Oh yes. +1 for this.

I bought two nook devices for 30 UK Pounds (must be around 45 USD) each when the line was closing. They're the 'simple touch' ones - that means they have an e-ink touch screen. I rooted mine immediately, and installed one or two extras - and a large memory card. Now I have an e-ink Android tablet, complete with the Kindle app (not that I ever use that) and all the apps I can eat. Not bad for 30 quid.

Not that I ever use it for anything but reading books. But I -could-.

I use Mate on my eeepc for exactly the same reason. It's been a while since I gave other DE's a chance on there, maybe it's time to look at icewm.

... but only one at a time.

But now, thanks to the Metropolitan Police, I've been made aware of it. That's the police having the -exact- opposite effect of the one they wanted!

Thanks, Mr Plod.

It's only the first part of a trilogy guys. The next instalment will be Wolfenstein: Joy Division, followed by Wolfenstein: The Smiths.

They've signed Morrisey up already!

And I play Steam games using AMD chip, I have an A8 with integrated graphics, and it does Left4Dead2 really well... I don't even use proprietary drivers, just the core ones that come with Fedora. I really don't know what the fuss is about. Crap drivers? My arse.

Good point. I understand that commercial OS vendors are equally as capable of f*cking up their DEs as the Open Source experts. However, I don't care about the commercial offerings. I -do- care about the DEs I actually use.

I thought when you updated your Open Source desktop environment project to a new release version, you were supposed to take all the really useful tools, features and usability models that had been refined for years and chuck them all in the bin leaving you with a horrible monstrosity that was near impossible to use (and then have it remain that way for at least four years).

Surely, KDE have got this badly wrong.

I always use the https version of websites. Especially those that use OpenSSL. That's super secure and keeps me protected all the time.

Oh, no wait, that might not be right...

Wtf? I thought this discussion was about Internet connections... why don't you just chuck some random shit in, like you're all offended because someone's comments could be construed as a criticism of your country?

Clearly you're upset because everyone in your nation is being screwed by the ISPs. But if you are, don't go defending your country by putting up bollocks arguments against what is patently obvious.

I can understand public owned infrastructure if there is limited space or these things introduce huge public safety issues (such as come with rail or road infrastructure), but this is all about a piece of wire. If the wires were so huge that you could only run one length to service dozens of houses (such as you get with a road) you might have a good argument. But this patently isn't the case.

It's far better not to rely on one network, as doing so introduces a monopoly, and creates its own problems when services fail. What you really want is at least two, and preferably many more network providers that run wires to large numbers of homes. That brings healthy competition which in turn brings lower prices and better service.

As a customer, the download rate you'll be getting has nothing to do with infrastructure quality or how much you pay, it's determined by some cosy little deal between your ISP and a movie provider. You have no freedom to enter a contract knowing what you're buying from your ISP - so it sounds like a class action suit could do very well.

But then again, the network infrastructure is owned by the ISP - they can charge what they like for it and to whoever they like. What you really need is competition, at least one other network infrastructure provider. That'd kick the protectionist blackguard ISP to change their stupid policy over throttling.

What's that I smell?

In this case, it's garbage. i live in the UK, and I had five different options for providers for my Internet connection. If one was throttling my connection, I'd go elsewhere. The only reason Verizon and Comcast get away with this is because they have a cosy little cartel, and together hold Netflix to ransom.

Well, name calling certainly won that argument. Oh, hang on, no it didn't.

Noise that is indistinguishable from white noise is -actually- white noise. If you can't distinguish a signal from noise, then it's not a signal.

If you can distinguish, then you can recognise it as a signal. Even in a signal that looks a helluva lot like white noise contains the traits that allow you discern the difference. Even if they are well hidden, they're still there, which -actually- allows you to distinguish between the signal and nose. The casual observer might walk past such a signal, but we're talking here about an signalling method that will be available to read - anyone who knows what the signal looks like and is looking for such signals will be able to see it, even if they can't decrypt it because they don't have the encryption keys.

The problem here is that you've (rather stupidly) assumed that the poster I replied to may have meant that an encrypted signal could be indistinguishable to the casual observer. But they didn't say that, it was -your- assumption. Fortunately for you, there are some smarter people here to put you right.

No, never had a run-in with the FCC. I, like most people on the planet, do not live anywhere they have jurisdiction.

You're assuming that the gear produced here will be huge radio sets of the kind used by ham enthusiasts. I think the target here is for much smaller stuff. Even in the -very- unlikely even that the FCC could indeed demonstrate who had generated any given signal, then confiscating $50 or $100 worth of cheap radio kit and trying to fine them will make no difference to the project.