Slashdot Mirror

Ok - I admit I got the timeline wrong - but I still see nothing but responsible behavior from MS in dealing with this flaw.

Every time this happens we get some idiot on here blathering about how things are better now.

Easy there dude.. however strongly you feel about it, the links you used were extremely disingenuous. I'll explain why:

Well that wasn't true before, was it?

Read your own link. It's got quotes from Brian Valentine (not a security expert) at the RSA 2000 conference talking about how MS put a naked Win2k machine on the 'net for 2 weeks, and only 4 denial of service bugs were found and no breaches were made. Also from your link: "Microsoft has made a comprehensive effort to build Windows 2000 with security in mind, including having a staff of 15 people study the code for breaches, denials of service, and bugs." -- in other words, that was a different world back then, and MS had a lot to learn about what kind of effort was required to secure windows. The effort mentioned in that article is laughable, with the benefit of hindsight. And as I said, the claim of MS not having secure development practices prior to ~2004 is true!

It wasn't true last time, was it? Note the 10 XP vulnerability blurb footing the story.

Again, read the damn link - not just the headline!
The article you linked does not refer to security in the sense of viruses/vulnerabilities/pwnage. It refers to security in the sense of data security using encryption and key management, authentication mechanisms (x509 certificate auth using smartcards). So you see, the headlines appear pretty damning, but the articles themselves again merely prove my point. Prior to 2004, MS really hadn't grasped the magnitude of the effort that would be required, and post 2004 (maybe earlier - right around the release of XP SP2) they really got their shit together.

What convincing evidence do you offer that this time they really, really mean it?

1. Industry plaudits: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10042248-83.html
2. Details of the process: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/security/ms995349.aspx
(note, the second link is a white paper by Michael Howard - a hacker/security expert himself - not a PHB unlike the dude quoted in your first link.) It's also detailed and insightful -- I suggest you read this link, even if you forgo reading your own.

Its untested, Flash has 12 years behind it.

In those 12 years Flash has proven to be buggy and insecure. Developing for Flash (ActionScript) has been a joke so far.

Its not cross platform. Mention Moonlight and I'll hit you. I cannot type 'emerge moonlight' yet ergo its not anywhere near ready.

1. Violence is never the answer.

2. Typing 'emerge moonlight' is your own arbitrary test for being cross-platform -- it doesn't really mean anything.

3. With the recent exception of Flash 9, Flash has a long history of leaving Linux users in the lurch.

And I'd trust Microsoft for security if my IQ was 50 and I didnt care that much.

That's just typical groupthink regarding MS. Read this. I've seen in the past that people aren't very objective when discussing MS's security track record, so let me just try and summarize by saying that you were correct about 4 years ago -- now, you're just behind the times.

also, wouldn't this type of search be pretty useless for identifying kiddy porn images?

There is a project called hashkeeper which keeps a hash of "bad" images. This probably works pretty well in practice because it is unlikely that anyone is going to take the time to color-correct, crop, fold, spindle or otherwise mutilate every single file in their (legit or otherwise) porn collection. (Or if they did, and still got caught, those mods would be added to this database)

The big problem with this database is that one has to be a member of a law enforcement agency to gain access to it, so there is no way of knowing what else is being classified as "bad", nor is there anyway that a reputable provider can create an application that can protect the user from accidentally downloading something illegal (to protect against something like the recent FBI child porn sting.)

I don't think anyone is encouraging the masses to use a nightly.

Yes they are. This whole "use Minefield, it's fast!!!!1!" meme is being spread by blog posts like this irresponsible post from CNet:

Feeling brave? Or simply feeling like your browser is too slow? Give Minefield a try. It's a separate install so it won't affect an existing Firefox install. You have nothing to lose but your chains.

And this:

Firefox Minefield, a pre-release alpha version of the Firefox browser blows the speed limits out of the park making Google Chrome looks like a Toyota Prius against a Ferrari.

