If he becomes President, then repealing laws is completely outside his power. Only by remaining Senator would he have the chance to start a repeal.
Excellent point. So for people that cite the PATRIOT USA Act as a reason to vote against Bush they're basically barking mad.
False. Many newspapers have reported this in their headlines, but they made an inaccurate interpretation of his specific statement. Kerry didn't say he would've voted for the war; he said, "Knowning what we know now, yes, I would have voted for the authority".
Meaning that he did and would vote for the illegal occupation of Iraq in an act of regime change and foreign meddling. Not only that but that he would have done so even without the lie about WMDs that could threaten US citizens. I don't think we need any clearer explanation on that score. He attempted to out-Bush Bush and he did.
Giving the President the authority to attack Iraq is not the same as telling him to attack it,
How true. And saying that you're willing to give the President the authority to attack a sovereign foreign nation with no pretence of defense of your homeland is a statement of colossal criminality in your character. Kerry lined himself up on the side of the war criminals with that one.
(There is a distinction between "the war", the specific one which Bush fought, and "a war" which a marginally competent commander might've lead)
See, this is why the Democrats are going to lose big in this election: the fact that the Democratic Party (especially the neo-liberals of the DLC) are just as keen on foreign wars and regime change in other countries as the Republicans is clearly revealed by the unsubtle flounderings of the Kerry campaign. "We do illegal wars _better_ !".
Kerry voted for that authority to allow Pres Bush to support a UN ultimatum against Iraq,
Eh, no. What Kerry actually voted for was to allow the President to make a decision all by himself to attack or not. If Kerry was so incompetent that he didn't know what he was voting for then he should admit it and not try and spin it afterwards.
Gay-marriage: he's against it
That's actually a place where he's lying to increase electability on the national level. Really, Kerry supports de-facto gay marriage (not with the name "marriage", but with all the legal rights and obligations thereof). He's just not willing to say that on the record, because it would ruin him.
De facto gay-marriage? Either gays have the same full civil rights as everyone else or they don't. That includes having the State recognize them as being "married". FWIW I don't think the state has any business legitimizing any relations between consenting adults, but while it exists I want it extended to all consenting adults. Kerry doesn't. He's anti civil rights because either: 1) he's a chickenshit liar as you claim; or 2) he's genuinely a reactionary conservative. This latter is a serious possibility as he supported the First Amendment defying "Communications Decency Act" which was proposed by his fellow DLC insider Tipper Gore.
Anyway, Bush is completely and undeniable anti-gay-marriage, so how can you use this position to try picturing Kerry as more Hitler-like?
The point is that the supposed "moderates" are often the ones that turn out to be the "Hitlers". Kerry/Democrats are touted as some sort of "opposition" or "Anyone But Bush" figures, as more "moderate", but there's plenty of reason to believe that he's just sneakier than good ol' Dubya who puts his vile views out in the open for all to see.
So there are very good reasons why people outside the US have a very low opinion of Bush. Calling him a modern Hitler is hyperbole, but such low opinion of him is not unfounded.
I think it's completely unfounded and I completely abhor the guy. The Bush=Hitler idea is mostly propagated by Democrats that want to stampede left/progressive people into voting for John Kerry. Yet if you look at what Kerry's position is on such things as:
the USA PATRIOT Act (he helped write part of it, he voted for it, he won't repeal it)
the Occupation and Invasion of Iraq (he voted for it, would have voted for it even if the WMD threat were not floated, has vowed to increase the number of US forces occupying)
Gay-marriage: he's against it
Then it becomes reasonable to suspect that Kerry may actually be worse than Bush on the Hitler-scale.
It's interesting to note that the US had a favorable evaluation of Hitler until he declared war on the US and that even in the early stages of the war the official reports from the State Department's point man (Kennan?) were favorable. Hitler was seen as a moderate who would steer a middle course between the extreme-right and the extreme-left. Mussolini was similarly seen as a good man in keeping down the dangerous and untrustworthy masses and giving them leadership.
