Yes, a year in prison is fair given the nature of his crime given that he pleaded guilty.
Yet I wouldn't agree with that being a fair sentence if he decided to "exercise his rights". Exercising your rights is appropriate when your rights are being trampled, such as when you're being prosecuted for a crime that you didn't commit, you are being charged under the wrong law, or when you're planning to challenge the constitutionality of a law. Exercising your rights because you hope to get off for a crime that you committed is an abuse of the courts and deserves to be punished more harshly.
... I won't stop using Windows, but I will not let Windows online.
The thing is: I expect these shinanagins from Android, so I modify my usage habits accordingly. That is harder to do on a general purpose computer, so I don't want it leaking information about my usage habits like a sieve. So I'll just rip out the ethernet cable and grab files from my Mac or Linux box to use under Windows, and cart them over via sneakernet.
Stop using Windows though, that's a somewhat harder case to make.
The thing is, very few people buy into Android because it's Linux. The few who do so are probably more than offset by the few who don't because of privacy concerns.
The thing is, there isn't much Linux to Android outside of the kernel and maybe a handful of libraries. This is desirable to Google because it makes hardware support easier. It is desirable to some developers because it is easier to port binary libraries. Other than that though, OS X would make a better substitute for Linux since it includes a far more comprehensive set of Unix utilities out of the box, and most of those utilities are either identical to those used under Linux or roughly as sophisticated as those used under Linux. (Sorry, but busybox is no comparison. BSD utilities can be reasonably compared to the utilities used in Linux.)
Sorry, but I'm going to have to call you out on BS.
Most software was easy to pirate in the 90's: application software vendors gave up on physical copy protection and online registration was yet to be born. That left dongles, which were only used in special circumstances due to their expense.
About the only reason why alternative software was hard to pirate was because it was hard to find a friend (or BBS) that had the less popular titles to start with.
Since you're running Linux, you will probably discover that any thief will reformat the hard drive to install Windows. This leaves two options:
1) Look into software that may already be baked into the firmware.
2) Have it automatically, and preferably transparently, boot into Windows then follow some of the other advice found here.
Neither route will help you recover a laptop once it has passed through the hands of professionals.
Overall, you'd probably be better off detering theft in the first place: don't use it in overly public places, never leave it alone in public places, invest in a good lock, and make it look undesirable. (One thing that I like about my ThinkPad is that it looks 10 years older than it actually is. Stickers, especially "non-removable" ones, make more identifiable and harder to resell without a cleanup effort. Scratches and dings will reduces its apparent value. Heck, smashing the slot for the lock will probably deter most thieves since it would be harder to sell.) Remember, the best way to avoid being a target is to avoid looking like a target.
Oh, and write down every serial number on the system.
If you're looking at it from the perspective of an American, Snowden was a hero early on since the initial disclosure involved the surveillance of American citizens by the American government. As soon as he started releasing information about their govenment spying on foreign government, a large number of people are going to see him as a traitor. Of course his popularity is going to decline.
(I also agree that the prolonged media focus upon the man rather than the issues isn't helping his case.)
We needed laws that guaranteed customer privacy years ago. Unfortunately, it is far too late for those laws to be meaningful since businesses have found ways to generate revenues from customer data and they're not going to let go of that easily.
At the very least, businesses will find loopholes in these laws. The most basic one is described in the summary: data is anonymized. From this perspective, businesses will claim that the data is property of their company and the anonymization process provides sufficient guarantees of privacy. The fact that it is possible to trace this data back to individual users would be beyond the scope of laws that most governments are willing to create simply because the businesses are, in a way, correct. Data with personally identifying information stripped is a product of the business because it is generated as a part of the businesses operations using the businesses infrastructure.
Another possibility is to ship the data out of country, where customers are unlikely to be protected by privacy laws. Even if that country has privacy laws itself, it probably won't cover foreign citizens. Even if it did cover foreign citizens, it would be difficult for them to sue the appropriate entity in the appropriate jurisdiction.