These articles generally include a token warning that Minefield is alpha code, but they seem to think of "alpha" in the Google sense of "try this, you might like it", rather than the more traditional sense of "dangerous, don't use unless you know what you're doing".

Let's also remember that Obama's 'generation' also skips email. The 'myspace generation' has no idea what a MUA is. They think that sending messages on Myspace *IS* email.

Kids say email is dead.

In other news, kids are still stupid.

I would never, EVER use social networking sites for communication beyond arranging to communicate through some other, more private means.

I wonder how dead email will be when these kids find out their potential employers wrote them off after looking at their myspace columns.

but we call ours Los Alamos...

I thought, we call it "Silicon Valley" — and it didn't need government sponsorship to come into being...

Hmm, I think you're forgetting that if you trace back further Silicon Valley has connections with the Space and Military programs - here and here. I think I'd conclude that there's a complex set of influences favoring the creation of Silicon Valley.

But, hey, don't let me get in the way of a good "private industry is inherently more efficient" fantasy...

If you think back further, apple orchards started silicon valley.
-Taylor

but we call ours Los Alamos...

I thought, we call it "Silicon Valley" — and it didn't need government sponsorship to come into being...

Hmm, I think you're forgetting that if you trace back further Silicon Valley has connections with the Space and Military programs - here and here. I think I'd conclude that there's a complex set of influences favoring the creation of Silicon Valley.

But, hey, don't let me get in the way of a good "private industry is inherently more efficient" fantasy...

Let's also remember that Obama's 'generation' also skips email. The 'myspace generation' has no idea what a MUA is. They think that sending messages on Myspace *IS* email.

Kids say email is dead.

Dell has that market covered

> Forced filtering of the internet is nothing like government
> control of political speech.

On the contrary. It is exactly the same thing. You are thinking of filtering "child porn" or some such. If the proposed legislation actually said it was a "child porn" filter I might even agree, but that term was purely for media consumption. The term used in the proposed legislation is "illegal content". In other words, any content that any current law or schedule attached to a law deems to be illegal.

The problem is once you have the infrastructure in place, it is so dammed easy to define anything inconvenient as illegal. Just stick it in a the list. Whats more - no one knows you have done it. That list is conveniently defined to be a government secret. But even if it wasn't this is the government we are talking about - the same mob who said Haneef did something illegal, who claimed children were thrown overboard, who refused defend David Hicks even though he had done nothing illegal as defined by Australian law. In the politicians hands it seems illegal becomes a very rubbery concept.

This may seem like scare mongering, but I have a real, live example. From Finland, a country with just as strong democratic traditions as Australia. Finland recently went down the path Australia is proposing to go down. They blocked an anti-censorship campaigner's website. The reason they blocked it is because it contained a leaked copy of the Finnish blacklist. Did they bock this because it contains lots of bad URL's? No. Even after the Finnish Government's expenditure of their equivalent of tens of millions of dollars in collating the list hadn't actually managed to find many child abuse sites, so they'd padded the list with thousands of other sites instead. Then, when exposed, they censored the anti-censorship site to cover it up.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9874155-38.html

That, in my mind, would rank as censorship. We have recently seen a number of Australian Federal Police raids because of leaks. I'd guess those all those be considered illegal as well. If you put them up on a web site they would silently disappear. Bye, bye Wikileaks.

If that hasn't convinced you Conroy is creating a monster, then try and use your imagination to think something that is currently deemed illegal, yet nonetheless you would be dismayed to see disappear from the Internet. Here, I give you a start:

- Euthanasia,
- Marijuana (for medicinal purposes),
- Stem cell therapy,
- Abortion in some states,
- French museum sites (pictures of naked children are legal in France),
- Mod chip circuits for games machines,
- BluRay encryption keys,
- Henati.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10070982-1.html?tag=rtcol;newsNow

There are several TWiT podcasts, and some of them only partially meet the criteria of the person who submitted the question. Let's review the criteria: "entertaining, informative, and, most importantly, thorough," not dumbed down, "dive deep into projects and discussions instead of simply skimming the surface."