Kerry and all the Democrats have displayed nearly no difference in terms of foreign wars waged, foreign civilian lives taken and democracies overturned compared to the Republicans.
Anyone claiming otherwise is a blinkered knave. (Know you're not making that point, just ranting in general).
If you read the supplied link to Havoc Pennington's PDF it explicitly says that this will be in addition to the way installs are currently handled. You are being offered choice. Don't Panic!
Probably. But then they'll just go and do a compulsory purchase order as with Ikonos. The exemption of satellite imagery from the FOIA prevents retrospective evaluation by the citizens of whether the government (or certain branches of it) has been up to no good.
Re point 1: I actually do believe that nothing should be exempt. I don't believe that the CIA should exist or has any business screwing around in the world, I don't believe that there should be secret technologies developed, I don't believe that there should be a large standing army with "defense plans". Why? Isn't that extreme? No, all of that stuff relies on security through obscurity and as we've seen with the longstanding Israeli moles placed high-up in the DoD, the history of Soviet spies etc. that information leaks all the time. The result is that the only people that this vital information about our lives and governments is hidden from is us: the ordinary citizens. Spies, armies and wars are all the extreme side of large-government and serve mainly to oppress ordinary citizens of all countries.
Having said that I suppose that that viewpoint will appear to "extreme" to many people reading this forum. To them I'd argue that there only ought to be FOIA-restricted data when there is some form of democratic oversight to prevent the government from declaring anything it wants to be a "security risk". The current proposal we're discussing doesn't do that so it's a grave threat to the limited form of democracy now in operation in the US.
Re point 2: CNN, Fox and the rest of the media are mainly outposts of government propaganda. I can't think of a large enough "leftwing" news organization in the US that could stump up enough money to purchase satellite imagery if the government were bidding against them. There are isolated journalists that might be interested in doing so, but most "journalists" are quite happy to retype and regurgitate the lines fed to them by their official sources (whether they're official embedded or not).
Add to this that the "satellite" companies are usually deeply entangled with the military and defense establishments and you won't see them doing much to rock the boat and advertise that they have embarrassing pictures to sell. Otherwise goodbye contracts, goodbye licenses.
These "shots at the war" are completely relevant and pertinent to the story. The war is probably why this story exists.
That would be the only justification that I can see. But I'm still not satisfied if that is the case. There ought to be a Senate or Congressional committee of elected representatives sworn to secrecy who review whether or not there is some reason for hiding the stuff. This proposal just allows the government to blanket hide whatever they like with no oversight.
1) nothing should be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.
2) the government is able to outbid many other concerned parties (eg journalists) and is also in a position to strong-arm the vendors (eg who grants Defense Department contracts, who grants licenses to operate satellites?)
Point 2 means that a duplicitous government that lies about things like the presence of WMDs or the level of civilian casualties or the amount of an area under control will be able to lie without anyone being able to verify or disprove what they say.
Mike, try to be a little less confrontational and a little more thoughtful. The Ikonos purchases were purchases of satellite imagery that would allow us to evaluate NOW what actually went on in Afghanistan during the invasion years ago.
Whether or not there are US forces present (and I'll bet there are) that has nothing to do with us being able to obtain actual evidence about what happened under the FOIA. That is the purpose of the FOAI.
Unless you can specify exactly what is "irrational" about any post then simply calling it that or referring to "the internet crowd" is the equivalent of pulling your pants down in front of all slashdot readers: it doesn't make you look good and does nothing to advance any debate or understanding.
I would not be able to evaluate the satellite imagery myself, but its release under the FOAI would allow academics and professionals in the field to evaluate it.
During the height of the invasion of Afghanistan the government used taxpayers' money to buy up all the satellite images from the private, commercial satellite Ikonos. This allowed them to avoid the problems if they had just tried to censor it. Now they're trying to censor it straight out. The argument _then_ was that they needed to censor it to protect troop movements -- a valid argument. However there has been no release of this years old data which would allow us to evaluate whether what we were being told at the time was a lie or not.
