Metauser

Screenshot of my current desktop

July 27, 2006 Posted by mitch | technology | 0 Comments

Nice and clean. No icons on the desktop!

Laptop status

July 27, 2006 Posted by mitch | redhat, ubuntu | 0 Comments

I've been wanting to run Ubuntu for a while so I can see what all the talk is about. First I was saying I would after I got my RHCE, well I did that then I still kept putting it off, then I changed jobs and and put it off even more... Now I finally bought my own laptop and I was still contemplating installing Fedora just because I need Oracle for school. Well, Ubuntu works out of the box with the wireless card on my laptop, and fedora doesn't. As my previous post stated, I was having problems getting it to work. And it was turning into a very hacked up install to get it to "sorta" work. When I could get it to work, it was still alot of command line tweaking to get it running and I really don't want to do that all the time. So.... I checked out and to get Xen working on Ubuntu is just installing a custom kernel, which is no big deal, or VMWare also installs on Ubuntu so... I'm set, I reinstalled Ubuntu 6.06(Dapper Drake) At work today, and got it updated... fixed the minor issue with NetworkManager (which just needs to recache a pix directory in gnome?) And so far so good. I got all the multimedia stuff installed but I still need to test it. And I have a pretty slick theme going I'll post a screen shot in a bit. Anyway VMWare is downloading, and since its free, I should be good to go. Anyway, all in all, I'm liking Ubuntu. I'm not sure if its because of this latest and greatest release or what... but so far its excelent.

Wireless troubles with new laptop

July 26, 2006 Posted by mitch | technology | 0 Comments

Why is it these hardware manufacturers have such a hard time letting go of this idea that they'll loose something if they were to let the linux community distribute their drivers, or even more... if they'd just release the specs for their wireless hardware and let the open source community develop the drivers independantly. Anyway, I'm documenting my setup on my Lenovo N100 page. Check it out for my final how-to on getting wireless to work in hopefully an easily maintainable way.

House rejects same-sex marriages bill

July 19, 2006 Posted by mitch | politics, thoughts | 0 Comments

All I can say is "good". I mean honestly... there are much more important issues going on in our Nation alone, than to give this issue another thought. Its pointless. Even more dissapointing however, is the show of how little some of our elected officials know and understand what our country is about. Our founding fathers often spoke out against a "Direct democracy", because it would give to much power to the majority, allowing them to squander the rights of the minority. Which is exactly what this country was founded on. Our ansestors came to America because they were being persecuted and their rights squandered because of the majority, and now the "christian" majority are trying to do that again to other minorities. You don't have to agree with the lifestyle of the minority(or anyone else for that matter), its your right not to. Using your status as the majority to take away rights from a minority just because you find morally wrong? What? Come on, and going as far as to put a descriminating clause in the Constitution? Its purpose is to give *WE THE PEOPLE* our rights to protect us from the government! Here you are trying to turn it against a minority. You should be ashamed. It will *NOT* affect you one bit if a gay or lesbian couple are able to get married. I mean, whats the chances of divorce now between straight couples? Nor does it mean the nation will become over run with gay and lesbians (because we all know straight people only breed straight children right?). Nor does it mean you will have to allow these marriages in your temples, churches or synagogues, because these places are not currently required to marry any and all straight couples! These are religious places and as such have the protections to prevent the government from doing these things! Ya know, that other clause you religious groups like to grip about, "Separation between church and state". In this case it is working towards your cause.

In any case I want to make one comment about the article I linked above:

"Forty-five states have passed laws or constitutional amendments defining marriage between a man and a woman, yet non- elected, liberally motivated judges have overturned the voice of the American people time after time," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) in a statement.

"It's unfortunate that more than a majority of democrats today have sided with these liberal judges and voted against this measure," Hastert said.

No, Speaker Hastert, its unfortunate that you think that way. You seemingly act like you know very little about the history of this nation and the reasons it was founded in the first place. As I've previously stated, we are a "Democratic Republic" for a very specific reason. So the rights of the few can not be squandered by the many. After all, that is why our ancestors left their homes and everything they had and wanted to come to America in the first place. Ya know? The Land of the Free?

Changing Thoughts on Net Neutrality

July 17, 2006 Posted by mitch | internet, technology, thoughts | 0 Comments

I know I've written about this alot, mostly because I'm very concerned about it. I for one do not want the big ISP/Content provides such as the telco's and cable companies making toll roads on the internet. As such, I was of the opinion that a Net Neutrality law would restrict that. However, after watching some very funny bits from the Daily Show, and actually seeing these people I'm trusting to create this law... I've completely lost all faith that they could ever do it right and I'd rather have to deal with the technical pieces and public awareness pieces of the situation instead of trying to get them to fix their broken law. I was reading Pete Ashdown's Blog today and noticed he has written about a new opinion about the whole debate. Which comes from the point of view of "labeling". As Pete puts it:

labeling laws are a good way to inform the consumer and keep economic playing fields level. For instance, the “juice” vs. “cocktail” labeling law informs purchasers of the content of their purchase, but keeps regulation low.

