stoolpigeon is exactly right. The only thing I have to add, just to reinforce that Python is the right teaching language, is that it was first developed based on a language (ABC) that was designed specifically for teaching kids how to program.

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5028

"Guido: Yeah! So a language like Python, which actually has roots in educational languages, will do better. Python is very strongly inspired by a language called ABC; I worked on the ABC implementation designed by colleagues of mine in the early '80s. It was a wonderful language for teaching. The history of Python comes out of the frustration I had with that language when it wasn't being used for teaching, but for day-to-day ad hoc programming—but that's a different story. Python inherits a lot of that focus to make it very simple, easy to understand, easy to remember and easy to learn. It's a very good language to start teaching. We are very hopeful about that side of the CP4E effort."

Also, instead of jumping straight from Python to C, you could use Cython as a bridge, and use it to teach variable typing basics.

http://www.cython.org/

If I were teaching programming today, this is the order I would use: HTML, Python Scripts, Python Modules, Python GUI, pygame, Cython, C, C macros, C libraries, C compiler optimization, assembler... and maybe yacc, or just general compiler design. Tangential languages like Perl, Java, Ruby, and C++ can be introduced at any point, to show different implementations of concepts first learned in Python, but they are all optional. If anyone gets stuck somewhere before compiler design, let them stay there as long as they want. Everyone has their own pace.

This is exactly right. Further, the thin-client isn't limited to a hardware concept. Most thin-client implementations start in software, not hardware -- VNC, RDP, and Citrix are good examples. I would argue that netbooks and nettops are a full replacement for old thin-client hardware concepts, both in terms of function and cost. Local storage can mean local cache, not just offline use.

In any case I don't see the future as cloud vs. desktop. I just see a balance, where the cloud makes for easier sharing and dynamic offloading, and the desktop basics (like storage) allow for offline operation and enhanced compression techniques when the cloud is necessary.

The main piece of missing information that annoys me is that part of the network service list that says "-- and some more." Half the services that were listed could be easily outsourced to any decent ISP, with cost depending on security, storage, and SLA requirements. ISP hosting or even colocation services give you cheap access to better redundant Internet links than your office will ever touch.

The other half could be done with a cheap firewall/VPN box at each site. In the age of OpenWRT, these boxes often have services like Multi-WAN, DNS, DHCP, SSL, VPN, and IDS built-in. Buy two of those, sync configuration, hook them up to a networked power switch, and script the power to shut off one and power up the other whenever a network service test fails. All that equipment is still less than the cost of a single 1U+ server with equivalent services, and any custom scripting would be for minor convenience functions -- not a service requirement. I find specialized hardware/firmware solutions are far more reliable than software/server solutions. They are also often cheap enough to keep an offline spare handy for emergency replacement.

Even a low-power retail NAS box could be used for complete network authentication, SSH, and SSL data services. It could probably serve an office up to 250 users, depending on simultaneous load -- 50 easy. Slap some cheap (less than $0.10/GB!) TB+ SATA drives in there, and you have multi-TB RAID storage per site, that can be rsync replicated to all nodes. Give each site their own cheap master storage node, replicated to each other. The rsync script(s) could be scheduled or event triggered, as needed. Netgear ReadyNAS boxes can also run Subversion/WebDAV/Autocommit/svnsync.

I'm betting the meat of these services are in that nebulous "and some more" area, and that those service requirements change everything.

Some brand names that carry one or more of the products mentioned above, and can be found in any Fry's or decent online store, without even having to deal with a sales rep:
Netgear
Linksys (now sometimes Cisco rebranded)
Dlink
Cradlepoint (3G/4G wireless backup!)
Apple (Airlink are surprisingly good routers!)
Qnap
Thecus
Sans Digital
Digital Loggers, Inc.
APC

I wouldn't ever recommend Buffalo, and 3Com might be on the list if HP had not bought them recently.

I think the article is speaking more to the developer and OSS evangelist set, but I get what you're saying. Another non-user metric that I find rather revealing about the comparisons made by the article, yet not addressed by the article, is:

* Can you install one operating environment on the other?

