* Posts by Chris C

671 publicly visible posts • joined 6 Oct 2007

Page:

AMD: 'The dog didn't eat Otellini's homework'

Chris C

Moore's Law

"Otellini steered clear of such suggestions this morning, saying 'prices will continue to go down. Quality goes up. Performance goes up. There's nothing in this ruling that reverses Moore's Law.'"

Moore's Law says literally nothing about price, quality, or performance. Only idiots imply that it does. But then, there are a lot of idiots out there misquoting and misinterpreting it as well. SInce Otellini obviously can't grasp a very simple quotation from the company's co-founder, perhaps it's time for him to resign.

IBM files patent for shorter meetings

Chris C

IBM and patents

Don't forget, this is the same IBM that applied for, and was granted, a patent (USPTO patent number 6329919) for "an apparatus, system, and method for providing reservations for restroom use". There's a reason that IBM has topped the list of granted patents for the past 16 years (4186 patents granted last year).

US states mulling Google book-scan pact

Chris C

Orphan works

"The settlement creates a "Book Rights Registry" where authors and publishers can resolve copyright claims in exchange for a pre-defined cut of Google's revenues and it gives Google rights to so-called "orphan works," books whose rights are controlled by authors and publishers who haven't stepped forward."

I find myself literally speechless, uttering incoherent sounds until sputtering out a mere "huh?". How can these two organizations give Google the rights to books for which they do not control the rights? That would be like me saying I'll give you rights to the Microsoft Windows code or the Linux kernel. I can't do that because I don't control those rights. How and why should this be any different? I've got a lot of music files and demos back from the BBS days for which I have no contact information (thus I have no way to contact the authors or publishers); does that mean I can do whatever I want with them?

Arnie pops up in Terminator Salvation

Chris C

Shit and awful shit

Anyone who watched the original Terminator and then T2 knew that any sequels would be shit. T3 proved that. The plot wasn't bad (if you could actually make it to the end of the film), but it was a typical now-era movie -- nothing but explosions. Contrast that with T and T2 which had more well-thought-out plots and much better action scenes.

I had already expected that T4 would continue in the new-Hollywood tradition of superbly bad writing and even worse acting, written specifically for the pre-pubescent "show me boobies and make things go boom!" mentality. Hearing that McG is involved merely confirms this.

Too much sunshine makes you commit suicide

Chris C

Relationships?

Just pure speculation on my part, but I would venture a guess that a lot of suicides are the result of failed relationships. I would also venture a guess that depression caused by failed relationships hits people harder in the summer when they are more likely to see their ex (especially in smaller towns/cities/villages), as well as see their ex more scantily dressed than in winter. Seeing an ex that you're still in love with, wearing next to nothing while frolicking about on the beach with their new love, is likely to drive anyone to thoughts of suicide.

Also, there's a lot more going on outside during summer months (I assume this is as true in Greenland as it is in the US). This extra activity can easily cause an already-depressed person to feel even more removed and depressed, increasing their thoughts of suicide and willingness to go through with it.

Windows 7 promises better SSD-ing performance than Vista

Chris C

re: On SSD defragging

"The point I think you were trying to make is that SSDs have zero seek time and do not suffer from rotational delay and missed rotations etc."

Actually, no. The point is that SSDs do NOT map data like a hard drive does. On a hard drive, sector 12345 will always be located at physical sector 12345. That's not true with an SSD. On an SSD, because of wear-leveling, what the computer sees as sector 12345 may be physical sector 4678 one day and physical sector 19483 the next day. I agree with you about fragmentation slowing things down due to additional overhead, but defragmenting an SSD will kill it much faster than normal by causing millions of unnecessary writes. When you're dealing with a medium which can only handle 10,000 writes per page/location, that's a huge problem. Even for SLC drives, rated at 100,000 writes, defragmenting will kill the drive much quicker than necessary.

Chris C

Performance enhancements

I haven't tried Win7, but here are a few obvious performance enhancements for SSDs that all OSs should be doing:

1. Make sure the MBR and each partition reserves 64 sectors, not 63. Because SSDs are a completely new technology, they aren't build to the old-style Cylinder, Head, Sector format or the 512-bytes-per-sector format. SSDs have a "page" size of 32KB. Because of backwards compatibility, OSs format a drive so that the first 63 sectors (one entire track/head) are reserved. This was done because in CHS mode, there can be a maximum of 63 sectors per track (for some reason, sector numbering started with 1 instead of 0). Reserving 63 sectors would be bad for SSDs because that would mean the data would start on sector 64, which would be the last 512 bytes of the first 32KB page (in other words, more read/write cycles than otherwise needed).

2. More importantly, make sure the cluster/node size is 32KB (to match the smallest write the SSD can do). NTFS' default size if 4KB. Yes, using a size of 32KB will result is more wasted space, but it also means 32KB writes instead of 4KB writes, so it should improve performance due to fewer read/write cycles (by writing the full 32KB, you would write the entire page instead of writing only a portion of it which would require a read/write).

3. Make sure that the size of all non-file data (directory entries, file allocation / node tables, etc) is a multiple of 32KB to ensure that it doesn't cross a page boundary (which could result in additional read/write cycles).

----- Battery-backed RAMdrives

As for the idea of battery-backed RAMdrives, it's not really a feasible idea. It would be great from a performance standpoint, and it's definitely a good idea for short-term storage. But for long-term storage, it's too risky (too high of a risk of data loss due to loss of power), too little capacity per price point (though perhaps better than or comparable to SSDs), and too heavy (due to battery weight).

Let's use as an example the Kingston 2GB 1066MHz DDR2 memory module, part number KHX8500D2/2G. That module runs at 800MHz at 1.8V and uses 1.584W, giving us an amperage of 0.88A. It runs at 1066MHz at 2.2V (using approximately 1.936W). To get a 64GB RAMdrive, we would need 32 modules, giving us a total power draw of 50.688W (800MHz) or 61.952W (1066MHz).

A high-capacity Ni-Cad rechargeable AA battery yields 2000mAh at 1.2V, giving us approximately 2.64Wh. To power that 64GB RAMdrive at 800MHz for only one hour, you would need 20 batteries; to power it at 1066MHz for one hour, you would need 24 batteries.

A 12-cell Dell Li-Ion battery yields 96Wh at 14.8V, at a cost of $142, weighing 1.3 lbs. This battery could power that 64GB RAMdrive for only 1h53m (800MHz) or 1h32m (1066MHz).

