The kid's an idiot. Set up qemu on the mandatory windows machine and run
your Ubuntu. The sentence said nothing about running an emulated OS on your
monitored OS. The kid is just a whiner First they give me two felonies,
then they throw me in prison, and now this. As if using Windows is more
On 8/28/07, Dave Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We should all care, because there's actually an important question
buried in this: to what extent is it acceptable for 'the government' to
demand that someone make substantial or expensive changes in their life
merely for its convenience?
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Lars Hansson wrote:
But, as I understand the issue, this is _not_ part of his specified
punishment -- it's just a side-effect of the manner in which the
government wants to impose a portion of his punishment.
If he don't like it he could always take the alternative; going
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 04:37:09 -0500
Gilles Chehade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 11:19:40AM -0400, Dave Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Lars Hansson wrote:
On 8/28/07, Die Gestalt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why doesn't he run the monitoring software in a virtual
On Aug 29, 2007, at 11:57 AM, Jona Joachim wrote:
It's not about the guy, it's about the fact that Microsoft makes
money out of his punishment.
I'm with you, Jona.
The fact that the government supports Microsoft is contrary to the
free market philosophy that the US government preaches.
And
The main problem I see here is the government incentivating the
purshase of Microsoft product. It's kinda dumb paying the guy pay to a
company that has nothing to do witht he whole thing as a punishment
for your crimes. It would make sense if the government charged him for
using some government
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 08:32:25PM -0300, Rafael Almeida wrote:
The main problem I see here is the government incentivating the
purshase of Microsoft product. It's kinda dumb paying the guy pay to a
company that has nothing to do witht he whole thing as a punishment
for your crimes. It would
Why doesn't he run the monitoring software in a virtual machine?
On 8/28/07, Terry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I found this article interesting.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6204348.html
--
Terry
http://tyson.homeunix.org
http://www.UnixByte.com
I found this article interesting.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6204348.html
--
Terry
http://tyson.homeunix.org
http://www.UnixByte.com
On 8/28/07, Die Gestalt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why doesn't he run the monitoring software in a virtual machine?
Because it would violate his parole? Who cares anyway?
If you can't do the time don't do the crime.
---
Lars Hansson
Good point.
On 8/28/07, Lars Hansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/28/07, Die Gestalt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why doesn't he run the monitoring software in a virtual machine?
Because it would violate his parole? Who cares anyway?
If you can't do the time don't do the crime.
---
Lars
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Lars Hansson wrote:
On 8/28/07, Die Gestalt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why doesn't he run the monitoring software in a virtual machine?
Because it would violate his parole? Who cares anyway?
If you can't do the time don't do the crime.
We should all care, because there's
It just shows how these laws are designed to protect Microsoft
at the expense of everyone else. Microsoft has been very
effective over the past decades at lobbying congress to enclose
the commons of computer science.
There is a bill before Congress now to roll back patent protection,
notably in
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 11:19:40AM -0400, Dave Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Lars Hansson wrote:
On 8/28/07, Die Gestalt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why doesn't he run the monitoring software in a virtual machine?
Because it would violate his parole? Who cares anyway?
If you can't do
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Gilles Chehade wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 11:19:40AM -0400, Dave Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Lars Hansson wrote:
On 8/28/07, Die Gestalt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why doesn't he run the monitoring software in a virtual machine?
Because it would violate his
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 12:49:56PM -0400, Dave Anderson wrote:
But, as I understand the issue, this is _not_ part of his specified
punishment -- it's just a side-effect of the manner in which the
government wants to impose a portion of his punishment. There appears
to be no real reason for it
On Tuesday 28 August 2007 10:32, you wrote:
There is a bill before Congress now to roll back patent protection,
notably in the field of software. American users of OpenBSD might
want to follow this struggle, which is running into massive opposition
from non-comp-sci patent holders.
Software
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Emilio Perea wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 12:49:56PM -0400, Dave Anderson wrote:
But, as I understand the issue, this is _not_ part of his specified
punishment -- it's just a side-effect of the manner in which the
government wants to impose a portion of his punishment.
I think they simply have the monitoring software for Windows and not
for Linux because it has not been bought/developed/whatever.
Linux is not the point, it would be the same if he were using hardware
that prevents the monitoring (such as a firewall).
While I sympathize with what the fellow is
But, as I understand the issue, this is _not_ part of his specified
punishment -- it's just a side-effect of the manner in which the
government wants to impose a portion of his punishment.
If he don't like it he could always take the alternative; going to jail.
All things considered, being
Lars Hansson wrote:
I don't think think running Linux is a basic human right.
I'm not aware that using a computer is a basic human right...
21 matches
Mail list logo
