Every month my bill goes up! Between all the different constantly fluctuating "fees" (UCC, Regulatory Recovery, Local Franchise, FCC Regulatory, 911, State Assessment, etc.) my bill goes up about a buck or more a month.
It doesn't say where it actually is, but if it is a military thing, it would be at a military base. And Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst is a short drive from the New Jersey Turnpike...
Ugh, the CWA! I worked as a programmer at newspaper years ago and was forced to be in the CWA. The pay raise thing sucked--if you worked your ass off you got a 2.5% raise annually, if you sat around doing nothing you got a 2.5% raise annually. So, the only way to get a industry competitive raise was to get promoted--which, because of the union, went by seniority. Their big selling point was, "you get great benefits for free!" Yeah, but the "free benefits" cost as much as the union dues, so it was a wash. Then, to add insult to injury, when lay-offs rolled around the union didn't do a thing--they just let us get laid off (there were thirteen rounds of lay-offs altogether, I went on round five--and the guy who laid me off went on round six).
Quite frankly, I steer away from any IT job that requires I join a union just because of how crappy being in the CWA was (I've asked if there is a union in every interview I've had since then).
I would imagine the next step would be to issue a ruling finding that the TSA violated federal law and requiring the suspension of the scanners until the public comment has been done and the results tallied...
You are incorrect. There is a reason they took the prisoners to Guantanamo Bay and not some other base, it is not sovereign US soil--the treaty with Cuba leases the lands the base is on to US and gives the US complete jurisdiction and control of the base, but actual sovereignty is retained by Cuba. Therefore, the US Constitution does not apply there.
By the same token, you can't verify your democracy is operating democratically unless you have a certain amount of openness. As it turns out from the leaks we've received, it is telling us it is doing one thing while it is doing another.
Secrets are important for national security, PERIOD, END OF LINE
Openness is necessary for Democracy, period, END OF FILE
Good argument, if this were a democracy. But, it is a republic. Therefore, technically, only our elected representatives require the government to be transparent to them.
She probably lived in base housing. When he died she was required to move.
No, you get 365 days after the service member's death until you have to vacate base housing (or lose your housing allowance if you live off base). It's not like they push you out the door after the funeral...
Should google have to write warnings for all dangers? WARNING: You are about to cross the road. Our records show that this intersection has a crosswalk. Please wiat until the red hand turns into a white funny-looking guy before proceeding. Be sure to check both ways for traffic before stepping onto the road. Be aware that there may be other pedestrians crossing the road. Be sure not to collide with them. Caution! Be aware that there may be open manholes! DO NOT step on a manhole that has it's cover removed. For a full list of applicable warnings, please go to www.google.ca/pleasetiemyshoes/
You're asking this in a country where even hair dryers have labels like "WARNING: Do not use in shower."? Hell, pharmacists even put a "Warning: May cause drowsiness" sticker on a bottle of prescription sleeping pills...
Basically, i don't see how their legal defense would go. "we only provide links to the torrents" would be suprnovas, but isn't loki a tracker?
"we're not the ones downloading, we're just facilitating."
Since lokitorrent doesn't host the copyrighted file, but rather provides a way to communicate with the person that does, that's not really a good analogy. A tracker is more like the phone company in a sense. The phone company, much like a tracker, provides a way for two or more parties to communicate, it doesn't provide or contribute to the conversation. You don't see the phone company being charged with criminal conspiracy when two or more of their customers use their lines to conduct illegal activities do you?
I think what the MPAA is doing is wrong. If they were going after the providers of, or those who knowingly download, the copyrighted material, that would be one thing. But, to go after the tracker sites instead seems cheap.
Also, why is their first response a threat to sue if they don't shutdown their site? They could have just sent the site owner a letter listing all the things they held copyright on and asked them to remove them and put a mechanism in place so that their materials are not permitted to be posted in the future. Much like how ADV Films dealt with anime torrents sites that were listing/tracking the anime they licensed. Granted, several of the sites relocated their servers to countries that do not recognize copyright laws, but the remaining ones just removed the offending links and/or torrent files (with the exception of several sites that decided that it was too much trouble to address the long-term problem and shutdown their site). This seems a more ethical and cost-effective solution in my opinion.
Not until ICANN became less of an independant organization and more of an elected body.
Well all the board members, committee members, and commission members are elected. This can be likened to a publicly traded corporation, with the exception that the stock holder's aren't voting, but rather the stakeholders are--that's you, me, and anybody else on the internet, you only need to register to vote. So, I don't see how they can be "more" of an elected body.
