I thought about the HP touchpad, but after having looked at one briefly at Costco, didn't think the cost savings was worth it for the feature economy. Sometimes paying more really does give you more.
That said, I test drove an Acer Iconia A500 tablet earlier this summer. Beautiful screen, fast (Tegra 2) processor, Google Maps (with the Download Tiles add-in) was superb, and the 2-3 games I tried looked and played awesome. But ... one of my daughter's obsessions is the immersive Poptropica site. Guess what? It requires a version of Flash that isn't available for Android yet, so she couldn't take Poptropica wherever there was Wifi. :(
Another no-starter: Skype for Android won't do video. It's coming ... someday. But I want it now (oops, sounding a bit like Veruca Salt, ain't I?) if I'm buying a tablet with front and rear cameras.
Having watched and been involved with digital media (particularly Open Ebooks a few years ago), I know the software and the creativity is there. But IMHO widespread adoption of these devices won't happen until there is a more consistent array of apps, capabilities, and features that don't require people to look closely at the sticker. Even at $100, no one wants to take a toy home, sit on the couch, and find out it doesn't "just work."
IMHO The ends don't justify the means. (Dons fire resistant mackintosh.)
I think we're confusing what he did and his motivation. You asserted that his bail seems unreasonably high for "theft," but you already divulged that he's not being charged with simple theft, but <em>wire and computer fraud</em>. I'm guessing, without even following links, that he's being charged with some permutation of the 1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. As you say, the charges allege that he willfully broke into MIT's systems, used a falsified account ("ghost"), in order to access JSTOR and download information that he was not otherwise entitled to access legitimately (without "going through channels," i.e. getting the library card, paying the fee, registering a valid account).
I appreciate that what he may be trying to illustrate is that the documents JSTOR is charged with keeping safe result from partially publicly funded research, but it's not for Mr. Swartz to decide that this information "wants to be free." There are legal means to crack open this nut. Breaking into computer systems and falsifying records shouldn't be necessary. Has he tried the legal means already?
Just as we saw in London recently, smashing shop windows, torching police cars, and stealing TVs and other goods, don't directly address issues of social inequity and injustice. They directly address a desire to cause mayhem or upgrade one's own property. Protesting injustice is a poor justification of committing larceny, assault, vandalism, or even terrorism.
Let's illustrate this with a more personal example. If you and I worked for a public agency, would the details of our salary and compensation be public record? Would it be okay for John Q. Hacker to break into our agency's HR systems, steal all the information and then make it available, all because we're civil servants and our salaries are made possible by tax revenues?
I personally hope that engineering and information technology schools still teach about the laws that govern these realms. Ignorance of the law is not a justification for breaking it. I suspect that young Mr. Swartz will not appear in court to answer to his personal convictions about how information should be free, but to defend himself against The People's charges that he broke into protected computer systems and stole data from a discretionary access system. I don't care what the data was, I just want techies to learn that there are real-world consequences from this kind of mischief. If Swartz does jail time, it's not because he valiantly tried to crusade in the cause of public access to digital information, but because he ignored the law and broke into multiple computer systems.
Authored Comments
I thought about the HP touchpad, but after having looked at one briefly at Costco, didn't think the cost savings was worth it for the feature economy. Sometimes paying more really does give you more.
That said, I test drove an Acer Iconia A500 tablet earlier this summer. Beautiful screen, fast (Tegra 2) processor, Google Maps (with the Download Tiles add-in) was superb, and the 2-3 games I tried looked and played awesome. But ... one of my daughter's obsessions is the immersive Poptropica site. Guess what? It requires a version of Flash that isn't available for Android yet, so she couldn't take Poptropica wherever there was Wifi. :(
Another no-starter: Skype for Android won't do video. It's coming ... someday. But I want it now (oops, sounding a bit like Veruca Salt, ain't I?) if I'm buying a tablet with front and rear cameras.
Having watched and been involved with digital media (particularly Open Ebooks a few years ago), I know the software and the creativity is there. But IMHO widespread adoption of these devices won't happen until there is a more consistent array of apps, capabilities, and features that don't require people to look closely at the sticker. Even at $100, no one wants to take a toy home, sit on the couch, and find out it doesn't "just work."
IMHO The ends don't justify the means. (Dons fire resistant mackintosh.)
I think we're confusing what he did and his motivation. You asserted that his bail seems unreasonably high for "theft," but you already divulged that he's not being charged with simple theft, but <em>wire and computer fraud</em>. I'm guessing, without even following links, that he's being charged with some permutation of the 1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. As you say, the charges allege that he willfully broke into MIT's systems, used a falsified account ("ghost"), in order to access JSTOR and download information that he was not otherwise entitled to access legitimately (without "going through channels," i.e. getting the library card, paying the fee, registering a valid account).
I appreciate that what he may be trying to illustrate is that the documents JSTOR is charged with keeping safe result from partially publicly funded research, but it's not for Mr. Swartz to decide that this information "wants to be free." There are legal means to crack open this nut. Breaking into computer systems and falsifying records shouldn't be necessary. Has he tried the legal means already?
Just as we saw in London recently, smashing shop windows, torching police cars, and stealing TVs and other goods, don't directly address issues of social inequity and injustice. They directly address a desire to cause mayhem or upgrade one's own property. Protesting injustice is a poor justification of committing larceny, assault, vandalism, or even terrorism.
Let's illustrate this with a more personal example. If you and I worked for a public agency, would the details of our salary and compensation be public record? Would it be okay for John Q. Hacker to break into our agency's HR systems, steal all the information and then make it available, all because we're civil servants and our salaries are made possible by tax revenues?
I personally hope that engineering and information technology schools still teach about the laws that govern these realms. Ignorance of the law is not a justification for breaking it. I suspect that young Mr. Swartz will not appear in court to answer to his personal convictions about how information should be free, but to defend himself against The People's charges that he broke into protected computer systems and stole data from a discretionary access system. I don't care what the data was, I just want techies to learn that there are real-world consequences from this kind of mischief. If Swartz does jail time, it's not because he valiantly tried to crusade in the cause of public access to digital information, but because he ignored the law and broke into multiple computer systems.