Slashdot Mirror

He ALSO signed a continuation of Emergency Powers.

How Nice.

Funny this little occurrence receives so little attention, when, of these invoked powers, The Washington Times wrote on September 18, 2001:

Simply by proclaiming a national emergency on Friday, President Bush activated some 500 dormant legal provisions, including those allowing him to impose censorship and martial law.

I guess there wasn't enough NewSpeak in that article for the WT to preserve it from their Memory Hole. Here it is on the Wayback:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010918184425/www.washtimes.com/national/20010918-1136.htm

Now, back to Barry's continuation of the legacy:

Notice of September 9, 2011

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks

Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency previously declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.

Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, and the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2011. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency that was declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

(Signed, BO)

AC wrote: "To be blunt: no one took your ideas seriously because they were stupid ideas that showed you had no idea what you were talking about, and they were all too nice to laugh in your face. Sorry. You're now patting yourself on the back for something completely unrelated, so it seems someone really needed to do the laugh-in-your-face part before you keep going on about it again."

Thank you, AC. :-) It's good to stay humble, true.

For reference:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010405020550/http://www.cascadepolicy.org/dee_hock.htm

On the other hand, the wayback machine's version does have working images. And it doesn't use your page view to harvest information about you.

Except that's the first article from June rather than the second article from September.

On the other hand, the wayback machine's version does have working images. And it doesn't use your page view to harvest information about you.

Global Resource Corporation (archive.org) had a neat microwave technology to liberate propane and diesel from solid plastics. This invention would be very helpful for refrigerator and electronic recycling, because burning plastic on wires to get to the copper releases a lot of hazardous gasses.

But it's too disruptive to the established energy sector, and they ran out of money. For example, everyone knows the best way to mine coal is to strip mine by taking the top of a mountain off, not drilling a hole and lowering a microwave tube. I wonder what happened - maybe Wall Street torpedo'd them. ?

There are some videos on Youtube that demonstrate the prototype with chunks of used tires...

Oh well.

"A large number of people interested in stored power are looking forward to a revolution in the generating power of storage batteries, and it is the opinion of many that the long-looked-for, light weight, high capacity battery will soon be discovered." (source, 1901).

"The demand for a proper automobile storage battery is so crying that it soon must result in the appearance of the desired accumulator [battery]. Everywhere in the history of industrial progress, invention has followed close in the wake of necessity" (Electrical Review, 1901).

Can't just finally file them right next to the perpetuum mobile cranks and move on until somebody actually delivers on those stupid promises?

Some of the documents say they operated through the company JDC networking (still up and running, but imageless)

One thing about this case...
You can not tell me you look at that website, and think you are getting "cisco compatable" stuff, and not true, 100% Cisco stuff.

A great example. The BBC chose to copy over old 1/2 inch tapes, and possibly misfiled some episodes or just assumed that once the show was aired, that would be the end of it. Other examples from that era are common - for just two, there's the first Quatermass TV series (now public domain, but with only 2 parts of 6 still in existence, and Tales from Tomorrow, with about 43 of the original 85 episodes still in existence. (Here's a link for a legal download).):

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=subject%3A%22Tales%20Of%20Tomorrow%22

What do examples like these prove?
(I've picked examples from both sides of the Atlantic, just so this doesn't appear to somehow be just an English problem, and people don't draw the (in my opinion, unproved) conclusion that the BBC was less rational than US broadcasters).
1. Copyrights had already been extended from early US and British laws by the times that these shows aired, but that didn't give the owners the incentive to hold onto them that was one of the purposes of extending those copyrights.
2. Corporate owners (at least), lost potential profits in the future by their own shortsightedness, which has nothing to do with how much copyright protection they got. Of course, that short sightedness is simply human - who would have predicted all the advances in technology that would create any potential demand for these older works 50 to 60 years later.
4. But this also means that the current crop of rights holders can't predict what the situation will be as they approach 2100 or so. Holding onto a right that you might benefit from in over 100 years is a high odds gamble. If there are any downsides, such as having to pay for archiving old records properly so they will last that long, that gamble now has a downside. This is why some large rights holders have been agitating the US government to pick up the cost of them proceeding in civil courts against copyright violators, and why they are trying to move more and more violations into the criminal law category where the state pays from taxes.

http://www.archive.org/about/dmca.php

The libertarian in the last good /. presidential interview ('04), would argue that you can sue for spillover costs, and should be able to. The damage done by pollution would thus not be free, making pollution less profitable. I imagine if the corporate owners were personally liable, it would make a difference (probably would be bad over-all, but it is the Libertarian solution that you appear to imply doesn't exist).

The short answer to your question is that I'd work to get the government out of the business of polluting, selling "rights" to pollute and protecting polluters from suits for damage. I'd also work to get wilderness lands into the hands of private groups who want to preserve them.

http://politics.slashdot.org/story/04/09/20/1423219/Libertarian-Presidential-Candidate-Michael-Badnarik-Answers

and

Why should Greens/ environmentalists support Badnarik/ Campagna?

• Strict polluter pays policies
• Eliminate EPA permits to pollute
• Rescind sovereign immunity for government polluters
• Hold both government and corporate polluters responsible and individually liable
• Turn control of federally owned parklands over to environmental groups (like the Nature Conservancy) after securing legal agreements to preserve and protect them
• Eliminate competition destroying approval processes for companies developing alternative fuels and recycled products
• End all subsidies to oil companies and timber companies

http://web.archive.org/web/20040820084150/http://www.badnarik.org/Why/Environmentalists.php

What I'd like to know is, why Amesys actually mentions services like Hotmail, Gmail etc. as completely and in real-time interceptable by governments using its products:
http://web.archive.org/web/20081114014541/http://amesys.fr/PRODUITS/DTSHEET/Glint_EN.pdf

Since at least Gmail is SSL-only, are we seeing here the first actually public evidence, that SSL is routinely and en mass intercepted and MITM'ed by a bunch of governments, most likely through using CA-signed certs in-between, that any browser trusts??! That, for me, is the real story here and it would be terribly nice, if some investigative journalist would get some more details on this point (see the Amesys brochure)!

