Slashdot Mirror

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/11/bittorrent-blocking-goes-north-canadian-isp-admits-to-throttling-p2p.ars

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2009/07/14/crtc-bell-internet-traffic-management-providers-customers.html

You're an idiot. Oh and I opened 7 Google results to find these two articles for you. The rest were crappy blogs & opinion pages that weren't really useful... but I suppose I should have divined that instead of checking them out quickly.

Didn't these guys say they did a DOS on a major government site just a week ago?

I hope they get the book thrown at them. I have been reading about them at ars technica for the past 2 weeks and not a day goes through where they brag about doing damage, espionage, or how they are l33ter than everyone else.

I am sick of them. They are criminals and if they are retarded enough to do these things then you can bet the FBI is already on their asses with probably the white house itself tracking their every move.

What worries me is not them but others who are going to gather and do these things. No it is not the case of them being the good guys and showing private companies which systems are insecure if they cost hundredes of millions of dollars and lost face, for companies like Sony. I have no respect for them.

Or just support ISPs that don't do this kind of bullshit. ISPs like Sonic.net. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/06/1gbps-fiber-for-70in-america-yup.ars. Their current customers have their 20Mbps Fusion product upgraded to 100/10 and 40Mbps bonded service upgraded to 1000/100 for the same price.

Ars Technica has a much more detailed review. All and all, it sounds like a nice device if you don't want an iPad.

The thing that struck me reading the review (and they commented on this very well) was just how much work seemed unfinished. A couple of times they mentioned "(blah blah blah) but Samsung says that will come in a future update." The amount of "it'll be here later" on the products launching lately seems horrible. How many features on the iPad were listed on the box and in the marketing material but didn't come out until a later software update? How many were there on the BlackBerry tablet? Even the Nintendo 3DS did this.

You're absolutely right. So my question is, why is the word 'harmful' in quotes? The entire article is quoting them indirectly, so putting 'harmful' in quotes is pure editorial slant. I suppose it's too much to ask /. editors to look at a subject objectively. Much better writeup on Ars Technica here.

Intel makes more money on Itanium than AMD makes period...

because itanium reaps 4 billion a year for intel. itanium alone brings more revenue than all AMD products put togheter.

from arstechnica

Itanium isn't widely used; but its users would appear to punch well above their weight when it comes to willingness to pay. Apparently, Intel does ~4 billion a year in sales of the thing. Now, I suspect that continued development is costly enough that Intel would be much happier if they could convince everybody that "Xeon; but with the RAS features not lasered out and for 20x the price!!!" is the way to go; but the sort of people who spend huge amounts, per unit performance, on fairly obscure architectures are exactly the sort of people who Do. Not. Want. to switch architectures.

Intel and its remaining Itanium buddies(yeah, HP, that pretty much means you...) are in the unpleasant situation of having a product line that is too big to just drop; but likely much more expensive than they would like to keep remotely near performance parity with x86 and with a customer base that is unlikely to just quietly accept an architecture switch in the near future. HP's situation is, of course, rather worse than Intel's... since whenever the ship finally sinks, so do HP's remaining offerings in the "architecturally better than boring x86" niche. IBM will still have POWER, Oracle will have at least the option of carrying SPARC forward, Dell will still have rock-bottom prices...

Even if the Wii U was able to play movies, most people wouldn't know about it anyway. Ars Technica did a survey back in 2007 where they found most people owning a PS3 don't know it plays Blu-Ray. I doubt that has changed much.

It doesn't appear to be included in the rather poor article Slashdot chose to link, but the much better Ars piece links the actual ruling [pdf], which includes that sentence on the last page.

C++ is undergoing a renaissance at Microsoft. Someone said that it makes sense as the platform team at MS doesn't like .NET and so doesn;t really give a fig what the dev team is trying to push. I guess the Mobile team is pushing Silverlight but no-one cares about them either. It sounds about right knowing Microsoft's huge staff and the infighting between teams.

