[ucodegen]

[quote pri_dk]
Another problem with the general “let the market settle where it may” approach is that it ignores transaction costs. Sure, we can let all these homes sit vacant, move slowly through the courts over many years, sell them at auction to investors and eventually have the same people back in them as renters. That would be the textbook “market” approach, but it carries a lot of deadweight loss – $trillions in assets sit idle and lots of money goes to middlemen who create no real value.
[/quote]
You are assuming that I am a proponent of this approach – effectively another strawman argument.

If the bank takes possession through foreclosure, they should be responsible for the house as an owner would be. This includes property taxes, HOA fees, MRs and maintenance of the property.

This way, while it is vacant, it is costing the bank money and time. They would rather have the money producing something than costing them.

PS: what you mentioned above is not considered a ‘transaction cost’. It is more akin to ‘opportunity cost’.

[quote pri_dk]
$trillions in assets sit idle and lots of money goes to middlemen who create no real value. Transaction costs in real estate are huge, and even bigger when they involve a legal process like foreclosure.
[/quote]
The huge cost is a cost in the foreclosure is a cost to the bank, and it is largely due to inefficiencies in the bank. Not all banks have that problem, and some are getting much more efficient at foreclosures. Remember, when a bank loans out money, that money has to come from somewhere… most likely peoples pensions, CDs etc (other peoples money). These ‘other people’ want to be paid too, so the money the bank is lending out, is not free to the bank.

[ucodegen]

[quote pri_dk]
Another problem with the general “let the market settle where it may” approach is that it ignores transaction costs. Sure, we can let all these homes sit vacant, move slowly through the courts over many years, sell them at auction to investors and eventually have the same people back in them as renters. That would be the textbook “market” approach, but it carries a lot of deadweight loss – $trillions in assets sit idle and lots of money goes to middlemen who create no real value.
[/quote]
You are assuming that I am a proponent of this approach – effectively another strawman argument.

If the bank takes possession through foreclosure, they should be responsible for the house as an owner would be. This includes property taxes, HOA fees, MRs and maintenance of the property.

This way, while it is vacant, it is costing the bank money and time. They would rather have the money producing something than costing them.

PS: what you mentioned above is not considered a ‘transaction cost’. It is more akin to ‘opportunity cost’.

[quote pri_dk]
$trillions in assets sit idle and lots of money goes to middlemen who create no real value. Transaction costs in real estate are huge, and even bigger when they involve a legal process like foreclosure.
[/quote]
The huge cost is a cost in the foreclosure is a cost to the bank, and it is largely due to inefficiencies in the bank. Not all banks have that problem, and some are getting much more efficient at foreclosures. Remember, when a bank loans out money, that money has to come from somewhere… most likely peoples pensions, CDs etc (other peoples money). These ‘other people’ want to be paid too, so the money the bank is lending out, is not free to the bank.

[ucodegen]

[quote pri_dk]
Another problem with the general “let the market settle where it may” approach is that it ignores transaction costs. Sure, we can let all these homes sit vacant, move slowly through the courts over many years, sell them at auction to investors and eventually have the same people back in them as renters. That would be the textbook “market” approach, but it carries a lot of deadweight loss – $trillions in assets sit idle and lots of money goes to middlemen who create no real value.
[/quote]
You are assuming that I am a proponent of this approach – effectively another strawman argument.

If the bank takes possession through foreclosure, they should be responsible for the house as an owner would be. This includes property taxes, HOA fees, MRs and maintenance of the property.

This way, while it is vacant, it is costing the bank money and time. They would rather have the money producing something than costing them.

PS: what you mentioned above is not considered a ‘transaction cost’. It is more akin to ‘opportunity cost’.

[quote pri_dk]
$trillions in assets sit idle and lots of money goes to middlemen who create no real value. Transaction costs in real estate are huge, and even bigger when they involve a legal process like foreclosure.
[/quote]
The huge cost is a cost in the foreclosure is a cost to the bank, and it is largely due to inefficiencies in the bank. Not all banks have that problem, and some are getting much more efficient at foreclosures. Remember, when a bank loans out money, that money has to come from somewhere… most likely peoples pensions, CDs etc (other peoples money). These ‘other people’ want to be paid too, so the money the bank is lending out, is not free to the bank.

[ucodegen]

[quote briansd1]
I do believe that we need to elect leaders who believe that the government works and does positive things for people.