The two TWiT podcasts that meet all the criteria that come immediately to mind are Security Now and the (unfortunately now defunct) MacBreak Tech. Security Now is very technical and educational, and it doesn't dumb things down, but instead it manages to explain very technical topics in ways that make them easy to comprehend. It's mostly about computer and information security (naturally) but it also gets into networking and other related topics as well. MacBreak Tech was mainly focused on Macs as the name implies, but I learned a lot of things from the podcast that don't just apply to Macs specifically. I think all the old episodes are still available, so browse through the titles and descriptions and download anything that looks remotely interesting.

Other TWiT podcasts that the asker might enjoy: This Week in Law and FLOSS Weekly. This Week in Law gets in depth about the legal aspects of computer technology and the computer industry. FLOSS Weekly is all about Free (Libre) Open Source Software and consists largely of interviews with lead developers of major open source software projects.

Another decent computer security podcast is Security Bites from CNET. Security Bites is not nearly as in-depth as Security Now as the episodes are very short and more focused, but the show is worth listening to as well.

If you don't mind the shameless self-promotion, I'm one of the hosts of MacMod Live, which deals with Mac modding and peripherally-related topics. MacMod Live doesn't always get super technical, but MacMod.com has a lot of interesting stuff too if you're interested in computer modding.

All of the above are audio shows (sorry if you're looking for video content specifically). Occasionally we do videos on MacMod Live, and those get posted in the same podcast feed as our audio shows.

I listen to Cnet's Buzz Out Loud podcast to keep up with technology news. They also have a section with Video podcasts over at cnet...
--
traceurl.com

I listen to Cnet's Buzz Out Loud podcast to keep up with technology news. They also have a section with Video podcasts over at cnet...
--
traceurl.com

Oh wait, so it is not about some southern Christian social conservative right wing kind of thing to keep people from sin, but all about political pandering and "online gambling drains the state of money by undermining horse racing." ( http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10052137-38.html )

If this goes far enough, there will be threats of action regarding a blatant disregard of international commerce treaties. Seems to me that point came up before when the US tried to shutdown off-shore gambling.

Ah, found it:

http://news.cnet.com/WTO-slams-U.S.-Net-gambling-ban/2100-1030_3-5658636.html

I'd say the existence of encryption is ample evidence to convince a judge to compel you to reveal your key.

Umm, in the United States the case law so far suggests that they can't compel you to turn over the key. Even if they did compel you to turn off the key what's to stop you from adopting the Bush Administration approach of "I can't recall"?

I'd also say that most enforcement agencies, which are going to participating in such a no-knock raid on a domestic terrorist, have some pretty damn interesting forensic tools designed to circumvent encryption (Preventing the computer from ever going to sleep is one common tactic employed).

Well, I'm a little confused as to why you felt the need to bring up the 'T' word, but regardless, how can it be assured that the PC is on when they raid the house? If the PC isn't on then what good does having access to it do? The big concern that I've read about is a cold boot attack -- but that seems to be a moot point if the PC is already turned off. Is there some other method that can be used to attack encrypted drives that I'm not aware of?

> Tesla motors has no proven ability to make anything except prototypes.

Actually they've been shipping cars since July 14th. http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9990153-54.html

What's killing them is that they've been shipping them with a single speed tranny since the 2 speed one isn't ready for prime time, thus they aren't living up to their promises, completely anyway. They are making roadworthy cars though, not just prototypes.

However, they are facing a serious drain on earnings. They've promised to retrofit the single speed trannies with 2 speed ones once they are ready... That doesn't sound cheap.

-Viz

At trial, defendant suggested unrealistic, unlikely explanations as to how his computer was linked to the post.

How unrealistic is "someone sent me a link"? It's entirely plausible that the link text he clicked was completely unrelated; even if it's unlikely and unrealistic, you have to have AIRTIGHT evidence if you're locking someone in a cage for a decade.

