“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.”
If Sarkozy wins, the people of France should be ashamed of themselves.
Edited 2007-04-24 18:27
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.
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).
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.
That’s funny. I’ve never seen this so-called “right” to software-less PCs documented in our U.S. Constitution. Perhaps you wouldn’t mind pointing it out…
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.
BS. There are appropriate situations for proprietary software/standards in the public sector. For example: Defense systems, internal communications, etc.
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?
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).
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.
It is virtually impossible to buy a PC without Windows preloaded.
Nonsense. You’re either misinformed — or you’re outright lying. Which is it? There are plenty of companies that will offer you barebones PCs without an OS. Here are only a few…
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/category/category_slc.asp?C…
http://www.newegg.com/Store/SubCategory.aspx?SubCategory=3&name=Bar…
http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/
http://www.soyata.com
http://www.superwarehouse.com/Barebones/c2b/2740
http://www.avadirect.com/Barebone_Systems
http://myahead.com/go/look/product.show_product_group2?v_prod_group…
http://www.outletpc.com/systems—barebones.html
> 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
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)
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.
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.
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.
“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?
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?”).
Yup, monopolists will exploit it.
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.
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.
So it’s standard practice in Europe to force companies to sell products to people who don’t want to agree to their terms?
Nobody has to agree to abusive terms. In practice, abusive clauses in a contract aren’t enforceable.
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.
your DOJ has no jurisdiction in France or EU. You are not the world, only part of it. You’ll learn this some day.
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.
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.
Monopolies are not illegal, nor is maintaining them: agreed.
Abusing a monopoly is.
Abusing a monopoly is.
MSFT already paid a price for abusing their monopoly power. Whether or not you think that they paid ENOUGH is irrelevant. It is what it is.
“MSFT already paid a price for abusing their monopoly power.”
MS is now trying to make everyone pay a price with that Vista crap.
MS is now trying to make everyone pay a price with that Vista crap.
I can’t exactly say that I’m surprised that a MS hater thinks that Vista is crap; fortunately, most people aren’t as distracted by ideology.
“I can’t exactly say that I’m surprised that a MS hater thinks that Vista is crap; fortunately, most people aren’t as distracted by ideology.”
I want people to have a choice, nobody should be forced to buy Vista.
I want people to have a choice, nobody should be forced to buy Vista.
People already do have a choice. There are plenty of vendors that offer Vista, XP, Linux, and even barebones PCs. But asking, for example, Dell to provide you with a PC with an arbitrary choice of operating system is like asking Ford to sell you a car with your choice of engine. It simply isn’t practical or reasonable. Dell, like Ford, tests and supports a limited number of machine configurations. People who want more choice than that are better off building their own machines.
“People already do have a choice. There are plenty of vendors that offer Vista, XP, Linux, and even barebones PCs.”
At most computer stores you have 2 choices: Vista or nothing. They could at least offer a no OS computer, choice is good.
“for example, Dell to provide you with a PC with an arbitrary choice of operating system is like asking Ford to sell you a car with your choice of engine. It simply isn’t practical or reasonable. Dell, like Ford, tests and supports a limited number of machine configurations.”
Maybe car companies should sell only one type of car, then they could justify it by saying it isn’t practical or reasonable to offer customers more choices. Do you like that idea?
“People who want more choice than that are better off building their own machines.”
Want a choice? Build your own car!
At most computer stores you have 2 choices: Vista or nothing.
Computer stores are not the only way to buy a computer, as you well know.
They could at least offer a no OS computer, choice is good.
Clueless. You don’t seem to get it. Retail stores primarily cater to consumers, not geeks. Since relatively few consumers have the expertise or interest to install an operating system on a barebones PC, retail stores have wisely decided to install a default operating system. Whether that default is Vista or XP or Linux or whatever is irrelevant. Consumers want something that they can take out of the box and use immediately. If you want to customize a machine, buy one from a vendor that supplies barebones machines.
Maybe car companies should sell only one type of car, then they could justify it by saying it isn’t practical or reasonable to offer customers more choices. Do you like that idea?
Your analogy is screwed up. Let’s clear this up. The car = PC. The engine = OS. There are plenty of different PCs available. There are also plenty of OSes available. But no reputable car manufacturer is going to sell a car without an engine (OS).
Want a choice? Build your own car!
Until you actually provide evidence that a large number of consumers want barebones PCs — and I don’t mean Linux fanboys stuffing ballot boxes — then you’re going to have to build your own machine if you want something that a vendor doesn’t provide.
“Since relatively few consumers have the expertise or interest to install an operating system on a barebones PC, retail stores have wisely decided to install a default operating system.”