Play along, and leave a "fake" name with your real phone number... when someone calls you asking for that fake name, bingo, you got them.
You don't even need to do that, use call trace (*57)--they can block caller ID, but they can't block that! It then becomes a flagged phone company record (you just need to know the date and they can pull it up, knowing the time of day isn't really necessary) that you can subpoena in your court case, or it can be retrieved by the investigators of the agency you report it to.
And ask yourself this? If numbers are so easy...then why the hell are your coins all different sized??
That's simple, because they used to be made out of precious metals--now they're made out of alloys and such, and their value is secured by the federal government. So, when they first came into being, the penny was a penny's worth of copper, the dime was a dime's worth of silver, etc. So, size had nothing to do with convenience, but rather the value of the coin itself.
Can someone please explain to me, how you discover a land that has people already living on it? If anyone discovered the Americas first, wouldn't it be the American Indians (a.k.a Native Americans)? I mean all the Vikings, Columbus, or Chinese could haved done is been made aware of its existance after the fact...
I've read most of the replies to this question, and think that there is a lot of "gray area" in the many of the answers posted.
I think we can all, for the most part, agree on what the Computer Science and Computer Engineering degrees are.
However, Information Systems and Management Information Systems degrees are a fairly new and broad-based concept. They encompass many different areas of computing/technology like networking, database systems, biomedical informatics, multimedia communications, artificial intelligence, expert systems, and/or knowledge-based systems, and how they are applied, used, and designed in a business environment. So, unlike the CS and CE degrees, your focus is less on general technical principles in a generic environment, and more on the applying of the topic that you wish to pursue in a business environment.
That said, there is a article that was posted several days ago on osOpinion entitled "The Dissing of IT Workers" that does a fairly good job of pointing out the differences between a CS degree and an IT degree.
Dr. Vannevar Bush wrote an article entitled As We May Think in July, 1945 that envisioned a linking mechanism in what he called "memex" (a sort of mechanized private file and library). Taken in the abstract, this "system" is analogous to the modern computer and hyperlinking in general. So, wouldn't this qualify as prior art? I would think so, as the patent is essentially an more "modernized" and scaled down version of this already preexisting idea.
I agree that the statement, "Too bad we aren't learning from the British and Soviet mistakes", isn't really a valid one. But, for different reasons than your post indicates.
The most obvious reason that this is a poor statement, is that the goal of any operation that the U.S. and NATO take will not be to conquer Afghanistan, and absorb its lands, resources, and citizens into some other nation. But rather, the goal will be to seek out and capture and/or destroy all those responsible for and giving aid to terrorism whomever they may be. There is a big difference between those two goals. Most notably, the need dedicate resources to secure, police, and govern the lands and people behind your lines of battle. The former goal requires that this be done, the latter does not.
In addition, in the case of the former Soviet attempt to absorb Afghanistan, there was some help from foreign nations, most notably the U.S., to assist in their defense/resistance. In this case, Afghanistan (or rather the Taliban) has no real external support--and in fact is placed in the position of "it's us against the world." Even world aide organizations, which make sure that in excess of 5 million Afghanistan citizens get food and medical treatment, have packed up and left.
Finally, Afghanistan is a country that is currently in a state of civil war, between two factions (the Taliban and the Northern Alliance) that wish to govern the country. Which introduces a whole new realm of possibilities, considering the task at hand.
I think a.gnu would be a bit too specific--implying that sites registered under this carry software licensed under GPL. Which sounds like the case in the article. However, the GPL isn't the only form of Open Source license available, and if you are truly getting a top level domain for open source that should be taken into account.
Following the FSF lead, we would then need a.bsd,.mit,.mpl,.qpl, etc. This would get too confusing very quickly. Right now it's fairly easy to find the software you're looking for, even without searching freshmeat or google, just go to software-name-here.org and odds are you end up at the right site. So, should we have to know the type of license the software falls under to intuitively find it?
I would think a better route to go would be to use something more generic, such as.os (although this might get confused with operating system) or.oss (open source software).
Actually, both Caldera Systems, Inc. and Caldera Thin Clients, Inc. (DR-DOS) are wholly owned subsidiaries of Caldera, Inc. Therefore, they are not entirely separate at all.
What I absolutely DISAGREE with, however, is Katz' assertion that someone who speaks out against "pornography" is somehow diluting free speech. Free speech is free if and only if BOTH sides of the issue are heard.
