It's pretty unlikely Novell would care, since they're using Linux as a platform for their own propritary code, and not exactly interested in everything being open source.
Red Hat's market is servers, not really workstations, and certainly not Laptops, so I doubt they care at all, one way or the other.
Yet the much smaller BSD developer community has enough people with even rarer skills?
No, it's that this has been an "itch" in the OpenBSD community for quite a while now. Linux developers simply chose to focus their attention elsewhere, since their wireless cards were working fine...
No. Finding someone "with the chops" and interest simply isn't easy. There are simply tons of projects in the open source world that would be done very quickly if someone with the skills would do it. Instead, you have to wait around for someone with skill to get that particular itch.
No, no no. I keep repeating this, and it doesn't seem to be getting through. I'm not talking about 1:1 NAT, full-cone NAT, etc., etc. I'm talking about modern, private address, stateful NAT. Specifically, OpenBSD's PF.
Remember, the chinese do not have a profit motive, they have a power motive so they could just corner the market by dropping prices until the competition screams.
Not true. Every laborer, manager, and owner is trying to make as much profit as they possibly can. China is NOT a socialist country.
The government has a lot of power, but they aren't going to cripple their own economy for a tiny bit of fleeting power. And that's exactly what starting to impose such regulations would do. As soon as there's a sign of this ANYWHERE, you'll see companies pulling out of China as quickly as they possibly can.
NSA's internal research is possibly many, many years ahead of the rest of the world's research.
The general concensus is that the NSA is pretty much on-par with the commercial and academic community. They may be slightly ahead, but they certainly aren't years ahead, as used-to be the case.
What if some day the Chinese decided that they're not going to produce devices that don't meet their standards?
Then they'd lose out on the billions upon billions of dollars they're importing from the USA. Factories in Taiwan, S.Korea (and pretty much everywhere else in the world) would be brought back up to speed quickly, and be outputting wireless routers before the first non-standard Chinese routers actually hit the docks. And this is not to mention the fact that pretty much all wireless routers/APs and cards are easily firmware upgradable (including their encryption standard).
They have a lot more to lose out of the deal than we do.
No, it's not true at all with firewalls, unless they have some stupid bug in their code. If you have a stateful firewall, no ammount of forging of packets will get you access inside the network. If you have a non-stateful firewall, no ammount of forging of packets will get you access to the blocked ports (typically 0-1023).
NAT however, just requires a few forged packets, and you have very easy access. As I said in my first post: "I imagine the automatic tools to do that are in most of the script kiddies' arsenels by now"
We're talking about getting access to a machien behind a PAT router from the internet.
Yes, and that would still work perfectly. My DSL provider has me on a/32 network. Getting access to any one of those 253 machines would get you easy access through my NAT box, if I didn't have stateful packet filtering.
Now please, Mr. Uberhacker, describe a method besides sourced base routing for doing that.
I did. I already explained I'm not going to type up a paper on circumventing NATs here, just to prove to every anonymous, loud mouthed, networking-ignorant person on/. that says it can't be done. You can do your own research, I'm not getting paid to teach you.
The fact that you are having such a hard time suggest that PAT really does provide some level of security.
No, it provides a trivially small hurdle. Better know as "obscurity". It provides no real security, and the commonality of them surely makes them a rip target for available attacks.
There was a Win32s subsystem that you could run on it which would get you some 32-bit compatibility but that came out late, was never part of the system you buy, and didn't work very well.
I can say that I run a half dozen or so and have never had the registry corrupt on me or the system files go bad.
Yes, well... I have people telling me all the time that they keep their Windows 98 machines up-and-running for months at a time, and have never had it crash...
It's not the CPU usage but the RAM usage that kills it.
While having to swap to disk all the time is an extreme slowdown, it isn't the only one. XP is definately much more CPU-intensive than 98, and an infinite ammount of RAM couldn't make it as fast.
This is pretty true of other modern OS's though.
I run many machines with far less RAM. On Unix systems, you only need that much if you're running KDE and GNOME applications at the same time, and other crazyness like that. I still boot-up and use my old 386, 20MHz/10MB Notebook from time to time, and it works just fine even with X11.
Yes, but your choice of gravity (definitly) and type of path (perhaps) would be arbitrary.
Not at all. You don't just pick the ammount of gravity you want it to have, you chose the number for how much gravity it needs to maintain an atmosphere of <INSERT_HEAVY_GAS>, which would be a very useful classification.