If consumers don’t want to install an OS, why are they selling boxed copies of Windows? They could sell no OS computers, Linux computers, and Macs, instead they just try to force people to buy Windows. Give people a choice!
“Your analogy is screwed up. Let’s clear this up. The car = PC. The engine = OS. There are plenty of different PCs available. There are also plenty of OSes available. But no reputable car manufacturer is going to sell a car without an engine (OS).”
The analogy is about limiting consumer choice. I could use other analogies: Stores selling only 1 brand of mouse, keyboard, monitor, modem, printer. People like choice.
“then you’re going to have to build your own machine if you want something that a vendor doesn’t provide.”
Linux is getting more popular everyday, Dell will be selling Linux soon, Mac sales are increasing, it looks like the MS monopoly is weakening. People should be getting more choices, as they flee the software dictatorship. Vista is helping Linux and Macs so much.
If consumers don’t want to install an OS, why are they selling boxed copies of Windows?
Have you actually seen sales statistics for Windows retail boxes? Microsoft reportedly sells less than 1% of Windows in this manner. Ergo, there are practically no consumers installing Windows from retail boxes.
They could sell no OS computers, Linux computers, and Macs, instead they just try to force people to buy Windows. Give people a choice!
Try to imagine that you run a business. Presumably, you’re in business to be successful; therefore, you do your best to understand what your customers are asking for. Since practically no customer is asking for barebones PCs, why would you try to fulfill a market need that doesn’t exist? Answer: You wouldn’t. People already have choices when it comes to buying barebones PCs, as I’ve pointed out in previous posts.
The analogy is about limiting consumer choice. I could use other analogies: Stores selling only 1 brand of mouse, keyboard, monitor, modem, printer. People like choice.
You’ve got that backwards. Customer demand defines market need. Without customer demand, there is no market need. Hence, no need for choice.
Linux is getting more popular everyday, Dell will be selling Linux soon, Mac sales are increasing, it looks like the MS monopoly is weakening. People should be getting more choices, as they flee the software dictatorship. Vista is helping Linux and Macs so much.
What about retail stores? You were so hot and bothered about retail stores not selling barebones PCs. Did you forget about them already?
“Microsoft reportedly sells less than 1% of Windows in this manner. Ergo, there are practically no consumers installing Windows from retail boxes.”
Maybe because they charge so much money, people just buy a new computer instead. Monopoly pricing is bad!
“Since practically no customer is asking for barebones PCs, why would you try to fulfill a market need that doesn’t exist?”
Vista will have many people looking for alternative products, those people would like the option of buying a no OS/Linux PC or a Mac.
“You’ve got that backwards. Customer demand defines market need. Without customer demand, there is no market need. Hence, no need for choice.”
A monopoly restricts customer demand, a software dictatorship cannot be considered free market.
“What about retail stores? You were so hot and bothered about retail stores not selling barebones PCs. Did you forget about them already?”
Retail stores should offer customers a choice or risk losing sales. People are not pleased with Vista, only a monopoly could sell such terrible software.
Maybe because they charge so much money, people just buy a new computer instead. Monopoly pricing is bad!
Thanks for helping me make the case that consumers don’t install their own operating systems. Point to me.
Vista will have many people looking for alternative products, those people would like the option of buying a no OS/Linux PC or a Mac.
Well, given that that’s merely your wild-assed projection, we’ll just have to wait and see, won’t we?
A monopoly restricts customer demand, a software dictatorship cannot be considered free market.
No, wrong. A monopoly restricts supply. Demand is a wholly independent factor.
Retail stores should offer customers a choice or risk losing sales.
Illogical. Retail stores aren’t selling to barebones customers already. So, the only way that they could actually lose sales is if the market for barebones PCs is growing. There’s no evidence that that’s happening.
People are not pleased with Vista…
Says who? You?!? Some random guy posting on a website? Sh-yah. Rrrrright. Sorry, you don’t speak for the set of people who are currently running Vista. Keep on projecting…
only a monopoly could sell such terrible software.
Geez, you’re batting 0.000%. There’s plenty of terrible software for sale — and practically none of it has a monopoly on anything.
“Thanks for helping me make the case that consumers don’t install their own operating systems. Point to me.”
I think 10% to 20% might be interested in installing their OS. Vista is a market changing product, the market is different after the Vista release, than it was before.
“No, wrong. A monopoly restricts supply. Demand is a wholly independent factor.”
I meant that the monopoly is being used to restrict consumer choice. That should be starting to change with the release of Vista.