If we elect leaders who believe that government does not work, then they will make sure that it doesn’t work.
[/quote]
What I have been seeing too much is not that people are being elected who don’t think government works, but people being elected who really don’t care what the electorate wants. They are there to push their personal agenda – or for the freebies. These people will claim that they care, but their behavior changes once in office. The become ensconced and hard to remove.

[quote briansd1]
The financial crisis, BP spill, and ecol i outbreaks happened because regulators where not regulating out of ideology. The government agencies were there, but the regulators did not do their jobs.
[/quote]
I think it was not ideological, it was more a combination of lazyness and not rocking the boat. Much like how 9/11 occurred – where FBI agents on the ground were reporting that people of Arab nationality were taking flying classes and they didn’t seem to be that interested in learning how to land. The field agents reported it up the chain, and the top said that it wasn’t a problem. The only conspiracy I saw was one of sloth and laziness. Normally, if a division of a company performed in this manner, it would be liquidated, eliminated or the CEO would assign someone new to run it – putting the former head out to pasture. Unfortunately with government structures, it seems to be a little harder to do that (political reasons?). The heads of FBI/CIA should have been put out to pasture as a result of 9/11 – or they should have taken the Japanese way out. If I was in their shoes, I would have been very embarassed(putting it mildly). Instead, these same people were given more authority, and we lose some more rights.

Part of the reason why San Diego is playing around with the ‘strong Mayor’ structure, is to see it the Mayor could reach through the bureaucracy to clean things up. As to whether he has the political will.. ummm…

In terms of gov. accounting, I would love to see it change so that if there is a surplus in a division, it gets to carry over to the next year (normally allocated budget + surplus from last year). The max surplus a division can carry over might be a negotiated point (need to find a way to structure it to prevent gaming the system). The only problem I see it the bureaucrat and politicians attraction to anything that might have money in it (they seem to be parasitic in nature)

[ucodegen]

[quote briansd1]
I do believe that we need to elect leaders who believe that the government works and does positive things for people.

If we elect leaders who believe that government does not work, then they will make sure that it doesn’t work.
[/quote]
What I have been seeing too much is not that people are being elected who don’t think government works, but people being elected who really don’t care what the electorate wants. They are there to push their personal agenda – or for the freebies. These people will claim that they care, but their behavior changes once in office. The become ensconced and hard to remove.

[quote briansd1]
The financial crisis, BP spill, and ecol i outbreaks happened because regulators where not regulating out of ideology. The government agencies were there, but the regulators did not do their jobs.
[/quote]
I think it was not ideological, it was more a combination of lazyness and not rocking the boat. Much like how 9/11 occurred – where FBI agents on the ground were reporting that people of Arab nationality were taking flying classes and they didn’t seem to be that interested in learning how to land. The field agents reported it up the chain, and the top said that it wasn’t a problem. The only conspiracy I saw was one of sloth and laziness. Normally, if a division of a company performed in this manner, it would be liquidated, eliminated or the CEO would assign someone new to run it – putting the former head out to pasture. Unfortunately with government structures, it seems to be a little harder to do that (political reasons?). The heads of FBI/CIA should have been put out to pasture as a result of 9/11 – or they should have taken the Japanese way out. If I was in their shoes, I would have been very embarassed(putting it mildly). Instead, these same people were given more authority, and we lose some more rights.

Part of the reason why San Diego is playing around with the ‘strong Mayor’ structure, is to see it the Mayor could reach through the bureaucracy to clean things up. As to whether he has the political will.. ummm…

In terms of gov. accounting, I would love to see it change so that if there is a surplus in a division, it gets to carry over to the next year (normally allocated budget + surplus from last year). The max surplus a division can carry over might be a negotiated point (need to find a way to structure it to prevent gaming the system). The only problem I see it the bureaucrat and politicians attraction to anything that might have money in it (they seem to be parasitic in nature)

[ucodegen]

[quote briansd1]
I do believe that we need to elect leaders who believe that the government works and does positive things for people.

If we elect leaders who believe that government does not work, then they will make sure that it doesn’t work.
[/quote]
What I have been seeing too much is not that people are being elected who don’t think government works, but people being elected who really don’t care what the electorate wants. They are there to push their personal agenda – or for the freebies. These people will claim that they care, but their behavior changes once in office. The become ensconced and hard to remove.