It has come to my attention that the entire Linux community is a hotbed of so called 'alternative sexuality', which includes anything from hedonistic orgies to homosexuality to paedophilia.

What better way of demonstrating this than by looking at the hidden messages contained within the names of some of Linux's most outspoken advocates:

• Linus Torvalds is an anagram of slit anus or VD 'L,' clearly referring to himself by the first initial.
• Richard M. Stallman, spokespervert for the Gaysex's Not Unusual 'movement' is an anagram of mans cram thrill ad.
• Alan Cox is barely an anagram of anal cox which is just so filthy and unchristian it unnerves me.

I'm sure that Eric S. Raymond, composer of the satanic homosexual propaganda diatribe The Cathedral and the Bizarre, is probably an anagram of something queer, but we don't need to look that far as we know he's always shoving a gun up some poor little boy's rectum. Update: Eric S. Raymond is actually an anagram for secondary rim and cord in my arse. It just goes to show you that he is indeed queer.

Update the Second: It is also documented that Evil Sicko Gaymond is responsible for a nauseating piece of code called Fetchmail, which is obviously sinister sodomite slang for 'Felch Male' -- a disgusting practise. For those not in the know, 'felching' is the act performed by two perverts wherein one sucks their own post-coital ejaculate out of the other's rectum. In fact, it appears that the dirty Linux faggots set out to undermine the good Republican institution of e-mail, turning it into 'e-male.'

As far as Richard 'Master' Stallman goes, that filthy fudge-packer was actually quoted on leftist commie propaganda site Salon.com as saying the following: 'I've been resistant to the pressure to conform in any circumstance,' he says. 'It's about being able to question conventional wisdom,' he asserts. 'I believe in love, but not monogamy,' he says plainly.

And this isn't a made up troll bullshit either! He actually stated this tripe, which makes it obvious that he is trying to politely say that he's a flaming homo slut!

Speaking about 'flaming,' who better to point out as a filthy chutney ferret than Slashdot's very own self-confessed pederast Jon Katz. Although an obvious deviant anagram cannot be found from his name, he has already confessed, nay boasted of the homosexual perversion of corrupting the innocence of young children. To quote from the article linked:

'I've got a rare kidney disease,' I told her. 'I have to go to the bathroom a lot. You can come with me if you want, but it takes a while. Is that okay with you? Do you want a note from my doctor?'

Is this why you were touching your penis in the cinema, Jon? And letting the other boys touch it too?

We should also point out that Jon Katz refers to himself as 'Slashdot's resident Gasbag.' Is there any more doubt? For those fortunate few who aren't aware of the list of homosexual terminology found inside the Linux 'Sauce Code,' a 'Gasbag' is a pervert who gains sexual gratification from having a thin straw inserted into his urethra (or to use the common parlance, 'piss-pipe'), then his homosexual lover blows firmly down the straw to inflate his scrotum. This is, of course, when he's not busy violating the dignity and co

http://web.archive.org/web/19980113191222/http://slashdot.org/

With CmdrTaco's posts!

It has come to my attention that the entire Linux community is a hotbed of so called 'alternative sexuality', which includes anything from hedonistic orgies to homosexuality to paedophilia.

What better way of demonstrating this than by looking at the hidden messages contained within the names of some of Linux's most outspoken advocates:

• Linus Torvalds is an anagram of slit anus or VD 'L,' clearly referring to himself by the first initial.
• Richard M. Stallman, spokespervert for the Gaysex's Not Unusual 'movement' is an anagram of mans cram thrill ad.
• Alan Cox is barely an anagram of anal cox which is just so filthy and unchristian it unnerves me.

I'm sure that Eric S. Raymond, composer of the satanic homosexual propaganda diatribe The Cathedral and the Bizarre, is probably an anagram of something queer, but we don't need to look that far as we know he's always shoving a gun up some poor little boy's rectum. Update: Eric S. Raymond is actually an anagram for secondary rim and cord in my arse. It just goes to show you that he is indeed queer.

Update the Second: It is also documented that Evil Sicko Gaymond is responsible for a nauseating piece of code called Fetchmail, which is obviously sinister sodomite slang for 'Felch Male' -- a disgusting practise. For those not in the know, 'felching' is the act performed by two perverts wherein one sucks their own post-coital ejaculate out of the other's rectum. In fact, it appears that the dirty Linux faggots set out to undermine the good Republican institution of e-mail, turning it into 'e-male.'

As far as Richard 'Master' Stallman goes, that filthy fudge-packer was actually quoted on leftist commie propaganda site Salon.com as saying the following: 'I've been resistant to the pressure to conform in any circumstance,' he says. 'It's about being able to question conventional wisdom,' he asserts. 'I believe in love, but not monogamy,' he says plainly.

And this isn't a made up troll bullshit either! He actually stated this tripe, which makes it obvious that he is trying to politely say that he's a flaming homo slut!

Speaking about 'flaming,' who better to point out as a filthy chutney ferret than Slashdot's very own self-confessed pederast Jon Katz. Although an obvious deviant anagram cannot be found from his name, he has already confessed, nay boasted of the homosexual perversion of corrupting the innocence of young children. To quote from the article linked:

'I've got a rare kidney disease,' I told her. 'I have to go to the bathroom a lot. You can come with me if you want, but it takes a while. Is that okay with you? Do you want a note from my doctor?'

Is this why you were touching your penis in the cinema, Jon? And letting the other boys touch it too?

We should also point out that Jon Katz refers to himself as 'Slashdot's resident Gasbag.' Is there any more doubt? For those fortunate few who aren't aware of the list of homosexual terminology found inside the Linux 'Sauce Code,' a 'Gasbag' is a pervert who gains sexual gratification from having a thin straw inserted into his urethra (or to use the common parlance, 'piss-pipe'), then his homosexual lover blows firmly down the straw to inflate his scrotum. This is, of course, when he's not busy violating the dignity and co

He was using it but if you read the headline it says "Atari Targets Retro Community With Cease & Desist".
This more or less requires him to stop using the page until the issue is resolved.

Look harder

Earlier link. Admittedly, it does change back to only that logo after 2004.

