Swarthy_faces + flying_cars = 9/11_repeat. Too small to be dangerous. They'd be more of an annoyance- large buildings would each require a King Kong to hold on to the side and swat rogue cars away.
Who would be fooled by that? Comparing a PS3 with a Wii is like comparing a buick with my lawnmower! That's certainly a good analogy; for cutting grass, the lawnmower is a far more sensible choice. As a lawn-cutting device, the Buick is grossly overpriced, and doesn't even do the job it's supposed to.
I am absolutely sick of the jesusbots modding down anything critical of religion. They'll be punished for it in the afterlife, though.... erm, I meant metamoderation;-)
The article is referring to Nitric Oxide - NO -- not Nitrous Oxide - N2O I was going to mod this up funny- then I wondered what I was laughing at and realised that the nurses had plugged me in to the wrong gas cylinder.
I hope they got it right the second time around- let me check. Nitrogen Dioxide? That doesn't sound right... nurse! Nurse! Nu
Start smoking them today, or you'll live to regret it! Are you implying that Laramie smokers won't regret their decision, or just that they won't live long enough to regret it?;-)
From what I hear vinyl sales ARE up. Yes, but that's as a tiny niche market which only makes up a tiny fraction of total music sales- and it will only *ever*. The suggestion that by going back to vinyl the masses will start buying it again and the music industry will be saved is horrendously implausible.
It relies on the assumption that people will buy it for quality (no they won't; they'd already be doing that if it were the case- and I'm talking about a *significant* percentage of the market), and that digitisation is somehow a barrier or a deterrent.... but I'm repeating what I already said.
Somehow I don't think 128Mbps MP3s would sound that bad Well, they're never going to reach "audiophile" grade. However, they don't sound as bad as their reputation would suggest... *if* you use a good encoder. I think the problem is that a lot of people used really crappy encoders (and/or transcoded). I suspect that a decent encoder at 128mbps would beat a crappy one at 160 if not 192 mbps.
every audiophile will tell you that any digitisation utterly ruins the quality. Which may or may not be true, but I wouldn't take an audiophile's word for it. Half of those guys are pseudo-scientific obsessives who'll buy any piece of overpriced snake-oil technology and dubious marketing claims but would run a mile from anything remotely resembling a reliable double-blind test.
This recent thread is interesting, this comment references a particularly pseudo-scientific sounding piece of equipment.
Oh, and by the way, they can go back to vinyl if they like. Someone will digitise that ("ruining" the sound quality), upload it to the net, and the hordes of people will get it from there instead. The genie is out of the bottle I'm afraid- and if people were really that bothered about sound quality (whether what you say is true or not), there would already be many more vinyl sales. Fact is that only the vinyl-centric audiophiles will buy it for this reason, and I doubt they were downloading badly-encoded 128Mbps MP3s in the first place.
Oh, I've no doubt they are- I was just saying that some of the "Amiga" stuff on that page had nothing to do with the "real" Amiga OS and is apparently just exploiting the brand.
It's an entirely new OS Under the skin, yes, but at some level there is a plausible continuity.
my Windows PC runs Amiga applications if that's allowed. Not as an integrated part of the system by default.
I don't see any brandnames related to Commodore or the Amiga being "whored out to everyone". Well, the Commodore and Vic names were used (admittedly by their owner) to sell MP3 players a while back.
A little known fact is that the original Commodore made PCs. I'm aware of that; PCs are a very generic item and I see no plausible case that the new "Commodore" PC maker is in any way a continuation of the original Commodore's PC business. The fact that you could do the same with almost any random PC maker demonstrates this.
With the Macintosh, there is continuity between the generations, and the products are made by the same people.
Most people would assume at least some relation to the old company. Just as they would with every other time a brandname is used, and they'd just as likely be wrong. Absolutely right; and the reason that many brand names are worthless these days. For example, virtually all "Polaroid" products (including many cameras, and certainly all non-camera products such as flat-screen TVs) are produced by unrelated companies who just bought the rights to the name.