As you can see, a high-capacity, battery-backed RAMdrive just isn't feasible. It would draw too much power and it would be too heavy. Compare this 64GB RAMdrive at 51W (over $1000) to a WD (model WD5000BEVT) 500GB 2.5" SATA-II hard drive at 2.5W ($100) or the Intel X25-E Extreme (model SSDSA2SH064G1C5) SLC SSD at 2.6W ($799).

Microsoft's new search - Built on open-source

Chris C

Open source cancer

Since we're talking about Steve "fucking kill Google" Ballmer, the alleged chair-throwing CEO (though now that he's CEO, he may hire someone to throw the chairs for him), I would not doubt for a second that he would give himself cancer in order to fucking kill Google. Even the biological kind. My personal opinion is that he's a very disturbed individual who will do literally anything in order to obtain his goals. If that means killing himself or his company in order to kill his enemy, so be it. Coincidentally enough, speaking of UNIX in the above comments, we can today read about another company that did exactly that -- SCO.

SCO threatened with Chapter 7 destruction

Chris C

And so it goes

"...and the company used this claim to force Sun Microsystems and Microsoft into licensing agreements."

I'm sorry, but what? They weren't FORCED into anything. Microsoft and Sun gave their money willingly, not out of fear or licensing issues, but as a back-channel way to fund the anti-Linux campaign (don't forget Sun was still trying to get people to go with Solaris, not OpenSolaris, at that time).

Regardless, this day was easy to foresee. Frankly, I'm surprised it took this long. Does SCO even have any assetts left? Last I heard, quite a while ago, they had sold the UNIX business and the mobile business, leaving them with zero business except the lawsuits.

If anything, the SCO saga should make one thing very clear to all companies (and individuals, really) -- when you're signing a contract, and especially when you're purchasing assets, make sure everything is spelled out. SCO had the signed contract, so they clearly knew that they did not hold the copyrights to the UNIX code, but they hoped they could bluff people with fear and intimidation. As one would expect, it did work against some companies, but not many. I suspect they were secretly hoping to get bought by IBM, or that IBM would settle since a settlement would likely cost much less than IBM's legal fees. SCO massively underestimated IBM's dedication to Linux and their resentment towards extortion.

US air traffic faces 'serious harm' from cyber attackers

Chris C

Utmost diligence

"In a separate portion of the report, FAA managers said they 'will treat vulnerabilities in this report with the utmost diligence.'"

What's concerning is not the level of diligence the managers will give towards vulnerabilities in this report, but the level given towards vulnerabilities NOT in this report (those currently existing but not in the report, and those found in the future).

Online ticket reseller fails in internet immunity bid

Chris C

Bah

The Patriots' thoughts can be rephrased as such: "Waaah! They made more profit than we did!" That's all. They're unhappy that StubHub and the actual sellers are able to sell the tickets at a price point higher than the Patriots box office could, period. I hate scalpers as much as the next person, but if we're going to talk about it, let's at least be honest about it.

As for the Roommates discrimination case, I must strongly disagree with that. Discrimination in general is bad. Most of us can agree with that. However, when you're deciding who can sleep in the next room, share your living space, respect (or violate) your privacy, kill you in your sleep, etc, then yes, you SHOULD be able to choose. A lot of heterosexual men would be uncomfortable living with a gay man, and would be even more uncomfortable if that gay man invited his partner/lover over. Similarly, most gay people would not want to live with heterosexual people. I may get attacked for saying this, but there are SOME areas where discrimination should be allowed, and choosing who gets to live with you in your house is one of those areas. Bigotry is a bad thing, but people don't change the way they think and feel just because you want them to. Forcing someone to rent a room to someone they fundamentally oppose for any reason will only end badly, possibly violently.

Win 7 RC fails to thwart well-known hacker risk

Chris C

Hidden file extensions and super-hidden file extensions

After reading a lot of the comments here, there seem to be many saying just how easy it is to enable the viewing of file extensions. Of course, in doing so, those commenters have shown themselves to be just as ignorant as the idiots they're complaining about. If you don't believe me, then go ahead and go to the folder options and uncheck the option to hide file extensions. Then take a look at your desktop, scratch your head, and wonder why your shortcuts DON'T show the ".lnk" extension (or ".url" extension for Internet links). Then look in your WINDOWS folder, scratch your head, and wonder why the "_default" file doesn't show the ".pif" extension.

There are quite a few extensions that Windows will continue to hide even after you tell it to NOT hide file extensions. The only way to fix that is to add a registry setting for each super-hidden file type you want to show the extension for. There is no global "Yes, I really do want to see ALL file extensions" checkbox.

Using those super-hidden extensions, it would be easy to create a seemingly innocent file which will execute a malicious file, even when you have your system set to view file extensions (for example, by creating a file called "My_picture.jpg.pif" which is a PIF file that loads "delete_c.exe").

Victoria Principal 'pulled pistol' on maid

Chris C

Obligatory lawsuit?

"Cue the obligatory lawsuit, with Bangas claiming 'assault, false imprisonment and emotional distress" and demanding "lost wages and unspecified damages'."

As sick as I am of frivolous lawsuits, this one sure does sounds legitimate to me. Threatening to kill someone is a very seriously act (yes, even a criminal act, though due to her celebrity status, it's likely nothing will be done about that). Also, some states require you to pay employees' earned wages immediately if you terminate their employement, so the maid may have had legal reason for demanding payment at that time.

Whatever the employment status, this is just another case of another washed-up celebrity thinking they're god, that the world owes them everything, and that they're above the law. Sadly, a lot of people in law enforcement do nothing but encourage that sentiment.

US prosecutor orders Craigslist 'erotic listings' shutdown

Chris C

It's my way or the highway

So to put it more succinctly, this state Attorney General is making personal threats against the employees of a company because he personally objects to information on the company's website. At the same time, acting as state AG, he's ordering the company to remove non-illegal information in additional to information he considers illegal (taking down all "erotic listings" versus just those listings "encouraging prostitution"). Sounds to me like he himself broke a number of laws by sending that letter.

Also, how precisely does this AG expect a website to block services to citizens of his state? The Internet is a global medium, and there is literally no way to determine where a visitor is physically located. You can guess by using geolocation of their IP address, but that's just a guess which may be inaccurate due to proxies or a number of other causes. There are (at least) three things which will always hold true on the Internet: 1) there is no way to know where someone is physically located, 2) there is no way to verify someone's age, and 3) there is no way to prove that the person sitting in front of the host is the person they claim to be.

