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 213 — 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
[OT] Copies of identification documents (was: Re: Linux to be illegal in California?) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-04 18:10 +0100
Re: [OT] Copies of identification documents "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-04 20:16 +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 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-19 02:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <wFqdnWs8BsfymJH3nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #86892 |
I think I was talking to you .... Bought $100 new 'sound bar' for my TV - "Ultimea". A few days of fucking around with it. DISCONNECTED. $100 down the drain. Which recycle bin do I use ? Intractable 'reverb'-like effect - even using optical input. Worst with studio news-readers for some reason. It's SOME kind of processing error ... either in relation to the built-in TV speakers (did fool with that) or more likely processing delay between the stereo channels. NO setting totally fixed it. The overall SOUND was better than with my old sound bar fer sure - but that 'reverb' was driving me nuts. There is also like some very-high-frequency overtone that actually made my ears ring. Could not get rid of it. Oh, final insult ... a "power saving" soft power switch. No sound for like five minutes and it TURNED OFF and did NOT auto-reactivate when sound returned. DID fix my little old sound bar ... used the optical input instead of copper. Voice is CLEAR and NO funky reverb-like effects. Audio range is not as good. When younger I was kind of an audiophile ... had pretty expensive amps/speakers. Can't hear nearly as well now so cheaper serves well. If you're young, DO look into magneplanar speakers, the nearest thing to 'transparent' audio. Have an old REM cd with a song that starts with the sound of a manual typewriter ... with those good speakers the effect of "being right there" was hair-raising. Still have those little Bose wedge speakers ... MAY use them for low-level background to improve the low end. Oddly, for all the wires, do NOT have the right sound plug ... gotta shop ... stereo 2-way 3.5 plug-in audio cable. And, so far, my horribly slashed-up old-fart arm from all the exercise has not become infected ! Still looks awful, but such things usually do. It'll be two or three weeks to heal though. Lucky I have lots of stretch-wrap bandage ... old farts should have a LOT of that on hand ! "Neosporin" goop too !!! Ain't my first slashing ... won't be my last. NO good fix for 'thin skin' either other than bloody tweaks to turn yer arms into one giant scar .....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-19 16:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn110p42d.cm9.spamtrap42@one.localnet> |
| In reply to | #86897 |
On 2026-05-19, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
> ...
>
> The overall SOUND was better than with my old sound
> bar fer sure - but that 'reverb' was driving me nuts.
> There is also like some very-high-frequency overtone
> that actually made my ears ring. Could not get rid
> of it.
There are articles about many (consumer-grade) class D amplifiers
producing high frequency sound on their own that aggravates
tinnitus, etc.
> ...
> ... Oddly, for all the wires, do NOT have the
> right sound plug ... gotta shop ... stereo 2-way
> 3.5 plug-in audio cable.
