Also I would like to add the purpose behind free software is that you can freely modify, change and update the code as you see fit, the fact you didn't get paid to create the software is another issue that is separate.

No one forces you to release free software - some people purport that it an idealogical struggle so by releasing software they are fighting against a future owned by corporations that create for profit software. Others do it just because the see a niche need for software they would like so they create and give it away. How you decide to release software is mostly a personal decision, but in some rare cases some business decide it would better to release the source code to some product so they no longer have to actively maintain it. So in your 'unpaid employee' example, nobody is forcing you to make updates, or commit to churning out new code. If you feel taken advantage of, the by all means don't bother really. It's not hard to do. But if your feeling moody because someone else took your work that you freely gave away and made it popular, well maybe you shouldn't have gave it away in the first place, no?

Well to be honest, Shuttleworth decided to take something that was sorta good, and then involve private corporations just like how Microsoft does it. I love Ubuntu! I used to use Debian but they were so slow to update their software, and were not focused on the desktop end user. Their main focus was stability - the server users. Open source folks have to get used to the idea not everything in a popular OS / distribution needs to be open for it be usable for the masses. The use of software is not really idealogical struggle, and personally I wish people would really stop framing it in that fashion. At the end of the day some people would / will want to be paid for their effort for creating software for your use. Other people believe that everything should open and free for everyone which very awesome, but looking at the material history of the world has never really occurred as everything created has some intrinsic value. All that free software is worth something and someone, somewhere is going to capitalize on it - i.e. Apple for example. IMO the only way that Linux or another open source OS will get big is when they accept that for somethings, you have to pay to have someone create them. Sure there will be some good hearted souls out there that will give stuff away, but you shouldn't really rely on that if you want better software variety and wide adoption. This is one of the driving reason IMO there is no AAA games for Linux, as well as other popular niche applications that are huge industries. On that tangent, if Linux is truly going to take significant market share from other OS's the ability to use other OS's programs flawless or nearly flawlessly will be key in that, as being able to run a vast library of almost anything for costing nothing is a huge advantage. I have been saying this years, if Microsoft was really wise, they would dump whatever OS they are making and like apple, and take some Linux distro and wine and make it work and then slowly phase out the old while embracing Linux as the future.

Too bad, This would be something I would buy for office meetings :)

I quoth: "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin Thou art truly craven! What is to live without the light of Liberty? I shall tell thee: Tyranny!

Just looking at that makes me want to be able to buy that for my uncle that has MS. And because it's new, if widely adopted, improvements will undoubtedly make it cheaper to build and more affordable for the common person.

I don't think it really matters - if developers can (for once) say upfront we will make x amount of DLC minimum, I for one would be all about it, just as long as they do in fact release the amount of content that they promised and perhaps make avaik. I don't care if they have to raise the price to cover costs, just as long as it's fair for what I get. Now, that being said, what I hate the most is that developers that over promise, and the game turns out to be either nothing like it was described to be, or bug ridden to the point it's not really playable or they never deliver on.

WOW didn't trailblaze with that, SWG did, justified as recouping the development costs. Sure they make more money off sub's - that's the point, but in order to generate more income, those upfront dollars are great just make sure they have enough money to keep the servers on until the server population stabilizes.

While you may feel that way, he did put in work to get the site popular, and convenient. Sure people are upset about the privacy, but the whole point of the site was in fact to gather data on other people. A lot of people just don't get that - of course he wants to invade your privacy, he wants more data to mine and sell! It's a business, just because people don't pay to make an account and login doesn't mean Facebook is not allow to make money, they have to just too, just keep the service running and the employees paid. And frankly, before the privacy debacle, anyone was on there was a google search away from finding out whatever dirt they themselves posted on that site. I think people are getting bent about it because they feel violated that someone has access to data that they themselves and their buddies dumped on the website. To be upset that someone put in some hard work to be successful with a social web project from the get go that was (and still is!) about data mining, is very much like crying over spilled milk. Get over it.

The bush was weed. That would account for everything.

Thanks - Never heard of Juno Reactor till today :)

Why is it on slashdot, we get more and better arguments about the founding documents of the United States of America, but the politicians, the people we trust to run our goverment appear not to know didily squat about it. The lack of understanding of our so call Representatives is so appalling. Why can they just simply outlaw lobbies to government ? Why does the government consistently eschew its responsibility to it constituents? It as if we wish for leaders, but what we get instead or people of poor quality and small of mind. Congress should be ashamed of it's poor quality.