I used to recommend Canon for precisely the reasons you stated until I learned that Canon does not make its printer hardware interfaces available to developers of printer drivers for Free operating systems.
So?
My Canon Injet actually works better in Linux than it does in Windows.
Palm (AFAIK) doesn't OSS it's drivesr, but it still works with Free OSes.
a better analogy (than the one you might already hold) is that they are two visible sides of a coin we really cannot see.
Actually...
Think of all of reality as a fabric woven from quantum strings. "matter", "energy", and "light" are just different types of knots in the fabric of reality.
Re:Wat printers can be easily/cheaply refilled? De
on
Lexmark DMCA Case Winds On
·
· Score: 4, Informative
If I were to purchase an inkjet, which model can be easily and cheaply refilled, and carries a durable printhead?
Canon.
Canon was, AFAIK, the first inkjet company to have four seperate ink tanks and a seperate head. The prices are reasonable, the quality is good, and the consumeables are fairly priced. (A bit more per page than b&w laser, but still good.)
The concept of copylefting for example is difficult under German law (Urherbergesetz). "You own the copyright of everything you produce" is it's basis. That's to protect the producers. Bad for copylefting. And bad from the liability point of view. Cause you are liable for your products. The licence doesn't matter.
(IANAL-RU?)
In the states, you automatically own the copyright of anything you produce, save for works that are done for-hire--in which case, your employer owns them. (IIRC, you even own the copyright of illegal and unauthorized derivitive works--you can't DO anything with them, but neither can anyone else without going through you.)
You also have some degree liability for everything you do; if, for example, Linus decided to make a Linux distribution that gave him total control of your computer, he could be liable for it.
hey, how about you Yanks stop picking f'ing fights!?
Sorry. There's evil in the world, and it's in our blood to fight against it. Probably something to do with our outrageously high religous population.
Now, of course, we could just pull out and concentrate our military on self-defense and NATO/UN obligations... sure would patch up our deficit. But, again, not in our blood.
We've been running a deficit since, oh, about the time of the Great Depression. I haven't seen any solid numbers on % of deficit vs. % of GDP (or even % of Federal Costs), but I wager that the gov't's deficit isn't quite as outrageous when it's looked at that way.
Hmm... then again, if we REALLY wanted to cut our bills, we could just trim the foreign aid. That'd shore up the deficit real quick.
*Sigh* Sometimes I think my country would be better off if we just started charging countries a "saved your ass fee."
And in 1812 when they were weakened and looking to maybe pick on a disorganized fledging country they used to own, we beat them again.
Nope.
The War of 1812 was the USA being picky and playing cowboy politics. It didn't last very long, got Washington burned, and ended in a peace treaty that left us right back where we started, sans merchantmen conscription on the part of the UK. It was a draw, not a win. (In 1812, as in 1781, the UK saw the USA as a great big market that made them a lot of money--more money than the war justified.)
Re:Why are version numbers so uneven
on
Netscape 7.1 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Simple.
After 4, Netscape decided to release Communicator as open source. The project, NS 5.0, was worked on for a few months before it was decided to rebuild from scratch with the Mozilla project.
The first NS bundle from Mozilla was Nestcape 6 PR 1--which was bad. Later NS6 versions--6 PR2, 6.0, 6.1, and 6.2, were built on better versions of Mozilla. But they had a very bad image, due to the Preview Releases. Thus, NS 7 was released, which is just a latter version of Mozilla repackaged.
Re:It just may make me switch back from IE
on
Netscape 7.1 Released
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Press F11 in Mozilla 1.4, and you get a full screen, just like IEs.
Better, actually, as the address bar is still there.:)
Moz's (and NS's) form function is great. Different from IE's, but still great.
I'm definitely not a NASA astro-physicist, but it seems pretty logical to me that there's no such thing as a rescue mission in space... yet.
After Apollo 13, there's no excuse not to have a resuce plan.
A high-manuverabilty "rescue pod" to stretch the shuttle's supplies and a "quick lauch" plan to send the next shuttle in the que (sic) to bring the astronauaghts home.
It is rocket science, but it's not miracle-work. "There's nothing we could have done" is an unacceptable answer from NASA when it comes to rescue of astronauts.
The answer is necessarily yes and no at the same time because God means something different to everyone.
No, it doesn't.
