Sometimes it's better to go after the root cause of the problem and get the developers that have been left behind to understand that it's the 21st century and their desktop software is likely to be running in a multi-user, networked, multi-core, 64 bit environment. There are far too many that can't even get ONE of those things in the list right which is a major part of why so many MS Windows systems are drowning in a malware swamp. We need to get away from the "we've always done it this way" culture of being acceptable when the way it's "always been done" only makes sense on single user systems with no network connection.
grant a specific whitelist of additional privileges to the users who need to use said application
So what do you suggest when that is all of them? Apart from of course trying various methods to convince the developer to learn how to do his job properly?
Problems with that.
Cell frequencies are licensed and pretty much anything that touches those frequencies needs to be fully approved by the FCC.
The carriers aren't going to allow it on their networks.
Presumably the whitebox device would include as core components all of the FCC-approved hardware necessary to use said frequencies. Upgrading the GPU, the amount of RAM, or the battery shouldn't have anything to do with this.
When you build your own PC from separate components, you don't have to worry about whether it can be powered by 60hz AC. The power supplies sold in this country are built to handle the electric supply found in this country and come with all of the UL (etc.) approvals.
Isn't it more important to do cool and interesting things with a computer rather than everything obsessedly being open source?
The idea is that open source and the freedoms that come with it facilitate and ensure that you can continue to do cool and interesting things, often things the original designers didn't think of. It's certainly easier to be creative when you have the full specifications, source code, and documentation. It's easier to share your creativity with others when you can legally redistribute your derived works without violating someone else's copyright.
Obsession with anything is not good; on that I agree. However I haven't seen that in this thread. To cry "obsession" merely because someone points out a controversy isn't helpful (and ironically raises the question of whether you have an obsession with the perceived obsessions of others). All I saw was someone stating that they wish to avoid certain Broadcom hardware because it does not provide the degree of open source access that he or she desired. That people have their own criteria and express a desire to choose products that best suit their own needs is a good thing. Your own priorities being different is not surprising and doesn't indicate fault with anyone else.
MS Windows is no longer the problem. Losers who treat it like MSDOS and write software are the problem.
Of course it would make far more sense to compare Conrad's two spy novels and Tom Clancy, but that would be cruel.
Now it appears, that we must change
It's just the people that are utterly feral about the situation that need to change. One medical example is a city where all the orthopedic surgeons had played Rugby and for some reason nobody who hadn't passed the requirements for the medical specialty. Even the woman that thought she could get around the unspoken qualification by being a match doctor at state level games didn't pass despite high scores. So no girls or weedy nerds allowed.
We've got similar shit festering in IT and it's dragging us down by creating monocultures where it manifests.
So it's not about change unless there's counterproductive unwritten rules that probably need to be changed.
I don't know how many of that 50% ended up finding a job related to CS. I suspect it was very few of them.
While most of his writing is good stuff he wasn't exactly Joseph Conrad so there's not so much focus on the people in the stories.
If we'd asked our "allies" the Saudis for advice they would have recommended doing the same as them and giving ISIS money and guns. The real answer to the stability of the region is stop buying oil from the Saudis so that they can't fund terrorists. You'd think we would have worked that out in 9/11 considering where Bin Laden got his funding.
As late as 1987 I was in a CS class with just over 50% women. Today I see more women in mining and heavy industry jobs, literally at the coalface instead of just in the office, than in IT. Pretty weird isn't it for something that was dismissed as "women's work" to the extent where I couldn't even do a class in typing at high school because that was strictly girls only.
Of course this was never actually about guns though, as with most of the US "gun debate" it's about being on the "right team", which in one case happens to contain a dysfunctional sporting club with far too much political power - and in the other case fill in whatever partisan insults you want to use. By being "anti-gun", or more likely just anti-NRA rant of the week, he's shown he's not "on the right team" so it's not really about guns is it?
It would have helped if he'd used that time to actually come up with a plan........
What plan then - help ISIS, help other groups backed by Iran or help Assad?
I'm not sure time would have helped. A major worry now is ISIS went for deliberate provocation and seem to want us to drop bombs on the area and we are doing exactly what they want. Why they want it is a bit of a mystery, but those video nasties were designed for that purpose.