Disclaimer: I'm only a very satisfied customer of these online
retailers:
https://grumpymancables.com/
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/
--
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-20 09:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10ujpu1$3qahl$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #86826 |
On 2026-05-17, Rich wrote: > c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >> On 5/17/26 01:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 17/05/2026 04:42, c186282 wrote: >>>> Hey, think we couldn't get Playboy's booze >>>> and weed in the 60s ??? 🙂 >> >>> Did playboy sell booze? >> >> Nah ... you had to get that from >> another guy ! >> >> Thing is, ALWAYS is, that there's always >> "another guy". Prohibitionism NEVER works. >> Just drives the prohibited whatever >> underground - and funds people that maybe >> we don't want funded. > > It's not that it "never" works. It works very well from the political > class view. It also *never* works perfectly, which I suspect is the > point you are making. It can also work terribly, I think some countries, like the USA, are a prime example of how a "war on drugs" causes excessive harm instead of addressing the issues, possibly merely out of political ideology. > Prohibition works *by* driving whatever is prohibited underground. > Which results in far fewer being able to obtain it. Which the > politician who was pushing prohibit Y takes up and proclaims as a win > (no more "bad stuff Y" being sold at corner markets....). They ignore > than for those who know how, they can still get bad stuff Y via the > underground, the corner stores were the real targets anyway, as that > reduced the sales of Y by a huge amount. > > And anyone of the normal "john q public" who generally attempts to > avoid doing illegal things, even if they were buying Y at the corner > market, they will instead go cold-turkey rather than risk going via the > underground and taking a risk of being caught and have a criminal > record. [1] > > And for most folks, if Y isn't on the sheles of the corner store (nor > available via Amazon/etc.) then Y no longer exists in the world to be > purchased. And that's a "success" from the politician's viewpoint. > Even if those who have "connections" can still get it via the > underground. > > [1] I've seen this one directly myself. A friend is always lamenting > how "movie A" or "old 80's/90's tv show B" is not yet available via > "favorite streaming service of the day". I continually point out that > both A and B are readially available via a simple download off the > internet, and without commercials, or other crap the streaming services > add. His response is always the same: "I'm not going to risk being a > criminal to download it...". No lending libraries with TV/film content there? I do wish legal deposit laws across the globe were updated to include provisions for such content... some countries only have legal deposit for books, so anything in video or audio form needs the luck of a library acquiring it and it still being present in good condition... (But some countries are probably too big for legal deposit to be any helpful if you don't live near the library holding the copy, unless you have a comprehensive library network with an inter-library exchange system that's free of charge?) -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-20 14:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10ukfrs$1649$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #86929 |
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 2026-05-17, Rich wrote: > >> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >>> On 5/17/26 01:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> On 17/05/2026 04:42, c186282 wrote: >>>>> Hey, think we couldn't get Playboy's booze >>>>> and weed in the 60s ??? 🙂 >>> >>>> Did playboy sell booze? >>> >>> Nah ... you had to get that from >>> another guy ! >>> >>> Thing is, ALWAYS is, that there's always >>> "another guy". Prohibitionism NEVER works. >>> Just drives the prohibited whatever >>> underground - and funds people that maybe >>> we don't want funded. >> >> It's not that it "never" works. It works very well from the political >> class view. It also *never* works perfectly, which I suspect is the >> point you are making. > > It can also work terribly, I think some countries, like the USA, are a > prime example of how a "war on drugs" causes excessive harm instead of > addressing the issues, possibly merely out of political ideology. Given that the "political class" often have selective blindness to the negative effects of their plans, they *see* it working well. The "thing" they wanted to disappear all but disappears from their view. The 17 other raging fires of destruction that sprung up because they made that thing disappear, they selectively ignore. >> [1] I've seen this one directly myself. A friend is always lamenting >> how "movie A" or "old 80's/90's tv show B" is not yet available via >> "favorite streaming service of the day". I continually point out that >> both A and B are readially available via a simple download off the >> internet, and without commercials, or other crap the streaming services >> add. His response is always the same: "I'm not going to risk being a >> criminal to download it...". > > No lending libraries with TV/film content there? There are, but the selection is often quite limited, and does depend upon the local library being able/willing to purchase the items for lending. > I do wish legal deposit laws across the globe were updated to include > provisions for such content... some countries only have legal > deposit for books, so anything in video or audio form needs the luck > of a library acquiring it and it still being present in good > condition... Yes, a "required lending library deposit" system would go a long way to help.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-17 15:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10ucltm$1omrb$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #86802 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 17/05/2026 04:42, c186282 wrote: >> Hey, think we couldn't get Playboy's booze >> and weed in the 60s ??? 🙂 > Did playboy sell booze? The magazine was likely full of advertisements for booze. Whether one considers that to be "selling booze" likely depends upon the breadth of one's definition of "selling"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-16 09:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6a083913$0$7108$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #86739 |
