Slashdot Mirror


Antivirus Pioneer John McAfee Arrested In Belize

First time accepted submitter rebelwarlock writes "McAfee lives in Belize and he says that he has become a target of the Gang Suppression Unit. He says the GSU came busting into his research facility in Orange Walk, killed his dog, took his passport, handcuffed him and arrested him on a bogus weapons charge. McAfee says he's a victim because he didn't donate money to a known U.D.P. Orange Walk politician."

367 comments

  1. About time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    With any luck Norton is next.

    1. Re:About time by ThatsNotFunny · · Score: 1

      "Sheesh, What a grouch!" -- Norton

      --
      "Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
    2. Re:About time by Krneki · · Score: 2

      Norton is soo 2000. HP security tools are teh sex now.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    3. Re:About time by mcneely.mike · · Score: 0

      Pow, Zoom!

      --
      soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
    4. Re:About time by bubblegoose · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I was thinking the same thing. The U.S. should have him extradited. Maybe charge him for theft for all the computer resources his products have taken.

      --
      I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people. - Jack Handey
    5. Re:About time by rvw · · Score: 1

      Norton is soo 2000.

      HP security tools are teh sex now.

      Just use an Apple! Yeah I know, apples and oranges and stuff...

    6. Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Members of the radical leftist party, the FSF, kidnap him and try ransoming him, but nobody notices.

      It is all documented in his authorized biography, Gnorton Hears a GNU.

    7. Re:About time by garaged · · Score: 1

      Apple is way too user friendly, i prefer my unusable virus free linux box

      --
      I'm positive, don't belive me look at my karma
  2. Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...they were just warning him that his subscription was about to run out.

    1. Re:Clearly... by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...they were just warning him that his subscription was about to run out.

      It's ironic that a man who works for an organization that uses the same business model: paying protection money so nothing bad happens to himself or his property, just had something bad happen to him for not paying a different organization protection money. Antivirus software is based mostly on scare tactics and it is an attempt at fixing the problem of poor digital hygiene. If people were just more careful with their data, and didn't use web browsers or other network software that allowed the execution of arbitrary code (Javascript, for example: 90% of the websites out there that use it could be redesigned to work without it) would find their risk of a virus or malware infection to be slightly above nothing. Of course, you can't eliminate the risk entirely, but there's no need to be dropping $50 plus a year on subscriptions either.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Free antivirus makes your point moot. You don't need to pay $50 a year but it gives stupid people piece of mind that there aren't 50 million hackers stealing their grandchildrens pictures off their machine. Going without any antivirus on a windows machine is not the smartest thing to do unless you know what you are doing. It's basically insurance for those who don't give two shits about the sites they visit and can't be arsed to learn anything about security. Besides, it's not like he's forcing you to buy his shitware or he will infect your machine. AV software is like car insurance, most of the time you are just paying for nothing but when you actually need it, it's pretty damn helpful.

    3. Re:Clearly... by artor3 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I know you're joking, but a lot of other people aren't and I can't respond to all of them. McAfee (the person) hasn't had anything to do with McAfee (the malware company) for nearly twenty years. He does pharmaceutical research now, and has nearly blown through his entire fortune in the process. Perhaps that's why he could no longer afford to pay the protection money ...er, I mean, make the "political donations".

    4. Re:Clearly... by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      Actually, people breaking down your door and basically kidnapping you is what happens if you do let it expire. That's why they're so dramatic and persistent about pestering you about it!

    5. Re:Clearly... by rainmouse · · Score: 2

      Interestingly his wiki profile says something very different.

      "On May 2, 2012, McAfee was arrested for unlicensed drug manufacture and illegal weapons in the Central America country of Belize." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McAfee

    6. Re:Clearly... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's ironic that a man who works for an organization that uses the same business model: paying protection money so nothing bad happens to himself or his property, just had something bad happen to him for not paying a different organization protection money.

      Are you suggesting that MacAfee has been creating viruses? Because you're comparing it to an organization that is both the 'problem' and the 'solution'.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    7. Re:Clearly... by adolf · · Score: 1

      Would it be fair to say that John McAfee's legacy is somewhat akin to that of Phil Katz, plus or minus some hookers and blow?

      It saddens me that these men, whose freely-available software was the defacto standard in the the late 80s and much of the 90s (not so much because of popular momentum, but rather because it really was quite good at that time) have fallen apart financially and perhaps otherwise, and -- in the case of Katz -- died in vain.

      To me, it's as absurd as the prospects of John Carmack or perhaps even Bill Gates falling on hard times and hitting the bottom: Nobody would ever expect Carmack or Bill G. of having unsolvable life/lifeissues, but I likewise would've never suspected McAfee or Katz...until I learned otherwise.

      So, I ask you, Slashdot: Are there any steps we, as a community, can do to prevent such turmoil in the future amongst important developers of software that actually works? Is it possible to prevent the next Phil Katz or Hans Reiser from ruining everything they have in their life?

      And (perhaps) to the native trolls: Should we? Or are our neighboring geeks so expendable that it doesn't matter?

    8. Re:Clearly... by EdIII · · Score: 4, Informative

      Javascript, for example: 90% of the websites out there that use it could be redesigned to work without it

      So what you are really saying is that you don't know how websites are made?

      Javascript is a client-side scripting language that allows us to modify the DOM (the visible webpage) and make API calls to get data. Without it, there is a hell of lot we just simply cannot do anymore.

      While it may be possible to implement everything in a server side scripting language like PHP, it will not be nearly as pretty or functional. Keep in mind, some of that pretty makes it fairly damned functional by creating UI that are not possible with server side only implementations.