Either way, if you think the first part of that sentence is true you either slept through history class or slept through the 80s.
Hilarious "logic"! So if I wrote "There have never been dogs with non-artificial wings" you'd respond with "Oh yes there have been dogs, if you think the first part of your sentence is true you either slept through evolution class or slept through the last couple of millenia?
If they deleted something it's because it fell under one of the aforementioned guidelines. I'll bet any _specific_ example that you can come up (if you can) will turn out to be laced with foul-mouthed invective of one sort or another. Right now your post is unsubstantiated and worthless. Give an example or give up.
Indymedia might have a good agenda in there somewhere, but it will be overshadowed by their efforts to silence those who disagree with them.
"Indymedia" isn't trying to silence anyone. They're trying to make everyone heard unless that person explicitly violates their publisihing guidelines by publishing blatantly false, racist, sexist or homophobic material. The posts referred to don't fall under any of the above categories so they're not censoring them.
Seems like an admirable stance to me.
Don't confuse the content on Open Publishing sites with the opinions of those that run it.
First of all let me say that as a Democrat I'm ashamed that the people using this information for intimidation purposes share my desire to change Presidents.
Who knows who posted this information. It could be some misguided "Democratic Party activist", or a Republican Party activist, or it could have been the Secret Service in order to get a pretext for obtaining the entire IP logs for nyc.indymedia.org.
It might be someone that is neither Democrat nor Republican and doesn't like warmonger-Kerry any more than warmonger-Bush, so don't bother apologizing for something that you have no information on. Also don't bother trying to claim that the protests are from people that just want to "change President". As far as many people are concerned the problem is the office of President not merely the occupier.
This amounts to nothing more than bully tactics that I might expect from other Political Parties, but not from mine.
Given the bully-boy refusal of Gore/Clinton to even debate Nader in 2000, actually physically preventing his entry to public forums, I don't see why you'd be so surprised. The two-party system and bully-boy tactics are owned equally by the Dems and Reps. Democrats after all have a history of electoral corruption (Tamany Hall, racism in the South). But I guess if you want to ignore all evidence and history I can see where you're coming from.
Freedom of expression and political affiliation is what we are built on and hsould never be threatened.
Agreed, hence we should tell the Secret Service to mind their own business and keep their noses out the IP addresses of nyc.indymedia.org users. There have been no threats, no credible threats and no intimidation, so no logs, no police, no Secret Service intrusions.
There is nothing moderate about the Democrats. They are racist (anti-gay marriage), ignorant (theist), plutocratic (tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy), warmongers (afghanistan/iraq), big-government (pro PATRIOT USA Act) liars. Just like the Republicans. Kerry is also a coward loyal to power.
What I don't understand is the purpose of this release. People protesting and hacking in the name of the democratic party is only going to piss off the undecided people.
The people doing this are almost certainly not supporters of the "Democrats". If you read their own post then you'll see the following statement:
(But do not misinterpret us, we do not view the Democratic Party as an opposition party, but rather as another side of the same coin.)
There is good reason behind this sentiment. Kerry is on his own admission pro-War, pro-tax cuts, anti-gay marriage. He's a fellow Skull&Bones member like George W. Bush. Basically he's a right-wing candidate wearing the friendly clown-face as opposed to G.W.B. who wears the sad clown face.
I can't possibly sum up the disgusting history of the Democratic Party (and hence the hypocrisy, blindness and ignorance of anyone that posits them as an alternative to the Republicans), but if you're actually interested (instead of wanting a yes-it-is-no-it-isn't exchange) then I recommend reading _Dime's Worth of Difference_ by Jeffrey St.Clair and Alexander Cockburn. Here are a couple of tastes of it.
By the way, what's the name of that "hackers and hippies" party? I want to vote for them!
