Posts by Chris C

Try too late

This concept was already tried, though in a slightly different manner, in the movie The Wizard. It was a pretty stupid concept then, and it remains a stupid concept. In theory, it's just as normal or strange as any other sport; it's just that with video games, you're using your brain more, and your movements are much more subtle.

The problem is, as this article points out, watching other people play video games is incredibly boring for most people. Most people would rather be playing the video games than watching somebody else play them. Contrast that with physical sports, in which the spectators usually have nowhere near the abilities of the professionals.

That's not to say there aren't a great number of people who do enjoy watching others play video games. I'm sure there are. But there aren't enough to make it profitable. People will gladly pay upwards of $400 to watch the NHL Stanley Cup finals or the MLB World Series. People will not be willing to pay anywhere near that to watch other people play video games. I'd go so far as to say that most people who would be interested in watching a video game competition probably don't even have $400 of disposable income without robbing their savings account (provided they're lucky enough to have anything in savings in today's economy).

Figures

That certainly does sound suspicious. Unfortunately, there probably wasn't enough research or investigation to file criminal charges against McColo's controllers. When they were cut off last Tuesday, one of my clients noticed just under a 50% drop in spam -- from an average of 81,500 per day down to 43,200 per day. I'm sure their aging mail server breathed a sigh of relief at the time.

A number of years ago, after a particularly nasty worm began spreading like wildfire, a white/grey hat created a worm that went into people's systems and downloaded the patches to plug the hole that allowed the first worm in (I forget the name of the "good" worm, perhaps one of you could remind me). While I'm certainly not in favor of unauthorized access, maybe this isn't such a bad idea. If people still can't be bothered to patch old flaws, perhaps something like that is needed. Then again, when Microsoft waits 7 years to patch a hole...

Of course, what would help even more is if these idiot high-speed ISPs didn't insist on users plugging their systems right into the network with no firewall. There should *ALWAYS* be a hardware box between your system and the modem. With dial-up modems, that wasn't possible (and quite frankly, not necessary). With cable/DSL modems, having a hardware firewall as a go-between is trivial. The question is, who will create a low-cost hardware firewall for your average consumer? Yes, cable/DSL routers do this for us, but there are still many people who plug right into the modem (using either a network cable or a USB cable). Until hardware firewalls become commonplace, we'll never get rid of botnets. No, I'm not suggesting that a hardware firewall will eliminate the problem, but it will certainly help prevent it. Eliminating unsolicited connection requests is definitely a good first step.

What the fuck?!?

Why in the fuck is he only service 11 months of juvenile detention?!? He should have been tried as an adult. His crimes were most definitely serious enough. Falsely reporting crimes and falsely reporting bomb threats are very serious, and they keep the police from doing their real jobs, thus endangering people (not to mention endangering the people the police inevitably assaulted while trying to act in good faith). Even adult prison is too good for this waste of space. But then again, as a US citizen, I've come to expect that our judicial system has nothing to do with justice.

Keep it up

Actually, CTG, this article is warranted, as The Reg ran a previous piece saying that the app in question had been banned. Without this article, people would likely assume said app was still banned. This articles lets them know that all is better now. The cynic in me might also point out that the reason is very likely because The Reg ran its earlier piece which made this much more public then the app's author could have done, thereby prompting a more decisive reaction from Apple.

However, since you obviously are getting fed up with Cade's articles about Apple, I have an incredibly simple piece of advice: stop reading them.

As for me, I say keep it up, Cade. I'm sure I'm not the only one who enjoys reading these articles.

Next version

Nah, you "Super-Duper" guys are missing the obvious next implementation -- EXTREMEspeed (oh, sorry, XstreamSpeed). I'm surprised they didn't use the term for this implementation.

As for the question of whether it will have direct memory access... Didn't we already determine that giving an external device direct access to your memory, bypassing any security controls, is a bad thing?

Idiots and retards

Idiots and retards...

And no, I'm not talking about the hospital workers. I'm talking about most of you posting comments. I do so love it when clueless morons try to push their religion, political agenda, choice of OS, whatever onto other people for no reason other than to make themselves feel superior.

Let's play a game, boys and girls...Don't worry, it's a real quick one.

1. Windows should not be used in mission-critical, life-and-death situations? OK, I'll accept that, and I'll agree with it. But what would you suggest? You'll see the same exact disclaimer on virtually any product, from your precious Linux all the way down to your APC UPS. So what desktop operating system *IS* allowed for use in mission-critical, life-and-death situations?

2. What medical software is available for your preferred OS? Did you think that maybe, just maybe, hospitals use Windows for most of the their desktop systems because that's what the software is written for? And don't even try the "but if they used Linux, then people would write the software for Linux!" argument, because the software needs to be in place (and stable) *BEFORE* they switch. Otherwise the switch is kind of pointless, isn't it?