I welcome a return to C++ on Microsoft platform, .NET is nice enough but it always felt a bit 'VB' to me, and besides, I have a huge amount of code to keep going (can't afford to rewrite it all). In any case, it does appear MS is moving away from its ".NET only, everywhere" approach to a more heterogenous development platform. I'm sure C# will be in there somewhere, even if WPF and Silverlight are relegated to the attic to keep VB and Foxpro company.

So yeah, everything just keeps going round and round.

To be fair, the article's purpose was to focus on the development of GUI. Multimedia and preemptive-multitasking don't really fall under that category. But you are right in that the article doesn't cover other important GUI advancements, such as Amiga's contributions or even application-level improvements such as the ability to select a block of text and drag it to another location of the document, dynamically shifting the text as the block is moved.

The article does get points for even mentioning GEM, but in reality, it's a big ad for Windows 8. Waste of my time.

I remember reading a much more extensive article a few years back that did a phenomenal job covering this topic. I wish I could remember where I found it.

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/05/gui.ars/ - This arstech article comes close, and it's far more informative than TFA.

OMFG it's even better than you (or I) thought. Not only can the screen be the camera, but you can also just stick a camera behind the screen. I knew about the first patent but didn't catch Apple getting the second.

Cue breathy voice: View Apple patents and see why 2011 will be like 1984.

Turns out, I don't download stuff other people like

...because there are so many people in the world who like Teen Anal Nightmare 2 or Batman XXX: A Porn Parody? The fact that something is unpopular is not a protection from these lawsuits.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/a-new-record-9729-p2p-porn-pushers-sued-at-once.ars

Luckily, these lawsuits were stopped by the judge as well, because of how completely absurd it is to sued thousands of people across different jurisdictions in the same court room.

Early hands-on seem to agree that the controller is really comfortable. For example Ars Technica.

http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2011/03/pwn2own-day-2-iphone-blackberry-beaten-chrome-firefox-no-shows.ars

http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2011/06/rsa-finally-comes-clean-securid-is-compromised.ars offers hints?

What trouble and expense? TLS (SSL is obsolete) is only expensive if you need to get your certificates signed by a commercial CA i.e. if you are interacting with random people who are not affiliated with you or your organization. If you are only deploying TLS for internal purposes, just maintain your own internal CA and deploy your internal signing key to all of your organization's systems.

Having your own CA raises the distribution problem, which is different or at least flaky for virtually every browser / OS combination, and you're still running on what may as well be a compromised system so TLS is irrelevant since the attacker can just root the system and grab keypresses.

The best solution short of buying laptops and putting epoxy in the ports is mastering a Knoppix CD. You can get a kiosk-style browser loaded with only your org's CA and a TLS client certificate. If you can distribute your own CA certs, you may as well also distribute client certs. You can disable storage drivers except for ramFS. You can block everything but 443 outgoing. You can verify your server before launching the browser.

You now have a simple procedure to force users to access your site properly. There is no possibility of a MITM by creating a fake site from a misspelling, and rather than clicking through security warnings, you can display a dialog telling them that something is seriously wrong and who they need to call, with no way of just clicking through the warnings.

You have two factor authentication; the client cert on the CD and password are separate factors. You have honest to god protection from CA fraud since only the CA you created is loaded. The only ways (I know of...) to compromise this setup are a hardware attack, user completely bypassing you by booting in a VM, or a rootkit in BIOS or the hypervisor.

Different events entirely:

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/02/insecure-routing-redirects-youtube-to-pakistan.ars

http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/71258.html

Oh, yes. With people like you it's sooo easy. Just declare whatever you don't want known to be a matter of "national security" and the sheeple will follow. Oh, wait: it already happened!

See the article on Ars Technica

That's simply not the case.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/unhappy-mounties-sick-of-being-private-copyright-cops.ars

These days, they ALSO support fake multitasking for user apps as well. An application can hook into an API for an already running Apple service such as audio or GPS but not start it's own where it can process its own data. When you close an IOS application, its current state is saved to memory for fast re-opening.