Google sued for 'stealing' Android name

Chris C

To the happily ignorant

Look, I know most of us are in IT, but to all those idiots saying "I can't find a website, so he's obviously just a troll" --

Not all companies, even those in IT, have a website. The existence, lack of, or registration date of a website has literally nothing to do with the existence of a company. Has the Internet really retarded or regressed your development so much that you actually believe that a company doesn't exist if it doesn't have a website?

This guy properly filed for a trademark registration in June 2000, registering the name of his company. Now, almost nine years later, you're calling him a troll because he's performing his legal obligation of protecting his trademark. There's a reason the USPTO denied Google's trademark registration. For an organization that loves to grant everything possible, that should be a very telling sign.

Imagine if someone decided to make a software app and call it "Linux" or "OSX". Do you think Linus or Apple wouldn't go after the person/company to make them stop using the name? Do you really think it WOULDN'T be confusing to have two pieces of software with the same name?

And this is about a trademark, NOT a patent. Is it really that difficult to read and understand the article before you open your mouth and prove your ignorance?

Chris C

Stupidity abounds

After reading the comments here, one thing is painfully obvious -- many of The Reg's readers are complete idiots with no grasp on that of which they speak.

1. Erich Specht is the registered holder of the "Android Data" trademark. TM serial number 78011167. Filed: June 4, 2000. Registration date: October 22, 2002. TM first used in commerce: January 1, 1999. G & S: Computer e-commerce software to allow users to perform electronic business transactions via a global computer network.

2. Google decided to use the name "Android" for their computer software.

3. Google attempted to register the trademark "Android" in October 2007, five years after Android Data registered their trademark. Google knew (or should have known by doing a simple search) that the trademark was already registered.

4. Two people/companies cannot register the same trademark in the same goods & service category. That is why Google's registration was denied.

5. In order to keep your trademark, you MUST defend it. It's not like patents where you can decide whether or not to defend your IP. With trademarks, if you fail to defend your trademark, it will be revoked. For that reason, Android Data is LEGALLY OBLIGATED to sue EVERYONE violating their trademark.

Is this a stroke of good luck for Android Data? Probably. But is he a "troll" or "scum" as many people here are saying? Absolutely not. He registered his trademark long before Google even thought about mobile phones, back when Google was still in its infancy.

As for those idiots saying you shouldn't be able to use common words as trademarks -- that's precisely why trademarks are registered for specific goods and services. It DOES make sense, and it DOES eliminate confusion. That is, unless you think having two similar products using the same exact name wouldn't be confusing. For example, two companies each developing software applications, and each one calling their app "GNU" or "Windows" or "Java" or "Eclipse", etc. Just by saying the name, nobody would know which one you were talking about. THAT is the reason for trademarks. Now, if you had a software application called "Windows" and a line of contact lenses called "Windows", there would be no such confusion, which is why the same word/mark can be used in different goods/services categories.

Oh, and if you want to look for ridiculous things, look at trademark serial number 78710784 where Google tried to get a trademark on "SARBANES OXLEY" for G&S "Broadcasting services, namely, software-based sarbanes oxley act compliance solutions". In other words, Google didn't want any other software developers to be able to use the name of the law the software was created for. But you're right, Google are, and will always be, "the good guys".

Google patent feeds ebook 'monopoly' infrared 3D

Chris C

re: I refer you...

"- It would seem that for once the company with a potential monopoly here deserve it!"

You have a funny definition of "deserve". Google has been massively infringing authors' copyrights by copying millions of books without permission, simply because they have shedloads of cash and therefor power and influence. And you say they deserve this illegally-obtained monopoly?

UBfusion: "To my knowledge, the existence of a patent does not prevent anyone from building a device based on the information, it just prevents them from mass manufacturing and selling said machines." Sadly, that is incorrect. If somebody holds a patent on something, you are legally prevented from using/building whatever is patented, regardless of your usage, commercial intent, or whether or not you make money from it. Simply put, you are not allowed to use that knowledge until the patent expires.

Ron Howard accuses Pope of scuppering Dan Brown movie

Chris C

Thanks for the laughs

1. Anyone who thinks the Vatican has no influence on Rome is an idiot. ROMAN Catholic Church should have been the first clue.

2. Anyone who thought the Vatican (or Roman officials) would allow filming in their churches for this book is an idiot. They have every right to deny the filming. The timing seems questionable, but then we don't have all the information, either. I wouldn't trust either side (the Vatican or the filmmaker) to speak the entire truth.

3. "Angels and Demons" was Dan Brown's FIRST book, written BEFORE Da Vinci Code. If you're going to comment about them, at least get the chronology correct.

4. I personally like Dan Brown's books for the most part, but then I read them for their entertainment value with no preconceived notions or ideas. Different people, different tastes. I had a hell of a time getting through Neuromancer, having to give it two attempts because I found the writing style extremely difficult to read.

5. Anyone reading ANY fiction book, or watching ANY movie or television show expecting it to be technically accurate is an idiot. Yes, those of us in the computer industry know that CSI, 24, etc are completely ridiculous from an IT perspective. And I would venture a guess that it's the same for everything -- that medical shows are completely unrealistic in the medical work, that the cop and lawyer shows are completely unrealistic from a law standpoint, etc. Sit down and realize that they're written for ENTERTAINMENT, not to be graded on their technical accuracy. The writers do what they do to make the show/movie/book more interesting to the general public. Whenever you feel yourself getting all worked up because what the characters are saying or doing isn't technically accurate, remind yourself of one very important thing -- IT'S FICTION.

Having said that, I'll venture a guess and say that this movie, like most movies based on books or video games, will suck. Speaking of which, anyone who hasn't seen Max Payne (the movie) yet -- don't. What a pathetic waste of time.

Isle of Man KKK burns cross on Facebook

Chris C

Mama's Little Man

I'm reminded of "Mama's Little Man" by Tilt:

"Don't occur to me that I ain't got no teeth / And my little golden boy as inbred as can be / In a Nazi state, we would be on the slate / Among the first to execute and then incinerate"

What makes me laugh is that most of these hatemongers don't even realize that if Hitler had his way, they would be dead as well. It's kind of like Jerry Springer (at least from what I recall, back in the late 90s), where the guests were too stupid to realize Jerry and the audience members were making fun of them.