Try this

Go back further. He used the domain for his game Qb, and he started having problems with his host around 2004.

Whole lotta content there....

Testing a virtual lab rat has only the cost of the computing power.

Plus the building to house the computers, plus data storage, plus programmers, plus tech support, plus people testing the virtual results on real rats to see if the models are correct. The researchers involved in this project were given $15 million over 5 years just to begin development on this. It is not meant to replace animal studies, but to inform future animal studies so that they can be designed better.

People try to say that research costs hundreds of billions of dollars (it used to maybe 20 years ago, but is far less today).

It costs $1.50-$3.00 a day per rat cage. You can keep 1-3 rats per cage. So lets just assume 2 rats per cage at $3 a day. Thats $547 a year per rat. About
20 million rodents are used for research in US each year. Assuming all those rodents were being housed at the same time we get a cost of $11 billion dollars. This estimate is going to be on the high end. It depends on the study, but I would guess the average time an individual rodent is housed is closer to 3-4 months. So lets just say 6 months to give a reasonable estimate that $5.5 billion is spend on rodent housing each year in the US.

About 1.5% of the US federal budget, or $50 billion is spent on all biomedical research each year in the US. From the above calculations 10-20% of this is on rodent housing. So while it is a major cost it is not the primary cost. Your "hundreds of billions of dollars" number does not have a time frame associated with it so I can't really say much more on that. The drug target I am most familiar with was first discovered around 1990. A drug candidate is in phase II/III trials for spinal cord injury 20 years later and there are ongoing animal studies testing its use for stroke and brain injury patients as well as looking at other related drug targets. 20-30 years passing from initial concept until clinical use for a single drug is not unusual. We do not want to start trying things out on humans until we are as sure as possible that nothing terrible will happen, and that we are not wasting the time and money of patients and doctors based on false positives. Hopefully that gives you some idea of how this kind of thing works.

It's used as an excuse to extract money.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that people experiment on as many animals as possible and drag out studies for as long as possible so that they can get paid more?

That isn't Apple's model. That is the normal way of buying music that Apple only adopted after facing pressure from the community and competition from Amazon and others.

Spin history any way you want. The truth is, Jobs penned his famous "Open Letter" a full year before Amazon opened Amazon MP3. It just took Jobs a little longer to work out the details and hammer out the details, since they had a lot more deals with a lot more labels, already in place.

The PPC/Intel benchmarketing was quite serious, but my favourite example has always been Apple's '100dpi is the optimum resolution' claims, like this one.

It's quite sad to watch Jobs gush over the 'retina display' when Apple had spent years claiming that 'other vendors may offer ... a smaller monitor with a high resolution that causes eyestrain and headaches."

IMHO, the most interesting aspect of the claim was the way in which Apple withdrew it. Instead of suddenly withdrawing it, which might have attracted more attention, Apple gradually faded it out over the better part of a year. The claims first appeared in early 2004. In early 2005, the "100ppi optimum resolution" graphic was withdrawn, but the 'smaller monitors with high resolution cause eyestrain and headaches' claim remained, only this time with 'minor feature' status. Then later in 2005, the claim was again altered to "smaller monitor[s] with very high resolution may cause eyestrain and headaches." This weasel version of the claim remained for another year before finally vanishing only when an entirely new range of Apple monitors was launched, together with a total revamp of the website (was white, became black).

Long story short, another advertising job well done - Apple could happily bullshit their way on both sides of the fence, just as they did with their PPC->x86 transition.

Maybe you did. That doesn't mean that you didn't get ripped off. I had a server with 160MB of RAM in June of 1999, that would have cost $16,000 at those prices, which it didn't:

and I even have proof, read the entry for June 9th

I know I didn't pay $16,000 for the ram, or even $1600. Maybe $1000. I simply couldn't have afforded that back then. So ram must have been down to $10/MB or less by 1999.

Do you spend 100s of millions of dollars on research to formulate new ideas and then bring them to market? Would you be able to afford to do that in a world where everyone freely copied your ideas and took them to market preventing you from ever recovering investment.

It's called competition. Why don't lawyers ask for patents on court strategies? After all, by not doing so their peers can steal those strategies and win cases without paying the original inventor of that strategy a single penny. And yet the entire lawyer profession hasn't imploded yet due to no one being interested anymore in helping their clients to the best of their abilities even though everyone else can look at how they argued the case.

No two cases are identical, you say? You can't just "take an argument" from one court case and apply it to another? Clients also care about how your ability to talk to them to figure out where they come from, what their background is and the background of the other party, and how to puzzle all the pieces together in this particular case? In fact, the most valuable part of the services a lawyer provides is not whether or not he uses some special argumentation, but rather how he tailors everything to the current case and uses whatever is most appropriate under the circumstances? Lawyers build their cases based on precedents argued by their peers? And their innovations are an inherent part of their work that they have to do to be competitive and get good results, rather than something they only do to get exclusive rights to them and get other people to pay for the privilege of doing something similar? And innovating in arguing before a court is definitely not something they stop doing because most of it becomes public without them being able to get royalties for it later?

Maybe the lawyer profession isn't that inherently different from software development after all...

And yes, there is more than philosophical rhetoric: in general, patents are some of the least used and least valued tools to ensure competitiveness for software firms (see esp. slides 14 and 15). This has been shown time and time again both in the past and in the present.

The best quote I know of is still this one from Robert Barr in a hearing before the FTC (and Cisco most definitely invests hundreds of millions in R&D, so it even addresses your point literally rather than only generally):

My observation is that patents have not been a positive force in stimulating innovation at Cisco. Competition has been the motivator; bringing new products to market in a timely manner is critical. Everything we have done to create new products would have been done even if we could not obtain patents on the innovations and inventions contained in these products. I know this because no one has ever asked me ‘can we patent this?’ before deciding whether to invest time and resources into product development.

On the other hand, I am sometimes asked whether anyone else has a patent on a product or feature that we are considering. But, despite the fact that our products are independently developed, that we do not copy, I can never definitively ‘clear’ a product or feature, or determine the costs of licensing in advance.

I.o.w., he basically said the same as the GP.