This is one of the more blatant cases of short-termist brand-whoring. If you look at Epinions, you'll see that those "Polaroid" products get lousy reviews, exploiting the past goodwill associated with the brand and receiving criticism. Whether these people eventually realise that these are not true "Polaroid" products or just learn that Polaroid sucks, it will kill the brand either way- and this exploitation wouldn't have been possible if the brand had started off like that.
This is why companies use brandnames, to create a sense of continuity, however true or untrue that might be. Brand names, used "correctly" (IMHO) have- or had- a justifiable use; they served as the public face of a company and/or product line with specific associated values and some level of expectation.
The "Sony" name used to have certain high-quality values associated with it. There are clear signs that in recent years they have exploited this and failed to live up to it- and now Sony may be losing its reputation for quality.
Personally, I wasn't impressed when I found out a few years back that "Sony" CD-RW drives were basically just rebadged Lite-Ons.
But I see now reason why people have to blame the companies for doing so - yet only do so for Commodore or Amiga brandnames, and not all the other companies that do the same. Because it's Commodore we're discussing here, and Commodore has more meaning to Slashdot's target audience. If this was a camera forum, we might be discussing Polaroid-whoring, or the misuse of some defunct camera manufacturer's name.
No, it isn't. Check out the Amiga Inc. web site [amiga.com]. They honestly believe AmigaOS has a future as an alternative OS, on PCs, PDAs, and for embedded applications. Yes, but I'm not sure that has anything to do with "the" Amiga OS. Amiga Inc. were doing some J2ME-based API/development/whatever-it-is thing for mobiles called "Amiga Anywhere", as well as some games. These things are probably related to that... thingy.
I never saw any indication that "Amiga Anywhere" had anything to do with the classic Amiga OS whatsoever. I asked about this Slashdot twice and didn't get a reply.
This could all be wrong- there's more about Amiga Anywhere here, but still no indication that it has anything at all to do with the "real" Amigas.
I honestly couldn't give a toss anyway; the Amiga is long dead and this is just a case of exploiting the brand name, and- as you say- pretending to be serious for the sake of keeping the diehards interested. Perhaps.
Brandnames are just that Brand names used to have some meaning, usually indicating a particular company (or product line) and having associated values or standards.
whether it's Pentium The Pentium chips are all produced by Intel, and they all serve basically the same purpose- to execute x86 code.
MacOS The MacOSes offer continuation of functionality (albeit through emulation/compatibility layers in some cases) and interface.
Atari This is one case where you're right- there was some continuity in the Atari companies up until the mid-late 1990s when Jack Tramiel wound down the computer busines and sold it to HDD maker JTS, and Midway (or whoever owned it) phased out Atari Games.
The new "Atari" is just a rebranding of Infogrames, nothing more.
Windows Again, the various Windows OSes offer continuation of functionality and mostly run the old programs.
Do you complain that modern Macs shouldn't be called Macs, as they're a completely different hardware platform and OS to the original Macs, and it's just exploitation of geek nostalgia to pretend it's anything more than that? No, because there was a clear connection and continuation at some level between successive generations of the Mac OS and/or hardware. This isn't comparable to some company buying the Commodore name long after it went out of business and slapping it on some generic PCs.
What about ATI, who are now owned by AMD, but graphics cards are still branded "ATI". Arguable continuity of business- unless AMD just bought the name and are slapping it on cards that would otherwise have had nothing to do with AMD.
_All_ brandnames are about exploiting people's nostalgia, fond memories, good experiences and so on, and it affects everyone, not just geeks. No; brand names used to have stronger associations with corporate or product values, and some still do. Can you imagine Mercedes just whoring their brand name out to everyone, including (e.g.) Indian car maker Tata for their $3000 car? Obviously not. Of course, there have always been those brands which were exploited, meaningless or fake- often from the beginning. But they seem even more vapid today.
Some random company getting the rights to slap the Commodore name on some random piece of generic hardware doesn't constitute "Commodore" being back in business. Most people would assume at least some relation to the old company.
