"For people those do not have money (students in third world countries), sure online materials cannot deliver the experiences of MIT, but they are still way better than listening to crap they have to listen to everyday (in most colleges)."
There's an interesting side effect to that: your third world professor is as able as his students to get to those high quality materials, so you can hope for the best of both worlds. You will have the advantage of live classes with a professor that doesn't spout crap because he can take example from, say, MIT lectures with better profit than his unkowlingly students.
It's more general than that. Gates is falling in the typical "The new X will absolutly kill the old Y".
More on a particular view, the "the Web is where people will be learning within a few years, not colleges and university" it's so obviously flawed it shouldn't deserve a second thought. I.e.: even if on-line could make for better lectures than live, what the heck of a University is the one where all the knowledge is transmitted via lectures? Can the best lecture in the world make for lab work when needed or is it that I'll get a lab in my home through the intertubes?
"A recent article in Discover magazine pointed out that the rate of human evolution is actually increasing [...] One example (from memory) was that all humans were lactose intolerant 5,000 years ago, but now only 20% are. "
If really *all* humans were lactose intolerant (which I doubt) this would be indeed evolution. If only a majority were, it's not evolution it is "mere" breed selection.
"I know this seems to go against logic"
In fact it is not. Evolution is "just" mutation accumulation. Since society allows for more mutations to be somehow "neutral" (not bad enough to drastically reduce your chances to produce offspring) it's obvious that variation accumulation (thus, evolution) must increase.
"" But there's no security: the system may be destroyed as well. "
That's extraordinarily unlikely. Granted, if you're only looking at a single individual, mutations/breeding may cause catastrophic changes. But on a population-wide basis, sudden overall declines in 'best individual' fitness are pretty much impossible."
On a population-wide basis, system breakage is not only likely but it is the norm: it's called species extinction.
"In evolution what is important is selection, as long as there is selection (based on fitness) and variability the system will adapt to the environment (the things that shape fitness). So there is a trainer, it is called selection."
Not exactly. Unless variability is driven, selection and variability *may* press the system to fit the environment. But there's no security: the system may be destroyed as well.
"You secure memcached the same way you secure any cache: by restricting direct access."
Which is exactly the parent's point. That's why he says it should default to listening only on 127.0.0.1: in order for the default install to restrict direct access.
"Any piece of software can be used "insecurely" if configured incorrectly"
Not that you don't have a point, but you are doing nothing but supporting the argument you tried to debunk.
Note that your point stands on the "if configured incorrectly" while the parent's is "it should be distrubuted on such a state that the sysadmin would be forced to do *any* kind of configuration prior for it to work" (thus giving the option to even "configure" it, either correctly or incorrectly).
I think the parent's point of view is better.
"As far as beaten over the head, the default configuration for Memcached that ships with Gentoo has this note immediately over the configuration for what interfaces it should listen on: #Listen for connections on what address? # If this is empty, memcached will listen on 0.0.0.0 # be sure you have a firewall in place! I'm sure other distros have similar notes."
Ever tried an automated install?
Just to probe a point I installed memcached as packaged on Debian:
aptitude install memcached
And just as I expected, Debian's default configuration is to only listen on the loopback. Bet what I do think is the safest default config between that from Gentoo and the one from Debian.
"Well, for a lot of people it's a stretch to get them to believe that software freedom has a place among the freedoms they already know are important."
I'm more pesimist than you, then: I feel that for most people freedom is quite far from the "real important things" on their minds (corollary: if even primary freedoms are in the end not so important, let's forget about "minor issues" like software).
"RMS expects folks to understand the merits of Free Software a priori."
I would say "not exactly": it seems to me that RMS expects folks to understand the merits of *people's* freedom a priori. It's a fortiori that Free Software is meritable since it aligns to people's freedom.
"I am very fond of Richard but it's necessary to accept that his mental wiring does not give him any empathy for folks who don't think the way he does."
"We need to engineer a system where we don't have rich gate-keepers of the work of non-rich Free Software developers [...] We still need commercial users"
Then you are wrong. No other than "rich gate-keepers" have the power to talk face to face to the "rich gate-keepers" at the doors of the commercial users. You need a pair to Michael Dell to talk to Michael Dell, or a pair to Larry Ellison to talk to Larry Ellison.