Fired IT director admits $94k rampage on organ bank

Chris C

Pathetic

Why is it that whenever we get a story like this, there are countless people celebrating and encouraging such actions. First, none of us have any idea why her employment was terminated. Second, willful destruction of data/property is NEVER the answer to employment termination, no matter what the reason for termination was. Third, THIS WAS A FUCKING ORGAN DONOR COMPANY. Her actions could very well cause many deaths. Thing is NOT a laughing matter.

As for those people questioning the amount of damages, try using your brain (assuming you have one). "Damages" does not simply mean "uh, I like, restored the files from the uh... tape thingy... or something". When your network is compromised, even through an account you stupidly left activated, there's a lot more to do than simply restoring data from backup. You have to go through all of the systems to find what is missing (hence what to restore), and to make sure nothing was planted on the systems, verifying user authentication, etc. It's a long, tedious, and yes, expensive process.

Was the company obscenely stupid for not terminating her VPN account and for not changing administrator passwords immediately? Absolutely. But that does not excuse or lessen the seriousness of her actions.

Minnesota calls for 200-site net gambling blockage

Chris C

re: Who cares?

"Those inside Minnesota presumably voted for the people responsible, so presumably they are happy too."

I know this is off-topic, but what an ignorant statement to make. That's like saying that U.S. citizens were happy with George W Bush's decisions as President simply because he was "voted" into office. Meanwhile, his approval rating was below 40% every time I heard it mentioned. Similarly, Mitt Romney was voted in as Governor of Massachusetts, but I don't know of a single person who thinks he did a good job.

Remember, all you need in order to be elected is more than 50% of the votes. If 40% of the public choose to vote, and a candidate receives 51% of those votes, then he/she was voted in by only 20.4% of the public. I would hardly call that having the support of the people. And yet that's the myth that always seems to propagate -- that an elected official has the support of all of his/her constituents.

Chris C

And so it goes

"... but that anecdotal evidence showed it was hurting legalized casino-style businesses in Minnesota."

Ahh, so it's about protecting the in-state businesses by artificially eliminating competition. Yeah, that sounds legal. Perhaps they would like the ISPs to block access to amazon.com as well, since that most likely hurts the in-state retail establishments. It would also be a good idea to have the ISPs block access to netflix.com since that likely hurts the in-state video rental establishments. Oh hell, let's just have the ISPs block access to everything except for the websites of in-state businesses, and state and federal government sites. People may get a bit upset, but we have to do something to protect the state's interests!

Department of Homeland Security to destroy swine flu victims

Chris C

Transparency

I sincerely hope she meant "destination" as opposed to "destruction", but this *IS* the U.S. government, so I cannot safely assume that. Perhaps it was a Freudian slip? I know Obama said his administration was going to be more transparent, but this might be taking it a bit TOO far :)

RIAA settles for $7,000 after 4 years pursuing NY mum

Chris C

@Mectron

I'm sorry, but I can do nothing but openly laugh at people like you. Your claims of the RIAA stealing money are laughably absurd. Are many members of the RIAA unethical? I have no doubt that they are. But they have never stolen a single penny from me or anyone else who purchased CDs. Every single CD I have ever purchased (and the tapes and vinyl before that) was purchased voluntarily. I decided that the music was, to me, worth the price the establishment was asking for. Similarly, there have been many CDs I have chosen not to buy because I did not feel they were worth the asking price. Even if you accept the fact that the various labels colluded to artificially drive up the price of music, that still does not equate to stealing. You, the buying public, still have the same choice you have always had -- you decide that the music is worth the asking price and so you buy it, or you decide it is not worth it and so you don't buy it. Nobody is stealing anything from you. You are voluntarily trading your cash for the CD.

As for the artists... I sympathize with those artists who get screwed over by the various labels every day, really, I do. However, I would guess that in all but the most extreme cases, they have not had anything stolen by the RIAA or the labels. The artists voluntarily chose to sign contracts. Now, we can debate whether or not the contracts are ethical (I would venture a guess that most of them are not), but that does not equate to stealing, either. It equates to a bad decision on the artists' part, possibly based on bad advice from an attorney or agent (who may be stealing from the artists), but it does not equate to theft by the RIAA or label.

Really, people, these are not difficult concepts. Unethical business dealings, no matter how much you or I personally disagree with them, do not make them illegal. The fact that you don't like a company does not justify taking illegal actions against that company.

Lastly, you need to admit that most of the people downloading music don't do so out of some general resentment towards the RIAA or as a way to "stick it to the man". Most people download music because they're too cheap to pay for it. They like the music, and they want to hear it; they just don't want to pay for it. It's not about a principle or a movement, it's about wanting something for nothing. Well, I'm thankful to have been enlightened enough to realize that if someone has something I want, whether it's a tangible product such as hardware, an intangible product such as music, or simply their time, that they should be compensated for their talent and their time (their investment). I only wish others were so enlightened.

Chris C

re: Evil, RIAA is EVIL

"'We don’t break out costs per case, and it’s not a question of it being ‘worth it’ or a ‘victory’,' she said.

Pure evil."

OK, I'll probably get jumped on for this, but how is that evil? Standing up for your rights is now considered evil if you're a corporation or if the public doesn't like you? If, and that's a very big if, but if the defendant really did illegally distribute music the plaintiff holds the copyrights to, why shouldn't the plaintiff be able to protect their rights?

Is it also "pure evil" for GNU and FSF to protect their copyrights by going after companies that violate the GPL (most often by including GPL-licensed software embedded in their hardware without distributing the source as well)? Or is that OK because they're on "our" side?

"... your industry will collapse under the dead weight of the filth and garbage that signed artists now produce. If you could just see that, you would understand why people pirate music and not buy it... So, take the hint; drop the dead weight, restructure, catch up with the times, and leave people the **** alone. Once that's done, we can all continue on with our lives in a much happier world."

Or people could, you know, stop pirating music. It's an extremely simple concept -- either you think the music is worth the price they're asking for it, or it's not. If it is, you buy it. If not, you leave it. To think you somehow have a right to take it without compensating those who created it and made it available is ludicrous. Just because piracy doesn't involve physical theft doesn't mean it's a harmless act (no, I do not consider each act of piracy a "lost sale").

