here we go with Linux again

I'm putzing around while kinda, sorta doing a bunch of mundane and/or domestic tasks.

The dishwasher just gone done and waits to be emptied.  The clothes washer is at work on a load of pants and shorts.  The dryer is working on undergarments and shirts.  The HP Pavilion is restarting as I type this.  If all goes well, it'll restart running Kubuntu.  I've already tried it once and failed.  After the first restart following the first install, the computer got stuck right after loading the BIOS.  It'd stop with a black screen and in white text, "No Operating System Found".  I'd call that a serious problem.

It appears that all has gone well this time.  Now there remains one more big sticking point: getting the computer to recognize its wireless hardware.  It's ridiculous that it's even a hassle.  I believe it has something to do with open source vs proprietary software, but I'm not totally sure about it.  I do know that Broadcom is a major player in mobile and wireless hardware, so it's odd that its products aren't easily supported on one of the most popular Linux distrubtions.  Anyhoo...all I have to do is connect it to the router via ethernet cable and do a little command line wizardry and the wireless will be up and running.  I had to do the same thing when I loaded Ubuntu on my iBook G4 (which I don't recommend doing unless you're a masochist or really good with computers...or both).  If your computer has a Broadcom wireless card, you can find the solution to your Linux installation woes here: How to: Broadcom wireless cards.

UPDATE:  The instructions in the above link ended up not working.  I'm working on a solution.

Hezbollah in Nikes just do it

My morning news wanderings started with the obligatory spin through the Pensacola News Journal. The only article I bothered with there had this headline: Santa Rosa takes deed to part of Tiger Point road. Don't ask me why I even cared about that one. I guess it's because a government entity is gaining ownership of a piece of land and not paying for it. I'm not saying it's bad; that's just what hit me when I read the headline.

After checking out the local scene I went over the MSNBC to see what was shakin' nationwide and around the world. Right at the top, the featured story: Hezbollah gunmen seize large sections of Beirut. I can't say my initial interest had anything to do with concern for the people living in the city or the local/international political scene in the areas there. What caught my interest was the photo alongside the lead story.

Doesn't it look like that could've been a posed shot?  Look at the guy standing up in the middle, against the wall.  He's pretty buff isn't he?  And don't they all look clean?  The one guy's clearly wearing Nikes.  Go Nike.  Just do it.  Is Hezbollah sponsored by Nike?  I like how it says HOT on the building's walls.  I'm not saying this is a posed shot.  I'm just saying it looks like one.  Not all armed insurgents/revolutionaries are dirty, poor, hiding in caves.  It's a crazy world we live in.  The picture above says to me, "Welcome to 21st Century warfare."

I noticed the pic was from Reuters so I went over there to investigate further.  There, too, the Hezbollah story was top news, though not quite as prominently featured as it was on MSNBC.  The Reuters story, Hezbollah impose control on Beirut, is more thorough than MSNBC's.  That doesn't surprise me.  It's to be expected.  They have different audiences.  Of course the images caught my interest again and I clicked into the photo slideshow related to the story.  The crazy pic from above was in there.  The first one is really cool, too.

Another thing worth noting in the pictures from the conflict is how it shows that Beirut is a modern city with modern culture.  If it can happen there...

Engadget is a whiny baby

 Engadget recently distilled a NY Times article into a blog post, Microsoft and NBC working on copyright filters for Zune?  They go through the routine of how it's bullshit that companies are trying to protect their property, as if we have an inherent right to do whatever we want with whatever we want.  I'm mostly sympathetic to such views.  I believe in freedom, and that means I believe that people/companies have the freedom to protect their shit.  It's no more "wrong" for Microsoft to want their products to protect the rights of their clients than it is for me to want to be able to watch a movie, which I copied from you (illegally), on my media player.  Companies (and a lot of people) exist so they can make money.  Giving their products away for free or sitting idly by while people just take whatever they want doesn't make any sense.  There's not a lot of proof that illegal sharing (LOL...illegal sharing...thou shalt not share) is pilfering from the coffers of the corporations and it's impossible to totally lock down your stuff but that doesn't mean that companies are evil or foolish for wanting to try to lock down their property.  It's like not bothering to put locks on your doors because there are ninjas who can pick them.  Whatever.  I lock my doors.

And then Engadget goes on to bitch about Micro$oft and AT$T working on filtering copyrighted material at the ISP level.  I just don't get why people think that companies are evil for trying to prevent them from doing shit that's illegal.  Again, I'm not against file sharing.  I'm just against the belief that for-profit entities are wrong for attempting to maximize profit.  If you have a network that you built and paid for then you'd want to do what you want with it.  Is it so wrong for there to be forces patrolling the internet in the same way there are forces patrolling our highways trying to bust people for breaking the law?  Only the staunchest anarchist would argue that there is no good reason for the existence of police.  You don't have to be for such groups.  Do what you want to do and accept the fact that your behavior brings you enemies.  Repercussions make life fun, right?

a pin drops, mobile broadband users hear it clearly

Sprint Nextel and Clearwire are merging.

From a Sprint press release:

Sprint and Clearwire to Combine WiMAX Businesses, Creating a New Mobile Broadband Company

Intel, Google, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks to Invest $3.2 Billion in Combined Company, at Target Price of $20.00 per Share

Formation of New Company Brings Together the Nation's Leaders in Communications, Technology Innovation and Entertainment

New Company to Speed Deployment of First Nationwide Next-Generation Mobile WiMAX Network

Transaction Designed to Unlock the Potential of Clearwire's and Sprint's 4G Assets

New Company to be Led by Seasoned Management Team from Clearwire and Sprint's XOHM Business Unit; Board of Directors to Include Leading Wireless and Cable Executives

Google's involved?  Cool.  That means the new company (which will be called Clearwire) will be easily accessible by the widest range of devices possible.  It'll make it easier to use the phone you want and it'll be easier for hardware and software developers to create cool new devices and applications.

Another partner in this deal that caught my eye is Bright House Networks.  Who the #@%* is Bright House?  I did a little googling and was surprised to learn that Bright House sells cable, phone, and internet service as nearby as Cantonment and Defuniak Springs.  Who knew?

Will next year's NASCAR season be dubbed the Clearwire Cup Series?