Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 24th Apr 2007 18:12 UTC, submitted by FreeRhino
GNU, GPL, Open Source "When free software supporters participate in the French presidential election on April 22 for the first round of voting, they will have information that may be unique in the world: position statements from all major parties on issues about free software, copyright, patents, and digital rights. Even more surprisingly - at least from a North American [ed. note: or the rest of Europe, sadly] perspective - a majority of the candidates have heard of these issues and developed positions on them."
Order by: Score:
Corporate whore
by nicholas on Tue 24th Apr 2007 18:27 UTC
nicholas
Member since:
2005-07-07

Except for Sarkozy, the candidates also agreed that consumers should have the right to buy a computer without any preloaded software, and that students should learn, as the questionnaire put it, not "a product line" such as Microsoft Office, but rather "tool categories," such as word processors or spreadsheets.


If Sarkozy wins, the people of France should be ashamed of themselves.

Edited 2007-04-24 18:27

Reply Score: 1

RE: Politically-pandering whores
by tomcat on Tue 24th Apr 2007 18:41 UTC in reply to "Corporate whore"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Since when do citizens have a "right" to order a manufacturer to deliver them a particular product? If a market exists, someone will exploit it. And there are plenty of manufacturers that will sell you a machine without preloaded software. All that you have to do is open your eyes.

Reply Score: 3

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Well, citizens have "every" right. Even in USA. It's about making an exception for the benefit of the commons. Whether or not it is fair is a different situation.

However. When it comes to software in the public administration it is obvious that proprietary software and proprietary standards are a big "no no". An authority relying on proprietary software/standards is a corrupt authority.

What Average Joe is using is however a matter of agreement between him and the manufacturer. Within certain limits (some rights cannot or should not be surrendered).

Reply Score: 3

ThawkTH Member since:
2005-07-06

Constitutions, first and foremost, are guidelines under which a government is supposed to operate.

Thinking back to civics, some countries have constitutions that are far more sparse than the US, others' are pages and pages and are extremely detailed.

Brevity is a strength of the US constitution, I believe. It's laid down the ideals, the basic plan, for an entire country. And I believe more often than not it has worked remarkably well (especially for being an experiment of sorts).

A right to softwareless PC's is not in the constitution. It's not in any constitution that I know of.

I would argue that the freedom of information, thought, and knowledge should be an amendment (perhaps speech and self expression don't cover a digital age). This would, if done properly, also lead to some much needed patent reform.

Anyway, I don't think you can dismiss an argument against proprietary software in public institutions so very easily.

Why on Earth would you consider the government using something that is not an open standard a good thing? Instead what, you leave the power, the control, in a private entity's hands whose one soulless function is to make money? Do you believe there are inherent flaws in an open system that make things less than secure?

I'm not sure if OSS has that bad a security track record...After all TCP/IP is an open standard...Should the DOD use a closed secret proprietary one instead?

Reply Score: 4

mmu_man Member since:
2006-09-30

Not directly in the constitution ( http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/html/constitution/constitution.htm (french only)) (one could eventually argue about equality).
But it's in the law, article L122 of consumer code:
http://195.83.177.9/code/liste.phtml?lang=uk&c=61&r=2133

As for open software/standards in public administrations, it should be mandatory, as much for national security (knowing the source code ensures you don't get backdoors for Echelon and others) as for safety of the information itself in the long term (making sure in 50 years one can still read and understand them, which isn't likely if it's in an obscure format only used by a long-gone commercial company), as for interoperability (being able to use the same info from other services, without having to pay again to make a new software to read them).

Reply Score: 2

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

BTW:

It is virtually impossible to buy a PC without Windows preloaded. At best you can buy it without a license and you'll have to buy a license in order to activate the Windows installation on the machine.

If the citizens cannot get the right to buy PC without Windows pre-installed then Microsoft should be denied the option of pre-installing software.

Reply Score: 3

mmu_man Member since:
2006-09-30

> There are plenty of companies that will offer you barebones PCs without an OS.

Try that at Auchan, Carrefour or Géant...

It's not a matter of being possible elsewhere or not.
The fact of not detailing the cost of the software on the bill and not providing the choice of removing it is illegal in France. That's it.

Edited 2007-04-24 20:34

Reply Score: 2

ThawkTH Member since:
2005-07-06

Nope.

You see, there is a slight problem or two with your post.

First, how is somebody without a pc supposed to buy a computer without windows? No matter what, Microsoft is getting the money, the market share, and the mindshare.

Second, I would say that the vast majority of computer purchasers know better than to buy from someone they've never heard of. Tigerdirect and Newegg? Who's heard of them (well, I have, but I've been buying from them since before windows 98 so I don't exactly count)?


Nobody seems to be complaining that it's impossible to get a computer without Windows preinstalled. If they are, I agree with you they are very wrong.

I think the complaint is that it is extremely difficult to find a computer, particularly a brand people know and trust (Support? Warranty?) that does not come with windows preinstalled.

Not to mention there are always Macs, but they have their own sets of issues and barriers to entry (including cost - the mac mini is not cost effective if you're low income, don't have a monitor/keyboard, etc)

Reply Score: 3

Karitku Member since:
2006-01-12

That's bollocks, several small manufacturers are selling PC's without OS. Dell is going to sell PC's with Red Hat but not without OS. This should clearly be evidence that Microsoft isn't pushing big PC manufacturers to only use it's OS on PC's. So why can't we buy big brand PC's without OS? Maybe your finger is pointing wrong person, think about it.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Go inside a typical store and let's see if Joe Average can buy a PC without Windows. Nope, virtually impossible.

At best he can buy a PC without a Windows license, but the XP/Vista installation program will none-the-less still be on the hard drive. I'm aware a very few mail order companies are selling PC's with Linux but they are quite rare. And it doesn't invalide my point.

Reply Score: 3

dekernel Member since:
2005-07-07

The question then is, does an average Joe want to buy a PC that does not have an OS installed. My guess is 'No'.