In a different post I talked about how Dell, IBM, HP, Oracle... could "partner" to Debian were the things different (and in my opinion getting bussiness advantage with that). But what really lacks Debian for this to happen is a "bird of a feather" of those "big guys". It could have been Mark Shuttleworth; it hasn't been the case but anyway it isn't going to be me or even you (you know it: you've tried) the one that can talk face to face, shake hands and make bussiness with them, but somebody that they can respect and that usually involves money tied to some kind of brand recognition (you bring "brand recognition" with your name alone, it's only that it's doubtful if it is the kind of "brand" respected by them and then you lack the money -and maybe your vision is slightly off the mark too if my memories of your Enterprise Linux effort -was that the name? are correct).
We've been lucky that the main kernel line found in Linus Torvalds its "benevolent tyrant" technically-wise; Debian hasn't found its own "benevolent tyrant" bussiness and financially-wise (maybe it's impossible, maybe it's even undiserable, but that's a different story).
Oh! I almost forget to say that I can be your "benevolent tyrant" bussiness-wise if you can rise for me the money!
"By essentially making all past and present Debian developers his unpaid employees. Everything we did was for Ubuntu, not Debian, we just didn't know it."
Mr. Perens, I must admit I respect your opinions quite a lot. But this time, please, talk for yourself. As a general matter, the work at Debian is much more than unpaid work for Ubuntu; much more for lightyears. Regarding specifically Ubuntu, "We" just didn't know it??? That was absolutly obvious from day zero to anyone wanting to look at Ubuntu with open eyes.
It was obvious (and it is obvious) that the major "problem" for corporations regarding Debian is brand recognition, that the "Debian Entity" cannot be tied to any "Debian Corp." (remember Ian Murdock more or less tried that path with Progeny) and thus, no one can take monetary advantage from the Debian brand saying "See? I'm the corporation that brings Debian to you". So Mr. Shuttleworth confronted with the consideration of trying to build a "Linux for humans" or a (hopefully) profitable corporation took the second option and started (quite successfully) a new brand recognition program called "Ubuntu".
That's all the hint needed.
Heck, for a fraction of the money expended on the Ubuntu project now he (or a figurehead) could be Debian Project Leader *and* being in a position of leading Debian, for as far as true meritochracy allows, towards his stated goal of a "Linux for Humans".
Today it could be Debian, not Ubuntu, the one supported on HP, IBM or Dell hardware; heck again, since bussiness is bussiness after all, Debian could be an Oracle certified platform, not Ubuntu; it would be Debian, not Red Hat through Fedora, the one pushing very interesting "enterprisey" projects like Colbber, 389 Directory Server or Spacewalk. He would have pushed Canonical as the best and major "enterprise supporter" for Debian and considered that "control" to be enough instead of inventing Ubuntu out of thin air in the very intent to a) having total control of it and b) reaping benefits from Debian for as long as he could without bad press (by the day Ubuntu started, producing a completly anew distribution bringing new fresh air to the very "distribution" concept after ten years from the first ones shouldn't have been discarded though probably this would have meant talking "real big money" instead of just "big money").
"I really wish now that I'd let the [Debian?] project die when Ian Murdock quit."
I regret disenting to you and now I'll do it twice in the same post. If the above was indeed about Debian, I must say: Bullshit! Ubuntu is at most a lost chance but Debian is still living and on fairly decent health. Don't throu away the suit because that little spot, just clean it.
"The description I posted from M-W says it is a form of government"
Hmmm... nope... I'll read it again... hmmm... nope, it doesn't say so.
"1 : any of various economic and political theories..." "2 a : a system of society or group living in which..." "3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory..."
So it's either some kind of economic or political theory, a system of society or group, or a society stage in a theory from Marx. No sir, it doesn't say anywhere on the text you bring up to attention that it is any kind of government.
Since ceoyoyo in the grandparent post explicitly says that "Socialism is simply the idea that the public, either in the form of the government or directly in the form of a group of citizens, should own things, provide services, etc." which is basically a mix up of your references "1" and "2 a" it's clear that, within the limits of this discussion, ceoyoyo is right and ffreeloader is wrong.
See? That's rational discussion instead of tribalism. You'd probably benefit yourself from trying it.
I think I understand your point, probably I failed at making mine one clear.
"Yes, it may very well be cheaper to re-create all the media on the dead drive than to pay $360,000 per terabyte to store it on the server."