With security flaws like this! http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9954408-7.html

they remember the idiocy that is the DMCA and reform it?

It is naive of you to hope for this part, though. Good luck with that.

No it's not naive, in fact it's naive to think that any problem will get fixed in a timely manner when it doesn't directly affect the politicians in charge of making the laws. As the author of this article points out it was exactly such a process that led to the passage of the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act. It won't be so much specifically "remembering the idiocy of the DMCA" that results in any changes though, it will be looking forward to the next election cycle and realizing that they'll have to deal with it again in two or four years when internet media will probably be an even more effective (and necessary) medium for campaigning.

But as also pointed out in the article, that will only happen if we don't let the politicians get away with trying to craft special rules for themselves that don't apply to everyone else.

... but sometimes the other passengers with cell phones.

I take a train to work every day, and sometimes (thankfully rather seldom) there is a cell phone "town crier" on board.

I was once treated to a performance that could be best described as, "a bitch, bitchin' with another bitch, about yet another bitch."

But I have a pair of these: http://reviews.cnet.com/headphones/shure-se530-sound-isolating/4505-7877_7-32327764.html?tag=mncol;lst

After she started yapping, I put them on, and could see her lips moving, but never heard a thing ... and that at a low volume level.

Read the following news last year: Warning sounded over 'flirting robots'

There were a bunch of chatbots around who pretended to be women and flirted with unsuspecting Russian males, convincing them to give away personal and financial information which could then be used for illicit purposes.

From the article: The artificial intelligence of CyberLover's automated chats is good enough that victims have a tough time distinguishing the "bot" from a real potential suitor, PC Tools said. The software can work quickly too, establishing up to 10 relationships in 30 minutes, PC Tools said. It compiles a report on every person it meets complete with name, contact information, and photos.

Seriously, we knew more laptops were coming, but it's just one day away to get the actual announcement.

I don't see how Adobe is related to the topic. PDF is not an "Adobe's format" anymore. PDF can be implemented by anyone without requiring any deals or license from Adobe. There are hundreds of feature-rich open-source implementations. PDF has nothing to do with Adobe.

Yes, everybody thought so. Then Adobe got pissy at Microsoft for implementing it. This news was widely covered everywhere, including Slashdot.

Whom did they sue? Can you give us some references?

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39273094,00.htm
http://software.silicon.com/applications/0,39024653,39159285,00.htm
http://www.techweb.com/wire/software/188701275
http://www.pdfzone.com/c/a/Authoring/Adobe-to-Sue-Microsoft-Over-PDF-Support-in-Office-2007/
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/4509/53/
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1012_3-6079320.html
http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_to_Drop_PDF_Support_in_Office/1149284222

I have to correct myself, though: They didn't actually sue, because Microsoft settled first (by relegating the PDF support to a optional install.)

What Adobe wants is irrelevant. Nobody needs Adobe's permission to implement PDF support. Anyways, can you give us some reference to Adobe's behaviour?

Yes, everybody thought that. Then they got pissy at Microsoft for implementing it. Wow, this conversation is kind of repetitive.

ms didn't "back-down". It truly hates the idea of providing proper pdf support.

Actually, they did. Is your memory seriously this short? It only happened, what, 2 years ago? It was covered in all the trade press, extensively, it got probably 1000+ comments on Slashdot stories. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

well at least it is public here in the US the govt. still says that the NSA is not spying at the "NSA controlled a secret internet spying room in an AT&T facility on Folsom Street in San Francisco" quote from http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/rights-group-su.html see: http://news.cnet.com/AT38T-sued-over-NSA-spy-program/2100-1028_3-6033501.html

Ask them how they could possibly think that changing words (as opposed to script tags) in emails was a good idea:

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-944315.html

It's an old story, but it's the same company.

No, they cannot "sieze your laptop" if you don't give them the encryption password; a strict reading of the policy is that the laptop can be seized in any event, encryption or no. There is NO REQUIREMENT to provide anyone with an encryption password under any circumstances. The existing policy doesn't even speak to encryption. In fact, leading privacy advocates recommend encryption as the most deisrable solution.