      Whether you like it or not we are going to continue moving towards browsers being merely dynamic front ends for applications and that simply requires client side code. Period.

      The only other option is a metric butt-ton of RDP connections so that users can enjoy an application remotely and that is ridiculously impractical.

      Saying that 90% of websites should be redesigned in such a fashion is quite comical.

    9. Re:Clearly... by Kokuyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Frankly, I only need it when I surf porn sites and there, Microsoft Security Essentials does the trick. As far as I know, you don't even need to pirate that one.

    10. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone is expendable, especially people who think they aren't, including you!

    11. Re:Clearly... by gd2shoe · · Score: 2

      That line was added by a bot, so who knows where it was pulled from or who wrote it?

      I don't know the truth of the matter, but of course the "authorities" are going to make that accusation if they want to punish a medical research lab. It's the "crime" that best fits the "perp". Having additional perspective is fine, but it's no more definitive than his statement at the moment.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    12. Re:Clearly... by Kokuyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What do you mean expendable? You do realise that those are adult people, yes?

      In case of Katz, alcoholism is a self-inflicted thing that needs the participation and motivation of the afflicted to be cured. Only they can, in fact, cure themselves. How do you even expect us to help them if they do not want to be helped?

      We are not their baby-sitters. It's their lives to do with as they please. And who knows, perhaps Katz liked it that way. Drunk driving aside, who are we to tell him he can't do it that way? I wasn't there and I didn't know the guy so I will certainly not act as if I had the right to judge.

    13. Re:Clearly... by jones_supa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Whether you like it or not we are going to continue moving towards browsers being merely dynamic front ends for applications and that simply requires client side code. Period.

      The only other option is a metric butt-ton of RDP connections so that users can enjoy an application remotely and that is ridiculously impractical.

      I just wish there was a better way to deliver remote UIs than AJAX (or "metric butt-ton of RDP connections"). It's a crude and slow hack (although a practical one) to use HTML for dynamic content. Even server side scripts are bit of a bubble gum or an afterthought at least.

      There should be a dedicated protocol to deliver UI elements. Maybe there some day will be when this all just gets too messy.

    14. Re:Clearly... by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Coincidence. I think not

      They are just two things that depend on the same problem - the failure of Microsoft to introduce a viable security model in the 1990s and the lag relating to compatibility with Microsoft's 1990s software.

    15. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before there were criminals we didn't need police, now we've got police and there are criminals everywhere! Coincidence? I think not.

    16. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except, when the police are worse than criminals.

    17. Re:Clearly... by sosume · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not only that. He flees from the US to some tax haven so he won't have to repay society for all the money he extracted. The thing is, he forgot that living in such cheap places come with certain downsides. This was one of them, wait until he gets into a car accident or desperately needs medical attention, he'll remigrate faster than the popups appear for his antivirus programs. Karma est meretrix.

    18. Re:Clearly... by reve_etrange · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I only need it when I surf porn sites and there

      Clearly you haven't read the next article.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    19. Re:Clearly... by crutchy · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that MacAfee has been creating viruses?

      mcafee the person, no
      mcafee the company, duh! (have you been living under a rock)

    20. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you sir are hilarious.

    21. Re:Clearly... by optimism · · Score: 5, Insightful

      AV software is like car insurance

      Only if your car insurance also lowers your gas mileage, decreases your acceleration & cornering & braking performance, and flashes your headlights, while honking your horn randomly, when you're just trying to drive from A to B.

      Most commercial anti-virus software exhibits ~exactly~ the behaviors that people expect from a virus: degraded performance, consumption of disk and memory resources, intrusive popups, etc.

      most of the time you are just paying for nothing but when you actually need it, it's pretty damn helpful.

      When you actually need it, it's too late. As someone mentioned earlier, basic digital hygiene is the best solution. Beyond that a free AV package to run a one-time scan if/when something slips through.

    22. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Funny you say that. If you access the "mobile" versions of a lot of sites they have no Javascript, load nearly instantly and often times have SUPERIOR UI to the "full blown" site that has a lot of meaningless crap.

      Yelp is a good example. The mobile version of Yelp is simple and to the point. Is it spartan? Yes, but it's good enough.

    23. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not protection money unless McAfee himself is creating the viruses his product protects you from. He's more like hiring a private security firm to protect you from the mob than paying the mob to leave you alone.

    24. Re:Clearly... by CSMoran · · Score: 5, Funny

      I only need it when I surf porn sites and there

      Clearly you haven't read the next article.

      Or he doesn't surf religious websites.

      --
      Every end has half a stick.
    25. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      What money he extracted? The things the government does with tax money aren't gifts to us any more than the food, clothing, and housing a plantation owner gave his slaves was a gift. He doesn't owe anyone anything for "what society did for him".

      Unless he specifically took some money from the government for a service he failed to provide, your whining about his debt to society is simply dim-witted Marxist bullshit.

    26. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My AV package doesn't do any of those things. Sure, it isn't great, but it does not get in the way of my work and I am actually more efficient than when not using it. To the best of my knowledge, it has kept me clean the last few years. It's called Ubuntu, maybe you've heard of it.

    27. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Javascript is a client-side scripting language that allows us to modify the DOM (the visible webpage) and make API calls to get data. Without it, there is a hell of lot we just simply cannot do anymore.

      Oh please, thats exacly the problem with JS. it can do too damn much.

      Allowing JS to run in every page you visit is like downloading-and-running every executable you come across while googeling something.