You are obviously spoiled to the point that you have become delusional. In the range of computers from the Z80 through the Core 2 Duo, the Geode 433 is far closer to a Ferrari than a Pinto. Ignoring the piss-poor attempt at a condescending put-down, let's go straight to your deliberately misleading argument. Your original point was that
It never ceases to amaze me how people will lament that third world children don't have computers, but think that if they can't have a high powered, wireless, internet connected, high resolution laptop, then they might as well not have anything at all. You must clearly be aware that people judge computers by relative and constantly-changing standards; and that by today's the Geode 433 would not be considered "high powered". Also, the display isn't especially high resolution- again, by today's standards.
By the way, using the same argument, in the range of vehicles from a donkey to a Ferrari, the Pinto is far closer to the Ferrari. And I like the way that you chose the Z80 as the starting point rather than the early 1930s/1940s electronic computers, which would have cast what you said in a less favourable light.
There is nothing on the page you linked to that could not be satisfied by a C64 based computer. A C64 would not remotely suffice as an all-round educational tool that could partially or completely supplant the need for traditional educational infrastructure, as the page mentions.
By the way, you obviously missed the two links at the side of the page in question, which give more detail. Note that this page indicates that a very major part of the OLPC concept is its use as an information-based device. Your non-wireless C64 would fail to meet this completely.
What exactly, besides web browsing (which will still need infrastructure) is the "$100" laptop supposed to do that could not be done on a C64? Well, the wireless infrastructure *is* an important part of the concept- and even in cases where the C64 could theoretically (e.g.) function as an electronic book reader or educational tool, it would do so in a horribly clunky manner. Theoretically, all modern computers are Turing machines, but practically speed and performance dicates what you can do with them.
Really, you seem to be going with this C64 thing (which arose out of your misunderstanding of the OLPC project) for the sake of winning some intellectual argument now. Even if it could be built cheaper, it wouldn't come close to the functionality of a modern PC, which is what the project relies upon.
I mean, we could come back to our "computer" with the power of a calculator and the display of a cheap $2 electronic toy if money is all that's important.
In fact, it would be satisfied better, as a C64 is simple enough that those new to computers could actually learn how it works internally. Wow... you're obsessed with this, aren't you? How many times do you need it explained- the OLPC's purpose is not to teach children how computers work.
It might be nice for some of them to learn this sort of thing, but that's not the project's intended purpose, and it's a laughable idea to replace a modern PC with a C64 simply for this reason.
the fact that the device is no longer crank operated means that it is not suited to the original requirements. Despite your previous ignorance, you again claim to "know" the original requirements when it suits your case.
Your argument for the C64-based device in your original message was reliant upon your stated (and incorrect) assumption
if the goal is to teach kids about computers Since this has been shown to be incorrect and their real aims are clearly very different, it seems like a strange coincidence that you continue to advocate the same device. Perhaps this is because you don't want to draw attention to the fact that you were wrong in the first place and in fact know little about the intended use of the OLPC.
Clearly, what you think the OLPCs goals are, (and what they actually are) are not what they are publicly stating that. On the contrary; here are the goals, and it's clear that the OLPC isn't primarily intended as a computer-science learning toy/tool. Given that you were (and possibly still are) labouring under this misapprehension, it seems quite clear that *you* are the one who doesn't understand what the aims of the project are.
It's very simple. For an educational computer, the C64 has plenty of power for a third world computer. For what uses? The OLPC isn't being used for the same things as your C64 was being used for two decades ago; it's a means to an end, and being used for far wider uses.
It never ceases to amaze me how people will lament that third world children don't have computers, but think that if they can't have a high powered, wireless, internet connected, high resolution laptop, then they might as well not have anything at all. The OLPC is very clearly not a "high powered" laptop, and what you are saying is a misunderstanding (or blatant misrepresentation) of the OLPC supporters' views. It's an educational tool, not a flashy exec tool and your "it was good enough for us" C64 wouldn't have been good enough to fulfil all those needs even twenty years ago.