“Illogical. Retail stores aren’t selling to barebones customers already. So, the only way that they could actually lose sales is if the market for barebones PCs is growing. There’s no evidence that that’s happening.”
If someone does not want Vista, and they only have Vista, it could cost them a sale. Again, Vista will be changing the market.
“Says who? You?!? Some random guy posting on a website? Sh-yah. Rrrrright. Sorry, you don’t speak for the set of people who are currently running Vista. Keep on projecting…”
There are many people complaining about Vista, just read the countless complaints on forums all over the internet.
“Geez, you’re batting 0.000%. There’s plenty of terrible software for sale — and practically none of it has a monopoly on anything.”
I meant only a monopolist could sell millions of copies of such bad software.
You don’t need to be a MS hater to think that Vista is crap. All you have to do is try to make it run on a 512MB machine.
Then again, I wouldn’t expect a member of the Microsoft Defense Brigade to acknowledge this…
Not on EU marketland. Yet.
Amen.
Paying a paltry price to the US mean nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Amen.
Paying a paltry price to the US mean nothing in the grand scheme of things.
In case you haven’t noticed, MSFT’s stock price lost HALF of its value as a direct result of the antitrust case. I’d say that shareholders have paid PLENTY.
Not on EU marketland. Yet.
MS has been subjected to a ton of new fines, regulations, and requirements by the EC. EU isn’t a level playing field for MS: It’s a competitor’s wet dream.
One could wonder why MS still insist to keep access to EU market with such *unethical* treatment!? What could be the motivation? It can’t be the money, as EU is made of third world nations with lazy and poor people.
If it’s not money, then what it is???
Wait. They’re fighting a free market war.
That’s the EC goals, indeed. No play field but fair market. MS (and you) are free to no play, but the rules are *our*, period.
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.
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.
see here….
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5153570.stm
or here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5120536.stm
or this
http://www.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/03/24/microsoft.eu/
but best of all, read this one…
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/04/382&f…
Do you understand English? Let’s review what I said…
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.
Is the word “pending” foreign to your vocabulary? It means “impending” or “remaining undecided”. In other words, the only issue “remaining undecided” is Microsoft’s compliance with server protocol documentation. Not illegal conduct. The illegal conduct was deal with by the EC years ago, and the EC isn’t alleging that MS has engaged in new illegal conduct. It’s all about compliance with existing regulations.
Sheez…
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.
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
Since when do citizens have a “right” to order a manufacturer to deliver them a particular product?
Europe is basically made up of authoritarian states. They can force anyone has they please. And if it’s the government, they can make up any excuse if they see fit (see MS anti-trust).
Except for the cult personalities and military focus, not much as changed in Europe since WW2. The countries that were freer are now more and more leaning towards authoritianism. Sad.
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”…
Ouch. That’s a pretty distorted and unrealistic view. Lemme fix it for you.
Only in the mind of the insecure/victim does “companies making money doing what they want” equal “consumers are being shafted”.
It’s not healthy thinking that people’s ambitions/choices/freedoms are a bad thing. Forget that egalitarian utopia mumbo jumbo. It doesn’t work. It never did. There’s always someone will be more equal than others.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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. I sure as hell don’t want to be told how to run my life.
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 *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…
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!
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?
Companies can be owned by 1 person. It doesn’t have to be many. The government is a monopoly. They don’t need rights.
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…
This is about how deep we are in the mess. Oh and BTW, there’s very little democracy in authoritarianism as freedoms/choices are replaced by regulations/laws imposed by force. You know when you make a transaction of more than 10’000$ and the federal police checks out your bank accounts for suspicious activities.
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!
I am talking about individual rights. Companies aren’t run by robots. Individuals, 1 person or more, run companies.
I could insult/label you back but I don’t view you as a bad person. You just need to learn more about the concept of personal freedoms.
It doesn’t matter if a company is made up of a single person, it is still a *separate entity*. The fact that you argue that the rights of these entities should have precedence over those of *real* persons is what I object to.
You need such regulations so that people can’t abuse other people’s right. That’s because someone’s rights should not impinge on somebody else’s. We have laws against theft, for example, that curtail someone’s rights (i.e. you *can’t* steal) in order to protect the rights of others (i.e. the right not to be stolen from). This is all basic political philosophy. You can’t possibly argue about these things if you don’t understand these simple truths.
How do you think laws come to be in the first place? The are voted by politicians who are elected by the people (and who must conform to the constitution). So it is not a tyranny, but rather a social contract between the various members of society. Without such a contract, you’d have complete anarchy and the rule of might (la loi du plus fort).
