what I advocate is that those agreements should serve the public interest. It is my opinion that the public interest would be best served if those franchises were not used to eliminate ISP competition.
Re:Why should cable get a monopoly that phones don
on
Internet Freedom Act
·
· Score: 1
1). The cable companies paid for their infrastructure. They own it and it is not right for us to demand access to it in any manner we chose.
They may have paid for the wires but those wires are mostly on public property. The cable companies are granted a monopoly by regional governments. This arrangement should serve the public interest, period.
I haven't managed to make it crash either but I have gotten a lot of odd behaviour, especially when using the control center to change window managers. It's hard to know who's at fault (i.e. to whom the bug report should be sent) when you have all these different GUI things interacting behind the scenes, many of which have 0.X version numbers.
Seriously. It takes some time and effort (hint: read the directions), but it's more enjoyable than endlessly sorting out RPM conflicts. My build started from a modified RH 5.2 system. Used egcs 1.1.1 (building this also requires following the suggested build directions).
Do it for your country. Do it for your cat. Ju Transfer interrupted!
You're naive to think cameras won't be everywhere. Given that they will, how shall we deal with it?
Regulations that restrict the usage of cameras are futile because they are impractical to enforce. The problem is one of verifying compliance.
If, on the other hand, the output of all public cameras was required to be public, anyone could easily verify compliance.
Complex regulations favor the powerful because only the powerful have the resources to find or create loopholes.
The crux of his argument is VERY weak
on
After Linux-Apple?
·
· Score: 2
Since Linux runs primarily on Intel hardware, that means that, aside from improvements to KDE and gnome, Linux systems will remain generally linked to the tired PC architecture. To be sure, you'll be able to run a great Linux system on a 500 MHz Pentium III later this year, but it will still require you to remove eight stainless steel screws to open it up, you won't have Firewire drives, and it will still be a damn beige box. The whole won't be greater than the sum of the parts.
Does "architecture" mean architecture or does it mean the case & power supply? Either way this is obviously false. Linux is less bound to a particular architecture than any OS yet. I can't even see how someone could think that it's bound to a certain style of case.
Slashdot Mirror
what I advocate is that those agreements should serve the public interest. It is my opinion that the public interest would be best served if those franchises were not used to eliminate ISP competition.
1). The cable companies paid for their infrastructure. They own it and it is not right for us to demand access to it in any manner we chose.
They may have paid for the wires but those wires are mostly on public property. The cable companies are granted a monopoly by regional governments. This arrangement should serve the public interest, period.
NSI says the company is in Texas and yet they are allowing open download of encryption software including source. Doesn't this violate ITAR?
Where do you buy the hardware and how much does it cost?
I haven't managed to make it crash either but I have gotten a lot of odd behaviour, especially when using the control center to change window managers. It's hard to know who's at fault (i.e. to whom the bug report should be sent) when you have all these different GUI things interacting behind the scenes, many of which have 0.X version numbers.
Seriously. It takes some time and effort (hint: read the directions), but it's more enjoyable than endlessly sorting out RPM conflicts. My build started from a modified RH 5.2 system. Used egcs 1.1.1 (building this also requires following the suggested build directions).
Do it for your country. Do it for your cat. Ju Transfer interrupted!
Regulations that restrict the usage of cameras are futile because they are impractical to enforce. The problem is one of verifying compliance.
If, on the other hand, the output of all public cameras was required to be public, anyone could easily verify compliance.
Complex regulations favor the powerful because only the powerful have the resources to find or create loopholes.
aside from improvements to KDE and gnome, Linux systems will
remain generally linked to the tired PC architecture. To be sure,
you'll be able to run a great Linux system on a 500 MHz Pentium
III later this year, but it will still require you to remove eight
stainless steel screws to open it up, you won't have Firewire
drives, and it will still be a damn beige box. The whole won't be
greater than the sum of the parts.
Does "architecture" mean architecture or does it mean the case & power supply? Either way this is obviously false. Linux is less bound to a particular architecture than any OS yet. I can't even see how someone could think that it's bound to a certain style of case.