Good thing you took the time to learn about IOS multitasking. It makes evangelising it a lot easier and less embarrassing when someone else corrects you.

IOS multitasking is what I call "I wish it were multitasking"

Why "limited"? Because iOS multitasking isn't really multitasking in the traditional senseâ"it's certainly not what you get on a desktop computer, or even what you get from Apple's own iPhone apps. Apple claims that it only allows for certain functionality

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/supreme-court-lets-ban-on-gray-market-imports-stand.ars

If it's not made in the US, and it's copyrighted, first sale no longer exists. So, yeah, this may actually be enforceable.

I don't know how certain members of Anonymous found themselves on the receiving end of Aaron Barr's maligned attacks on them but I don't see their reaction to such as all too out of line.

Not sure if the Wired writeup is the same one that's on ArsTechnica, but from what I recall of the Ars Technica (excellent article, BTW), it's HBGary, not Anonymous, that are the ones we should be worried about. And perhaps some arms are being twisted, to go after Anonymous for shedding light on this, but according to the article, HBGary was basically selling itself to the highest bidder. They apparently put some thought into hacking into the computer systems of a U.S. Army base. That seems to indicate that HBGary is a bit lacking as far as ethics. Now, what if they sell out to some terrorist organization? Anonymous are hackers in the true sense of the word, HBGary are the ones after the money - not a good thing for the country.

But to say it's about to have the same level of infections as Windows?

Lets look at this year's Pwn2Own. Oh look, Safari and OSX hacked with the ability to run arbitrary code off of a website (which could include fetching a shellscript and running it). What about previous years?

Really, where the heck do you mac users get this sense of assurance from? For years, people have been telling you that the platform is no protection from 3rd party security vulnerabilities (java, acrobat, flash); and for years we've been saying that no platform is bug free; and for years we've watched as Mac after Mac falls in Pwn2Own to exploits which "just work".

We've also been saying that "once Mac gets a big enough market share, malware vendors will set their sights on Apple". And guess what, its starting now. Why are you so sure that they wont start using those no-click exploits commercially? And the real question of the day, what security features are you so confident in from OSX that you think Windows 7 and Vista dont have?

Standard Microsoft reputation management response to malware discussions.

As opposed to the standard Apple response to a problem:
Ignore the problem
Blame the user
Then only if there is sufficient outrage that could possibly damage their image do they admit there is a problem

The same way Microsoft got where they are today by ripping off Digital Research I guess? (MS-DOS being a cheap "clone" of CP/M)

Anyway:

"Eventually, a stripped-down version of the Alto, the Xerox Star 8010 Document Processor, was released to the public in 1981 for US$17,000. The Star had some differences from the Alto, most significantly the ability to overlap windows was removed as it was thought too confusing for the general public. Instead, the Star used tiled windows. As significant as the Star's release was, it was too little and too late for Xerox, who had by that time lost most of its top researchers to other companies." (A History of the GUI)

Usually you rip off" market successes, not failures. Apple saved GUI from the incompetent hands of Xerox is a more correct interpretation of history.

one final thought:

BACON

(*lips smack*)

case closed

Bacon heh?

The FCC did enact a rule discounting special interest group complaints, which had an interesting side effect of well, moving them onto bigger and better things.

Like Apple's App Store started seeing huge increases in the number of app complaints for porn apps after a PTC campaign. And after that, they started targeting other marketplaces as well.

Religion is, again, to blame for this. We should exercise the right of freedom of religion to also be freedom FROM religion.

The FCC did enact a rule discounting special interest group complaints, which had an interesting side effect of well, moving them onto bigger and better things.

Like Apple's App Store started seeing huge increases in the number of app complaints for porn apps after a PTC campaign. And after that, they started targeting other marketplaces as well.

Religion is, again, to blame for this. We should exercise the right of freedom of religion to also be freedom FROM religion.

