Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Two points
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2024 01:47:00 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <cslqkjlf5v44fkgueunqe850e7h40un2uu@4ax.com>
References: <lqu2q4Fa9h6U1@mid.individual.net> <vidd61$18mjb$5@dont-email.me> <viidfc$2ntnt$1@dont-email.me> <viivs8$2t3h9$2@dont-email.me> <vij74v$2trqh$1@dont-email.me> <vijhg6$34qql$3@dont-email.me> <lr51htFfehkU1@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2024 07:47:00 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f90291e22e0141f24854421d4fc83f72";
	logging-data="3333973"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/qULmUnY6J3KdUEP9e3HjSndb6MM56xdk="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:40K+ygUp4Ihw6Y717NGYznr5alU=
OS: Debian 12, with Wine 9.0 for WinAPI
Bytes: 2234

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 05:44:38 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> I’m sure the market likes them a lot, but the market cannot change the
>> laws of physics either: I can always do more with the resources of a
>> desktop than I can with an equivalently-specced laptop, if I don’t need
>> the mobility of the latter.
>
>Doesn't 'equivalently-specced' imply the same 'resources'?


Certainly with Linux it would, a sleek, no-nonsense OS, where Mint
exceeds Win11 in ease and functionality, and can run on far less
hardware without sacrificing too much in performance.

-- 
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.