It seems like what is happening here is that Tsvangirai is trying to cooperate with 'western' governments, and Mugabe is painting this as an evil action which needs to be stopped.
And is it impossible for Mugabe (regardless of anything else about him) to be right? (I refer you to Iran-Contra for an example of how covert US foreign policy operates)
Wrong how? WikiLeaks leaked private communications between a force for reform in Zimbabwe and western nations.
Those communications may have irreparably damaged efforts at reform by giving Mugabe and his thugs material to discredit reformers.
How do you know he is a force for reform? I am unaware of any period in history when American diplomats had identified and were helping a force for reform in a foreign country. Do/did US diplomats have secret cables with Ayn San Suu kyi? Garry Kasparov? Liu Xiaobo? Nelson Mandella? Hugo Chavez? Evo Morales? I am guessing not, because that's not how the US government operates. But I am sure we had plenty of "cables" to Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran, Pinochet etc.
If some US diplomat has had private communications with a foreign official, the onus is on you to show that he was a reformer, since that communication by itself can be taken as heuristic evidence against that fact.
I've seen internal redactions within the cables themselves (because unlike you, I don't talk out of my ass -- I've actually looked through several of them). The Pentagon Papers were not held back for any amount of time. Newspapers digested and published them immediately. The same thing is happening with the leaks (journalists gets first crack at them, in case there were failures to do proper redactions.)
Amnesty Intl., did *NOT* rip into Wikileaks. They were under the impression that civilian names were disclosed in the Afghanistan dump, without providing any evidence. As Assange himself points out, there is no evidence or even alleging of harm to anyone by any credible institution. So they asked wikileaks to do something they've always already done (redact names of innocent civilians).
Oh its outrage against a straw man. Assange himself is constantly asked whether or not he believes in a black and white view to transparency and he always answers no (his standard example is the medical secrets of a private citizen). His actions are consistent with his claims, and wikileaks has clearly redacted when it makes sense, and they have never released anything that amounts to a personal attack on a private citizen.
Straw man. Wikileaks doesn't publish the logistics of minorities or the minimal secrecy required for people who are doing good works. Why would anyone in such organization be whistle-blowing? Right-wing partisans who wish to attack such good institutions usually don't worry about the anonymizing features of TOR or wikileaks in general -- our media already provides ample cover for the right wing. You example, is not one that would apply to wikileaks, plain and simple.
The simple fact is that Wikileaks has done a better job of public disclosure than any other existing institution on earth. That primarily includes the US government, private corporations and various other governments around the world.
Diplomacy does not include obtaining DNA evidence and phone tapping foreign officials.
You are projecting upon wikileaks things they did not do. They don't just go leaking random bank accounts info. They released two version of the Collateral Murder video; one edited and one not. The US government claimed that this video did not exist, in the investigation of the incident they found no wrong doing, even from the gunner that said "come on, just pick up a weapon".
The government works at our behest. We (Americans) pay taxes for those cables. Those cables *BELONG TO US*. Looking through some of them myself has been somewhat enlightening about how our government's foreign policy works in ways that deceptive election campaigns and government spokespeople and useless civics classes could never tell me.
There is no analogy to revealing the email of a private citizen.
I don't know if you've noticed or not, but ISPs, DNSs, and a number of governments have been banning and attacking wikileaks.* . Diversifying shows that wikileaks does not stand alone. They should definitely link to it (and there should be a reciprocal link), but hosting is not only unnecessary, but probably counter-productive. People should just help publicize it.
Well if everything in architectural drawings is in CAPS then... why couldn't you just default all input to Caps (as if Capslock has been pressed to start with) and use shift to get the lower-case keys?
So with my admittedly meager research (reading Slashdot and other sites), I can't figure out if the Wikileaks people are good guys or bad guys. Which is it?
You can't figure it out? You like governments and corporations around the world keeping secrets from citizens at their expense?
The only problem with this years Nobel Peace Prize is that Wikileaks was a better candidate for it. (Tianmen Square was limited to China, while Wikileaks has the potential to change the world.)
For Wikileaks to possibly be in a "bad" category, it would have to do something bad. By what twisted reasoning can you find anything that Wikileaks has done somehow fit into the category of bad? The only people who could possibly suggest that there was anything bad about Wikileaks are bad people who don't like their secrets revealed. They make up lies about the consequences of revealing the secrets. They even have resorted to a smear campaign against Julian Asange. But at the end of the day, you can't find any shred of anything that Wikileaks itself has done that could be in any way construed as "wrong" or "bad".
