Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #86492 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-05-12 17:33 +0200 |
| Last post | 2026-05-13 12:44 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 211 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Linux to be illegal in California? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-05-12 17:33 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-05-12 08:57 -0700
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2026-05-12 18:16 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-13 04:52 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-13 14:25 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-05-13 08:40 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-13 12:48 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-13 14:31 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-13 17:49 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-13 18:55 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-05-13 19:13 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-13 22:41 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-14 02:05 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-14 02:01 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-05-13 08:38 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-05-13 13:12 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-13 17:57 +0000
Age verification methods (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-05-13 18:26 +0000
Re: Age verification methods (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-13 22:44 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-05-14 03:31 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> - 2026-05-12 20:45 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-05-13 06:18 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-13 00:24 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-13 12:55 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-13 17:54 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> - 2026-05-13 17:15 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-05-14 05:44 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-05-15 20:29 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-05-15 13:50 -0700
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-15 21:44 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-16 08:42 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-16 03:04 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-16 08:15 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-05-16 08:56 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-16 23:55 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-05-17 10:59 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-17 15:11 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-17 16:44 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-05-18 20:35 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-18 22:49 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-18 21:09 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-19 12:16 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-20 02:02 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-20 13:16 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-20 23:46 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-21 08:39 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2026-05-18 21:12 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-19 00:54 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-19 02:13 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-19 05:08 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-19 02:03 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-19 09:03 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-19 12:42 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-19 00:50 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-18 21:06 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-17 19:59 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-17 22:42 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-05-22 18:40 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-23 08:43 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-16 00:37 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-05-16 09:16 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Borax Man <boraxman@geidiprime.invalid> - 2026-05-16 12:35 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-16 10:59 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-16 08:44 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-16 08:13 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-16 23:42 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-17 06:07 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-17 02:17 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-17 10:28 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-17 16:53 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-17 21:02 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-17 15:25 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-17 16:52 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-17 18:19 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-18 21:18 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-19 00:44 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-05-18 18:01 -0700
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-18 21:57 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-19 12:18 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-19 04:58 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-19 02:38 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-05-19 16:31 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-20 09:04 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-20 14:18 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-17 15:12 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-05-16 09:29 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-16 11:41 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-16 22:21 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-17 14:43 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-17 13:08 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-17 22:49 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-18 12:34 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-19 02:05 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-19 21:07 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-19 23:46 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-20 01:13 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-20 02:00 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-20 02:35 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-21 02:42 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-21 03:05 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-21 03:27 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-21 06:21 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-21 13:25 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-23 08:40 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-23 12:17 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-05-23 14:05 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-23 13:43 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-23 17:12 +0000