At the end of the day, it is best to assume that anything we do that involves a third party simply isn't private. In a sense, it even makes sense. We don't assume that our actions in a shopping mall are private since we are sharing that space with other people. Why should electrons passing over wires (or, in this case, RF spectrum) owned by a telecommunications company be any different? The same goes when we invite someone into our home. Even friends can gossip after all.
I love the idea of privacy. I also recognize that it is difficult to protect. That is especially true when someone can benefit from violating your privacy. Since the threshold for privacy has been lowered incredibly far in recent years, I suspect that we will never be able to get it back. Such are the perils of leaping before you look: upon insisting upon an unregulated medium before understanding why prior media were regulated.
I do know statistics, which is why I understand that many figures that are (honestly) derived from statistics can be incredibly misleading. You have to know what the numbers mean, then decide which ones are relevant for the issue at hand.
And that amount of care has to be taken for honest statistics. Made up statistics are another issue altogether.
The issue is that people assess risk differently. Some people look at the probability of a bad event multiplied by it's magnitude, others just look at the probability of a bad event, others just look at the magnitude. People may not do the math explicitly, but that's effectively what's going on in their head. Now how do you say which method is rational. I like probability of a bad event multiplied by it's magnitude. On the other hand, I will acknowledge the people who are concerned about the magnitude of the events because a low probability event would suck if it happened.
And that's only one factor that makes assessing the decision to build nuclear hard, even if you stick to rational measures.
Quantum computers would be perfect for web browsing. Encryption would be meaningless, since you'd be able to access any encrypted website that someone is browsing... perfect for corporate espionage, bank fraud, etc..
... I can't speak for everyone, but I find that the books I read are amongst the most private things in my life. It would be nice if the websites that I read were private, but the fact is that involves so many third parties that it's absurd so privacy isn't an expectation. It would be wonderful if my search queries were private, but I recognize that the businesses involved make their money by selling my data (such is the perils of demanding a service for free). But books I obtain from a limited number of sources, and I pay for directly or through my taxes. They are also, in a way, more intimate. So it is nice to think that my reading of books is private.
Then again, I choose my book vendors carefully and purchase with cash when I expect it to be private.
Sad thing is, it isn't just a rural thing. Some cities have very poor broadband, and even major urban centres can have dodgy internet in some neighbourhoods. That's particularly true of older neighbourhoods and outlying areas. So I'd suggest that your minority isn't as small as many people think. (And it always seems to be authentication/activation services that have issues timing out, even when web based services are chugging along.)
I agree with what you say, however the propaganda of America about American's greatness and the propaganda of America about the Soviet Union's tyranny were also far from the truth. The two nations were closer than the American government would ever admit to, although nowhere near as close as the paranoid elements of society would claim.
The sad reality is that both nations were stuck in a paranoid mentality during the cold war. This resulted in a reduction of civil liberties. The situation was far worse under the Soviet regime, but the American government often committed acts that it claimed were the domain of communists and that had no place in their own free society.
We see something similar happening today, only in the name of terrorism.
For most businesses, computers are a tool for conducting business. They are an expense that does not generate revenue. The return on investment is measured in the efficiency with which they can conduct their business, the ability to handle more business, and the quality of the work produced. But there's a problem: the initial outlay for hardware, software, and training may have produced a dramatic improvement in the above. On the other hand, upgrading systems may produce very little to no improvement on the above. (Done improperly it may even represent a loss in efficiency, capacity, and quality. But that's a different story.)
Businesses continue to use XP for a variety of reasons, and in a variety of environments. In some cases, they will be willing to upgrade their systems. I will suggest that does not hold true in most cases.
These businesses have invested a lot into their existing systems: hardware, software, and training. They are aware of the strengths and weaknesses of what they have, which reduces the burden of supporting them. Their systems are also in production, fulfilling roles within their operations.
Depending upon the state of their existing systems: replacing XP would involve reinvesting in hardware, software, and training. They will be unable to make effective use of the strengths of their new systems, and will also fall prey to the weaknesses of them. It will take a considerable amount of time to document those changes. Changes also involve pulling systems out of production, meaning that they are unable to fulfill their roles in their operations. All of this represents a liability.