On the side of "good" it is almost a stupid question. They do the job of reporting what governments are too cowardly and craven to face the public on. They are the megaphone for a conscious' of the myriad whistle blowers who see corruption all around them and are exasperated by the fact that nothing can be done about it, short of this desperate attempt to let the world know what is happening. Wikileaks makes it possible -- it gives whistle blowers the anonymity they need to execute their exposures.
Your question is hardly recognizable as even remotely rational.
You *really* didn't understand that scene from Star Wars did you? Actually as a ghost, Obiwan couldn't do jack. Its the martyrdom factor that ignited Luke to get his revenge against Darth Vader that was the danger. And so too it is with Julian Assange.
Hell, I might have to get into this myself if anything happens to him.
There's one reason why this is a poor method of insurance. Suppose there's somebody out there with an even bigger axe to grind than Assange, who will stop at nothing to get the contents of this "insurance" file released. With over six billion people in the world, and a substantial number of them having a beef with the U.S., it's not beyond the realms of possibility.
The implication here is that if something happens to Assange, then the key gets released. So, it logically follows that if you want the key to be released.......
(For my own safety, I have no interest in the contents of that file. And while I personally think Julian Assange is a self-righteous ass, I don't wish physical harm on him or any of the other people involved with Wikileaks.)
But you have not thought this all the way through. The US itself is a big enough entity that nobody's axe is bigger than theirs. Knowing that someone might want to force Assange to give up the key, its probably in the US's best interest to protect Assange.
Unfortunately it seems Julian Asange and Pvt. Manning did not know Adrian Lamo's history. He's already on an FBI watch list, and his previous encounters with hacker activities basically turned him into an "outed hacker". Such people can make careers as counter-intrusion consultants (Phiber Optik, Kevin Mitcnick) or as Journalists/radio personalities (Bernie S, Kevin Poulsen). But they *cannot* go back to grey or black hat hacking, and anything along those lines. They are being watched too carefully.
On his interview on the "Off the Hook" radio show, Adrian Lamo was unusually regretful and capitulant when he got "caught" intruding into people's systems. He made no attempt to defend his actions. This should have been the first clue that this guy was basically a state actor or something of that nature. Given how effective WikiLeaks has been, it is shocking to me that they were so lax in security as to allow someone like Adrian Lamo anywhere near their crown jewels. Now Manning is going to be a fall guy, and iterpol/the FBI has a ridiculous premise for subpoenaing Julian Asange.
This whole cock up sucks so much ass. Why did Julian Asange feel the need to go public? Why did they trust some outed hacker? Along with cryptome.org, Wikileaks has been *such* an important resource for free speech and open society movements everywhere. I sincerely hope that it does go down in flames from all this crap.
... If you don't understand the equivalence, you might just be a religious extremist.
Your religion might say killing a doctor who performs abortions is acceptable. Their religion might say killing a cartoonist who mocks their prophet is acceptable. In both cases you're saying murder is acceptable because your religion says so. That's pretty much textbook religious extremist.
Well, I don't see them as equivalent. Teller was providing a public service, giving substance to the law of the land (having the freedom to choose a medical procedure is meaningless if no doctor will perform it). The cartoons only have "freedom of expression" at their disposal which does not apply to corporate airwaves (not saying I agree with this, just stating the facts), and the laws about freedom of expression are not universal (the US is the only country I know of that has upheld the idea in court -- other countries at most claim it, even in the face of obviously contradicting laws.)
While the murders are equivalent from the point of view of the number of victims, the justification for killing Theo-Van Gogh was just vacuous, whereas the justification for killing Teller makes the crime far, far worse. I can go make a Muhammad cartoon anytime I like to fill in that void, I cannot suddenly go perform abortions to fill in the void left by Teller.
As Ayan Hirshi Ali stated, in order to fix the Muslim attitude towards depictions of Muhammad, you can just have *everyone* actually engage in it. The weight of the world opinion is not trivial and would give them pause to think. I think her analysis is correct. For the abortion issue, there is no changing those people's minds. Even if there was a pervasive education campaign, whatever remaining pro-lifers there would be would always be the most radical and would still carry out murders of doctors no matter what their demographic.
(You can't accuse me of being lead by my religion, because I am atheist.)
