http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html?today=1

Just saying 7 banks failed though does not provide the necessary emphasis. Let me put 7 bank failures in context, last year, 25 banks failed (as a 2008 year total). So to put it another way 35% of the number of banks that failed last year, failed already this year, in a single day (bringing 2009s total to 52 so far). The total cost of these 7 failures to the FDIC is $314.3 million (bringing the FDIC fund’s total cost for failed banks to $12.3 billion this year). That compares with $17.6 billion in all of 2008.

Stallman was a catalyst- the chatter has only increased about use of Mono implemented programs in the Ubuntu Linux distribution. This particular batch of trouble-soup is made with Microsoft, Mono and patents. In some cases its gotten a bit intriguing- in others as we’ve noted much more controversial.  There have been some suggestions about how to deal with the proposed concerns. But, clearly this debate has gone on for some time.

Now, a position statement from the Canonical and the Ubuntu Technical Board, through Scott James Remnant, has been released. In the statement, they make clear Mono and applications which rely on Mono will not be excluded from distributions of Ubuntu.

But, the question does remain: What will Microsoft do if anything regarding Mono?

You don’t get harmony when everybody sings the same note.  ~Doug Floyd

Richard Stallman is the President of the Free Software Foundation. For many years the man has written and spoken out about the importance of free software. In 1985 he published the GNU Manifesto, kicking off the biggest software project in the history of human kind: The GNU Software Project. His sort of activism and what it has achieved demands deep-rooted respect.

He recently wrote a piece on why free software shouldn’t depend on Mono or C#. Being a bit cynical I assumed the piece would contain few surprises and just be another repeat opportunity for Stallman to denounce Microsoft. The level of specificity struck a nerve with me (why expressly attack C# & Mono?) and in reading the article I found my assumptions to be totally wrong. This wasn’t just another repeat. As much as I usually respect Stallman for his thoughtfulness, this time, its not there. In fact, the nature of this whole thing is very propagandist.

Stallman claims using C# ” is taking a gratuitous risk.” He implies Microsoft will use free implements of its C# as a trojan horse to gain some amount of legal control over applications which implement it. He goes on to repeat that point several times, in fact filling the article with the notion. Yet the more important point, why you ought do this or believe this, he only ever talks about briefly, right here:

The problem is not unique to Mono; any free implementation of C# would raise the same issue. The danger is that Microsoft is probably planning to force all free C# implementations underground some day using software patents. (See http://swpat.org and http://progfree.org.) This is a serious danger, and only fools would ignore it until the day it actually happens. We need to take precautions now to protect ourselves from this future danger.

(The danger is that Microsoft is probably planning to force all free C# implementations underground some day using software patents-) I’m no fan of Microsoft’s standard operating procedures. Their brand of productization usually involves borrowing someone elses’ idea.  But what Stallman is claiming is outrageous and it lacks any evidential foundation. Its as possible they’ll release their own Linux distrubtion to run it all on too- and you should never boot that, right Stallman?

This is fear-mongering- So, no, I’m not defending Microsoft, its past and especially not  its present. Nor can I defend Stallman’s point.

I am however defending the right of technology whomever makes it, to not be  prejudged into extinction by anyone. I’m defending the idea of taking risks. For, if we stop, our ability to create lives without risks. Our creations become risk-less, boring things, and lose all relation to real innovation (which is all risk). Yet even this is really a secondary matter.

What’s primary is, what Stallman asks of the open source community. What he asks is a very serious matter and should not be taken lightly from someone with his potential influence. Richard Stallman is asking people to put down a particular technology - to ignore its existence regardless of its technological usefulness - because of a disagreement with the philosophies of its creator.

Stallman is asking you to boycott an entire development platform because he’s afraid of its ability to undermind the open source software community. When we what we need isn’t to boycott the technology- we need to innovate in another area. We don’t need descrimination but instead innovation: we need a freely available legal solution to any such patents or legal actions.

Matt Taibbi’s Rolling Stone Article…

When history looks back it will say from the Age of Information came what could only follow: the Age of Confusion. This age will not be about the activity of advancement.  This age will not help clarify what’s known and build upon the framework of human knowledge. This age will instead obscure and strip from that framework.

If the Age of Information filled in some of the blanks, the Age of Confusion will create the basis upon which new ones will rest. And I know this because with two obvious eyes the idea stares back at me- the most important lesson of learning any lesson.

Whenever in my own life, I’ve gained more information about something, I’ve come to reach an understanding.  And from that understanding I can only confuse myself with the countless questions I’m now able to form but not answer.  Those questions drive me to even new understandings.

This is the nature of knowledge & progressive change- what comes is an Age of Confusion.

Someone asked Yahoo Answers how to tell if their son was gay-  hilarity ensued…

Click here to download or click on the image to see it in full size…

Click here and you can try a web-based, interactive simulation from the LA Times. With it, you’re challenged to try and balance the California State Budget.  I wish you luck- I did not do so well. Apparently, neither did Schwarzenegger.