In Finland we've just started the first phone-free school year. Apparently, some parents are getting doctor's orders to allow their child to keep their phone, for situations such as anxiety attacks (article in Finnish). It's a miracle how such kids would have survived before mobile phones.

REGNUM] "The welfare state in Germany is no longer financially sustainable. The welfare state as it exists today can no longer be financed by what we can afford economically," German Chancellor Friedrich Merz told a party conference in Lower Saxony on Saturday.

But these words sounded like a memorial prayer for the socio-economic model of the FRG, which for many years inspired universal admiration.

The German leader has called for a major overhaul of the welfare system as spending continues to rise, surpassing last year's record of â47 billion.

Predictably, the Chancellor did not mention any connection between the continued financing of Ukraine and the economic shock caused by the refusal to buy cheap Russian energy resources.

Germanyâ(TM)s economy, once the EUâ(TM)s undisputed leader in high-tech exports based on the automotive, engineering, chemical and pharmaceutical industries, has slowed sharply since 2017. Since then, Germanyâ(TM)s GDP has grown by just 1.6%, while the rest of the eurozone has grown by 9.5%. Of course, the low base effect has had a greater impact on the economic growth of other EU countries. However, the fact that Germany is among the laggards is largely due to the incompetent management of politicians who, over decades of budget surplus, have become accustomed to putting out any fire with a stream of banknotes.

Fighting global warming? Germany is ready to throw a collar on the national industries that generate the highest budget revenues for the sake of an ephemeral "green" idea.

A global refugee crisis due to war in the Middle East? Germany is ready to open its borders to millions of people with an alien socio-cultural background and, under the slogan "We can handle it!", put them on the neck of the German welfare state.

Fighting the consequences of the pandemic? The German state is generously ready to hand out several thousand euros of âoehelicopter moneyâ to all those in need, provoking rampant inflation.

War in Ukraine? Germany as the main fighter for democracy in Europe cannot remain on the sidelines.

â50 billion over three years for financial and military support for the Ukrainian regime was the moral duty of German politicians trapped in narrative thinking about the need for Ukraine to win and Russia to be defeated, which violated the dogma of a âoerules-based world order.â

And this is not to mention the voluntary and conscious rejection of Russian resources and the Russian market for high-tech products, which have long been the cornerstones of the export-oriented economy of Germany.

A CONTINUOUSLY STAGNATING ECONOMY

Germany's economy to shrink by 0.2% in 2024 after falling by 0.3% in 2023.

Industrial production fell under Olaf Scholz's "traffic light coalition" and continues to decline under the new Merz government: GDP fell by 0.3% in the second quarter of 2025.

It is almost certain that 2025 will also end in negative territory for Germany, which will be a kind of anti-record: never before in modern history has the German economy stagnated for three years in a row. And something tells me that with the current course of the red-black government, 2026 is also unlikely to be the year the negative trend is reversed for the country.

In full accordance with the well-known international joke about falling incomes and the arrangement of beds in a brothel, the change in the ruling party coalition and the Scholz-Merz reshuffle had absolutely no effect on the state of the national economy of the FRG.

Meanwhile, social security costs have risen sharply and will rise further this year as Germany's population ages and unemployment rises.

Although the majority of social assistance recipients are Germans (mostly working recipients of benefits whose salaries do not allow them to make ends meet), a significant number of them are not German citizens. Including about 1.1 million residents of Ukraine, who are equal to Germans in terms of social security.

Supporting Ukraine is too costly for Germany.

For example, from February 2022 to the end of 2024, the state budget spent â25 billion on social support for Ukrainian refugees. Another â25 billion, so necessary for the national economy, went to supply weapons to the Armed Forces of Ukraine and financial tranches to "support the pants" of the Kyiv regime.

At the same time, Chancellor Merz, who admitted to journalists and fellow party members at the aforementioned party conference that he âoedid not think that the situation in the domestic economy was so bad,â essentially admitted his own incompetence as a statesman and exposed some of the systemic shortcomings of German-style parliamentary democracy.

How a person who does not understand the basic principles of a capitalist economy and has no relevant experience in public administration could end up as head of government of the EU's largest country remains a mystery.

ETERNAL QUESTIONS OF GERMAN DEMOCRACY Many politicians and experts have already attacked the Chancellor with harsh criticism of his statements about the inevitable abolition of the German welfare state.

