Because most Comcast companies are organized to handle INTRAstate communications. They lay their wires to serve a town or county, but don't cross the state line except at the highest level.
Bullshit. They have fiber crisscrossing state lines all over the country.
Your supposed "logic" is nothing but an attempt to deny the reality of what guns are for. It would be like arguing that a hammer isn't really for driving in nails because you can also use it to break windows.
So take your self-righteous attitude that anyone who buys a gun wants to kill someone, and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.
I never said that anyone who buys a gun wants to kill someone so your claims of some supposed self-righteous attitude has no basis. I said that the point of a gun is to kill or maim someone. That you use it for a different purpose than it's intended use doesn't change that. I can use a hammer to go around breaking car windows. Does that change the fact that the intent of a hammer is to do things like drive in nails, etc?
No, I'm not against people having or carrying guns. I object to people who attempt to try to claim that guns aren't made for the specific purpose of maiming or killing things.
Because it's scope is only to patents that apply to Linux. This doesn't stop any of the OIN members from suing the other members for non-Linux related patents such as are the vast majority of the patents in this case.
OIN licenses their patents to anyone who agrees not to assert patents against "the Linux system" (whatever that means).
And this case isn't about "the Linux system" and as such those terms don't apply.
2) ISPs will be formed with the specific selling point of having no traffic shaping/filtering/prioritizing.
This has been claimed for years and yet this hasn't actually happened. You live in a fantasy world if you actually believe such nonsense. The entrenched ISPs would kill off any such company.
Are you really asking this? Yes, guns are for maiming and killing people. This is the whole point of how they are a deterrent to people who would want to harm you. If they weren't for such a purpose exactly what is the point of carrying one around?
For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio
Seems pretty clear that this falls squarely within it's right to regulate. Unless you can explain how the Internet isn't "communication by wire or radio".
I would question the mental state of someone who doesn't think having a gun brandished at you with the intent of doing you harm isn't considered a stressful situation.
It was always amusing to see how much people bought into IBM's bullshit. IBM as a company never cared about the ideals of free software nor the GNU manifesto. They saw Linux and other open source software as something they could leverage in order to sell more of their proprietary hardware.
So you think that the feds requiring people to protect your health records, for example, is a waste? Would you really rather go back to a time when the same companies didn't care? Sure these compliance laws are usually flawed in many ways, but since this holds the companies accountable for a minimum of data security at least they will do something whereas they would normally do nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
Because most Comcast companies are organized to handle INTRAstate communications. They lay their wires to serve a town or county, but don't cross the state line except at the highest level.
Bullshit. They have fiber crisscrossing state lines all over the country.
Your supposed "logic" is nothing but an attempt to deny the reality of what guns are for. It would be like arguing that a hammer isn't really for driving in nails because you can also use it to break windows.
So take your self-righteous attitude that anyone who buys a gun wants to kill someone, and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.
I never said that anyone who buys a gun wants to kill someone so your claims of some supposed self-righteous attitude has no basis. I said that the point of a gun is to kill or maim someone. That you use it for a different purpose than it's intended use doesn't change that. I can use a hammer to go around breaking car windows. Does that change the fact that the intent of a hammer is to do things like drive in nails, etc?
No, I'm not against people having or carrying guns. I object to people who attempt to try to claim that guns aren't made for the specific purpose of maiming or killing things.
Not to be contrary, but why not?
Because it's scope is only to patents that apply to Linux. This doesn't stop any of the OIN members from suing the other members for non-Linux related patents such as are the vast majority of the patents in this case.
OIN licenses their patents to anyone who agrees not to assert patents against "the Linux system" (whatever that means).
And this case isn't about "the Linux system" and as such those terms don't apply.
2) ISPs will be formed with the specific selling point of having no traffic shaping/filtering/prioritizing.
This has been claimed for years and yet this hasn't actually happened. You live in a fantasy world if you actually believe such nonsense. The entrenched ISPs would kill off any such company.
My intent with my Glock, and therefore the purpose is self defense from criminals, and wild animals.
And how is it going to provide self-defense if not for the threat of maiming or killing the person who would be attacking you?
Really?
Are you really asking this? Yes, guns are for maiming and killing people. This is the whole point of how they are a deterrent to people who would want to harm you. If they weren't for such a purpose exactly what is the point of carrying one around?
From the FCC's charter:
For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio
Seems pretty clear that this falls squarely within it's right to regulate. Unless you can explain how the Internet isn't "communication by wire or radio".
Oh, and guns DO NOT kill people.... it's the person holding the gun that kills people.
Which is nothing more than a cute attempt at trying to deflect the fact that the sole purpose of a gun is to maim and or kill people.
I would question the mental state of someone who doesn't think having a gun brandished at you with the intent of doing you harm isn't considered a stressful situation.
I'm sorry, but the answer was Naggers.
Except that it has been shown to not work on other PDF readers than Acrobat.
The exploit affects Foxit as well as Adobe Acrobat software.
It was always amusing to see how much people bought into IBM's bullshit. IBM as a company never cared about the ideals of free software nor the GNU manifesto. They saw Linux and other open source software as something they could leverage in order to sell more of their proprietary hardware.
Duh? Did you really think that IBM was jumping on the Linux bandwagon out of anything other than to make money for themselves?
Android and other mobile operating systems will be supported with Funambol's standard client application.
That was right there in the summary.
So you think that the feds requiring people to protect your health records, for example, is a waste? Would you really rather go back to a time when the same companies didn't care? Sure these compliance laws are usually flawed in many ways, but since this holds the companies accountable for a minimum of data security at least they will do something whereas they would normally do nothing.
The userland api and applications, mostly.
Also, I meant why isn't the MSM covering the leak on wikilinks, not the incident itself.
Because the MSM have been willing participants in the propaganda machine?
I've always wondered what keeps the Geneva Convention enforced.
Because you don't want the other side doing the things banned by the convention to your own soldiers and civilians?
Except I've talked to many of those same elites in that tower and many of them find many of the classics just as boring as the plebes do.
Apparently you've never met the 200,000 current iPad owners.
Where was this, when was this, and why isn't this on CNN.com, NYtimes.com, msnbc.com, etc.?
Did you bother to read the summary?
Wikileaks maintains that this video was covered up by the US military when Reuters asked for an official investigation.
That would probably be why you didn't see it on any of those sites.
Trolling they may be, many of these classics are downright awful anyway.
How hard is it to provide decent data, voice and text communications?
Set up your own wireless network and get back to us on how easy it is.