The more annoying it is to spam, the fewer people will do it. If writing software to get past this (or buying the software) costs a fortune, good.
Since when does it cost anyone anything to write software? The whole lesson of the computer industry is that developing (most) software has reasonable finite fixed costs and relatively small on-going costs and (if its any good) has perpetual returns (for as long as you can sell it; funding your development costs for upgrades.)
I hate to be a spoil sport, but unless you cost the person sending the spam in exact proportion to the amount they send, you fundamentally are not addressing the cost structure of SPAM.
If it can stop a lot of this kind of spam, that's fine with me. Let it be an arms race. If the spammers have to make up new templates every 4 hours, that's going to make things a lot harder.
It would be very temporary. One thing we need to realize is that the spammers have reasonably intelligent programmers working on *their* side. A template deducer relies on the fact that the message has fixed text that forms a signature for the template. The spammers do it this way right now, because its really easy to do this and hash based filters can be defeated this way.
But if the spammers need to write more complicated "automated alternate sentence rewording" generators they will.
I don't know, the level of unethical manipulation, objectivization, self-involvement, narcissism, and sexism in your theory seems perfectly consistent with the "stereotype of the cool western male."
In case you missed it -- women do this to men all the time. They typically start "the game" one step ahead of most men in this way. When they want a certain outcome in a relationship they say things to manipulate the guy; or at the very least that's a very typical tool in their toolbox (to say they always do this is an over-generalization). This has actually been clinically tested -- women have natural superior ability in something called "intentionality" (think of it as the opposite of Asperger's syndrome, which tends to affect men more). That is to say, they more naturally think in terms of what you or others in general are thinking and are more likely to act in accordance to that. Men more natural try to build simpler models of the world.
Hurricane78 is probably just someone who has seen through this and has the mental capacity to "turn the game around" in a sense, and "play the game" at their level.
Survival is a terrible metric of intelligence. By that standard, lions and tigers and bears are the most intelligent species on the planet.
No by that metric lions, tigers and other mammals are ankle biters compared to lizards, birds, amphibians, insects and fish. In fact Octopuses and sharks have a much longer track record for survival than these mere mammal upstarts. In evolutionary terms, the mammals have not yet proven anything, other than a slight improvement over non-bird dinosaurs.
Though I will certainly agree with you that its a bad metric. I ain't bowing to bacteria and weeds in terms of intelligence.
The initial rejections are just a smoke screen. The USPTO just does that to try to disincentivise appliers from doing "blanket patents". They are forced to come back and justify the patent a second time, which costs lawyer money, which the applying corporation (rarely is it a person) will have to consider before they try to push through their patent.
But in the end, as long as the applying company has the money (like IBM) and people willing to explain the spin on their patent, the USPTO is basically powerless to stop them. The USPTO does not hire talented people who can actually assess patents and understand what is obvious and what is not (such people would rather be working for a start-up or a big corporation or whatever). I know this because of the questions on the patent I applied for as principle (and got). They asked the wrong questions -- where I was being innovative they challenged me on prior art (clearly not the case) rather than obviousness.
Nothing changes the fact that the USPTO is in way over their heads. All because they allow software patents in the first place, and there are too many cynical software engineers trying to get their little bonus incentive to file the patent and throw it on their resume. (I should know, that's what I did.)
Absolutely, cdk007's video explaining the Dr. Szostak sequence is really excellent. It gives you a real sense for how non-random and almost inevitable it was.
Lipids + ameno acids -> self replicator, the rest is an exercise left for the reader that this recent result helps fill in. Its awesome.
They do indeed include Open Office. (It would be insane not to.) In TFA it says:
MATC also says it promises to accept any of Schubert's papers or class documents using whatever software she has installed.
Which means there is simply a severe case of computer illiteracy here. She is *NOT* prevented from taking classes because she happens to have Ubuntu installed. Of course you can use Ubuntu and Open Office for your education. I have basically absolutely NO sympathy for anyone younger than me who fails to understand computer basics. And neither should anyone else. In this day and age, computer literacy *IS* literacy.
Also it should be pointed out that this single person's little problem doesn't rise to the level of a serious news story to be written about. Yet it is. Why is that? Do you think maybe someone is trying to sell a narrative here? Maybe the magazine wants to make it seem as though Ubuntu is somehow anti-school or something, and that Windows "just works". Why are there no stories about people with Vista on their laptops that crash all the time and lose people's term papers while they are at school?