Le 16-05-2026, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> a écrit : > On 2026-05-15 22:29, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: >> Le 13-05-2026, John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> a écrit : >>> I heard systemd added an optional age field a >>> specific distro can force upon its use on their users. >> >> I read things about that, but nothing technical, only rhetorical so I >> didn't took care of it because: >> - The principle is stupid, the issue is about education. If people can't >> be educated when they are child or later, then one can't protect them >> from themselves forever. >> - I really like to know how a distro would be able to force age >> verification on my computer. I mean, it's Linux, it's FOSS and >> everything, it's not Windows or Apple. So what could they do to stop >> me to revert any option they put in place? >> > > No, the real issue is complying with the law. It does not matter if we > agree with it or not. Except that we are speaking about agreeing with California law when I'm neither a Californian nor living there. So if the distribution provides a way to enforce Californian law, as a french living in France, I have no obligation, neither moral nor legal, to follow it. > It does not matter if we think it is about education. For now, there is nothing in the law about that in France. So I don't care about the rhetorical discussions about it because I consider the principle being stupid. > So now the legal teams in distributions are analyzing the several laws > in the world and trying to then tell the developers and system designers > what to do next. For now, what I hear is most about trying to know how to evolve the law to take social media into account because it's not covered. Unlike porn, alcohol, drugs or cigarettes. -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-16 11:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jmqldmxcfm.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #86757 |
On 2026-05-16 11:29, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: > Le 16-05-2026, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> a écrit : >> On 2026-05-15 22:29, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: >>> Le 13-05-2026, John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> a écrit : >>>> I heard systemd added an optional age field a >>>> specific distro can force upon its use on their users. >>> >>> I read things about that, but nothing technical, only rhetorical so I >>> didn't took care of it because: >>> - The principle is stupid, the issue is about education. If people can't >>> be educated when they are child or later, then one can't protect them >>> from themselves forever. >>> - I really like to know how a distro would be able to force age >>> verification on my computer. I mean, it's Linux, it's FOSS and >>> everything, it's not Windows or Apple. So what could they do to stop >>> me to revert any option they put in place? >>> >> >> No, the real issue is complying with the law. It does not matter if we >> agree with it or not. > > Except that we are speaking about agreeing with California law when I'm > neither a Californian nor living there. So if the distribution provides > a way to enforce Californian law, as a french living in France, I have > no obligation, neither moral nor legal, to follow it. You still have to abide by a law, the French law in your case. And the Linux distribution you have must include whatever is needed to abide by all the laws in the world, including the Californian law (and the French law). The system has to know the country of the user, and then, select the bunch of laws for that country. > >> It does not matter if we think it is about education. > > For now, there is nothing in the law about that in France. So I don't > care about the rhetorical discussions about it because I consider the > principle being stupid. > >> So now the legal teams in distributions are analyzing the several laws >> in the world and trying to then tell the developers and system designers >> what to do next. > > For now, what I hear is most about trying to know how to evolve the law > to take social media into account because it's not covered. Unlike porn, > alcohol, drugs or cigarettes. > -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-16 22:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20260516181827@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #86758 |
On 2026-05-16, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > You still have to abide by a law, the French law in your case. And the > Linux distribution you have must include whatever is needed to abide by > all the laws in the world, including the Californian law (and the French > law). The system has to know the country of the user, and then, select > the bunch of laws for that country. Actually you don't need to abide. Linux open source it would certainly be possible to distribute forks with that garbage patched out. What is needed is massive disobedience to the point where for the enforcers it is like playing whack-a-mole. -- Roger Blake
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-17 14:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vopodmxgrd.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #86782 |
On 2026-05-17 00:21, Roger Blake wrote: > On 2026-05-16, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >> You still have to abide by a law, the French law in your case. And the >> Linux distribution you have must include whatever is needed to abide by >> all the laws in the world, including the Californian law (and the French >> law). The system has to know the country of the user, and then, select >> the bunch of laws for that country. > > Actually you don't need to abide. Linux open source it would certainly > be possible to distribute forks with that garbage patched out. What > is needed is massive disobedience to the point where for the > enforcers it is like playing whack-a-mole. > That doesn't work if sites query for age and get no reply. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-17 13:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20260517090647@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #86821 |
