[discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 33, Issue 7

> I'm participating in OLPC's Give One Get One program, and made my
> donation/purchase already this morning
> http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/4326
> Is anyone else doing the same? I'm also curious if any of the people
> on the OLPC developer program hang out in this list?

I'm not one for blowing my own horn, but since you've asked...:-)
I've volunteered to translate the English manual into French, for use
in countries such as Rwanda, where French is common, etc.
(I should be working on that instead of posting here...:-))

And for the curious and capable, you can actually run a liveCD
emulation of the XO! :-)

> Our experience with this is quite different, and I hope that other
> people in this forum will look at what I've been able to do in this
> respect and use this to convince themselves that their involvement is
> important! http://www.flora.ca/mp.shtml
> I am meeting with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
> Industry next week, and have met a number of MPs that have gone on to
> become Government Ministers. I have only met with a small percentage of
> the 308 current members of parliament, but I have likely met more than
> most private citizen volunteers have.
> If you go into a meeting with a politician thinking that all
> politicians are corrupt/etc, then that is exactly what you will find.
> It is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and as regular human beings they will
> be able to tell quite quickly how you feel about them.

Great! Then ask them how much has the government paid to Microsoft?
Even on a personal level, ask these 'leaders' how much has been sent
to M$, just in their own personal operations? Do they know? Do they
even have a CLUE? ;-)
Where is the much touted "transparency and accountability?"
A real leader would have all government financial information online,
in detail, today. Now that would be a change, eh?
In the past that may not have been possible. With today's systems, I
keep asking, why isn't it? Because there is too much to hide, of
Instead, we have generalities, only large numbers (where it is easy to
hide mismanagement, corruption, etc.) in vague categories, etc.
Let me know if you find even one vaguely possible 'leader' in your
many meetings.
(Personally, I am a 'maker' type person. I'm not interested in the
many unproductive, time-wasting, issue-avoiding type meetings that
politicans dearly love when they are uncomfortable with a topic, (or
possibly complicit in 'deals'), or the photo-op type meetings, etc.)

> If you believe it isn't possible to have genuine leaders in politics,
> then it will also not be possible for you to influence those leaders
> towards something positive.
> If you believe it isn't possible to have genuine leaders in politics,
> then it will also not be possible for you to influence those managers
> towards something positive.
There, fixed that for you! :-) Oh, I believe it is possible to have
genuine leaders. I just haven't seen any in the current crop...:-)

> The politicians and political parties are not in the pockets of
> Microsoft. They are not in fact aware enough of the technology sector
> to be in anyones pocket. What they see is a successful company (which
> Microsoft has been, and we can't refute that fact), and being total
> outsiders to the industry they believe that the best way to have
> Canadians be successful is if they emulate historically successful
> activities.
They certainly are in the pockets of M$, if they can't account for how
much is sent to Microsoft. What a beautiful, perfect scam.
Unaccountability and lack of transparency, so M$ bleeds the system for
all it can, and politicians plead ignorance, as always.
As for 'successful', I wouldn't call them that, and I will refute it.
It is simply a typical monopolistic corporation. They have a lot of
money. They buy politicians, iin various ways, through false promises
(i.e. marketing), lobbying, etc., etc.
But they have destroyed/damaged untold companies and individuals, in a
variety of ways, so I suppose you could call MS 'successful', in say,
oh, I don't know, how many 'wars' are 'successful', after millions
have been tortured, killed, abused, etc. Hey, look at us, we are
'successful', we won the war!
How many children have been deprived of computers or learning about
free software, because they are already paying, through their
governments, etc. billions to this 'successful' company? Why can't
hospitals, schools, small businesses, etc. afford more? Is it because
they are sending billions to a 'successful' company? I consider M$ to
be little more than a parasite, rather than a 'successful' company
that assists the community, democracy, etc. The bottom line: MS
simply exists to profit, which it does very well, and I guess that is
your definition of 'successful'. It is not mine (and that of many

> It is our job as insiders to the industry, and
> people knowledgeable about the transformative change underway, to inform
> politicians.

Good luck with that. How many years have you been informing the
politicians? How many meetings?
And how much are we still sending to M$ through our taxes, while the
rest of the world passes us by? If you can find ONE 'leader', let us
discuss mailing list