      While some already have grasped the idea that executables could be bad, the web-page-with-JS designers are still trying to make the consumer believe that "all is fine and dandy". :-(

      JS can do too fricking much on my computer, and I've got no control over what is run or not.

      Yes, I can block JS for a site. But if-and-when I allow it for a site because without it it just won't work (often because the 'designer' thinks replacing a [<a href=...>] with an [onclick="location.href=...."] is just rad, but more often because spam must be shown) I again have no control over it anymore.

      On every visit they could, and often do, throw different scripts at me -- scripts I have no clue to what they are for or what data they retieve from the server, and send back to it (looking at you, spammers).

      ... maybe if I can select which scripts are loaded/activated and what they can do (like for example only change already available HTML elements but not be allowed to add to the page, load more scripts and/or data or using "eval()") I will think of allowing JS in my browser. Not before.

    28. Re:Clearly... by tubs · · Score: 1, Troll

      Surely if you grew up, lived and benefitted from a free society, it should be your moral imperative that you return to that society so that others can benefit as you did? Of course, as it's a free "society" you don't have to, and can leave to some other country.

      Or maybe, there is just no such thing as society, and we're all individuals looking out for ourselves.

      PS Slaves? Marxist? I'm surpisised you didn't mention the Nazis (Damn Godwin and his laws!)

      --

      try to make ends meet, you're a slave to money, then you die

    29. Re:Clearly... by Fuzzy+Viking · · Score: 3, Informative

      That is assuming that free antivirus is as good as paid, which in my experience it is not. I have had to clean up systems running so-called free antivirus and some of them had 30+ varieties of malware. I use a paid software at home and it has already paid for itself several times over in blocked attacks.

    30. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This.
      One thing I wish is that JavaScript was SEGMENTED in to different library groups so you can disable certain ones outright.
      A select few parts of JS are the things used to abuse the hell out of browsers.
      Some uses of newer stuff could be web workers for number crunching, web sockets for, well, I think this is pretty self explanatory.
      Bitcoin crunching anyone?

      The only problem would be designing a really nice, simple UI that can enable and disable features if the Ask option is selected.
      Page comes up, checklist of all features on the page so far, you can click or unclick, apply for all sessions or this session.
      Any time any new libraries are loaded at any point, pop it up again.
      But making said pop-up as unobtrusive as possible is key here.
      Preferably pop something down from an address bar with some options. Most important part being to make sure that it is very obvious that it is a browser UI (overlapping interface between them) and not a webpage UI. God damn the amount of times that has been abused by virus writers is beyond me.

      Also. Iframes. Bring them back. Upgrade them as they should have been instead of leaving them in stagnation.
      I mean full on integration in to pages from same domains (or external if given permission for in the actual page)
      Hell, even support for accepting compressed content in the same way that you typically send HTML with content over things like JSON (even allow the developer to hook a definition file on to it so it can understand how to deal with it if the content in question isn't your usual formats for storing things such as JSON or XML, now we can use it for templating new parts of the interface!)
      Iframes were useful but got left behind in the whole AJAX nonsense, it is time they get the attention they need.
      And of course, style support across iframes. (another attribute you can set for obvious reasons)
      Say what you want, but Iframes are far more useful for most of the things that people use XHRs for, and considerably simpler, even more so if they were expanded upon by the rules and templating system above.

    31. Re:Clearly... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 2

      Frankly, I only need it when I surf porn sites and there,

      Why don't you just put a condom on your ethernet jack when surfing porn? Stops viruses 100%...

    32. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The society he grew up in enabled him to get educated, start a company, and become a wealthy individual. Had mr. McAfee been born in ZImbabwe, he would not have been able to start his imperium. Society enabled him; that results in a moral debt which he should repay. Taking off with the cash and settling in some corrupt banana republic does not advance society to enable others like he was privileged. The statement that that is "dim-witted Marxist bullshit" as you call it, says more about you than the GP.

    33. Re:Clearly... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Without it, there is a hell of lot we just simply cannot do anymore.

      What did break down causing this loss? The webmasters' brains? Or just their work morale and ethics?

      Saying that 90% of websites should be redesigned in such a fashion is quite comical.

      Actually, he is saying that 90% of the script using websites can be redesigned in such a fashion. Which is less than 90% of all websites. Much less. Because, you know, most websites actually get by just fine without any scripts. But of course the ones that do need tend to stick out more, so people might get the wrong impression.

    34. Re: Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or (s)he gets a kick out of surfing religious websites

    35. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree. If you betray the country that enabled you to become wealthy, then don't cry to it for help if you get fucked over in your new tax haven.
      He worked for NASA and for Lockheed Martin, both are government funded, whole or in part.
      His company benefited from the legal protections of the US.
      He moved to Belize to avoid multiple lawsuits.
      Suck it up John; you chose a new devil and know it wants to know you.

    36. Re: Clearly... by CSMoran · · Score: 2

      Or (s)he gets a kick out of surfing religious websites

      Then they count as porn :). Rule 34 and all that.

      --
      Every end has half a stick.
    37. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're shitting me, right? Most mobile websites, including Yelp, are almost 100% JavaScript. How else do you think they make the UI so flashy?

    38. Re:Clearly... by arth1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That is assuming that free antivirus is as good as paid, which in my experience it is not. I have had to clean up systems running so-called free antivirus and some of them had 30+ varieties of malware.

      How do you know this? By trusting an anti-malware program?
      I see your problem, and it isn't the AV software.

      In truth, AV software, payware or not, is much like bicycle support wheels. They won't prevent you from crashing, and in the long run is a bloody nuisance, but can be useful for new riders or those with no interest in learning how to bike.

