Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 2nd Jan 2012 19:12 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source Late last year, president Obama signed a law that makes it possible to indefinitely detain terrorist suspects without any form of trial or due process. Peaceful protesters in Occupy movements all over the world have been labelled as terrorists by the authorities. Initiatives like SOPA promote diligent monitoring of communication channels. Thirty years ago, when Richard Stallman launched the GNU project, and during the three decades that followed, his sometimes extreme views and peculiar antics were ridiculed and disregarded as paranoia - but here we are, 2012, and his once paranoid what-ifs have become reality.
Permalink for comment 502096
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

I'm sorry that I gave the idea that I dislike profit, which I really don't ( hence the "NOT a communist agitator" thingy ). Profit is at its heart completely ethical and disallowing people to make profit on their really hard work is just plainly cruel. But my point is that entrepreneurs should FIRST think about minimalising their effects on the environment, their workers, socially less prosperous individuals and on politics BEFORE thinking about maximizing their profits. If the entrepreneurs of the entertainment and software industries would seek ways of getting profit that does not relay for its continuity on the filtering of the Internet ( thus, an ethical way of generating profit, because they would not be taking away rights of citizens for only their well-being ), SOPA would simply implode, because there would be no unethical profit to protect. And in fact, if all corporations would think this way, so would all of our governments.

And Neolander does have a point: passion in the end matters more than money. Just think of all those hobbyist artists out there that spend hours painting, they don't get a penny but they're awesome, and that's all just because they love what they do. But you do have a point, they also have to pay their rent.

I agree that it seems many of the best innovations do come from a garage or a lab where someone wants to just tinker! That's why I had mentioned Edison before, as I meant that innovation requires a backing force to produce it, market it, and distribute it. After all, Apple didn't always remain in the garage!

I think the problem isn't even so much entrepreneurs themselves, as much as I think it's the structure of a corporation. I have more respect for an entrepreneur than a shareholder; an entrepreneur will often stick through a declining profit period without sweating too much, as long as they're still in business and at least making a sufficient profit to pay the bills. Shareholders always seem to have a violent knee jerk reaction to even the slightest dip, and can cause rotating CEO's.

As odd as it may sound, I would never want to be a CEO for the same reason I would never want to be President of the United States (or really, any elected politician). Once you're in that position, you're never going to win. You can't be perfect, you're always going to have tons of people analyzing and tearing apart you're every move, and eventually you're kicked out anyways.

On top of all that, you're under pressure because you know not only do you have regular shareholders, but those who's retirement investments are partly locked up in your company's performance. Many companies offer stock options to their employees as a benefit for their retirement, and of course you have investment firms that buy in to your company with other people's retirement money. It's messy, and a lot of pressure.

I'd love to own a business someday, but the day I know longer controlled majority is the day I'd leave the company.

BTW, I apologize full heartedly if I appeared cross in my previous post: being online til almost 3am can do that!

Reply Parent Score: 1