You have to recognize a bullshit story when you see one, and I see one right here.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems like what is happening here is that Tsvangirai is trying to cooperate with 'western' governments, and Mugabe is painting this as an evil action which needs to be stopped.
And is it impossible for Mugabe (regardless of anything else about him) to be right? (I refer you to Iran-Contra for an example of how covert US foreign policy operates)
NO. WRONG.
Wrong how? WikiLeaks leaked private communications between a force for reform in Zimbabwe and western nations.
Those communications may have irreparably damaged efforts at reform by giving Mugabe and his thugs material to discredit reformers.
How do you know he is a force for reform? I am unaware of any period in history when American diplomats had identified and were helping a force for reform in a foreign country. Do/did US diplomats have secret cables with Ayn San Suu kyi? Garry Kasparov? Liu Xiaobo? Nelson Mandella? Hugo Chavez? Evo Morales? I am guessing not, because that's not how the US government operates. But I am sure we had plenty of "cables" to Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran, Pinochet etc.
If some US diplomat has had private communications with a foreign official, the onus is on you to show that he was a reformer, since that communication by itself can be taken as heuristic evidence against that fact.
Now you are just flat out lying.
I've seen internal redactions within the cables themselves (because unlike you, I don't talk out of my ass -- I've actually looked through several of them). The Pentagon Papers were not held back for any amount of time. Newspapers digested and published them immediately. The same thing is happening with the leaks (journalists gets first crack at them, in case there were failures to do proper redactions.)
Amnesty Intl., did *NOT* rip into Wikileaks. They were under the impression that civilian names were disclosed in the Afghanistan dump, without providing any evidence. As Assange himself points out, there is no evidence or even alleging of harm to anyone by any credible institution. So they asked wikileaks to do something they've always already done (redact names of innocent civilians).
Oh its outrage against a straw man. Assange himself is constantly asked whether or not he believes in a black and white view to transparency and he always answers no (his standard example is the medical secrets of a private citizen). His actions are consistent with his claims, and wikileaks has clearly redacted when it makes sense, and they have never released anything that amounts to a personal attack on a private citizen.
The simple fact is that Wikileaks has done a better job of public disclosure than any other existing institution on earth. That primarily includes the US government, private corporations and various other governments around the world.
Diplomacy does not include obtaining DNA evidence and phone tapping foreign officials.
You are projecting upon wikileaks things they did not do. They don't just go leaking random bank accounts info. They released two version of the Collateral Murder video; one edited and one not. The US government claimed that this video did not exist, in the investigation of the incident they found no wrong doing, even from the gunner that said "come on, just pick up a weapon".
The government works at our behest. We (Americans) pay taxes for those cables. Those cables *BELONG TO US*. Looking through some of them myself has been somewhat enlightening about how our government's foreign policy works in ways that deceptive election campaigns and government spokespeople and useless civics classes could never tell me.
There is no analogy to revealing the email of a private citizen.
I don't know if you've noticed or not, but ISPs, DNSs, and a number of governments have been banning and attacking wikileaks.* . Diversifying shows that wikileaks does not stand alone. They should definitely link to it (and there should be a reciprocal link), but hosting is not only unnecessary, but probably counter-productive. People should just help publicize it.
Well if everything in architectural drawings is in CAPS then ... why couldn't you just default all input to Caps (as if Capslock has been pressed to start with) and use shift to get the lower-case keys?
So with my admittedly meager research (reading Slashdot and other sites), I can't figure out if the Wikileaks people are good guys or bad guys. Which is it?
You can't figure it out? You like governments and corporations around the world keeping secrets from citizens at their expense?
The only problem with this years Nobel Peace Prize is that Wikileaks was a better candidate for it. (Tianmen Square was limited to China, while Wikileaks has the potential to change the world.)
For Wikileaks to possibly be in a "bad" category, it would have to do something bad. By what twisted reasoning can you find anything that Wikileaks has done somehow fit into the category of bad? The only people who could possibly suggest that there was anything bad about Wikileaks are bad people who don't like their secrets revealed. They make up lies about the consequences of revealing the secrets. They even have resorted to a smear campaign against Julian Asange. But at the end of the day, you can't find any shred of anything that Wikileaks itself has done that could be in any way construed as "wrong" or "bad".
