model is in it's infancy, not in it's retirement. Open Source is not a company with a board of directors, a Profit and Loss statement and a balance sheet, nor is it an individual will billions of dollars at it's disposal. Making such a comparison is pointless because Open Source does not take the revenue in the first place, it channels effort *as* revenue. Your question would be better asked as "How does Open Source enable poor people to access educational resources to be able to feed themselves and how can implementing Open Source software enable Charitable Organisations to better accomplish their mission?" much of which has been answered here and elsewhere. My statements are only ridiculous to you because you are used to how the proprietary software model works. Open Source doesn't earn income.
I could just as easily ask "How much damage has Microsoft's monopolistic practices caused the community? or how much environmental damage has Microsoft caused with needless upgrade cycles? or how many people have Microsoft prevented from getting an education because they stifled access to cheap educational resources?", which are subjective questions with specific answers in the same guise as your original question, and neither of us are in a position to answer those with specifics.
Anti-trust is very much subjective and you can hardly call it a crime. To do so, you have to have a pretty warped sense of reality.
Well I didn't and specifically the DOJ would dis-agree with you as Microsoft has been convicted and sentenced. Had you read the link I provided you would be reading about allegations of Microsoft's questionable accounting practices and, with respect, my comments were provided on the basis you were being sincere, not troll like.
With all due respect, how many real-world problems has Open Source solved? How many kids have been fed? How many billions, millions, or even thousands of dollars has Open Source contributed?
Open Source is a framework for service delivery that allows a coder to develop software in conjunction with others and have a legal framework to fall back on if those works are abused. When applied to a Charitable Organisation (C.O) they can do more with their I.T budget because the outlay for software does not exist, the programmers make a direct and ongoing contribution with respect to their works. That software contribution is not a zero value contribution because it has a real monetary value to the C.O against the impact to their cash flow - cash flow that can be applied to feeding kids.
When compared to the proprietary model a company derives profit from the C.O's use of the software, the C.O has to then apply for a tax relief to refund the the monies spent on software - with associated accountancy fees. Sure they get the monies back but now the taxpayer shoulders the burden of maintaining profitability of Microsoft - taxpayer money that could be have be contributed to aid organisations.
In addition if you were to apply use of Linux vs Windows on hardware assets the effect on cash flow is greater due to the affect on the cycle of hardware investment. You can keep a box running linux for much longer before you need to upgrade the hardware and any programming work is still a tax deduction by the C.O.
Whether or not you like Microsoft's business model is irrelevant because Gates didn't steal that money; he earned it legally.
Yes, Gates did, as for his employer that line is very blurred after numerous encounters with justice department around the world.
Bill Gates presented some great ideas and he's doing something good with all his money.
Like the X files "I want to believe" but I have been bitten so many times by the whole Microsoft paradigm and no matter what you want to believe, Mr Gates engineered that behavior and it's difficult to see a Leopard changing its spots now. I'm way beyond "fool me twice, shame on me" so Mr Gates has zero credibility in any area where he is expecting to convince people of something that's going to happen that's in his control. Now he is using the exact same strategy he used to dress up Operating System announcements and applying it to his arguments on world poverty - something out of his control that he knows he can never fix - the man is a genius of image.
So simply I choose to spend my energy where the return to me and the community is guaranteed. A C.O can choose to continue to contribute to the Microsoft hegemony or they can invest in a manner that frees their cash flow so they can focus on their core mission. Open Source makes a significant contribution directly if an organisation chooses to realise those contributions.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe he should use a spell chequer!!
When Australia hosted the Olympics I remember that amongst other legislation introduced, the army was now allowed to point and fire their weapons at Australian citizens with immunity to legal ramifications. The Olympic Charter was a farce leading up to this Olympics and China has made an absolute mockery of it. I truly pity England getting the Olympic games and will be looking at the changes to their legal framework with great interest.
I use boxes to put gear in, store and forget them. Use an old diary to write what is in the boxes so you don't have to dredge through them to find something that you may need. If you are storing a new box and you see one with a expiry date on it that hasn't been used then you can send it of for recycling. It gets rid of a lot of crap.
Does anyone believe that China will do something that hasn't got anything to do with 'face' anymore?
arrggghh, sorry posting while busy. I meant to say smog reduces the amount of photons getting through
I remember seeing a documentary on this. One of the experiments cited was in Israel where evaporation rates of water have been measured judiciously. They found that evaporation was decreasing, less moisture in the air leads to less rainfall and increasing incidence of drought. i.e. Photons striking water molecules results in evaporation, smog prevents photons from getting through.
It made me wonder if global dimming is contributing to the polar cap melt because not enough snow is falling??
Oh Turn-key comments.
Did the Polar bear say "FAQ! that thing is cold"
232 years ago? I don't understand, isn't King George III still the President?