Game over. Those who passed can go to the next round. The rest of you can go back down to your Mom's basement and wonder why nobody likes you (except, of course, your friends in Sadville).

And for those who think I'm trolling, I'm not. I hate Microsoft as much as the rest of you. I think it's an extremely bad decision to use it in critical situations. Hell, most of the time, I think it's a bad decision to use it at all, in any situation. But I live in reality where choices have to be made and you have to select the best tool for the job. Like it or not, at the present moment for most companies, that's Windows, simply because the industry-specific software hasn't been made available yet for other OSes.

@Trivia

"It's a sad comment on our insatiable need for celebrity trivia that Palin's secret question could be googled."

Only if said question is esoteric. Most "security" questions are matters of public record (not just public knowledge, but actual public record), such as mother's maiden name, spouse's birthday, city you were born in, etc. These sites don't quite grasp the concept that anything which is a matter of public record cannot possibly be considered secure.

But I do get your point, and I agree. Many celebrities have been quoted as saying they are just regular people, and they wish the media would allow them their private lives. I agree. Treat them like normal people. Don't treat them like gutter-slime just because you're jealous of them, but don't idolize them, either. And that goes for Royalty, too.

Mobile phones? Are they serious?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they still tell you that you're legally obligated to TURN OFF your mobile phone while on the plane? Even if this is only used at the boarding gate, before getting on the plane, it sounds to me like it'll encourage more people to leave their phones turned on (or forget to turn them off). And then you have the issue of incompatible phones, cracked screens that a barcode reader won't be able to read, people who don't have a mobile phone, etc.

I swear, the government (and by extension, it seems, the aviation industry) is doing everything in its power to make sure people don't use airplanes anymore. Sure, it may be great for the environment, but not too good for vacations or business.

Them and us

"Her faith in biometrics does not appear to have been shaken by lobby group No2ID which claimed to have borrowed a set of her fingerprints earlier this month."

This does not surprise me. I have three problems with biometrics in general, fingerprinting in particular.

First, I'm not convinced that every single person in the world does have unique fingerprints, and (if I"m wrong on that point), I'm certainly not convinced that the various biometric capture devices capture fingerprints in a way that will guarantee no false-positives. Claiming that fingerprints are unique is one thing; taking 32 points of a fingerprint and claiming that those 32 points are unique is something else entirely, especially when you consider 32 points is 2^32 which is 4,294,967,296. Unfortunately, we have more than that number of people on the planet. So if a fingerprint reader only uses a 32-bit hash, it is guaranteed to have at least one false-positive.

My second problem is the abuse of this. When you have a database of everyone's biometric data, it becomes trivial to make replicas of that data and plant it at the scene of a crime, thereby implicating someone who's innocent (but their fingerprints are all over the place, so they're obviously lying). And given our governments' (US and UK) attention to security and their ability to secure their computer systems against attackers...

And the third problem, which we always come back to, is that YOU CANNOT REPLACE YOUR BIOMETRIC DATA!! Once your data is compromised (not if, but when), there is literally no way to change it. That's it, game over. Sure, you can use acid to burn off your fingerprints and possibly etch a new design into your iris, but you're never going to change your DNA.

Jacqui doesn't see a problem with this. Why would she? She's a person in a position of power. If her biometric data was compromised and placed at the scene of the crime, the police would ignore it, claiming that someone planted her data there. But if the same thing was done to a regular person, the police would be knocking down their door and arresting them.

Stop the insanity!

I'm sick to death of these fucktards, no matter which country they're from. Why are our governments, which are supposedly representing the people, bending over backwards to protect the media companies? I know, I know -- money, bribes, corruption...

File-sharing protocols can be used for good or for bad. And yet the governments of multiple countries (France, US, and UK, at the very least) want to make it so that the authors of file-sharing software somehow have to "filter out" copyrighted content? [side note: In my first-draft before reviewing, I wrote "yet the governments of multiple companies..." Freudian slip?]

First of all, there is literally no way to do this. Even if they had a table of md5 hashes, all people would have to do is add one byte to the end of the file, and it'll no longer match the hash. And how can the authors possibly even check each file against the billions (trillions?) of copyrighted works in existence?

But more importantly, is there ANY OTHER INDUSTRY which is held to this ridiculous idea? Do auto makers have to make sure their autos are not used for illegal purposes (speeding, reckless drivers, ignoring stop signs and stop lights, allowing drunk drivers, etc)? Do the alcohol brewers and distributors have to ensure that people don't drink too much and become abusive? Do gun makers have to find a way to make sure their weapons aren't used for illegal purposes? In all of those cases, the answer is a resounding "NO". And those are industries in which those restrictions would actually save lives. But we'll enact such ridiculous legislation on file-sharing software to protect the interests and profits of private corporations.