Nostalgia. Technically I'm not sure that you're right, but I agree with where you're coming from.
This is aimed at the relatively tiny group of users who have continued using the Amiga OS long after its commercial demise, people who genuinely want an updated "modern" version. In that sense, it's not nostalgia- people who wished to recreate the experience of using their A500s and run their old apps and games are more likely to use an emulator. (Particularly as many games "hit the hardware" for performance reasons and wouldn't work directly on new machines).
However, although I'm happy if the hardcore fans get something from these "new" Amiga OSes, I don't think they have any modern commercial relevance for reasons I explained in more depth here.
Aside from the diehard hobbyists, most people have *long* since (i.e. ten-plus years) accepted the death of the Amiga and migrated anything significant they were doing to other systems. Therefore, Amiga compatibility is a non-issue- any new Amiga OS trying to make it as a modern operating system would effectively be starting from scratch. I assume that the Amiga OS architecture is still similar to the twenty-year-old original (otherwise what's the point?), but in this context, since compatibility is irrelevant, it would be better to start with a clean sheet.
The Amiga and its OS *long* ago passed the point where their resurrection would have made any sense from a mainstream point-of-view. Those wishing to continue its spirit and do something genuinely innovative with computing would be far better starting off from scratch.
Commodore is making new computers Not really; the old Commodore is as dead as ever. The "Commodore(s)" making new computers are simply unrelated companies who bought the name or acquired the right to use it on their products.
Really, it's just a badge and nothing more. If you know this and still want to buy one of those "Commodore"-badged PCs, fair enough. Though personally I think it's just exploitation of geek nostalgia to pretend that it's anything more than that...
when the "$100" PC was first announced, I went out and priced what it would cost to build a PC based around a C64 as a core, and I could get the parts RETAIL in single unit prices for ~$90. Until you mentioned the DTV, I was sure I'd misunderstood your intention when you said "C64". I didn't seriously think you were suggesting that a computer based around the "Commodore 64 on a chip" DTV (although smart for what it is) would be remotely comparable to even the fairly low-powered OLPC.
The only thing that was not included was the wireless networking Yes, and let's see how much it costs *with* the wireless networking, which I would assume is a fairly essential part of the OLPC philosophy. It's an educational, mesh-network-based, low-storage device.
That's assuming the C64 was powerful enough to handle the networking facilities, which it probably isn't. Shifting the processing burden onto the networking hardware might solve the problem... and it would significantly increase the cost. Let's see your "$90" C64 PC then.
but it did include the hand crank, as the DTV (C64) runs off of 4 AA batteries. Yes, and I can buy a little dinky toy with an old-school monochrome LED toy that meets the technical definition of a "computer" which probably requires even less power. The fact that it would be woefully underpowered for the intended use seems to be irrelevant to this discussion.
I doubt [the "fly-over" states] will be ever saturated with anything, much less IPv6 networks. It's unlikely that they'll ever have fibre/wire connectivity to any massive extent, but what about WiMax and other wireless Internet technologies?
You may think that Idaho will still never approach urban areas in terms of relative connectivity. However, if wireless technology gets closer to wired/fibre in terms of performance, it may be decided that it's simply easier to connect even urban areas with wireless (makes the infrastructure easier to build). In which case, unwired Idaho is at much less of a disadvantage, and may even benefit from the development of wireless technologies for rich urban areas.
I suspect that long-range wireless technologies will also be given a boost by its use in developing countries; it's already the case that some are going straight from having little or no telecoms infrastructure to mobile phone technology, bypassing the construction of wired networks.
And why not? Sure, wired may be faster just now, but it's probably not practical for such countries. I can't see them spending vast amounts of money wiring large areas of poor countries, but long-range wireless Internet *is* plausible. Developments there may encourage its use in more isolated parts of first world countries like the US.