I'm predicting that a most of those businesses will continue to use XP. They will mostly depend upon their strengths internally in order to maintain them. They will also contract out to third parties when they need to. New policies may pop up when it comes down to maintaining systems that are no longer receiving security updates, but they will justify them by claiming that those policies should be in place either way.
I think that HP would do a lot better by servicing those businesses.
If the copyright message is pointing to the maintainer rather than the company, you may want to point it out to the company since the new developer may be trying to claim ownership of the code (or may simply be naive).
Personally, I don't buy into the global warming camp or anti-climate change camp. I recognize that the system in question is far too complex for us to understand with certainty. I also recognize that the system is "easy" to understand within statistical certainties, which are not reported often enough. I am also sane enough to recognize that my education in astrophysics only gives me some understanding into the issues of anthropomorphic climate change, rather than a complete understanding of it. I also recognize that my education gives me less understanding in it than climatologists, yet more understanding in it than scientists who never deal with problems at a planetary scale.
Yet one thing I am certain of: actions imply consequences. The consequences may be positive, negative, or neutral. Whatever the outcome, we must make an attempt to understand it. Our best means of understanding it are scientific. Political attempts to understand it only tell us if the consequences are desirable, thus they must come after scientific attempt to understand it. Other means of understanding climate change are likely based upon invalid systems of knowledge, and ought to be rejected altogether.
To make a long story short: I'd have to read the paper itself to judge the degree to which it's valid. Given that it is based upon scientific principles, I'm going to have to plead: I'm human, I have limited resources to deal with the problem presented before me, it is based upon a system of knowledge that I find acceptable (i.e. science), so I accept it.
As long as the authors are being intellectually honest, I believe that it is a valid way to accept their conclusions. (If they aren't intellectually honest, I'll hate them but still stand by the principle: actions imply consequences, now figure out what the consequences are.)
First off, I don't suggest running Linux. I do it one one of my computers because I like Linux, but I also have a Mac and my Linux box dual boots into Windows.
Second: software freedom is important, but it comes after being able to make effective use of your software. More simply put: use free software if you can. If you can't use free software, don't feel guilty about it. More complexly put: I am more than happy to do "word processing" in LaTeX, but I acknowledge that isn't everyone's cup of tea. Use Microsoft Office until you have learned an alternative (such as LibreOffice) to make your computing experience comfortable.
Third: usability is important. Don't feel guilty about using OS X because stuff just works. Don't feel guilty about using Windows because you can figure shit out. If Linux is not working out for you because it's too complicated, it's Linux's fault and not yours. (Linux users can always switch to a different distribution if they want it to be more complicated to use.) If Windows is too much work for you, it's Windows's fault and not yours. If OS X's not powerful enough for you, it's OS X's fault, not yours. You decide on what makes a system usable, not the vendor nor popular opinion.
Fourth: freedom is the most important thing of all. Contrary to the opinion of the FSF, and other likeminded organization, freedom means striking a balance between what you want and what you get. Sometimes the choice is obvious: you can get everything you want without sacrificing anything. Other times, the choice is harder: you will have to pay for what you need, and even face restrictions upon how you use the software. Most of the time, you will have to strike a balance between software freedom and the software that meets your needs. Choose what fits your needs best, and you will truly understand freedom. (Freedom is truly defined by potential rather than ideology.)
At the end of the day, I mostly use non-Free operating systems on desktop computers and I mostly use Free software to perform everyday tasks. That allows me to learn the internals of the system software, while still being productive with application software. It also allows me to learn how to use non-Free application software. (Let's face it, most of the world uses MS Office and Adobe's DTP/graphics software.) Yet I still use FLOSS operating systems on a regular basis because I appreciate the Unix shell, I love development tools that were developed with Unix in mind, and I understand the relevance of Unix-like systems as servers and special purpose desktop systems. (If you're wondering what I mean by special purpose, I mostly mean in scientific applications.)
Feel free to be wishy-washy, particularly in your personal use. You'll be better for the experience, in both knowledge and understanding of software freedom (along non-ideological lines).
