Kyle Jacob Biodrowski

Thanks Jules, Unfortunately, it didn't do much for me. I have trouble appreciating the more modern rock bands. Maybe I'm just showing my age. I once read that the younger you are, the less receptive you are to new music. Perhaps the first signs of that are coming about. Of course, this doesn't mean I don't like any new rock songs. Here's one that I recently heard on the radio. And, just for old times sake, here's something old. A little something new; a little something old. That's how I take life. Also, I'm posting the music video, since I know just how much Brant loves a good music video (as opposed to a still frame shot of whatever). There's some fantastic cinematography in this one. Even more amazing when you consider the year in which the video was made.

The goal is never equality. The goal is control, by any means necessary. That cannot be stated enough. In this case, the means of control is the guilt brought about by some intangible, unverifiable monstrosity known as "privilege". To go one step further, the ultimate goal, depending on the person, is either power or free stuff. From experience, free stuff, whether that is money or respect or pity, is the most common goal.

Woah, this is going to take some getting used to.

He's a fairly angry fellow, but he does have a good amount of fun making music and music videos.

Finding the uncensored cut of this video is like pulling teeth.

I was never a fan of Bowie, but I can appreciate his influence on the music industry. He's nothing short of an icon. One of the giants. Sad to see him go. Though he died at 68, he lived enough life to fill 1000 years. I especially enjoyed his collaborations with Trent Reznor.

No, they would be fucked. But, the question is, who would be doing the fucking?

Sheesh, I don't think I've yet posted a single Megadeth song. Shame, shame. How about a classic or two?

Posted this in my thread. I think it deserves a quick repost. Rooster Ain't found a way to kill me yet Eyes Burn with stinging sweat Seems every path leads me to nowhere Wife and kids household pet Army green was no safe bet The bullets scream at me from somewhere Here they come to snuff the rooster Yeah here come the rooster, yeah [2x] You know he ain't gonna die No, no, no, ya know he ain't gonna die Walkin' tall machine gun man They spit on me in my home land Gloria sent me pictures of my boy Got my pills 'gainst mosquito death My buddy's breathin' his dyin' breath Oh god please won't you help me make it through Here they come to snuff the rooster Yeah here come the rooster, yeah You know he ain't gonna die No, no, no ya know he ain't gonna die A bit of background, the "rooster" in the song is Jerry Cantrell's [Alice in Chain's guitarist's] father who served in Vietnam. His nickname was "rooster" during the war. He is seen in the video with his son, both reflect on the war and the time they spent together.

I've never used RedHat, though, I'll likely give it a shot one day. As for switching to Windows, you could always dual-boot. No need to choose one OS over the other. I have multiple OSs installed on my desktop PC. Virtual machines, too, are an option, though, I find that virtual machines don't often make the best use of existing hardware. It's a shame there aren't more rendering and design programs for the Linux distros, that may change in the future. You've been on board with the FSM? What have you done for the movement ... Sorry to be late with this, and I apologize if I overstated my case. All I meant was that I have known about Stallman and the OSF for many years, and, like you, have told people what it is, and is not. "Free" does not (necessarily) mean "no pay." For myself, I have the GPG public key crypto on my computer and I sent them $25 for it. My wife is the real computerist here and she runs Kali Linux on her test network. We both have Wireshark, and we took a class in it a couple of years ago. She also has Metasploit, BeEF, and a few others. I do not know which she has sent in money for. I am pretty sure that she has not posted any of her own updates, patches, etc. I am a lot freer with my money than she is with hers. On the Galt's Gulch board, one of the regulars touted Axanar, a new Star Trek fan movie now in production. I watched their trailer, Prelude to Axanar, and then I sent them $100. (Of course, I was a contributor to AS3. My daughter and I got a line credit at the end.) I just joined the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers for $30. I could go on. The point is that if I use "free" software, I pay for it. But, no, I do not modify it, post it to GitHub, or anything like that. I am a technical writer, not a devops person. And I also knew about Richard Stallman from the old WELL: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link. I was active there, in the 80s and 90s, but their being taken over by Salon left me completely alienated. Whereas before, at least some semblance of libertarianism was evident, since Salon, the mainstream there pretty much never met a government program they did not like. I must confess, though, that I feel special for having heard about Barack Obama in 2006. I even voted for him in 2008, though not in 2012, of course. Neat. I've never donated money, but I've bought GNU/Linux merchandise in the past. I love buying GNU/Linux-related stickers. I just can't get enough of those stickers. They raise a few eyebrows and they're great conversation starters. I'm a fan of the Debian distro family and I've been playing with Kali quite a lot lately to familiarize myself with some common pentesting tools. Just today, I unearthed an old Dell Latitude D620 laptop from my hardware crypt. Its default operating system in Windows XP, however, I can live boot Kali on it whenever I feel like putting in a bit of learning. In fact, the laptop runs Kali better than it runs XP, which I found surprising. Yep, it's getting a sticker.