I'm certainly no friend of the RIAA, but copying music for the explicit purpose of avoiding compensation is wrong. Despite what some may say, it's not the same as creating mix tapes; people created mix tapes to give their friends a taste of music they likely hadn't heard before, music which they did go out and purchase if they liked it. Copying/downloading is the same as going into a music store, taking the CDs from the shelves, copying them, and putting them back on the shelves. Do you also think that would be acceptable?

As for your opinion regarding the "filth and garbage that signed artists now produce", I think you'll find that millions of people disagree with you. Despite what you and I may think about the majority of major-label artists, you can't deny that a lot of people like it (just look at the popularity of American Idol to see that). While I don't like that music, it doesn't mean it's bad. Similarly, the fact that most of the people who like that music don't like King Diamond, Moonspell, or Diary of Dreams doesn't make those artists' music bad, either.

Hacker behind P2P botnet gets no jail time

Chris C

Way to go!

Way to go, gov! That'll most definitely be a deterrent to this individual and to others who may be thinking of doing the same thing. Remember, kiddies: Don't create a botnet, DDOS websites, use what were most likely stolen credit card (numbers) to purchase stuff and have that stuff shipped to vacant addresses. In short, don't do bad things. If you do, you'll be told to not do it again. You don't want that to happen, do you? If you do something really bad, we might even give you a stern look. And you know there's no recovering from that.

And since when does creating a botnet, even using P2P and AIM as the control channel, constitute "talent"? Sure, it's a level above script kiddie, but hardly difficult. All it takes is a bit of planning. Why is it that the people (specifically kids) who do illegal things with computers are rewarded while those with real talent who stay on the right side of the law are ignored? I know that ti's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease, but that still doesn't make it right.

Microsoft retires AutoRun (kinda, sorta)

Chris C

re: Next dump "My Computer"

"How many current Windows users know the difference between Windows Explorer and My Computer?"

I would say that zero people in the entire world know the difference between Windows Explorer and My Computer. The reason for that is simple -- there is no difference. Both of them are shortcuts to "%SystemRoot%\explorer.exe". The startup behavior is slightly different, in that My Computer starts with no explorer bar, and explorer.exe with no parameters shows "Folders" as the explorer bar. But they both run the same exact program, thus they behave in exactly the same way.

If you run "Windows Explorer", and then double-click the drive (in the main window, not in the explorer bar), it will autorun. If you select the drive in the "Folders" explorer bar, you're telling it to display the drive's contents, so it will not autorun. This is the same behavior you see when you start "My Computer" and tell it to show the "Folders" explorer bar. Neither "My Computer" nor "Windows Explorer" is safer or more dangerous than the other.

Chris C

Why?

One of Microsoft's problems is that they have something called AutoRun, and they have something called AutoPlay. If I remember correctly, the behavior mentioned in the beginning of this article is actually AutoPlay (the window showing the type of media and asking what you want to do), whereas AutoRun is the method used by flash drives and optical discs to automatically run an executable upon insertion. Microsoft has never made dealing with either of these an easy task. Often times, even when you disable AutoPlay for a specific types of media, Windows will pop that window up again the next time you insert a disc/drive.

More importantly, what's so difficult about going into Explorer or My Computer, selecting the drive, and clicking on setup.exe? Is that really such a complicated task that people can't do it? It's so difficult that Microsoft felt the need to automate that three-step process? If you can't follow those three simple steps, then you probably won't be able to use the software once it's installed.

If they insist on keeping AutoRun around, could they at least prevent it from locking up the Explorer process while it waits for the disc to spin up and AutoRun to execute? Inserting a CD should not cause my desktop, Start menu, or any other Explorer windows to stop responding.

Web 0.2 archivists save Geocities from deletion

Chris C

Good effort

That's a good effort to replicate the old style, but it would have been much more authentic if you changed the background :)

Adobe users imperiled by critical Reader flaw

Chris C

re: So?

"If the app is able to execute code, thats all well and good, but as long as the app can't make Admin level calls, where is the issue? ... because its on a Linux box, its unlikely they will have the ability to exploit the box, unless they have secondary exploit to give themselves greater access."

If an app is exploited, even if it only provides restricted user-level access, it *IS* a big deal. There are lots of bad things that can be done without rooting a box. Searching for and attacking Windows shares, searching for and sending junk/black pages to networked printers, DOSing an internal or external host/website, flooding the Internet connection with junk to slow the company's Internet connection, visiting illegal websites (including child porn) which will be tied back to the machine and the user who ran the exploit, etc. Rooting a box is not the only way to cause damage, especially if you can select your targets.

On a side note, why does a DOCUMENT READER need Javascript in the first place?

Apple shareholders get 'say on pay'

Chris C

re: I disagree...

"I imagine you have to work quite hard to be a CEO, and I imagine that there's a lot more pride (and ego) involved in the long term position of the company than there is interest in a short term gain. Also, any CEO with such a short term view is very likely unfit to work as one, and would have made crap decisions irrespective of whether the motivation was a single smash and grab on company coffers."

I'm sorry, really, I mean no disrespect, but I can't stop laughing. Do you pay attention to business at all? Incompetent CEOs are rewarded extremely well, and they very often look short-term only. Look at MCI WorldCom and Enron with their multi-billion-dollar accounting fraud, all for short-term gain. As for whether an incompetent CEO who is unfit to work as one will make it in the business world, I have four words: Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman. Let's not forget that Carly was FIRED from her job as CEO of HP for being incompetent and running the company into the ground, not to mention the various illegal acts she sanctioned. What did she get for her incompetence? A severance package worth close to 21 MILLION dollars. Don't kid yourself -- incompetence and ineptitude are rewarded quite well at the top.

As for motivation, my motivation is quite different than that of most CEOs. Most CEOs will do anything (literally anything, regardless of legality) to make money, and are quite happy to lie, cheat, and steal in the process. I believe that money should be earned. I refuse to lie, cheat, and steal. I'd be much richer if I was willing to do so, but I don't, and I have a feeling a lot of the other readers here are the same way (though certainly not all).

Chris C

Imagine that

"Apple's shareholders will, after all, have the opportunity to weigh in on executive compensation."

Imagine that. The company's owners actually want a say in how much their employees are paid? My, what a novel idea. Quick, someone patent it as a "business method" before Apple does (that is, if IBM hasn't already patented it).

Pink-slipped sysadmin admits to threatening ex-employer's network

Chris C

re: Sticks and stones

"1/4 of a million, imprisonment for making some threats to attack a few electrons?"

