What is Digg?4 Comments
- schestowitz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It's great to see activism in a state where there is so much lobbying (even corruption) that hinders Free software adoption. Massachusetts is probably among the biggest victim of this, e.g.:
Second CIO:
,----[ Quote ]
| As CIO of Massachusetts from February to November last year, Louis
| Gutierrez had to endure most of the brunt of Microsoft Corp.'s political
| wrath over a state policy calling for the adoption of the Open Document
| Format for Office Applications, or ODF -- a rival to the software vendor's
| Office Open XML file format.
`----
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9012760&source=rss_news50
First CIO:
,----[ Quote ]
| Quinn: Almost to a person, to anybody involved or who knows about
| the ODF issue, they attributed the story to Microsoft, right, wrong
| or otherwise. Senator Pacheco may be a bully but I do not believe he
| is disingenious and would stoop to such a tactic. Senator Pacheco and
| Secretary Galvin's office remain very heavily influenced by the
|
| Microsoft money and its lobbyist machine, as witnessed by their
| playbook and words, in my opinion.
`----
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060119232859729
At the end of the day:
MA Governor-Elect Names MS Anti-ODF Lobbyist to Technology Advisory Group
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20061128161343183
People like Christian Fernandez should go in there and find out how this was made possible. TThey are, after all, taxpayers who vote for their local administration. The state should control itself, rather than be controlled by some company from the west coast (which, mind you, has a track record of being an abusive and ruthless monopoly). - cparker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1WinstonS: Huh? What does that have to do with free software?
- WinstonS, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0My comment obviously has nothing to do with free software. I apologize. I was attempting to post a comment referencing another story and my lines got crossed somehow. Apparently I was being a bit reckless with the copy/paste function.
I’m very sorry. - WinstonS, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0“ownership over one’s body would be unfailingly recognized (except, of course, in the case of fetuses, which are the private property of the females in whom they grow).”
“It is imperative to realize that freedom from indoctrination is more important than parents’ perceived right to indoctrinate.”
So on one side of the line a child can be disposed of at the discretion of the parent (except, of course, in the case that he is male) and on the other side of the line a parent has no control over the moral and ethical development of their offspring. In this trite, naive rendition of reality, where exactly is this line drawn?
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is