The market is just not there for the masses because the masses want/need the OS pre-installed.

Reply Score: 1

Supreme Dragon Member since:
2007-03-04

"The market is just not there for the masses because the masses want/need the OS pre-installed."

You think people should be forced to buy Vista?

Reply Score: 2

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

If you're talking the big OEMs, then yes, that's accurate.

But any small computer store should be willing to sell you a barebones PC (well, excepting Apple stores ;) ). The city I live in has a population under 60k and even we have a store that fits that bill - not to mention the numerous online retailers like ncix or tiger direct.

Of course, the downside is that more knowledge is typically required to purchase a barebones system. E.g., I know people who have accidentally configured and ordered systems with a P4 motherboard and an AMD processor ("Hey, why is everything installed except the CPU?").

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Politically-pandering whores
by miscz on Tue 24th Apr 2007 18:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Politically-pandering whores"
miscz Member since:
2005-07-17

If a market exists, someone will exploit it.

Yup, monopolists will exploit it.

Reply Score: 3

jack_perry Member since:
2005-07-06

If a market exists, someone will exploit it.
Yup, monopolists will exploit it.


Actually, the big problem with monopolies is that they won't exploit markets that exist (in the way the original writer meant). Monopolies are notorious for doing nothing to improve their product. In 1970s America, AT&T would only offer a residence one kind of phone, unless you paid extra for the Princess phone, which wasn't much better. Their R&D had all kinds of neat things, but the higher brass didn't want to hear of it. The same thing with Microsoft and Internet Explorer. The same thing with Standard Oil way back when. &c.

Reply Score: 5

Unbeliever Member since:
2005-07-09

Citizens have a right to have choice; when that choice is being taken away from them by illegal tactics, such as the ones Microsoft employs, then they have the right to demand that the government step in, and make the manufacturers offer what the people want: choices and a variety of them.

It's the beauty of anti-trust laws and one of the advantages of a free and open economy: no monopolies and certainly no companies that threaten to withdraw their product from a reseller unless they sell his, and only his, product.

Reply Score: 4

Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

no companies that threaten to withdraw their product from a reseller unless they sell his, and only his, product.


So it's standard practice in Europe to force companies to sell products to people who don't want to agree to their terms?

Reply Score: 1

Manik Member since:
2005-07-06

Nobody has to agree to abusive terms. In practice, abusive clauses in a contract aren't enforceable.

Reply Score: 1

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Citizens have a right to have choice; when that choice is being taken away from them by illegal tactics, such as the ones Microsoft employs

What illegal tactics? The DOJ already settled that case with Microsoft years ago.

Reply Score: 1

mmu_man Member since:
2006-09-30

your DOJ has no jurisdiction in France or EU. You are not the world, only part of it. You'll learn this some day.

Reply Score: 5

ThawkTH Member since:
2005-07-06

Probably not soon enough.

Not to mention, since when does the fact that a government institution is corrupt or stupid (DOJ in most people's opinion) mean that a lawbreaker is actually right?

So the DOJ settled. Does that mean Microsoft does not have a continually exploited monopoly? No. Does it mean it no longer engages in anticompetitive practices (not releasing specs and standards is a HUGE one)?

Why do some insist that the world is such a black and white, yes or no place? And why do people TRUST institutions with no soul or conscience so much more than INDIVIDUALS who, unless they are particularly greedy, sociopathic, or psychopathic tend to have some semblance of one?

Reinhold Niebuhr, a major 20th century American theologian and scholar (and author of the well known and oft quoted Serenity Prayer) once wrote in Moral Man, Immoral Society:

"Man is endowed by nature with organic relations to his fellow men; and natural impulse prompts him to consider the needs of others even when they compete with his own." (I'm not always a Niebuhr fan, but quotes are nice ever so often)

This is untrue of Societies, Institutions, or Corporations. Do people, as individuals, commit terrible acts against innocents? Of course. But a company is a money making machine - with no other will, intent, or purpose. Should they be done away with? I wouldn't go that far, but their power when necessary should be checked.

Reply Score: 2

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Not to mention, since when does the fact that a government institution is corrupt or stupid (DOJ in most people's opinion) mean that a lawbreaker is actually right?

It's a legal matter. What matters is findings of guilt and innocence, not assignments of moral judgement.

So the DOJ settled. Does that mean Microsoft does not have a continually exploited monopoly? No.

So what. It isn't illegal to maintain a monopoly.

Does it mean it no longer engages in anticompetitive practices (not releasing specs and standards is a HUGE one)?

There are well-established court sanctions in place to prevent this from happening. Moot point.

Why do some insist that the world is such a black and white, yes or no place?

Alas, because the courts don't allow for ambiguous judgements of Guilty, Not Guilty, or Maybe Guilty.

And why do people TRUST institutions with no soul or conscience so much more than INDIVIDUALS who, unless they are particularly greedy, sociopathic, or psychopathic tend to have some semblance of one?

Who said anything about trusting institutions? I don't trust ANYBODY. But, if you're going to live in a civilized society, it's reasonable to abide by the rule of law. Which requires a certain amount of belief on behalf of citizens that institutions will function at some reasonable capacity for at least part of the time.

This is untrue of Societies, Institutions, or Corporations.

Of course it's not true. Because all conflict happens at the margin of society, not the sweetspot center where most of us live. Societies, institutions, and corporations are virtually guaranteed to push their boundaries to the legal limit.

Reply Score: 1

ThawkTH Member since:
2005-07-06

Monopolies are not illegal, nor is maintaining them: agreed.

Abusing a monopoly is.

Reply Score: 4

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

your DOJ has no jurisdiction in France or EU.

No, the EC has jurisdiction and, apparently, the only thing pending before the EC is evaluation of MS's documentation for its server protocols. Not illegal conduct. So your point is moot.

Reply Score: 1

mmu_man Member since:
2006-09-30

Average Joe has no choice of the OS loaded on PCs at supermarkets. While it would be nice to have a Linux option, the "no OS" choice is more neutral.