Actually, no. He threatened to attack a corporation in a non-tangible manner. Destroying a company by destroying their computers and equipment is not attacking "a few electrons". The financial collapse of the $15 billion they manage would not be attacking "a few electrons". Let's ask MCI Worldcom and Enron if their accounting frauds were just about "a few electrons" or whether they had real-world impacts.

"People threaten to kill people don't they and nothing happens, bizarre."

Actually, no, that is incorrect also. Threatening to kill someone is most definitely against the law. Just because someone decides to not press charges does not mean it's not a crime. Assault is also a crime, but the police will rarely do anything unless the assaulted person wants to press charges.

In this case, the company did the right thing. I just hope they are also smart enough to make sure all passwords the ex-employees had access to have been changed (and I do mean ALL passwords -- firewalls, routers, servers, remote administration, software, email, websites, accounts at external websites, etc, including passwords of all users the ex-employees may have had access to); the same goes for physical locks. Requiring a massive password change is very inconvenient and can be costly, but the alternative can be much more inconvenient and much, much more costly.

DHS trials musical brainscan wellness tech on US firemen

Chris C

re: I cry...

"Nothing but pork. This has nothing to do with Homeland security."

Are you really that daft? You don't consider first-responders to be part of a nation's security? Police officers will actively defend you against assaulting forces, so they most definitely are security. Firefighters will attempt to control a fire before it injures anyone or spreads to surrounding buildings, so that most definitely does count as security. Paramedics tend to the injured and save lives, which, in my opinion, counts as security. "Security" does not, and should not, mean "protection from external physical assaults" only.

I say most anything that can help first-responders do their job more efficiently and/or with less risk is a good thing.

Musician dumps instruments for iPhone

Chris C

Musician?

So this is what it's come to? Am I in the minority in actually wanting to see a person play the music I'm hearing?

A musician is someone who PLAYS music. A composer is someone who CREATES music. An arranger or producer is someone who takes pre-recorded music and pieces it together. If you're going to a concert expecting to hear exactly the same thing you hear at home, they why are you going at all? Then again, look at the popularity of all the past and present girl- and boy-bands whose performances don't include musicians of any kind, instead opting to use pre-recorded music with the performers simply jumping around on the stage. Performers are not nearly the same as musicians.

"I just can't believe my ears, some music out these days / The human factor has diminished, in oh so many ways / Fancy footwork gets top bill and I'll put on such a show / One more Midi cable and my band is ready to go... / Changing programs faster than I dare to say / Musicians all make mistakes who needs them anyway?"

Will Oracle kill MySQL? Who cares?

Chris C

@AC 17:05

"Especially when the standard response when someone has a problem with something goes 'RTFM, noob' -> 'Well, it's better than M$' -> 'You can't complain - it didn't cost you anything' -> 'I'd like to see you do better' -> 'If you're so stupid fuck off back to M$ then.'"

That sounds about right. I particularly like the "you can't complain - it didn't cost you anything" line, as if the price you pay has any bearing on what you can say about it. Fine, but it goes both ways. If zero-cost means you can't criticize a product (or even recommend new features), then it also means you can't praise that product.

Also, there's one response you forgot: "That's already been discussed. Search for it". Of course, you usually find those answers by doing a search, and usually are still finding those answers after hours of searching. Open source would be a lot more successful (and, I'd wager, generate a lot more revenue) if "the community" didn't have such an elitist and arrogant attitude. Yes, *I* can compile and install from source when I see a new software app I want to try out, but my mother sure won't be able to.

Chris C

XE?

"Why not just use XE? MySQL is pitty much legacy for existing sites ever since Oracle gave us XE for free... Just because it's not open source, doesn't mean it's not better and provides an easier expansion to corporate land as well as giving the new developers some good Oracle experiance."

You really don't "get" open source, do you? One of its basic tenets is that, having the source source, you always have the ability to support the software yourself (or have someone else support it for you). For example, when the author decides they no longer want to support their software. Is this used often? Probably not. But it certainly is one "selling point" of open source software.

Having said that, I think MySQL killed itself when they switched to an annul commercial pricing plan in which you have a recurring per-server annual fee. Also, reading their MySQL Enterprise page, it's good to see they've joined the ranks of the idiots who still haven't figured out that "unlimited" means "without limit". The features page ("http://www.mysql.com/products/enterprise/features.html") has this wonderful footnote: "1. Consultative Support: Max 8 hours/server/year Enterprise, Max 100 hours/year for Unlimited. " I bet you didn't know that "unlimited" meant "100".

--------------------

As for GPL software, there are many software apps (I would guess it's more like most software apps) don't need support. As such, an author who releases their product under the GPL will, in all likelihood, not receive anything for their product. In other words, they'll never recoup the cost it took to create the software. Effectively, the GPL is only beneficial to those projects which will generate substantial support revenue, and those projects worked on by people in their spare time (and, of course, people who simply don't want to pay for software). Anyone who wants to make a living writing software has almost no chance doing so with the GPL unless they can convince a lot of people to purchase support contracts (at which point they most likely stop being a software writer and start being a help desk operator).

--------------------

@Dave: "...if you want to include a library or other complete component in you project then you are free (in both senses) to do so..."

That is incorrect. From GNU's FAQ ("http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL"):

"If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license?

Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library."

Chris C

Yes and no

"What software managers recognize - and often need to beat into their engineers - is that it is far easier and cheaper to throw money at a scalability problem than it is to throw engineering resources at it. In the case of web service providers using MySQL, when they hit a scalability wall, Oracle can now step in and sell them a database and Sun hardware that will fix the problem, no re-architecting required."

Part of that is correct -- sometimes it is easier and cheaper to throw money at a scalability problem. However, like any problem, proper engineering and optimization may solve the problem and save money long-term. That's where those managers fail -- recognizing and acknowledging long-term effects. Managers, CEOs, etc only seem to care about the short-term, right now, and don't even consider the long-term effects (whether it's software, hardware, or any other industry).

However, I wouldn't be so quick to say that Oracle can sell a database and Sun hardware to a MySQL user that will fix the problem with no re-architecting required. After all, MySQL isn't exactly standardized; it's like Internet Explorer. They took a standard and extended it how they saw fit. It includes a number of MySQL-only functions which are not part of any SQL standard. If any of those proprietary functions are used, re-architecting WILL be required. That isn't saying that it would or wouldn't be cheaper than re-engineering the web app, but it is a reality that needs to be considered. Far too often, salespeople say one thing (such as "you can just replace your DB with ours, no changes needed"), and the engineers are left to get it working when it turns out that it was misrepresented.