@Shane Orahilly

"Did you read the whole article? "he didn't love me any more" sounds pretty much like he preferred his fantasies to reality, no?"

Yes, I did read the whole article, including that part. I also know that just because she claimed he said it doesn't necessarily mean he really said it. Even if he did, that doesn't indicate whether he had been neglecting her in favor of his fantasies or not. Yes, we can guess, but that's all it is -- a guess. Many people pretend everything is OK when they're no longer in love, right up to the moment they decide to leave.

Good and bad, right and wrong

While I applaud the judge in acknowledging the existence of the fourth amendment and it's intended purpose, I do feel she may have erred in this case. If the suspect truly did leave his computer behind when evicted, then he abandoned it. As such, it should no longer be protected by his fourth amendment right. Once he abandoned it (as opposed to accidentally leaving it behind or, more likely, not being allowed to retrieve it), it was no longer his possession, and as such, the person who did take possession of it had every right to turn it over to the police, who then had every right to examine it without a search warrant (since the new owner voluntarily, without being coerced or threatened, gave them permission).

I also think she erred in considering each platter a separate container. Using that mindset, the police would need to get a separate search warrant for every platter, which is unfeasable (they would first need to get a search warrant for the drive itself, then record the model number and look up it's specs to determine the number of platters, then get a warrant for each platter). Without examining the file allocation table, you don't even know what platters hold the file(s) you're interested in. And if the drive does not map logical sectors to physical sectors (for example, if they borrow that technology from new SSDs), then there is no way to determine which platters the data is on since the drive's controller board will likely only tell you the logical sector number. Simply put, the hard drive is one device, one container.

With all that in mind, the prosecutor is an absolute idiot and/or liar for saying that taking a hash of the drive's contents does not constitute a search. That would be like saying "well, we examined every book and every paper in his filing cabinets, but we didn't conduct a search". And while the prosecution personnel themselves may not have looked at the files' data, their program most certainly did, as it needed to in order to create the hashes. Therefore, there can be no doubt that a search did, in fact, occur. This still leaves open the question of whether it was a legitimate search or not (whether or not they needed a warrant).

re: American Justice

Why wouldn't the prosecution do everything in their power to encourage the suspect to "cop a plea"? Are you implying that the prosecutor (and police) do <gasp> actual work? Maybe even be able to <gasp again> prove the suspect's guilt? You've been watching CSI too much. In real life, those outmoded concepts were outlawed years ago.

To put this into perspective... Uploading these music tracks onto his web page is considered a felony, and carries a possible 5-year prison sentence. Meanwhile, someone I know of has been arrested three times for DUI (the last two times, he also caused multiple accidents in each of his joyrides, as well as damage to other property). The last time, he didn't even have his license, allegedly assaulted an officer, and resisted arrest (when tested at the hospital, his blood-alcohol level was three times the legal limit). What was his punishment? For his second DUI, he was sentenced to 12 months, got into multiple fights while in jail, and was released after 6 months for "good behavior". For this third DUI (the mandatory "three-strikes" rule), which was only 2 or 3 months after he was released from jail for his second DUI, he got a whole whopping one year in jail. Go ahead and tell me our "justice system" isn't fucked up.

Define animal

I agree with the sentiments expressed in the article. What is optional today becomes mandatory tomorrow. Wearing a safety belt in a car used to be optional; it's now mandatory. Wearing a helmet while riding a bicycle used to be optional; now it's mandatory in many areas (for both children and adults). Having your fingerprints and DNA in the police database used to be optional if you have not been convicted of a crime (old school translation: if you are innocent)...

Having said that, I take great issue with "...believes that God and the Bible authorize him with dominion over all animals on the planet...". Does that include animals owned by other people (the quotes implies that it does). And these idiots do know that human beings are animals, right? If their God put all animals on this planet to serve the people, then why are there many animals (such as bears and lions) which are so much mower powerful than humans? And why can tiny animals such as spiders kill humans with a single bite?

And Jonathan makes how much?

Does anyone know how much the top brass at Sun makes? It would be nice if, in articles like this, we could see how much money top management makes so we can see just how greedy they really are. If you're in such dire straights that you need to fire 15-18% of your staff to become profitable, you should also be making significant pay cuts across the board for the overpaid top management.

Harsh, but true

You may think me too harsh and unsympathetic by what I say next, but you know it's the truth:

Anyone who gets a "loan" from a complete stranger on the Internet, especially with a domain name like cash2day4u, deserves what they get. Someone you don't know (whom you've never seen, and really, you don't even know where they're located) tells you they'll lend you $200, and you say "Duuuuh, OK, but could you hold my sign while I find my bank account information and social security number."? We all know about phishing and about identity theft. We see the warning signs all over the place (including in our banks). Yet with everything warning people about phishing and identity theft, and the steps to take to reduce/avoid it, these people still don't learn.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the people who fell for this are the same ones who click on links (and actually buy the merch) in spam in phishing emails.

re: Extradite??