In fact what I said is that probably it would be more expensive to recreate the info on the dead drive than to pay whatever "monopoly money" IT asks for storage, especially considering everything else that might come within the "storage" entry in the bill.
"the CIO should have his nuts cracked for forcing his customers to make that choice"
That's considering the CIO had any option on the charge-back scheme. Maybe he has it, maybe not. On a side note, the same can be said about the other departments: if they find the storage bill to be too high, have they the ability to say "thanks, but no: I'll cover my storage needs anywhere else". In my experience the answer is problably "no" for both questions: neither the CIO nor the Depts. have any saying neither in the backcharge scheme nor in the provider selection.
"If they gave everything away except storage and tried to make it all up there, no one would use net storage and we'd have a broke IT shop."
It's not clear to me if you are talking about an internal IT dept. or an outsourced one but given that my basic premise, here and now (it may change as time and facts change), is that IT backcharging is a bad-bad-bad idea, I have no problem accepting your point: a backcharging scheme disconnected to reality is doomed to fail -no wonder since even a backcharging scheme properly related to reality is doomed to fail.
"Your missing my point and your argument doesn't hold water. We ARE in a free market. They are receiving what the market says they should receive. Don't you live in the US like myself?"
It was not me the one asking the question. I didn't even ask any question (except for the rethorical "didn't you?") so what are you exactly answering to?
"Next, you're going to tell me that the President should be the highest paid person in the country, sheesh."
What's this? Chewbacca defense, inability for read comprehension or plain trolling? I was the one saying that someone's wages are based in "compounding the fact of making more revenue being more difficult to replace". The President is quite easy to replace as it has been in fact replaced 43 times and looking at news it doesn't seem that there is a lack of people wanting the post. If market forces were in action POTUS would be a position people would pay for, not the other way around.
"For instance, if I create an app that makes $5000 a day and another programmer creates an app that makes $100,000, who should really get paid more?"
Humm... free market. The one compounding the fact of making more revenue being more difficult to replace.
"What if the same amount of work was needed for both?"
Humm... communism. That's the system that (theoretically) rewards effort instead of revenues. Free market rewards revenues disregarding effort (you did know that, didn't you?).
"They are both receiving their contracted wage, so what's the complaint?"
There's always place for complaints. Quite a different issue is if the complainer is in strong position or not for the complaints to be listened.
"dancingmilk has it right...the folks earning the big bucks put more at risk than a little time in front of a computer."
Are you sure about that? Not that I'm telling you are wrong but the fact is that from external view it really seems they are risking nothing on their own; what they risk is other's money and assests (and then, when the thing wreaks havoc "daddy government" comes in *their* rescue, not the real damaged).
"This is mostly a 'slake my ignorance post' but where do they pull a probability like a 1 in 1000 chance? Either the comet is going to hit us, or it isn't. So wheres the uncertainty coming from?"
"I've actually had this same discussion with some fellow business people and we all concluded that if indeed technology that gives eternal life is developed, it will be affordable for everyone that is able to work."
Current facts seem to disprove your point. Corporations prefer young people: more naive and with less social ties; they are more willfull to work long hours for peanuts.
"is how you force people to pay rent for their body with eternal life, if they refuse to?"
You don't do it. It wouldn't be "you pay or I'll take you X" but "you pay or sorrily X won't be refueled: your choice; you can come to us as soon or as late as you want".
"I suspect that it will be a mixture and an entirely different lifestyle when you'll have hundreds of years of life experience"
Exactly my point. Do you think you can go to a 200 year veteran with the "we are team; we need the extra effort, this project really will make a difference if only you work 100 hours weeks" managerial discourse?
Slashdot Mirror
"For people those do not have money (students in third world countries), sure online materials cannot deliver the experiences of MIT, but they are still way better than listening to crap they have to listen to everyday (in most colleges)."
There's an interesting side effect to that: your third world professor is as able as his students to get to those high quality materials, so you can hope for the best of both worlds. You will have the advantage of live classes with a professor that doesn't spout crap because he can take example from, say, MIT lectures with better profit than his unkowlingly students.
"Gates is confusing information with education."
It's more general than that. Gates is falling in the typical "The new X will absolutly kill the old Y".