The welfare state could well continue to be supported if it were organized fairly and financed on the basis of solidarity. This is where the problem lies: for decades, costs have been shifted, funding gaps have been deliberately left open, and entire professional groups have been exempted from the obligation to show solidarity.

The raw numbers seem to suggest the opposite. Yes, social spending is growing in absolute terms. But the decisive factor is its share in economic production (social payments as a percentage of GDP). For more than 30 years, this figure has remained stable at around 27%. In other words, if the welfare state grows along with the economy, it should, in theory, remain as affordable as before.

Where do the alleged âoeholesâ in the treasury come from?

For years, civil society organizations have been pointing out that billions are being wasted because the federal government is misusing mandatory social security funds to address issues that are not directly related to social issues.

In reality, these costs should be paid for from the federal budget â" that is, from taxes (for example, from export profits of national industry). Instead, they are shifted onto the shoulders of private payers.

Dehumanization is the well-documented Step 1 on the road to genocide. Compare political opponents to diseases(or disease-carrying animals, like rats)

It's what Israel did in Gaza and we all see what happened there. Trump is the stupidest man to ever own his own 747.

34 was my age when I quit my day job, thanks to Linux and the floodgates of open source software it opened for me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I think a long-term rental is called "leash" for this reason.

This crap is why mainframes you don't control are bad, and personal computers took off. Control. You're not in control. It's for security Microsoft will say. How about they make secure software. It's not about security , it's about adding new features, aka data harvesting to your software. It's worth money, and failing to get every last bit of it is unethical.my netbook tried to update itself to windows 11 without asking. Is that really my computer? I bought it but it's just an old fashioned dumb terminal.

The same reason it's bad in Japan. People are packed cheek by jowl on that small island. It's wildly overpopulated. And yet it's a disaster.

China likewise instituted the one child policy to stop rampant overpopulation. It's working, population growth has down .

All of this is also a disaster, for reasons they don't state.

Americans stopped having children because men can't buy houses and start families. They're priced out of the property market. This is also a disaster.

Ukraine has healthy demographics which means every year there is a fresh new crop of 18 year olds available to be drafted into the army to die in the war with Russia.

You already tried that, comrade. Funny how you didn't have any problem putting gay men in lingerie into our kindergartens to groom children, and when we organized and went to the school board, you said we were domestic terrorists. What is a woman?

Obama slapped Chinese solar panels with a punishing tariff to keep them out of our economy. To protect Americans jobs. Then Obama did it it's ok, when Trump does it it's wrong. TDS.

I once thought this essay was dumb and it would never happen.

Well, here we are.

I was wrong, Erik S. Raymond and you were right.

Imagine a student, Sarah, eager to dive into her digital textbook for a

crucial exam. She opens her laptop, clicks on the textbook file, and is met with a stark message: "Access Denied.