"...so, bad luck for the US."

Umm, no. Bad luck for Valve, perhaps, if you want to view it that way. GOOD luck for US citizens (the taxpayers who have to pay to keep people in jail). Then again, we need to rethink the whole "jail" concept anyway, as it's no longer about rehabilitation.

More bloatware

How about they de-bloat OpenOffice? 338MB seems overly excessive to me. Not to mention it's slow as hell. The first time I open it after logging in is just pathetic, and that's with the QuickStarter already running. Today it took 25 seconds to open a 10-row, 7-column, 6KB spreadsheet (all text, no formulas). Nothing else was running, nothing else was accessing the disk. And this is on a Core 2 T7200 2.0GHz with 2GB of memory on WinXP Pro, so it's not because the system is underpowered. OpenOffice keeps getting slower and slower with each release. By comparison, Editpad Classic opened a 27MB text document in less than 10 seconds.

And why does OpenOffice steadfastly refuse to remove the old directory when you upgrade to a new version (even when the old directory is completely empty after it removes the old files)?

Yeah, I know, it's free. That's why I don't complain too much. But I would be more than happy to pay for a faster, less-resource-intensive alternative.

Isolated incidents only?

"... [we] are actively working with eBay to identify, correct and prevent isolated incidents of inappropriate use of this program.”

When an incident occurs more than once, it is no longer an isolated incident. Does he mean they'll only stop the first one? Speaking more generally, "isolated" could mean any single, non-group incident. So what if a group of people together initiate multiple incidents of inappropriate use? They wouldn't be isolated incidents, so would they be allowed?

Rights? What rights?

A secret hearing that was CLOSED TO THE DEFENDANTS?!? Well, sure, you have the right to confront your accuser. But you don't have the right to be a party to your own trial, nor the right to defend yourself, apparently. Welcome to the USSA. Sorry, that's not fair. I think modern-day USA is probably worse than cold-war USSR (even McCarthy would be shocked by the "anti-terrorism" laws and policies we've enacted).

Seriously, what does this idiot think gives him authority to control the entire world? I know the US has historically thought that the whole world revolved around it, but it's getting really ridiculous at this point. Who in their right mind would think it's acceptable to shut down global commerce because it's illegal in his own backyard (even though it's perfectly legal elsewhere)? Such a person can no longer be considered intelligent, reasonable, or a member of a first-world nation. Hell, third-world nations don't even try to pull that shit. What makes this judge any different than the pirate ships over in Iran? Speaking of which, this judge stealing the domains because gambling is illegal in Kentucky would be the same as Iran stealing the domain names of Playboy, Penthouse, etc since pornography is illegal in Iran. But for some reason, I doubt this judge would support such an action.

Remember boys and girls, gambling is bad. It'll make you lose your hair, give you warts, make your breath stink, give you gangrene, kill your friends, and poison your food (oh, and for you computer geeks, it'll also replace your porn with images of Janet Reno and her under-arm waddle). That's why we made it illegal -- to protect you. Yes, gambling really is that bad. Unless it's gambling on horse racing. That's good. Gambling on horses will take away that not-so-fresh feeling and get you laid tonight. Oh, and government-sponsored gambling such as state lotteries, Keno, and scratch tickets. Those are good, too. In fact, they're so good, I think we might have a shot at resurrecting Jesus if we can get every US citizen to buy a $20 scratch ticket today, especially if you go take part in your church's Bingo game immediately afterwards (another form of good gambling).

re: Why so anti Microsoft?

Wow, can you be any more obtuse? Just because a company has a monopoly (an ILLEGAL monopoly, in case you've been living in a cave for the past 12 years or so) doesn't mean that people should continue to support them in that capacity. According to your logic, we shouldn't be looking at alternative fuel sources since everybody uses oil and gasoline.

You said Linux "doesn't have the market penetration to make it a viable alternative". OK, fair enough. So what would it take to make it a "viable alternative"? And don't you dare say increased market penetration because you spent the first half of your comment rallying AGAINST increasing its market penetration.

re: No HDD models?

Why does nobody make HDD-based players? Well, it's a little-known fact, but hard drives have an actual "platter" that needs to spin at relatively fast speed, and they have "read/write heads" which travel dangerously close to these "platters". If the device is bumped, you'll damage the disk.

</sarcasm>

But seriously, the risk of damage to a hard drive used in a player that's meant to be bumped around (and often in constant motion during exercise) is just too great. Not to mention the extra power required to spin the disk and move the read/write heads would reduce your battery life.