Control is the goal, and guilt is the means to that goal. The article is nothing more than your daily dose of stupid shit. Unfortunately, a number of people will take it seriously.

When Stallman uses the word "free", he isn't talking about price or even cost. He's talking about freedom. To Stallman, a piece of software is conducive to freedom when it is: 1. Able to be run by the user in any way the user sees fit. 2. Modifiable by the user (being able to view the source code is a prerequisite to this) 3. Able to freely distribute copies of the software. 4. Able to freely distribute modified copies of the software. When the user of the software can view a piece of software's source code, he can verify whether the software is violating any portion of the user's privacy. When a piece of software meets all of the above requirements, it is considered "free". In the video, Stallman makes the point that monetarily free software isn't necessarily free (as in freedom) and paid-for software isn't necessarily unfree (as in freedom). This isn't how Stallman uses the word "free". See above explanation. Merlin, A person can't just modify a piece of software and peak at your assets. They would need to modify it, distribute it, and have Fidelity users download and run it. Just don't download software from any site other than Fidelity, which goes without saying.

You've been on board with the FSM? What have you done for the movement, if you don't mind me asking. I'm looking for ideas on how I can contribute, though, they do have an entire webpage dedicated to how people can help the movement. In the past, I've bought stuff from their store and I've helped debug C code in free software, though, my help was minimal since I only have a modest understanding of the C language. Perhaps the biggest way a person could help the FSM is to get the word out. So few people know of operating systems outside of Windows and OS X, and even fewer people know of the FSM. My GNU shirt has raised a few eyebrows from curious people. When they ask, I do my best to explain what GNU is and what the FSM is, but I ain't so good with the verbal communication. After the conversation is finished, most people walk away with the idea that there is more out there than Windows and OS X; it's a start. I'm not sure if I've seen your Fortune Cookie, but if it's anything like other fortune cookies, I've probably seen it.

In addition to what MSK said, that isn't Satan. That's Baphomet. How is it the author of the article kept calling the statue "Satan" when the group clearly identified it as Baphomet?

Nothing necessarily wrong with being an ideologue. Nothing necessarily right with being practical. If being practical means forfeiting your information to some company, what does being practical serve? Transportation, of course. But there's always a trade-off. Stallman has chosen to sacrifice convenience for security, whereas Uber clients would do the inverse. It's his choice and I can't say he made an imprudent choice.

Quite an accomplishment on my part considering I can't write for crap. There is gratis, proprietary beer, but it tastes like an old copy of 1984.