God, capitalized, is a refernece to a supreme roughly benevolent entity that is attributed with the creation of everything. It's almost as proper a noun as "Jesus Christ" is.
'course, the article name is silly by the commonly accepted definition anyway.:) (I mean, heck, if Google was a supreme being, you'd think that the 'net boom wouldn't have burst.)
It is technically feasible. But noone seems to be interested in it.
That's because it's only theoretically feasible. The USAF and NASA have been working on alternate methods of reaching space for decades now, and their tests haven't been roaring successes.
Got an alternative that works? Apply for a grant, test it, and then sell it to USAF / NASA. If you can't get a grant yourself, go find someone who can get grants and sell your idea to them.
Given that they recently forced a student to pay over his life savings
Life savings? We're talking about a friggin' college student!
Forgive me if I don't have sympathy for someone who lost the pennies they saved up from working for four years while living at home.
Music corporations, which employ thousands of people and, at the least, entertain a significant portion of the populace, don't deserve to be destroyed. Litigated to be honest, yes. Destroyed? Hell no.
Re:Ah, some freshmeat at slashdot!
on
Isn't It Ironic?
·
· Score: 1
"Get Over It" as the cure-all mantra for all manner of life traumas (abuse, molestation, etc.). What the 'ironic' thinkers forget, in this, is that everyone has issues - the profound lack of social support systems in modern society is as equally the fault of apathetic "I don't have time to listen to this, so get me my beer or get lost!" as it is the fault of Christian Repressionist "You must have demons inside you, let us drill a hole in your head to make it go away" ignorance.
By what, exactly, are you judging modern society in having a lack of social support systems? Can you kindly name two or three past societies which has better social support systems?
"Get over it" is a great first answer to any and all problems. If the said victim cannot do so on their own, then the intelligent and rational thing to do is to seek help to, brace yourself, "get over it."
# Hypocrisy: # SUV owning activists gathering at Starbuck's to drive out to the "No War For Oil!" protest
No, that isn't hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be said activists protesting higher gas prices / expanded drilling. (Unless, of course, they carpool.)
Ultimately, apathy, the child of ironic thinking, is why we are seeing all of our rights being taken away by the RIAA and MPAA, etc. Apathy and the refusal to be serious about things, is why our politicians and corporations continue to practically dick we the people over with impugnity.
Call me right-wing if you must, but I really don't see all that much being vital about the 'rights' the government has recently restricted.
So, it's illegal to break encryption intended to protect a copywritten work--unless you have a right to copy said work. Or, in other words, a digital lock know has the same legal backing as a physical lock. Yeah, really horrible.
"The Government" can now act like the monolithic entity that we all think it is. Big surprise that. If we don't want this, we should either amend the constitution to tell the government not to pool the data we give it, or we should divorce our schools and libraries from the government.
But right now, we are seeing brutality anyway. It's festering in our society because no one cares anymore.
I submit that our society's problem is too little brutality. If we acted like, oh, the British or the Roman Empires would have when a miniscule people attacked us and weren't able to curtail the attackers, we wouldn't have the terrorism problem anymore.
My country is a very, very forgiving nation--hell, we even still stand by France, after how they left us hanging with Vietnam. Saying that we're getting "too brutal" is just, well, sissy-talk to me.
(And don't even get me started on our over-reaction to 9/11/01--sure, we were attacked, and had moral high ground to strike back--but it's not the end of the friggin' world! More people died of illness on 9/10/01 than terrorism the day after.)
Have you ever used the word "ironic?" Do you know what it really means?
If I use a word, and both I, my audience, and anyone who happens to hear it knows what I mean, then I do know what the word means. Even if Webster thinks it means something different.
That said, the article does touch on some very good points--Irony is, essentially, a cosmic joke. Somehow I can't see the US getting attacked by terrorists as either being or ending a cosmic joke.
Do you think that this is any different? People want more than seven books! Sure, those seven will be revered and treasured, but we want MORE books about ordinary kids doing magic.
Killing off the "copies" will obviously be doing the world a great disservice.
Copyright law doesn't kill off or limit the meme of children going to a magical school. At its most extreme stretch, it just cuts off *Rowling*'s unique setting. You won't see Hogwarts, Quidditch (which is a horrible game anyway), or any of the characters in a book that Rowling doesn't explicity authorize--but you could see "Jean Luc and the elixer of life" or "Magic Jack and the Wiz."