In France, forcing ppl to buy Windows with a PC and hiding its cost on the bill, while it is sold also separately, is illegal. This is called "linked selling". But supermarkets don't care usually, and the administration that should make this law respected only starts to consider the issue.

Reply Score: 2

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Average Joe has no choice of the OS loaded on PCs at supermarkets.

So what. Average Joe can exercise his free will and not buy a PC from a supermarket. It's not as if there aren't other sources.

[i]While it would be nice to have a Linux option, the "no OS" choice is more neutral.</i

There are plenty of choices for companies that sell
barebones PCs...

http://osnews.co
m/permalink.php?news_id=17755&comment_id=233622

Reply Score: 1

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

I'm sorry, I believe you're in fact thinking of the United States:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html

Don't worry, it's a common mistake.

Ah...only in the mind of far-right extremists does "privileging consumers over companies" equate "less freedom"...

Reply Score: 5

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Companies are not real persons, and yet in our society they have more rights than people. That's wrong. It is necessary to regulate them to make sure that they don't abuse their position to decrease our personal freedoms.

Forget that egalitarian utopia mumbo jumbo. It doesn't work. It never did.


Actually, it does work, and it has. People are freer and more equal today than they used to be. Democracy may stumble and fall, but it keeps on advancing nonetheless - and that's a good thing.

You ridiculing those notions is totally irrelevant, I'm afraid - the vast majority of people are thankfully more enlightened in their reasoning.

Edited 2007-04-24 22:05

Reply Score: 4

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Companies are made up for persons. And those persons have freedoms/rights that need protecting. You can't just go and piss in people's cereals as you please.


I imagine you meant "made up of persons...doesn't matter. Being "made up" of persons isn't the same as being a person. Hey, a government is made up of persons, does that mean it should have the same rights as a real person?

People are less free nowadays. We're trading in our freedoms and rights for guaranties no one can deliver. I hope you and your "enlightened in their reasoning" people enjoy mediocrity.


People are *more* free nowadays. Heck, there was a time where most people were serfs! You are nostalgic about a time that has never existed.

So, to you democracy equals mediocrity? That's quite telling...

I sure as hell don't want to be told how to run my life.


Who said anything about being told how to run your life? We were talking about the rights of *companies*, not *individuals*...

I give up. You're too far the extreme right end to be reasoned with. Fortunately, your view represent only a tiny minority and are irrelevant. Have fun living in your ideological fantasy!

Reply Score: 3

phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

Companies are made up for persons. And those persons have freedoms/rights that need protecting. You can't just go and piss in people's cereals as you please.


What? That's free market, brother. Companies, like persons, don't need to be protected. Free market will fix it automagically, right?
Right?!

You can't have it both way. Sorry.

I sure as hell don't want to be told how to run my life.


Neither do we. In particular by people we elect. They work for us, not for themselves. Well, in theory. In democracy, they work for the wealthy, not all people.

Reply Score: 2

ThawkTH Member since:
2005-07-06

In a time when you can label someone a terrorist and remove their civil rights without a trial or anything even resembling one, you already live in an Authoritarian state.

When not paying taxes means the siezing of all of your property and yes, freedoms - jailtime - then you are already living in an Authoritarian state.

When your leaders don't even need to lie or make things up about past mistakes - when we KNOW that the people of the world were blatanltly lied to - and still thousands of members of the armed forces are forced to sit in a military prison or desert to leave such illegal and uneeded bloodshed - you are already living in an Authoritarian state.

Most states btw can be labeled Authoritarian based on one's definition. Yours probably involves socialized systems and high taxes.


The USA is not some single gleaming bastion of freedom and civil rights as they tried to teach you in civics class. Gotta say, lots of countries in Europe seem to be very nice places to live.


Gotta go renew duh Patriot Act - keep mah famly safe frum da terists and homusexuls.


Last thing...Europe has a military focus? Oh yeah! Cuz when I think of who's about to invade someone, I don't think of the United States who has repeatedly and illegally invaded sovereign land with no good reason, I think of Europe - The Irish are coming, the Irish are coming!

...Wow.

Reply Score: 4

ThawkTH Member since:
2005-07-06

Not really. Sure, I was disagreeing with much of what I said, but I was being more sarcastic than I should have been (and I think a lot of what I said could easily be construed as angry - I can't blame anyone for that).

No, I just disagreed but failed to do so in a very intelligent way. I admit that.

Reply Score: 2

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Since when do citizens have a "right" to order a manufacturer to deliver them a particular product?


Anyone has a right to order anything they want - doesn't mean they'll actually get it, however.

Obviously they have no valid reason to expect those demands to be delivered on. But it's also important to acknowledge that - by the same token - commercial entities that make product decisions based solely on self-serving factors (as opposed to customer wishes) have exactly the same amount of right to expect any sales of those products.

Jumping from the specific to the general, I think that illustrates the fundamental problem with modern capitalism. As a business partner of mine puts it, there are two attitudes one can take towards customers: assume that every customer will only do business with you once, and that - as a result - you need to milk as much cash from them in that one transaction as possible. That model can bring it a lot of money in the short term, but I don't think it's sustainable over the long term (cough-cough-America-Online-cough-cough) - the assumption that you will only deal with a customer once can very easily become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The other model is to act as if every customer were your best/oldest client. That can become self-fufilling prophecy too, but it takes more work and more time to see a meaningful return - so we get the "race to the bottom" effect where most companies gravitate towards the first mentality once they get to a certain size.

Of course, the reality is that - thanks to deregulation - the "vampire" method of doing business can have its lifespan artificially extended somewhat by using mergers/acquisitions as a form of life support. Ultimately, though, I think that sort of action is just as futile as burning your clothes in a bonfire in an attempt to keep warm. Although the analogy isn't perfect - the present mentality of "in order to be successful, a company must not only grow - but also increase the rate at which it grows" is more analogous to intentionally purchasing clothes to use as bonfire fuel.