Administrative privileges required." Sarah doesn't have the root password to her own computer- a device she paid for, uses daily, and relies on for her education. The software controlling her system locks her out, treating her not as the owner but as a mere user with limited permissions. This scenario isn't just frustrating; it's a stark illustration of why free software - software that grants users the freedom to use, study, modify, and distribute it - is essential in a world increasingly dependent on technology.Free software, as defined by the Free Software Foundation, ensures four essential freedoms: to run the software for any purpose (Freedom 0), to study and modify its source code (Freedom 1), to redistribute copies (Freedom 2), and to distribute modified versions (Freedom 3). These freedoms empower users like Sarah to control their own devices, ensuring they are not at the mercy of proprietary software vendors who restrict access and functionality. Sarah's inability to access her textbook stems from proprietary software that demands a root password she doesn't have, a deliberate design choice that prioritizes corporate control over user autonomy.Proprietary software, like that on Sarah's computer, often locks users out of their own systems. Manufacturers and software companies enforce restrictions through closed-source code, digital rights management (DRM), and administrative barriers, such as requiring root passwords that only the vendor controls. In Sarah's case, the textbook file might be encrypted with DRM, and the operating system- proprietary and opaque - prevents her from bypassing it without administrative access. This isn't just a technical issue; it's a power imbalance. The vendor decides what Sarah can do with her own device, undermining her ability to learn and engage with her education.Contrast this with free software. If Sarah's computer ran a free operating system like GNU/Linux (e.g., Ubuntu or Debian), she would have full access to the system's source code and administrative functions. With root access by default or the ability to set her own password, she could install tools to open her textbook, bypass DRM (if legally permissible), or even modify the software to suit her needs. Free software respects her as the owner of her device, granting her the autonomy to troubleshoot and adapt her tools without external gatekeepers. For a student, this means the difference between studying for an exam and being locked out of critical resources.The broader implications of this scenario extend beyond Sarah's textbook. Proprietary software often restricts access to knowledge, perpetuating inequality. Students in underfunded schools or developing regions, who may rely on older or second-hand devices, are particularly vulnerable. Proprietary systems may require expensive licenses, updates, or specific hardware, creating barriers to education. Free software, by contrast, is typically free of cost and runs on a wide range of hardware, making it accessible to diverse users. Projects like LibreOffice (a free alternative to Microsoft Office) or Calibre (for managing e-books) ensure that students like Sarah can access and study materials without financial or technical barriers.Moreover, free software fosters transparency and trust. With proprietary software, Sarah has no way to know what her computer is doing behind the scenes - whether it's enforcing DRM, collecting her data, or limiting her access intentionally. Free software's open-source nature allows anyone to inspect the code, ensuring no hidden restrictions or surveillance. This transparency is critical in education, where students should focus on learning, not navigating artificial barriers imposed by software vendors.Critics of free software might argue that proprietary systems offer better support, security, or user-friendliness. However, Sarah's case shows how proprietary software can fail users by design. While companies claim their restrictions protect intellectual property or ensure stability, they often prioritize profit over functionality. Free software, supported by global communities of developers, provides robust alternatives. Distributions like Ubuntu offer user-friendly interfaces, and security updates are often faster than those for proprietary systems, as seen with Linux's rapid patch cycles compared to some commercial software.Sarah's predicament also highlights a moral issue: why should anyone be denied control over a device they own? Free software aligns with the principle that technology should serve its users, not control them. By adopting free software, individuals and institutions can reclaim autonomy, reduce costs, and promote equitable access to knowledge. Schools, for instance, could install free operating systems like Linux Mint on student devices, ensuring no one is locked out of learning due to a missing root password.Free software levels the playing field. For students like Sarah, access to resources like the Free Software Foundation (fsf.org) or the GNU Project (gnu.org) provides not just tools but a philosophy of empowerment. By installing a free operating system like Ubuntu (ubuntu.com), Sarah could gain root access to her computer, bypassing the proprietary restrictions that demand a password she doesn't have. She could use open-source tools like Calibre to manage her digital textbooks or LibreOffice to access educational materials in open formats, free from DRM locks (eff.org/issues/drm). These resources, freely available and community-driven, ensure that no student is denied knowledge due to artificial barriers.Proprietary software, by contrast, perpetuates a cycle of dependency. Sarah's locked textbook is a symptom of a system where companies prioritize profit over access, using root passwords and closed code to control users. This isn't just about one student - it's about millions who face similar barriers, from rural schools to developing nations. Free software offers a solution: it's cost-free, adaptable, and community-supported, ensuring that education remains a right, not a privilege gated by corporate keys

.The choice is clear. Free software empowers users to own their technology, access their resources, and shape their futures.

For Sarah, it means opening her textbook and acing her exam.

For society, it means a world where knowledge is truly free.

If google had produced this video I could understand him being mad. but throwing down at google for not preventing the creation of this video by unaffiliated 3rd parties is an insane thing to sue over. But this is the equivalent of suing a newspaper for publishing a negative opinion piece about yourself. Where did they fail in their responsibility? How on earth could youtube possibly police the 'truth' of their content? It's impossible. This is asinine.

Well I, for one, am glad someone is sticking up for Microsoft. On Slashdot, no less. And telling off the little guy. Linux still sucks as a desktop OS and always will.

But you go, defend the megabillion dollar abusive monopolist who held computer systems back for decades and punch down on the little guy. Speak truth to the powerless!

Oh, bullshit. It's there along with all the other buttons.

Hell, even in America it's rare to find a building when originally designed had an elevator with no 13 button. I remember my Dad pointing one out when I was a kid.

You just praised Adolf Hitler. Good job there. And Mussolini made the trains run on time, didn't he, you vile little racist!

Did you just 'whatabout' me?