Sorry, that one highly reduces your odds of getting laid too.

Most of the collected data was from unprotected networks; they could only get the network name of anything protected. For example, public hotspots that don't use encryption. (Our city has one.)

Given that, a good question is how private should one consider their connection on such networks? Is there a reasonable expectation of privacy when not using any form of encryption, or when using encryption whose key is publicly distributed? I'd have to say no.

You're right, only I don't know that it's premature for Slashdot. It certainly doesn't belong in a mainstream news article of any sort, but we know the feelings here on the topic; perhaps a little /. exposure is what the project needs to get its feet off the ground.

Hmm. Can a city be so ordinary that it actually isn't at all ordinary due to how ordinary it is?

Sure, but only because the act of tossing the laptop would solve that problem.

Macs are generally owned by people better off financially (PCs also have the better off folks in their market of course, but probably a much greater percentage of poorer folks than Macs), so that explains their position. Perhaps Windows and Linux both have a contingent of geeks who care, but Windows has far, far more non-geeks/non-gamers than Linux, and that's where the difference there comes in? (Or maybe it's from saving the hundreds of dollars on OS and other proprietary software, but a lot of that gets pirated anyway, so that still may only apply to the less geeky half of the populace.)

I would love to be able to do that. Sports leagues are starting to offer their games online, but generally blacked out in any area where there's an existing regional television contract. If I could get local sports live and online without the blackouts, that would be the end of paying for cable for me.

Just a point of correction, it's been made free (as in beer) until the end of 2015. I do agree that using a codec that will eventually cost money seems like a terrible idea however. Unfortunately it's a matter of convincing the majority of browser makers and sites like YouTube of that; otherwise without H.264 support FireFox will be irrelevant long before the cost of the codec becomes an issue.

Because the CIA is independent, would this even affect them at all?

Which I agree with, but in that case do you really need a device for this? It could easily just be written as software for your PC. (Maybe has been for all I know.) It loses its always-on status, but I'm not sure that's terribly vital if the syncing is quick.

Just so. The proposed law makes it illegal for software to share without your permission, but it hardly makes it impossible. People could perhaps claim that they were unaware that their software was distributing anything at all, then point at this law and claim the software was supposed to have warned them of this fact but failed to do so. Not that they would necessarily succeed with such a defence... IANAL.

If they were on Vista or 7 I would agree, but he's moving them from XP. I would suggest that Kubuntu isn't much (if any) closer to XP than Ubuntu is.