This is somewhat true, however, not entirely.
In other words, if you only hear speech about how good sex is, how wonderful pornography is, how liberating it is, THAT IS NOT FREE SPEECH. If you only hear speech about how terrible sex is, how horrible pornography is, how exploitative it is, THAT IS NOT FREE SPEECH EITHER. Katz is confusing his particular moral stance (sexuality on the net is liberating) with free speech (which is an open exchange of ALL ideas, be they right or wrong).
You are so off-base on this it's shameful you got moderated a 5!
Free speech is the right to voice your opinions, views, and beliefs without fear of governmental or civil repercussions. It has nothing to do with presenting both sides of your opinion, view, or belief. To propose that is a requirement is ludicrous.
The point that Jon Katz raises, is that the people who are against pornography have--in fact, mind you--used influence to institute un-Constitutional laws that restrict pornographers from posting what they believe is useful content. If you have noticed, it's not the pornographers who have fought these laws in the courts (in most cases), but rather the American Civil Liberties Union--who is pro-freedom, not pornography.
These laws, under the guise of protecting children, inherently restrict the freedoms of adults. And as anyone who has even read the Constitution knows, the rights of one person, or group of persons, does not out-weigh the right of another person, or group of persons.
Should a law as sloppily written as the two "Internet Censorship Laws" that Congress has passed ever be deemed Constitutional? No. Quite frankly, giving the politicians this type of power could breed misuse. What if my powerful lobbying group decides that the collective works of Michael Angelo are inappropriate for children to view, and my group gets a majority of Congress to pass a bill banning his works on the internet. Or better yet, what if this new found power finds its way off of the internet. We could just as easily have every commercial and television show banned except shows like Sesame Street.
Granted, this may sound extreme, but, the reason our fore fathers wrote the Constitution in this way, was to ensure that the people (not the state) control the country, to avoid the possibility of a totalitarian government rising to power.
I don't like the fact that people see this topic as something that the government need to take control of. The fact of the matter is, if you don't want to view pornography (or you don't want you children to view it) there are plenty of preventive means to do so without passing laws. Whole ISPs offer filtered service, if there isn't one near you, you could always get a filtering program. There are packages that take screenshots of your computer so you can monitor what you child has been doing on your computer. So, unless these people who are "afraid" their childrens' morals will be compromised have tried using these means first (and have failed), I see no need for government intervention.
If anything, you would think these anti-pornography people would be addressing the filtering package providers and manufacturers for more advanced and reliable products. But, instead they wish to ask my government to tell me how to live!
Thank goodness someone at least had the good senses to mention this!
I often hear arguements similar to this one in the neverending business ethics classes that I take (my company requires them, but they are quite interesting--and increase your understanding of others' view points). The point most often overlooked, in my view, is the amount of responcibility that parents are expecting out of others.
A good example of what I am trying to point out is the.htaccess avenue proposed in another thread, that's a good way to go from the parents' perspective, it doesn't require them to do anything. But, instead of thinking of what the content providers responcibilities are, start thinking about the parents responcibilities.
There are plenty of content filters on the market, entire ISPs offer "child safe surfing" for the same price as an unrestricted content ISP. You don't want your kid at my site, block it. Problem solved, issue closed. It's that simple.
So, before you ask me to change how I do things, be sure you've done all you can to prevent the problem as well. Because, as others have mentioned, your rights do not supercede mine. This is the point that has been made via the ACLU's fight against the "Federal Internet Censorship Law." (it was defeated the first time in the Supreme Court, then rewritten, and the new version was challenged and defeated the second time around by the ACLU--Press Release Here)
Before you get too far ahead of yourself, buying all that hardware, I think you should checkout what's supported. The Red Hat 6.X distro doesn't support some of the things on your shopping list (the video card and the NIC are two that I saw right away).
This isn't to say you can't get it to work--because in most cases you can--but, when you call for support, if you are lucky, the tech will at most give you the URL to download the drivers for the hardware and tell you that the installation instructions "should be on that page or in the tarball". They will not troubleshoot any unsupported hareware problems (I know from experience).
Slashdot Mirror
Every month my bill goes up! Between all the different constantly fluctuating "fees" (UCC, Regulatory Recovery, Local Franchise, FCC Regulatory, 911, State Assessment, etc.) my bill goes up about a buck or more a month.
Why the New Jersey Turnpike?
It doesn't say where it actually is, but if it is a military thing, it would be at a military base. And Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst is a short drive from the New Jersey Turnpike...