Windows RULEZ! (i.e. I'm pretending that I'm in the wares scene and can "afford" all the best software.)
Mac OS X is clearly the best since it makes computers accessible to the masses. Oh, and there are no OS X viruses. (i.e. I'm pretending to be a snobbish person who wants a nice system, but is willing to forgo power and cost for ease of use for common functions.)
Linux is freedom. (i.e. I'm pretending to be a user who appreciates Free software, but really wants free software without making contributions to the community.)
Now does at least one of those answers fit the Slashdot philosophy?
I try to keep up to date with the three major desktop operating systems. Flexibility in skills (and philosophy) is a pretty good way to remain adaptable to future trends in technology. That, and each platform is interesting and useful in their own way.
No need for conspiracy theories. This is a tool commonly used by police, particularly for traffic offences. It is meant to serve as a reminder that some offences are illegal and that the police can pursue them. (And they do pursue them on a regular basis, though not necessarily to the same degree because they have limited resources.)
I don't really agree with this method of law enforcement, but I can certainly understand why they use it.
University culture, resources, and policies varies from place to place. This means that the best place to seek advice is from other student groups in your university.
Once you know where you fit into the university, build an executive to manage the club. They will manage relations with the university and department, recruit new memebers, and organize events. The executive should include students at all stages of the program simply to prevent the thing from dying off when a group of key members graduate.
Remember to keep things simple. Big events and projects can be fun to plan, but members will burn out if you do it too often. Also, keep the jobs small. If your members are giving talks, make them lightning talks. If you're doing an installfest, promote it in your department (rather than university-wide).
Meetings to attract members need to have a focus (installfest, programming with gcc, introduction to blender). Meetings that are focussed on existing membership can be a free-for-all (bring your computer, a project, and some food).
I understand what you (and others) are saying. Yet everyone has to start somewhere, and that somewhere frequently involves some pretty basic stuff.
Now I'm not going to argue that this is the best article for that since it leaves out a lot of details that can help out that novice. Yet the article will expose the novice to some of the parts, tools, techniques, and terminology. Keep in mind: newcomers probably won't know what a project box is, nevermind a single-pole/single-throw switch; they are unlikely to have sliced and spliced cables together; and may be at a loss on how to keep things neat and secure.
Of course too much was going unsaid. Things like how you properly construct the cable, from getting the pins right to how you solder the wires together and deal with heat-shrink; or exactly how they selected the power supply. Yet I don't think that takes away from the notion that stories about trivial projects like this helps to introduce people to the world of electronics.
I would also argue that projects like this are far from trivial. To someone like ourselves it seems trivial because we've been able to do stuff like this for ages. For the novice, it'll probably end up in hours of frustration, faulty connections, and blown components.
You are perfectly correct: we should discourage people from entering the field of electronics by focussing upon advanced projects. Yes these projects are exciting to read about, but they are impractical for the novice to attempt building. It's impractical because it's too complex to understand, too expensive to botch, and tedious for those who don't have the construction skills. We should also discourage people from entering the field of electronics by instilling the mentality that it ain't worth trying if it ain't new, thus ensuring that any project is out of reach of the novice.
After all, we wouldn't want to encourage people to get into electronics by pointing to articles about stuff that they can actually try doing.
There are a few factors which affect collecting. The big one is that you have to be collecting the right thing at the right time. Things like toys and comic books seem to gain value when their target audience reached maturity and had enough disposable income to purchase nostalgia items. Once those people have the items in their hands, grow out of their collecting/nostalgia phase, or simply die off, those items tend to lose their value.
The other factor is supply and demand. We are talking about mass produced products. In many cases, the glut of unwanted items outweighs the demand for them so prices will remain low until most of the supply is destroyed. Hoarding doesn't really help here because every time a copy fetches a high price, a large enough number of hoarders will release their wares on the market and that will drive prices back down. So you'll probably find yourself holding onto the stuff for decades, and having to maintain it during those decades, just to fetch those high prices (unless you're lucky, of course).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, a year in prison is fair given the nature of his crime given that he pleaded guilty.
