Journalists are professionals who are dedicated to finding and making public the truth. When you paint them all as coopted minions of some corporate media, you are discounting their own personal motivation and pride and the power of their professional institutions and of the public as a whole. Generally, large newspapers separate editorial content -- which is argument -- from news, which presents sourced information about current events (like Wikipedia!). The news is generally accurate -- when it indicates that a source provided certain information, that source usually did -- but through curation of sources and editing of content, the story can be told in many different ways. As a critical reader, you get to challenge and reshape the story as you see fit -- you can often go to the sources for the story to see what else they have to say, and you can ask who was or wasn't approached for comment. Over time, you can get a sense of the editorial bias of the news source, and this can help you to know what to trust or not trust from that source. Critically reading news is not that hard -- it's the same skills you use when you listen to anyone else... everyone has a lens and an agenda -- and you should find that your news source is reasonably good on most topics. If it isn't -- if you can't verify its sources, if it's sources aren't strong, or if it's editorial bias is too intrusive -- you can shop around. As long as you're being critical, you should be able to separate trash from treasure. Large circulation publications with an international audience and quality staff are probably good places to start. An internet rag with very strong ideological bias and no actual journalists is not. Consider paying money up front rather than through ad views. You should be able to tell the difference between journalism and someone pushing your emotional buttons. Just try!

Can you provide some examples and/or statistics?

You sound like you're asking for a WiFi KVM (keyboard, video, and mouse).

Hardware KVMs are somewhat rarer now than they used to be, as software alternatives are now good.

You might look at something like this:
http://djlab.com/2012/05/porta...

I have used good HDMI over IP products and good WiFi bridges, but never tried them together. On the software side, I was impressed with HP's RGS, but there are a ton of alternatives now. For small form factor PCs, I like the Brix Pro series.

Hi Brian,

Thanks for joining us.

What are the worst mistakes we are already making on connected devices, and what should we be doing to make them less desirable as targets?

J

Thanks for the correction. It's pretty incredible that Silicon Valley is afraid to lobby for something that's obviously good policy.

Code.org is really a lobbying program for H1-B visas. Its stated mission of teaching poor kids in America to become well-paid IT professionals is window dressing. It is brilliant PR and little more.

It would be great if it were to accidentally succeed in its stated mission -- no one would complain -- but it's about H1-Bs now, not the future of America's children.

A "free market" for labour would mean immigration, not temporary work visas with strict conditions. H1-Bs shift power from labour to management. Management is not asking for an immigration fast-path for highly skilled professionals -- they are asking for temporary permits. H1-B workers, while obviously benefitting from the program, are not seeing the kind of benefit they would if they could immigrate and if they could be hired permanently and progress in their careers in the US. The economy as a whole benefits much less from H1-Bs than it does from skilled immigration. H1-B holders who subsequently start new enterprises aren't doing so in America.

I realize that some H1-B workers are able subsequently to immigrate, but it's a separate route and it's not the program's intention. It's good to have a program that lets highly specialized advisors in -- it ensures knowledge and skills transfer from the broader world, but H1-B is not primarily used for that. The program would have more value if it had higher standards for quality, not larger quantity. As it stands, it's simply an attack on labour, one that cloaks itself in the language of freedom and immigration while providing neither.

He was a sessional lecturer in his first semester at Galveston. He had made multiple attempts to deal with the bad actors in the class, and the university hadn't supported him. In addition to his love letter to the students, he wrote one to the department telling them what he thought of them and saying: The students are "your problem now." While burning that particular bridge may have seemed worthwhile to him, I doubt he's happy to have made the news. He probably would have liked to remain hireable as an instructor.

I think we're not entirely communicating. The suggestion was to run a thin client at home. The only thing being communicated is changes to the screen. I realize this won't accommodate streaming media, but I wouldn't sell my house over lack of YouTube or Netflix. It may be against one's company's policy to run a thin client.

I'm still lost as to why wireless service isn't viable.

Couldn't one keep the development boxes remoted somewhere, and just access them through remote terminal over LTE? The latency is okay, and even a lot of remote access isn't going to blow through a 15GB data plan.

CF cards are IDE, but with a smaller pin-out. If you have an adapter between the laptop IDE and the CF form factor you might be able to either plug the HD into a newer box with a CF adapter or plug a CF card directly into the laptop (assuming there's a second slot... or possibly even slaved on to a single cable if there isn't).

Personally I'd try PCMCIA ethernet because I still have a card or two in my basement, but who knows what crap you have.

Really, though, I just want to say thank you to the poster for a problem that Slashdotters really care about.

If any of you kiddies are interested in technology the NSA will have trouble getting at, I know of someone with a Contura laptop to sell you...

If I'm reading the comments section correctly, they might as well be magicians.

Shannon's theorem is true for a single channel. Eventually, cramming in more bits into one channel becomes power-prohibitive, because one must double power for each new bit added in. The benefits from adding power diminish even further when a system is widely deployed, as power from one system shows up as noise in the next, and SNR in all systems hits an interference limit.

To get around these limits, two related techniques are used
1) adding more antennas, to create more channels which are separated in space
2) coordination techniques that reduce interference from one spatial channel to another

If 2) is done well, then 1) can provide the kind of linear benefits you'd hope for - each new channel contributes its share to the sum data-rate. As you might imagine, building very parallel radio systems and coordinating what's sent over them presents its share of challenges.

For those of you looking to try it at home, there is at least one Software Defined Radio platform that will drive the ~1000 spatial streams you would need for this:

http://nutaq.com/en/products/titanmimo/titanmimo-6

Secretly, for years, store employees have used advanced evolutionary facial recognition algorithms to identify customers. Where has the public outcry been?