If you're going to say that is arbitrary, than ANY classification of ANYTHING is arbitrary, including the periodic table. After all, even elemental atoms can vary (slightly), and the rules of interaction don't always apply perfectly, even when the chart implies they should. So, the periodic table is somewhat arbitrarily based on how we (humans) use those elements, and how we WANT/NEED a nice clean classification, even when it doesn't really apply well to particular elements.
The same goes for most of astronomy. I believe I already mentioned stars, where color and size are the basis. Even though there are an infinite number of values in-between any size and color boundary you pick, it's still a highly useful and non-arbitrary classification.
If there is no existing outbound connection from a machine behind a PAT gateway, there is no way to communicate with it from the internet because the router doesn't know who to send your uberhacker packets to.
Completely untrue, but you managed to trick a mod into giving you points for it... Your NAT (or NAPT or PAT) box still acts as a router, and will send packets to boxes inside the private network. All you have to do is address it by the private IP.
There are MANY ways to accomplish this, most of which are rather complex. The simplest way would be to ping 10.255.255.255, specifying a source route of the NAT's public IP address. Of course source-routed packets are commonly blocked (and ICMP packets are being blocked more and more often these days), but that's just one way to do it.
Getting access to ANOTHER machine on the same network as the NAT box, and setting the NAT (NAPT/PAT/PT/etc) box as your default gateway, will also allow you to just directly ping the private addresses. I do this all the time at work. It is much quicker and easier than setting up a new port-forwarding rule every time I need to access any machines behind a NAT box.
any definition of what is a planet and what is not, is highly arbitrary and thus unscientific and based on emotional considerations.
There are many ways they could classify planets which wouldn't be arbitrary at all. Base it on the minimum ammount of gravity it must have, and it's orbital path, and you have a non-arbitrary classification.
Unless I'm mistaken and you are trying to say that ALL classification is arbitrary, and classifying something like stars by how big and bright they are is equally "arbitrary", and how many legs something has is "arbitrary".
You can pick up a nice cheap perfectly sufficient router with NAT for around $30.
NAT provides NO security at all. It's trivially easy to work around a NAT, and directly contact the boxes on the private IPs inside the network. In fact, I imagine the automatic tools to do that are in most of the script kiddies' arsenels by now, considering how popular low-end routers are.
It's the firewall part that keeps your systems safe, not the NAT. You can have hundreds of Win98 boxes with public IP addresses behind a stateful firewall, and nobody from the outside will have any chance of connecting to any one of them.
Wasn't windows 98 the first edition bundled the browser with the OS
Not at all. However, it was the first one where IE was tightly integrated with Explorer, and could NOT be removed.
Windows NT 4.0 came with IE 2.0 (GAH! DIE!) Windows 95 OSR2 came with IE 3.0 (Yuck!)
Both OSes could install IE 4.0 and get the active desktop and web folders found in Windows 98... And then have to immediately upgrade to IE 5 to get SOME stability and performance. Hey, it's nice to be able to right-click on the start menu, but it's really just not worth it.
Actually, Windows 3.11 was 32-bits, at least partially.
Win9x was a 32bit OS built on top of Win3.x technology
Except for the fact that 32-bit Windows 95 was largely using 16-bit code. Microsoft's insistance that it would be all 32-bit really screwed over Intel when it introduced the Pentium Pro.
So people that are still running Win9x, they deserve the blue screens, you won't have them with XP unless you have hardware failure - you know, like a *nix...
WinXP is a huge improvement over Win9x, but it's nowhere near the stability of a real OS. It will still crash, though far less often, and it will still do nasty things like corrupting it's own registry and system files over time. There's nothing like administering 100+ Windows desktop to really show you how flaky it is.
with 128MB of RAM WinXP will run 'faster' than Win98.
No, not on a fairly old computer. Even with all the optimizations turned off, XP is a CPU hog.
Word gets around, and on the Internet it gets around QUICKLY!
No, it doesn't "get" anywhere. It stays in it's little corner of the internet, and unless you go out of your way to search for it, you won't find it.
People will do lots of research when spending plenty of money, but NOT when it's some trivial little thing. It's a ridiculous ammount of hassle to do that for everything, it can be completely usurped by the efforts of other companies (like search engines, free web hosts, etc) being as corrupt as these dating services, and can be hidden or countred by astroturfing the company would be only too happy to pay for with their ill-gotten profits.
Just one thing... Laser printer technology is improving, and becomming much cheaper. With consumer-level color laser printers comming on the market, as well as HP's now poor reputation in printers, their high-margin ink business looks like it will dry up soon (no pun intended).
