Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:NOT READY, DO NOT WANT (Score 1) 70

Microsoft?!? How so?

You can bet that this system was going to be offered with XP, but "something happened". The 4GB model is more than large enough to handle it. Even the 2GB would have room for XPe and some apps.

Now Intel, may or may not been involved in the design process... It doesn't have to be.

They pretty much do; The 701 is a sort of triumph of stuffing intel chips in small packages. You don't do a design that deviates so far from the reference design without some guidance. ASUS has been doing this stuff for a long time... with intel.

It hugely depends on the window manager.

I'm using Jolicloud which like UNR uses some daemon to strip the decorations off too-large windows. Lots of them still won't fit, of course.

Yes... but users won't let us... Believe me, I have gone into this battle many times and always lost.

I've got lots of apps that work fine at 640x480. This is great when video has failed and you're trapped in VGA mode. Tabbed dialogs have really made this EASIER than it used to be in the past.

Comment Re:Wishful thinking (Score 1) 169

It isn't word games, routers and firewalls are not the same thing.
You sound like the same person that calls your monitor a "computer" and your computer case a "hard drive" or "CPU". You also thought the year 2000 was the first year of the 21st century.
Just because a majority or people are ignorant to facts doesn't mean that I'm going to start calling a firewall a router. The common name is only a router because common people don't know what the hell they are talking about.

Comment Re:Cue the flying monkey right in... (Score 2, Insightful) 263

The point here is that the Government previously said it was legal.

Maybe, if you're talking about some hypothetical conversation between the NSA and the telecom people before they agreed to do what the government wanted. It sucks for the telecoms, and it may even get them at least partially off the hook come trial time, but then again that's why these massive corporations have general counsels. Chances are what they really did was to weigh the illegality of the actions against the potential monetary harm that might come their way from pissing off the government and decided they didn't care all that much about the law.

That said, in public "the Government" has done no such thing. In fact exactly the opposite; a grant of immunity is the legal of equivalent of "okay, so there's a pretty good chance the courts will bitchslap you for this, but we're not going to let that happen." If the actions were clearly legal, immunity wouldn't have been necessary. You don't need protection from prosecution for something that's not illegal.

In any event, as I'm sure you've often seen quoted, "ignorance of the law is no excuse." If I tell you murder is perfectly legal and you go and murder somebody, it doesn't get the off the hook. If the government tells the telecoms that what they're asking is perfectly legal and they do it, it doesn't get them off the hook. It was illegal or not regardless of who said what. All that matters is what laws were on the books when it happened.

Slashdot Top Deals

In less than a century, computers will be making substantial progress on ... the overriding problem of war and peace. -- James Slagle