In desktop, this would be handled by VM's, WINE, Wubi, etc. On phones, it's interesting to note that the N900 is powerful enough to run VM's of other OS's, like Palm Garnet, Debian, and even Android itself. Most of the Android stack is on top of a similar Linux base, so potentially Android could even be compiled to run "natively" as an interface alternative on the N900. This has already been done on past N-series tablets, and the N900 is more powerful than any of those past devices. I doubt the inverse is true, that running Maemo on Android is possible, but that might be an interesting hack. I would say the effort required is definitely asymmetrical between the systems at this point, with Maemo being clearly more the flexible operating environment.

Netflix and Blockbuster have special contract arrangements with the movie studios. Redbox doesn't, so they aren't hindered by any such contracts and can use First Sale Doctrine. Redbox are also taking studios to task and accusing them of Antitrust violations, for their attempts at market fixing and excluding Redbox illegally. How the RIAA and MPAA have gone this long without anyone taking them to court over being organizations built on intentional Antitrust collusion I'll never know -- it's about darn time!
Insurance, media, and telcos all deserve much more face time with the DOJ.

Assuming this is true, which has to be assumed to give any credence because you give no backing material or references here whatsoever, then I think such government regulation should be funded. In example I think "No Child Left Behind" was a dismal failure because it tested for poor school environments but did nothing to fund those requirements, or to catch schools up to standards. In the same way these RCTs you claim to be a problem (what's the alternative -- beta testing?) should be funded by government.

[citation needed]

Nobody should do any such thing. I actually don't think software is dependent at all on such monopoly grants. Software patents, which are essentially patents on Boolean Math, are inherently counter-productive, and arguably a limitation on free speech rights. I think currently proprietary software isn't even all that dependent on copyright. Proprietary software is dependent on Trade Secret, since they only release binaries and hide the source. Even when they release the source it tends to be under NDA style contract provisions. Open Source also has better business models than Copyright entails.

Why would I pose the idea of Democratic government taking over an industry if I thought it was inherently bad? You're making that claim, not me. And you have the burden of proof here -- the need for big pharma has never been proven, in that it has never been proven that similar or better treatments wouldn't arise without giant drug companies and monopolistic patents.

I do not accept your arguments, and the burden of proof is with those that say patents are needed, or that the same or better results cannot be achieved through less exclusionary means. That is what has not been proven.

I thank you for enumerating all the ways that big pharma would fail without government protection. Any business that depends on so much government protection should simply be made part of the government, and thus subject to Democratic decision making instead of private profiteering. Short of that, they should be allowed to fail just like any similarly poor business model would on the free market.

None of the problems with the big pharma business model you enumerated show them to be anything worth saving or protecting. Quite the opposite, they should be allowed to fail as quickly as possible, so something better can take their place.

This argument completely ignores how far these clinical trials are already subsidized by a mix of government, private, and non-profit grants.

This argument is completely false in the cases most worthy of any government protections: if the drug is really that new and effective, it will market itself via the clinical trial results alone.

This is assuming that the drug isn't held as a Trade Secret until just before commercial release, making the patent period equal to the market period. This also assumes the drug is really all that new, and not just a remix or increment on older well-known drugs or coctails. Drugs are rarely all that "novel", because the mechanisms of truly new drugs can't be trusted not to create bad reactions. Most drugs are also derived from natural or organic materials and processes, which also brings their novelty and non-obviousness into question.

I'd personally much rather pay for the R&D and clinical trials of life-saving devices, procedures, and pharmaceuticals via taxes, as we are already doing anyway. That sounds better right now than continuing to be taxed by monopoly rents, via health insurance Trust markets, as we are now.

The general "reimbursement for R&D" claim about the need for patents is completely bogus. I have not seen one proof that such costs can't be made up via early-mover and brand establishment advantage, through a mix of first-to-market and Trade Secret status. Trade Secret status alone requires costly reverse-engineering for others to enter the market without independent invention, and if the reverse-engineering is cheap why is the patent worthwhile exactly? When I say "worthwhile" I don't mean to the monopoly rent seeker but to the public, which is the entity (via government) that is granting this "temporary" monopoly via patents. What other incentive does the public have to grant these temporary monopolies?