"Complaint mobs" are exactly the kind of tactic supposedly christian moralizers use to keep free expression off the airwaves. For instance, the Parents Television Council is responsible for 99% of FCC complaints.

As far as I'm concerned, it's time the pro-censorship crowd gets a taste of their own medicine.

The damage has been halted for now. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon put a hold on the bill, meaning that the Senate leadership is on notice that he will filibusterer it if the bill moves to full debate and vote.

Ok so no box cutter. Hmm...Well that must have the terrorists stumped...What to do now.....

How about some 12" razor blades?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/adam-savage-tsa-saw-my-junk-missed-12-razor-blades.ars

And, FAR MORE (I use them & type s into my browser's address bar for this very site in fact, lol!)... Anyhow/anyways - you may find THIS, interesting!

Check this out:

(Especially after the 'trolling' I got on my init. post on this here today in this article's replies in fact, with nobody able to disprove a SINGLE ONE of the points below, here -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2188228&cid=36252736 )

20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).

2.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

HOSTS files are NOT BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked, proving HOSTS files are a better solution for this because they cannot be blocked & detected for, in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:

----

An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."

and

"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!

----

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions via NSLOOKUP, PINGS, &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

6.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites rel

And, FAR MORE (I use them & type s into my browser's address bar for this very site in fact, lol!)... Anyhow/anyways - you may find THIS, interesting!

Check this out:

(Especially after the 'trolling' I got on my init. post on this here today in this article's replies in fact, with nobody able to disprove a SINGLE ONE of the points below, here -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2188228&cid=36252736 )

20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).

2.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

HOSTS files are NOT BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked, proving HOSTS files are a better solution for this because they cannot be blocked & detected for, in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:

----

An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."

and

"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!

----

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions via NSLOOKUP, PINGS, &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

6.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites rel

And, what can HOSTS do for you, for better online SPEED and SECURITY (layered security, best we have currently) vs. DNS problems &/or AdBlock's "shortcomings" vs. HOSTS?

Ok - take a read!

(Especially after the 'trolling' I got on my init. post on this here today in this article's replies in fact, with nobody able to disprove a SINGLE ONE of the points below, here -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2188228&cid=36252736 )

20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).

2.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

HOSTS files are NOT BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked, proving HOSTS files are a better solution for this because they cannot be blocked & detected for, in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:

----

An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."

and

"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!

----

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions via NSLOOKUP, PINGS, &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

6.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers

And, what can HOSTS do for you, for better online SPEED and SECURITY (layered security, best we have currently) vs. DNS problems &/or AdBlock's "shortcomings" vs. HOSTS?

Ok - take a read!

(Especially after the 'trolling' I got on my init. post on this here today in this article's replies in fact, with nobody able to disprove a SINGLE ONE of the points below, here -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2188228&cid=36252736 )

20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).

2.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

HOSTS files are NOT BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked, proving HOSTS files are a better solution for this because they cannot be blocked & detected for, in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:

----

An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."

and

"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!

----

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions via NSLOOKUP, PINGS, &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

6.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers

Well, y'all can stop worrying now. It appears the Protect IP bill won't even be making it to the senate floor, thanks to Senator Ron Wyden (Ore). Check out the story over on Ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/sen-ron-wyden-to-place-a-hold-on-the-protect-ip-act.ars

They already accept it on their iPhones and iPads, not that much of a leap for them there. And even if a few power users rejected it, that's not the audience that Apple would be targeting anyway.

The slippery slope argument, eh ? As an iPhone/iPad user and power user I sure as hell wouldn't want such a system on my mac unless, as I said, I could opt out. Also as I have previously stated there are a LOT of mac power users, don't fall for stereotypes. As for Apple not targeting them, I suggest you take a hard look at OSX, especially tools like Automator, Services, system-wide scripting with Applescript, the myriad of developer tools and command line utilities OSX ships with, etc., etc. For people who supposedly don't like power users they spend a lot of their effort developing their OS in ways to please them.