[quote briansd1]
The financial crisis, BP spill, and ecol i outbreaks happened because regulators where not regulating out of ideology. The government agencies were there, but the regulators did not do their jobs.
[/quote]
I think it was not ideological, it was more a combination of lazyness and not rocking the boat. Much like how 9/11 occurred – where FBI agents on the ground were reporting that people of Arab nationality were taking flying classes and they didn’t seem to be that interested in learning how to land. The field agents reported it up the chain, and the top said that it wasn’t a problem. The only conspiracy I saw was one of sloth and laziness. Normally, if a division of a company performed in this manner, it would be liquidated, eliminated or the CEO would assign someone new to run it – putting the former head out to pasture. Unfortunately with government structures, it seems to be a little harder to do that (political reasons?). The heads of FBI/CIA should have been put out to pasture as a result of 9/11 – or they should have taken the Japanese way out. If I was in their shoes, I would have been very embarassed(putting it mildly). Instead, these same people were given more authority, and we lose some more rights.

Part of the reason why San Diego is playing around with the ‘strong Mayor’ structure, is to see it the Mayor could reach through the bureaucracy to clean things up. As to whether he has the political will.. ummm…

In terms of gov. accounting, I would love to see it change so that if there is a surplus in a division, it gets to carry over to the next year (normally allocated budget + surplus from last year). The max surplus a division can carry over might be a negotiated point (need to find a way to structure it to prevent gaming the system). The only problem I see it the bureaucrat and politicians attraction to anything that might have money in it (they seem to be parasitic in nature)

[ucodegen]

[quote briansd1]
I do believe that we need to elect leaders who believe that the government works and does positive things for people.

If we elect leaders who believe that government does not work, then they will make sure that it doesn’t work.
[/quote]
What I have been seeing too much is not that people are being elected who don’t think government works, but people being elected who really don’t care what the electorate wants. They are there to push their personal agenda – or for the freebies. These people will claim that they care, but their behavior changes once in office. The become ensconced and hard to remove.

[quote briansd1]
The financial crisis, BP spill, and ecol i outbreaks happened because regulators where not regulating out of ideology. The government agencies were there, but the regulators did not do their jobs.
[/quote]
I think it was not ideological, it was more a combination of lazyness and not rocking the boat. Much like how 9/11 occurred – where FBI agents on the ground were reporting that people of Arab nationality were taking flying classes and they didn’t seem to be that interested in learning how to land. The field agents reported it up the chain, and the top said that it wasn’t a problem. The only conspiracy I saw was one of sloth and laziness. Normally, if a division of a company performed in this manner, it would be liquidated, eliminated or the CEO would assign someone new to run it – putting the former head out to pasture. Unfortunately with government structures, it seems to be a little harder to do that (political reasons?). The heads of FBI/CIA should have been put out to pasture as a result of 9/11 – or they should have taken the Japanese way out. If I was in their shoes, I would have been very embarassed(putting it mildly). Instead, these same people were given more authority, and we lose some more rights.

Part of the reason why San Diego is playing around with the ‘strong Mayor’ structure, is to see it the Mayor could reach through the bureaucracy to clean things up. As to whether he has the political will.. ummm…

In terms of gov. accounting, I would love to see it change so that if there is a surplus in a division, it gets to carry over to the next year (normally allocated budget + surplus from last year). The max surplus a division can carry over might be a negotiated point (need to find a way to structure it to prevent gaming the system). The only problem I see it the bureaucrat and politicians attraction to anything that might have money in it (they seem to be parasitic in nature)

[ucodegen]

[quote briansd1]
I do believe that we need to elect leaders who believe that the government works and does positive things for people.

If we elect leaders who believe that government does not work, then they will make sure that it doesn’t work.
[/quote]
What I have been seeing too much is not that people are being elected who don’t think government works, but people being elected who really don’t care what the electorate wants. They are there to push their personal agenda – or for the freebies. These people will claim that they care, but their behavior changes once in office. The become ensconced and hard to remove.