You guys do realize that customs agents at the border have ALWAYS had the right -- without a warrant -- to perform reasonable search and inspection of all physical objects and persons coming into the United States; this policy was designed to expand those longstanding inspection rights to electronic data.

In its current state, it's a poorly written policy. The fact is, no one is going to look at the contents of your laptop, much less be seizing it. (Do you guys actually travel internationally?)

Thanks Dave from DoIT for this comment, i actually browsed comments to see if SOMEONE had mentioned those facts. Also, don't piss of the customs agents and they will leave you alone. Unless you hid raw meat in your laptop, or you are flagged as an international hacker they won't ask for it.
UW CS alumn.

No, they cannot "sieze your laptop" if you don't give them the encryption password; a strict reading of the policy is that the laptop can be seized in any event, encryption or no. There is NO REQUIREMENT to provide anyone with an encryption password under any circumstances. The existing policy doesn't even speak to encryption. In fact, leading privacy advocates recommend encryption as the most deisrable solution.

You guys do realize that customs agents at the border have ALWAYS had the right -- without a warrant -- to perform reasonable search and inspection of all physical objects and persons coming into the United States; this policy was designed to expand those longstanding inspection rights to electronic data.

In its current state, it's a poorly written policy. The fact is, no one is going to look at the contents of your laptop, much less be seizing it. (Do you guys actually travel internationally?)

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1041_3-6046726.html Third hit on google for "phone hard drive"

So you can listen to music on a plane.

Most cell phones, including the iPhone, have an airplane mode that disables the radio for this purpose.

Of course some people are still idiots.

"If it carries on, we'll have electronics small enough that sheets of paper will start being compatible with specific printers..."

Actually, that technology is almost here, at least if you believe the press releases. A company called Zink claims that it will soon start selling paper that contains "ink" already in it. So it would only work with specific printers (the printers themselves don't contain any ink, they just apply heat to the paper).

Here's a writeup on it: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9682333-1.html

How is it different, you ask?
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=988461&cid=25292293
That's ^ what makes it different. The fact that you like Juno Reactor and Sex will remain here FOREVER. The fact that I tell some drunk chick at a bar about my fetishes will stay with her. The fact that I was seen in that bar with her will stay with the people who've seen it, be those 10 or 100. When it comes to the Internet, the problem is that the information will remain here for a very very long time (see http://web.archive.org/ about that) and that others can search for you and see things that you've done while you were drunk at your 18-yr old birthday party and what others have to say about that. We all do stupid things from time to time but it's mostly those stupid things that are out of the ordinary enough to be posted on Facebook by someone who thought you were funny holding a cherry between your butt cheeks and running around with a pint of beer on your head.
People will see the stupid things you've done which are stored there forever (almost). You also do freelancing in your free time and work on open-source projects (if you're a geek) or you paint or write poetry (if you're an artist). Those things are boring! Who cares about those? You may publish all that on some obscure website but when you google for your name, Facebook will be the first to pop up, of course, and on Facebook you'll find pictures of you that you didn't know about. Your future employer will probably stop after reading the first couple of result links which pose you as a drunk marijuana addict.
There are so many things you haven't considered when you wrote that post that I don't think I can write about all of them today. Besides, I'm at work right now and I only have three more hours of work remaining, then I have to go home and actually do something productive (like cooking). Hopefully, my boss won't see this post.

CNet story on Fossett's sub. Darpa wants something more like SF Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea's Flying Sub. This won't be the first time this has been tried, the Russians have also researched in this area.

While the idea of power distribution for something like plug-in hybrids sounds good, I have to say that I'm skeptical as to the real cost and research that would need to go into this type of system a reality.

Although I am a google fan, I think that this article has some relevancy. It talks about a "certain non-evil company" that offered to buy it out to prevent it from taking VC investment. After which it got cold feet, the deal fell through, and the company went under. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10053013-16.html

Taking someone to court over an obvious and descriptive name will result in failure.