Reply Score: 4

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Anyone has a right to order anything they want

Fine. Order yourself a Space Shuttle. Or a Time Machine. Or how about a nice Giza Pyramid for your backyard. Oh, wait. I'm not asleep and this isn't a dream. So why are you wasting my time asserting such nonsense?

Reply Score: 0

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Fine. Order yourself a Space Shuttle. Or a Time Machine. Or how about a nice Giza Pyramid for your backyard. Oh, wait. I'm not asleep and this isn't a dream. So why are you wasting my time asserting such nonsense?


You wrote a paragraph of juvenile sarcasm in response to a post - and evidently you didn't even bother to read the entire first sentence, at least judging from the fact that you wrote a paragraph of juvenile sarcasm in response to points which were already thoroughly-qualified in my post.

Yet, somehow, I am wasting your time? How in Bob's name did you reach that conclusion? If your time has been wasted, you have no one to blame other than yourself, my good chum.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Corporate whore
by Charles A Landemaine on Tue 24th Apr 2007 19:27 UTC in reply to "Corporate whore"
Charles A Landemaine Member since:
2005-11-11

I agree. Sarkozy is George Bush's next poodle. If he becomes president, the French will have to get ready to fight in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan or any other stupid war out there with Bush.

Sarkozy has passed a number of laws that reduce human freedom, and as we can see, he's against freedom even for software. This kind of person is bad for mankind and takes a country back 50 years.

Damit!

Reply Score: 3

v RE: Corporate whore
by JMcCarthy on Tue 24th Apr 2007 19:45 UTC in reply to "Corporate whore"
RE[2]: Corporate whore
by nicholas on Tue 24th Apr 2007 19:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Corporate whore"
nicholas Member since:
2005-07-07

Because Sarkozy isn't cozy with free-software? or some of the other baseless claims made against him?

If Royal wins the people of France are foolish. Her solution to everything is raise more taxes and expand social programs while the nation is on the verge of economic crisis. It says a lot when her economic adviser gets up and walks away.


This is a computing website, not an economics discussion forum.

Go elsewhere if you want to discuss such things, there are plenty of places that would welcome your opinions Senator McCarthy.

Reply Score: 0

v RE[3]: Corporate whore
by JMcCarthy on Tue 24th Apr 2007 20:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Corporate whore"
RE[4]: Corporate whore
by nicholas on Tue 24th Apr 2007 20:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Corporate whore"
nicholas Member since:
2005-07-07

>If Sarkozy wins, the people of France should be ashamed of themselves.

A thoroughly political statement for a computing website.


Regarding the subject at hand. Discussion of these candidates other policies is not what should be done here.


Insults aside, that is a fairly extreme position to take because someone doesn't believe in Stallmanism.


I speak as a developer and a teacher of higher education.

Students should be taught a range of tools, not a particular product.

From your comments I can only assume you think students should be taught only one product per task.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Corporate whore
by mmu_man on Tue 24th Apr 2007 20:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Corporate whore"
mmu_man Member since:
2006-09-30

> Discussion of these candidates other policies is not what should be done here.
Notwithstanding his political side, Sarkozy was the one responsible for the "Vivendi Universal ammendment" to the DADVSI bill, which transposed the EUCD directive (EU's own DMCA wannabe). His party voted en-masse the bill without even trying to understand the underlying matter, and I won't even talk about the government's supported lobbies that invaded the parliament, which might seem normal in the US, but unthinkable here.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Corporate whore
by MORB on Tue 24th Apr 2007 19:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Corporate whore"
MORB Member since:
2005-07-06

At least we know what royal's position are.

Sarkozy position's always been whatever will get him elected. He's a school case of an ambitious opportunist and it's very difficult to know what his actual ideas are.

The fact he didn't really answer those questions regarding patents mean one thing: he doesn't know what the voters he need to convince nowadays want and don't want to take a position until he knows.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Corporate whore
by vondur on Tue 24th Apr 2007 20:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Corporate whore"
vondur Member since:
2005-07-07

I thought the main platform he was running on had to do with the fear of Muslim immigrants changing France.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Corporate whore
by kaiwai on Tue 24th Apr 2007 20:29 UTC in reply to "Corporate whore"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

If Sarkozy wins, the people of France should be ashamed of themselves.


Oh yes, how absolutely terrible expecting that French work longer than a 35 hour work week.

Someone needs to wake them up over there, 35 hour work week for everyone else outside the EU is consider a holiday.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Corporate whore
by dimosd on Tue 24th Apr 2007 20:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Corporate whore"
dimosd Member since:
2006-02-10

>Someone needs to wake them up over there, 35 hour work week for everyone else outside the EU is consider a holiday.

Alright, but working 12+ hours a day, 7 days a week, since you were 12 years old, until they carry you out in a wheel chair is not a new concept.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Corporate whore
by kaiwai on Wed 25th Apr 2007 03:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Corporate whore"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Alright, but working 12+ hours a day, 7 days a week, since you were 12 years old, until they carry you out in a wheel chair is not a new concept.


Oh pulease, stop the drama - 'oooh, you're going to bring back the work house'. Mate, keep waving that hammer and sickle, maybe one day your dogma/come religion might actually work, until then, shock bloody horror, you might have to get off your ass and work a decent number of hours per week to get your salary/wage.

For me, up until this year (taking time off to study) I was working on average a 60-70hour work week - that is the cold hard reality sunshine out; not sunshine, moon beans and starpies, but the fact that people actually have to work, and sorry, 35 hours per week is pathetic at best.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Corporate whore
by archiesteel on Wed 25th Apr 2007 04:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Corporate whore"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

For me, up until this year (taking time off to study) I was working on average a 60-70hour work week - that is the cold hard reality sunshine out; not sunshine, moon beans and starpies, but the fact that people actually have to work, and sorry, 35 hours per week is pathetic at best.