We are *not* under an authoritarian regime. To imply that we are is an *insult* to those who live in *real* dictatorships. You can’t possibly expect people to take you seriously when you make such idiotic statements.
Again, that is irrelevant to the fact that companies are separate entities, and as such should *not* have more rights than *real* persons.
I’m sorry, but when you spout such statements that can so easily be deconstructed with textbook arguments, it’s pretty clear that they are not based on rational thought, but on dogmatic ideologies.
I think I know a lot more about the notion of personal freedom that you, as anyone who has read our little exchange can tell. Personal freedoms are not absolute: I should not have the freedom to steal from others, or physically abuse them, or worse. It is perfectly fine to have *these* freedoms curtailed, because they restrict other people’s freedom. Absolute freedom for all is neither achievable nor desirable.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes. America is slowly turning into another Europe. Americans are surrendering the freedoms/rights their ancestors fought hard for fake “safety”.
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.
You replied in anger, right? Did you even read my post properly? lol
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
She is testament to how far a hot ditz can go in life.
Edited 2007-04-24 19:50
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.
>If Sarkozy wins, the people of France should be ashamed of themselves.
A thoroughly political statement for a computing website.
Insults aside, that is a fairly extreme position to take because someone doesn’t believe in Stallmanism.
Regarding the subject at hand. Discussion of these candidates other policies is not what should be done here.
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.
> 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.
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.
I thought the main platform he was running on had to do with the fear of Muslim immigrants changing France.
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.
>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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
The board decide the salary, which in turn is voted on by shareholders.
Or better yet, people to stop using emotionally charged words as ‘socialist’ and ‘evil capitalist’ and ‘anglophone’ etc.
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”…
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’.
That’s your prerogative, of course, but personally I don’t see how you can enjoy that extra money if you’re working all the time.
But hey, different folks for different strokes.
Meanwhile, I’m still curious to hear what you think of CEOs who make indecent amount of moneys. Do you think that’s right? Do you think *anyone* should receive that much money?
We have a minimum wage in place…we should consider the possibility of a maximum wage as well. Right now, the increasing economic inequalities here and abroad could eventually threaten the system. Those who have actually read Marx (as opposed to those who dismiss it off-hand) will remember the well-argued case that capitalism carries the seeds of its own destruction. The only reason our mixed economies have survived is precisely because capitalism has been curtailed – socialized, if you will – in order to smooth out some of the inequalities.
The problem with Marxism is the fact that the goals are noble, but the way of getting there, and the eventual outcome takes alway the the reality of human nature.
Marxism also makes grand assumptions, for example, that as a community you can democratically decide what to produce, which is based on the notion of perfect transfereance of skills, the ability to rapid change production from one good to another without inefficiencies and other issues that are raised.
Its also based on the situation where by things will get to a point where by a factory will only require one or two people to produce a huge amounts of goods; that agriculture production is so automated that labour intensive work no longer exists – which brings to question as to what happens to those who can’t get jobs because they don’t exist because technology has replaced them.
It also assumes that society gets to a technology plateau where by no further technology can be developed, or any development is done for the benefit of all, and those who do, do it for the benefit for others rather than to make money – its pretty easy how that is a direct conflict with human nature.
While you raise some valid points (on self-governance, for example), I don’t completely agree with you. For example, it doesn’t matter if there is less work to do in a market utopia, as long as the plus-value remains the same. It just means that everybody works a little less and has more free time.
There are also no assumptions in Marxism about a technological plateau. It *does* assume that does who develop new, innovative technology do so out of altruism rather than personal gain.
I can see your point about this being in conflict with “human nature”, though in reality there are lots of things which were contrary to human nature that we as a society have overcome (or are trying to overcome). Selfishness may be part of human nature, but so is generosity. Anger and violence are part of our nature, but so is compassion and dialogue.
Saying that a society can’t progress beyond the “dog eat dog” world of modern markets (which are, in fact, quite different from capitalism as it existed back in Marx’s day) is a bit of a cop-out, in my opinion.
Note that I’m not saying that Socialism is the answer, however it contains part of the answer, just as capitalism does. What I object to is the idea that we’ve somehow reached the pinnacle of economical development, the so-called “end of history” proposed by the early neo-conservative theorists.
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.
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…
At the very least, this practice should be outlawed…
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
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’.
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.
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.
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???
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.
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
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.
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.
If Sarkozy wins, the people of France should be ashamed of themselves.
They should. If I were french I would have voted Le Pen. All the other tools… Buffoons… I mean politicians are anti-french and pro-authoritianism.