On the side of "good" it is almost a stupid question. They do the job of reporting what governments are too cowardly and craven to face the public on. They are the megaphone for a conscious' of the myriad whistle blowers who see corruption all around them and are exasperated by the fact that nothing can be done about it, short of this desperate attempt to let the world know what is happening. Wikileaks makes it possible -- it gives whistle blowers the anonymity they need to execute their exposures.
Your question is hardly recognizable as even remotely rational.
There is no other.
He started a war? Amazing, I didn't know he had his own country.
Well we declared war on terrorism and drugs. Doctors have declared war on cancer. I hardly see how countries are associated with these "modern" wars.
You *really* didn't understand that scene from Star Wars did you? Actually as a ghost, Obiwan couldn't do jack. Its the martyrdom factor that ignited Luke to get his revenge against Darth Vader that was the danger. And so too it is with Julian Assange. Hell, I might have to get into this myself if anything happens to him.
There's one reason why this is a poor method of insurance. Suppose there's somebody out there with an even bigger axe to grind than Assange, who will stop at nothing to get the contents of this "insurance" file released. With over six billion people in the world, and a substantial number of them having a beef with the U.S., it's not beyond the realms of possibility.
The implication here is that if something happens to Assange, then the key gets released. So, it logically follows that if you want the key to be released.......
(For my own safety, I have no interest in the contents of that file. And while I personally think Julian Assange is a self-righteous ass, I don't wish physical harm on him or any of the other people involved with Wikileaks.)
But you have not thought this all the way through. The US itself is a big enough entity that nobody's axe is bigger than theirs. Knowing that someone might want to force Assange to give up the key, its probably in the US's best interest to protect Assange.
I think he would have been a better recipient for the last Nobel Peace Prize (at least we know *HE* would have had the good sense to decline it).
Unfortunately it seems Julian Asange and Pvt. Manning did not know Adrian Lamo's history. He's already on an FBI watch list, and his previous encounters with hacker activities basically turned him into an "outed hacker". Such people can make careers as counter-intrusion consultants (Phiber Optik, Kevin Mitcnick) or as Journalists/radio personalities (Bernie S, Kevin Poulsen). But they *cannot* go back to grey or black hat hacking, and anything along those lines. They are being watched too carefully. On his interview on the "Off the Hook" radio show, Adrian Lamo was unusually regretful and capitulant when he got "caught" intruding into people's systems. He made no attempt to defend his actions. This should have been the first clue that this guy was basically a state actor or something of that nature. Given how effective WikiLeaks has been, it is shocking to me that they were so lax in security as to allow someone like Adrian Lamo anywhere near their crown jewels. Now Manning is going to be a fall guy, and iterpol/the FBI has a ridiculous premise for subpoenaing Julian Asange. This whole cock up sucks so much ass. Why did Julian Asange feel the need to go public? Why did they trust some outed hacker? Along with cryptome.org, Wikileaks has been *such* an important resource for free speech and open society movements everywhere. I sincerely hope that it does go down in flames from all this crap.
Your religion might say killing a doctor who performs abortions is acceptable. Their religion might say killing a cartoonist who mocks their prophet is acceptable. In both cases you're saying murder is acceptable because your religion says so. That's pretty much textbook religious extremist.
Well, I don't see them as equivalent. Teller was providing a public service, giving substance to the law of the land (having the freedom to choose a medical procedure is meaningless if no doctor will perform it). The cartoons only have "freedom of expression" at their disposal which does not apply to corporate airwaves (not saying I agree with this, just stating the facts), and the laws about freedom of expression are not universal (the US is the only country I know of that has upheld the idea in court -- other countries at most claim it, even in the face of obviously contradicting laws.)
While the murders are equivalent from the point of view of the number of victims, the justification for killing Theo-Van Gogh was just vacuous, whereas the justification for killing Teller makes the crime far, far worse. I can go make a Muhammad cartoon anytime I like to fill in that void, I cannot suddenly go perform abortions to fill in the void left by Teller.
As Ayan Hirshi Ali stated, in order to fix the Muslim attitude towards depictions of Muhammad, you can just have *everyone* actually engage in it. The weight of the world opinion is not trivial and would give them pause to think. I think her analysis is correct. For the abortion issue, there is no changing those people's minds. Even if there was a pervasive education campaign, whatever remaining pro-lifers there would be would always be the most radical and would still carry out murders of doctors no matter what their demographic.