[quote briansd1]
The financial crisis, BP spill, and ecol i outbreaks happened because regulators where not regulating out of ideology. The government agencies were there, but the regulators did not do their jobs.
[/quote]
I think it was not ideological, it was more a combination of lazyness and not rocking the boat. Much like how 9/11 occurred – where FBI agents on the ground were reporting that people of Arab nationality were taking flying classes and they didn’t seem to be that interested in learning how to land. The field agents reported it up the chain, and the top said that it wasn’t a problem. The only conspiracy I saw was one of sloth and laziness. Normally, if a division of a company performed in this manner, it would be liquidated, eliminated or the CEO would assign someone new to run it – putting the former head out to pasture. Unfortunately with government structures, it seems to be a little harder to do that (political reasons?). The heads of FBI/CIA should have been put out to pasture as a result of 9/11 – or they should have taken the Japanese way out. If I was in their shoes, I would have been very embarassed(putting it mildly). Instead, these same people were given more authority, and we lose some more rights.

Part of the reason why San Diego is playing around with the ‘strong Mayor’ structure, is to see it the Mayor could reach through the bureaucracy to clean things up. As to whether he has the political will.. ummm…

In terms of gov. accounting, I would love to see it change so that if there is a surplus in a division, it gets to carry over to the next year (normally allocated budget + surplus from last year). The max surplus a division can carry over might be a negotiated point (need to find a way to structure it to prevent gaming the system). The only problem I see it the bureaucrat and politicians attraction to anything that might have money in it (they seem to be parasitic in nature)

[ucodegen]

[quote BigGovernmentIsGood]
To me, issues like clean water, clean air, food safety and security, and enviornmental protections are way more important than the amount of taxes that I pay.
[/quote]
Where is it written that to have these, you have to have high taxes? You can have poor food safety with high taxes.. or low taxes. The real question is how effectively is our tax money being spent. Money is a type of resource. Wasting it in one area precludes using it for something else.

Elements within the government often chime that taxes are going up because there are now more people in the country. This ignores the obvious fact that with a larger population, there is also a larger taxpayer base. A 20% greater population also means 20% more taxes with all else held constant. What is also ignored is that with greater size, comes greater efficiency (of scale). The problem comes from the fact that to survive, a company has to be efficient else it ceases to exist – with the exception of a company that is a monopoly. Governments on the other hand, end up creating bureaucracies that have their survival based upon how many individuals are below the ‘head man’. Their survival is structured to be completely in-efficient due to how they handle the accounting. The bureaucracies are not rewarded for being efficient – they are penalized for it. NOTE: I am not stating that all government services need to be farmed out – that would be a straw-man argument. There is a balance. The one thing that does irritate me is when people take a look at another country and want to change this one to be like the country ‘over there’.. particularly when they could just simply move there if this country was such a problem. As you have a right to live as you wish.. so do I.

[quote BigGovernmentIsGood]
Can there really be more than one person out there who thinks about something other than taxes? Answer: Yes.
[/quote]
You are attributing a position to me that I do not take nor have I stated – and then after you painted that position as mine, you proceed to skewer.. I think it is called a straw-man argument in the arena of flawed logic.

[quote BigGovernmentIsGood]
There appears to be a large subgroup on this board who feels that taxes is the most pressing issue in the world. When someone makes a post about some issue of actual importance, the cognitive dissonance in the ‘taxes is everything’ subgroup causes them to either (a) accuse the poster of being on government assistance (b) ask for them to be banned for posting about something other than taxes or (c) to think that all of the handles posting about something other than taxes must be the same person.
[/quote]
Another straw-man, also presenting points not supported by facts in evidence or present at hand.

[ucodegen]

[quote BigGovernmentIsGood]
To me, issues like clean water, clean air, food safety and security, and enviornmental protections are way more important than the amount of taxes that I pay.
[/quote]
Where is it written that to have these, you have to have high taxes? You can have poor food safety with high taxes.. or low taxes. The real question is how effectively is our tax money being spent. Money is a type of resource. Wasting it in one area precludes using it for something else.

Elements within the government often chime that taxes are going up because there are now more people in the country. This ignores the obvious fact that with a larger population, there is also a larger taxpayer base. A 20% greater population also means 20% more taxes with all else held constant. What is also ignored is that with greater size, comes greater efficiency (of scale). The problem comes from the fact that to survive, a company has to be efficient else it ceases to exist – with the exception of a company that is a monopoly. Governments on the other hand, end up creating bureaucracies that have their survival based upon how many individuals are below the ‘head man’. Their survival is structured to be completely in-efficient due to how they handle the accounting. The bureaucracies are not rewarded for being efficient – they are penalized for it. NOTE: I am not stating that all government services need to be farmed out – that would be a straw-man argument. There is a balance. The one thing that does irritate me is when people take a look at another country and want to change this one to be like the country ‘over there’.. particularly when they could just simply move there if this country was such a problem. As you have a right to live as you wish.. so do I.