And one more thing on the subject... Damn how I hate Epson.
Irony alert! Maybe we're not all hanging on your every word, you twit.
No, not MY words. I'm just one of many people who is repeating these things constantly, because people like yourself just don't get it through their skull.
If we're talking about now, then no, there not are enough people out there that [...]
"enough people" FOR WHAT? Nobody here said highdef formats would replace DVDs in a month. This isn't the videogame console market!
This is unlikely to change as long as an LCD or Plasma HDTV costs 3x as much as a flat tube CRT of the same size.
Why are people so fixated on LCD, DLP, and worst of all, Plasma TVs (or is it just when they want to try and discount HDTV)? Not only are CRT HDTVs plentiful, far less expensive, and far more capable, but they are also just as big, with most projection HDTVs being based on CRTs. In fact, I can't even find Plasma TVs anymore... Big retailers have completely removed them from their shelves.
I wonder why DVHS wasn't so successful then, I mean, anyone can see the resolution change. Why wouldn't they go out any buy it right away?
Just a complete straw man. I didn't say people would go out and buy anything that is higher res. I merely said you're comparison was vastly unfair, to say the least.
This is becomming a recurring theme. If you've got nothing else, I'll just be ignoring you as a troll. Feel free to have the last word, though, if it makes you feel any better.
Here are there choices for high speed internet: The local cable company There is no 2nd choice.
There are these things in the sky, perhaps you've heard of them... they're called "satellites".
Greatest thing about them is, they hardly care where you are. So long as you're on their "side" of the planet, they'll talk to you, and give you any data you ask for.
Besides that, going with an existing company isn't necessary... Get several people to pay for their share of a T-1, and you're set. You can even charge them just a bit more than you pay for it, and make a little something called PROFIT. Then you have incentive to bring in more lines, and get more people interested in being your customers.
We actually agree on net nutrality, I just can't stand people complaining that they can't get internet access. Satellite is avaliable everywhere, and 802.11 has made it cheaper and easier than ever to share a connection, and possibly run your own ISP.
What I want to know is, how can I get around their speed throttling for sites that do not pay up?
1. Get an 802.11 card and the best antenna you can find/afford. 2. Read up on radiowave propogation in the 2.4GHz frequencies. 3. Plot out a map of repeaters to get the signal to/from your house to/from the nearest big city. 4. Attempt to secure the necessary land rights. 5. Start collecting donations for the project. 6. Get to work buying and installing the equipment. 7. Ping.
. I'm currently in a pretty good spot, myself. I've got line-of-sight to several mountain tops, all of which should have line-of-sight to this edge of the Los Angeles Megalopolis... If (I knew for a fact) there was a thriving 802.11 network accessible down there, I would start working on it right now. I'm already ideally positioned (high up, top of a fairly impressive hill) to be a relay for a couple cities and about a hundred thousand people or so.
In fact, if someone else would be interested in providing the funds, I'd be happy to volunteer myself for the task of setting-up a line of repeaters from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. There are numerous mountains and valleys in-between, which could be well utilized to get line-of-sight between repeaters most of the way. At ~150 miles, it shouldn't even require many of them.
It's pretty exciting to think that any technically savvy person could (basically sell their house) fairly easily buy all the equipment, and setup a wireless network across connecting all the major cities in the US, west of the rockies. The plains seem a far greater challenge, requiring very serious and expensive masts in lieu of mountains.
Perhaps the biggest example of America's stifled telecommunications progress is that the United States, despite being the world's economic powerhouse, is currently ranked 16 th for Internet broadband deployment.
And the countries with higher broadband deployment... typically manage that with government subsudies. Plus, he's ignoring all other contributing issues besides (potentially) regulation.
there is currently no evidence that broadband operators are going out of their way to block access to any widely used websites or similar online services.
They aren't specifically "blocking" sites, but they are downgrading service, charging extra fees, etc.
In fact, any significant discriminatory behavior on the part of broadband service providers ( BSPs ) would generally be financially counterproductive considering that BSPs make more money by carrying more traffic.
Home customers certainly aren't paying for metered bandwidth, so this is untrue, and exactly opposite of reality.
Network owners may want to discourage the use of certain devices on their networks to avoid system crashes, interference, or signal theft. They may want to price services differently to avoid network congestion and/or conserve bandwidth.
All of which they could do under the bill, provided they don't do it to favor one company over others in the field.
And perhaps they may very well direct users towards some content before others because it helps them make the necessary money to recoup the huge investment required to create and build out broadband networks.