More on a particular view, the "the Web is where people will be learning within a few years, not colleges and university" it's so obviously flawed it shouldn't deserve a second thought. I.e.: even if on-line could make for better lectures than live, what the heck of a University is the one where all the knowledge is transmitted via lectures? Can the best lecture in the world make for lab work when needed or is it that I'll get a lab in my home through the intertubes?
"A recent article in Discover magazine pointed out that the rate of human evolution is actually increasing [...] One example (from memory) was that all humans were lactose intolerant 5,000 years ago, but now only 20% are. "
If really *all* humans were lactose intolerant (which I doubt) this would be indeed evolution. If only a majority were, it's not evolution it is "mere" breed selection.
"I know this seems to go against logic"
In fact it is not. Evolution is "just" mutation accumulation. Since society allows for more mutations to be somehow "neutral" (not bad enough to drastically reduce your chances to produce offspring) it's obvious that variation accumulation (thus, evolution) must increase.
"" But there's no security: the system may be destroyed as well. "
That's extraordinarily unlikely. Granted, if you're only looking at a single individual, mutations/breeding may cause catastrophic changes.
But on a population-wide basis, sudden overall declines in 'best individual' fitness are pretty much impossible."
On a population-wide basis, system breakage is not only likely but it is the norm: it's called species extinction.
"In evolution what is important is selection, as long as there is selection (based on fitness) and variability the system will adapt to the environment (the things that shape fitness). So there is a trainer, it is called selection."
Not exactly. Unless variability is driven, selection and variability *may* press the system to fit the environment. But there's no security: the system may be destroyed as well.
"You secure memcached the same way you secure any cache: by restricting direct access."
Which is exactly the parent's point. That's why he says it should default to listening only on 127.0.0.1: in order for the default install to restrict direct access.
"Any piece of software can be used "insecurely" if configured incorrectly"
Not that you don't have a point, but you are doing nothing but supporting the argument you tried to debunk.
Note that your point stands on the "if configured incorrectly" while the parent's is "it should be distrubuted on such a state that the sysadmin would be forced to do *any* kind of configuration prior for it to work" (thus giving the option to even "configure" it, either correctly or incorrectly).
I think the parent's point of view is better.
"As far as beaten over the head, the default configuration for Memcached that ships with Gentoo has this note immediately over the configuration for what interfaces it should listen on:
#Listen for connections on what address?
# If this is empty, memcached will listen on 0.0.0.0
# be sure you have a firewall in place!
I'm sure other distros have similar notes."
Ever tried an automated install?
Just to probe a point I installed memcached as packaged on Debian:
aptitude install memcached
And just as I expected, Debian's default configuration is to only listen on the loopback. Bet what I do think is the safest default config between that from Gentoo and the one from Debian.
"Wow, what a weak reply."
Wow, what are you playing to? The real Scotsman?
"The following quote comes from Wikipedia"
So what? I was arguing to *your* quote from M-W.
"Notice what political_theory/political_philosophy is all about? Government!"
Yeah, sure: to the same extent mathematics is all about accounting.
"Well, for a lot of people it's a stretch to get them to believe that software freedom has a place among the freedoms they already know are important."
I'm more pesimist than you, then: I feel that for most people freedom is quite far from the "real important things" on their minds (corollary: if even primary freedoms are in the end not so important, let's forget about "minor issues" like software).
"RMS expects folks to understand the merits of Free Software a priori."
I would say "not exactly": it seems to me that RMS expects folks to understand the merits of *people's* freedom a priori. It's a fortiori that Free Software is meritable since it aligns to people's freedom.
"I am very fond of Richard but it's necessary to accept that his mental wiring does not give him any empathy for folks who don't think the way he does."
I feel that to be quite true.
"We need to engineer a system where we don't have rich gate-keepers of the work of non-rich Free Software developers [...] We still need commercial users"
Then you are wrong. No other than "rich gate-keepers" have the power to talk face to face to the "rich gate-keepers" at the doors of the commercial users. You need a pair to Michael Dell to talk to Michael Dell, or a pair to Larry Ellison to talk to Larry Ellison.
In a different post I talked about how Dell, IBM, HP, Oracle... could "partner" to Debian were the things different (and in my opinion getting bussiness advantage with that). But what really lacks Debian for this to happen is a "bird of a feather" of those "big guys". It could have been Mark Shuttleworth; it hasn't been the case but anyway it isn't going to be me or even you (you know it: you've tried) the one that can talk face to face, shake hands and make bussiness with them, but somebody that they can respect and that usually involves money tied to some kind of brand recognition (you bring "brand recognition" with your name alone, it's only that it's doubtful if it is the kind of "brand" respected by them and then you lack the money -and maybe your vision is slightly off the mark too if my memories of your Enterprise Linux effort -was that the name? are correct).
We've been lucky that the main kernel line found in Linus Torvalds its "benevolent tyrant" technically-wise; Debian hasn't found its own "benevolent tyrant" bussiness and financially-wise (maybe it's impossible, maybe it's even undiserable, but that's a different story).
Oh! I almost forget to say that I can be your "benevolent tyrant" bussiness-wise if you can rise for me the money!
"By essentially making all past and present Debian developers his unpaid employees. Everything we did was for Ubuntu, not Debian, we just didn't know it."
Mr. Perens, I must admit I respect your opinions quite a lot. But this time, please, talk for yourself. As a general matter, the work at Debian is much more than unpaid work for Ubuntu; much more for lightyears. Regarding specifically Ubuntu, "We" just didn't know it??? That was absolutly obvious from day zero to anyone wanting to look at Ubuntu with open eyes.
It was obvious (and it is obvious) that the major "problem" for corporations regarding Debian is brand recognition, that the "Debian Entity" cannot be tied to any "Debian Corp." (remember Ian Murdock more or less tried that path with Progeny) and thus, no one can take monetary advantage from the Debian brand saying "See? I'm the corporation that brings Debian to you". So Mr. Shuttleworth confronted with the consideration of trying to build a "Linux for humans" or a (hopefully) profitable corporation took the second option and started (quite successfully) a new brand recognition program called "Ubuntu".
That's all the hint needed.
Heck, for a fraction of the money expended on the Ubuntu project now he (or a figurehead) could be Debian Project Leader *and* being in a position of leading Debian, for as far as true meritochracy allows, towards his stated goal of a "Linux for Humans".
Today it could be Debian, not Ubuntu, the one supported on HP, IBM or Dell hardware; heck again, since bussiness is bussiness after all, Debian could be an Oracle certified platform, not Ubuntu; it would be Debian, not Red Hat through Fedora, the one pushing very interesting "enterprisey" projects like Colbber, 389 Directory Server or Spacewalk. He would have pushed Canonical as the best and major "enterprise supporter" for Debian and considered that "control" to be enough instead of inventing Ubuntu out of thin air in the very intent to a) having total control of it and b) reaping benefits from Debian for as long as he could without bad press (by the day Ubuntu started, producing a completly anew distribution bringing new fresh air to the very "distribution" concept after ten years from the first ones shouldn't have been discarded though probably this would have meant talking "real big money" instead of just "big money").
"I really wish now that I'd let the [Debian?] project die when Ian Murdock quit."
I regret disenting to you and now I'll do it twice in the same post. If the above was indeed about Debian, I must say: Bullshit! Ubuntu is at most a lost chance but Debian is still living and on fairly decent health. Don't throu away the suit because that little spot, just clean it.
Shit! What a pity I already posted here. Is nobody going to moderate parent post insightful over the roof?
"As long as you use GNU Emacs for all your daily needs, who cares?"
Heresy! The Knights Who Say Vi demand a sacrifice!
The Knights Who Say Vi demand... A shrubbery!!
"The description I posted from M-W says it is a form of government"
Hmmm... nope... I'll read it again... hmmm... nope, it doesn't say so.
"1 : any of various economic and political theories..."
"2 a : a system of society or group living in which..."
"3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory..."
So it's either some kind of economic or political theory, a system of society or group, or a society stage in a theory from Marx. No sir, it doesn't say anywhere on the text you bring up to attention that it is any kind of government.
Since ceoyoyo in the grandparent post explicitly says that "Socialism is simply the idea that the public, either in the form of the government or directly in the form of a group of citizens, should own things, provide services, etc." which is basically a mix up of your references "1" and "2 a" it's clear that, within the limits of this discussion, ceoyoyo is right and ffreeloader is wrong.
See? That's rational discussion instead of tribalism. You'd probably benefit yourself from trying it.
"Apparently, you don't understand my point."
I think I understand your point, probably I failed at making mine one clear.
"Yes, it may very well be cheaper to re-create all the media on the dead drive than to pay $360,000 per terabyte to store it on the server."
In fact what I said is that probably it would be more expensive to recreate the info on the dead drive than to pay whatever "monopoly money" IT asks for storage, especially considering everything else that might come within the "storage" entry in the bill.
"the CIO should have his nuts cracked for forcing his customers to make that choice"
That's considering the CIO had any option on the charge-back scheme. Maybe he has it, maybe not. On a side note, the same can be said about the other departments: if they find the storage bill to be too high, have they the ability to say "thanks, but no: I'll cover my storage needs anywhere else". In my experience the answer is problably "no" for both questions: neither the CIO nor the Depts. have any saying neither in the backcharge scheme nor in the provider selection.
"If they gave everything away except storage and tried to make it all up there, no one would use net storage and we'd have a broke IT shop."
It's not clear to me if you are talking about an internal IT dept. or an outsourced one but given that my basic premise, here and now (it may change as time and facts change), is that IT backcharging is a bad-bad-bad idea, I have no problem accepting your point: a backcharging scheme disconnected to reality is doomed to fail -no wonder since even a backcharging scheme properly related to reality is doomed to fail.
"Your missing my point and your argument doesn't hold water. We ARE in a free market. They are receiving what the market says they should receive. Don't you live in the US like myself?"
It was not me the one asking the question. I didn't even ask any question (except for the rethorical "didn't you?") so what are you exactly answering to?
"Next, you're going to tell me that the President should be the highest paid person in the country, sheesh."
What's this? Chewbacca defense, inability for read comprehension or plain trolling? I was the one saying that someone's wages are based in "compounding the fact of making more revenue being more difficult to replace". The President is quite easy to replace as it has been in fact replaced 43 times and looking at news it doesn't seem that there is a lack of people wanting the post. If market forces were in action POTUS would be a position people would pay for, not the other way around.
"What is the definition of young, if life expectancy is infinite?"
The same as always: gullible.
"For instance, if I create an app that makes $5000 a day and another programmer creates an app that makes $100,000, who should really get paid more?"
Humm... free market. The one compounding the fact of making more revenue being more difficult to replace.
"What if the same amount of work was needed for both?"
Humm... communism. That's the system that (theoretically) rewards effort instead of revenues. Free market rewards revenues disregarding effort (you did know that, didn't you?).
"They are both receiving their contracted wage, so what's the complaint?"
There's always place for complaints. Quite a different issue is if the complainer is in strong position or not for the complaints to be listened.
"dancingmilk has it right...the folks earning the big bucks put more at risk than a little time in front of a computer."
Are you sure about that? Not that I'm telling you are wrong but the fact is that from external view it really seems they are risking nothing on their own; what they risk is other's money and assests (and then, when the thing wreaks havoc "daddy government" comes in *their* rescue, not the real damaged).
"He deserves no more than he agreed to when he started employment."
Only if:
* He was a properly informed agent when he entered the deal
* Environment for the agreement hasn't changed
"You can't complain about a salary that YOU agreed to."
Of course you can (you always can do it). You can even *ethically* do it if you were tricked into an unballanced deal.
"Sure, if the business goes bust upper management loses their jobs, but then so do the programmers."
And even then, management will have better compensation, if not golden parachutes.
"This is mostly a 'slake my ignorance post' but where do they pull a probability like a 1 in 1000 chance? Either the comet is going to hit us, or it isn't. So wheres the uncertainty coming from?"
Search for the "three-body problem".
"I've actually had this same discussion with some fellow business people and we all concluded that if indeed technology that gives eternal life is developed, it will be affordable for everyone that is able to work."
Current facts seem to disprove your point. Corporations prefer young people: more naive and with less social ties; they are more willfull to work long hours for peanuts.
"is how you force people to pay rent for their body with eternal life, if they refuse to?"
You don't do it. It wouldn't be "you pay or I'll take you X" but "you pay or sorrily X won't be refueled: your choice; you can come to us as soon or as late as you want".
"I suspect that it will be a mixture and an entirely different lifestyle when you'll have hundreds of years of life experience"
Exactly my point. Do you think you can go to a 200 year veteran with the "we are team; we need the extra effort, this project really will make a difference if only you work 100 hours weeks" managerial discourse?
"artificially restricting its availability to the financially privileged would cause a mass uprising among the informed."
Yes. The thread, here in Slashdot, will probably reach the 1000 comments.