[quote BigGovernmentIsGood]
Can there really be more than one person out there who thinks about something other than taxes? Answer: Yes.
[/quote]
You are attributing a position to me that I do not take nor have I stated – and then after you painted that position as mine, you proceed to skewer.. I think it is called a straw-man argument in the arena of flawed logic.

[quote BigGovernmentIsGood]
There appears to be a large subgroup on this board who feels that taxes is the most pressing issue in the world. When someone makes a post about some issue of actual importance, the cognitive dissonance in the ‘taxes is everything’ subgroup causes them to either (a) accuse the poster of being on government assistance (b) ask for them to be banned for posting about something other than taxes or (c) to think that all of the handles posting about something other than taxes must be the same person.
[/quote]
Another straw-man, also presenting points not supported by facts in evidence or present at hand.

[ucodegen]

[quote BigGovernmentIsGood]
To me, issues like clean water, clean air, food safety and security, and enviornmental protections are way more important than the amount of taxes that I pay.
[/quote]
Where is it written that to have these, you have to have high taxes? You can have poor food safety with high taxes.. or low taxes. The real question is how effectively is our tax money being spent. Money is a type of resource. Wasting it in one area precludes using it for something else.

Elements within the government often chime that taxes are going up because there are now more people in the country. This ignores the obvious fact that with a larger population, there is also a larger taxpayer base. A 20% greater population also means 20% more taxes with all else held constant. What is also ignored is that with greater size, comes greater efficiency (of scale). The problem comes from the fact that to survive, a company has to be efficient else it ceases to exist – with the exception of a company that is a monopoly. Governments on the other hand, end up creating bureaucracies that have their survival based upon how many individuals are below the ‘head man’. Their survival is structured to be completely in-efficient due to how they handle the accounting. The bureaucracies are not rewarded for being efficient – they are penalized for it. NOTE: I am not stating that all government services need to be farmed out – that would be a straw-man argument. There is a balance. The one thing that does irritate me is when people take a look at another country and want to change this one to be like the country ‘over there’.. particularly when they could just simply move there if this country was such a problem. As you have a right to live as you wish.. so do I.

[quote BigGovernmentIsGood]
Can there really be more than one person out there who thinks about something other than taxes? Answer: Yes.
[/quote]
You are attributing a position to me that I do not take nor have I stated – and then after you painted that position as mine, you proceed to skewer.. I think it is called a straw-man argument in the arena of flawed logic.

[quote BigGovernmentIsGood]
There appears to be a large subgroup on this board who feels that taxes is the most pressing issue in the world. When someone makes a post about some issue of actual importance, the cognitive dissonance in the ‘taxes is everything’ subgroup causes them to either (a) accuse the poster of being on government assistance (b) ask for them to be banned for posting about something other than taxes or (c) to think that all of the handles posting about something other than taxes must be the same person.
[/quote]
Another straw-man, also presenting points not supported by facts in evidence or present at hand.

[ucodegen]

[quote BigGovernmentIsGood]
To me, issues like clean water, clean air, food safety and security, and enviornmental protections are way more important than the amount of taxes that I pay.
[/quote]
Where is it written that to have these, you have to have high taxes? You can have poor food safety with high taxes.. or low taxes. The real question is how effectively is our tax money being spent. Money is a type of resource. Wasting it in one area precludes using it for something else.

Elements within the government often chime that taxes are going up because there are now more people in the country. This ignores the obvious fact that with a larger population, there is also a larger taxpayer base. A 20% greater population also means 20% more taxes with all else held constant. What is also ignored is that with greater size, comes greater efficiency (of scale). The problem comes from the fact that to survive, a company has to be efficient else it ceases to exist – with the exception of a company that is a monopoly. Governments on the other hand, end up creating bureaucracies that have their survival based upon how many individuals are below the ‘head man’. Their survival is structured to be completely in-efficient due to how they handle the accounting. The bureaucracies are not rewarded for being efficient – they are penalized for it. NOTE: I am not stating that all government services need to be farmed out – that would be a straw-man argument. There is a balance. The one thing that does irritate me is when people take a look at another country and want to change this one to be like the country ‘over there’.. particularly when they could just simply move there if this country was such a problem. As you have a right to live as you wish.. so do I.