In other words, he wants broadband companies to be able to make money both comming and going. You get to pay your monthly fee, and you pay by having your eyeballs delivered to a "partner" site.
Outlawing the ability of network owners to favor certain content kills a major financial incentive for entrepreneurs to invent and build new networks in the first place.
You could say the same thing about selling cigarettes to minors, or eliminating all gun control laws, etc. Just because they can make MORE money off of it, doesn't mean it's godd FOR ANYONE.
Among other points, the act empowers the FCC to enforce the Commission's broadband policy statement and the principles incorporated within
In other words, just let the Executive Branch dictate whatever rules they like. Don't bother congress with trivial things such as PASSING LAWS. .
In any case, thanks for posting that. It reminded me anew the reasons why people HATE politicans so very much.
Does anyone care if Firefox runs on 7 year old Linux distributions? No.
...because:
1) Upgrading Linux is nearly free. 2) New versions don't require significantly more system resources than the 7 year-old version. 3) Linux users are easily able to upgrade on their own. 4) Linux security updates often requires upgrading your software (the opposite of the Windows way) etc.
Do Mac users care if an application still runs on OS 9?
Quite a few of them do, I'm sure.
I say clean up the code and drop legacy support. Don't make Microsoft's mistake.
I do agree with you. However, I also agree with the submitter of the counter-bug, about the unscheduled haphazard way in which the Mozilla team is making changes like this one, introducing bugs, etc., etc.
Let's make the price $200 in western world and each computer that we buy, will give one for free to someone in developing countries!
Good idea! In fact, we can even take it a step further, and deliver the laptop with a picture of the person in the developing country that actually assembled it in the first place... Completing the circle.
Slashdot Mirror
It's pretty unlikely Novell would care, since they're using Linux as a platform for their own propritary code, and not exactly interested in everything being open source.
Red Hat's market is servers, not really workstations, and certainly not Laptops, so I doubt they care at all, one way or the other.
No, it's that this has been an "itch" in the OpenBSD community for quite a while now. Linux developers simply chose to focus their attention elsewhere, since their wireless cards were working fine...
No. Finding someone "with the chops" and interest simply isn't easy. There are simply tons of projects in the open source world that would be done very quickly if someone with the skills would do it. Instead, you have to wait around for someone with skill to get that particular itch.
Err... yes. Sorry.
No, no no. I keep repeating this, and it doesn't seem to be getting through. I'm not talking about 1:1 NAT, full-cone NAT, etc., etc. I'm talking about modern, private address, stateful NAT. Specifically, OpenBSD's PF.
Go read my posts a few more times...
Not true. Every laborer, manager, and owner is trying to make as much profit as they possibly can. China is NOT a socialist country.
The government has a lot of power, but they aren't going to cripple their own economy for a tiny bit of fleeting power. And that's exactly what starting to impose such regulations would do. As soon as there's a sign of this ANYWHERE, you'll see companies pulling out of China as quickly as they possibly can.
The general concensus is that the NSA is pretty much on-par with the commercial and academic community. They may be slightly ahead, but they certainly aren't years ahead, as used-to be the case.
Then they'd lose out on the billions upon billions of dollars they're importing from the USA. Factories in Taiwan, S.Korea (and pretty much everywhere else in the world) would be brought back up to speed quickly, and be outputting wireless routers before the first non-standard Chinese routers actually hit the docks. And this is not to mention the fact that pretty much all wireless routers/APs and cards are easily firmware upgradable (including their encryption standard).
They have a lot more to lose out of the deal than we do.
No, it's not true at all with firewalls, unless they have some stupid bug in their code. If you have a stateful firewall, no ammount of forging of packets will get you access inside the network. If you have a non-stateful firewall, no ammount of forging of packets will get you access to the blocked ports (typically 0-1023).
NAT however, just requires a few forged packets, and you have very easy access. As I said in my first post: "I imagine the automatic tools to do that are in most of the script kiddies' arsenels by now"
Yes, and that would still work perfectly. My DSL provider has me on a
I did. I already explained I'm not going to type up a paper on circumventing NATs here, just to prove to every anonymous, loud mouthed, networking-ignorant person on
No, it provides a trivially small hurdle. Better know as "obscurity". It provides no real security, and the commonality of them surely makes them a rip target for available attacks.
From Wikipedia:
Yes, well... I have people telling me all the time that they keep their Windows 98 machines up-and-running for months at a time, and have never had it crash...