See http://www.techlib.com/area_50/xraydefender.htm -- tho techlib.com isn't resolving right now (server down, I'll bet), so you'll just have to try an alternate source:

http://www.techlib.com.nyud.net:8090/area_50/xraydefender.htm coral cache says gateway timed out...
http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/www.techlib.com/area_50/xraydefender.htm wayback machine doesn't have it archived...
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SErH8Fhj52cJ:www.techlib.com/area_50/xraydefender.htm+site:techlib.com+backscatter&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&ie=UTF-8&source=www.google.com -- you can at least read the text on google, and get thumbnails of the images on the page:
http://www.google.com/search?oe=UTF-8&q=site:techlib.com+backscatter&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi
Too bad the schematic isn't readable at thumbnail-size, but maybe techlib.com will be back up soon?

You are aware that the same venture capitalist who helped get Paxfire off the ground is the same venture capitalist who helped get OpenDNS going. http://web.archive.org/web/20100517145950/http://minorventures.com/

Enjoy: (not you in particular, but this is good for beginners)
http://www.archive.org/details/GuideToMixing

Apple stone walled KDE for a couple years until their own lawyers pointed out to them that they had to ad-hear to the GPL.

No. Safari (and what was to become Webkit) was announced at Job's 2003 Macworld keynote. The code was released the same day.

You are correct that the form of the changes was unusable according to KDE developers (which was soon rectified) but Apple contributed code from day 1 (actually, before day 1 in the case of JavaScriptCore.)

I worked for this startup called ElderVision, and we offered something very much like this back in 2001. It never caught on. Neither will this.

Because NEITHER Microsoft, Apple, or Linux (or others) ships their Operating Systems as SECURED AS THEY CAN BE, period!

Proof? Ok:

How come there is something called:

---

1.) The "CIS Tool" for Windows (& other OS' too)

2.) The Microsoft Baseline Security Advisor

3.) SeLinux

4.) Apple has a security guide also that pretty much follows the SAME DAMNED GENERAL GUIDELINES as what I do for Windows users here then:

http://www.apple.com/support/security/guides/

---

???

(Ask yourselves that... if these OS' are "So Secure" then...)

---

To "immunize" a Windows system, I effectively use the principles in "layered security" possibles!

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

I.E./E.G.-> I have done so since 1997-1998 with the most viewed, highly rated guide online for Windows security there really is which came from the fact I also created the 1st guide for securing Windows, highly rated @ NEOWIN (as far back as 1998-2001) here:

http://www.neowin.net/news/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text

& from as far back as 1997 -> http://web.archive.org/web/20020205091023/www.ntcompatible.com/article1.shtml which Neowin above picked up on & rated very highly.

That has evolved more currently, into the MOST viewed & highly rated one there is for years now since 2008 online in the 1st URL link above...

Which has well over 500,000++ views online (actually MORE, but 1 site with 75,000 views of it went offline/out-of-business) & it's been made either:

---

1.) An Essential Guide
2.) 5-5 star rated
3.) A "sticky-pinned" thread
4.) Most viewed in the category it's in (usually security)
5.) Got me PAID by winning a contest @ PCPitStop (quite unexpectedly - I was only posting it for the good of all, & yes, "the Lord works in mysterious ways", it even got me PAID -> http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2007/09/04/pc-pitstop-winners/ (see January 2008))

---

Across 15-20 or so sites I posted it on back in 2008... & here is the IMPORTANT part, in some sample testimonials to the "layered security" methodology efficacy:

---

That gets testimonials like this after applying it:

SOME QUOTED TESTIMONIALS TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SAID LAYERED SECURITY GUIDE I AUTHORED:

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=672ebdf47af75a0c5b0d9e7278be305f&t=28430&page=2

"I recently, months ago when you finally got this guide done, had authorization to try this on simple work station for kids. My client, who paid me an ungodly amount of money to do this, has been PROBLEM FREE FOR MONTHS! I haven't even had a follow up call which is unusual." - THRONKA, user of my guide @ XTremePcCentral

AND

"APK, thanks for such a great guide. This would, and should, be an inspiration to such security measures. Also, the pc that has "tweaks": IS STILL GOING! NO PROBLEMS!" - THRONKA, user of my guide @ XTremePcCentral

AND

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=672ebdf47af75a0c5b0d9e7278be305f&t=28430&page=3

"Its 2009 - still trouble free! I was told last week by a co worker who does ac

I'm a few miles from central London right now. Are your friends/family eyewitnesses or rioters? What evidence did they provide?

As for the "social welfare system", what experience have you had of it? Jobseekers' allowance is £53/week for young people, and the limits of local housing allowance - recently capped absolutely and further relatively to area by the Tories - make it difficult to find suitable (and liveable) property in central London. The former often has a long waiting period while it is processed, has strong conditions attached to it and is cut off at a whim with appeals processes lasting months (for example: call up the fraud hotline giving any random name of someone you know on JSA and their allowance will be stopped before evidence is gathered and a decision made). The latter has less conditionality attached but may still be subject to waiting periods and cut-offs, or the simple unavailability of affordable property since most/all (depending on your area) council housing was sold off - why else do you think so many thousands are living in temporary accommodation[tm]? Eligibility for hardship payments/crisis loans, often the last resort when people are refused JSA and satisfy already limited categories of eligibility, is being further reduced with Tory aim to eliminate these entirely at the next ideological welfare shake-up.

Those with all but the most severe health difficulties (new claimants, although existing people are being transitioned over the next couple of years) are now required to comply with the same JSA rules as those who are perfectly healthy, where previously they'd have been on an incapacity benefit while they recover - those with mental health problems often cannot cope.

There are two areas in which Britain actually provides almost unconditional welfare to permanent residents: the NHS and the right to water. The latter was the result of high incidents of third-world diseases such as dysentery and hep A around 1990 as people during the last recession could not afford to pay for water (recall that housing allowances do not cover any utilities), and was politically a concession to Thatcher managing to create the AFAICR then only country in the world with an entirely privatised water supply. The NHS, of course, still has long waiting lists and very limited mental healthcare under certain Trusts.