      Disclaimer: I was the author of an AV program. It likely was the first such software being able to find newer viruses than the software and libraries, using heuristic algorithms and partial disassembly. It had one big flaw: It listed what the executable looked like it would do, the calculated probability, and expected the user to actually make a judgment. As I said, a big flaw.

    39. Re:Clearly... by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, I have absolutely no sympathy for John McAfee. He made a choice, and has to face the consequences. TANSTAAFL.
      If Belize was truly so much better, we would all live there. (Or, to put it another way, if McAfee was so much better than other AV software, we would all use it...)

      I feel very sorry for the true victim here: the dog.

    40. Re:Clearly... by Dracophile · · Score: 1

      AV software is like car insurance, most of the time you are just paying for nothing but when you actually need it, it's pretty damn helpful.

      I think a better model is preventive maintenance, which is aimed at stopping it go wrong in the first place. Insurance is about collecting a payout if it does go wrong. Presumably indulging in the former might lower your premiums for the latter, but it's not clear to me how that applies to the AV scenario. I never took insurance against viral infections on my computers.

      --
      Athy, athier, athiest.
    41. Re:Clearly... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The analogy is apt.

      There wasn't much police in the stone age, simply because there was nothing worth being stolen. And those that had anything worth stealing also had the means to protect it. Today, there's quite a bit to be stolen, and police is everywhere.

      The same happens online. In the early days of the internet, there was no money to be made by infecting machines, and the few that were online also knew how to protect themselves. Today, the internet is filled by computer illiterates and they are very soft targets.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    42. Re:Clearly... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It's not necessary. And the laws of commerce tell me that they don't.

      First, they would not only help themselves but every competitor as well. Now, writing malware ain't cheap. It's akin to one pharma corp inventing some kind of drug and letting everyone produce it.

      And second, it's not necessary. As long as RBN and other sources provide enough malware to keep people scared, why bother doing it yourself, and not only spend money on it but also incriminate yourself?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    43. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of what you're doing with Javascript doesn't need to be done. I don't want an application in my browser - I want a webpage, in HTML and CSS, that conveys to me the information I want. In the small minority of cases in which Javascript is used to achieve something that's actually useful, it's not useful enough to justify the great big security hole involved in running every damn script you come across on the internet.

      I don't blame the web designers, though - they're just doing what designers do. I blame the programmers who make the web browsers. They're supposed to be on the users' side, writing the software that the users need. Instead, they implemented half-baked features like Javascript that enabled every two-bit web designer to bake superfluous scripts into their pages that prevent them from displaying properly on a more sensible, conservative browser.

    44. Re:Clearly... by Smallpond · · Score: 2

      Protocol isn't the issue. JS reduces the bandwidth and connections-per-second requirement on the server. If JS was implemented according to the strict spec it would be safe. The problem is dumb and lazy web designers who keep wanting to poke holes in the protection. Go to stackoverflow and look up the number of questions from people asking how to upload a file without bothering the user about it.

    45. Re:Clearly... by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They are not gifts. They are part of a contract. I give you tax money, so you provide to me protection (police), medical care, infrastructure (roads, zoning, depending on your country it could include gas, water and power), education (schools) and a few other tidbits.

      I have a contract with my country. I pay tax for services they provide. The services are only available as a package, so I can at best choose between various countries and thus various packages. Provided I may immigrate, I can choose the best value for my money.

      So there may be a "debt" to be paid. Who paid for his school and his medical care while he was not productive himself?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    46. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ugh, I just booted up my laptop and Avast! greets me with a fuckin "Win a MacBook Air" bubble immediately after updating :(
      is this the end? Worst part was it tried to take me to facebook when I clicked on it :( :( :(

    47. Re:Clearly... by Mabhatter · · Score: 1

      The government arrests the "Bernie Maddoff's" of the world.... I mean how non-libertarian is THAT? NOBODY should have to follow the law with libertarians' money!

    48. Re:Clearly... by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 2

      AV software is like car insurance, most of the time you are just paying for nothing but when you actually need it, it's pretty damn helpful.

      Making freqüent backups is like car insurance. AV software is more like towing a spare car behind yours - sure, it might save you from being in a tough spot in a few conceivable cases (mostly if you neglect proper maintenance and care), but usually it just degrades the performance and efficiency of your vehicle and proves worthless in a likely pinch, like an accident or hijacking.

    49. Re:Clearly... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      There is no telling how "successful" people feel. Take me, for example. I am, at least when it comes to economic success, very successful. I have more money than I need, I could afford whatever I want (ok, my wishes concerning what money can buy are fairly conservative... unless it comes to IT-hardware, which isn't that expensive, 6k buy already a kickass workstation, 10k buy a kickass server...), despite paying roughly 50% tax (yeah, I'm not in Belize or any other tax haven, but who cares about money).

      But happy, I am not.

      I feel unproductive and lazy. My field is IT-security, and bluntly, it's a bit like medicine. People only come to you when they have problems and are unhappy, or when you go to people they feel like they did something wrong and are about to get into trouble. You never get to see people who are happy to see you. The old joke is sadly true:

      If you come into a cafeteria filled to the brim with people and you have one huge table with two people sitting on it who are even ignoring each other, you know where IT-security and controlling are sitting.

      No matter how much you try to be viewed as an aid in the struggle for safety, you are generally a nuisance. It's hard to tell the average person why they have to jump so many hoops to get what they want just because that security idiot butts in every time they want to do something and tells them that they cannot do it this or that way.