As for this device, the line "Build quality is up to Sony's usual high standards" was all I needed to hear. I know I'm not the only one who has noticed Sony's quality turn to pooh over the last decade or so. Sony USED to be known top-quality A/V gear. Now you pay for that reputation, but the quality is conspicuously lacking.

Where's the line?

So in a nice capitalist society like the US, where's the line between capitalism and price-fixing? What would have happened if each of the manufacturers independently came up with the same price -- would that be allowed? My point is this -- the government, industry, and business love to talk about capitalism and supply and demand, always saying how they'll drive "the market" and "the market" will decide. So why does it matter if manufacturers talk to each other about prices? If capitalism and supply and demand are the driving forces, then it won't matter.

Put more simply -- "worth" and "value" are abstract concepts based on what people are willing to pay. If most people are only willing to pay $1 for Windows Vista, then it's worth $1. If most people are willing to spend $1000 on it, then it's worth $1000. If you don't like the price something is offered at, don't buy it. It really is that simple. The capitalist society has always been about finding and charging the maximum that people are willing to pay. And I have a feeling that is one of those things that will never change.

@Chronos

Thanks for the explanation. I'll be the first to admit that some of that is still over my head. My earlier comment wasn't meant to say definitively why people don't use DNSSEC or to make any statement about security vs resources; it was merely meant as a possibility of what I'm sure a lot of people/companies are saying because they don't want to spend the money or time to upgrade.

Personally, I'm surprised we're still using DNS as we know it. It doesn't take a genius to see that it's a nightmare waiting to happen. The DNS server you use literally controls your connection, especially in today's world of virtual hosts where you need to request web pages using the host name. Unless you're doing your own DNS lookups, working backwards from the root servers to the destinations' authoritative nameservers, you're always going to be susceptible to redirection.

It's not surprising considering we're still using SMTP with all of its flaws, leaving us with the impossible task of dealing with spam (and why on earth do we still have people not using SPF?!?). The current protocols (DNS, DHCP, ARP, SMTP, POP3, IMAP, HTTP, etc) were great when they were created, back when security and authentication wasn't a problem. But it's time to scrap these and design new protocols with security built in from the start. Then again, look how long IPv6 has been hanging around trying to gain traction, and it's still a long way off.

Liars or idiots?

"At first sight it might appear that the researchers were sending spam to study spam. But the set-up is more complicated than that and above board, according to security experts we asked to comment of the ethical implications of the exercise."

Then you need to stop talking to those "experts". They are either liars or idiots (or both). Whether the "researchers" sent the spam themselves or not is irrelevant. They created a spam message. They took control of (part of) a botnet and used it to send their spam message 350 million times. Hence, they are just as guilty of sending spam as the other botnet controllers are. Or are we now saying that it's the individual PC owners who are sending the messages and should be punished, and not the ones doing the actual controlling? I'm sure Robert Alan Soloway and Scott Richter would love that.

And how, exactly, did they "subvert" part of the Storm botnet? Whatever method they used is virtually guaranteed to be illegal (at least in the US and UK where unauthorized access to a computer is a crime). Even if it was by hacking into the "bad" guy's command and control system, it's still unauthorized access, and so is still illegal.

In short, there's no way in hell this was "above board".

Improving?

“increasing image definition and improving picture edges” -- I believe "improving" would be a personal opinion. For example, I imagine the producer, director, editor, etc of a motion picture just might think that their original picture is better.

Am I the only one who thinks a television should simply display the data it receives without trying to guess what the picture represents (which ends up wasting energy (which wastes electricity, which wastes money), and results in a *worse* picture in some cases)?

Stupid funny people

The gun owners you hear about sure are stupid, funny people. I can only imagine (hope?) that like any group, the vocal ones you hear about are the minority. Personally, I find it hilarious that these people say they need "home defense" with Obama in office, yet they were perfectly happy with Bush taking away the freedoms guaranteed in our Bill of Rights and trying to turn this into a police state. But hey, that's all well and good as well as he doesn't touch our guns, right?

I'm not in favor of restricting gun ownership, but I don't encourage it, either. It seems to me that like many of our laws, we've taken the second amendment and have twisted it so far from its original intention that the original intention can no longer be found amidst our rhetoric. Carlin may have had it right -- every citizen should be allowed one gun, but it must be a musket.

Data loss?

Is somebody new to computers or something? "Data loss" has never meant "somebody else has access to our data". "Data loss" means, quite literally, loss of data (as in "the data cannot be recovered; it has been lost"). The technology this article mentions is to prevent data theft or unauthorized data access. Saying this technology will prevent data loss is like saying credit monitoring will prevent death.

Winston Smith Award?