Bullshit. The Secret Service are requesting the IP addresses of all users of the site. It's called a fishing expedition. Lots of people use nyc.indymedia.org, didn't post the information (not that there's anything legally wrong with the information) and don't want the Secret Service sniffing around their IPs like a mutt after a bitch in heat.
If you take the trouble to read the articles you'll see the FBI tried this shit with indymedia previously after an oh-so-convenient-anonymous-post put up bogus information that the FBI claimed was a "security leak".
There have never been attacks on Republicans qua Republicans by the readers of Indymedia let alone a history of genocide and holocaust.
You'd be hard pressed to find such a list that didn't intimidate some people by merely including them on the list.
Ergo, let's ban all lists because they intimidate some people all of the time, right?. Like those nasty phone-books or the list maintained by your college of people that graduated in your year.
Your argument is pure bogosity and is also distasteful due to your dragging neo-nazis into it.
Finally, who on earth moderated this as "insightful"? It's illogical, emotional and represents an attitude that would put paid to the internet.
Sveasoft continues to push ahead with adding features and have discussed adding mesh functionality as long ago as January of 2004. If they could do this then it would extend the market for the Linksys WRT54G(S). This is all another example of how the GPL can benefit everyone: consumers get cheaper, fully-featured wireless routers, Linksys/Cisco get a larger market. Good thing that Rob Flickenger forced Linksys to live up to the GPL.
So then someone that wants to do a dual-boot with XP still can't access their music, documents, pictures etc that they already have stored on their NTFS partition? Doesn't sound any better than any other GNU/Linux distribution on that front. Not knocking it, just trying to understand why it's supposed to be so much better.
It seems that what they're pushing in this is that there's full NTFS support and so it's easy to do a dual-boot with XP without having to reformat all the windows stuff to FAT32. Other distributions (e.g. Red Hat's) refuse to include NTFS stuff because it's still unstable (especially writing), so have Xandros made some advances in this area or do they just discount the danger?
I can understand your point of view having seen the Embarcadero or whatever the end of Market St. near the ferry terminal is called. I also suspect that WiFi access is not a pressing need and that like you say the PocketPC will be a stealable commodity. The whole "plan" is just goofball. If there is effort/money to be expended it should be directed towards loads more social workers and accomodation.
So Cringely thinks the city of SF is going to start handing out pocket pcs to homeless people?! Right! Homeless people have a hard enough time finding accomodation (and yes, some homeless people would rather be on the street than in "dry" hostels, but there's a significant number that would welcome free, clean accomodation). Central point: given the stretched budgets of cities and states due to the huge Bush tax cuts for the wealthy there won't be a techno utopia any time soon. Comfy speculations from people in silicon towers cheapen the discussion of interesting technologies.
Slashdot Mirror
Excellent point. So for people that cite the PATRIOT USA Act as a reason to vote against Bush they're basically barking mad.
Meaning that he did and would vote for the illegal occupation of Iraq in an act of regime change and foreign meddling. Not only that but that he would have done so even without the lie about WMDs that could threaten US citizens. I don't think we need any clearer explanation on that score. He attempted to out-Bush Bush and he did.
How true. And saying that you're willing to give the President the authority to attack a sovereign foreign nation with no pretence of defense of your homeland is a statement of colossal criminality in your character. Kerry lined himself up on the side of the war criminals with that one.
See, this is why the Democrats are going to lose big in this election: the fact that the Democratic Party (especially the neo-liberals of the DLC) are just as keen on foreign wars and regime change in other countries as the Republicans is clearly revealed by the unsubtle flounderings of the Kerry campaign. "We do illegal wars _better_ !".
Eh, no. What Kerry actually voted for was to allow the President to make a decision all by himself to attack or not. If Kerry was so incompetent that he didn't know what he was voting for then he should admit it and not try and spin it afterwards.