      That does not make you happy.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    50. Re:Clearly... by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Drug addiction always comes from a need that cannot be filled by the addict otherwise. It's not a solution for that problem, but it's an escape. Nobody gets hooked on heroin because they think it's so cool and so funny. It is invariably the wish to get out of the unbearable situation they are in.

      Likewise with alcohol. And society can do quite a bit in such a situation. I don't know the actual situation for Katz, but I'm fairly sure he didn't drink because it was so much fun.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    51. Re:Clearly... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Duh. You thought the police report will say that they kicked down his door because he didn't pay enough protection money?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    52. Re:Clearly... by scdeimos · · Score: 2

      There should be a dedicated protocol to deliver UI elements. Maybe there some day will be when this all just gets too messy.

      VT52, VT100, VT220, ANSI and many others for pure text aficionados. RIPscript for those bent on graphics. It's all been done before.

    53. Re:Clearly... by shiftless · · Score: 1

      Without it, there is a hell of lot we just simply cannot do anymore.

      Right....it's totally impossible to implement a fucking "go to next page" hyperlink, or "submit form" button, or to display something other than a blank page, without using Javascript.

      At least that's the impression I get from the 90% of trivial web pages which are broken by disabling Javascript.

      Saying that 90% of websites should be redesigned in such a fashion is quite comical.

      No, what's comical is 90% of websites, and the near-worthless lumps of human flesh who "designed" them.

      Whether you like it or not we are going to continue moving towards browsers being merely dynamic front ends for applications and that simply requires client side code. Period.

      Sure. And when that future arrives, it won't involve Javascript or (ugh) HTML.

    54. Re:Clearly... by shiftless · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Society enabled him; that results in a moral debt which he should repay.

      LOL....sorry, no. I didn't ask to come into this world, and neither did McAfee. He doesn't owe anyone a fucking thing, least of all you and your corrupt "society." Our Founding Fathers would shake their head in disgust at your idea.

    55. Re:Clearly... by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My AV package doesn't do any of those things. Sure, it isn't great, but it does not get in the way of my work and I am actually more efficient than when not using it. To the best of my knowledge, it has kept me clean the last few years. It's called Ubuntu, maybe you've heard of it.

      Unfortunately, the Ubuntu virus prevents you from running (or causes malfunctions in) packages like Adobe Framemaker, Crystal Reports, Office 2010 with all components, H&R Block TaxCut, and many other applications. I am a Linux user myself, but that doesn't mean I have to also use Windows. It doesn't even mean that my Linux installations are immune to malware. And it'd be a heck of a lot easier to get malware onto an Ubuntu installation through social engineering than a distro where the default isn't to let a user run any program as root through sudo.

      tl;dr: Get off your high horse.

    56. Re:Clearly... by Roujo · · Score: 1

      They used to say that about Macs, too. Be careful. =P

    57. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If people were just more careful with their data, and didn't use web browsers or other network software that allowed the execution of arbitrary code (Javascript, for example: 90% of the websites out there that use it could be redesigned to work without it) would find their risk of a virus or malware infection to be slightly above nothing.

      I see you don't have any parents or siblings.

    58. Re:Clearly... by fnj · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but I didn't sign any such contract. It's a lot closer to the neighborhood protection racket. You pay the racket, OR ELSE. "Nice life, fella, it would be a shame if something was to happen wit' it."

      Before anybody asks, no, I'm not at all sure I could build and maintain a better working society, but I'm damn sure I could at least design a better government than any that exist, and I promise you, so could any high school student with above-median IQ.

    59. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not want / can not use / don't care at all about the "web browser as a dynamic front end for applications." A website is a website, an application is an application; the remote host owns and controls one, the local user owns and controls the other. Whether you like it or not, people who know the difference are not going to surrender total control to people like... you?

    60. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget all those fine athletes and pop singers who provide us quality entertainment, when they're not total zonked.

    61. Re:Clearly... by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      There is such thing as society, but (1) it's made up of individuals, and (2) it's not at all the same thing as the government. Government does some good things for some people at the expense of other people, but just because some people are on the winning side of that it doesn't mean that paying taxes is the same thing as giving back to society. I may not use his company's software, but I would say Bill Gates is a better example of that.

      I also don't pretend to know as much about this guy's background as everyone else. Maybe his dad worked his ass off to make sure he got into the best schools for all I know. In that case he wouldn't owe society for his success, it would be directly attributable to his father.

      And then, yes, there's the libertarian argument that it wasn't "society" who made him wealthy, it was individuals who (for whatever reason) decided it was worthwhile to shell out however much for the software he wrote. I don't think that should be so quickly dismissed, although I understand that what you're saying is more concerned with how he got to be able to do that in the first place.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    62. Re:Clearly... by shiftless · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In case of Katz, alcoholism is a self-inflicted thing

      He was depressed, you fucking self-absorbed moron

    63. Re:Clearly... by malice · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Indeed, 1/3rd of Belizeans live in the USA, because the economic opportunities are lacking in their country, in no small part due to corruption of local politicians.

      There also are incentives to move to Belize, allowing you to move your household possessions, cars, etc. down there tax-free. Just pay the government a small fee.

      I've spent time down there, it's a beautiful country, but with an odd mix of enclaves of super-expensive housing developments for expats, and shanty towns for locals.

    64. Re:Clearly... by Hatta · · Score: 1, Troll

      Javascript is a client-side scripting language that allows us to modify the DOM (the visible webpage) and make API calls to get data. Without it, there is a hell of lot we just simply cannot do anymore.