It’s sad that the french have the same mental disorder as americans and canadians. The french are losing their sovereignty and they won’t even do a thing about it.
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!
I’ll bite to trollbait…
Since when is free market bad? What makes me a racist?
LOL You’re joking right?
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.
Le Pen doesn’t embodies xenophobia and racism. lol The media portrays him like that but it’s all made up. A lot of french “qui ne sont pas de souche” voted for him.
Come on archie, you know better than that.
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.
Actually, it’s the reverse. Interventionism always ends up screwing the economy. The free market will correct itself.
“””
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
You do realize you quoted wikipedia, right?
Please indicate what part of the Wikipedia page is inaccurate, thank you.
Hey, how about him saying that the Holocaust were but a “detail” of WWII? (En français: “un point de détail de l’histoire de la Deuxième guerre mondiale”…bravo!)
You should stop here, ronaldst, you’re only digging a hole for yourself. Plus tu défends Le Pen, plus tu te cales…
And his right to free speech should be respected. If he finds it that way then he can believe it all he wants. It’s NONE of our business. He never meant to hurt nor offend the victims of WW2. You know this as well as I do. Come on, archie. That whole “WW2 detail” is food for the medias. They blew that one outta proportion to hurt him as much as possible.
You should stop here, ronaldst, you’re only digging a hole for yourself.
Why should I stop? I am not ashamed for what I know is right. These days, the only way to vote is to choose the lesser evil of the ones found on our ballots. Look at the remaining candidates: Sarkosy the neo-con and Ségolène the socialist. Both are authoritarians. What does history teach us about authoritarians? It’s that they work for themselves.
I certainly wouldn’t vote someone who’s against us and takes away our liberties. Would you?
Did I say otherwise? No, I didn’t. Of course he can believe what he wants, but it’s also my right to say that what he says is racist. He can believe what he wants, but he can be wrong, and it’s perfectly fine to argue that way.
If that was the only thing he said, and had been misquoted, then you might have a point. But his entire discourse is one of xenophobia, and as such he has to expect that people are going to say he is wrong and offer counter-arguments to defend their case.
Just because freedom of speech exists doesn’t mean that all viewpoints are equally valid. There’s no law preventing me from saying that the sky is red, but it doesn’t make it so.
Correction: what you *think* is right. If someone calls you on it, you have to be prepared to argue your case or risk having your credibility questioned. Again, just because you have the right to say something doesn’t meant that what you say is true. That’s the basis for rational debate.
The reason I said you should stop is that you are not providing us with credible arguments, but rather are stating opinions as if they were facts. In doing so, you are undermining your own credibility. The only reason I’m suggest that you should stop is that the more you make these unsubstantiated assertions, the more you look like a raving ideologue, that’s all. I really don’t care if you don’t care that people see you as a fool, it’s up to you.
I wouldn’t call either authoritarian, though Sarkozy does seem to have a more autocratic personality. However, there are institutions in place, such as the Constitution, that are there to prevent politicians from abusing their power (in a functioning democracy, that is).
Of course not, but the fact is that you haven’t successfully made the case that either of them are “against us” and “want to take away our liberties.” You are assuming this, and I have yet to hear a convincing argument from you that this is true (or that Le Pen wouldn’t himself become an autocratic ruler).
You do realize you could correct/enhance Le Pen wikipedia page content if you could back your changes with facts?
Yes, he does.
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.
No, they didn’t.
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.
>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 🙁
Very wrong on the Comment about OUR President.
Edited 2007-04-25 03:21
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.
I will deal with it and you are not the VAST majority of anything except of disinformation and lies.
France sucks by the VAST majority of the world and so does the rest of the 3rd world.
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.
It’s a good thing the American Revolution didn’t need any help from France, then. Oh, wait.
Wrong place for criticism of the United States take it elsewhere.
Edited 2007-04-25 03:22
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.”
“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.
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.
> “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.
> “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.)
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.
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.
Politically correct garbage of riding the fence to get votes is not different than a big Corporation lobbying the people in power.
Does the United States of America have the grant the rights to issue patents on a product that is registered? YES, do other countries adhere to the code of ethics NO so there you go dis-respectful gulag dumps like France want the world to except some extreme views. France has been has changed hands more than anyone can remember. 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…
You are a hypocrite self appointed idiot.
Do you think I really care what they are saying abroad do you think it matters to me some BS you are spewing.
I will remember your id and your COMMUNIST attitude towards everything except what YOU do not like.
You can stick it for all I am concerned.
FRANCE is a unstable piece of FECES along with the 3rd world.
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…
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
I wonder what their positions on free software would be if Microsoft were a French company.
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