This is all irrelevant. People don't want handouts. Protestors (including looters) in Egypt and Libya mostly weren't starving either. What people want is a chance to participate freely and safely in society. The rhetoric of Cameron mirrors quite well the rhetoric of the reactionary governments in the Middle East, and the media in those regions painted exactly the same picture as he's trying to paint: of mindless, antisocial thieves. And, you know, some may be mindless - just as Parks may have just had tired legs and want a comfortable seat on the bus.

This is not to say that attacking a random human or firebombing the local corner shop (most people did neither) is an acceptable or effective means of protest. But that doesn't mean it isn't a protest.

"Torching cars and stealing TVs is not the solution. The shooting is just being used as an excuse by the rioters and the unhelpful people encouraging them."

Much the same is said here:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_nonviolence.html

But, the more a society is stretched to the breaking point by bad social policy, the more likely it will break into violence. Most humans can be civilized, but only while things are going at least not too terribly badly socially. The 9/11 attacks were also the product of social problems, although in that case, by frustrated young men from Saudi Arabia who blamed the USA for supporting who they saw as their local oppressors (ironically spun as "they hate us because we are free").

But, as far as the UK, from 2007, and I doubt it has gotten better with the global recession, consider this article (sadly, no longer directly at Adbusters):
http://apolyton.net/showthread.php/167082-How-Britain-is-Eating-Its-Young
http://web.archive.org/web/20071019031111/http://adbusters.org/the_magazine/71/Generation_Fcked_How_Britain_is_Eating_Its_Young.html
"Around the nation, airtime was cleared for cathartic phone-ins, heated discussions, and a torrent of contributors that simply would not stop. As if sensing that many of the problems might in part stem from the government's unparalleled obsession with monitoring, measuring and homogenising the very children it once sought to cherish, many former Labour advisors suddenly sought to introduce daylight between their ideas and those of the heavily surveilled nanny state. Neil Lawson of the Labour think-tank Compass bleakly admitted: "Society is hollowing out, but not just in the rotting boroughs of south London. The middle classes are anxious too. Many are richer but few seem happier. Mental illness abounds. White-collar jobs are outsourced to India. Everyone looks for meaning in their lives -- but all they find is shopping."
"The reason our children's lives are the worst among economically advanced countries is because we are a poor version of the USA," he said. "So the USA comes second from bottom and we follow behind. The age of neo-liberalism, even with the human face that New Labour has given it, cannot stem the tide of the social recession capitalism creates.""

Does not bode well for either the UK or the USA. And when the violence starts, things tend to just get worse for everyone, with more police, more fear, less comunity, and a downward spiral that is really expensive to recover from (like in Iraq after the civil war there that started after the US invasion).

I tried really hard to find other ways forward, and I found the conceptually, but implementing them against entrenched dogma is another thing.
"Five Interwoven Economies: Subsistence, Gift, Exchange, Planned, and Theft"
http://www.pdfernhout.net/media/FiveInterwovenEconomies.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vK-M_e0JoY
"This video presents a simplified education model about socioeconomics and technological change. It discusses five interwoven economies (subsistence, gift, exchange, planned, and theft) and how the balance will shift with cultural changes and technological changes. It suggests that things like a basic income, better planning, improved subsistence, and an expanded gift economy can compensate in part for an exchange economy that is having problems."

The use of the word "Theft" in the title there is not intended as advocacy -- it is more to point it out as what happens w

What's troubling to me is, if I think I'm downloading The Station's "Fingertips", I'm far more likely to download Stevie Wonder's completely different song with the same name, even if I may loathe Wonder's music.

Yet another of the RIAA's tools against lost revenue; revenue lost to their competition. TFA (either disingenuously, ignorantly, or stupidly) claims this is a loss to the economy, which is an unmitigated lie. The economy loses NOTHING when you download. When you download that copy of Photoshop that you could no way in hell afford, how has Adobe lost anything?

AND, Piracy generates revenue. As Doctorow says in the forward to one of his books (which I read for free), nobody ever lost money from piracy, but many artists have starved from obscurity. He credits his standing as a New York Times best seller to the fact that he gives his books away for free on boingboing.

I was at the library yesterday. I checked out Charles Portis' "True Grit" and Fred Pohl's "All The Lives He Led" (I thought Pohl was dead, but he's still writing, this is a new book), two DVDs and two CDs, and it cost me the price of gas to drive two miles. Did Portis and Pohl lose any money because I'm not paying to read their books?

I have dozens of books by Isaac Asimov. Without libraries, I'd never have bought a single one of them. I see no difference whatever between the internet and the library, especially since my library doesn't have to even own a book for me to check it out; there are interlibrary loans.

The RIAA and MPAA are the real pirates.

. . . plenty of time to figure out how they are going to fly a plane into it. At that height, they might not need to do it themselves. Remember July 28, 1945 -- http://www.archive.org/details/Pa2107Empire. The risks of standing out in a crowd.

From/By "Yours Truly" -> http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

To "immunize" a Windows system, I effectively use the principles in "layered security" possibles!

I.E./E.G.-> I have done so since 1997-1998 with the most viewed, highly rated guide online for Windows security there really is which came from the fact I also created the 1st guide for securing Windows, highly rated @ NEOWIN (as far back as 1998-2001) here:

http://www.neowin.net/news/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text

& from as far back as 1997 -> http://web.archive.org/web/20020205091023/www.ntcompatible.com/article1.shtml which Neowin above picked up on & rated very highly.

That has evolved more currently, into the MOST viewed & highly rated one there is for years now since 2008 online in the 1st URL link above...