I personally think the long history of the USPTO has shown the entire current patent system to be counter-productive, and in no way keeping the original Constitutional intent of "progress" in the "useful arts and sciences." Instead what we have is an endless parade of trolls seeking monopoly rents on minor increments or remixes of past inventions instead of real novel, non-obvious, and truly *new* discoveries.

I think it should be replaced with a Registered Trademark System, which doesn't contain unenforceable "obviousness" tests, and doesn't punish independent invention where referencing the other work wasn't needed -- in most cases they were just "beat to the punch" in getting the patent first, if they bothered to apply at all. The only punishable offenses should be direct industrial espionage, or licensing Registered Trade Secrets only to use the RTS materials without following through on the licensing contract agreement. Otherwise real inventors shouldn't be forced to read through the USPTO's long history of non-inventive patents, just to avoid overlap that might lead to litigation, whether the overlapping patents are truly valid or not.

To match the patent system, once the Registered Trade Secrets expire, they should go to the public domain. The same net benefit of "progress" in the public domain data is gained, without all these hurtful unenforceable "obviousness" tests ruining everything. The RTS obviousness test becomes: if anyone can recreate or reverse-engineer the product with nothing more than the summary abstract and/or the available market product, the invention is obvious.

The USPTO has proven nothing except its own corruption and incompetence, and violated Constitutional intent via rampant market counter-progress, and thus should be dissolved.

The problem isn't only IP count but the fact that all the traffic ends up over a handful of trunk lines between any given set of countries. I once calculated that a single 64-bit subnet of IPv6 addresses would give you enough IPs to cover roughly every square centimeter of the Earth with IPv6 addressable devices, including uninhabited areas and oceans. We could allocate such a IPv6 subnet to use by a new short-link mesh topology network, set up completely between immediate neighbors and outside the control of any government. Longish range directed links could be set up along any border between a free/democratic nation and an authoritarian/censored nation. Any great-firewall would have to be augmented with a great-Faraday-wall as well. IPv6-to-IPv4 could be used at any sufficiently close neighbor node as an "escape route" both to balance connection loads and avoid censor tracking, in a manner similar but superior to I2P. The key is getting mesh topology routing technology cheap and in the hands of common people.

You missed "all of the above".

More seriously, Multi-WAN firewalls are relatively cheap now. If you know Linux or BSD you can probably configure a custom Multi-WAN router on a CULV PC. If you have the money for an RV and still want constant access, why not buy and mix all available forms? Use the WifiInMotion or another amplifier+Cradlepoint alike option to maximize cellular data range. Use an amplified directional WiFi antenna (the Internets are full of DIY parabolic and cantenna designs) with some netstumbler software to search out WiFi connections wherever you go. Use a satellite service as a fail-over or backup WAN. If you buy a pay-per-bit type satellite service, definitely define rules to only use that connection when none of the other connection have ping. If you have the means, buy multiple cell data services on different 3/3.5/4G network types, as they have different ranges and coverage areas.

Mod parent up Informative, not Funny. Unfortunately, given the current state of the USPTO and Copyright offices, any sarcasm about "granting of legal monopolies" is not funny at all. It's all too real.

You're right, it's not a debate. The laws of physics show that radio frequencies are just light outside human visible range. Light has no interference -- that's why passing a lot of light through a space the size of a pin hole accurately projects visible light from disparate sources onto the opposite side, thus a creating camera obscura. The problem is the sensing equipment -- you can only claim light "interferes" when you are trying to pick out one signal, yet your sensor can't discriminate between signals from any given direction. RF antennas are like a 1-CCD camera with no occluding body -- it just gets the aggregate of all light passing by in all directions. No wonder reception sucks everywhere -- even bacteria can discriminate between light sources better than our radio equipment can detect light waves on any given frequency.

From the USC page:

if F-1 and J-1 students are considered "resident aliens" for income tax purpose, social security and Medicare taxes should be withheld.