"He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark mustache... But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

In the end, Winston Smith succumbed to Big Brother. Sure, he resisted at first, but eventually, he too was assimilated. So perhaps "Winston Smith Award" isn't the best name to use to describe something positive. That is, unless you're admitting that Big Brother is inevitable, and it's only a matter of time until all traces of resistance are eliminated (in which case, why bother resisting at all?). Either way, I seriously hope these awards do alert people to the issues before it's too late. Don't follow the footsteps of the US and UK (and Australia and Canada and Germany and...).

re: Shame its not...

Or, using your logic:

"Do we need the greatly misused [WWW] thats so heavily misused by the people that think all copyright material should be free from costing them anything. Also do we need [WWW] when its responsible for spreading so much malware, viruses and alike.

I think not."

With such a generalization, you can insert whatever you'd like in place of "P2P". You can insert WWW, as I've done here, or you could insert "HTTP", "FTP", "Usenet", Internet", and even "computer".

Do you see the flaw in your logic yet?

They got off way too light

They willfully, premeditatedly, and maliciously endangered the lives of thousands of people (if not tens of thousands or more), and all they get is a slap on the wrist? And why in the hell should they be able to get a felony conviction reduced to a misdemeanor simply because they complete the "punishment"? Can a murderer do that? No, so why should they be able to? This is nothing more than a mockery of the judicial system.

Don't forget the other Vista

Let's not forget there was another Vista that Microsoft ignored (or overlooked):

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/25/vista_trademark_dispute/

The clue is in the example

"The example provided in guidelines is if everyone in a building is arrested and has DNA forcibly taken after the discovery of a body. If this body subsequently turns out to have died of natural causes there might be an argument for deleting those people's DNA records."

That example provides you with all you need to know about the thought process. In any reasonable, civilized society, there is absolutely no way that every occupant of a building would be arrested or have their DNA forcibly taken simply because a dead body was found in the building. That in and of itself destroys the presumption of innocence by saying "we don't know who did it, so you're all suspects".

I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- the police take the mangled phrase "innocent until proven guilty" too literally. That phrase states that everyone is guilty, and their guilt simply has not been proven yet. Contrast that with the original phrase "innocent UNLESS proven guilty".

It's everybody's fault

First of all, it's the users' fault for not keeping their system patched. Having said that, can you blame the user? It seems all too often that the official patches end up breaking something else. And let's be honest -- how many consumers (or even small-to-medium businesses) have spare systems with which they can test the patch to make sure it doesn't cause problems? Not to mention that's somewhat useless unless your spare system is an exact duplicate of your production system.

But yes, first and foremost, it's the users' fault. Within the past month, I've had to remove Antivirus 2009 five times (today being the latest). I did a Google search for "Antivirus 2009" to try to get a feel of how prevalent it is (it's very rare that I got a call for the same infection more than once), and one of the blogs it brought up was full of people admitting that they had voluntarily and purposely purchased the software (many of them claiming it was because they didn't want to lose their data). They then proceeded to complain about the software and how the FBI should be going after the authors. Whatever your take on that, you have to admit that these were pretty stupid users. To see a "warning" on your system from a piece of software you've never seen before and did not install yourself, and to then believe what it said and actually purchase whatever they're punting. These are the same type of people who keep the spam alive by falling into the trap of clicking on links and buying whatever is being thrown at them. Not to put too fine a point on it, but these people are too stupid to own a computer.

Having said that, this is also Microsoft's fault. And no, I'm not even remotely hinting that it's just Microsoft or that any other OS is any better. I'm sure they all have their flaws. The point is that Windows XP is now seven years old. With their resources (read: profits), it would be easy for Microsoft to audit every single line of code looking for problems, at least the common ones -- buffer overflows, lack of data validation, etc. And there's nothing preventing them from auditing new code once it's written (before the product is released). But why do that when the world can be your beta testers? I'm not saying it's feasible to have any kind of guarantee against problems (or even that doing so would be a good idea), but surely they can take steps to make sure their products are not as susceptible to exploits as Windows has been.

In the end, there's plenty of blame to go around. But when you're dealing with a company the size of Microsoft, who can easily audit their code before it's released, and when you're dealing with software that costs half as much as the computer hardware it's running on, it's not unreasonable to expect a little more in terms of security and stability.

Designed to do WHAT?

Am I the only one who finds it odd that this plan is designed, in part, to "expand democracy and strengthen rule of law"? So the Chinese ruling party wants to "expand democracy" in a country where the word "democracy" is banned and saying or writing it can get you thrown in jail (or executed if you're really lucky)? That's even funnier than them saying they care about the people (funny in a sad way, not in a ha-ha way).

Idiots

I do so love insipid, inept, idiotic public servants. They give the word "servant" a bad name. This just goes to show that the rich corporations have been able to purchase yet another government to carry out their wishes. Unless this article is wrong (which is unlikely), this is very troubling, though certainly not unexpected.