There was a very flagrant copy of Harry Potter in Russia, but that's a case of cutting it too close--it'd be like if Terry Brooks wrote his story to follow Tolkien's exactly.
And what happens when a member of the society doesn't wish to leave the society, but wishes to stay and cause havoc, and generally be a nuisance? Do you use police to discipline them? If so, the Police are no longer equal, as they have more force.
Using government authorized force to maintain civil order is not a unique part of Communism/Socialism. It's an element of every part of society--including anarchism, which just shifts the use of force to the individual.
If someone doesn't want to leave but wants to cause havoc, then the society is well within their rights to discipline / expell the troublemaker. The right-wing answer of "if you don't like it, leave" should apply.
And giving police the authority to use force doesn't make them "unequal." Socialism should be a purely economic equality--everyone gets a "middle class" allotment of land and goods, and everyone works in some way or another.
Saying the police are "no longer equal" is a straw-man agrument. Communism doesn't require its participants to be equal--they just need to be honest and generous. (A lesser socialism, which could even be based upon a capitalist economy, would provide all with an acceptable standard of living, automate as many tasks as possible, and give rewards to those who do more.)
The problem with communism isn't by design, and it isn't how it responds to criminals. Communism's downfall is its revolutionary ideals, it's unnecessary atheist zealotry, and it's vulnerability to corruption and domination by a tyrant.
What twisted definition of communism are you using? Communism is no more defined as an exercise in force than capitalism is an exersise is democracy.
There have been numerous instances of small-scale communism in the USA since our founding. In fact, I'd say that the ONLY way communism could ever work is if it's all voluntary... which would require the communes to start, peacefully, in a nation that doesn't have to go to war to get food.
We fought the cold war against totolitarian athiest governments who wanted to make the entire world just like them. The fact that they claimed to be / attempted to be communist is, really, an afterthought.
(Communism has been shown to be horribly easy to corrupt--but, as I wager Orwell would agree, socialism is an idea that no more automatically heads towards totalinarism than democracy heads towards anarchy.)
Oh, save us from small-minded, narrow, ignoratn American parochialism. There are over 150 legal jurisdictions in the world. None of them gives a monkeys about what happens in any other. There's nothing special or magic about an American court
Wrong, and wrong. (IANAL-RU?)
First off, it's not unheard of for court cases to cite precedent from non-continuous jurisdictions of similiar legal principle when no domesitc precedent is avaliable. (A different US court is preferrable, but still unbinding--and a international court from a common or smiliar historical root is also useful.)
Secondly, America is either the or one of the largest markets in the world. Other nations don't care about our court cases only when we don't care about making them care--like with middling copyright sharing disputes.
The real issue is DRAG a.k.a. FRICTION. If there were no or negligible drag this thing could fly forever.
No. If there were no drag, it would fall like a marble.
Gravity is what airplanes fight, and they do this by passing an irregular surface rapidly through the atmosphere, creating an ineqity in the pressure of the air, and thus creating lift--which works directly against gravity once you have enough of it.
You're right about the fuel cells and the propellors, but wrong about what they fight. Heck, if anything, airplanes want MORE vertical drag--it means they need to generate less lift sto stay aloft. (horizontal drag's a bitch, just because it makes the lift harder to generate.)
MY tax dollars should not be spent on proprietary software.
Yes, they should. Or, rather, FS/OS/PS ethics shouldn't enter into the army's purchasing. This isn't a government office we're talking about--it's a military machine whose sole purpose is to express our national power.
The military is historically very pragmatic. Ignoring the politics just for a bit (I think we both agree that politics should not enter into it, and that they probably do), the military should use, in all cases, what works most effectivly for the task at hand.
Thus, just like our rationale for not using nuclear weapons is that they make a war unfightable, our rationale for using or not using windows is how much it makes the computer usable for those who will be using it. Remember that the Army, as skilled and strong as it is, is made up of a slightly down-skewed demographic with regards to intelligence and computer aptidude. It's important that these PCs be usable and maintainable by soldiers, without requiring full-time support.
Slashdot Mirror
I used to recommend Canon for precisely the reasons you stated until I learned that Canon does not make its printer hardware interfaces available to developers of printer drivers for Free operating systems.
So?