De facto gay-marriage? Either gays have the same full civil rights as everyone else or they don't. That includes having the State recognize them as being "married". FWIW I don't think the state has any business legitimizing any relations between consenting adults, but while it exists I want it extended to all consenting adults. Kerry doesn't. He's anti civil rights because either: 1) he's a chickenshit liar as you claim; or 2) he's genuinely a reactionary conservative. This latter is a serious possibility as he supported the First Amendment defying "Communications Decency Act" which was proposed by his fellow DLC insider Tipper Gore.
The point is that the supposed "moderates" are often the ones that turn out to be the "Hitlers". Kerry/Democrats are touted as some sort of "opposition" or "Anyone But Bush" figures, as more "moderate", but there's plenty of reason to believe that he's just sneakier than good ol' Dubya who puts his vile views out in the open for all to see.Kerry is going to lose.
I think it's completely unfounded and I completely abhor the guy. The Bush=Hitler idea is mostly propagated by Democrats that want to stampede left/progressive people into voting for John Kerry. Yet if you look at what Kerry's position is on such things as:
Then it becomes reasonable to suspect that Kerry may actually be worse than Bush on the Hitler-scale.
It's interesting to note that the US had a favorable evaluation of Hitler until he declared war on the US and that even in the early stages of the war the official reports from the State Department's point man (Kennan?) were favorable. Hitler was seen as a moderate who would steer a middle course between the extreme-right and the extreme-left. Mussolini was similarly seen as a good man in keeping down the dangerous and untrustworthy masses and giving them leadership.
Kerry and all the Democrats have displayed nearly no difference in terms of foreign wars waged, foreign civilian lives taken and democracies overturned compared to the Republicans.
Anyone claiming otherwise is a blinkered knave. (Know you're not making that point, just ranting in general).
If you read the supplied link to Havoc Pennington's PDF it explicitly says that this will be in addition to the way installs are currently handled. You are being offered choice. Don't Panic!
Probably. But then they'll just go and do a compulsory purchase order as with Ikonos. The exemption of satellite imagery from the FOIA prevents retrospective evaluation by the citizens of whether the government (or certain branches of it) has been up to no good.
Re point 1: I actually do believe that nothing should be exempt. I don't believe that the CIA should exist or has any business screwing around in the world, I don't believe that there should be secret technologies developed, I don't believe that there should be a large standing army with "defense plans". Why? Isn't that extreme? No, all of that stuff relies on security through obscurity and as we've seen with the longstanding Israeli moles placed high-up in the DoD, the history of Soviet spies etc. that information leaks all the time. The result is that the only people that this vital information about our lives and governments is hidden from is us: the ordinary citizens. Spies, armies and wars are all the extreme side of large-government and serve mainly to oppress ordinary citizens of all countries.
Having said that I suppose that that viewpoint will appear to "extreme" to many people reading this forum. To them I'd argue that there only ought to be FOIA-restricted data when there is some form of democratic oversight to prevent the government from declaring anything it wants to be a "security risk". The current proposal we're discussing doesn't do that so it's a grave threat to the limited form of democracy now in operation in the US.
Re point 2: CNN, Fox and the rest of the media are mainly outposts of government propaganda. I can't think of a large enough "leftwing" news organization in the US that could stump up enough money to purchase satellite imagery if the government were bidding against them. There are isolated journalists that might be interested in doing so, but most "journalists" are quite happy to retype and regurgitate the lines fed to them by their official sources (whether they're official embedded or not).
Add to this that the "satellite" companies are usually deeply entangled with the military and defense establishments and you won't see them doing much to rock the boat and advertise that they have embarrassing pictures to sell. Otherwise goodbye contracts, goodbye licenses.
These "shots at the war" are completely relevant and pertinent to the story. The war is probably why this story exists.
That would be the only justification that I can see. But I'm still not satisfied if that is the case. There ought to be a Senate or Congressional committee of elected representatives sworn to secrecy who review whether or not there is some reason for hiding the stuff. This proposal just allows the government to blanket hide whatever they like with no oversight.
