Hypocrisy, it loves religion.
At some point, someone worked out that religion can be exploited to control large swathes of the world's population. Add into that can of worms, religious leaders that don't actually understand their scriptures, interpreting them to support their existing views, rather than adopting the views described within, and you get what we've seen, what with the fanaticism and irrational witch-trials.
Wrong. Their lives are important. They're trying to make sure they don't miss the start of "Lost" or "The Biggest Loser."
I don't think that Miguel is all that popular. The last time I saw a long thread with him here, he suffered pretty badly. Making mono a dependency in Gnome exposes the project to unnecessary risk.
I respect Stallman far more than de Icaza, both for his thoughts and his actions over the years. Stallman is often taken out of context, but he is very consistent, and his statements almost always make sense years later - sometimes prophetically so.
There are a group of people (mostly affiliated with corporations) who have a hate-on for Stallman, because he values his principles more than he does development speed, ease of use, profits, or being able to use the latest shiny thing from MS.
Selling hardware at a loss but make the software profitable? Don't we curse other industries for this type of razor and blades business model? Wasn't there just a Printers and ink article?
"Which makes large, money-centric programs like this all about the people to whom the money goes: the unions."
Don't you mean "the workers"?
Last I checked union dues weren't 100%.
(Disclaimer: I work in tertiary education in New Zealand, as IT support, and I'm a proud union member. Education pays my wages.)
Religions, which is what you're talking about when you say faith, are software that runs in a cluster of human beings. They mutate all the time... you turn your head, there's another one popping up, the bastard stepchild of a few predecessors. Some religions will destroy the hardware they run on before they ever propagate. The Davidians, for example. Others will propagate through a population quickly, but lead that population to extinction in a few generations. A few will endure, supporting their populations growth and infecting or destroying the populations running another religion.
This is not made up airy-fairy bullshit that some simpleton believes for no reason. This is evolution at work. These old religions have demonstrated their reliability, because the people who believe in them are not dead.
The evidence indicates that the vast majority of ideas that are "modern" and "novel" and "progressive" will lead the population that embraces them to extinction.
How can a board of directors "look out for the interests of the stockholder" if the directors cannot understand the business of the company?
Um, drink champagne at board meetings, vote themselves larger fees, do a few sweetheart deals for friends, and plan how to close the next AGM before anyone asks probing questions?
The interests of the directors may well be in conflict with the interests of other shareholders. Just as the interests of the government may well conflict with the interests of the citizens (e.g. privacy).
You got very lucky then. Join the UU newcomers mailing list and listen to the stories of all the people who either left or were forced out of the JW church.
What I said had a lot of base in experience working to help these people come to terms with what happened to them. The fact you alone had a decent experience does not make theirs crap.
Instant mac and cheese like, totally has enough nutrients to get me through exam week!
I wouldn't mind vegetarians so much if they weren't so militant about never eating meat products. Hanging out with vegetarians is fine until the group decides to get something to eat and all the good spots get vetoed because they don't have salad there or "it's all meat *frown*".
I am a computer. I am dumber than any human and smarter than any administrator.