It's well known that home cablemodem and ADSL service has low upload bandwidth. But even my workplace has only a 1.5MBps upstream connection. My webhosting account gives me around 500GB of disk space. Unfortunately even if I completely saturated my workplace's Internet, it would still take a couple of MONTHS to upload that much data. Hmm... not to be suspicious or anything, but do you reckon that hosting services- particularly free ones- know this full well and take it into account when offering massive amounts of storage?:-)
'Cause I'm posting from Japan!:P The rather obvious flaw in your "first post" leads me to suspect that you're actually posting from Buttfuck, Illinois;-P
Hmmm. Why do I hear Steve Gibson's voice in my head when I read your posts, Dogtanian? Because you're insane?;-)
Or maybe because I've given the impression of knowing more about security than is actually the case- Steve Gibson's small toe probably knows more about security issues than me.
All the same, there was no special expertise needed here except to read the article and pay attention to what it actually said- which (typically) plenty of people didn't bother with before posting their $0.00's worth.
Pompous or no, suddenly discovering a way to bypass my full-disk encryption, whether it be "only on the next boot" or not, makes me suddenly very leery of this closed-source software. What if they *DID* put in another backdoor? IMO, this gives PGP's credibility a fatal error. Yes, but let's be honest; that's a question we should have been asking ourselves *regardless* of whether or not this issue had raised its head.
As is commonly known, "Security through obscurity is not security." It requires knowledge of its existence from a person with cryptographic access to turn it on, so that doesn't apply here- hence why I don't consider this a backdoor.
Nevertheless, although it has been puffed up into something it isn't, if this case makes us consider the possibility of very real backdoors in closed source software, it's at least performed a useful purpose.
So it takes a piece of spyware only a fraction of a second to turn it on At most this makes the spyware writer's life fractionally more *convenient*. But the fact remains that the feature requires cryptographic access to turn it on. If the spyware already has that, then the battle is already effectively lost either way.
It doesn't matter that the door isn't open by default. In security software, you don't want backdoors. I agree that having this as an undocumented feature is potentially A Very Bad Thing. But it *does* make all the difference that it isn't turned on by default.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll leave you to read into that what you will
I hope they got it right the second time around- let me check. Nitrogen Dioxide? That doesn't sound right... nurse! Nurse! Nu
NO CARRIER
It relies on the assumption that people will buy it for quality (no they won't; they'd already be doing that if it were the case- and I'm talking about a *significant* percentage of the market), and that digitisation is somehow a barrier or a deterrent.... but I'm repeating what I already said.
This recent thread is interesting, this comment references a particularly pseudo-scientific sounding piece of equipment.
Oh, and by the way, they can go back to vinyl if they like. Someone will digitise that ("ruining" the sound quality), upload it to the net, and the hordes of people will get it from there instead. The genie is out of the bottle I'm afraid- and if people were really that bothered about sound quality (whether what you say is true or not), there would already be many more vinyl sales. Fact is that only the vinyl-centric audiophiles will buy it for this reason, and I doubt they were downloading badly-encoded 128Mbps MP3s in the first place.
Oh, I've no doubt they are- I was just saying that some of the "Amiga" stuff on that page had nothing to do with the "real" Amiga OS and is apparently just exploiting the brand.
With the Macintosh, there is continuity between the generations, and the products are made by the same people. Most people would assume at least some relation to the old company. Just as they would with every other time a brandname is used, and they'd just as likely be wrong. Absolutely right; and the reason that many brand names are worthless these days. For example, virtually all "Polaroid" products (including many cameras, and certainly all non-camera products such as flat-screen TVs) are produced by unrelated companies who just bought the rights to the name.
This is one of the more blatant cases of short-termist brand-whoring. If you look at Epinions, you'll see that those "Polaroid" products get lousy reviews, exploiting the past goodwill associated with the brand and receiving criticism. Whether these people eventually realise that these are not true "Polaroid" products or just learn that Polaroid sucks, it will kill the brand either way- and this exploitation wouldn't have been possible if the brand had started off like that. This is why companies use brandnames, to create a sense of continuity, however true or untrue that might be. Brand names, used "correctly" (IMHO) have- or had- a justifiable use; they served as the public face of a company and/or product line with specific associated values and some level of expectation.