(You can't accuse me of being lead by my religion, because I am atheist.)
The more annoying it is to spam, the fewer people will do it. If writing software to get past this (or buying the software) costs a fortune, good.
Since when does it cost anyone anything to write software? The whole lesson of the computer industry is that developing (most) software has reasonable finite fixed costs and relatively small on-going costs and (if its any good) has perpetual returns (for as long as you can sell it; funding your development costs for upgrades.)
I hate to be a spoil sport, but unless you cost the person sending the spam in exact proportion to the amount they send, you fundamentally are not addressing the cost structure of SPAM.
If it can stop a lot of this kind of spam, that's fine with me. Let it be an arms race. If the spammers have to make up new templates every 4 hours, that's going to make things a lot harder.
It would be very temporary. One thing we need to realize is that the spammers have reasonably intelligent programmers working on *their* side. A template deducer relies on the fact that the message has fixed text that forms a signature for the template. The spammers do it this way right now, because its really easy to do this and hash based filters can be defeated this way.
But if the spammers need to write more complicated "automated alternate sentence rewording" generators they will.
I don't know, the level of unethical manipulation, objectivization, self-involvement, narcissism, and sexism in your theory seems perfectly consistent with the "stereotype of the cool western male."
In case you missed it -- women do this to men all the time. They typically start "the game" one step ahead of most men in this way. When they want a certain outcome in a relationship they say things to manipulate the guy; or at the very least that's a very typical tool in their toolbox (to say they always do this is an over-generalization). This has actually been clinically tested -- women have natural superior ability in something called "intentionality" (think of it as the opposite of Asperger's syndrome, which tends to affect men more). That is to say, they more naturally think in terms of what you or others in general are thinking and are more likely to act in accordance to that. Men more natural try to build simpler models of the world.
Hurricane78 is probably just someone who has seen through this and has the mental capacity to "turn the game around" in a sense, and "play the game" at their level.
The only "science" that starts with the answer and works backwards from there.
Oh no -- Christian Science works that way too.
Survival is a terrible metric of intelligence. By that standard, lions and tigers and bears are the most intelligent species on the planet.
No by that metric lions, tigers and other mammals are ankle biters compared to lizards, birds, amphibians, insects and fish. In fact Octopuses and sharks have a much longer track record for survival than these mere mammal upstarts. In evolutionary terms, the mammals have not yet proven anything, other than a slight improvement over non-bird dinosaurs. Though I will certainly agree with you that its a bad metric. I ain't bowing to bacteria and weeds in terms of intelligence.
But in the end, as long as the applying company has the money (like IBM) and people willing to explain the spin on their patent, the USPTO is basically powerless to stop them. The USPTO does not hire talented people who can actually assess patents and understand what is obvious and what is not (such people would rather be working for a start-up or a big corporation or whatever). I know this because of the questions on the patent I applied for as principle (and got). They asked the wrong questions -- where I was being innovative they challenged me on prior art (clearly not the case) rather than obviousness.
Nothing changes the fact that the USPTO is in way over their heads. All because they allow software patents in the first place, and there are too many cynical software engineers trying to get their little bonus incentive to file the patent and throw it on their resume. (I should know, that's what I did.)
Absolutely, cdk007's video explaining the Dr. Szostak sequence is really excellent. It gives you a real sense for how non-random and almost inevitable it was.
Lipids + ameno acids -> self replicator, the rest is an exercise left for the reader that this recent result helps fill in. Its awesome.
The letters and words are open, but the source behind them is not. The process of reviewing the work of an average text book is not open.
They do indeed include Open Office. (It would be insane not to.) In TFA it says:
Which means there is simply a severe case of computer illiteracy here. She is *NOT* prevented from taking classes because she happens to have Ubuntu installed. Of course you can use Ubuntu and Open Office for your education. I have basically absolutely NO sympathy for anyone younger than me who fails to understand computer basics. And neither should anyone else. In this day and age, computer literacy *IS* literacy.
Also it should be pointed out that this single person's little problem doesn't rise to the level of a serious news story to be written about. Yet it is. Why is that? Do you think maybe someone is trying to sell a narrative here? Maybe the magazine wants to make it seem as though Ubuntu is somehow anti-school or something, and that Windows "just works". Why are there no stories about people with Vista on their laptops that crash all the time and lose people's term papers while they are at school?
You have to recognize a bullshit story when you see one, and I see one right here.