See sig (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-05-23 17:21 +0000
Re: See sig (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-23 21:48 +0100
Re: See sig (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-23 20:47 +0100
Re: See sig (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-24 09:39 +0200
Re: See sig (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-05-24 10:33 +0000
Re: See sig (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-24 12:19 +0100
Re: See sig (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-24 22:18 +0200
Re: See sig (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-24 22:50 +0100
Re: See sig (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-24 12:16 +0100
Re: See sig (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-24 17:44 +0000
Re: See sig (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-24 23:02 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-23 20:46 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-24 05:47 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-05-25 07:14 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-25 11:39 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-25 21:50 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-25 23:47 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-26 08:21 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 00:16 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-25 18:15 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-25 21:49 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-25 23:45 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-05-26 07:18 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-26 05:40 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-26 07:27 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-26 08:22 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-26 07:18 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-05-25 06:54 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-25 13:00 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-25 18:04 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-25 21:13 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-23 18:06 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-24 01:03 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-24 05:53 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-24 12:15 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-21 16:58 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-21 13:43 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-21 17:17 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-21 17:52 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-22 10:59 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-23 04:21 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-23 00:34 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-23 11:18 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-23 18:06 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-23 01:15 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-23 17:29 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-23 17:21 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-21 04:48 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-21 17:52 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-21 21:51 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-21 23:22 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-22 00:05 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-22 02:21 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-22 05:03 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-22 02:48 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-22 09:48 +0200
[OT] Means of proportional representation (was: Re: Linux to be illegal in California?) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-22 09:09 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-21 13:40 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-21 17:22 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-21 17:52 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-21 23:23 +0000
[OT] Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-20 08:57 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-20 08:54 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-05-20 06:51 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-20 13:09 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-05-20 14:54 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-21 02:53 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-21 08:46 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-21 08:56 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-21 10:26 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-21 13:48 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-24 11:59 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-24 21:30 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-05-21 11:12 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-20 08:47 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-20 18:26 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Borax Man <boraxman@geidiprime.invalid> - 2026-05-16 12:32 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-05-16 09:49 -0700
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-16 21:32 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Borax Man <boraxman@geidiprime.invalid> - 2026-05-18 12:44 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-16 20:40 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-16 23:09 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-16 21:27 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-16 22:14 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Borax Man <boraxman@geidiprime.invalid> - 2026-05-18 12:37 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-18 13:48 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-18 18:09 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-18 16:14 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-19 02:07 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-19 04:52 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-19 12:52 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-16 21:16 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-15 22:54 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-15 23:56 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-16 08:47 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-16 08:11 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-16 11:24 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-05-16 20:15 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-16 22:05 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-16 22:24 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-05-16 16:21 -0700
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-16 23:38 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-13 12:44 +0100
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-24 05:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7fhn6Fr6b5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #87030 |
