Microsoft hits new ethical low point?

[ddm at pizzashack.org (Derek Martin)]

Yesterday, Patrick Ohiomoba gleaned this insight:

> I don't want to start a political argument, but I think the fact that it's
> engrained in people's consciousness that they didn't have choice in the
> last election is sad, and I think it's a biproduct of a media that was
> really looking for charismatic, interesting candidates (not candidates
> with distinctive personalities).  I don't think that there was any less

Now you've done it!  While I could argue on this topic for some time, in
the interest of keeping this short and semi-related, I will only say this:

It is not so much that there was a lack of choices...  though if you
watched the debates there did seem to be an aweful lot of Bush and Gore
each saying, "yeah, what he said!"  The issue is that there were no
choices that didn't suck.  Or at least, if there were, you didn't hear
about them, and they had no shot of winning anything.

What I'd really like to see (to stay marginally on topic) is candidates
who are "techno-savvy" and who understand the legal and moral issues that
technological advancement are starting to raise.Candidates (for all
offices) always seem to be about a decade or so (or more) behind.  Beyond
that, they all seem to favor the interests of businesses over those of
individuals.  The only difference between the parties w/regard to that is
WHICH businesses they favor...

I fear the day that Microsoft manages to convince some idiot on Capitol
Hill that open-source software should be banned.

-- 
Derek Martin
ddm at pizzashack.org

-
Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with
"subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" on the first line of the
message body to discuss-request at blu.org (Subject line is ignored).