I thought you just said there was nothing wrong with the idea of a 35-hours work week? :-)

Working 60 hours a week is too much. Working 35 to 40 hours a week is not being lazy. It's your problem if you're a workaholic, stop blaming everyone else for "sitting on their asses"...

By the way, citing the "hammer and sickle" as a lame attempt to claim that those who favor shorter working hours kind of misses the mark, since labour was highly valued in Communist countries, and workers generally worked long hours (and still do, as in China for example). Equating communism with laziness, as you seem to imply, is quite absurd.

As I said, there's no reason for people to work *more* now that automation allows us to be more productive. Also, the gross inequality in salaries found in some countries, such as the US (where a CEO may earn up to 400 times as much as an employee), kind of throws the whole argument on its head. A CEO *doesn't* work 400 times harder than a worker, there's no reason he should earn that much more.

Before trying to make people feel guilty for not working enough, perhaps we should look at limiting the insane salaries these executives vote for themselves...we should also encourage the development of worker unions in third world countries, so that at least these people have decent wages and working conditions.

More than anything, we should try to keep this discourse civil, and not try to ridicule those who disagree with us, as you just did. There's nothing to be gain by turning this into Yet Another Flamewar...

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Corporate whore
by kaiwai on Wed 25th Apr 2007 10:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Corporate whore"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I thought you just said there was nothing wrong with the idea of a 35-hours work week? :-)

Working 60 hours a week is too much. Working 35 to 40 hours a week is not being lazy. It's your problem if you're a workaholic, stop blaming everyone else for "sitting on their asses"...


No, the issue I have are those who think they can have a 35 hour work week, but at the same time they must accept that there is a price to pay for that - that is what the French people have to decide, are they willing to sacrifice a standard of living in favour of having shorter work weeks and longer holidays. Only they can decide.

Oh, and btw, the 35 hour work week was introduced to reduce unemployment - in otherwords, force employers to employ more people.

By the way, citing the "hammer and sickle" as a lame attempt to claim that those who favor shorter working hours kind of misses the mark, since labour was highly valued in Communist countries, and workers generally worked long hours (and still do, as in China for example). Equating communism with laziness, as you seem to imply, is quite absurd.


Actually, it had nothing to do with communism, it is directed at unions who think that you can work a minimum 35 hour work week, and get paid a decent wage.

Clue to those people; you get paid for your work. The value of your skills is directly derived from the availability of people in your given field.

As I said, there's no reason for people to work *more* now that automation allows us to be more productive. Also, the gross inequality in salaries found in some countries, such as the US (where a CEO may earn up to 400 times as much as an employee), kind of throws the whole argument on its head. A CEO *doesn't* work 400 times harder than a worker, there's no reason he should earn that much more.


His salary is decided by the board who then decide it based on the availability of his skill sets, in other words, how easily can he be replaced.

Although the shareholders don't vote directly on salary's of CEO's, they do vote on the board members.

Before trying to make people feel guilty for not working enough, perhaps we should look at limiting the insane salaries these executives vote for themselves...we should also encourage the development of worker unions in third world countries, so that at least these people have decent wages and working conditions.


The board decide the salary, which in turn is voted on by shareholders.

More than anything, we should try to keep this discourse civil, and not try to ridicule those who disagree with us, as you just did. There's nothing to be gain by turning this into Yet Another Flamewar...


Or better yet, people to stop using emotionally charged words as 'socialist' and 'evil capitalist' and 'anglophone' etc.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Corporate whore
by wakeupneo on Wed 25th Apr 2007 11:05 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Corporate whore"
wakeupneo Member since:
2005-07-06

I find it bizarre for someone to think that working a 60-70 hour week is, or should be normal for a decent weeks' pay. All it shows is that you've been beaten into submission by the 'system' to actually believe that's fair. I feel for you mate, I really do.

It reminds me of a scene in a movie i saw once. A kid is going through an 'initiation' session to get into some group or club. He's being beaten by an older kid with a wooden paddle who's yelling at him to yell out loud after every hit.. "Thank you sir, may I have another"...

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Corporate whore
by kaiwai on Wed 25th Apr 2007 12:21 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Corporate whore"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I find it bizarre for someone to think that working a 60-70 hour week is, or should be normal for a decent weeks' pay. All it shows is that you've been beaten into submission by the 'system' to actually believe that's fair. I feel for you mate, I really do.


Sure, I could work a standard 40 hour week, and find I don't have as much to spend. I work the hours to get the money.

For me, I'm confused how people need more than 1 week of holidays per year, and think that working a 40 hour week considered 'tough'.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Corporate whore
by phoudoin on Wed 25th Apr 2007 14:12 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Corporate whore"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

Oh, and btw, the 35 hour work week was introduced to reduce unemployment - in otherwords, force employers to employ more people.


It was also introduced to add flexibilty, allowing employers to dispatch the legal 1607 hours per year as they want. Very few companies since wants to go back to the previous system, where hours per month was the hard limit.

Beside, employers don't like to hire more people (less is better) They have instead simply increased per-hour production quotas.
None of them today wants to lose this flexibity and the productivity gained with the 35 hours.
Since the first law in 1996, French hour productivity have increased at 2.32% in average, against 1.44% in EU and 1.95% in the whole OCDE.
But it was not enough to fully compensate the lost of 4 hours of productivity per week: at ends, France competitivity dropped from 1.13% in 1990-1996 to 1.03%, OCDE being around 1.54%.

Which was expected, as the main purpose was job creation, not only productivity increase. We got both (between 200,000 new jobs were created at worst up to 500,000 at best), but too many people have no voice in the process. While higher working classes beneficiate, the lower saw a drop or at best a freeze in their incomes, right when the Euro introduction was around the corner...

In the end, you just CAN'T force employers to employ more people. Period. It works very well in the reverse way, though.

His salary is decided by the board who then decide it based on the availability of his skill sets, in other words, how easily can he be replaced.