Ugh, the CWA! I worked as a programmer at newspaper years ago and was forced to be in the CWA. The pay raise thing sucked--if you worked your ass off you got a 2.5% raise annually, if you sat around doing nothing you got a 2.5% raise annually. So, the only way to get a industry competitive raise was to get promoted--which, because of the union, went by seniority. Their big selling point was, "you get great benefits for free!" Yeah, but the "free benefits" cost as much as the union dues, so it was a wash. Then, to add insult to injury, when lay-offs rolled around the union didn't do a thing--they just let us get laid off (there were thirteen rounds of lay-offs altogether, I went on round five--and the guy who laid me off went on round six).
Quite frankly, I steer away from any IT job that requires I join a union just because of how crappy being in the CWA was (I've asked if there is a union in every interview I've had since then).
they made me change my username and password when I logged in the other day.
I would imagine the next step would be to issue a ruling finding that the TSA violated federal law and requiring the suspension of the scanners until the public comment has been done and the results tallied...
You are incorrect. There is a reason they took the prisoners to Guantanamo Bay and not some other base, it is not sovereign US soil--the treaty with Cuba leases the lands the base is on to US and gives the US complete jurisdiction and control of the base, but actual sovereignty is retained by Cuba. Therefore, the US Constitution does not apply there.
By the same token, you can't verify your democracy is operating democratically unless you have a certain amount of openness. As it turns out from the leaks we've received, it is telling us it is doing one thing while it is doing another.
Secrets are important for national security, PERIOD, END OF LINE
Openness is necessary for Democracy, period, END OF FILE
Good argument, if this were a democracy. But, it is a republic. Therefore, technically, only our elected representatives require the government to be transparent to them.
I go with Ronsonol lighter fluid. It works on most adhesive residue, doesn't damage the underlying surface, and it evaporates quickly.
She probably lived in base housing. When he died she was required to move.
No, you get 365 days after the service member's death until you have to vacate base housing (or lose your housing allowance if you live off base). It's not like they push you out the door after the funeral...
Should google have to write warnings for all dangers? WARNING: You are about to cross the road. Our records show that this intersection has a crosswalk. Please wiat until the red hand turns into a white funny-looking guy before proceeding. Be sure to check both ways for traffic before stepping onto the road. Be aware that there may be other pedestrians crossing the road. Be sure not to collide with them. Caution! Be aware that there may be open manholes! DO NOT step on a manhole that has it's cover removed. For a full list of applicable warnings, please go to www.google.ca/pleasetiemyshoes/
You're asking this in a country where even hair dryers have labels like "WARNING: Do not use in shower."? Hell, pharmacists even put a "Warning: May cause drowsiness" sticker on a bottle of prescription sleeping pills...
Basically, i don't see how their legal defense would go. "we only provide links to the torrents" would be suprnovas, but isn't loki a tracker?
"we're not the ones downloading, we're just facilitating."
Since lokitorrent doesn't host the copyrighted file, but rather provides a way to communicate with the person that does, that's not really a good analogy. A tracker is more like the phone company in a sense. The phone company, much like a tracker, provides a way for two or more parties to communicate, it doesn't provide or contribute to the conversation. You don't see the phone company being charged with criminal conspiracy when two or more of their customers use their lines to conduct illegal activities do you?
I think what the MPAA is doing is wrong. If they were going after the providers of, or those who knowingly download, the copyrighted material, that would be one thing. But, to go after the tracker sites instead seems cheap.
Also, why is their first response a threat to sue if they don't shutdown their site? They could have just sent the site owner a letter listing all the things they held copyright on and asked them to remove them and put a mechanism in place so that their materials are not permitted to be posted in the future. Much like how ADV Films dealt with anime torrents sites that were listing/tracking the anime they licensed. Granted, several of the sites relocated their servers to countries that do not recognize copyright laws, but the remaining ones just removed the offending links and/or torrent files (with the exception of several sites that decided that it was too much trouble to address the long-term problem and shutdown their site). This seems a more ethical and cost-effective solution in my opinion.
Not until ICANN became less of an independant organization and more of an elected body.
Well all the board members, committee members, and commission members are elected. This can be likened to a publicly traded corporation, with the exception that the stock holder's aren't voting, but rather the stakeholders are--that's you, me, and anybody else on the internet, you only need to register to vote. So, I don't see how they can be "more" of an elected body.
Play along, and leave a "fake" name with your real phone number... when someone calls you asking for that fake name, bingo, you got them.
