http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8516940.stm

is this just one way that the Tories will penalise the poor?

I may be missing something, in this article but how are the Tories penalising the poor? Asking for robust measures to stop people from selling the laptop is not quite penanlising anyone.

Could I be poor instead of just earning under the poverty threshold?

Why should they be given laptops at tax payers expense in the first place? It's not as if the public coffers are overflowing at the moment. They should uses library PC's for free if they don't have one at home.

+1000

What is there to stop them from using it for other purposes, running a bot net or something criminal. I can see the tories using this as a way to stop them giving the poor laptops because of a lack of safeguards. What is there to stop someone simply giving it as a Christmas present to someone else or a private sale?

Yes the Tories could stop this and IMHO they probably should and put the money into funding a proper library service and then encourage people from poorer backgrounds to use it but as far as I can see in that article there was nothing saying the Tories would penalise the poor.

Yes but local councils barely support local libraries any way. My local is only open 3 days a week, you cannot have kids relying on that when there are only two computers for all to use.

Schools have libraries.

and ridiculous amounts of barely usable computers.

And are not necessarily open after school hours.

So? Use some of the money for the laptop scheme to fit out the libraries with decent kit, where is the problem? All kids will have access and it will be cheaper than buying hundreds of thousands of laptops...

No I wasn't stating that as a reason of support for laptops for kids it was just a personal complaint. ( my college library has at least 24 computers just in there and they are tremedously slow and Also have only IE6 which my contempt for is displayed in the Gov't vista thread)

I am actually against this scheme since these laptops will be slow as hell in themselves and will probably not be used for anything useful. Really it would be more efficient to follow your scheme or just do nothing at all.

Personally, I'd look at putting in windows terminals and having a centrally run and configured server. Easier and cheaper to maintain than having loads of machines spread out. Also easier to upgrade, you only need to worry about the server, the individual terminals only need to be replaced when they break down. Also less incentive for anybody to steal them.

less need for all that security crap they put on them aswell. Like screwing them down to the desk and tags.