At the current CEO turnover rate, it should be very easy!
Please, stop kidding us. We all knows that one CEO get raise from board because he agree to raise one or more members that are, what a coincidence, CEOs too in company where he's, another coincidence, board member.

So, you're right, his salary depends on his skill to control one or more salaries of his board...

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Corporate whore
by archiesteel on Wed 25th Apr 2007 16:29 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Corporate whore"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

We all knows that one CEO get raise from board because he agree to raise one or more members that are, what a coincidence, CEOs too in company where he's, another coincidence, board member.


At the very least, this practice should be outlawed...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Corporate whore
by smitty on Tue 24th Apr 2007 20:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Corporate whore"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

I don't know why everyone always rags on the French for their short work week. Envy? Let them work however long they want - they'll certainly pay the price for certain policies in their economy, but if they think that's worth it then who are we to complain?

It's almost like people think it is morally wrong to work less, and I don't get that at all.

Edited 2007-04-24 21:02

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Corporate whore
by kaiwai on Wed 25th Apr 2007 03:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Corporate whore"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Have you had a look at the French policies relating to employment? and they wonder why they have such a high level of unemployment, and an absoultely terrible rate of youth unemployment.

When you have luxurious long holidays, you work hardly any hours per week, and over all productivity is in the dupster when compared to other OECD countries, you've really got to evaluate whether it is sustainable.

I don't rag France on their short week, I rag on those French who think they can have a first world lifestyle whilst doing sweet bugger all in the way of work. Don't expect to have a technologically advanced economy when you consider a 35 hour work week to be 'long' and up to 6 weeks holidays per year 'the bare minimum'.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Corporate whore
by archiesteel on Wed 25th Apr 2007 04:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Corporate whore"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Don't expect to have a technologically advanced economy when you consider a 35 hour work week to be 'long' and up to 6 weeks holidays per year 'the bare minimum'.


People have more holiday weeks in Germany. Would you say that Germans are lazy?

I personally got four weeks of vacation as of this year. I don't feel guilty about taking them. When I'm on the job, I'm productive. Four weeks of vacation helps make sure that I stay that way, and don't burn out before I'm 40.

France does have issues, but they have as much to do with the rigid workplace hierarchy and the heavy European bureaucracy as with unions and work ethics. The situation is more complex that your stereotypical view would suggest.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Corporate whore
by archiesteel on Tue 24th Apr 2007 20:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Corporate whore"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

There's nothing inherently wrong with a 35-hour work week. Automation means we can now do more while working less hours. Also, working more hours doesn't mean that you're more productive, especially when you have situations like in the U.S. where a large proportion of workers suffer from sleep deprivation.

This is all rooted in America's protestant work ethics, which basically means that you should feel guilty if you don't overwork yourself. What you end up with is people pulling in long hours, but not being as productive as they could be during those hours.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Corporate whore
by kaiwai on Wed 25th Apr 2007 03:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Corporate whore"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

There's nothing inherently wrong with a 35-hour work week. Automation means we can now do more while working less hours. Also, working more hours doesn't mean that you're more productive, especially when you have situations like in the U.S. where a large proportion of workers suffer from sleep deprivation.

This is all rooted in America's protestant work ethics, which basically means that you should feel guilty if you don't overwork yourself. What you end up with is people pulling in long hours, but not being as productive as they could be during those hours.


Never said there was anything wrong with the idea of a 35 hour work week, but may I suggest that you look at the 35 hour work week in context to the overly generous employment conditions in France when compared to most other countries. It just isn't sustainable.

France reminds me of New Zealand 40 years ago; over the top government regulation, 40 hour work week with over the top union involvment to the point of distrupting production over stupid greviences - our productivity was in the pits, and economically by the 1984 rolled around, we were also bankrupt as a country because of these stupid inane policies.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Corporate whore
by phoudoin on Wed 25th Apr 2007 09:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Corporate whore"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

Never said there was anything wrong with the idea of a 35 hour work week, but may I suggest that you look at the 35 hour work week in context to the overly generous employment conditions in France when compared to most other countries.


These generous employement conditions were even better before the 35 hours work week introduction, and still the french productivity per hour increased, not decreased. Sure, we don't work enough to have a better productivity than some others countries.

But don't fool yourself, even if we will agreed to double our hours work week, we'll still be too expensive than China, India, East europeans labor.

It's not anymore a matter of work quantity. It's a matter of quality/cost rate. Adding more unproductive work hour will barelly help. Increasing hour productivity will (and we're already better than the american one), but there is a limit there too. Last, increasing hours will help until productivity drop, as here too there is a limit.

Last but not least, how all this is related to french candidates positions on free software???

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Corporate whore
by stestagg on Tue 24th Apr 2007 21:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Corporate whore"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

Luckily, (or unluckily for my working hours) the EU isn't one country. the 35 Hour average week is pretty much restricted to France. Here in the UK, full time hours tend to start at 37-40/week.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Corporate whore
by ashigabou on Wed 25th Apr 2007 08:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Corporate whore"
ashigabou Member since:
2005-11-11

The 35 hours law in France does not forbid working more than 35 hours, it just makes the distinction between "normal" hours and extra hours. Also, many people do not fall under this law (eg work more than 35 hours/ week).

Generally, it is really difficult to compare worked hours between countries because each country counts differently (for example in France, extra hours are not counted, in UK, they are). This is typically the case of OECD data, that everybody is using to compare countries, even if those data's comment explicitely say not to use them for that purpose.

If you take a look a Eurostat, the European office for statistics, which does the job of adjusting numbers so that they speak about the same thing, UK and France are for example pretty similar.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-QA-07-001/FR/K...

You can see on page 5, table 8 that average number of worked hours in UK is 35.6 hours/week, and 36.2 hours/week in France. Hardly a huge difference. Funnily, you can almost correlate a bigger number of hours with a poorer country, more than the contrary ;) Saying that working a small number of hours kills productivity shows that you do not really understand what productivity is about, that is a ratio where the number of hours is the denominator, that is the biggest, the smallest is your productivity for a given output (productivity which is above in France than in the US, but this is mostly a side effect of bigger unemployment in France than in the US).