Yet I wouldn't agree with that being a fair sentence if he decided to "exercise his rights". Exercising your rights is appropriate when your rights are being trampled, such as when you're being prosecuted for a crime that you didn't commit, you are being charged under the wrong law, or when you're planning to challenge the constitutionality of a law. Exercising your rights because you hope to get off for a crime that you committed is an abuse of the courts and deserves to be punished more harshly.
... I won't stop using Windows, but I will not let Windows online.
The thing is: I expect these shinanagins from Android, so I modify my usage habits accordingly. That is harder to do on a general purpose computer, so I don't want it leaking information about my usage habits like a sieve. So I'll just rip out the ethernet cable and grab files from my Mac or Linux box to use under Windows, and cart them over via sneakernet.
Stop using Windows though, that's a somewhat harder case to make.
The thing is, very few people buy into Android because it's Linux. The few who do so are probably more than offset by the few who don't because of privacy concerns.
The thing is, there isn't much Linux to Android outside of the kernel and maybe a handful of libraries. This is desirable to Google because it makes hardware support easier. It is desirable to some developers because it is easier to port binary libraries. Other than that though, OS X would make a better substitute for Linux since it includes a far more comprehensive set of Unix utilities out of the box, and most of those utilities are either identical to those used under Linux or roughly as sophisticated as those used under Linux. (Sorry, but busybox is no comparison. BSD utilities can be reasonably compared to the utilities used in Linux.)
Sorry, but I'm going to have to call you out on BS.
Most software was easy to pirate in the 90's: application software vendors gave up on physical copy protection and online registration was yet to be born. That left dongles, which were only used in special circumstances due to their expense.
About the only reason why alternative software was hard to pirate was because it was hard to find a friend (or BBS) that had the less popular titles to start with.
Since you're running Linux, you will probably discover that any thief will reformat the hard drive to install Windows. This leaves two options:
1) Look into software that may already be baked into the firmware.
2) Have it automatically, and preferably transparently, boot into Windows then follow some of the other advice found here.
Neither route will help you recover a laptop once it has passed through the hands of professionals.
Overall, you'd probably be better off detering theft in the first place: don't use it in overly public places, never leave it alone in public places, invest in a good lock, and make it look undesirable. (One thing that I like about my ThinkPad is that it looks 10 years older than it actually is. Stickers, especially "non-removable" ones, make more identifiable and harder to resell without a cleanup effort. Scratches and dings will reduces its apparent value. Heck, smashing the slot for the lock will probably deter most thieves since it would be harder to sell.) Remember, the best way to avoid being a target is to avoid looking like a target.
Oh, and write down every serial number on the system.
If you're looking at it from the perspective of an American, Snowden was a hero early on since the initial disclosure involved the surveillance of American citizens by the American government. As soon as he started releasing information about their govenment spying on foreign government, a large number of people are going to see him as a traitor. Of course his popularity is going to decline.
(I also agree that the prolonged media focus upon the man rather than the issues isn't helping his case.)
We needed laws that guaranteed customer privacy years ago. Unfortunately, it is far too late for those laws to be meaningful since businesses have found ways to generate revenues from customer data and they're not going to let go of that easily.
At the very least, businesses will find loopholes in these laws. The most basic one is described in the summary: data is anonymized. From this perspective, businesses will claim that the data is property of their company and the anonymization process provides sufficient guarantees of privacy. The fact that it is possible to trace this data back to individual users would be beyond the scope of laws that most governments are willing to create simply because the businesses are, in a way, correct. Data with personally identifying information stripped is a product of the business because it is generated as a part of the businesses operations using the businesses infrastructure.
Another possibility is to ship the data out of country, where customers are unlikely to be protected by privacy laws. Even if that country has privacy laws itself, it probably won't cover foreign citizens. Even if it did cover foreign citizens, it would be difficult for them to sue the appropriate entity in the appropriate jurisdiction.