You don't even need to do that, use call trace (*57)--they can block caller ID, but they can't block that! It then becomes a flagged phone company record (you just need to know the date and they can pull it up, knowing the time of day isn't really necessary) that you can subpoena in your court case, or it can be retrieved by the investigators of the agency you report it to.
And ask yourself this? If numbers are so easy...then why the hell are your coins all different sized??
That's simple, because they used to be made out of precious metals--now they're made out of alloys and such, and their value is secured by the federal government. So, when they first came into being, the penny was a penny's worth of copper, the dime was a dime's worth of silver, etc. So, size had nothing to do with convenience, but rather the value of the coin itself.
"1.5 "Linux Operating System" shall mean an operating system
distributed under the name Linux or a derivative thereof."
So, according to this, I could put together a distro based on BSD call it Linux and have to pay them a licensing fee. I see...
Guess they are REALLY low on funds, can't afford anymore attorney's fees, and have resorted to using one of those "legal forms" packages.
Can someone please explain to me, how you discover a land that has people already living on it? If anyone discovered the Americas first, wouldn't it be the American Indians (a.k.a Native Americans)? I mean all the Vikings, Columbus, or Chinese could haved done is been made aware of its existance after the fact...
I think we can all, for the most part, agree on what the Computer Science and Computer Engineering degrees are.
However, Information Systems and Management Information Systems degrees are a fairly new and broad-based concept. They encompass many different areas of computing/technology like networking, database systems, biomedical informatics, multimedia communications, artificial intelligence, expert systems, and/or knowledge-based systems, and how they are applied, used, and designed in a business environment. So, unlike the CS and CE degrees, your focus is less on general technical principles in a generic environment, and more on the applying of the topic that you wish to pursue in a business environment.
That said, there is a article that was posted several days ago on osOpinion entitled "The Dissing of IT Workers" that does a fairly good job of pointing out the differences between a CS degree and an IT degree.
Dr. Vannevar Bush wrote an article entitled As We May Think in July, 1945 that envisioned a linking mechanism in what he called "memex" (a sort of mechanized private file and library). Taken in the abstract, this "system" is analogous to the modern computer and hyperlinking in general. So, wouldn't this qualify as prior art? I would think so, as the patent is essentially an more "modernized" and scaled down version of this already preexisting idea.
"Not to mention places like Dell have dropped installing Linux."
Not true. Dell still sells pre-installed linux desktops/workstations.
I agree that the statement, "Too bad we aren't learning from the British and Soviet mistakes", isn't really a valid one. But, for different reasons than your post indicates.
The most obvious reason that this is a poor statement, is that the goal of any operation that the U.S. and NATO take will not be to conquer Afghanistan, and absorb its lands, resources, and citizens into some other nation. But rather, the goal will be to seek out and capture and/or destroy all those responsible for and giving aid to terrorism whomever they may be. There is a big difference between those two goals. Most notably, the need dedicate resources to secure, police, and govern the lands and people behind your lines of battle. The former goal requires that this be done, the latter does not.
In addition, in the case of the former Soviet attempt to absorb Afghanistan, there was some help from foreign nations, most notably the U.S., to assist in their defense/resistance. In this case, Afghanistan (or rather the Taliban) has no real external support--and in fact is placed in the position of "it's us against the world." Even world aide organizations, which make sure that in excess of 5 million Afghanistan citizens get food and medical treatment, have packed up and left.
Finally, Afghanistan is a country that is currently in a state of civil war, between two factions (the Taliban and the Northern Alliance) that wish to govern the country. Which introduces a whole new realm of possibilities, considering the task at hand.
I think a .gnu would be a bit too specific--implying that sites registered under this carry software licensed under GPL. Which sounds like the case in the article. However, the GPL isn't the only form of Open Source license available, and if you are truly getting a top level domain for open source that should be taken into account.
.bsd, .mit, .mpl, .qpl, etc. This would get too confusing very quickly. Right now it's fairly easy to find the software you're looking for, even without searching freshmeat or google, just go to software-name-here.org and odds are you end up at the right site. So, should we have to know the type of license the software falls under to intuitively find it?
.os (although this might get confused with operating system) or .oss (open source software).
Following the FSF lead, we would then need a
I would think a better route to go would be to use something more generic, such as
Just my 2 cents...
Actually, both Caldera Systems, Inc. and Caldera Thin Clients, Inc. (DR-DOS) are wholly owned subsidiaries of Caldera, Inc. Therefore, they are not entirely separate at all.