On Sat, 23 May 2026 20:46:23 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 23/05/2026 18:12, rbowman wrote: >> Overall the 'demos' may be coming to the opinion that both parties >> suck. > > My impression when canvassing at street level in the UK us that that is > precisely what they think. > > Its a vacuum into which a new party has sprung to life That's not an easy task in the US. https://linknky.com/elections/2026/05/18/massie-gallrein-gop-primary- becomes-most-expensive-in-u-s-history/ $32 million, and that for one primary in one state, not even the general election. The first task for a new party is to even get on the ballot. Ballot access differs in each state but typically you need to have a petition signed by registered voters that contains 3-5% of the last governor or senator election total voters. A grassroots volunteer effort only goes so far. The campaigns are costly and you have to attract donors well beyond school kids nickles and dimes. People like Miriam Adelson are going to ask what's in it for them. In the Massie primary it was getting a candidate that loves Israel. Ross Perot was the last time a third party even came close and all that did was siphon Republican votes to get Clinton elected. The deck is stacked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-25 07:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10v0pc2$1h1f3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87038 |
On 5/24/26 06:47, rbowman wrote: > On Sat, 23 May 2026 20:46:23 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> On 23/05/2026 18:12, rbowman wrote: >>> Overall the 'demos' may be coming to the opinion that both parties >>> suck. >> >> My impression when canvassing at street level in the UK us that that is >> precisely what they think. >> >> Its a vacuum into which a new party has sprung to life > > That's not an easy task in the US. > Nor in the UK. Democracy is neutered with respect to an issue, if a lobby group for that issue controls all the candidates before the election. Massie was a rare exception. The UK recently had Corbyn as an exception. I thought perhaps proportional representation might help, but Europe doesn't seem much better. I suspect the problem is the media, we need better public information. Limits on lobbying. Limits on who dominates the media.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-25 11:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <muhdemxo4j.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87090 |
On 2026-05-25 08:14, Pancho wrote: > On 5/24/26 06:47, rbowman wrote: >> On Sat, 23 May 2026 20:46:23 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >>> On 23/05/2026 18:12, rbowman wrote: >>>> Overall the 'demos' may be coming to the opinion that both parties >>>> suck. >>> >>> My impression when canvassing at street level in the UK us that that is >>> precisely what they think. >>> >>> Its a vacuum into which a new party has sprung to life >> >> That's not an easy task in the US. >> > > Nor in the UK. Democracy is neutered with respect to an issue, if a > lobby group for that issue controls all the candidates before the > election. Massie was a rare exception. The UK recently had Corbyn as an > exception. > > I thought perhaps proportional representation might help, but Europe > doesn't seem much better. I suspect the problem is the media, we need > better public information. Limits on lobbying. Limits on who dominates > the media. Here, all (tv/radio) media is owned by media magnates, thus they have all right wing tendencies. Sometimes you find a station with some left inclinations, maybe. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-25 21:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10v2g7g$1mci8$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87103 |
On Mon, 25 May 2026 11:39:02 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: > Here, all (tv/radio) media is owned by media magnates, thus they > have all right wing tendencies. Mildly surprising that a left-leaning Government could have got elected, then. But then, Australia has managed to elect a left-leaning Government, too. And that’s the homeland of Rupert Murdoch. So perhaps there are limits to the power of right-wing media, after all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-25 23:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7k5cfFgvcpU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #87121 |
On Mon, 25 May 2026 21:50:40 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Mon, 25 May 2026 11:39:02 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> Here, all (tv/radio) media is owned by media magnates, thus they have >> all right wing tendencies. > > Mildly surprising that a left-leaning Government could have got elected, > then. > > But then, Australia has managed to elect a left-leaning Government, too. > And that’s the homeland of Rupert Murdoch. So perhaps there are limits > to the power of right-wing media, after all. Until Jacinda retired to spend more time with her family and Labour was out on it ass.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-26 08:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <snqfemxgmt.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87121 |
On 2026-05-25 23:50, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Mon, 25 May 2026 11:39:02 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> Here, all (tv/radio) media is owned by media magnates, thus they >> have all right wing tendencies. > > Mildly surprising that a left-leaning Government could have got > elected, then. > > But then, Australia has managed to elect a left-leaning Government, > too. And that’s the homeland of Rupert Murdoch. So perhaps there are > limits to the power of right-wing media, after all. But doesn't last. The left-leaning government here is really a minority that managed to convince enough parties to support them because the right had been caught with tremendous corruption. They even got the support of a regional separatist right wing party. Thus a weak government. And they are immersed now in a bunch of corruption cases of their own, most probably invented by the right, with the help of right wing judges and police forces. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-29 00:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10vaid9$3og9a$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87134 |
On 2026-05-26, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2026-05-25 23:50, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> On Mon, 25 May 2026 11:39:02 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> >>> Here, all (tv/radio) media is owned by media magnates, thus they >>> have all right wing tendencies. >> >> Mildly surprising that a left-leaning Government could have got >> elected, then. >> >> But then, Australia has managed to elect a left-leaning Government, >> too. And that’s the homeland of Rupert Murdoch. So perhaps there are >> limits to the power of right-wing media, after all. > > But doesn't last. > > The left-leaning government here is really a minority that managed to > convince enough parties to support them because the right had been > caught with tremendous corruption. They even got the support of a > regional separatist right wing party. Thus a weak government. > > And they are immersed now in a bunch of corruption cases of their own, > most probably invented by the right, with the help of right wing > judges and police forces. The timing is... curious because this Thursday there was apparently a situation of that kind involving PS in .pt. It's a heck of a coincidence that it has happened on the same week as with PSOE in .es. -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-25 18:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7jhtiFgvcpU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #87090 |