Fuckit, let's suck up the remaining oil and have cheap petrol for the next twenty to thirty years, or at least till I retire and am about to die. Either way I think it's better to make it another generations problem than to worry about it ourselves at least then if there really is global warming future generations will know it actually *is* a problem and they won't have to waste any more time debating about it like we are now. And if we can't do anything about it then, well at least we can have a great fucking party.
I jest, but we do like making things harder for ourselves as a race. Maybe we should be called the Human race to extinction.
when we start jumping around and singing 'ding dong the witch is dead, the witch is dead'
no one can open a window
Now we know why the chicken crossed the road!
bad-duum-tish!!!
wanna get a room?
That's ok George, I was getting a little tired of your inflexible dogma, how unfortunate for you to be trapped inside it.
Oh and it's not a road George, theres only One Microsoft way.
That's great George, what Open Source delivers is a means to break the poverty cycle through access to cheap education and delivery of cost effective infrastructure, which has more value than a handout. It's the difference between giving a person a fish and teaching them how to catch a fish, but you seem unwilling to get it. That is what sincere Creative Capitalism is all about, enabling those communities to function without external aide.
I didn't tarnish the image of your hero George, he did it himself. You say I'm critcising Bill Gates but I'm saying he has earned distrust based on the way he ran Microsoft from inception. That's not criticism, that's just the way things are, Bill Gates ran Microsoft. Microsoft, convicted monopolist, commits corporate crime - that's reality. A Leopard cannot change it's spots and while Microsoft participates in human rights abuses in China then anything the BAMGF does for poor people is kinda hypocritical isn't it.
As far as criticising *my* contributions to charity, it really illustrates your argument has no substance. Just because I don't have the same financial capacity as Mr Gates doesn't mean what I do has no value. How mean spirited of you. Your attempt to slur people's Open Source contributions illustrates that the insecurity of Microsoft zealotry has reached new depths.
I'm sure Billy Willy Gates will have the best history money can buy George, no matter what people say about him, but the question remains...
How much is your freedom worth George?
I wonder why I was modded down for saying so?
Priceless.
George George George George, I think a the questions you are asking are overloading your 16 bit memory model, lets look at your thread.
which took it to a question about "real dollars" from private contributions
where you challenged my sincerity and changed the original premise of the question from
which introduced medicine and expected me to know about people's personal lives, from the original question which was
So since I can't help you understand, the answers are don't know, don't know and don't know. If you can't accept that Open Source contributions to the community has it's own intrinsic value to everyone I can't help you. Open Source is Creative Capitalism, it's the purest expression of an idea that empowers those who choose that freedom far more than them remaining dependent on donations.
But thank you George, your attempt to slur the Open Source model by making me re-assess how the Open Source Community can do so much better in that space, so go ahead, change the question again and accuse me of not answering it, your dogmatic argument is forcing me to challenge my own ideals and evolve them.
Unfortunately your less than sincere approach has also allowed me to asses Mr Gates motivations. You have made me realise that Mr Gates wants the third world dependent on his model - not one that actually frees them - so he can squeeze every bit of cash out of them that he can while apparently cleaning up his image - sheer genius. One can only hope that Melinda is a positive influence but remember, a leopard never changes it's spots, and there is a reason why people don't trust Gates and Co. People who forget that history are doomed to repeat it.
Why thank you George the Shrill Microsoft Shill boy.
I told you, I don't care, George the Shrill Microsoft Shill boy. Perhaps it's payback for the US using ECHELON to pilfer contracts from Airbus to Boeing, or perhaps it's because Microsoft and Mr Gates have sewn so much distrust in their motivations and people are so sick of windows zealotry and the ignorance of those who push the Microsoft adgenda that those politician in a new democracy see Microsoft as an evil poison that must be stopped at all costs.
I don't care because I prefer to use my energy to go forward, but this is all for you George, if you think Open Source can do better with Charitable Organisations why don't you donate *your* time to making it happen instead of attacking the ideals of those who crave freedom for all of us.
How much is your freedom worth George?
It would be one hell of an incentive for salespeople to start pushing linux installed on machines.
You are right, but he was using the term as a slur.
wouldn't it be better to send a teaspoon of your DNA on each space-bound vessel you can find. I mean you never know...
No, you've changed your question from With all due respect, how many real-world problems has Open Source solved? How many kids have been fed? How many billions, millions, or even thousands of dollars has Open Source contributed? to the above. Perhaps you now realise that Open Source is not a company like Microsoft i.e Richard Stallman is not on the board of Open Source inc with Open Source shareholders. To answer this question, I don't know how much money people who write Open Source software donate. You aren't satisfied that Open Source contributors already donate their time to write software that anyone can use and continue to try to maneuver me into an answer where you have a basis to critcise the significant contributions the Open Source community has made to ALL communities.
