It doesn't even have to be that intentional. From TFA:

They have clicked links in bogus phishing emails, opened malware-laden websites and been tricked by scammers into sharing information.

One was redirected to a hostile site after connecting to a video of tennis star Serena Williams.

People are usually the weakest link in a security system.

And it does not sound like that security system is very well designed in the first place.

Technically, someone could be a "programmer" after only 3 months of work. More specifically, a "bad programmer".

From TFA:

And Sims said this effort was first "catalyzed" by conversations with the White House, particularly after US CTO (and former Googler) Megan Smithâ(TM)s comments about the talent gap and education. (To be clear, though, the White House isn't a partner in this program.)

That kind of says it all right there.

How about, instead, they put together a curriculum showing what an entry level programmer should know? Even if it takes more than 3 months to finish it all. And what the different sub-fields are in programming (kernel hacker, web site designer, database programmer, etc). Maybe you don't need so much math if you're going to be "coding" in HTML/CSS/scripting-language. But then you aren't going to be hitting the $80,000/year "average" that they claim.

I'm guessing that their "algorithm" is more like:

X% change jobs after 1 year.
Y% change jobs after 2 years.
Z% change jobs after 3 years.
etc.

In my experience, people tend to change jobs because of something happening at their current job (or a personal/family situation change). And that's not something that can be predicted with any degree of accuracy.

Latency is usually the first problem. You'll have trouble when you're running up against the speed of light.

But you can usually run a 2nd pipe to add bandwidth. With the same latency as the 1st pipe. And a 3rd pipe. And so on.

And that's where I think TFA gets it wrong. Network Neutrality cannot be about prioritizing one kind of traffic over another. The ISP's already lack the incentive to add more bandwidth. Even though that bandwidth is what they are selling. Allowing them to prioritize traffic means that they will be more incentivized to NOT add more bandwidth.

That was the problem that Netflix had with Comcast. And once Netflix coughed up some money, Comcast instantly found more bandwidth.

I think that what they will "find" is nothing more than certain criteria all have to be above a certain "threshold" and then the meme goes viral.

But those criteria will all be comprised of humans. Which they will NOT be able to predict.

Even if one meme goes viral in a certain group there will be no way to force a different meme to go viral with that same group in that same fashion.

Although I am looking forward to the names of the units of measure that they will be applying to their research. :) How many milli-LULZ before it goes viral?

Great idea. And there are many different ways of doing this.

The core concept is to generate a unique ID for each transaction that links:
a. the vendor
b. the customer
c. the customer's bank
d. (maybe also the vendor's bank)
e. a specific amount
f. a specific time.
And being unique, it will never be used again. We have a lot of different ways to do that.

With that information, the bank should be able to flag questionable transactions that get past the customer verification. Or at least warn the customer if the vendor has an unusually large number of "problems" reported.

First:

Eighty-three healthy individuals (males/females = 41/42; age = 18â"62; mean [SD] = 29.0 [11.3] years) in Roanoke and Blacksburg, VA, area were recruited ...

Second:

They also completed a survey about their political beliefs, which included questions about their attitudes toward school prayer, gun control, immigration, and gay marriage.

So what would the results be if the recruits were from a more "Liberal" country?

That is the problem with these "studies". DO NOT look in your backyard for cases that support your bias. Look for cases that contradict your bias. Even if you have to look at the people in other countries. Particularly countries where there is less focus on the items that are controversial in the USofA.

That would work.

And I think that the summary kind of misses the point of what "air-gapped" means. It does NOT mean that your system is invulnerable. No system is invulnerable.

It DOES mean that it can ONLY be attacked by someone with physical access to it. Or someone with control of the hardware manufacturing / transportation channels prior to the computer being installed in the secure location. So you're removing potential channels of attack AND reducing the number of potential attackers.

Now you need metal detectors at the entrances. And "no lone zones" where EVERYONE is accompanied by someone else. Depending upon the level of security that you want.

Installing via the command line is nice. But it isn't what I want.

I want a package system that locks the files down so that package X owns abc.dll and will not allow package Y to overwrite it.

And searchable. What package installed abc.dll? What packages depend upon that package?

So the best solution is to have neither?

No. The best solution, as I have stated, is to have the books needed to pass the standardized tests.

Look, Apple is offering to donate iPads. They are NOT offering to donate chemistry textbooks.

And that is the problem. By donating the iPads, Apple gets a tax write-off and the schools end up with broken/stolen tech that ate up resources.

a. Apple could pay their taxes and the government could use that money to buy those books.

b. Apple could donate those books INSTEAD of the iPads.

c. Apple could donate a portion of the proceeds of selling those iPads.

Why isn't Apple working on getting the books that would cost a lot LESS than those iPads? Because Apple is looking out for Apple. And using those kids as PR.

To say that "nothing" is better, because the iPads will just get stolen anyway, is just a cynical rationalization by people that want to feel smug and superior, criticizing these donors, while doing absolutely nothing themselves.

I've just given you three scenarios that would be better.

You are the one claiming that Apple's only option is to donate iPads.

An iPad probably has a bit higher black-market value than a textbook on High School chemistry.

And cannot take the same amount of accidental water damage.

Or accidental falling damage.

And requires more infrastructure and support to maintain it.

Meanwhile, the poorest schools cannot afford the books that are written for the standardized tests that those students have to pass.
https://www.google.com/#q=underprivileged+schools+textbooks+standardized+testing
Choose the "Why Poor Schools Can't Win at Standardized Testing" link. They're blocking links from /. for some reason.

First off, I'm amazed that none of them have stolen. I'd have expected at least a few thefts before the criminals realized that they could not be used/re-sold.

Secondly, that's more infrastructure that needs to be maintained and secured. With associated training as the staff changes jobs.

It isn't just the tech. It's the day-to-day support and the annual contracts and such. It's happened before and it looks like it will happen again.
http://slashdot.org/story/07/06/24/1316249/schools-out-forever-at-sv-high-tech-high

"Underprivileged" schools really need basics like text books, notebooks, and pencils for the kids.

And teachers.

If you really have to deploy technology then make it something like a Raspberry Pi. Low theft risk. Easy replacement. And $750 million will buy a lot of them AND books, paper, pencils, teachers, etc.

Wasn't there a recent story about how some schools could not afford the text books with the answers that went with the standardized tests?

Apple is sending out $100 million worth of iPads, MacBooks, and other products.

This will just make them attractive targets for theft.

Not to mention the replacement/repair costs as they get damaged over the school year.

Yes, they can legally promise that (it is not illegal to say that they promise that).

No, their service is not legally bound by that promise forever. There are many instances and eventualities that could change it. And probably will if they get sufficient market share.