The problems in France for job market are different, and more complex than the number of worked hours.

Edited 2007-04-25 08:11

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Corporate whore
by what on Wed 25th Apr 2007 08:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Corporate whore"
what Member since:
2006-01-04

Hey, 35 hours is enough for me.. Welcome to my life!!
BTW, in my company, many people work more than 35 hours/week, french or not. Not me, believe it or not, I have a life to live after work.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Corporate whore
by vondur on Wed 25th Apr 2007 16:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Corporate whore"
vondur Member since:
2005-07-07

Man, I would love a 35 hour work week, provided that I kept my current salary. That would be at least 15-20 hours a week I would get back.

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Corporate whore
by ronaldst on Tue 24th Apr 2007 21:11 UTC in reply to "Corporate whore"
RE[2]: Corporate whore
by archiesteel on Tue 24th Apr 2007 21:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Corporate whore"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

They should. If I were french I would have voted Le Pen.


So, in addition to being a free-market ideologue, you're also a racist?

Mods, feel free to mod me down...but anyone who says he would have voted for Le Pen deserves all the scorn they can get!

Reply Score: 5

v RE[3]: Corporate whore
by ronaldst on Tue 24th Apr 2007 21:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Corporate whore"
RE[4]: Corporate whore
by archiesteel on Tue 24th Apr 2007 21:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Corporate whore"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Le Pen embodies xenophobia and racism. I imagine that if you vote for him, you agree with his ideas.

As for free markets, they tend to be unstable and lead to inequalities. The best type of economy is a mixed one, with a bit of freedom and a bit of interventionism.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[5]: Corporate whore
by ronaldst on Tue 24th Apr 2007 21:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Corporate whore"
RE[6]: Corporate whore
by sbergman27 on Tue 24th Apr 2007 22:03 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Corporate whore"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
Le Pen doesn't embodies xenophobia and racism. lol The media portrays him like that but it's all made up.
"""

Then this link ought to keep you busy for a while. Dispelling all those made up lies, I mean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Pen

Reply Score: 2

v RE[7]: Corporate whore
by ronaldst on Tue 24th Apr 2007 22:08 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Corporate whore"
RE[6]: Corporate whore
by archiesteel on Tue 24th Apr 2007 22:04 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Corporate whore"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Le Pen doesn't embodies xenophobia and racism.


Yes, he does.

lol The media portrays him like that but it's all made up.


No, it's not. I've heard his speeches, I've read his articles. The man's basic philosophy is to send immigrants back to their countries of origin.

A lot of french "qui ne sont pas de souche" voted for him.


No, they didn't.

Actually, it's the reverse. Interventionism always ends up screwing the economy. The free market will correct itself.


No, it doesn't. There are plenty of examples of free-market "overheating" and crashing. Interventionism, on the other hand, can do wonders for an economy when applied strategically. That's why you have *no* modern economies that don't have some interventionist measures in place. Go back to reading Keynes, you obviously slept through the lesson.

As I said, you are a free-market ideologue.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Corporate whore
by renox on Tue 24th Apr 2007 22:16 UTC in reply to "Corporate whore"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

>If Sarkozy wins, the people of France should be ashamed of themselves.

Only if you vote for him..

As for being ashamed: the same way Americans should be ashamed for having elected Bush *twice*??
And reelecting him after he started a war for false reason (non existant WMD) triggering a (very predictable) huge chaos killing >600.000 person!!

I doubt that Sarkozy will cause indirectly the death of >600.000 persons as Bush did..
That said, he has already a big responsibility in the riots which took place in French suburbs, even before being elected :-(

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: Corporate whore
by Southern.Pride on Wed 25th Apr 2007 03:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Corporate whore"
RE[3]: Corporate whore
by archiesteel on Wed 25th Apr 2007 04:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Corporate whore"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

This is an international site. While Bush is disliked by a majority of people in the US, he is despised by a VAST majority of people throughout the world. Deal with it.

Oh, and the comment about Chimpy McFlightsuit was spot on, as far as I'm concerned.

Reply Score: 4

v RE[4]: Corporate whore
by Southern.Pride on Wed 25th Apr 2007 04:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Corporate whore"
RE[5]: Corporate whore
by archiesteel on Wed 25th Apr 2007 04:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Corporate whore"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

I did not claim to represent the vast majority of anything, but I am able to read, and have seen the various opinion polls from around the world. You're deluding yourself if you think the rest of the world doesn't see through Bush's lie. Fortunately, Americans are also starting to realize that they've elected a con man, who is turning out to be worse than Nixon ever was.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Corporate whore
by Johann Chua on Wed 25th Apr 2007 04:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Corporate whore"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

It's a good thing the American Revolution didn't need any help from France, then. Oh, wait.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[2]: Corporate whore
by Southern.Pride on Wed 25th Apr 2007 03:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Corporate whore"
Sarkozy... the wrong choice
by yakirz on Tue 24th Apr 2007 19:29 UTC
yakirz
Member since:
2006-05-11

I've never been to France, but I've followed this election. Besides Segolene Royal looking nice ;) I think she has the best ideas of the group (not even including Le Pen, who I wouldn't spit on to extinguish a fire on his head).

It's good to see presidential candidates aware of this issue. I'd bet Sarkozy's views will dovetail nicely with the Bu$h "administration."

Reply Score: 3

"Liberticides"?
by Almafeta on Tue 24th Apr 2007 19:38 UTC
Almafeta
Member since:
2007-02-22

"Liberticides" as a term for people who believe in protecting the rights of artists and innovators?

It's hard to believe that this is coming out of the same country which only a century ago was at the forefront of art, science, and democratic thought.

