Presumably the whitebox device would include as core components all of the FCC-approved hardware necessary to use said frequencies. Upgrading the GPU, the amount of RAM, or the battery shouldn't have anything to do with this.

When you build your own PC from separate components, you don't have to worry about whether it can be powered by 60hz AC. The power supplies sold in this country are built to handle the electric supply found in this country and come with all of the UL (etc.) approvals.

The idea is that open source and the freedoms that come with it facilitate and ensure that you can continue to do cool and interesting things, often things the original designers didn't think of. It's certainly easier to be creative when you have the full specifications, source code, and documentation. It's easier to share your creativity with others when you can legally redistribute your derived works without violating someone else's copyright.

Obsession with anything is not good; on that I agree. However I haven't seen that in this thread. To cry "obsession" merely because someone points out a controversy isn't helpful (and ironically raises the question of whether you have an obsession with the perceived obsessions of others). All I saw was someone stating that they wish to avoid certain Broadcom hardware because it does not provide the degree of open source access that he or she desired. That people have their own criteria and express a desire to choose products that best suit their own needs is a good thing. Your own priorities being different is not surprising and doesn't indicate fault with anyone else.

Which still sounds odd to me. I'm running Gentoo on my main desktop (Mint on my laptop) and have never installed systemd. I've decided to stick with OpenRC. GIMP works fine here and I do have dbus installed.

It seems this dbus dependency is not an unsolvable problem.

It's that proprietary nature that makes this a concern at all. If it weren't proprietary then it wouldn't matter if Adobe themselves decided to release it for a particular platform. The community would produce a version that would run on just about any widely-used system.

Different person here. This is in line with my own personal morality and absolutely correct. My life is mine to do with as I please. I am free to do whatever I want whenever I want, provided that the consequences are SOLELY confined to consenting adults (generally that would be just me).

Anything else is an evil desire to control other people, with the approval you get from your own conscience, by convincing yourself it's for their own good, so you can pat yourself on the back and feel like a good person. The typical lack of reasoning ability, wisdom or long-term thinking in most people today and the general shallow thinking of the popular culture sadly promotes and legitimizes this inability to be satisfied with one's own life while respecting that others will live theirs as they please and realizing that telling people how they should live has never worked in the first place (c.f. Prohibition) so there should not even be a debate about this.

Someone who cannot responsibly use things (usually due to either a lack of personal maturity and self-knowledge, and/or an inability to deal with one's own life that causes them to reach for drugs as a quick-fix "remedy") has a problem. There are many others who use drugs the same way you might come home from work and drink a beer and stay home. Like Bill Hicks pointed out, it sure is strange the way you never hear about responsible drug users on the news or see them portrayed on shows. That would contradict all the fear propaganda and think-of-the-children rhetoric. Pay attention and you'll notice that the major mass media outlets will generally never contradict either: each other, or anything that faciltiates control. Adult people who are expected to make their own decisions about their own lives in a responsible manner, without being told how to live, absolutely does not facilitate control. Qui bono?

Fire an editor or two, starting with the consistently worst-performing, and Dice will have rediscovered a time-tested method by which employers have dealt with employees who don't even try to perform their jobs competently.

As it stands now, they have little or no incentive to produce quality. If they had a sense of shame, embarassment, or pride in their work then that would at least be an improvement.

So I am a bit confused about why that is a problem. The cost to the insurer of offering maternity care to post-menopausal women should be about zero. Why not tack that onto an otherwise good plan if that's what the law requires? Wouldn't that make more sense than scrapping the plan for such a flimsy reason?

Maybe the manufacturers of formula can use this as a marketing angle.

If the majority of people would vote (at the ballot and with their wallets) for their own rational self-interests once in a while, and not what the silver-tongued TV sound bite sold to them, this would happen much more often. My cynical side tells me that few will ever appreciate the value of abstract principles in and of themselves, but the self-interest angle should be at least achievable.

Clearly this particular Puritannical (shallow, phoney) "moral" crusade must prevail. We must make certain that small children NEVER see a woman's nipple!

Yes, it would, because the infantile mind doesn't recognize a power grab or the early steps of establishing a soft tyranny when they happen before its eyes.

I'd recommend a copy of Jeffrey Grupp's book The Telescreen if you want to know what's really been done to this culture.

It is, actually, and it's a subtle one. In the face of all evidence, the dogma of political correctness dictates that men and women are exactly the same and should want the same things. Therefore, using this twisted excuse for logic, anything that is done primarily by men must be portrayed as inherently sexist and actively excluding of women. That's what happens when masses of soft-minded people use low-quality logic on "sacred" conclusions they refuse to question.

The idea that it's good enough to have open access for anyone who wants to do something (and when has a wider variety of games been more available than now?) and then those who are interested can participate is anathema to this mentality. There's nothing for them to do in that scenario, no soapbox to climb on, no social engineering to perform, no downtrodden victim to pretend to champion (while actually changing nothing).

You may find this an interesting article. They were going to metaphorically roast a Harvard professor for daring to suggest men and women have different interests and priorities. He hadn't actually done anything to discriminate against women and showed no hostility towards them. He just didn't hold the "correct" viewpoint.