There would be a HUGE demand for such a secure computer amongst the general public (especially as malware and identity theft have become more and more common). They would probably start by offering a specific line of PCs with this as a "feature" (and/or offering it as an option on all their PC's at purchase), and eventually make it the default. It would actually be a very smart move (from a business perspective)

They don't such a PC, they have the iPad to fill that niche and there is a huge demand for it. For people who need a physical keyboard there's the iPad keyboard dock and a dongle to import photographs from a digital camera. You are coming at this problem from the geek perspective assuming people want a so-called "full computer" (i.e. traditional screen+box+keyboard setup), they don't they just want access to some functionality which the iPad provides in an attractive, secure, easy to use package.

Personally, I periodically rotate what DNS servers I use (Norton DNS, Google DNS, ScrubIT DNS, & OpenDNS)... but, DNS has ISSUES (no "NEW News" there of course):

20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).

2.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

HOSTS files are NOT BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked, proving HOSTS files are a better solution for this because they cannot be blocked & detected for, in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:

----

An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."

and

"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!

----

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions via NSLOOKUP, PINGS, &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

6.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders

7.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding

Personally, I periodically rotate what DNS servers I use (Norton DNS, Google DNS, ScrubIT DNS, & OpenDNS)... but, DNS has ISSUES (no "NEW News" there of course):

20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).

2.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

HOSTS files are NOT BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked, proving HOSTS files are a better solution for this because they cannot be blocked & detected for, in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:

----

An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."

and

"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!

----

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions via NSLOOKUP, PINGS, &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

6.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders

7.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding

No password required. User interaction to begin, sure. http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/05/new-mac-defender-malware-variant-drops-admin-password-requirement.ars

*cough* Ahem. http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/05/new-mac-defender-malware-variant-drops-admin-password-requirement.ars

I've still NEVER had a SINGLE call from a Mac user needing such services!

How about Windows Mobile viruses? Unix? Linux? You mean... malware authors only attack the largest most profitable target?! It's almost... as if... they didn't give a shit about macs! If you're a bad guy are you going to write a program that works on 90% of the computers out there or less than 10%? It's a no brainier. But one things fore sure, with an attitude like yours, once malware authors do begin to attack Apple's products, you'll be the first to go.

.... or download a script (.scr extension) file to your browser to run ...

And you have the technical knowledge of a typical geek squad goon, like a previous poster said .scr is not a script. Security through obscurity it not security at all, with users like you, it's just a time delayed bomb that will blow up in faces of Apple's users once their market share reaches a level that the bad guys feel like attacking.

I'd go so far as to say that if you use a Mac, you should TRY to infect yourself sometime.

Here's a better idea, if you think your mac is so secure how about your post your IP address and email here with a little flag that says "I am immune to your hacking attempts" and see how fast your system is compromised.

20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).

2.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

HOSTS files are NOT BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked, proving HOSTS files are a better solution for this because they cannot be blocked & detected for, in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:

----

An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."

and

"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!

----

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions via NSLOOKUP, PINGS, &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

6.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders

7.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).

8.) AdBlock does

20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).

2.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

HOSTS files are NOT BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked, proving HOSTS files are a better solution for this because they cannot be blocked & detected for, in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:

----

An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."

and

"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!

----

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions via NSLOOKUP, PINGS, &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

6.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders

7.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).

8.) AdBlock does

Interestingly too, they have been fighting another copyright case which seems related to fair use, but not exactly the same:

Time Warner, Viacom aim legal guns at each other over iPad app

Sorry but Intel does now sell operating systems: VxWorks. Also note.

You're talking about this story: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/03/steam-user-violates-subscriber-agreement-loses-1800-in-games.ars

In which case Valve refunded the account. Regardless, this is the future whether you like it or not. You won't be buying physical media in the very near future. The 360 and PS3 may well be the last consoles to even have removable storage of any kind -- if not, the next generation will be the last.