An obvious and descriptive name like Windows ?

Actually, total cost of bailouts over last couple months is more likely to exceed $1.8 trillion, not $700 billion:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10057618-38.html?tag=nl.e433

And its loaded with secret laws and crap. For instance, the IRS is allowed to pose undercover as a tax preparer.

And there's a giant loophole that allows banks to say buy $50 billion of those "toxic" debts one day and the next day sell them for a profit to the treasure for $100 billion.

Oh and the $700 billion figure is only stuff held at one time. So the gov can buy up $700 billion of the debt, sell it at a loss, buy up another $700 billion, sell it at a loss, lather, rinse, repeat, every time at a loss to tax payer (and profit to the banks). So the total cost from this single bill could be far more than $700 billion.

Since the original link is slashdotted, you can find some pics here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10058352-1.html

Thank you for your scepticism, as it tests ideas and either validates or refutes them. Please see the following links: http://www.impactlab.com/2007/03/14/prius-outdoes-hummer-in-environmental-damage/ http://www.evworld.com/library/rmi_hummerVprius.pdf http://thesocialage.com/blog/2007/09/10/better-for-the-environment-hummer-or-prius/ and two articles that support your point of view: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9750840-1.html http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/10/01/forbes-says-prius-ben-and-jerry-s-ice-cream-bad-for-the-environme/ My contention is that several factors should go into whether to buy a hybrid or not.

per the first paragraph, the AT&T/Apple restriction is ok, but they [might have] imposed other limitations after the 2 year contract (umm, which hasn't ended for anyone yet).

If someone purchases an iPhone and ends their two year contract after they pay the applicable fees associated with an early ended contract, is it against "computer fraud and abuse" to not allow them to use their hardware?

Recently Sprint was forced into allowing its customers to unlock their phones. So, applying that logic, if I own an iphone (and am not renting it from AT&T, is it not an abuse of law to release a patch to hardware which intentionally damages my property?

Sorry if that didn't make sense.

The new handheld will contain two 640x480 cameras (0.3 Megapixels each, one pointed towards the gamer and the other on the outside of the shell)

Wiki was an easy link to get, that is why I used it. But I can give you more if you want.

Nintendo has packed a 3-megapixel camera on the exterior of the case, with another lower-resolution camera on the interior hinge.

From http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10056529-1.html This image highlights the small interior camera. http://www.dsfanboy.com/photos/nintendo-dsi/1069060/ This one shows the exterior camera. http://www.dsfanboy.com/photos/nintendo-dsi/1069061/ Those images are from the Japanese site for the DSi http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ds/dsi.html

"Last year, unconfirmed reports circulated that Microsoft was building a new language called "Cool" that would be similar to Java but free of technological or licensing obligations to Sun. Microsoft vehemently denied the rumors. Yesterday, Microsoft executives denied that C# was related to the rumored Cool project. " From this story in June 2000. And yet, "The code name was Cool, which stood for âC like Object Oriented Languageâ(TM). We kind of liked that name: all of our files were called .cool and that was kind of cool! We looked seriously at keeping the name for the final product but it was just not feasible from a trademark perspective, as there were way too many cool things out there." From the article ...

It's called "brain-drain"...

Ms has successfully lured away many a dev. from Borland over the past decade++ or so (inclusive of Mr. H's partner, Mr. Chuck Andrejewski (sp?) as well, the co-designer of Delphi, & fairly recently (after Mr. H. that is)).

Fact is? This is a regular practice by MS, as far as Borland is concerned.

Ms is great @ this, they recognize talent, & scoop it up, with superior monetary offers/contracts + other incentives, apparently (& the fact that nothing is going to displace MS as #1 out there in the PC-to-Server world, except MS itself, if you ask me! I.E.-> The ONLY THING that can destroy MS, is MS, period.).