At the end of the day, it is best to assume that anything we do that involves a third party simply isn't private. In a sense, it even makes sense. We don't assume that our actions in a shopping mall are private since we are sharing that space with other people. Why should electrons passing over wires (or, in this case, RF spectrum) owned by a telecommunications company be any different? The same goes when we invite someone into our home. Even friends can gossip after all.
I love the idea of privacy. I also recognize that it is difficult to protect. That is especially true when someone can benefit from violating your privacy. Since the threshold for privacy has been lowered incredibly far in recent years, I suspect that we will never be able to get it back. Such are the perils of leaping before you look: upon insisting upon an unregulated medium before understanding why prior media were regulated.
I do know statistics, which is why I understand that many figures that are (honestly) derived from statistics can be incredibly misleading. You have to know what the numbers mean, then decide which ones are relevant for the issue at hand.
And that amount of care has to be taken for honest statistics. Made up statistics are another issue altogether.
The issue is that people assess risk differently. Some people look at the probability of a bad event multiplied by it's magnitude, others just look at the probability of a bad event, others just look at the magnitude. People may not do the math explicitly, but that's effectively what's going on in their head. Now how do you say which method is rational. I like probability of a bad event multiplied by it's magnitude. On the other hand, I will acknowledge the people who are concerned about the magnitude of the events because a low probability event would suck if it happened.
And that's only one factor that makes assessing the decision to build nuclear hard, even if you stick to rational measures.
Quantum computers would be perfect for web browsing. Encryption would be meaningless, since you'd be able to access any encrypted website that someone is browsing ... perfect for corporate espionage, bank fraud, etc..
... I can't speak for everyone, but I find that the books I read are amongst the most private things in my life. It would be nice if the websites that I read were private, but the fact is that involves so many third parties that it's absurd so privacy isn't an expectation. It would be wonderful if my search queries were private, but I recognize that the businesses involved make their money by selling my data (such is the perils of demanding a service for free). But books I obtain from a limited number of sources, and I pay for directly or through my taxes. They are also, in a way, more intimate. So it is nice to think that my reading of books is private.
Then again, I choose my book vendors carefully and purchase with cash when I expect it to be private.
Sad thing is, it isn't just a rural thing. Some cities have very poor broadband, and even major urban centres can have dodgy internet in some neighbourhoods. That's particularly true of older neighbourhoods and outlying areas. So I'd suggest that your minority isn't as small as many people think. (And it always seems to be authentication/activation services that have issues timing out, even when web based services are chugging along.)
I agree with what you say, however the propaganda of America about American's greatness and the propaganda of America about the Soviet Union's tyranny were also far from the truth. The two nations were closer than the American government would ever admit to, although nowhere near as close as the paranoid elements of society would claim.
The sad reality is that both nations were stuck in a paranoid mentality during the cold war. This resulted in a reduction of civil liberties. The situation was far worse under the Soviet regime, but the American government often committed acts that it claimed were the domain of communists and that had no place in their own free society.
We see something similar happening today, only in the name of terrorism.
Well, the "high and mighty" part is right.
For most businesses, computers are a tool for conducting business. They are an expense that does not generate revenue. The return on investment is measured in the efficiency with which they can conduct their business, the ability to handle more business, and the quality of the work produced. But there's a problem: the initial outlay for hardware, software, and training may have produced a dramatic improvement in the above. On the other hand, upgrading systems may produce very little to no improvement on the above. (Done improperly it may even represent a loss in efficiency, capacity, and quality. But that's a different story.)
Businesses continue to use XP for a variety of reasons, and in a variety of environments. In some cases, they will be willing to upgrade their systems. I will suggest that does not hold true in most cases.
These businesses have invested a lot into their existing systems: hardware, software, and training. They are aware of the strengths and weaknesses of what they have, which reduces the burden of supporting them. Their systems are also in production, fulfilling roles within their operations.
Depending upon the state of their existing systems: replacing XP would involve reinvesting in hardware, software, and training. They will be unable to make effective use of the strengths of their new systems, and will also fall prey to the weaknesses of them. It will take a considerable amount of time to document those changes. Changes also involve pulling systems out of production, meaning that they are unable to fulfill their roles in their operations. All of this represents a liability.