The "Sony" name used to have certain high-quality values associated with it. There are clear signs that in recent years they have exploited this and failed to live up to it- and now Sony may be losing its reputation for quality.
Personally, I wasn't impressed when I found out a few years back that "Sony" CD-RW drives were basically just rebadged Lite-Ons. But I see now reason why people have to blame the companies for doing so - yet only do so for Commodore or Amiga brandnames, and not all the other companies that do the same. Because it's Commodore we're discussing here, and Commodore has more meaning to Slashdot's target audience. If this was a camera forum, we might be discussing Polaroid-whoring, or the misuse of some defunct camera manufacturer's name.
I never saw any indication that "Amiga Anywhere" had anything to do with the classic Amiga OS whatsoever. I asked about this Slashdot twice and didn't get a reply.
This could all be wrong- there's more about Amiga Anywhere here, but still no indication that it has anything at all to do with the "real" Amigas.
I honestly couldn't give a toss anyway; the Amiga is long dead and this is just a case of exploiting the brand name, and- as you say- pretending to be serious for the sake of keeping the diehards interested. Perhaps.
The new "Atari" is just a rebranding of Infogrames, nothing more. Windows Again, the various Windows OSes offer continuation of functionality and mostly run the old programs. Do you complain that modern Macs shouldn't be called Macs, as they're a completely different hardware platform and OS to the original Macs, and it's just exploitation of geek nostalgia to pretend it's anything more than that? No, because there was a clear connection and continuation at some level between successive generations of the Mac OS and/or hardware. This isn't comparable to some company buying the Commodore name long after it went out of business and slapping it on some generic PCs. What about ATI, who are now owned by AMD, but graphics cards are still branded "ATI". Arguable continuity of business- unless AMD just bought the name and are slapping it on cards that would otherwise have had nothing to do with AMD. _All_ brandnames are about exploiting people's nostalgia, fond memories, good experiences and so on, and it affects everyone, not just geeks. No; brand names used to have stronger associations with corporate or product values, and some still do. Can you imagine Mercedes just whoring their brand name out to everyone, including (e.g.) Indian car maker Tata for their $3000 car? Obviously not. Of course, there have always been those brands which were exploited, meaningless or fake- often from the beginning. But they seem even more vapid today.
Some random company getting the rights to slap the Commodore name on some random piece of generic hardware doesn't constitute "Commodore" being back in business. Most people would assume at least some relation to the old company.
By the way, using the same argument, in the range of vehicles from a donkey to a Ferrari, the Pinto is far closer to the Ferrari. And I like the way that you chose the Z80 as the starting point rather than the early 1930s/1940s electronic computers, which would have cast what you said in a less favourable light. There is nothing on the page you linked to that could not be satisfied by a C64 based computer. A C64 would not remotely suffice as an all-round educational tool that could partially or completely supplant the need for traditional educational infrastructure, as the page mentions.
By the way, you obviously missed the two links at the side of the page in question, which give more detail. Note that this page indicates that a very major part of the OLPC concept is its use as an information-based device. Your non-wireless C64 would fail to meet this completely. What exactly, besides web browsing (which will still need infrastructure) is the "$100" laptop supposed to do that could not be done on a C64? Well, the wireless infrastructure *is* an important part of the concept- and even in cases where the C64 could theoretically (e.g.) function as an electronic book reader or educational tool, it would do so in a horribly clunky manner. Theoretically, all modern computers are Turing machines, but practically speed and performance dicates what you can do with them.
Really, you seem to be going with this C64 thing (which arose out of your misunderstanding of the OLPC project) for the sake of winning some intellectual argument now. Even if it could be built cheaper, it wouldn't come close to the functionality of a modern PC, which is what the project relies upon.