There are two problems:
1) nothing should be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.
2) the government is able to outbid many other concerned parties (eg journalists) and is also in a position to strong-arm the vendors (eg who grants Defense Department contracts, who grants licenses to operate satellites?)
Point 2 means that a duplicitous government that lies about things like the presence of WMDs or the level of civilian casualties or the amount of an area under control will be able to lie without anyone being able to verify or disprove what they say.
Mike, try to be a little less confrontational and a little more thoughtful. The Ikonos purchases were purchases of satellite imagery that would allow us to evaluate NOW what actually went on in Afghanistan during the invasion years ago.
Whether or not there are US forces present (and I'll bet there are) that has nothing to do with us being able to obtain actual evidence about what happened under the FOIA. That is the purpose of the FOAI.
Unless you can specify exactly what is "irrational" about any post then simply calling it that or referring to "the internet crowd" is the equivalent of pulling your pants down in front of all slashdot readers: it doesn't make you look good and does nothing to advance any debate or understanding.
I would not be able to evaluate the satellite imagery myself, but its release under the FOAI would allow academics and professionals in the field to evaluate it.
During the height of the invasion of Afghanistan the government used taxpayers' money to buy up all the satellite images from the private, commercial satellite Ikonos. This allowed them to avoid the problems if they had just tried to censor it. Now they're trying to censor it straight out. The argument _then_ was that they needed to censor it to protect troop movements -- a valid argument. However there has been no release of this years old data which would allow us to evaluate whether what we were being told at the time was a lie or not.
Good god. Either show that someone has used information obtained on Indymedia as part of an attack on a Republican or shut the hell up.
Hilarious "logic"! So if I wrote "There have never been dogs with non-artificial wings" you'd respond with "Oh yes there have been dogs, if you think the first part of your sentence is true you either slept through evolution class or slept through the last couple of millenia?
If they deleted something it's because it fell under one of the aforementioned guidelines. I'll bet any _specific_ example that you can come up (if you can) will turn out to be laced with foul-mouthed invective of one sort or another. Right now your post is unsubstantiated and worthless. Give an example or give up.
"Indymedia" isn't trying to silence anyone. They're trying to make everyone heard unless that person explicitly violates their publisihing guidelines by publishing blatantly false, racist, sexist or homophobic material. The posts referred to don't fall under any of the above categories so they're not censoring them.
Seems like an admirable stance to me.
Don't confuse the content on Open Publishing sites with the opinions of those that run it.
Who knows who posted this information. It could be some misguided "Democratic Party activist", or a Republican Party activist, or it could have been the Secret Service in order to get a pretext for obtaining the entire IP logs for nyc.indymedia.org .
It might be someone that is neither Democrat nor Republican and doesn't like warmonger-Kerry any more than warmonger-Bush, so don't bother apologizing for something that you have no information on. Also don't bother trying to claim that the protests are from people that just want to "change President". As far as many people are concerned the problem is the office of President not merely the occupier.
This amounts to nothing more than bully tactics that I might expect from other Political Parties, but not from mine.Given the bully-boy refusal of Gore/Clinton to even debate Nader in 2000, actually physically preventing his entry to public forums, I don't see why you'd be so surprised. The two-party system and bully-boy tactics are owned equally by the Dems and Reps. Democrats after all have a history of electoral corruption (Tamany Hall, racism in the South). But I guess if you want to ignore all evidence and history I can see where you're coming from.
Freedom of expression and political affiliation is what we are built on and hsould never be threatened.Agreed, hence we should tell the Secret Service to mind their own business and keep their noses out the IP addresses of nyc.indymedia.org users. There have been no threats, no credible threats and no intimidation, so no logs, no police, no Secret Service intrusions.
There is nothing moderate about the Democrats. They are racist (anti-gay marriage), ignorant (theist), plutocratic (tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy), warmongers (afghanistan/iraq), big-government (pro PATRIOT USA Act) liars. Just like the Republicans. Kerry is also a coward loyal to power.