I'm predicting that a most of those businesses will continue to use XP. They will mostly depend upon their strengths internally in order to maintain them. They will also contract out to third parties when they need to. New policies may pop up when it comes down to maintaining systems that are no longer receiving security updates, but they will justify them by claiming that those policies should be in place either way.
I think that HP would do a lot better by servicing those businesses.
Get a referral from the company.
If the copyright message is pointing to the maintainer rather than the company, you may want to point it out to the company since the new developer may be trying to claim ownership of the code (or may simply be naive).
Personally, I don't buy into the global warming camp or anti-climate change camp. I recognize that the system in question is far too complex for us to understand with certainty. I also recognize that the system is "easy" to understand within statistical certainties, which are not reported often enough. I am also sane enough to recognize that my education in astrophysics only gives me some understanding into the issues of anthropomorphic climate change, rather than a complete understanding of it. I also recognize that my education gives me less understanding in it than climatologists, yet more understanding in it than scientists who never deal with problems at a planetary scale.
Yet one thing I am certain of: actions imply consequences. The consequences may be positive, negative, or neutral. Whatever the outcome, we must make an attempt to understand it. Our best means of understanding it are scientific. Political attempts to understand it only tell us if the consequences are desirable, thus they must come after scientific attempt to understand it. Other means of understanding climate change are likely based upon invalid systems of knowledge, and ought to be rejected altogether.
To make a long story short: I'd have to read the paper itself to judge the degree to which it's valid. Given that it is based upon scientific principles, I'm going to have to plead: I'm human, I have limited resources to deal with the problem presented before me, it is based upon a system of knowledge that I find acceptable (i.e. science), so I accept it.
As long as the authors are being intellectually honest, I believe that it is a valid way to accept their conclusions. (If they aren't intellectually honest, I'll hate them but still stand by the principle: actions imply consequences, now figure out what the consequences are.)
First off, I don't suggest running Linux. I do it one one of my computers because I like Linux, but I also have a Mac and my Linux box dual boots into Windows.
Second: software freedom is important, but it comes after being able to make effective use of your software. More simply put: use free software if you can. If you can't use free software, don't feel guilty about it. More complexly put: I am more than happy to do "word processing" in LaTeX, but I acknowledge that isn't everyone's cup of tea. Use Microsoft Office until you have learned an alternative (such as LibreOffice) to make your computing experience comfortable.
Third: usability is important. Don't feel guilty about using OS X because stuff just works. Don't feel guilty about using Windows because you can figure shit out. If Linux is not working out for you because it's too complicated, it's Linux's fault and not yours. (Linux users can always switch to a different distribution if they want it to be more complicated to use.) If Windows is too much work for you, it's Windows's fault and not yours. If OS X's not powerful enough for you, it's OS X's fault, not yours. You decide on what makes a system usable, not the vendor nor popular opinion.
Fourth: freedom is the most important thing of all. Contrary to the opinion of the FSF, and other likeminded organization, freedom means striking a balance between what you want and what you get. Sometimes the choice is obvious: you can get everything you want without sacrificing anything. Other times, the choice is harder: you will have to pay for what you need, and even face restrictions upon how you use the software. Most of the time, you will have to strike a balance between software freedom and the software that meets your needs. Choose what fits your needs best, and you will truly understand freedom. (Freedom is truly defined by potential rather than ideology.)
At the end of the day, I mostly use non-Free operating systems on desktop computers and I mostly use Free software to perform everyday tasks. That allows me to learn the internals of the system software, while still being productive with application software. It also allows me to learn how to use non-Free application software. (Let's face it, most of the world uses MS Office and Adobe's DTP/graphics software.) Yet I still use FLOSS operating systems on a regular basis because I appreciate the Unix shell, I love development tools that were developed with Unix in mind, and I understand the relevance of Unix-like systems as servers and special purpose desktop systems. (If you're wondering what I mean by special purpose, I mostly mean in scientific applications.)
Feel free to be wishy-washy, particularly in your personal use. You'll be better for the experience, in both knowledge and understanding of software freedom (along non-ideological lines).
