If you have to be present to perform the hack, then you could always just hit the PC repeatedly with a hammer if for some reason it doesn't work.

I found the first Bioshock to be fantastic. Even if it is a rehashed storyline, It'll end up on my PC. The first was a refreshing change to the standard alien invasion FPS.

The question of whether they are children or adults, IMHO is moot. If it's true that they're blocking gay sites while allowing anti-gay sites, then we are dealing with discrimination, not the appropriateness of content. The post above discusses whether we can trust the government to do the right thing and make it illegal to block these sites. IMO, if you wait for the government to handle this, you've already lost the battle.

The people that feel outrage at this are the ones that have to do something. A simple proxy shared with the students, gatherings, protests and boycotts would make changes on the local level initially and gaining in size, a global level.

The legal system however, would not.

Yours would be a viable argument if you were suggesting that people would get rid of cable to only use flash. However, since we're stacking one proprietary technology onto another, you're asking "What's the big deal, you've already got one closed source. What will it hurt to add another?"

Current feeds will be going nowhere. Adobe is just throwing their hat into the ring.

"A little more open" doesn't cut it, in my humble opinion. Open is open. Offering certain aspects up for grabs is called marketing, not open. The day I buy a television with flash capability is the day I record the event on my Betamax.

This is totally a job for OLPC: Server Edition!!1One!

So we should allow the continued manipulation of the laws to suit big brother as long as we don't personally use the technology in question to commit a crime?

Someone should come up with a witty saying that we can put on shirts concerning the loss of privacy being ok if we don't do anything wrong. The previous sentence needs some streamlining and sexing up.

I'm basing what I say off of the internet news that I've read. I don't have any inside information.

I never attempted to make my comments seem to carry any more weight than a simple opinion based on numerous articles stating that linux laptops are being returned(sans actual problems).

My sentiments were not to mean any more than this: If vendors use linux to meet a price point, then IMO they are likely going to hurt the acceptance of linux. When vendors do something to save money, they rarely bother to attempt to educate the user, as it is often counter-productive to their goal, which is to make an extra penny.

I do not place a linux trainer in the same category as a pc vendor, and was never referring to anything other than the producers and distributors of the netbooks in question.

I didn't say they were dumb. I said they were returning the netbooks. It's not an opinion. It's a fact. The linux netbooks are being returned and some people seem to have a problem with that. Once the distributors offer so much as a PDF with their sales, then of course things would be different. The Dell netbook that I purchased didn't and the two that I've helped setup for others didn't either. Since they don't and they just drop a linux netbook in these peoples' laps, I continue to stand behind all of my statements. The people you feel I think are morons don't want a netbook that they don't know how to use. The return rate proves this. They're not hiring people to train them to use it and they're not downloading pdf's to learn, they're returning them.

I wasn't aware that Lenovo, Dell and HP were shipping personal trainers with their netbooks. If this is the case, then I apologize for assuming otherwise. If not, then I stand behind my statements.

Blaming the person using the computer is the reason we still have 12 step processes for codec installs on many distros. Often, these things don't become more intuitive, we just blame a gov't conspiracy or call the end user a lazy moron and tell him to RTFM.

Blame it on the end user or blame it on MS, it doesn't change the fact that the people that are receiving these netbooks with linux don't want them. If people want linux to be accepted, they need to make it more appealing to the target market.

Personally, I could care less if it gains in popularity. I use it for what I need it to do. I'm not concerned with what Joe Enduser has on his netbook.

As much as many of us would like to see it change, linux is still an operating system that works better in the hands of those that have worked their way through it's ranks. Selling linux to someone because it lowers cost will do nothing to increase the user base. Someone who has never used it has no idea what to do with it and once you tell them that they can't buy any apps at their local Wal-Mart, they panic and hand it to the first person that will give them their money back.

I really believe that these attempts to increase linux exposure are hurting more than helping the cause of the people trying to help the OS gain acceptance. Regardless of your stance on the OS itself, you have to concede that it is different and you shouldn't just dump it into somebody's lap to meet a pricepoint.

The articles linked seem to act as if there's only one update scheme in existence and we need to sit patiently until Apple decides if we can use it or not. In my humble opinion, tell Apple to shove their update schema until they reach their elbow and write a(or utilize an already written)schema that is deemed to differ from this ridiculous patent enough to be used. Oh, and quit buying their damned products too. You guys are just encouraging them.

Nobody's forgotten. /. knows that Opera readers will simply build an inline proxy that pre-reads the page, corrects any errors, add missing alignment attributes and then optimize the resulting code before passing it on to the user. For this reason, web development no longer has to take the browser into account.

The same standard as what, Hotmail? Because they never go down with no warning. The only difference is that's considered a stable application. It's all perception. Who gives a flip if it's got a tag on it. I would guess that less than 10% of GMail's users notice the tag.