[quote BigGovernmentIsGood]
Can there really be more than one person out there who thinks about something other than taxes? Answer: Yes.
[/quote]
You are attributing a position to me that I do not take nor have I stated – and then after you painted that position as mine, you proceed to skewer.. I think it is called a straw-man argument in the arena of flawed logic.

[quote BigGovernmentIsGood]
There appears to be a large subgroup on this board who feels that taxes is the most pressing issue in the world. When someone makes a post about some issue of actual importance, the cognitive dissonance in the ‘taxes is everything’ subgroup causes them to either (a) accuse the poster of being on government assistance (b) ask for them to be banned for posting about something other than taxes or (c) to think that all of the handles posting about something other than taxes must be the same person.
[/quote]
Another straw-man, also presenting points not supported by facts in evidence or present at hand.

[ucodegen]

[quote BigGovernmentIsGood]
To me, issues like clean water, clean air, food safety and security, and enviornmental protections are way more important than the amount of taxes that I pay.
[/quote]
Where is it written that to have these, you have to have high taxes? You can have poor food safety with high taxes.. or low taxes. The real question is how effectively is our tax money being spent. Money is a type of resource. Wasting it in one area precludes using it for something else.

Elements within the government often chime that taxes are going up because there are now more people in the country. This ignores the obvious fact that with a larger population, there is also a larger taxpayer base. A 20% greater population also means 20% more taxes with all else held constant. What is also ignored is that with greater size, comes greater efficiency (of scale). The problem comes from the fact that to survive, a company has to be efficient else it ceases to exist – with the exception of a company that is a monopoly. Governments on the other hand, end up creating bureaucracies that have their survival based upon how many individuals are below the ‘head man’. Their survival is structured to be completely in-efficient due to how they handle the accounting. The bureaucracies are not rewarded for being efficient – they are penalized for it. NOTE: I am not stating that all government services need to be farmed out – that would be a straw-man argument. There is a balance. The one thing that does irritate me is when people take a look at another country and want to change this one to be like the country ‘over there’.. particularly when they could just simply move there if this country was such a problem. As you have a right to live as you wish.. so do I.

[quote BigGovernmentIsGood]
Can there really be more than one person out there who thinks about something other than taxes? Answer: Yes.
[/quote]
You are attributing a position to me that I do not take nor have I stated – and then after you painted that position as mine, you proceed to skewer.. I think it is called a straw-man argument in the arena of flawed logic.

[quote BigGovernmentIsGood]
There appears to be a large subgroup on this board who feels that taxes is the most pressing issue in the world. When someone makes a post about some issue of actual importance, the cognitive dissonance in the ‘taxes is everything’ subgroup causes them to either (a) accuse the poster of being on government assistance (b) ask for them to be banned for posting about something other than taxes or (c) to think that all of the handles posting about something other than taxes must be the same person.
[/quote]
Another straw-man, also presenting points not supported by facts in evidence or present at hand.

[ucodegen]

[quote flu]
I read “Linux for Dummies” and “Everything you wanted to know about an ARM processor but was too afraid to ask”
[/quote]

Funny that you mention this. Over the summer, I was fiddling with a LPC3130 (ARM9 proto board) running Linux (LTIB). I was using Fedora Core 5, later FC10, to do the build of the boot images for the LPC3130. FC5/FC10 was dual booted on my old Dell M60 (been running one or another version of Linux on the second partition since the W2k days).

LCD hinge broke on the M60.. so I have to locate a replacement part and pull it apart to repair it. Maybe its time for an upgrade on the notebook..

As for reading.. most of it was tech manuals this summer..

[ucodegen]

[quote flu]
I read “Linux for Dummies” and “Everything you wanted to know about an ARM processor but was too afraid to ask”
[/quote]

Funny that you mention this. Over the summer, I was fiddling with a LPC3130 (ARM9 proto board) running Linux (LTIB). I was using Fedora Core 5, later FC10, to do the build of the boot images for the LPC3130. FC5/FC10 was dual booted on my old Dell M60 (been running one or another version of Linux on the second partition since the W2k days).

LCD hinge broke on the M60.. so I have to locate a replacement part and pull it apart to repair it. Maybe its time for an upgrade on the notebook..

As for reading.. most of it was tech manuals this summer..

[Author]

Posts