LOL! Then ...
Windows RULEZ! (i.e. I'm pretending that I'm in the wares scene and can "afford" all the best software.)
Mac OS X is clearly the best since it makes computers accessible to the masses. Oh, and there are no OS X viruses. (i.e. I'm pretending to be a snobbish person who wants a nice system, but is willing to forgo power and cost for ease of use for common functions.)
Linux is freedom. (i.e. I'm pretending to be a user who appreciates Free software, but really wants free software without making contributions to the community.)
Now does at least one of those answers fit the Slashdot philosophy?
I try to keep up to date with the three major desktop operating systems. Flexibility in skills (and philosophy) is a pretty good way to remain adaptable to future trends in technology. That, and each platform is interesting and useful in their own way.
No need for conspiracy theories. This is a tool commonly used by police, particularly for traffic offences. It is meant to serve as a reminder that some offences are illegal and that the police can pursue them. (And they do pursue them on a regular basis, though not necessarily to the same degree because they have limited resources.)
I don't really agree with this method of law enforcement, but I can certainly understand why they use it.
University culture, resources, and policies varies from place to place. This means that the best place to seek advice is from other student groups in your university.
Once you know where you fit into the university, build an executive to manage the club. They will manage relations with the university and department, recruit new memebers, and organize events. The executive should include students at all stages of the program simply to prevent the thing from dying off when a group of key members graduate.
Remember to keep things simple. Big events and projects can be fun to plan, but members will burn out if you do it too often. Also, keep the jobs small. If your members are giving talks, make them lightning talks. If you're doing an installfest, promote it in your department (rather than university-wide).
Meetings to attract members need to have a focus (installfest, programming with gcc, introduction to blender). Meetings that are focussed on existing membership can be a free-for-all (bring your computer, a project, and some food).
I understand what you (and others) are saying. Yet everyone has to start somewhere, and that somewhere frequently involves some pretty basic stuff.
Now I'm not going to argue that this is the best article for that since it leaves out a lot of details that can help out that novice. Yet the article will expose the novice to some of the parts, tools, techniques, and terminology. Keep in mind: newcomers probably won't know what a project box is, nevermind a single-pole/single-throw switch; they are unlikely to have sliced and spliced cables together; and may be at a loss on how to keep things neat and secure.
Of course too much was going unsaid. Things like how you properly construct the cable, from getting the pins right to how you solder the wires together and deal with heat-shrink; or exactly how they selected the power supply. Yet I don't think that takes away from the notion that stories about trivial projects like this helps to introduce people to the world of electronics.
I would also argue that projects like this are far from trivial. To someone like ourselves it seems trivial because we've been able to do stuff like this for ages. For the novice, it'll probably end up in hours of frustration, faulty connections, and blown components.
You are perfectly correct: we should discourage people from entering the field of electronics by focussing upon advanced projects. Yes these projects are exciting to read about, but they are impractical for the novice to attempt building. It's impractical because it's too complex to understand, too expensive to botch, and tedious for those who don't have the construction skills. We should also discourage people from entering the field of electronics by instilling the mentality that it ain't worth trying if it ain't new, thus ensuring that any project is out of reach of the novice.
After all, we wouldn't want to encourage people to get into electronics by pointing to articles about stuff that they can actually try doing.
There are a few factors which affect collecting. The big one is that you have to be collecting the right thing at the right time. Things like toys and comic books seem to gain value when their target audience reached maturity and had enough disposable income to purchase nostalgia items. Once those people have the items in their hands, grow out of their collecting/nostalgia phase, or simply die off, those items tend to lose their value.
The other factor is supply and demand. We are talking about mass produced products. In many cases, the glut of unwanted items outweighs the demand for them so prices will remain low until most of the supply is destroyed. Hoarding doesn't really help here because every time a copy fetches a high price, a large enough number of hoarders will release their wares on the market and that will drive prices back down. So you'll probably find yourself holding onto the stuff for decades, and having to maintain it during those decades, just to fetch those high prices (unless you're lucky, of course).