      None of which we actually need to do. The web is simply a better experience when you block javascript. It's not actually useful for anything that wouldn't be better done client/server or as a compiled native application. For example, I still haven't found a web forum anywhere that is anywhere near as nice to use as a USENET client was.

      Keep in mind, some of that pretty makes it fairly damned functional by creating UI that are not possible with server side only implementations.

      Such as? I have never met a site that wasn't improved by turning off javascript, except for those that were deliberately crippled into requiring javascript.

      Whether you like it or not we are going to continue moving towards browsers being merely dynamic front ends for applications and that simply requires client side code. Period.

      That doesn't make it a good idea. The internet will continue to regress, and there's nothing I can do about it. That's true, but it's still a regression.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    65. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only we could pay for the services that we use, and only the services we use. Budget deficit? What budget deficit?

    66. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny you say that. If you access the "mobile" versions of a lot of sites they have no Javascript, load nearly instantly and often times have SUPERIOR UI to the "full blown" site that has a lot of meaningless crap.

      Yelp is a good example. The mobile version of Yelp is simple and to the point. Is it spartan? Yes, but it's good enough.

      It's funny you should say that.
      A) The load times are short on mobile versions because the data is very limited (thumbmails and text is about all you see)
      B) "Superior" UI is just wrong. You mean the UI has bigger buttons that work with your thumb? Cool. Go to mobile versions of web pages in your normal web browser. I have a feeling that you'll be irritated by the amount of clicking you'd have to do in order to get what you want to view very shortly.
      C) Regardless, load up mobile.yelp.com and view source...there's still javascript snippets.

    67. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "it gives stupid people piece of mind"

      Like stupid people who can't write "peace of mind"?

    68. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, they would not only help themselves but every competitor as well.

      I don't buy this particular argument. Helping competitors is okay, as long as you expand a given market. That's what standards have been in the past: a way to expand the market, while helping potential competitors. A better analogy is one pharma corp supplying lectures and awareness on pain control, when their drug is only one of many one the market, and this is a common pharma practice. I agree with the rest of your second comment though.

    69. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you believe that a human being owes nothing to the society that gives him or her an ecosystem a.k.a. "kultur"
      that protects him or her from nature, go to Belize and start there a hi tech corporation.
      Why did Gilgamesh never invented the cellphone, or Hippocrates the CATSCAN ?
      You are what your society thought you and gave you. No more.

    70. Re:Clearly... by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      If people were just more careful with their data, and didn't use web browsers or other network software that allowed the execution of arbitrary code (Javascript, for example: 90% of the websites out there that use it could be redesigned to work without it) would find their risk of a virus or malware infection to be slightly above nothing.

      I have no problem with Javascript being implemented if I can block it with NoScript or one of it's analogues.

      I've long been of the opinion that NoScript like functionality should be built into the browsers themselves, not a blanket "JS On/Off" setting, but a true user-defined whitelist that blacklists everything by default until the end user enables it. The problem, of course, is that many users out there think it's too much of an inconvenience to be allowing scripts every time they visit a specific page. Believe me, I've long been a NoScript (ScriptNo on Chrome) cheerleader and most think it's just too much of a pain in the ass to deal with, even after a simple demonstration and the promise that after a few days at most the majority of their regular websites will be on the whitelist and thus work no different than they do without.

      If taking someone to a particularly bad page and literally showing them the 30 different active scripts trying to be run on that page (of which 28 have absolutely nothing to do with the site itself or that particular content) isn't enough to convince someone that it is in their best interests to deal with the inconvenience, I doubt the ethereal threat of a virus or malware ever will.

    71. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that if McAfee chose not to accept an education, and refused to deal with anyone else in society, he wouldn't have made a damned penny. As it is, he chose to do those things.

      I think the Founding Fathers would understand the concept, because they weren't a bunch of right wing dingbats who refuse to acknowledge the fact that people are not islands. If they believed that people were, they wouldn't have bothered forming a government in the first place, and certainly wouldn't have included phrases like "the general welfare" in its constitution.

    72. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether you like it or not we are going to continue moving towards browsers being merely dynamic front ends for applications and that simply requires client side code. Period.

      Yo dawg I herd you like operating systems.

    73. Re:Clearly... by iamgnat · · Score: 2

      That is assuming that free antivirus is as good as paid, which in my experience it is not. I have had to clean up systems running so-called free antivirus and some of them had 30+ varieties of malware. I use a paid software at home and it has already paid for itself several times over in blocked attacks.

      At my last job we hosted various high profile public websites and because of organizational rules we had to use specific paid-for AV software on the servers. We also ran Clam as well and in 2 years at that job Clam was the only one that ever identified (and we verified) infected files that had been uploaded to the sites. So IIRC that was somewhere in the $10k range for those 2 years for zero protection. Not much money to a large scale operation, but galling all the same to me.

    74. Re:Clearly... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      No, GP had it right. The last time I had to uninstall that preloaded shit, it gave me such a harsh dressing-down that I thought my ears would bleed!

    75. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hate to say it, but my first thought was "That poor dog!" and my second thought was "Why the hell would anyone voluntarily live in Belize?"

    76. Re:Clearly... by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Missing the point. If you want to make the application available and cross-platform it needs to be browser-based. True, there are a lot of problems, but this is such an important factor that we are obviously going ahead with the paradigm. People want flashy dynamic web sites in addition applications.Most of the discontent I see here is from exposure to websites which take on rather unnecessary bling or spamability. I view Javascript as a way to enhance, or make possible, certain features in a web app. The thought of using javascript for navigation and menus on a regular site has always turned me off. When the code runs into the thousands of lines you have to ask yourself if it is truly worth it.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    77. Re:Clearly... by joebagodonuts · · Score: 1

      Drug addiction always comes from a need that cannot be filled by the addict otherwise.

      citation needed

      A bit OT, but applicable to where this thread has gone. The aggregate of recoveries suggests that there are alternative ways to fill those needs.

