I've been using FreeNX since Fedora 8 or so and it's superior in just about every way to VNC. Yeah, it's annoying brittle when the distro's packages are broken or not configured correctly, but that's just an implementation issue. The way it caches X calls makes a remote desktop run at local speeds over most broadband. This is a technology that needs to be brought mainstream.

That said, this is probably not the end of the world. They weren't bragging about any protocol level enhancements, more user level enhancements like a "revamped client GUI" which were never available under an open source license anyway. The core NX library is probably pretty mature by now. Since all future development on their side will be closed, it presents the opportunity for a real project to grow up around a fork. No more being held back by lockstep to a company that never wanted a successful open solution to begin with.

I think he meant one can legally racially discriminate in America. That is true. Governments can't because of equal protection. Businesses can't because of anti-discrimination laws. But you can.

Unlike discrimination, which is a choice of the person doing the discriminating (see my other post for an explanation of this), slavery directly infringes a person's ability to make a choice. It is direct coercion, not comparable to a "negative right", but is just one aspect of a person's right to liberty.

You're right, certain protections take the form of a negative right. Anti-discrimination laws do not fall under equal protection because that is a requirement of governments, not individuals, except as a forced restricting of, e.g. a business's right to discriminate. The reason is as follows.

There is no Freedom from Oprah Winfrey, but you have a right to choose what you watch. They are different, because one puts the onus on society to "protect" you from what you don't like (take off the air and block it from transmission) while the other forces you to take responsibility and pro-actively choose not to engage with it.

Sometimes a thing becomes so entrenched and damaging to society that it effectively removes your right to make any choice, which is when a negative right might be required (but hopefully this is rare). Personally I think "freedom from discrimination" has outgrown its purpose. Racial discrimination as it was in the 50s required it, but today its just fodder for the lawyers.

I actually see it as the reverse. The opportunity to choose comes prior to giving in to peer pressure. After that, choices are often impaired by the habit. Once one is physically addicted or has already made the wrong associations, they may not have a reasonable choice anymore.

Yet they didn't. It was a "veil of threats", spread to cause fear, uncertainty and doubt. Never has the term FUD been more appropriate.

If the open source community always gave in to FUD and declined to implement anything that *might* have a patent covering it, nothing would ever be accomplished.

Mono is great for the same reason Samba, Wine, and Evolution's exchange connector are. They assist in taking things cross platform (yes, even if you still have to port and avoid certain libraries). The fact that some people find it to be an efficient platform for development is just the icing on the cake. You never have to worry about code written for Mono... being compatible with Mono.

In my experience lots of people, at least around Los Angeles, have stopped talking on the phone because they are scared of the $200 ticket.

To clarify, the law in question is stupid anyway. The whole point of the California law isn't to stop people from using phones while driving, it only mandates you have to use a hands free headset. The attention split is the same in either case as having a conversation in the vehicle. So the only possible effect is all those non-existant accidents from "driving with one hand" or "not being able to check your blind spot on the cell side" are being prevented.

Since the most dangerous part of using a phone while driving is dialling the handset I'm not sure why anyone would think the law would influence the number of accidents.

While I agree with most of what you said in principle, in practice it is near impossible to write a legal framework that is "very clear". If you make the wording too specific you are likely to leave out important coverage, causing loopholes that allow an end run around the law (the more you tighten your grip the more star systems will slip through your fingers). If you leave room to cover all cases your law may become too vague and will be "interpreted" to death. To make matters worse, new words are necessary to communicate reoccurring concepts and legal connotations can mean the exact opposite of normal language. E.g. in the elastic clause of the U.S. Constitution, "necessary" is legally defined as "expedient". The founding fathers thought they were using clear and simple language and the results show that more clarification was probably necessary.

In short, while we require language to express laws, it will be impossible to write them clear and precise and you will always need someone trained to write and interpret them.

Your other comments about the moral responsibility of lawyers are well taken.

I suspect a break away was inevitable, since at a certain point the size of the entire industry is restricted. The utility of an AOL is only useful if it can communicate with a Compuserve, just like the utility of a pair of rails in Los Angeles is only useful if it connects to New York. Or if you have T-mobile you can call Verizon. If each network only talked to itself then the vast majority of people wouldn't have cell phones, or wouldn't ride the train or won't bother with "those data services". These things have a market imperative to connect. Now once you're talking about a situation where AOL buys Compuserve, and Prodigy folds, then yes that's a potential AT&T situation (without an open internet to compete).

But none of that really addresses your fallacy, which is your assertion that you need a large modern day government to create something that is interconnected.

In order to be talking about a limited government you have to talk about Pre-Civil War economies, since after the civil war the government had lot more federal power. The first railway networks circa 1860, that connected the east to the midwest, were funded by private stock market initiatives.

Before I can take your question seriously you have to define "Libertarian political structure".

How about, how could a limited government with the help of academia and/or independant business interests create a network? For example, take 18th century new england turnpike construction or 19th century railroad networks and accompanying telegraph networks. I choose such an early example because you have to go that far back to find a small government.

Regarding the walled-garden, it's inevitable since the worth of the network is proportional to the number of people on it. Unless there's a monopoly force at work, at some stage all networks must to interconnect.

Speaking as a registered libertarian, not everything in a capitalist system is done for profit (just ask the NRA or the EFF). And sometimes even innovation is done for innovation's sake.

Of course, that software is inherently "information" is what makes this work (avoiding the economic problem of scarcity). "Knowledge" doesn't cost anything to pass on. I think where those right(er) wing libertarians get their signals crossed. They assume that because we currently have an idea of "Intellectual Property" that it is in some way a fundamental freedom. Or that because we currently have corporations that can exist as entities they fundamentally are. These are just assumptions built into our system, not facts. I don't remember reading anything in Locke about intelectual property rights. And I don't see how giving software away for free is anti-capitalist.

No, if you are an anarcho-capitalist there is no such thing as a market failure. Libertarians that believe in *some* government can recognize that lack of competition is a market failure. Certain industries that have a large barrier to entry or are inelastic are prime targets for monopolistic abuse. Industries such as water, power, roads networks etc. You know, the commons.

Adam Smith said that for an economy of "perfect liberty" you must have competition and the laws of supply and demand. Thomas Jefferson tried to get a "restriction against monopolies" into the bill of rights (but failed). You'll find no two individuals more concerned with the idea of liberty.

Looks like I knew exactly how it works in seattle. After reading your legal brief (finally that business law class paid off), the Judge's conclusion shows clearly that she had the domestic partnership right to be in the room, the nurse just dismissed her anyway opening the center up to a lawsuit.

I don't know how it works in Seattle, but here in Los Angeles that whole sob story about not being able to visit your partner in the hospital is a load of bollocks and sensationalism. In California domestic partners have all the rights commonly whined about, excepting taking their partnership to another state. Sorry that can only be fixed on a federal level, so all these state initiatives don't get you any closer. This entire issue is one of mostly semantics.