Particularly, I'm looking at this point: "Internet users accused of stealing content online". Anybody can accuse anybody else of anything. Look at the witch hunts in the US and UK. Look at the modern-day witch (terrorist) hunts in the US and UK. Accusation does not mean guilt. And yet this proposed law wants to disconnect users for a year based merely on the accusation of corporations who have been proven to accuse the wrong people in the past (like accusing a dead person, accusing someone who doesn't even own a computer, etc).

How long will it be until the "kill" switch for our connections is given directly to RIAA, MPAA, BSA, etc? That way, they wouldn't have to bother anybody with paperwork, and they could quickly put an end to the oh-so-damaging infringement. Let's not forget that the RIAA was trying to get a law passed a few years ago to allow them to physically damage a suspected infringer's computer. I'm surprised that didn't pass. You never know, if it was tried today, it just might. If McCain gets in office, it would probably be made law by those executive orders Bush likes so much.

You're all idiots

Have any of you commenters so far actually READ the article? If so, did you actually UNDERSTAND it? It appears not. This has zero to do with children. though that is the sub-point Mr. Scully demonstrated. The issue here is whether or not you're allowed to control whether strangers can contact you or not. For deity's sake, AIM has had that for, what, about a decade now? Where the technology allows you to control who can contact you, there's no reason to restrict such ability. I'm not saying that strangers should be denied contact requests by default, but users should be able to set it to deny such requests. There are many, many adults who don't want to be contacted by strangers (especially when it's nothing but spam), so this is not a child- or account-related issue.

Not surprising at all

"[T]he expert data gatherer has learned that to track down the information they need, they must search for it from a variety of mixed quality sources and then interpret what they find to judge its usefulness."

Blasphemy! Everyone knows that if you want to find anything, you just go to the single authority on every subject, Wikipedia, and accepts its content as Truth. Quality sources and self-interpretation are so 1990.

On a more serious note, it really is not surprising that searching the web uses more brainpower than reading. Reading is an entertaining activity in which you're fed most of the information. Your imagination just needs to process it a little bit to fill in the missing or superfluous details. A web search, on the other hand, is a complicated and complex process. You first have to figure out what keywords might generate useful results, where/when to use quotes, etc. Then you suffer through hundreds of irrelevant matches (many of which don't even include the words you entered) before you give up and try to think of another set of keywords or a phrase which might give you a more meaningful set of results. Throughout all of this, your brain is busy trying to decide which expletives to use, and in which order they should be used.

Currency conversion rate?

"$1799/£1299"

Huh? Forgive me, but I've been too busy to read the news for the past few months... When the hell did the pound become so devalued? I am, of course, assuming the pound was devalued since there's little chance the USD actually increased in value... Last I knew, it was about a 2:1 ratio; now it's closer to 1.4:1?

Am I the only one

Am I the only one who thinks such tripe is childish and immature? Seriously, if you think this kind of crap is funny, you need to get out of your mother's basement a little more. Is it any wonder the IT profession carries such a stigma? I used to think it was unwarranted. I now know that I'm just in the minority.

So that's why...

Well that explains why I can't connect. I'll have to check out ver 3.0 some time over the next few days. I was actually trying to access the site to report a bug in ver 2.4. For those wondering, it's a bug in the find/replace using regular expressions. It seems that "Find all" works properly, but "Replace all" does a recursive replace when you leave the replacement string blank (it seems to work properly if you enter a replacement string).

If you have a line "aaaaaaaaa" ("a"x9), and you enter the regular expression "^a{4}" to search for and leave "replace with" blank, then find all will correctly find and highlight the first four "a" characters; but if you do a replace all, it will replace the first four, then check and replace again, then check again, leaving you with just a single "a". If you have multiple lines, and you use the replace button instead of replace all, you can see it runs recursively for each line before going to the next line. If you enter any replacement string (even one such as "aaaa", replacing the text with an exact copy of itself), it will correctly replace it only once.

re: Stop bitching

Wow, can you be a more arrogant and greedy fucktard? Seriously... Believe it or not, there are many of us who would either: A) -NOT- take the money, or B) take the money, keep some for ourselves, then donate the rest to charity. Not everyone is greedy.

Personally, I'd probably go with option B. I have no problems admitting that I'd love to be paid a few million dollars. I'd buy myself a nice house (and by "nice", I mean 3 bedrooms, an office, and a media room; I do not mean a 57-room mansion with four garages), I'd pay off my parents' mortgage (or buy them a different house), I'd buy my sister a house, and made sure we all live comfortably (note: "comfortably", not "life of luxury"). Then I'd take the rest and either give it to charity or set up programs locally to directly help those who need it.