      Not that I'm opposed to drinking (or drugs) as a solution. I spent my late teens/early 20's pursuing "need fulfillment" in just that manner. Heck, if it hadn't stopped working, I'd still be doing it.

      --
      "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
    78. Re:Clearly... by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

      ...they were just warning him that his subscription was about to run out.

      It's ironic that a man who works for an organization that uses the same business model: paying protection money so nothing bad happens to himself or his property, just had something bad happen to him for not paying a different organization protection money.

      You do understand the difference between paying a security guard for their service (even if he is both incompetent and unnecessary) and paying a mafia lackey, right?

      It's not like McAfee is making implied threats of, "Nice computer you got there... it'd be a shame if something happened to it..."

    79. Re:Clearly... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      mcafee the company, duh! (have you been living under a rock)

      They're more clever than SPECTRE then, carefully evading all scrutiny for the past two decades.

      I'm happy to look at any evidence to the contrary, of course.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    80. Re:Clearly... by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 1

      As a web developer myself, I think it's already way too messy. I think that what holds us back is politics. The same politics that gave us broken browsers during the 90s holds web standards back. Look at Silverlight, for instance. It can do a lot, but M$ insists on locking down to only platforms that they bless.

      --
      Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
    81. Re:Clearly... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      You don't need to pay $50 a year but it gives stupid people piece of mind

      Peace on you! You relize that you didn't say what you thought you said, right?

    82. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get a load of this douche.

    83. Re:Clearly... by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      Never visit a religious porn site. They are the worst for malware and viruses.

    84. Re:Clearly... by Thud457 · · Score: 2
      What's amazing is the number of libertarian internet toughguys posting in this thread that completely fail to recognize what happened here as a lite version of the common retort "go live in your libertarian paradise of Somalia".
      1. McAfee moves to tax-haven country to avoid paying his fair share to maintain a lawful civil society
      2. McAfee goes cheap and doesn't pay the customary bribes to the right people in his chosen banana republic (one could almost look at it as a tax, horrors)
      3. Armed goons break down his door, shoot his dog, and leave him handcuffed in the hot tropical sun without water for hours
      4. HA HA! /Nelsom Muntz
        oops, I mean, "oh my, how terrible".

      The fact that our country's system is currently so distorted doesn't belie the fact that some things are worth paying for for the common good.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    85. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that were true, life expectancy for disabled people would be very low. Roads would not lead anywhere outside large towns. But hey, you'd be able to spend more money! Nice vision of a society you have there son!

    86. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. It seems totally unreasonable that he would want to move to a beautiful country with a lower cost of living and easy lifestyle. He owes it to us to stay in a much more expensive location so we can extract more money from him.

      In fact, this is the second time he's pulled the same stunt! He was born in England, then spitefully left them hanging high and dry for a new life in the colonies!

      Jerk.

    87. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're correct, it comes free when pirating windows!

    88. Re:Clearly... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You implicitly "signed" this contract. It's one of those things where you're opt-out, not opt-in.

      To opt-out, move to a place that suits your needs better.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    89. Re:Clearly... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The words "social contract" don't mean anything to you, do they?

      By your logic, only the parents of kids should pay for schools or any eduction facilities, and only as long as their kids use them. I guess you're aware that this nearly certainly means that public schools are even worse funded than they already are. I, for one, wouldn't pay a dime for them. Ever. Right now, I do. I could easily save a few 100 bucks a month that way.

      But what does it mean in the long run? Worse education, worse prospective for our youth, jobs moving away because there is no educated workforce that could fill those jobs, crime skyrocketing because of rampart unemployment (and of course no unemployment money or social service because, well, why'd I pay for that?)... I don't really want that, do I? I mean, I really enjoy living in the town with the lowest crime rate in Europe. I don't want that to change.

      The system you propose would almost certainly change that.

      A more blatant example would be landlords that don't pay "fire department tax", hence when you, as their tenant, call the fire department, they won't come. Ok, they will come, but only to prevent the fire to spread to the next house the owner of which paid for fire protection.

      What is that you say? People could simply avoid living in houses that are not fire protected? You think you could afford that, do you? Oh, maybe you could. I certainly could, no doubt about that. But there are certainly a few thousand houses in my neighborhood alone that could not. And neither some sort of private police or ambulance.

      I'd certainly win in such a scenario. But I'm not an antisocial asshole.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    90. Re:Clearly... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      There certainly are always ways to fill that need, but people can't see them. Unfortunately, people are generally not omniscient, and experience is a really crappy way to gain information: You get it after you needed it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    91. Re:Clearly... by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      It's ironic that a man who works for an organization that uses the same business model: paying protection money so nothing bad happens to himself or his property, just had something bad happen to him for not paying a different organization protection money.

      So if I don't purchase a McAfee subscription, McAfee will infect my computer?

      Your analogy fails.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    92. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether you like it or not we are going to continue moving towards browsers being merely dynamic front ends for applications and that simply requires client side code. Period.

      Then we've come full circle. Source code becomes executable when compiled. Compiled code is run on a client machine with a specific CPU architecture, and any given binary only performs useful work when it was compiled for a specified operating system and CPU.

