I guess it is ok then to jailbreak these?!!??

In order to break up an monopoly you will have to prove that they are a monopoly or that practices were done that were monopolistic. Part of the aim for net neutrality is to define what this monopolistic behavior is for an industry that did NOT exist when the antitrust laws were created.

Yet, Christians, Jews, and Muslims will accept this conclusion very well and this article will not be 'news' to them.

Whoa! I find out in the same paragraph that not only does CA have a database platform but suddenly it is worthy of intellectual property protection mechanisms. Why have I not heard of this yet? It must be awesome for them to have kept it secret all this time.

In other news, terrorists state admitted today that they are canceling their radioactive materials enrichment programs. "No need to irradiate the US with nuclear weapons anymore," they said. "They are now self-radiating."

Consider ClearOS too. Both SME and ClearOS received top marks in the recent review by theregister.co.uk. It is not surprising, they share the same stable code heritage and with the release of Redhat 6 we can expect more goodies to trickle down. They also have a fairly good relationship together and share knowledge. For instance, the Windows 7 compatibility in SME 8 comes from contributions from developers on the ClearOS project. The new installer on ClearOS 6 (not yet in beta) comes from developers on the SME project.

Can't we just rebuild him again? Don't we have the technology?

I find it interesting that ifrag uses the the quote from Asimov which illustrates what is not being said here. Swearing is a form of verbal violence. Like physical violence, once it becomes common place, society will look for greater forms as time goes on. For the f-bomb to be significant, relevant, or outrageous, it must be reserved. When I say reserved I mean that the usage of it should be deplorable, despised, reproached by the majority, and shocking. That it is used pervasively causes it to become insignificant, common place, and completely inexpressive. For some, it amounts to no more than an 'um' in their speech. How then do we know when these people are really upset or expressive? I don't use that word except on rare, rare occasions. When I have, people really know that something is horribly wrong.

If it is 'effective at expressing [his] thoughts and feelings' and it is used often then it truly the refuge for the incompetent who are ignorant of the direct, expressive and applicable terms. Manipulation of base terms is a lazy, mindless exercise. Trendy terms can change society to call things what they are not until the original meaning is utterly lost (ie. gay=happy, dope=impurity added to alter properties, fag=to work hard or toil). I personally think that both of these are damaging to humanity as a whole because it causes languages, (all languages suffer this) to drift and be too dynamic for understanding. In many cases, these new terms are language specific and lose meaning not only across languages but within dialects. This drift makes communication between people difficult and increases misunderstanding. Even for those that chase the trendier meanings, this means that the past lexicon is useless. In the case of the two year old exclaiming the f-bomb or even your expletive friend, it is unlikely that even a fraction of their issuance of that word is meant to convey fornication and unlawful carnal knowledge.

Sure, Asimov hated violence. Violence is destructive, it changes people attitudes and behaviours and causes segregation and exclusion. It also destroys property or causes ancient pieces of art and architecture to be destroyed, diminished, or lost. It truly is a bastion for the incompetent.

Profanity and trendy speak are a destructive form of violence too against understanding. Profanity and trendy speech can change peoples attitudes and behaviours and causes segregation and exclusion. It destroys meaning and causes the meaning of ancient writings, stories, and texts to be destroyed, diminished, or lost. These types of speech are low, ignorant, and are the bastion for the incompetent, even when expressing themselves.

...still no cure for cancer.

The simple truth is that OSI is the de facto open source standard. If you don't believe that then perhaps this applies to you.

It is true that OSI does NOT hold the trademark which would make them the de jure open source standard. But the simple fact that they applied for the trademark shows greater investment and clout that other who simply seek to redefine the term to suit their own immediate needs. This gives OSI an even greater claim to the de facto status.

Additional basis for this claim is that vast majority of projects and software that claim to be 'open source' subscribe to these policies or licenses recognized by OSI as 'open source'. Other non-software users of the term may reference the term but there is some fluidity to it which is why OSI does not *own* it de jure.

Perhaps the word 'belt' conjours the fantastical idea of a traffic jam of large boulders bumping and colliding with each other as displayed in popular science fiction. The asteroid belt is not crowded as many would believe and the total mass of the entire thing is less than that of the moon. In fact, about 1/2 of the total mass is contained within just 4 objects which are approximately the sizes of Pluto and Charon (This is part of the reason why Pluto has been demoted as a full planet). The rest is much smaller bits (some the size of mere dust) randomly spread over an area of about 200,000,000,000,000,000 square kilometers

The only purpose for setting up camp on the asteroids would be for mining. Smelting presents a problem for both the moon AND for asteroids because most smelting requires the generation of heat and for that gravity and atmosphere tend to be bonuses.

The moons gravity well is one sixth that of earth which makes blasting off from the surface of the moon trivial at about 2 and 1/3 km/s. In addition, getting the moon is an easy calculation and takes only days with our current technologies, and you don't have to make an interplanetary insertion like you would to the asteroid belt.

It's BECAUSE it has gravity and it's proximity to the Earth that make the moon ideal. But interplanetary, exploration is sexier, costlier and case placates the masses who still yearn for man to be a space-faring people. Mars a waste, IMHO.

Bringing water from the Red Sea will only serve to increase the salt levels of the Dead Sea. Remember, the Dead Sea is normally only fed from 'fresh water' sources. Feeding this evaporative basin with salt waters will only dramatically INCREASE salt levels. It would be better to draw waters from the north or north-eastern sources. However, the best solution for this problem would be better conservation of the exist water. Sadly, the likely scenario that will 'fix' this problem will be increased violence in the region and a reduction of population. Iran will likely use attacks against Israel to include statements like: 'Doing our part to fix the Dead Sea problem.' Sometimes environmental engineering chases stupidity with stupidity.

This is why i use ClearOS. It comes with Intrusion Prevention via Snort right out of the box. It proactively blocks failed SSH attempts and keeps my boxes off the lists happy and smiley!

Sadly, it is being re-introduced as a substitute bill...I guess no is not an option for these people.