My Canon Injet actually works better in Linux than it does in Windows.
Palm (AFAIK) doesn't OSS it's drivesr, but it still works with Free OSes.
No, no, no. You've got it backwards.
MEN are the gender that read maps. That's why we never have to ask for directions.
a better analogy (than the one you might already hold) is that they are two visible sides of a coin we really cannot see.
Actually...
Think of all of reality as a fabric woven from quantum strings. "matter", "energy", and "light" are just different types of knots in the fabric of reality.
If I were to purchase an inkjet, which model can be easily and cheaply refilled, and carries a durable printhead?
Canon.
Canon was, AFAIK, the first inkjet company to have four seperate ink tanks and a seperate head. The prices are reasonable, the quality is good, and the consumeables are fairly priced. (A bit more per page than b&w laser, but still good.)
The concept of copylefting for example is difficult under German law (Urherbergesetz). "You own the copyright of everything you produce" is it's basis. That's to protect the producers. Bad for copylefting. And bad from the liability point of view. Cause you are liable for your products. The licence doesn't matter.
(IANAL-RU?)
In the states, you automatically own the copyright of anything you produce, save for works that are done for-hire--in which case, your employer owns them. (IIRC, you even own the copyright of illegal and unauthorized derivitive works--you can't DO anything with them, but neither can anyone else without going through you.)
You also have some degree liability for everything you do; if, for example, Linus decided to make a Linux distribution that gave him total control of your computer, he could be liable for it.
hey, how about you Yanks stop picking f'ing fights!?
Sorry. There's evil in the world, and it's in our blood to fight against it. Probably something to do with our outrageously high religous population.
Now, of course, we could just pull out and concentrate our military on self-defense and NATO/UN obligations... sure would patch up our deficit. But, again, not in our blood.
We've been running a deficit since, oh, about the time of the Great Depression. I haven't seen any solid numbers on % of deficit vs. % of GDP (or even % of Federal Costs), but I wager that the gov't's deficit isn't quite as outrageous when it's looked at that way.
Hmm... then again, if we REALLY wanted to cut our bills, we could just trim the foreign aid. That'd shore up the deficit real quick.
*Sigh* Sometimes I think my country would be better off if we just started charging countries a "saved your ass fee."
And in 1812 when they were weakened and looking to maybe pick on a disorganized fledging country they used to own, we beat them again.
Nope.
The War of 1812 was the USA being picky and playing cowboy politics. It didn't last very long, got Washington burned, and ended in a peace treaty that left us right back where we started, sans merchantmen conscription on the part of the UK. It was a draw, not a win. (In 1812, as in 1781, the UK saw the USA as a great big market that made them a lot of money--more money than the war justified.)
Simple.
After 4, Netscape decided to release Communicator as open source. The project, NS 5.0, was worked on for a few months before it was decided to rebuild from scratch with the Mozilla project.
The first NS bundle from Mozilla was Nestcape 6 PR 1--which was bad. Later NS6 versions--6 PR2, 6.0, 6.1, and 6.2, were built on better versions of Mozilla. But they had a very bad image, due to the Preview Releases. Thus, NS 7 was released, which is just a latter version of Mozilla repackaged.
Press F11 in Mozilla 1.4, and you get a full screen, just like IEs.
:)
Better, actually, as the address bar is still there.
Moz's (and NS's) form function is great. Different from IE's, but still great.
Columbia survived the same thing a half dozen times before, this was nothing different according to information available to the engineers.
That's the acceptable answer--"we didn't know the problem was this bad."
Additionally, theres no logistics for two shuttles in space. Houston cannot physically handle the information.
No excuse. Isn't there a backup for Houston? Doesn't Houston have backups for its logistics system?
There should be a rescue plan for the shuttle. There really isn't a good excuse why there isn't one.
I'm definitely not a NASA astro-physicist, but it seems pretty logical to me that there's no such thing as a rescue mission in space... yet.
After Apollo 13, there's no excuse not to have a resuce plan.
A high-manuverabilty "rescue pod" to stretch the shuttle's supplies and a "quick lauch" plan to send the next shuttle in the que (sic) to bring the astronauaghts home.
It is rocket science, but it's not miracle-work. "There's nothing we could have done" is an unacceptable answer from NASA when it comes to rescue of astronauts.