If you haven't heard the term before, in "brain-drain"? Look it up, especially while querying it with Microsoft & Borland (as the second + more quoted search terms in your search query)...

Try it - you'll see plenty of answers in this regards, & on the same thing I am telling you here now:

Borland sues Microsoft over brain drain:

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-279561.html

Just 1 single example that... from May, 1997 in fact (so it goes back, quite a ways) but, it's "just business", & a developer is free to work wherever he likes... & if MS pays more? Who can blame a guy for chasing a buck - especially considering most companies treat their devs like replaceable spark plugs, & once they "burn out" for 70-80 hour work weeks, or their work is done? They're gone...

ALL, while some "executive" (that doesn't know his head from his behind in this art & science, no less) keeps HIS job, AND gets a raise for "spearheading a project", as well as being the person featured in the trade rags for its success - on which he did JACK SHIT to be blunt about it (especially by way of comparison to the folks in devs that do the actual work involved, which actually takes technical skills, not just "mastery of b.s.", babysitting, & "managing people", give us a break (yes, I have been on both ends professionally, mgt. to dev., & am just telling it how it REALLY is))!

Man - go figure that last one out, because it truly boggles the mind imo, and goes on all the time in this field... this, is life though, in "KORPORATE AMERIKA", the no longer beautiful, unfortunately, due to the very type of "fake-it-till-you-make-it" types, that use folks that actually know what they're about (where mgt. types usually do not, & have never even done the jobs of their "subordinates", & yet, are considered their "superiors", lol) @ the helm of things nowadays in both 'politiks'. & business.

APK

P.S.=> Personally, I think they LOVE "Open Sores" too, & mainly because it establishes an online code database... one that allows them to hire less experienced devs, who merely "bite code" off others projects & call it their own too. Yes, it happens boys. Couple that with ISO documentation of every phase of every employees' job & you see the mechanics for turning us ALL into "replaceable, expendeable assets", even moreso, over time... apk

C'mon now, this is from Toshiba, not Sony or Apple.

Everyone knows that Toshiba laptop "heat events" are caused by their mobile modules provided from Intel.

Although, to be fair, it appears Toshiba is hedging their bets... to determine if your Toshiba laptop's battery might explode, just check the fan motor and make sure it's not this model.

You can read about it here. Among other things, it says that an unsolicted commercial email cannot contain falsified headers.

The reason it did not apply in the Virginia case is that the crime was perpetrated before the act was made law in 2003.

So really this Virginia decision is largely irrelevant when it comes to spam. It is possibly very relevant when it comes to anonymity on the internet.

In the mean time, you have powerful interests (like the government of China) working to ensure that anonymity on the internet becomes impossible.

And that is a case-in-point of exactly why anonymity is necessary to protect free speech.

Per the CNet story linked to below, IBM is working on an iPhone application for Lotus Notes, called Traveler. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10053844-37.html I played around a little with the ultralight webapp, it is ok, but still buggy.

1) My PC based DVR can record encrypted content. Tivo's edge here is gone now.

What hardware/software do you use for this?

A Motoroloa DCP501 plus a R5000 mod plus either an SVN Myth build or SageTV.

Roku, the maker of a set-top box used to stream online video on a traditional TV, will open its platform to any content provider over the next few months, says Roku CEO Anthony Wood, speaking at Streaming Media West. "We're opening up the platform to anyone who wants to put their video service on this box," says Wood. "We're going to release the software developer kit, so anyone can publish any channel, and users can access web content on their TVs."

Jennifer Guevin over at cnet has a decent article that talks about where Roku is really going with this. Keep an eye on Roku's press releases for the real deal if and when it's announced.

So against slashdot convention, I read the article, and it does not mention anything about open source. It does mention opening up the service to anyone and providing an SDK to publish a channel.
See the quote from this article. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10050649-93.html

"We're opening up the platform to anyone who wants to put their video service on this box," Wired cites Wood as saying. "We're going to release the software developer kit, so anyone can publish any channel, and users can access Web content on their TVs."