What I absolutely DISAGREE with, however, is Katz' assertion that someone who speaks out against "pornography" is somehow diluting free speech. Free speech is free if and only if BOTH sides of the issue are heard.
This is somewhat true, however, not entirely.
In other words, if you only hear speech about how good sex is, how wonderful pornography is, how liberating it is, THAT IS NOT FREE SPEECH. If you only hear speech about how terrible sex is, how horrible pornography is, how exploitative it is, THAT IS NOT FREE SPEECH EITHER. Katz is confusing his particular moral stance (sexuality on the net is liberating) with free speech (which is an open exchange of ALL ideas, be they right or wrong).
You are so off-base on this it's shameful you got moderated a 5!
Free speech is the right to voice your opinions, views, and beliefs without fear of governmental or civil repercussions. It has nothing to do with presenting both sides of your opinion, view, or belief. To propose that is a requirement is ludicrous.
The point that Jon Katz raises, is that the people who are against pornography have--in fact, mind you--used influence to institute un-Constitutional laws that restrict pornographers from posting what they believe is useful content. If you have noticed, it's not the pornographers who have fought these laws in the courts (in most cases), but rather the American Civil Liberties Union--who is pro-freedom, not pornography.
These laws, under the guise of protecting children, inherently restrict the freedoms of adults. And as anyone who has even read the Constitution knows, the rights of one person, or group of persons, does not out-weigh the right of another person, or group of persons.
Should a law as sloppily written as the two "Internet Censorship Laws" that Congress has passed ever be deemed Constitutional? No. Quite frankly, giving the politicians this type of power could breed misuse. What if my powerful lobbying group decides that the collective works of Michael Angelo are inappropriate for children to view, and my group gets a majority of Congress to pass a bill banning his works on the internet. Or better yet, what if this new found power finds its way off of the internet. We could just as easily have every commercial and television show banned except shows like Sesame Street.
Granted, this may sound extreme, but, the reason our fore fathers wrote the Constitution in this way, was to ensure that the people (not the state) control the country, to avoid the possibility of a totalitarian government rising to power.
I don't like the fact that people see this topic as something that the government need to take control of. The fact of the matter is, if you don't want to view pornography (or you don't want you children to view it) there are plenty of preventive means to do so without passing laws. Whole ISPs offer filtered service, if there isn't one near you, you could always get a filtering program. There are packages that take screenshots of your computer so you can monitor what you child has been doing on your computer. So, unless these people who are "afraid" their childrens' morals will be compromised have tried using these means first (and have failed), I see no need for government intervention.
If anything, you would think these anti-pornography people would be addressing the filtering package providers and manufacturers for more advanced and reliable products. But, instead they wish to ask my government to tell me how to live!
"parental responsibility"
Thank goodness someone at least had the good senses to mention this!
I often hear arguements similar to this one in the neverending business ethics classes that I take (my company requires them, but they are quite interesting--and increase your understanding of others' view points). The point most often overlooked, in my view, is the amount of responcibility that parents are expecting out of others.
A good example of what I am trying to point out is the .htaccess avenue proposed in another thread, that's a good way to go from the parents' perspective, it doesn't require them to do anything. But, instead of thinking of what the content providers responcibilities are, start thinking about the parents responcibilities.
There are plenty of content filters on the market, entire ISPs offer "child safe surfing" for the same price as an unrestricted content ISP. You don't want your kid at my site, block it. Problem solved, issue closed. It's that simple.
So, before you ask me to change how I do things, be sure you've done all you can to prevent the problem as well. Because, as others have mentioned, your rights do not supercede mine. This is the point that has been made via the ACLU's fight against the "Federal Internet Censorship Law." (it was defeated the first time in the Supreme Court, then rewritten, and the new version was challenged and defeated the second time around by the ACLU--Press Release Here)
Before you get too far ahead of yourself, buying all that hardware, I think you should checkout what's supported. The Red Hat 6.X distro doesn't support some of the things on your shopping list (the video card and the NIC are two that I saw right away).
This isn't to say you can't get it to work--because in most cases you can--but, when you call for support, if you are lucky, the tech will at most give you the URL to download the drivers for the hardware and tell you that the installation instructions "should be on that page or in the tarball". They will not troubleshoot any unsupported hareware problems (I know from experience).
So before spending hours in frustration, or spending dime one of my taxes, check the Hardware Compatibility List for Intel/6.1.