Read this before watching the video: For clarity, Stallman uses "Free" to mean freedom, not free stuff. As Stallman says, think freedom, not free beer. When he's talking about monetarily free software, he says "gratis". He explains this in a later part of the video. I could have sworn OL had a technology section, perhaps I just imagined it. This video is a bit long, so watch it at your own leisure. Anyway, I wanted to share this here and, perhaps, gain a bit more insight on Stallman's attitude toward free software vs. proprietary software. Stallman makes the claim that people either rule their software or their software rules them, the two models of software use that are conducive to this are, respectively, free software and proprietary software. Free software allows people to rule the software while proprietary leaves the user open to being ruled by the software's creator. He also addresses a misconception people have about Free Software Movement. Many people think the movement is against paid-for products. Stallman points out that paid-for software isn't necessarily "unfree" and monetarily free software isn't necessarily free (per the Free Software Movement's definition). WinRAR is monetarily free, however, it isn't considered to be free software since it isn't modifiable by the user. Stallman lists the requirements a piece of software must meet before being considered free (as per the FSMs definition). To be considered free, the software must be: 1. Able to be run by the user in any way the user wishes. 2. Modifiable by the user. 3. Able to be copied and distributed at the user's discretion (given away or sold). 4. Able to be modified and distributed at the user's discretion (given away or sold). If a program meets all of the above, even if it is a paid-for program, it is considered to be free. Stallman claims that if the program meets the above criteria, the user has complete control over the software and it is considered to be free. In the age of electronic spies, it would seem that free software is the way to go if a person wants to protect his privacy. Stallman also makes the point that the owners of the software can easily insert malicious code into their programs, without the user knowing. He goes on to claim that if everyone has access to the source-code of a software, it would make the software more secure and safe. Since no single person has knowledge over all programming languages, assembly languages especially, it requires a collective effort in order to examine the software and ensure it has no malicious code. He uses malware to mean code that spies on the user, tracks user data, and, generally, invades a user's privacy. He slams Microsoft, and other companies, for violating all of the above rules, for spying on its users, and for censoring its users. I won't spell out every detail of the video in this post because I want people to take some time to watch it. He's a rather endearing and interesting character. In related videos, Stallman explains the history behind the FSM and the open-source movement. These are two separate movements with two separate goals and ideologies, though people often confuse them. The goal of the FSM is freedom from prying eyes and government force whereas the goal of the open-source movement is code quality. Many Objectivist's would see the FSM as a threat to private property, specifically intellectual property, given the third criterion. However, I don't quite see it that way. Free software, even paid-for software, may be freely distributed or sold by the user. So, it would seem the creator doesn't really have any protection against his software being bought then resold without getting his due share. I don't really see any way around this. Stallman has addressed this in other videos where audience members asked him how they could make a living selling free software. Stallman informed them that they could offer software/tech support, crowdfund, take donations or, jokingly (hopefully), starve. He told them that anything is preferable to creating proprietary software, for the reasons mentioned above. The reason I don't see the FSM as a threat to private property is that the movement isn't legislating any laws banning the creation and selling of proprietary software. They are offering an alternative to using proprietary software, in the name of freedom. All things considered, Stallman's ideas seem Objectivist-friendly. It seems like a movement I can get behind. By the way, I'm using WIndows, but I've considered jumping ship. In the past, I've experimented with various GNU/Linux distros. My favorite distros falling under Debian flavors. Contrary to popular belief, GNU/Linux distros are not difficult to use, depending largely on the distribution. GNU/Linux Mint is a popular flavor for people who want a user-friendly, full-fledged operating system with a great deal of hardware support. Edit: In 2013, jts made an excellent post clarifying some "misconceptions" about GNU, Linux, Stallman, and his work. Here's the link to the post. Anyone who wants a bit more info about the GNU/Linux relationship should read it.

Reminds me of the average thread on Objectivist Living. Jules, That song keeps popping up on my car's radio. I like it more than I thought I would. Here's a hidden gem which evaded my grasp for many years. Better late than never. Spider One is nearing his 50s and he can still scream like a monster.

WOW! Now that is incredible. To be honest, I thought you meant something else by "Ghosting". I'm not disappointed though.

The issue with filtering something like government disinfo is that one man's truth is another man's disinfo. I doubt there is a commonly held definition of disinfo between the developers and the users, hence Michael's findings.

How's this one, Brant? Probably still too heavy. Just keep the volume low.