This may come as quite a shock to you, Gareth, but I don't WANT to be rich. I want to live comfortably, that's it. I don't want a house I can't clean myself, I don't want servants, I don't want multiple cars, I don't want a jet... There are millions (perhaps billions) of people worse off than me. So as long as I'm living comfortably (and I feel greedy enough thinking that way), I'd rather give my excess to those who need it more.

re: Maybe not that harmful...

"if one was being truly energy-saving, then parts of the house may be allowed to cool to 12C or less overnight in winter."

I'd like to see a study done regarding comments like these. For other Americans, 12C is 53.6F. Personally, I think that's entirely unreasonable, but I digress. I'd like to see a study which shows:

1. The energy usage to let a house (or portions thereof) to cool to 12C overnight, then heat it back up to a reasonable temperature once the room is in-use again.

2. How long it takes to heat it back up to said reasonable temperature.

3. The effects on various inanimate objects (primarily computers and other electronics) from the daily cool-heat fluctuations.

4. The energy usage to keep said house at a constant reasonable temperature.

Preferably, I'd like to see these numbers for multiple reasonable temperatures (65, 68, 72, 75, etc). I'm all for energy-efficiency and reducing energy consumption where possible, and I'm not above being inconvenienced to some degree to achieve this. But I refuse to be bundled in ten layers of clothes, and still be unable to type because my hands are too cold, just to reduce energy consumption.

@overreaction, scare mongers

Ordinarily, I might be inclined to agree with you, but not in this case. Perhaps you'd like to take a look at the US court rulings for the past seven years. You'll find that many of the rulings have no basis in law, and in fact the rulings are illegal themselves. Don't confuse law with the judicial system. They are two completely separate ideologies at this point.

Don't forget, it's the judicial branch (the courts) that is supporting the executive branch (the Bush administration) and its systematic removal of our rights. The judicial system has gone so far as to say that it does not have the power to oversee the executive branch (which is plainly wrong since that is [one of] its explicit purpose[s]).

I think it's positively wonderful that as a US citizen, I can be stopped on US soil by US border patrol agents, and somehow am not protected by the 4th amendment of the US Bill of Rights.

Oh, and while I can sympathize with the term "United Soviet States", it's best not to use the word "United" since we're anything but. Eminem put it best: "Divided States of Embarassment".

Enough already

I'm not sure which is more corrupt, inept, incompetent, and useless -- the USPTO or the USgov. It's easy to see the real point of the patent system when you read that the patent "examiners" have to fulfill a monthly quota for granted patents, and also that the USPTO charges what I would consider a rather hefty fee to "re-examine" a patent they never should have granted in the first place. It's a money-making outfit, plain and simple. The fees collected make money for the government, and the patents granted make money for the corporations that can afford to file for patents. The idea behind patents is a noble one -- allow an actual inventor a limited monopoly on their invention so they can recover their R&D costs. Unfortunately, like everything politicians touch, it's been twisted, corrupted, and mangled into something that barely resembles its former self.

Having said that, in the USPTO's and Front Porch's defense, this patent was filed on 3 Nov 1998, long before online advertising became what it is today. That was back when most people were still on dialup, AOL was hugely popular, and a page didn't link to 5000 Javascript files and take up 700KB; before we needed Adblock Plus; before Flash (and the oh-so-wonderful ads, popups, pop-unders, etc. that Flash has given rise to). So the possibilities and usage probably weren't as readily apparent back then as they are today.

As for the incompetence of the USPTO, let's not forget that this *IS* the same patent office which gave a patent for a method of swinging on a swing (patent 6,368,227):

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6368227.PN.&OS=PN/6368227&RS=PN/6368227

@AC re: Give me a freakin' break Adobe

How about YOU give US "a freakin' break"? Do us all a favor and keep your ignorance to yourself. Being an individual user of a non-popular operating system, things like ease-of-use, market share, and matters of law may not matter to you, but I can assure you they matter very much to software companies.

Your suggestion of ripping out the licensed codecs would immediately break the player. I can imagine the discussion now: "Hey, let's release a player that won't actually play anything. Play something? Heck, it won't even compile!' " Most people DON'T want to download additional software and/or compile in order to use a utility. You obviously don't mind, and that's fine, that's your choice. But the majority of people DO mind. Issues like codecs and compiling are far over the heads of the average user. Most users can't even tell you what software they use (such as when users say "I'm using Windows 2007", confusing it with Office 2007). Can you really blame Adobe for wanting to keep it simple for them?

And it should go without saying, but just because a piece of software exists does not mean it's legal or that it's legal to use it. Look at all the MP3 encoders (standalone or as part of a larger product). I would venture a guess that 90% are not legal, since the MP3 format is patent-encumbered, and encoding MP3s requires a patent license.