On 2026-05-17, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > That doesn't work if sites query for age and get no reply. It works if the operating system is patched to provide a phony age in response to such queries. -- Roger Blake
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-17 22:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10udgl4$21uie$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #86823 |
On Sun, 17 May 2026 13:08:20 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake wrote: > It works if the operating system is patched to provide a phony age > in response to such queries. This is why no workable system would rely on a response from the other end that comes without attestation. Think of how you trust that the website your’re connecting to to do your banking or online shopping is really who they say they are: the same sort of mechanism can work in both directions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-18 12:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20260518082912@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #86842 |
On 2026-05-17, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > This is why no workable system would rely on a response from the other > end that comes without attestation. Of course "attestation" is the end game that the people pushing are really after. The time to push back is now, before "attestation" to simply make use of the internet is imposed. -- Roger Blake
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-19 02:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10ugghl$2utt1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #86848 |
On Mon, 18 May 2026 12:34:29 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake wrote: > Of course "attestation" is the end game that the people pushing are > really after. The time to push back is now, before "attestation" to > simply make use of the internet is imposed. “internet” ≠ “web” ≠ “mainstream social-media sites”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-19 21:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20260519170444@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #86882 |
On 2026-05-19, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > “internet” ≠ “web” ≠ “mainstream social-media sites” When I said "internet" I meant "internet", to the point where you need to provide government-issued ID just to connect in the first place. I have no doubt that is the long term goal. -- Roger Blake
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-19 23:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10uispf$3k8o9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #86913 |
On Tue, 19 May 2026 21:07:06 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake wrote: > On 2026-05-19, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >> >> “internet” ≠ “web” ≠ “mainstream social-media sites” > > When I said "internet" I meant "internet", to the point where you > need to provide government-issued ID just to connect in the first > place. I have never needed to do any such thing. > I have no doubt that is the long term goal. Is your country not a freedom-loving secular democracy? Mine is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-20 01:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20260519211051@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #86914 |
On 2026-05-19, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > I have never needed to do any such thing. Not yet. Give it time if the people behind this are successful and push further. > Is your country not a freedom-loving secular democracy? Mine is. It is supposed to be a freedom-loving representative republic. -- Roger Blake
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-20 02:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10uj4kn$3m1gl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #86915 |
On Wed, 20 May 2026 01:13:19 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake wrote: > On 2026-05-19, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >> >> I have never needed to do any such thing. > > Not yet. Give it time if the people behind this are successful and > push further. They’re not going to reach this far. Yes, we have some in the political leadership who think this Trump guy may be worth something. But they’re in the minority, and they’re going to stay that way. >> Is your country not a freedom-loving secular democracy? Mine is. > > It is supposed to be a freedom-loving representative republic. No such thing. “Representative” of what? From what you’ve said so far, your power elite only “represent” themselves. Try democracy. As Churchill said, it’s the worst system in the world -- apart from all the others.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-20 02:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n74kvtF70kqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #86917 |
On Wed, 20 May 2026 02:00:55 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > Try democracy. As Churchill said, it’s the worst system in the world -- > apart from all the others. Once you get past local town meetings there is no such unicorn.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-21 02:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20260520224023@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #86917 |
On 2026-05-20, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > Try democracy. As Churchill said, it’s the worst system in the world > -- apart from all the others. Churchill was wrong. In a democracy 51% of the voters get to stick it to the other 49%. -- Roger Blake
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-21 03:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10ulsp7$f7t3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #86944 |
On Thu, 21 May 2026 02:42:33 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake wrote: > On 2026-05-20, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >> >> Try democracy. As Churchill said, it’s the worst system in the world >> -- apart from all the others. > > Churchill was wrong. In a democracy 51% of the voters get to stick > it to the other 49%. In our freedom-loving secular democracy, we can’t get 51% of the people to agree on anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web