I don't have an Ubuntu/Debian box at my disposal at the moment.

You could try

apt-cache search mod_nss

or

apt_cache search mod_gnutls

though. It would probably be named some variant of that.

But It is not the only SSL/TLS game in town. There is also GnuTLS and Network Security Services (NSS).

So OpenStack is a hypervisor independent private cloud API. Its corporate backers include Rackspace, NASA, and Dell. There is a similar competing product called CloudStack, by Citrix. The Citrix CloudStack team has integrated a number of OpenStack components into their own product, and have contributed code back to OpenStack as well.

As far as I know, RHEV does not compete with either of those products head on. RHEV is for managing kvm, and maybe xen, hypervisor(s). It is primarily a management frontend for RedHat's supported hypervisors. While CloudStack and OpenStack are Amazon-like private cloud APIs which support a number of different vendors' hypervisors.

I think that is a rather narrow view of libertarianism. It really has nothing to do with the central point of the parent's or grandparent's post. Neither poster ever brought up libertarianism to begin with.

The parent post was countering the grandparent's point using extreme hyperbole.

As it has been pointed out by, both you and I, the airports in question are public property.

Please, try not to over-generalize and lump an entire political movement in with the ignorant viewpoints of the grandparent poster.

Airports that deal with commercial travel, are public property. Those public airports may be owned by the state or other municipalities, and make up the largest percentage of airports. These public airports are where the constitutional rights are being surrendered by US citizens to US government officials, whom the citizens are supposed to be expressly protected from in their constitutionally granted rights. There are privatized airports and chartered commercial flights, that is not what we're talking about.

The airlines are not the victims. The state of Texas tried to do something about it, and the Department of Justice threatened to make Texas a federal "no-fly" zone (See: TSA vs Texas).

Its the most reasonable form of long distance inter-state and international travel. Certain people who travel for work may only be able to travel in a reasonable amount of time by flight, not because it is a matter of personal choice.

There is no provision or asterisk, in the letter of the law, that one shall only have their constitutional rights some of the time, or when its deemed convenient.

Probable cause does not mean you waive your constitutional rights upon entering/operating a car, its a reasonable discretionary stipulation in the law. Many states even have laws in place to pre-announce holiday sobriety checkpoints to the public, so as to not egregiously violate constitutional rights.

The gamblers involved have companies set up to split the pot and probably to pay the taxes on the winnings. So the accomplices (ticket buyers) each have some quota to buy from some lottery vendor. The company, or individual ticket buyers, may have an agreement with a lottery vendor so they can monopolize the lottery machines once a quarter. Likely the more tickets they can buy at once in the beginning of the exploitation period, then the better the odds for their high payout. The odds are most in your favor by getting a bulk of unique numbers all at once.

The company selling tickets takes a 5% cut of the ticket price. So how many of those companies are going to turn down several thousands in profit today, to let me tie up their machine for a few hours to print 100,000 tickets? In the article they refer to a couple who bought 614,000 tickets over a three day period from a couple liquor stores, a profit of $5,000 per day for each liquor store at $2 a pop. One of the liquor stores sold only $47 worth of tickets the day before that couple arrived.

The gambling company has access to public information about the lottery so they could re-model how many tickets to buy based on the payout they expected, and how many lottery vendors will cooperate.

So there was a purpose to the 15 or 16 popup windows then?

I think thats the crux of it. As a Linux IT professional, I spend a great deal of time writing complex software. A lot of the Mac crowd I personally know are either in the same Sysadmin specialization as myself, or are proficient in graphic design and web development. Either way, that type of user is a completely different demographic than the casual Windows user who likely has no interest in software, or the system itself.

As far as digital entertainment goes, I'd say the average Mac user is better served with the Apple store and the introduction of Steam to their platform than the average Linux user. I mean, sure we have games on Linux and have for years. However, its still a vastly under-served market by comparison to Windows/Mac users despite Linux making up a smaller percentage of desktop computer use. The original organizers of the Humble Bundle, Wolfire games, have a couple interesting blog posts about the effective size of these under-served markets. What I find interesting is seeing nearly the same purchasing stats for *each* humble bundle when the only advertising is word-of-mouth blogs and social media.

Its called an over-served market, that is Windows gaming.

Does it not make logical sense that an over-served market with millions of mediocre games would pay less dollars? As opposed to under-served markets whose only choices are either, just a few natively developed games, or games known to work with the assistance of wine.

Is that not the basic gist of supply and demand? There is an over supply of Windows "PC" games, the over-served market can only afford to buy some of the entertainment available to them. There must be something like a hundred new games on Steam, available for Windows only, every month. On the other hand, you have an under-served market of highly technical users who likely make a professional living from their primary OS of choice (Mac or Linux). The demand in that particular corner of the under-served market is greater than the supply of quality entertainment.

Well there was two issues initially.

First of all, the source file contents/code has nothing to do with patents. A patent with regards to software covers the function of the software, not the code itself. There is no alternate way to describe a function to sidestep a patent. Oracle initially submitted 132 patent claims, and Google brought hundreds of prior art references to counter these. The judge whittled the number of claims down to 3 and allowed Google 8 prior art references, so as to have a more reasonable number of trial claims. Clean room implementation won't sidestep patent infringement. The only outcome is whether, or not, these 3 patent claims are in fact valid. Also Google could potentially get a ruling that this was "willfull" infringement meaning the damages would be increased just by Google knowingly infringing upon said patents.

So the other issue was copyright infringement. The story is that some unit tests to verify whether some given code is compliant/compatible with the Java standard, were accidentally committed to the public Android repository. Sun rightfully had a restrictive copyright on this code, so there is really no question about infringement on this issue. It really doesn't even matter that the code never shipped to a production Android device. Its a clear-cut case of unauthorized re-distribution of copyrighted material. Google couldn't get out of this one, and will pay a minor damages fee. I think the maximum is $30,000 if it was unintentional, or $150,000 if it was willful infringement. Really, this thing happens all the time. Especially within Open Source, infringing parties are given a chance to correct such mishaps before it ever sees a court room. Most of the time this kind of thing is dealt with in an amicable manner, because it rarely is intentional by the infringing party or damaging to the copyright holder.