The people doing this are almost certainly not supporters of the "Democrats". If you read their own post then you'll see the following statement:
(But do not misinterpret us, we do not view the Democratic Party as an opposition party, but rather as another side of the same coin.)There is good reason behind this sentiment. Kerry is on his own admission pro-War, pro-tax cuts, anti-gay marriage. He's a fellow Skull&Bones member like George W. Bush. Basically he's a right-wing candidate wearing the friendly clown-face as opposed to G.W.B. who wears the sad clown face.
I can't possibly sum up the disgusting history of the Democratic Party (and hence the hypocrisy, blindness and ignorance of anyone that posits them as an alternative to the Republicans), but if you're actually interested (instead of wanting a yes-it-is-no-it-isn't exchange) then I recommend reading _Dime's Worth of Difference_ by Jeffrey St.Clair and Alexander Cockburn. Here are a couple of tastes of it.
By the way, what's the name of that "hackers and hippies" party? I want to vote for them!
Bullshit. The Secret Service are requesting the IP addresses of all users of the site. It's called a fishing expedition. Lots of people use nyc.indymedia.org, didn't post the information (not that there's anything legally wrong with the information) and don't want the Secret Service sniffing around their IPs like a mutt after a bitch in heat.
If you take the trouble to read the articles you'll see the FBI tried this shit with indymedia previously after an oh-so-convenient-anonymous-post put up bogus information that the FBI claimed was a "security leak".
Pull the other one.
There have never been attacks on Republicans qua Republicans by the readers of Indymedia let alone a history of genocide and holocaust.
You'd be hard pressed to find such a list that didn't intimidate some people by merely including them on the list.Ergo, let's ban all lists because they intimidate some people all of the time, right?. Like those nasty phone-books or the list maintained by your college of people that graduated in your year.
Your argument is pure bogosity and is also distasteful due to your dragging neo-nazis into it.
Finally, who on earth moderated this as "insightful"? It's illogical, emotional and represents an attitude that would put paid to the internet.
Sveasoft continues to push ahead with adding features and have discussed adding mesh functionality as long ago as January of 2004. If they could do this then it would extend the market for the Linksys WRT54G(S). This is all another example of how the GPL can benefit everyone: consumers get cheaper, fully-featured wireless routers, Linksys/Cisco get a larger market. Good thing that Rob Flickenger forced Linksys to live up to the GPL.
Sveasoft mesh discussion
Err, correction to above: s/access/edit
So then someone that wants to do a dual-boot with XP still can't access their music, documents, pictures etc that they already have stored on their NTFS partition? Doesn't sound any better than any other GNU/Linux distribution on that front. Not knocking it, just trying to understand why it's supposed to be so much better.
It seems that what they're pushing in this is that there's full NTFS support and so it's easy to do a dual-boot with XP without having to reformat all the windows stuff to FAT32. Other distributions (e.g. Red Hat's) refuse to include NTFS stuff because it's still unstable (especially writing), so have Xandros made some advances in this area or do they just discount the danger?
I can understand your point of view having seen the Embarcadero or whatever the end of Market St. near the ferry terminal is called. I also suspect that WiFi access is not a pressing need and that like you say the PocketPC will be a stealable commodity. The whole "plan" is just goofball. If there is effort/money to be expended it should be directed towards loads more social workers and accomodation.
So Cringely thinks the city of SF is going to start handing out pocket pcs to homeless people?! Right! Homeless people have a hard enough time finding accomodation (and yes, some homeless people would rather be on the street than in "dry" hostels, but there's a significant number that would welcome free, clean accomodation). Central point: given the stretched budgets of cities and states due to the huge Bush tax cuts for the wealthy there won't be a techno utopia any time soon. Comfy speculations from people in silicon towers cheapen the discussion of interesting technologies.