Lost laptops cost companies $50k apiece

Chris C

Color me shocked

"Consulting firms, law firms, financial services, healthcare, pharmaceutical, education, and technology are companies which would take the biggest financial hit from a lost notebook, according to the study."

Also in the news:

- Gravity on Earth remains constant at approximately 9.8m/s/s.

- The Earth orbits the sun.

- Wealthy people don't like paying taxes.

- Health insurance companies are happy with Massachusetts' decision to force all residents to purchase health insurance from for-profit health insurance companies.

- Many states don't want casinos because gambling is bad and immoral and leads to crime (unless it's the state lottery, or dog and horse racing).

- Sponsored surveys still work backwards, beginning with "known" conclusion.

OCZ Vertex solid-state drive

Chris C

re: Small files

"My question is this - do you ever transfer a large block of tiny files around your HDD/SSD?"

If you use your SSD as your system drive, then yes. You can use SysInternals' File Monitor to verify this. The concern isn't really about small files; it's about small transfers (whether those transfers are individual files or parts of one file). The reason is that an SSD controller can only write data in 32KB blocks (as opposed to 512-byte blocks for HDDs). So for an SSD to write less than 32KB, it needs to read that 32KB from the flash memory into RAM, save the new data to the appropriate spot in RAM, then write that 32KB block from RAM to the flash memory. This is the block-level, so whether the data being written is a file or not is irrelevant.

Here's a small sampling of activities that use small writes (most are 4KB or less, but all less than 32KB): Windows writing to the registry, Firefox 3 writing to its sqlite databases, IE and Firefox writing cache files, reading your email, compacting your folders in Thunderbird (compacting my folders just used 18,000 writes of size 4KB or less), opening an OpenOffice document (OOo issues many 1KB and 8KB writes to temp files), installing programs, VMWare (almost all writes to the virtual disk are 4KB or less, and all that I saw while booting the guest machine were less than 32KB), and Apache (writing to log files).

So yes, you do make a LOT of small transfers if you're using an SSD to replace a HDD (which is, after all, the intended purpose of SSD). I'm not sure about Vista (I don't touch it), but when formatting a disk in XP using NTFS, it still defaults to 4KB cluster sizes (and the HDD standard of skipping the first 63 sectors), which will result in an SSD with even poorer performance. It's certainly possible to get great performance with SSD, but software needs to rewritten to use 32KB transfers.

Chris C

4 MEGAbytes is a small file?

I'm sorry, but 4MB is *NOT* a small file, and does literally nothing to simulate a world-world test. The reason that most people do a 4KB small file test is two-fold: 1) to simulate real-world usage such as browser caches, saving/updating documents, access your OS swap file, etc; and 2) flash memory uses a 32KB page/cell size, so it gives a world-world performance measure of those real-world writes. A 4MB file will be written as many sequential writes which is hardly a real-world scenario. Yes, you most definitely will have time when you're copying 4+MB files between drives, but it won't be nearly as often as writing small (<=4KB) files, especially considering your OS swap file will be using those small writes. That's also the reason the last test suite ran multiple tests from 0.5KB through 8192KB. That's really the only test you need to show.

Texas goes large with supersize SSD

Chris C

Longevity

To answer the question of longevity, it depends on a variety of factors including the number of disks used, how the drives achieve wear-leveling, temperature, and, of course, the disk technology. SLC flash is said to endure up to 100,000 writes, whereas MLC flash is said to endure up to 10,000 writes.

For those who (like myself) don't really know too much, Super Talent has a good white paper on SLC vs MLC:

http://www.supertalent.com/datasheets/SLC_vs_MLC%20whitepaper.pdf

EDN has an article on SLC vs MLC ("http://www.edn.com/article-partner/CA6319917.html") which tries to make 10,000 writes sound like a lot by saying "a USB drive application that used the 10,000 write/erase cycles would enable the user to completely write and erase the entire contents once per day for 27 years, well beyond the life of the hardware." Of course, most systems will write to a drive more than once per day. Imagine how many times your OS writes to its swap file. And keep in mind that as free space decreases, so does the effect/benefit of wear-leveling.

Also, don't believe the BS from this press release. First, they claim that a comparable HDD-based solution would cost over half a million, but then they conveniently fail to mention how much their kit is going to cost. They also massively inflate the number of HDDs which would be needed, and even more so the power required (they're obviously completely ignoring 2.5" HDDs which run at about 1/4 the power of 3.5" drives). Don't get me wrong, I'm sure this array has legitimate uses which will be worth the cost, and it IS an impressive array. But I can't stand it when a company compares their new technology to the worst contenders of an old technology just to make their product sound better. If your product is so good, then it should stand out on its own merits.

Google should punt content thief ad payments to rights owners

Chris C

How to steal money

It's funny that this should appear today, as I was just telling a friend over dinner last night that I could be much more successful if I was willing to be dishonest and willing to lie to people in order to get more business. So how would this system know who the real copyright holders are -- trust those people/companies claiming to hold the rights, or verified registrations from the various nations' copyright offices? How would the system reasonably detect fair-use (simply searching for text within quotes is laughable in its absurdity)? How would the system detect when something is used for other legal reasons (news reporting, education, etc)?

Simply put, there's a reason that copyright infringement cases have to go to court, either civil court for small-scale or criminal court for large-scale. The reason is that a human must review the evidence and decide whether the uses were criminal or not according to the law. There's literally no way an automated computer program could make such a decision. What this company is trying to do is remove the courts from the equation so that the alleged rights holders are the complainant, judge, and jury, and the ad networks are the enforcers (much the same as the RIAA/MPAA wants to do with ISPs and the auto-Internet-cutoff scheme).

Life would be so much simpler if it weren't for those pesky laws and those pesky courts getting in the way.

Ocarina making dedupe music with BlueArc

Chris C

Reducing size of AV?

Ocarina claims that this is a lossless format, but I could find no technical information doing a quick search. They simply say that they "optimize" based on the type of content, with "initial space savings range from 40% for complex image files to well over 70% for common office file mixes." Of course, they don't qualify that by saying how much data (and thus how much de-dupe) was used to generate those numbers, or any other details for that matter.