Reply Score: 0

RE: "Liberticides"?
by archiesteel on Tue 24th Apr 2007 20:08 UTC in reply to ""Liberticides"?"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Nice strawman. In reality, Free and Open Source Software is based on copyright law, and is as much concerned with protecting the rights of artists and innovators as closed-source software is.

Reply Score: 5

RE: "Liberticides"?
by Morin on Wed 25th Apr 2007 10:15 UTC in reply to ""Liberticides"?"
Morin Member since:
2005-12-31

> "Liberticides" as a term for people who believe in protecting the rights
> of artists and innovators?

No. Copyright protects the rights of artists and innovators. Patents protect no rights; they artificially cut down the rights of others to allow people to make more money off their inventions (by creating artificial monopoly situations), which is not a right of an artist, author or innovator, but a bonus.

Reply Score: 3

Imposing upon others ...
by MacTO on Tue 24th Apr 2007 21:00 UTC
MacTO
Member since:
2006-09-21

> "it is not the purpose of the State, in my concept of freedom, to impose a model on anyone."

The problem is, by supporting patents, you are imposing a model upon others. So please don't make supporting patents sound like an issue of "freedom", because it isn't. (If anything, patents counter freedom.) The questions are: What do we want patents to accomplish? And what restrictions do we need to impose in order to do that? If patents are meant to encourage innovation, then things like specific descriptions and implementations are important. (Which is my favoured approach.) If patents are meant to create a notion of "intellectual property" then by all means sell out to the corporate and legal elite by giving away freedom to enrich the few. (Clearly not my favoured approach.)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Imposing upon others ...
by Southern.Pride on Wed 25th Apr 2007 03:20 UTC in reply to "Imposing upon others ..."
Southern.Pride Member since:
2006-09-14

Well you can't have your cake and eat it to IBM is one of the biggest abusers of Open Source what have they contributed other than making MILLIONS off the backs of those who chose to work for free.

IBM sold out their PC/Laptop line to China for crying out loud and not only that if they were so gun-ho about Linux distro's why do they not 'pre-install it'?

With any big MEGA Corporation they are going to exploit every ounce of ALL Linux distro's to the point it is no different than Microsoft. Dell is having problems so they are trying to court the Linux user base with some bogus surveys about how to install it or what to install it on. HP has installer kits, I do not need a installer kit I install it myself and configure it to MY liking!

IBM is one of the world biggest holder of patents they ride the fence like the rest of the Corporation CEO's looking to Off-shore/Out-source all of the jobs to any 3rd world corner of the world so they can rake in Millions for themselves. What amazes me is the FACT Dell for instance have all of their manufacturing in China so what happened to the theory of cheap product/labor = huge profits??? Very interesting indeed for the China pc maker to explain to the share holders.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Imposing upon others ...
by Johann Chua on Wed 25th Apr 2007 04:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Imposing upon others ..."
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

Since IBM no longer has a PC desktop/laptop division, it's not their problem whether or they pre-install Linux on PCs, is it? And they didn't sell to China, they sold to a Chinese company. There's a difference, see.

IIRC, IBM's (now Lenovo's) desktop/laptop line had significant U.S. labor/parts composition, you know, more jobs for Americans than the average PC maker brings to the table.

Reply Score: 2

v Politically correct BS
by Southern.Pride on Wed 25th Apr 2007 04:35 UTC
RE: Politically correct BS
by archiesteel on Wed 25th Apr 2007 04:41 UTC in reply to "Politically correct BS"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Also, the VAST majority views France as a joke in military standards and bowing down to the extreme groups that are still causing problems today.


Far more people are questioning America's ability to win a military conflict than France's right now. The US is losing the war in Iraq, and no amount of spin or patriotic posturing is going to change this.

You, sir, do not speak for the vast majority of the world either. I suggest you start traveling abroad and actually listen to what people have to say. You'll see that, these days, a lot more people respect France than they do the US...

Reply Score: 3

v RE[2]: Politically correct BS
by Southern.Pride on Wed 25th Apr 2007 11:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Politically correct BS"
RE[3]: Politically correct BS
by archiesteel on Wed 25th Apr 2007 13:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Politically correct BS"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Suit yourself. Personally, I consider such insults as an admission of defeat.

Your attitude represents all that's wrong with the US today. Fortunately, it is a minority view, and one that keeps getting more marginalized as time goes by. Enjoy your increasing irrelevance...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Politically correct BS
by raver31 on Wed 25th Apr 2007 08:19 UTC in reply to "Politically correct BS"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

You call every country outside of the US as a third world country, I suggest you read this;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

then when you have some spare time, read this one, from YOUR government, the one YOU do not like people abusing.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty.html

Reply Score: 3

Hmmmm
by Vinegar Joe on Wed 25th Apr 2007 09:38 UTC
Vinegar Joe
Member since:
2006-08-16

I wonder what their positions on free software would be if Microsoft were a French company.

Reply Score: 1

discussion
by bbrv on Wed 25th Apr 2007 10:05 UTC
bbrv
Member since:
2006-06-04

The next president of France will either be Mr. Sarkozy, a conservative who wants the French to work more and pay less taxes, or Ms. Royal, a Socialist with a leftist economic program and a declared ambition to modernize her party. Whoever moves into Élysée Palace next month will inherit a list of problems from Mr. Chirac, chief among them sluggish economic growth, chronic unemployment and simmering tensions among alienated Muslim youth.

OK. Why is this discussion interesting?

1. This discussion is in English on a Forum established for the dissemination/exchange of information related to computers and software.

2. Governance is a matter of society. Different cultures embrace it in different ways. Wouldn't it be something if the same "culture" that furthers the common resource of community software began to collaborate at increasing sophisticated and pervasive levels.

Perhaps, this thread is an indication of the possibilities...

Back on topic, France has about as much choice for change as the USA does in its next presidential election, which is not much. The established parties are fraught with people who have rarely done much else in their lives other than being politicians (which is not necessarily bad but inclined less to good).

Change anyone?

R&B ;)
http://bbrv.blogspot.com

Reply Score: 2