The answer is necessarily yes and no at the same time because God means something different to everyone.
:) (I mean, heck, if Google was a supreme being, you'd think that the 'net boom wouldn't have burst.)
No, it doesn't.
God, capitalized, is a refernece to a supreme roughly benevolent entity that is attributed with the creation of everything. It's almost as proper a noun as "Jesus Christ" is.
'course, the article name is silly by the commonly accepted definition anyway.
It is technically feasible. But noone seems to be interested in it.
That's because it's only theoretically feasible. The USAF and NASA have been working on alternate methods of reaching space for decades now, and their tests haven't been roaring successes.
Got an alternative that works? Apply for a grant, test it, and then sell it to USAF / NASA. If you can't get a grant yourself, go find someone who can get grants and sell your idea to them.
I mean, if someone (a real person, that is) posted a testimony that Windows is better than Linux
Real people do find that Windows is better than Linux. They just don't think it's a noteworthy event.
Given that they recently forced a student to pay over his life savings
Life savings? We're talking about a friggin' college student!
Forgive me if I don't have sympathy for someone who lost the pennies they saved up from working for four years while living at home.
Music corporations, which employ thousands of people and, at the least, entertain a significant portion of the populace, don't deserve to be destroyed. Litigated to be honest, yes. Destroyed? Hell no.
By what, exactly, are you judging modern society in having a lack of social support systems? Can you kindly name two or three past societies which has better social support systems?
"Get over it" is a great first answer to any and all problems. If the said victim cannot do so on their own, then the intelligent and rational thing to do is to seek help to, brace yourself, "get over it."
# Hypocrisy:
# SUV owning activists gathering at Starbuck's to drive out to the "No War For Oil!" protest
No, that isn't hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be said activists protesting higher gas prices / expanded drilling. (Unless, of course, they carpool.)
Ultimately, apathy, the child of ironic thinking, is why we are seeing all of our rights being taken away by the RIAA and MPAA, etc. Apathy and the refusal to be serious about things, is why our politicians and corporations continue to practically dick we the people over with impugnity.
Call me right-wing if you must, but I really don't see all that much being vital about the 'rights' the government has recently restricted.
So, it's illegal to break encryption intended to protect a copywritten work--unless you have a right to copy said work. Or, in other words, a digital lock know has the same legal backing as a physical lock. Yeah, really horrible.
"The Government" can now act like the monolithic entity that we all think it is. Big surprise that. If we don't want this, we should either amend the constitution to tell the government not to pool the data we give it, or we should divorce our schools and libraries from the government.
But right now, we are seeing brutality anyway. It's festering in our society because no one cares anymore.
I submit that our society's problem is too little brutality. If we acted like, oh, the British or the Roman Empires would have when a miniscule people attacked us and weren't able to curtail the attackers, we wouldn't have the terrorism problem anymore.
My country is a very, very forgiving nation--hell, we even still stand by France, after how they left us hanging with Vietnam. Saying that we're getting "too brutal" is just, well, sissy-talk to me.
(And don't even get me started on our over-reaction to 9/11/01--sure, we were attacked, and had moral high ground to strike back--but it's not the end of the friggin' world! More people died of illness on 9/10/01 than terrorism the day after.)
Have you ever used the word "ironic?" Do you know what it really means?
If I use a word, and both I, my audience, and anyone who happens to hear it knows what I mean, then I do know what the word means. Even if Webster thinks it means something different.
That said, the article does touch on some very good points--Irony is, essentially, a cosmic joke. Somehow I can't see the US getting attacked by terrorists as either being or ending a cosmic joke.
Do you think that this is any different? People want more than seven books! Sure, those seven will be revered and treasured, but we want MORE books about ordinary kids doing magic.
Killing off the "copies" will obviously be doing the world a great disservice.
Copyright law doesn't kill off or limit the meme of children going to a magical school. At its most extreme stretch, it just cuts off *Rowling*'s unique setting. You won't see Hogwarts, Quidditch (which is a horrible game anyway), or any of the characters in a book that Rowling doesn't explicity authorize--but you could see "Jean Luc and the elixer of life" or "Magic Jack and the Wiz."
There was a very flagrant copy of Harry Potter in Russia, but that's a case of cutting it too close--it'd be like if Terry Brooks wrote his story to follow Tolkien's exactly.