Which has well over 500,000++ views online (actually MORE, but 1 site with 75,000 views of it went offline/out-of-business) & it's been made either:

---

1.) An Essential Guide
2.) 5-5 star rated
3.) A "sticky-pinned" thread
4.) Most viewed in the category it's in (usually security)
5.) Got me PAID by winning a contest @ PCPitStop (quite unexpectedly - I was only posting it for the good of all, & yes, "the Lord works in mysterious ways", it even got me PAID -> http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2007/09/04/pc-pitstop-winners/ (see January 2008))

---

Across 15-20 or so sites I posted it on back in 2008... & here is the IMPORTANT part, in some sample testimonials to the "layered security" methodology efficacy:

---

SOME QUOTED TESTIMONIALS TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SAID LAYERED SECURITY GUIDE I AUTHORED:

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=672ebdf47af75a0c5b0d9e7278be305f&t=28430&page=2

"I recently, months ago when you finally got this guide done, had authorization to try this on simple work station for kids. My client, who paid me an ungodly amount of money to do this, has been PROBLEM FREE FOR MONTHS! I haven't even had a follow up call which is unusual." - THRONKA, user of my guide @ XTremePcCentral

AND

"APK, thanks for such a great guide. This would, and should, be an inspiration to such security measures. Also, the pc that has "tweaks": IS STILL GOING! NO PROBLEMS!" - THRONKA, user of my guide @ XTremePcCentral

AND

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=672ebdf47af75a0c5b0d9e7278be305f&t=28430&page=3

"Its 2009 - still trouble free! I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill. I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get. He said good point. So from 2008 till 2009. No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008. Great stuff! My client STILL Hasn't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid. I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works. Speaking of which, I need to call her to see if I can get some leads. APK - I will say it again, the guide is FANTASTIC! Its made my PC experience much easier.

"Time Difference Of Arrival". It relies on the fact that radio waves move at the speed of light, which is actually pretty slow. You can easily detect the difference in phase between the signal received by two aerials, and turn this into useful direction information.

You can roll your own TDOA with simple parts available in your local electronics shop - take a look here for a "Whistling Dipole" design that switches between two aerials to determine phase.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080402023736/http://www.sfsite.com/fsf/fiction/bs01.htm

To "immunize" a Windows system, I effectively use the principles in "layered security" possibles!

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

I.E./E.G.-> I have done so since 1997-1998 with the most viewed, highly rated guide online for Windows security there really is which came from the fact I also created the 1st guide for securing Windows, highly rated @ NEOWIN (as far back as 1998-2001) here:

http://www.neowin.net/news/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text

& from as far back as 1997 -> http://web.archive.org/web/20020205091023/www.ntcompatible.com/article1.shtml which Neowin above picked up on & rated very highly.

That has evolved more currently, into the MOST viewed & highly rated one there is for years now since 2008 online in the 1st URL link above...

Which has well over 500,000++ views online (actually MORE, but 1 site with 75,000 views of it went offline/out-of-business) & it's been made either:

---

1.) An Essential Guide
2.) 5-5 star rated
3.) A "sticky-pinned" thread
4.) Most viewed in the category it's in (usually security)
5.) Got me PAID by winning a contest @ PCPitStop (quite unexpectedly - I was only posting it for the good of all, & yes, "the Lord works in mysterious ways", it even got me PAID -> http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2007/09/04/pc-pitstop-winners/ (see January 2008))

---

Across 15-20 or so sites I posted it on back in 2008... & here is the IMPORTANT part, in some sample testimonials to the "layered security" methodology efficacy:

---

SOME QUOTED TESTIMONIALS TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SAID LAYERED SECURITY GUIDE I AUTHORED:

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=672ebdf47af75a0c5b0d9e7278be305f&t=28430&page=2

"I recently, months ago when you finally got this guide done, had authorization to try this on simple work station for kids. My client, who paid me an ungodly amount of money to do this, has been PROBLEM FREE FOR MONTHS! I haven't even had a follow up call which is unusual." - THRONKA, user of my guide @ XTremePcCentral

AND

"APK, thanks for such a great guide. This would, and should, be an inspiration to such security measures. Also, the pc that has "tweaks": IS STILL GOING! NO PROBLEMS!" - THRONKA, user of my guide @ XTremePcCentral

AND

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=672ebdf47af75a0c5b0d9e7278be305f&t=28430&page=3

"Its 2009 - still trouble free! I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill. I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get. He said good point. So from 2008 till 2009. No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008. Great stuff! My client STILL Hasn't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid. I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works. Speaking of which, I need to call her to see if I can get some leads. APK - I will say it again, the guide is FANTASTIC! Its made my PC experience much easier. Sandboxing was great. Getti

Especially this part:

"This kind of skiddie hacktivism is what spineless yobs do when they're too scared to go out and try to make a difference in the real world. It's just another breed of armchair combat, and a pretty sorry one as well. If you want to make a difference then do something out in the real world. Most people can actually relate to that." - by DurendalMac (736637) on Monday August 01, @12:14AM (#36943634)

They really SHOULD be doing more "good" than they have (only decent thing these LulzSec &/or Anon folks did was warn the NHS about their admin passwords being exposed, but, they did NOT abuse them vs. NHS - I have to give them that much)... & MOST of the "attacks" they have done?

Not that tough (especially DoS/DDoS & even SQLInjection's easy enough to find to take advantage of)...

HOWEVER: They HAVE pointed out where the problems are that need fixing!

(That, in fact, is the ONLY "good thing" I have to say about any hacker/cracker or even malware maker - though they may NOT "like it", it's truth (I'd say the same thing to Satan - that God allows his existence to "test us", & he's God's "tool" too, like it or not)).

I just try to find "Good" in "the Bad" & avoid the UGLY is all...

Anyhow/anyways:

Perhaps this IS their "area of expertise" & that's where every one of us SHOULD be trying our best to help make the world in whatever way, shape, OR form, better!

(In whatever that is one's GOOD/BEST at - Be it engineering, computing, lawmaking, you-name-it... this is where you stand the biggest chance of doing so is why because you're good @ it!)

Yes - Imo @ least? THIS is how CHANGE, good change, starts & radiates imo (a "pay-it-forward" type of thing, hopefully compounding & expanding, via "geometric progression")).

Hence why I don't FULLY agree with your next statement though:

"Do it through a computer and far less people will give a shit. Those who think they do are deluding themselves into believing that they're actually doing something great from the basement. It's lazy self-justification." - by DurendalMac (736637) on Monday August 01, @12:14AM (#36943634)

You CAN make a difference there too.

For instance, my brother is a U.S. Military Officer... he tells me the "Virginia Farm Boys" & "FEEBS" absolutely HATE geeks (sometimes, with good reason, ala Anonymous &/or LulzSec)...