I mean, we could come back to our "computer" with the power of a calculator and the display of a cheap $2 electronic toy if money is all that's important. In fact, it would be satisfied better, as a C64 is simple enough that those new to computers could actually learn how it works internally. Wow... you're obsessed with this, aren't you? How many times do you need it explained- the OLPC's purpose is not to teach children how computers work.
It might be nice for some of them to learn this sort of thing, but that's not the project's intended purpose, and it's a laughable idea to replace a modern PC with a C64 simply for this reason. the fact that the device is no longer crank operated means that it is not suited to the original requirements. Despite your previous ignorance, you again claim to "know" the original requirements when it suits your case.
This is aimed at the relatively tiny group of users who have continued using the Amiga OS long after its commercial demise, people who genuinely want an updated "modern" version. In that sense, it's not nostalgia- people who wished to recreate the experience of using their A500s and run their old apps and games are more likely to use an emulator. (Particularly as many games "hit the hardware" for performance reasons and wouldn't work directly on new machines).
However, although I'm happy if the hardcore fans get something from these "new" Amiga OSes, I don't think they have any modern commercial relevance for reasons I explained in more depth here.
Aside from the diehard hobbyists, most people have *long* since (i.e. ten-plus years) accepted the death of the Amiga and migrated anything significant they were doing to other systems. Therefore, Amiga compatibility is a non-issue- any new Amiga OS trying to make it as a modern operating system would effectively be starting from scratch. I assume that the Amiga OS architecture is still similar to the twenty-year-old original (otherwise what's the point?), but in this context, since compatibility is irrelevant, it would be better to start with a clean sheet.
The Amiga and its OS *long* ago passed the point where their resurrection would have made any sense from a mainstream point-of-view. Those wishing to continue its spirit and do something genuinely innovative with computing would be far better starting off from scratch.
Really, it's just a badge and nothing more. If you know this and still want to buy one of those "Commodore"-badged PCs, fair enough. Though personally I think it's just exploitation of geek nostalgia to pretend that it's anything more than that...
That's assuming the C64 was powerful enough to handle the networking facilities, which it probably isn't. Shifting the processing burden onto the networking hardware might solve the problem... and it would significantly increase the cost. Let's see your "$90" C64 PC then. but it did include the hand crank, as the DTV (C64) runs off of 4 AA batteries. Yes, and I can buy a little dinky toy with an old-school monochrome LED toy that meets the technical definition of a "computer" which probably requires even less power. The fact that it would be woefully underpowered for the intended use seems to be irrelevant to this discussion.
You may think that Idaho will still never approach urban areas in terms of relative connectivity. However, if wireless technology gets closer to wired/fibre in terms of performance, it may be decided that it's simply easier to connect even urban areas with wireless (makes the infrastructure easier to build). In which case, unwired Idaho is at much less of a disadvantage, and may even benefit from the development of wireless technologies for rich urban areas.
I suspect that long-range wireless technologies will also be given a boost by its use in developing countries; it's already the case that some are going straight from having little or no telecoms infrastructure to mobile phone technology, bypassing the construction of wired networks.
And why not? Sure, wired may be faster just now, but it's probably not practical for such countries. I can't see them spending vast amounts of money wiring large areas of poor countries, but long-range wireless Internet *is* plausible. Developments there may encourage its use in more isolated parts of first world countries like the US.
Oh, hang on... I just realised which comment you were replying to(!)
I can't figure out if it was a compliment or an insult now (or if so what it was being polite/rude about).
Or maybe because I've given the impression of knowing more about security than is actually the case- Steve Gibson's small toe probably knows more about security issues than me.
All the same, there was no special expertise needed here except to read the article and pay attention to what it actually said- which (typically) plenty of people didn't bother with before posting their $0.00's worth.
As is commonly known, "Security through obscurity is not security." It requires knowledge of its existence from a person with cryptographic access to turn it on, so that doesn't apply here- hence why I don't consider this a backdoor.
Nevertheless, although it has been puffed up into something it isn't, if this case makes us consider the possibility of very real backdoors in closed source software, it's at least performed a useful purpose.