While having to swap to disk all the time is an extreme slowdown, it isn't the only one. XP is definately much more CPU-intensive than 98, and an infinite ammount of RAM couldn't make it as fast.
I run many machines with far less RAM. On Unix systems, you only need that much if you're running KDE and GNOME applications at the same time, and other crazyness like that. I still boot-up and use my old 386, 20MHz/10MB Notebook from time to time, and it works just fine even with X11.
Not at all. You don't just pick the ammount of gravity you want it to have, you chose the number for how much gravity it needs to maintain an atmosphere of <INSERT_HEAVY_GAS>, which would be a very useful classification.
If you're going to say that is arbitrary, than ANY classification of ANYTHING is arbitrary, including the periodic table. After all, even elemental atoms can vary (slightly), and the rules of interaction don't always apply perfectly, even when the chart implies they should. So, the periodic table is somewhat arbitrarily based on how we (humans) use those elements, and how we WANT/NEED a nice clean classification, even when it doesn't really apply well to particular elements.
The same goes for most of astronomy. I believe I already mentioned stars, where color and size are the basis. Even though there are an infinite number of values in-between any size and color boundary you pick, it's still a highly useful and non-arbitrary classification.
Completely untrue, but you managed to trick a mod into giving you points for it... Your NAT (or NAPT or PAT) box still acts as a router, and will send packets to boxes inside the private network. All you have to do is address it by the private IP.
There are MANY ways to accomplish this, most of which are rather complex. The simplest way would be to ping 10.255.255.255, specifying a source route of the NAT's public IP address. Of course source-routed packets are commonly blocked (and ICMP packets are being blocked more and more often these days), but that's just one way to do it.
Getting access to ANOTHER machine on the same network as the NAT box, and setting the NAT (NAPT/PAT/PT/etc) box as your default gateway, will also allow you to just directly ping the private addresses. I do this all the time at work. It is much quicker and easier than setting up a new port-forwarding rule every time I need to access any machines behind a NAT box.
There are many ways they could classify planets which wouldn't be arbitrary at all. Base it on the minimum ammount of gravity it must have, and it's orbital path, and you have a non-arbitrary classification.
Unless I'm mistaken and you are trying to say that ALL classification is arbitrary, and classifying something like stars by how big and bright they are is equally "arbitrary", and how many legs something has is "arbitrary".
NAT provides NO security at all. It's trivially easy to work around a NAT, and directly contact the boxes on the private IPs inside the network. In fact, I imagine the automatic tools to do that are in most of the script kiddies' arsenels by now, considering how popular low-end routers are.
It's the firewall part that keeps your systems safe, not the NAT. You can have hundreds of Win98 boxes with public IP addresses behind a stateful firewall, and nobody from the outside will have any chance of connecting to any one of them.
Not at all. However, it was the first one where IE was tightly integrated with Explorer, and could NOT be removed.
Windows NT 4.0 came with IE 2.0 (GAH! DIE!)
Windows 95 OSR2 came with IE 3.0 (Yuck!)
Both OSes could install IE 4.0 and get the active desktop and web folders found in Windows 98... And then have to immediately upgrade to IE 5 to get SOME stability and performance. Hey, it's nice to be able to right-click on the start menu, but it's really just not worth it.
Actually, Windows 3.11 was 32-bits, at least partially.
Except for the fact that 32-bit Windows 95 was largely using 16-bit code. Microsoft's insistance that it would be all 32-bit really screwed over Intel when it introduced the Pentium Pro.
WinXP is a huge improvement over Win9x, but it's nowhere near the stability of a real OS. It will still crash, though far less often, and it will still do nasty things like corrupting it's own registry and system files over time. There's nothing like administering 100+ Windows desktop to really show you how flaky it is.
No, not on a fairly old computer. Even with all the optimizations turned off, XP is a CPU hog.
No, it doesn't "get" anywhere. It stays in it's little corner of the internet, and unless you go out of your way to search for it, you won't find it.
People will do lots of research when spending plenty of money, but NOT when it's some trivial little thing. It's a ridiculous ammount of hassle to do that for everything, it can be completely usurped by the efforts of other companies (like search engines, free web hosts, etc) being as corrupt as these dating services, and can be hidden or countred by astroturfing the company would be only too happy to pay for with their ill-gotten profits.
Just one thing... Laser printer technology is improving, and becomming much cheaper. With consumer-level color laser printers comming on the market, as well as HP's now poor reputation in printers, their high-margin ink business looks like it will dry up soon (no pun intended).
And one more thing on the subject... Damn how I hate Epson.
Umm... Dell?
