And that attack vector can completely be negated by having the BIOS read-only by default, while only enabling updates when the user toggles a physical switch when the BIOS needs an update.

For now, anyway.

And that's exactly the same thing for the people you're complaining about. They're doing their job to the full extent of what policy allows them to provide. If you don't like it, you either change policy or ask for exemption of the policy. The things you're complaining about needs to go through management, who should fix policy or give you an exemption, it then trickles down to the IT people actually implementing the changed policy/exemption, so you can do your job. It does look like you are complaining mostly and not addressing the issues that are keeping you from doing your work (i.e. get management involved to change policy).

So which part of that is the sysadmins fault (that is if it *is* indeed policy and not an excuse). In a lot of companies willfully disregarding policy is a fireable offence. You apparently think it's reasonable to place someone in such a position, because it's convenient for you to have IMAP. If this is indeed policy and you're not happy with it, you talk to the implementer of the policy to get the policy changed, you don't blame a co worker for actually adhering to policy.

Again. If you need this, you go to the person who can actually sign off on you having a wireless network for testing purposes. You don't set up your own and connect it to the company network, because it's convenient and if you do set up yourself, you should have a good talk with HR.

That's essentially rubbish, but again; this may be policy; if you don't agree with the policy discuss policy changes with the policy makers.

From my point of view, it looks like you're blaming people who follow policy for following policy. If policy is idiotic or if you need an exemption, you go through someone who can change policy or give you the exemption, probably not the persons you're complaining about.

That does sound like your IT department is not understaffed and evaluated on the 'number of tickets closed'. This approach probably does not fare that well in a company where the bean counters have taken over.

Again, I know this is quite selfish, but if I wrote code and I had the choice of writing code that's used by a smaller user group whose members have the same ethics and getting something back in return in the form of improvements OR writing code that's used by a huge group of users without ever getting anything (not even kudos) back *ever*, I'd go for option number one. Getting something back with BSD is not a requirement for companies, companies' only goal is to make money, ergo the time that a company actually does give something back is because it's cheaper to give something back than to keep it in-house.

Option number one is not to 'no one's benefit' it's to the benefit of members of a like minded group, with that group growing once the benefits become clearer to people outside that group, the alternative is benefit to corporations ONLY, without them ever being required to give anything back.

The actual divide in mindset deciding between GPL and BSD licencing, is priorities; BSD minded people probably believe that furthering technology is more important than freedom. I would rather not have cool technology if it meant that it's completely closed off and non-free.

Personally, from my point of view, it's more like:

GPL: had BSD been licenced under GPL, then I would not just have worked as free labour for Sony, but Sony actually had to give something in return for using my code (not money, but improvements).

BDS: I don't mind being free labour for multinationals and them making large amounts of money off of my work, as long as I am being credited in the code (which is not open sourced so nobody will actually see who wrote what).

I prefer GPL myself and I know that it's actually a more selfish choice, I do actually somewhat admire people who do seem to be completely selfless and use the BSD licence, the world would be a better place if everyone was like that. However, not everyone is like that and I am sure that if both BSD and Linux were both using the GPL licence, Sony would still not have gone through the trouble of developing their very own. That's called leveraging existing technology, where the main goal is saving money by not having to re-invent the wheel.

Sony now had the choice of:

- Some Free software, where they actually have to put effort in to provide their improvements back to the community

or

- Some free software, which they can use in which ever way they want without having to do anything in return.

Easy choice.

Apart from that, doesn't the state of California just imply that Bitcoin is a real currency?

What else would you have expected? It's Oracle. They've done the same with Solaris and OpenOffice. Now it's MySQL's turn.

Because of: 'Ausweiss bitte'. Look it up if you don't get the reference. Any society where you are required to identify yourself is not free.

How about stopping with bombing foreign countries first and taking their resources at gun point. People only become extremists if they don't have anything else left to lose.

You however seem to fail to understand who creates law and over time seems to dictate how it's interpreted as well.

That's why the initial question to a customer who wants a software solution should be 'what do you want to accomplish', instead of 'what do you want'.

That's what all Empire apologists say.

The pyramid would have its lowest layer removed, after which the next lowest layer will be removed until in the end only the top is left (if the top hasn't been removed by force by everyone who's not part of the pyramid anymore).