Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> > You just described 90% of open source software. Is that not end-user
> > software also?
>
> No. The e.g. version packaged (and, often, patched) by Red Hat for which
> people pay $39.95 is end user software.
>
But what about all the OS software we don't pay for? (AAMOF I get RH for
free also through download)
>
> >>People killed in WTC tragedy (approx.): 5,000
> >>People who die every day of starvation: 24,000
> >>Each of those deaths is more preventable than one caused by a terrorist.
> >>So when does the Western World declare war on hunger, disease and poverty?
> >
> > When we are directly responsible for that hunger, disease and poverty.
>
> Sorry? You are saying the Western World is directly responsible for
> terrorism?
No. I'm saying your argument makes absolutly no sense. If you need it
explained...
Terrorists came into our land and commited a terrible act. There is no
excuse for flying a plane into a building full of innocent civilians.
This is cause for a reaction from the US.
There is hunger and starvation around the world. Although that's sad,
we did not cause it. Not to mention that we're talking about two
different sides recieving and causing the bad act. If you're comparing
the two shouldn't the countries of the starving people, the victims, be
declaring a war on us? Assuming we caused that suffering. But your
statement doesn't make sense because we didn't cause the problems, and
_they_ are the victims, not us. Just like we are the vicims of the
terrorists. So it's not a comparison that's even talking about the same
thing.
Although we do a fair amount of help in other counties, it's not our
obigation to solve other peoples problems.
> And that's an interesting word, "directly". If the West has a
> grain mountain, great cultivating technology and knowhow, and an
> excellent quality of life for the overwhelming majority of its citizens,
> is it directly responsible for deaths that result from not sharing that?
>
> > These two things are not even remotly the same. But I guess the US
> > should be doing somthing about it just because a large number of people
> > die from it, is that what you're saying?
>
> I'm saying that it's somewhat hypocritical, perhaps, for the West to
> conveniently ignore these preventable deaths happening, but when some
> unpreventable ones happen (a far smaller number - and probably smaller
> than the number of innocent people killed in drink-driving accidents in
> a month as well) then it's a $20 billion dollar issue from Congress.
>
> > Maybe somthing more sensable
> > for a .sig would be a good idea.
>
> "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
> to say it." One of your countrymen, I believe - if your email address is
> anything to go by.
>
> Gerv
