Remember, no client devices can talk on two wireless networks at the same time. So, "adding" the bandwidth together for the 3 wireless networks is pointless. And, wireless is half-duplex (aside from MU-MIMO, which is pretty cool tech advancement in 802.11ac), so actual performance is less than half of the listed bandwidth (especially when considering protocol overhead, security, etc). Still blazing fast though.

The Dell Streak with Android 2.2 is NOT certified for use by DoD personnel.

All that DISA has issued is an "Interim Security Configuration Guide" (see: http://iase.disa.mil/stigs/net_perimeter/wireless/u_android_2.2_dell_iscg_v1r1_20111020.zip), which is for "limited deployment, pilots and demonstrations" (see: http://iase.disa.mil/stigs/net_perimeter/wireless/u_android_iscg_release_memo.pdf). An approved device would have a "Security Technical Implementation Guide" (see: http://iase.disa.mil/stigs/net_perimeter/wireless/smartphone.html), such as BlackBerry and Windows Mobile.

cetroyer

Not quite. But for once, the article isn't any more accurate than the Slashdot summary. The Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS), which comes from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, is a test of the encryption module of a device or software. In this case, it is RIM's proprietary OS that runs on the PlayBook that has had its crypto module validated (PlayBook FIPS certificate). Yes, it is probably the first tablet to achieve this, since most computers leverage Window's validated crypto module (Go here, FIPS certificates, and search for Microsoft). However, meeting FIPS is only part of the process. Federal regulation also requires National Information Assurance Partnership (NIAP) certification and a test by an approved DoD test lab. After all of that, the device or software will probably be "certified for use in the U.S. government".

For those interested in the auction link:

Lot 626, Very first Apple Macintosh Plus [serial number 0001] given to Gene Roddenberry by Apple Computer

As you can see, the auction info has not been updated to reflect the correct history of the computer.
cetroyer

So, Jobs asked that the iPod be designed so that those who are hard of hearing can enjoy the convenience and ease of an iPod as well as the rest of the "well-hearing" world?

That design choice doesn't do anything to remove the responsibility of the user to monitor the volume level. If someone wants to blow their eardrums out, that is their choice. But by adding the higher volume level capability, the iPod is now a viable product for those who are already hard of hearing.

Let's apply your argument to another piece of audio equipment. Take the common receiver. I just looked at one that had 770W total power, 110W per channel. Paired with the right set of speakers, it would be more than capable of damaging hearing. Yet, no one is trying to force them to make "safe" audio equipment.

cetroyer