On Mon, 25 May 2026 07:14:25 +0100, Pancho wrote: > I thought perhaps proportional representation might help, but Europe > doesn't seem much better. I suspect the problem is the media, we need > better public information. Limits on lobbying. Limits on who dominates > the media. From what I've seen that winds up with two major parties and an array of minor parties. If the major party can't form a government on its own the minor parties that are compatible might get something out of the horse trading. While it is a two party system on the face of it similar negotiations go on within the factions of the Republicans and Democrats.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-25 21:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10v2g4g$1mci8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87090 |
On Mon, 25 May 2026 07:14:25 +0100, Pancho wrote: > I thought perhaps proportional representation might help, but Europe > doesn't seem much better. The Germans put a proportional representation in place after World War II specifically to ensure that a dictator could never gain power there again. Seems to have worked so far. It has worked so well, we in NZ copied it. Maybe time for the US to give it a try?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-25 23:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7k592FgvcpU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #87120 |
On Mon, 25 May 2026 21:49:05 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Mon, 25 May 2026 07:14:25 +0100, Pancho wrote: > >> I thought perhaps proportional representation might help, but Europe >> doesn't seem much better. > > The Germans put a proportional representation in place after World War > II specifically to ensure that a dictator could never gain power there > again. > Seems to have worked so far. > > It has worked so well, we in NZ copied it. > > Maybe time for the US to give it a try? As I pointed out it's effectively the same as the US. The Nationals form the government until they piss off enough people that Labour gets back in. I will admit NZ First is amusing and doesn't seem to know what it wants to be when it grows up. I certainly don't understand the nuances but a Labour-NZ First coalition?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-26 07:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10v3af7$8pv4$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #87124 |
rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: >On Mon, 25 May 2026 21:49:05 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > >> On Mon, 25 May 2026 07:14:25 +0100, Pancho wrote: >> >>> I thought perhaps proportional representation might help, but Europe >>> doesn't seem much better. >> >> The Germans put a proportional representation in place after World War >> II specifically to ensure that a dictator could never gain power there >> again. >> Seems to have worked so far. >> >> It has worked so well, we in NZ copied it. >> >> Maybe time for the US to give it a try? > >As I pointed out it's effectively the same as the US. The Nationals form >the government until they piss off enough people that Labour gets back >in. You obviously don't know enough about our democracy to understand what a "Koalition" is and how important it is for two, three or four parties to find a compromise that'll find a majority in parliament. This works _considerably_ better than majority systems as we see in the UK or in the US, but it's far from perfect. But this is the best democracy we can offer. Greetings Marc -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-26 05:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10v3bp4$1sgfb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87129 |
On Tue, 26 May 2026 07:18:31 +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > You obviously don't know enough about our democracy to understand > what a "Koalition" is and how important it is for two, three or four > parties to find a compromise that'll find a majority in parliament. > > This works _considerably_ better than majority systems as we see in > the UK or in the US, but it's far from perfect. But this is the best > democracy we can offer. The way I see the US attitude to their own system, they see politics as a zero-sum game: whatever one side wins, the other side must lose. So you must never, at all costs, concede anything to the other side, even if it’s something good for your side as well. With a multiparty democracy (as in Germany and NZ), there is more room for negotiation: each party gets something it wants, even if nobody gets enough to entirely satisfy them. Things still manage to get done. Another thing worth pointing out: look at the proneness of the US system to total Government shutdowns as a result of deadlocks over budget negotiations. How many times has that happened? Has that ever happened in Germany? It has certainly never happened in NZ.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-26 07:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7l0b4Fo3tqU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #87131 |
On Tue, 26 May 2026 05:40:52 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > Another thing worth pointing out: look at the proneness of the US system > to total Government shutdowns as a result of deadlocks over budget > negotiations. How many times has that happened? Has that ever happened > in Germany? It has certainly never happened in NZ. This doesn't have anything to do with the country having a population less than New York City does it? Did you ever have a civil war? How does all that scale to a population roughly 60 times larger? I'm not sure Germany is a good example. They seem to be intent on national suicide.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-26 08:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <fqqfemxgmt.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87120 |
On 2026-05-25 23:49, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Mon, 25 May 2026 07:14:25 +0100, Pancho wrote: > >> I thought perhaps proportional representation might help, but Europe >> doesn't seem much better. > > The Germans put a proportional representation in place after World War > II specifically to ensure that a dictator could never gain power there > again. Seems to have worked so far. Wasn't that constitution designed mostly by the allies? > > It has worked so well, we in NZ copied it. > > Maybe time for the US to give it a try? -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-26 07:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7kvq6Fo3tqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #87135 |