But to follow your forced reasoning, Open Source Software has donated 7.5 Billion dollars of labor for Debian Linux alone, and that does not include the labor donated for the rest of the Open Source offerings. I don't know how to qualify this into how many kids have been fed, because this is the value of the software *available* to charities to use. I am using a foam clue stick here but by all means move on to telling me that I'm avoiding your specific generalisations about subjective specifics.
Well I donate to three charities, one of the same ones Mr Gates donates to (Amnesty), I wish I could do more. And which company are you refering to? Microsoft doing good? Well I guess "do no evil" was taken. Yes, I'm critical of Bill Gates because he and Microsoft have earned distrust and cynicism of thier motives. Maybe after five or ten years in the BAMGF that will have changed.
Well I've never seen anyone use the term "convicted monopolist" to refer to M$ but I rather like it. I thought the term "corporate criminal" was more appropriate because they commit corporate crime - notice the present tense. But convicted monopolist commits corporate crime has a certain ring to it.
So you're saying since they are still parked there we should fine them again. Could be a good idea you have there.
Well I guess windows just won't run on a mainframe. When someone said that a better word than "fan boy" should be used to describe M$ fan bouys, I started using the word "shill" because I actually wanted to use the word "shrill", but now I realise that Shrill Shill can work too. I'm not saying you are a shrill Microsoft shill, *yet*, but - with respect - criticising a countries legal system for enforcing the laws of the land could be construe as such behavior. I don't care, so blathering on about how hard done by Microsoft is will only earn you ridicule.
Your question is structured for a specific response, when, with respect, it required the subjective answer I provided.
The Open Source model is in it's infancy, not in it's retirement. Open Source is not a company with a board of directors, a Profit and Loss statement and a balance sheet, nor is it an individual will billions of dollars at it's disposal. Making such a comparison is pointless because Open Source does not take the revenue in the first place, it channels effort *as* revenue. Your question would be better asked as "How does Open Source enable poor people to access educational resources to be able to feed themselves and how can implementing Open Source software enable Charitable Organisations to better accomplish their mission?" much of which has been answered here and elsewhere. My statements are only ridiculous to you because you are used to how the proprietary software model works. Open Source doesn't earn income.
I could just as easily ask "How much damage has Microsoft's monopolistic practices caused the community? or how much environmental damage has Microsoft caused with needless upgrade cycles? or how many people have Microsoft prevented from getting an education because they stifled access to cheap educational resources?", which are subjective questions with specific answers in the same guise as your original question, and neither of us are in a position to answer those with specifics.
Well I didn't and specifically the DOJ would dis-agree with you as Microsoft has been convicted and sentenced. Had you read the link I provided you would be reading about allegations of Microsoft's questionable accounting practices and, with respect, my comments were provided on the basis you were being sincere, not troll like.
Open Source is a framework for service delivery that allows a coder to develop software in conjunction with others and have a legal framework to fall back on if those works are abused. When applied to a Charitable Organisation (C.O) they can do more with their I.T budget because the outlay for software does not exist, the programmers make a direct and ongoing contribution with respect to their works. That software contribution is not a zero value contribution because it has a real monetary value to the C.O against the impact to their cash flow - cash flow that can be applied to feeding kids.
When compared to the proprietary model a company derives profit from the C.O's use of the software, the C.O has to then apply for a tax relief to refund the the monies spent on software - with associated accountancy fees. Sure they get the monies back but now the taxpayer shoulders the burden of maintaining profitability of Microsoft - taxpayer money that could be have be contributed to aid organisations.
In addition if you were to apply use of Linux vs Windows on hardware assets the effect on cash flow is greater due to the affect on the cycle of hardware investment. You can keep a box running linux for much longer before you need to upgrade the hardware and any programming work is still a tax deduction by the C.O.
Yes, Gates did, as for his employer that line is very blurred after numerous encounters with justice department around the world.
Like the X files "I want to believe" but I have been bitten so many times by the whole Microsoft paradigm and no matter what you want to believe, Mr Gates engineered that behavior and it's difficult to see a Leopard changing its spots now. I'm way beyond "fool me twice, shame on me" so Mr Gates has zero credibility in any area where he is expecting to convince people of something that's going to happen that's in his control. Now he is using the exact same strategy he used to dress up Operating System announcements and applying it to his arguments on world poverty - something out of his control that he knows he can never fix - the man is a genius of image.
So simply I choose to spend my energy where the return to me and the community is guaranteed. A C.O can choose to continue to contribute to the Microsoft hegemony or they can invest in a manner that frees their cash flow so they can focus on their core mission. Open Source makes a significant contribution directly if an organisation chooses to realise those contributions.
CK-ERP (Open Source ERP / CRM / MRP) v.0.21.1 released
If they just ate him.