And what happens when a member of the society doesn't wish to leave the society, but wishes to stay and cause havoc, and generally be a nuisance? Do you use police to discipline them? If so, the Police are no longer equal, as they have more force.
Using government authorized force to maintain civil order is not a unique part of Communism/Socialism. It's an element of every part of society--including anarchism, which just shifts the use of force to the individual.
If someone doesn't want to leave but wants to cause havoc, then the society is well within their rights to discipline / expell the troublemaker. The right-wing answer of "if you don't like it, leave" should apply.
And giving police the authority to use force doesn't make them "unequal." Socialism should be a purely economic equality--everyone gets a "middle class" allotment of land and goods, and everyone works in some way or another.
Saying the police are "no longer equal" is a straw-man agrument. Communism doesn't require its participants to be equal--they just need to be honest and generous. (A lesser socialism, which could even be based upon a capitalist economy, would provide all with an acceptable standard of living, automate as many tasks as possible, and give rewards to those who do more.)
The problem with communism isn't by design, and it isn't how it responds to criminals. Communism's downfall is its revolutionary ideals, it's unnecessary atheist zealotry, and it's vulnerability to corruption and domination by a tyrant.
What people are mistakingly calling "voluntary communism" is, in fact, an example of free market economics.
*blink, blink*
"Communism isn't communism, it's capitalsm."
Tell me, what exactly happens when a member of the communist society refuses to support the machine?
Ideally, they leave the society. In fact, if the participants CAN'T leave the society, it's totalitarism, not socialism/communism.
It's impossible by the definition of communism.
What twisted definition of communism are you using? Communism is no more defined as an exercise in force than capitalism is an exersise is democracy.
There have been numerous instances of small-scale communism in the USA since our founding. In fact, I'd say that the ONLY way communism could ever work is if it's all voluntary... which would require the communes to start, peacefully, in a nation that doesn't have to go to war to get food.
We fought the cold war against totolitarian athiest governments who wanted to make the entire world just like them. The fact that they claimed to be / attempted to be communist is, really, an afterthought.
(Communism has been shown to be horribly easy to corrupt--but, as I wager Orwell would agree, socialism is an idea that no more automatically heads towards totalinarism than democracy heads towards anarchy.)
You're welcome. :) Better to have spelling errors, which you can always defend as historically accurate, than poor grammar.
Oh, save us from small-minded, narrow, ignoratn American parochialism. There are over 150 legal jurisdictions in the world. None of them gives a monkeys about what happens in any other. There's nothing special or magic about an American court
Wrong, and wrong. (IANAL-RU?)
First off, it's not unheard of for court cases to cite precedent from non-continuous jurisdictions of similiar legal principle when no domesitc precedent is avaliable. (A different US court is preferrable, but still unbinding--and a international court from a common or smiliar historical root is also useful.)
Secondly, America is either the or one of the largest markets in the world. Other nations don't care about our court cases only when we don't care about making them care--like with middling copyright sharing disputes.
The real issue is DRAG a.k.a. FRICTION. If there were no or negligible drag this thing could fly forever.
No. If there were no drag, it would fall like a marble.
Gravity is what airplanes fight, and they do this by passing an irregular surface rapidly through the atmosphere, creating an ineqity in the pressure of the air, and thus creating lift--which works directly against gravity once you have enough of it.
You're right about the fuel cells and the propellors, but wrong about what they fight. Heck, if anything, airplanes want MORE vertical drag--it means they need to generate less lift sto stay aloft. (horizontal drag's a bitch, just because it makes the lift harder to generate.)
MY tax dollars should not be spent on proprietary software.
Yes, they should. Or, rather, FS/OS/PS ethics shouldn't enter into the army's purchasing. This isn't a government office we're talking about--it's a military machine whose sole purpose is to express our national power.
The military is historically very pragmatic. Ignoring the politics just for a bit (I think we both agree that politics should not enter into it, and that they probably do), the military should use, in all cases, what works most effectivly for the task at hand.
Thus, just like our rationale for not using nuclear weapons is that they make a war unfightable, our rationale for using or not using windows is how much it makes the computer usable for those who will be using it. Remember that the Army, as skilled and strong as it is, is made up of a slightly down-skewed demographic with regards to intelligence and computer aptidude. It's important that these PCs be usable and maintainable by soldiers, without requiring full-time support.