AND, he's been "hit" many years ago (1996-1997) by computer hackers @ home, & he told me:

"They ought to be hung by their balls!"

I agreed, to a large extent in fact... Especially the kind that REALLY cause problems (stealing vital information, or monies, from others OR institutions).

So, back in 1997 (after he got "hit")?

I was already doing it on IRC anyhow, but I discovered "the web" & forums, & put this out:

To "immunize" a Windows system, I effectively use the principles in "layered security" possibles!

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

I.E./E.G.-> I have done so since 1997-1998 with the most viewed, highly rated guide online for Windows security there really is which came from the fact I also created the 1st guide for securing Windows, highly rated @ NEOWIN (as far back as 1998-2001) here:

http://www.neowin.net/news/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text

& from as far back as 1997 -> http://web.archive.org/web/20020205091023/www.ntcompatible.com/article1.shtml which Neowin above picked up on & rated very highly.

That has evolved more currently, into the MO

The "FULL GAMUT" of what I use for BOTH added online security AND SPEED (& have done since 1997 or so, in the form of guides for Windows users (but the principles apply to other OS' too, & so does the CIS multiplatform security test it uses to help "guide a user" & make it "fun-to-do" as well, like a benchmark almost (albeit for security, not speed only))) is below:

To "immunize" a Windows system, I effectively use the principles in "layered security" possibles!

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

I.E./E.G.-> I have done so since 1997-1998 with the most viewed, highly rated guide online for Windows security there really is which came from the fact I also created the 1st guide for securing Windows, highly rated @ NEOWIN (as far back as 1998-2001) here:

http://www.neowin.net/news/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text

& from as far back as 1997 -> http://web.archive.org/web/20020205091023/www.ntcompatible.com/article1.shtml which Neowin above picked up on & rated very highly.

That has evolved more currently, into the MOST viewed & highly rated one there is for years now since 2008 online in the first link above...

Which has well over 500,000++ views online (actually MORE, but 1 site with 75,000 views of it went offline/out-of-business) & it's been made either:

---

1.) An Essential Guide
2.) 5-5 star rated
3.) A "sticky-pinned" thread
4.) Most viewed in the category it's in (usually security)
5.) Got me PAID by winning a contest @ PCPitStop (quite unexpectedly - I was only posting it for the good of all, & yes, "the Lord works in mysterious ways", it even got me PAID -> http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2007/09/04/pc-pitstop-winners/ (see January 2008))

---

Across 15-20 or so sites I posted it on back in 2008... & here is the IMPORTANT part, in some sample testimonials to the "layered security" methodology efficacy:

---

SOME QUOTED TESTIMONIALS TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SAID LAYERED SECURITY GUIDE I AUTHORED:

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=672ebdf47af75a0c5b0d9e7278be305f&t=28430&page=2

"I recently, months ago when you finally got this guide done, had authorization to try this on simple work station for kids. My client, who paid me an ungodly amount of money to do this, has been PROBLEM FREE FOR MONTHS! I haven't even had a follow up call which is unusual." - THRONKA, user of my guide @ XTremePcCentral

AND

"APK, thanks for such a great guide. This would, and should, be an inspiration to such security measures. Also, the pc that has "tweaks": IS STILL GOING! NO PROBLEMS!" - THRONKA, user of my guide @ XTremePcCentral

AND

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=672ebdf47af75a0c5b0d9e7278be305f&t=28430&page=3

"Its 2009 - still trouble free! I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill. I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get. He said good point. So from 2008 till 2009. No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008. Grea

In 1997, BSA CS accused company Digisys of installing unlicenced software. This accusation turned out to be false. Digisys then sued BSA for damages and won 300000 CZK (~$10000 USD). BSA CS, instead of paying, tried to go into liquidation.

More details here
http://web.archive.org/web/20090225170308/http://www.digisys.cz/bsa_dog.htm

Sure, pirates tend to be idealists while companies usually will do anything to get my money. Just stay clear of those few pirates who pirate as a company.

LOL. No son, pirates tend to be people making money by getting you to install malware. If you think otherwise you are naive. Anyone who pirates banking apps of all things is going to get completely screwed.

And to those looking for said cached copies: http://web.archive.org/web/20101023072550/http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/congratulations_google

OR, as I call it, "layered security". I, & others I know that do the guides I have written since 1997 online (& before that) for Windows do well using it (I haven't had a "malware-in-general" infestation since 1996 in fact because of it):

"You get used to the concept that everything is fallible and you need defense in depth. Virus scanners help provide that defense in depth. They scan incoming things for known threats (by the way good ones are updated more than once a day). It is not your only line of defense, but one of them." - by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Tuesday July 26, @02:24PM (#36886646)

Correct, & they all "compliment one another" + tend to make up for each others' "shortcomings"... because "layered-security/defense-in-depth" IS really the best thing we have going... IF you take the time to implement it.

On Windows NT-based systems of "more modern varieties" (ala 2000/XP/Server 2003/VISTA/7/Server 2008), that takes about 1-2 hours of your time, albeit gaining you YEARS of uptime into the distance as your "ROI" for effort expended...

This takes time, but it's well worth doing if you value a stable long-term setup of a computers.

This means:

---

1.) OS & app patching conscientiously

2.) Updating antispyware/antivirus

3.) ONLY using java/javascript ONLY WHERE IT'S ABSOLUTELY NEEDED ONLINE (think ecommerce sites), as well as the same for frames/iframes/plugins to browsers

4.) Email in TEXT ONLY

5.) Securing rights to filesystems ACL/MAC-wise

6.) Securing group & local system security policies (which are NOT setup as strong as possible by default mind you in shipping OEM init. default setups by the makers of them)

7.) Disabling unneeded potentially "dangerous" services that establish "listeners" on the internet (thus, possible "handles" to grab for illegal ingress)

8.) The use of custom HOSTS files (for both speed & security, more on that below)

9.) Using filtering DNSBL utilizing DNS servers to compliment them (more on that below with examples of DNS servers that do that)

10.) Firewall rules tables (both in routers &/or software firewalls in combination), if not also the "poor man's firewall" of IP filtering @ both the TCP/UDP portions of the IP stack.