On Tue, 26 May 2026 08:22:39 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2026-05-25 23:49, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> On Mon, 25 May 2026 07:14:25 +0100, Pancho wrote: >> >>> I thought perhaps proportional representation might help, but Europe >>> doesn't seem much better. >> >> The Germans put a proportional representation in place after World War >> II specifically to ensure that a dictator could never gain power there >> again. Seems to have worked so far. > > Wasn't that constitution designed mostly by the allies? Both Germany and Japan had a 'modern democratic constitution' rammed down their throats.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-25 06:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10v0o6s$13oth$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87018 |
On 5/23/26 18:12, rbowman wrote: > > The Democrats have long had the 'who else can they vote for?' philosophy > while progressively ignoring their traditional base. They found out they > don't have the lock they thought they did. > Yes, the Democrat argument was essentially correct. However, it neglected to mention that if you vote for the Democrats automatically there is no pressure on them to implement the policy that you actually want, they only needed to implement less bad policy than the Republicans.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-25 13:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10v1dl3$1adps$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87089 |
On 25/05/2026 06:54, Pancho wrote: > On 5/23/26 18:12, rbowman wrote: > >> >> The Democrats have long had the 'who else can they vote for?' philosophy >> while progressively ignoring their traditional base. They found out they >> don't have the lock they thought they did. >> > > Yes, the Democrat argument was essentially correct. However, it > neglected to mention that if you vote for the Democrats automatically > there is no pressure on them to implement the policy that you actually > want, they only needed to implement less bad policy than the Republicans. > > Exactly The same game is played all over western democracies. It works until a third party comes along that actually delivers a little of what they promised -- “Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” H.L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-25 18:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7jh95FgvcpU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #87114 |
On Mon, 25 May 2026 13:00:35 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 25/05/2026 06:54, Pancho wrote: >> On 5/23/26 18:12, rbowman wrote: >> >> >>> The Democrats have long had the 'who else can they vote for?' >>> philosophy while progressively ignoring their traditional base. They >>> found out they don't have the lock they thought they did. >>> >>> >> Yes, the Democrat argument was essentially correct. However, it >> neglected to mention that if you vote for the Democrats automatically >> there is no pressure on them to implement the policy that you actually >> want, they only needed to implement less bad policy than the >> Republicans. >> >> > Exactly The same game is played all over western democracies. > > It works until a third party comes along that actually delivers a little > of what they promised Is Farage and UK Reform such a party? Starmer's days seem to be numbered which isn't a bad thing as far as I can tell.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-25 21:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10v2ah7$1klua$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87116 |
On 25/05/2026 19:04, rbowman wrote: > On Mon, 25 May 2026 13:00:35 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> On 25/05/2026 06:54, Pancho wrote: >>> On 5/23/26 18:12, rbowman wrote: >>> >>> >>>> The Democrats have long had the 'who else can they vote for?' >>>> philosophy while progressively ignoring their traditional base. They >>>> found out they don't have the lock they thought they did. >>>> >>>> >>> Yes, the Democrat argument was essentially correct. However, it >>> neglected to mention that if you vote for the Democrats automatically >>> there is no pressure on them to implement the policy that you actually >>> want, they only needed to implement less bad policy than the >>> Republicans. >>> >>> >> Exactly The same game is played all over western democracies. >> >> It works until a third party comes along that actually delivers a little >> of what they promised > > Is Farage and UK Reform such a party? Starmer's days seem to be numbered > which isn't a bad thing as far as I can tell. Well it remains to be seen But copying Churchill's remedy for the American dilemma, Reform is what is left when you exhausted all the others. And British voters realise that wonderful dreams are no substitute for a bit of hard bitten competence. -- To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-23 18:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <L0mQR.833873$HcOe.805704@fx20.iad> |
| In reply to | #87007 |
On 2026-05-23, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 23/05/2026 13:05, Marc Haber wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D´Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Remember: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
>>
>> And if we didn't learn that, we have a RAGING example of that in the
>> White House since January 2025. I hope that we'll have history books
>> where our kids and grandkids can learn fromthat example. And I surely
>> hope that the eletorate will get a chance to apply some brakes to the
>> raging lunacy (and take it!) this fall.
The late John W. Campbell, editor of Astounding/Analog Science Fiction
magazine, corrected that old phrase by substituting "immunity" for
"power". The two are often confused because power often confers
immunity, unless appropriate checks and balances are in place.
You're less likely to abuse power if you can be called to account
for it. That's why the first thing many politicians do when they
take office is to try to establish immunity. I suspect that Trump
was doing a lot of work behind the scenes to dismantle the checks
and balances which seem to have suddenly become ineffective.
The coup might be already be complete.
> Trump was a medicine that was necessary to teach the Librals a very
> important lesson. Like most medicines, it is also a poison.
>
> Personally from afar I do not see anything worth voting for in the USA.
If you are part of a society that votes, then do so.
There may be no candidates and no measures you want
to vote _for_ - but there are certain to be ones you
want to vote _against_. In case of doubt, vote _against_.
By this rule you will rarely go wrong.
If this is too blind for your taste, consult some
well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and
ask his advice. Then vote the other way. This
enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your
wish) without spending the enormous amount of time
on it that truly intelligent exercise of franchise
requires.
-- Heinlein: The Notebooks of Lazarus Long
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web