This works with Net Neutrality by really defining for everyone what the "Internet" really is. Up until recencently I've never really thought about it in the terms needed to define it as a label, but I've always believed what it stood for and why it was good. The Internet is the network to connect networks, or an internetwork connecting networks. Meaning its existance is mearly for connecting two ends together, or "A World of Ends". Any attempt to filter, and "limit" this world has changed what it is, and shouldn't be labeled an "Internet connection" but something else. Forcing this type of labeling seems like the ideal solution if you ask me(and one I had never considered), which Pete also endorced. I must say I agree and will in turn continue to support Pete. He has my vote! Also the organization that is backing this new idea is located at: http://dpsproject.com/ and they also have my support.

Steven Hawking's Question to the World

July 7, 2006 Posted by mitch | life, politics, thoughts | 0 Comments

How can the human race survive the next 100 years? thats the question... what do you think? Being my blog, I'll write what I think. My simple answer is "Same way we've survived the last X years". We humans naturally have an intense desire to survive and we will at all cost. That desire will never change. Dr. Hawking implies that our civil unrest with each other and with nature, will be what kills us off unless we do something. Which is definately a valid point. Why we as humans insist on performing gestapo tactics on each other is beyond me. I'm not just implying tactics of the current so called "terrorists". After all they are just standing up for what they believe... Why they're so radical about it is where they cross the line, but they aren't the only ones that do such things. Most (or dare I say all? to my knowledge at least) religions perform some of these same actions, either directly or indirectly, with and without malace. These religions may not do it on purpose, but its one thing after another, people connect things that they shouldn't and it all gets taken out of porportion, and out of control. This is where we have problems, people dissagree (which is natural and a given because of circumstance), which is where things should stop. Its OK to dissagree with someone, however because you believe your opinion is "right", it does *not* give you the right to force it apon someone else. Before you become cynical with that comment wait and let me finish. As a citizen of the United States of America, I have to say I've become more and more impressed by the sheer wisdom and forethought in our Constitution. Our founding fathers where very intelligent and they added the very excellent clause as to what a persons rights are. Citizens(however I would much rather consider it as a Human Right) have the *RIGHT* to our own Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. The only time this is (or should be) overruled is by someone elses Rights. This is where you cynical people come back into play. As any of your cynical comments will usually violate atleast one of those three words which are given to every person(or should be...) in this country(and more utopian like, the World). This is a moto I'm trying to truely adapt into the way I think, that if something doesn't affect me personally? what do I care, or have any business in, what you do? As such, I don't think there should be any laws or amendments to our consitution that do anything to counter those Rights. Our founding fathers knew these things from the begining, they used history as their teacher... Now why can't we do the same?

Net Neutrality and the Last Mile

July 3, 2006 Posted by mitch | internet, technology, thoughts | 0 Comments

For those that don't know, the "Last Mile" refers to the connection from the end user(consumer's residence) to their ISP's backbone. This is also the portion that the Net Neutrality debate is talking about. There was recently an article in the column I, Cringely on pbs.org, talking about a "solution" to this whole debate. A thought I believe I've mentioned previously on one of my rants. Essentually the article is calling for a community owned Fiber To The Home (FTTH) network, paid for by the home owners in the community. While I personally agree with this, this also would be impracticle in more urban areas, where better wireless access would be much easier and cheaper. As I've said before I would love to have UTOPIA in my house. It simply is a FTTH infastructure built and backed by the City. Its operated by a non-profit organization, and they allow anyone to provide services over it. However, since the city I bought my house in, did not support UTOPIA when they were looking for cities sign up. I'm not sure when the next time will be that they can join, and if its a long way away, I'm going to look at what it would take to just get the community I live in to join up with UTOPIA, since I never thought that just a community could before. Which also reminds me... I need to look up the transcripts from any and all meetings the city counsil had with regard to UTOPIA.. So I know who not to vote for come elections. I support UTOPIA just as I support the city maintaining city roads. The city controlling the fiber infastructure is the best solution because that puts the city council immediately in control of the "last mile" of their infastructure, and could allow the citizens to vote to keep it current and working. Also allowing as many providers as they feel they need to keep up competition. This situation also provides exactly what the anti-net neutrality people want to do, let the market figure it out itself without legislation. However, this still doesn't account for the credits and such that the Telco's were given to "upgrade" the nations infastructure. And maybe we should make them help pay the cities to pay for this community owned FTTH.