... and more...

All of those measure work on a very, Very, VERY SIMPLE PRINCIPLE TOO:

"You can't get burned if you don't go into the malware-in-general kitchen", or better yet "If you don't get in bed with the devil, you can't F**** & get impregnated by he" either...

That, along with educating users is the most important part!

(This last one, it is the most important part imo, so they understand as best they can in laymen's terms when possible, on HOW/WHY/WHEN/WHERE malware-in-general works on them to steal their information or money, or to enslave their systems for nefarious purposes, etc./et al!).

---

To "immunize" a Windows system thus, I effectively use the principles in "layered security" possibles!

I.E./E.G.-> I have done so since 1997-1998 with the most viewed, highly rated guide online for Windows security there really is which came from the fact I also created the 1st guide for securing Windows, highly rated @ NEOWIN (as far back as 1998-2001) here:

http://www.neowin.net/news/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text

& from as far back as 1997 -> http://web.archive.org/web/20020205091023/www.ntcompatible.com/article1.shtml which Neowin above picked up on & rated very highly.

That has evolved more currently, into the MOST viewed & highly rated one there is for years now since 2008 online:

http://w

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Ending back around Year 2002 I knew a main Loki Entertainment developerJohn Hall (auther of Linux Games porting on Ebay) that felt a lump under his arm and had it checked by a doctor. After this first notice of having contracted cancer in his lymph nodes, he died from THERAPIES within 9 months of being but a couple months before is when tthey used that Gamma Knife on his brain. The surgeries all went fine, scans reported no more cancer, he continued taking the medications they assured onto him, but his lifestyle never changed per his documentation: the cancer kept coming back, and they kept cutting it out and scanning him.

Now there are studies proving that all the scanning causes cancer more than anything else. He documented every drug and surgery down to the shadow and speck of dust, onto his website http://overcode.yak.net/ where he entered a coma and died bu the journal might still be available to you from http://archive.org/ if you are persistent in search. The cancer traveled from his lymphatic system to his brain, where they boasted to excise the cancer using the verry same Gamma Knife that you advocate. How can you advocate what you yourself have't shown to have experienced?

There is more evidence in changing your lifestyle through diet and metabolism as the only way to defeat cancer.

Archive.org has over 2600 feature films in addition to many more other kinds of videos. All public domain, all $free, to their webpage embedded player or download as MPEG4, Ogg Video or WMV.

Donate to this 501(c)(3) nonprofit and deduct the gift from your taxes.

Archive.org has over 2600 feature films in addition to many more other kinds of videos. All public domain, all $free, to their webpage embedded player or download as MPEG4, Ogg Video or WMV.

Donate to this 501(c)(3) nonprofit and deduct the gift from your taxes.

HDTV = 16:9 = 1.777.
SDTV = 4:3 = 1.333.

It's not perfect, but 1.777 is much closer to 1.85 than 1.333. It's not exactly "less still". Or did you mean "you still don't see the whole picture, even with HDTV"? I'd say the 4% missing portion of the image is almost insignificant, compared to the 28% of an SDTV picture. I would agree that useful detail still goes missing when you're talking about 2.35:1, but those films are not as common. In 2009 more than twice as many DVDs were listed as 1.85:1 than in 2.35:1. (According to IMDB for as recent as the wayback machine recorded the page at http://web.archive.org/web/20090624175845/http://www.imdb.com/Sections/DVDs/AspectRatios/ )

But regardless of the technical quibbling (I know, that's why we come to Slashdot), the point is that HDTVs produce a superior quality viewing experience to SDTVs. Long-lasting is only one aspect of a TV. Image quality is another.

To "immunize" a Windows system, I effectively use the principles in "layered security" possibles!

I.E./E.G.-> I have done so since 1997-1998 with the most viewed, highly rated guide online for Windows security there really is which came from the fact I also created the 1st guide for securing Windows, highly rated @ NEOWIN (as far back as 1998-2001) here:

http://www.neowin.net/news/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text

& from as far back as 1997 -> http://web.archive.org/web/20020205091023/www.ntcompatible.com/article1.shtml which Neowin above picked up on & rated very highly.

That has evolved more currently, into the MOST viewed & highly rated one there is for years now since 2008 online:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

Which has well over 500,000++ views online (actually MORE, but 1 site with 75,000 views of it went offline/out-of-business) & it's been made either:

---

1.) An Essential Guide
2.) 5-5 star rated
3.) A "sticky-pinned" thread
4.) Most viewed in the category it's in (usually security)
5.) Got me PAID by winning a contest @ PCPitStop (quite unexpectedly - I was only posting it for the good of all, & yes, "the Lord works in mysterious ways", it even got me PAID -> http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2007/09/04/pc-pitstop-winners/ (see January 2008))

---

Across 15-20 or so sites I posted it on back in 2008... & here is the IMPORTANT part, in some sample testimonials to the "layered security" methodology efficacy:

---

SOME QUOTED TESTIMONIALS TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SAID LAYERED SECURITY GUIDE I AUTHORED:

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=672ebdf47af75a0c5b0d9e7278be305f&t=28430&page=2

"I recently, months ago when you finally got this guide done, had authorization to try this on simple work station for kids. My client, who paid me an ungodly amount of money to do this, has been PROBLEM FREE FOR MONTHS! I haven't even had a follow up call which is unusual." - THRONKA, user of my guide @ XTremePcCentral

AND

"APK, thanks for such a great guide. This would, and should, be an inspiration to such security measures. Also, the pc that has "tweaks": IS STILL GOING! NO PROBLEMS!" - THRONKA, user of my guide @ XTremePcCentral

AND

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=672ebdf47af75a0c5b0d9e7278be305f&t=28430&page=3

"Its 2009 - still trouble free! I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill. I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get. He said good point. So from 2008 till 2009. No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008. Great stuff! My client STILL Hasn't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid. I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works. Speaking of which, I need to call her to see if I can get some leads. APK - I will say it again, the guide is FANTASTIC! Its made my PC experience much easier. Sandboxing was great. Getting my host file updated, set