They do specifically mention that they break a file down into the file level, object level, and chunk level, and then "optimize" and "remove redundant information" from each of those levels. Without seeing any details or any tests, it does prompt the question -- is the reconstituted file an exact duplicate of its original form, or is it a restructured file which may *appear* to be the same (for example, the same internal components, but rearranged within the file without affecting the overall data)? The latter may not be bad for some people, but I would most definitely want an exact duplicate of what I put into the system.

And I have to say, I still don't understand this big push for de-duplication. I understand the desire to reduce the size of data sets, but de-dupe involves significant processing power, and it massively increases your risk. If you're running a standard, non-duped system and you lose a file, you've lost one file. If you're running an "optimized" duped system, and you lose the file that includes a portion of data deduped from 100 files, you've just lost 100 files. Yes, we all know about proper backups, RAID, etc. But de-dupe seems like too much of a risk to me.

Tree huggers will confuse shoppers, says Amazon

Chris C

Here's hoping for sanity

Since US trademarks are, according to the USPTO, valid for specific areas/industry/uses, both companies SHOULD be able to use the same name if they want, as long as their services do not clash. Given that, two non-identical names should have absolutely no problem. But then, Amazon.com has tons of cash, and the USPTO has long been known to be corrupt.

Teenage hacking menace jailed for 11 months

Chris C

Travesty of justice

This piece of shit made fake 911 calls, and all he got was a pathetic eleven months? I'm sorry, but that's not justice. His actions endangered the lives of not only those people who were "visited" by the SWAT teams, but people in real emergencies while the emergency personnel's time was wasted with these fake emergencies. No, this goes beyond the "I was bored" argument. This was plain and simple maliciousness and disregard for human life and real emergencies. Life is too good for this scum.

Police charge suspected Craigslist murderer

Chris C

Misleading headline

Damn. I read the headline ("Police charge suspected Craigslist murderer") and thought (hoped?) that someone had murdered Craigslist itself. I was hoping MySpace, Facebook, and Twatter were next. I guess it's true what they say about something that sounds too good to be true...

New non-volatile memory promises 'instant-on' computing

Chris C

Instant-on is a myth

Can we please stop propagating the myth of "instant-on"? Even if there was no time required to read data into memory, there are still many things a system must do when it boots, and these things require processing time, not disk read time. Examples are time synchronization, network detection and activation, enabling wireless devices and detecting access points and nearby devices, etc. Would your time be considerably less than a typical cold boot from magnetic media? Sure. Would it be "instant"? Not even close.

And to all the people still going on about Windows a reboots -- quite it, would you? I'm certainly no Windows fanboi, but I've never seen always-on being a problem with XP. My systems stay on 24/7, and the only time they reboot is when I install updates or install/uninstall software, and I don't have any problems with stability; neither do the friends or family members running XP. That's not to say that nobody has those problems, but I find it hard to believe that they're as prevalent as people make them out to be (unlike, say, Win98 which did have severe stability issues when kept on 24/7).

Mozilla considers dumping Firefox support for Win2k, early XP

Chris C

Stupid, stupid, stupid

Killing support for Win2000 is going to kill off usage on a ton of corporate servers. And killing off WinXP < SP3 is going to kill off a ton of corporate and residential users. Exactly what features do they need in XPSP3 that's not available in SP2 and earlier, and in Win2000? I understand that as a developer, you want to support as few different systems/architectures as possible to eliminate testing, etc, but this is taking it too far.

Then again, this is Mozilla, and Firefox is not the light-and-friendly browser it once was. Replacing a text file (bookmarks) with an SQLite database was a stupid idea because it massively increased bloat (both storage and resource consumption). I remember Netscape 2.0 worked perfectly on a Win 3.1 machine with 2MB of memory. I realize Firefox does a lot more, but why does an empty Firefox window in a new profile (with no add-ons) require 45MB memory? When I'm looking up a lot of things at once and have multiple windows open, I've seen Firefox eating up to 400MB memory. There's no reason for it; it's pure bloat. Then again, considering the insane decision of multiple people/companies to use XML for virtually everything is proof that people don't care about bloat (since XML is, by definition, unnecessary bloat which guarantees files will take up far more space than binary files and will take longer to open/save/manipulate due to the extra processing required.

Scammers use Ford to drive users to scareware sites

Chris C

re: Sounds bad...

"Usually seem to be coming from otherwise legitimate sites as well. I think the blackhats have gotten smarter about how they poison things. I think they are targeting ad servers and poisoning some small percentage of the ads to redirect to sites that use automated installers to infect the systems"

That's exactly what they're doing, and we're talking big-name sites. One of my clients has had a few of their users repeatedly infected, sometimes on consecutive days after I've cleaned the systems (yes, I'm 99% sure that the machines were fully clean [only 99% sure because you can never be 100% certain]). What's the commonality? foxnews.com. Yes, I know, it's an oxymoron and we should avoid Fox, but they're not the only ones. I've seen indirect infections from Fox domains (foxnews.com, foxsports,com, etc), cnn.com, mlb.com, nba.com, nfl.com, and nhl.com. In every case, it's coming indirectly from their advertisers. Because they use so many advertisers, it's impossible to tell which one (by viewing a DansGuardian access log).

Specifically sports-related (and loaded indirectly via advertisers on sports-related sites), there are a few supposed statistics domains that redirect you to malware sites. I've seen this on ab-outstat_dot_net, evenmorestats_dot_com, officialstat_dot_com, onlinepromostats_dot_com, onlinestatsmanager_dot_dom, statisticsmanager_dot_com, and statscontroller_dot_net. All of those were redirects from advertisers.

This is why I recommend to all of my clients that they use Firefox with Adblock Plus at the very minimum, preferably with Flashblock and NoScript (though many users either can't figure out how to use those two or don't want to learn how because it makes browsing somewhat inconvenient). I also highly recommend they use a hardware firewall acting as a transparent proxy server, and use DansGuardian to filter web traffic. One of the things I've done is set up DG rules to block regexp URLs to try to cut down on possible infections -- block domains with "antivirus" or "antispyware" followed by a four-digit number (which will catch things like antivirus2009_dot_com), block files with "setup" followed by numbers only, etc. It certainly won't block everything, but it sure has cut down on the service calls due to infections. Of course, I could use the money from those service calls, but I'd rather my clients be protected and happy.

Nowadays it is no longer safe to browse the Internet. You are not guaranteed to remain free from infection simply by avoiding "dodgy" sites. At the rate the black hats are cracking websites and advertisers, no website can be considered completely safe.

Page: