Let's review: COLLEGE!!! That means that most, if not all, are over 18.

I agree with giving the students a laptop, but there's a flaw in their logic. They state that "all laptops should have web filtering." Stop right there! That requirement makes no sense! Once the laptops leave the campus and go elsewhere, they have absolutely no control over that laptop. They have no control, and no say, as to what they do with those laptops. What's stopping them from wiping the OS and reinstalling? And as far as surfing the web, the college has no control over what the kids do online if they are not on the campus network, so the college should not be held liable. If I was the person in charge of IT at that college I would push back like crazy. What they need to do is handle it like a company does: install a web filter on the CAMPUS NETWORK! That way they can filter all the internet activity coming from the campus network, and the college's liability is limited only to on-campus activity. Anything going on off campus is not their problem to solve. As for students tampering with their laptops, have the students sign a statement that they will not tamper with it, or they will be charged for the full price of the laptop immediately, will not be issued another one, and for the remainder of their time at the college, their laptop is immediate unsupported by the college's help desk. PROBLEM SOLVED!

He was a lawyer. Part of filling a role as a lawyer in a government capacity is to take an oath in a courtroom that he/she will uphold the Constitution. The same is for police officers, military, etc, etc.

From my perspective, the man is a hero. The Constitution was put in place to protect the people from a tyrannical government. In the spirit of the Constitution, he saw a tyrannical government on the horizon, and with a sworn duty to protect the Constitutional rights of the people, he made a sacrifice to stop it. That's the definition of an American hero. Anything else that the Bush administration tries to state about him and is actions is nothing more than the Bush administration trying to cover their own asses.

Ok, so now somebody is trying to condition us to think that the concept of privacy isn't even real? They can kiss my private ass.....

That is age discrimination. You shouldn't mention anything about age, nor should you immediately judge based on age. There are a lot of older people that are still doing the same damn thing they did 15 years ago because they haven't grown. And there are a lot of "younger" guys out there that are real rock stars, learn very fast, and contribute a whole lot more. theYou should base your judgment on their actual skills. And if you can't tell that from an interview, then its not the candidate's fault; your interview skills just suck.

The bottom line is the employer needs to provide the employees with the tools to do the job. If those are inferior tools, is that the employee's fault? If the employer wants the employee to start working as soon as they're in the door, either put in a mechanism that starts up the computers 30 minutes before work, or find a computer that boots faster. The employees can only work with what they've been given. The lost productivity is a direct result of the choosing that product, and it is up to the company to absorb that cost. The company should either push back on Microsoft to make it better, or simply just switch to a different OS.

You are trying to sharp shoot me just to see if I actually know what I'm talking about, to see whether my opinion is based on fact or if I'm talking out my ass. Well, I do know what I'm talking about. I know of all the names you mentioned. I don't know them personally, but I do know their contributions, and I know more about their relationship with free software than what is listed on their Wikipedia pages. I never said Stallman was THE source of free software. Nor did I try to make him out to be the messiah of open software. In fact, I already said that he has been considered by many as a kook. However, the GPLv2 was critical in getting open source to the masses (Linux). The FSF was a critical part of that. Every time there was some corporation that tried to edge their way into it to squeeze out a few bucks, the FSF pushed back and protected the license. Sometimes it takes a fanatic to hold up the walls (think "Marines"). You can agree or disagree with his ideals and approach, but you cannot ignore the fact that he and his FSF has been an influencing factor into the world of open software (not the only factor, but a big one). Unfortunately, Stallman's open fanaticism will be his own undoing. His personal vendetta is affecting the FSF's ability to execute its own manifesto. Argent, apart from some semantics around Stallman and his intentions, I believe you and I are on the same page here.

Thank you for the history lesson, but I never stated anything about FSF being around back then. I didn't even say he was the focal point of pushing open software. I said "people like Stallman". Not just him, but many others as well. I meant people who really wanted open software and were willing to create software and share it with others. I was talking about like-minded individuals who wanted to make sure they could use software without being forced to abide by anybody else rules. It was a noble cause. Unfortunately, the FOSS world is now up and running, the licenses are in place, and free software is legally protected. Unfortunately, Stallman has gradually become less and less "pro-open software" and more and more "anti-corpoate". The two should not coincide. He's already viewed by many as hippie throwback and a kook, so politically he's not gaining any ground. In the long run, he will alienate the very community he is supposed to be protecting.

Stallman was not talking about cost in $$$ or effort. He was talking about "freedom" (free as in speech). He believes that there must be some piece of code in Firefox that is tied into some corporate governance which does not allow people to take, use, modify, distribute, etc, etc. It's really a sorry thing. Back in the day when FOSS was getting started, people like Stallman were critical. The community needed people like him to ensure that FOSS started free and stayed free. It kept the corporate money mongers at bay and made sure free software (as in speech) had a place to grow and mature. Every time there was an encroachment by somebody trying to corrupt that, the GPL and other such licenses were there to push back. Unfortunately, it seems that lately Stallman and his crew have gone beyond simply "protecting the idea" and have moved into fanaticism. This could be potentially dangerous for the community. While many view Stallman as a crackpot, he really has been critical to the open source community. Sometimes, an idea needs an empassioned person to keep the fire alive for the good of all. But if he really does go further around the bend and really does become a raving lunatic, conspiracy theorist, a true wackpot: then he will simply be ignored, even by his own FOSS community. Then he will be irrelevant, and the staunch support of the open source ideal will be marginalized, and then FOSS will have no protectorate. Stallman is hurting his own cause, which does make me concerned for the community as a whole.