No, not MY words. I'm just one of many people who is repeating these things constantly, because people like yourself just don't get it through their skull.
"enough people" FOR WHAT? Nobody here said highdef formats would replace DVDs in a month. This isn't the videogame console market!
Why are people so fixated on LCD, DLP, and worst of all, Plasma TVs (or is it just when they want to try and discount HDTV)? Not only are CRT HDTVs plentiful, far less expensive, and far more capable, but they are also just as big, with most projection HDTVs being based on CRTs. In fact, I can't even find Plasma TVs anymore... Big retailers have completely removed them from their shelves.
Just a complete straw man. I didn't say people would go out and buy anything that is higher res. I merely said you're comparison was vastly unfair, to say the least.
This is becomming a recurring theme. If you've got nothing else, I'll just be ignoring you as a troll. Feel free to have the last word, though, if it makes you feel any better.
There are these things in the sky, perhaps you've heard of them... they're called "satellites".
Greatest thing about them is, they hardly care where you are. So long as you're on their "side" of the planet, they'll talk to you, and give you any data you ask for.
Besides that, going with an existing company isn't necessary... Get several people to pay for their share of a T-1, and you're set. You can even charge them just a bit more than you pay for it, and make a little something called PROFIT. Then you have incentive to bring in more lines, and get more people interested in being your customers.
We actually agree on net nutrality, I just can't stand people complaining that they can't get internet access. Satellite is avaliable everywhere, and 802.11 has made it cheaper and easier than ever to share a connection, and possibly run your own ISP.
1. Get an 802.11 card and the best antenna you can find/afford.
2. Read up on radiowave propogation in the 2.4GHz frequencies.
3. Plot out a map of repeaters to get the signal to/from your house to/from the nearest big city.
4. Attempt to secure the necessary land rights.
5. Start collecting donations for the project.
6. Get to work buying and installing the equipment.
7. Ping.
.
I'm currently in a pretty good spot, myself. I've got line-of-sight to several mountain tops, all of which should have line-of-sight to this edge of the Los Angeles Megalopolis... If (I knew for a fact) there was a thriving 802.11 network accessible down there, I would start working on it right now. I'm already ideally positioned (high up, top of a fairly impressive hill) to be a relay for a couple cities and about a hundred thousand people or so.
In fact, if someone else would be interested in providing the funds, I'd be happy to volunteer myself for the task of setting-up a line of repeaters from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. There are numerous mountains and valleys in-between, which could be well utilized to get line-of-sight between repeaters most of the way. At ~150 miles, it shouldn't even require many of them.
It's pretty exciting to think that any technically savvy person could (basically sell their house) fairly easily buy all the equipment, and setup a wireless network across connecting all the major cities in the US, west of the rockies. The plains seem a far greater challenge, requiring very serious and expensive masts in lieu of mountains.
Yeah, I know, I've gone WAY off topic now.
And the countries with higher broadband deployment... typically manage that with government subsudies. Plus, he's ignoring all other contributing issues besides (potentially) regulation.
They aren't specifically "blocking" sites, but they are downgrading service, charging extra fees, etc.
Home customers certainly aren't paying for metered bandwidth, so this is untrue, and exactly opposite of reality.
All of which they could do under the bill, provided they don't do it to favor one company over others in the field.
In other words, he wants broadband companies to be able to make money both comming and going. You get to pay your monthly fee, and you pay by having your eyeballs delivered to a "partner" site.
You could say the same thing about selling cigarettes to minors, or eliminating all gun control laws, etc. Just because they can make MORE money off of it, doesn't mean it's godd FOR ANYONE.
In other words, just let the Executive Branch dictate whatever rules they like. Don't bother congress with trivial things such as PASSING LAWS.
.
In any case, thanks for posting that. It reminded me anew the reasons why people HATE politicans so very much.
1) Upgrading Linux is nearly free.
2) New versions don't require significantly more system resources than the 7 year-old version.
3) Linux users are easily able to upgrade on their own.
4) Linux security updates often requires upgrading your software (the opposite of the Windows way)
etc.
Quite a few of them do, I'm sure.
I do agree with you. However, I also agree with the submitter of the counter-bug, about the unscheduled haphazard way in which the Mozilla team is making changes like this one, introducing bugs, etc., etc.
Good idea! In fact, we can even take it a step further, and deliver the laptop with a picture of the person in the developing country that actually assembled it in the first place... Completing the circle.
(Not trolling)
No, actually it's a "we still have a ton of P4 chips left, because of AMD eating our market share."