      All you've done is replace "operating system" (CP/M, VMS, UNIX, Windows, MacOS) with "web browser" (Fx, Chrome). All you've done is replace "architecture" (6502, 6809, 68000 ... 8088, 80286 ... x86 with MMX, SSE, and so on) with "framework" (node.js, etc...)

      The only other option is a metric butt-ton of RDP connections so that users can enjoy an application remotely and that is ridiculously impractical.

      Why, pray tell, does the application need to be hosted anywhere other than the user's computer?

    93. Re:Clearly... by BaileDelPepino · · Score: 1

      There is a protocol for that now: it's called WebSockets. Sure, the protocol will be useful for other stuff too, but I can definitely see UI being one major use.

      So, once WebSockets support starts to gain traction with developers (browser makers are already doing a pretty good job of supporting the draft specs), mark my words: the UI frameworks will come. I'd start building it now if I had the time.

      --
      Miren al Pepino! Los vegetales invidian a su amigo, como él quieren bailar. Pepino Bailarín!
    94. Re:Clearly... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Well you've only said 'paid' so perhaps you are correct.

      But (and it's a big but) the preloaded crapwear antivirus (Norton and Symantec) designed to sucker new computer owners into paying is the worst of the class by far.

      I've replace dozens of copies. Usually finding a metric assload of virus' on the scan.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    95. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried that on my laptop, but somehow they found their way in over wifi. Go figure.

    96. Re:Clearly... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Personally I think all good antivirus vendors should include signature files so Norton and McAfee virus's can be removed with all the others.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    97. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      would be hilarious to see carmack holding up a sign "will code for food" in I75.
      Id throw some rotten tomatos at him and yell "why did you steal thos apple computers in school u nigger"

    98. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who recently switched from having my taxes done for me to doing them online myself, I can say that HR Block is no great loss. Their software dumbs things down and wants to trap you in a wizard. I tried that, TurboTax and TaxAct. I ended up paying for TaxAct premium which had the ability to import CSV files. It was worth it just for that feature, which the others seemed to lack. This might also explain why HR Block tried to buy TaxAct and the Justice Department said "No", because it would have reduced competition too much. It isn't too often I feel good about something the JD did. Now, if they would just automate that inscrutable cost basis fraction you get reported from the precious metals ETFs...

    99. Re:Clearly... by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      EV kicks arse. You should hire some Belizean thugs to force Matt Burch to make a new one.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    100. Re:Clearly... by HiThere · · Score: 2

      IIRC, that Ubuntu default of "user can use sudo" only exists for the first user created at installation time (unless they've changed this recently). With additional users, you need to add them to the sudoers group if you want to give them root access. (I could go check, but I know that it was trivial to create a user that doesn't have that privilege.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    101. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There should be a dedicated protocol to deliver UI elements.

      There is. It's called HTTP.

      We also have SPDY, websockets, pipelining, and a number of other tricks to reduce chatter.

      If you had to, you could use flash or silverlight, and open whatever kind of TCP connection you want, although I presume we are talking about standardized browser technologies.

    102. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct, this is also the case with most other distros. Sudo cannot be trivially bypassed as UAC can, and it's much more difficult to set up a system without that protection. I would expect a substantial percentage of Windows users to have completely disabled UAC, and then we must count the zombie hordes of XP desktops. By contrast, if there's any networked linux machine that anyone knows about that runs as root all the time, shout it out.

      In addition, most linuxes have SELinux enabled.

      In addition, GP poster is absurd: linux is somehow the only OS that anyone expects to be able to run software written for other OS's. Fine. If you're going to say, "Linux is inferior because it can't run X," then I fully expect you to switch when it does run that software, and not move the goalposts afterwards.

    103. Re:Clearly... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      You are correct, this is also the case with most other distros.

      No, it isn't. Only Ubuntu-based distros have a wildcard sudo as default.
      Debian and non-Ubuntu derivatives has it if you add the user to sudo group, not otherwise.

      The entire Red Hat family (RHEL, Fedora, CentOS, ScientificLinux and others) as well as Slackware by default only allows root to use sudo. Which is sensible, because then you use it to lower privileges instead of gratuitous privilege escalation.

      With Gentoo, you have to install sudo if you want it. Funtoo likewise.

    104. Re:Clearly... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      But... But... Those were government armed goons! Only governments are capable of producing armed goons that want you to bribe them not to hurt you! I believe this because my entire philosophy collapses if I don't!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    105. Re:Clearly... by theArtificial · · Score: 1

      Easy: "I know websites and I have preconceived notions about how things should work and am not willing to budge on that!"

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    106. Re:Clearly... by EdIII · · Score: 1

      How does work morale and ethics have anything to do with accomplishing what JS can do for you?

      Throw around the insults all you want, but there are flat out a lot of things you cannot do with server side only. I never claimed JS was perfect, because it is most assuredly not perfect. Just that client side was something you can't code around, or design around in a large number of cases.

      It's a disingenuous argument anyways since it is nothing is pure server side is it? Forms, Posts, and Gets still package up the data you need and send it back to the server. It may be the most simplest form of client side processing there is, but it is still client side.

      So instead of being so angry, and such a dick, please, please tell me how you would implement some of the web based apps without a client side language at your disposal?

      If you understand anything at all about web developing, you would know the limitations of server side only.

      How do you make an administrative interface for phone systems that can automatically update graphs and current call activity without constantly reloading the page (which looks like shit when you do it with meta tags for example)?

      Work morale is hilarious. It implies that it is *possible* and I am just lazy.

      Ethics imply that I am doing something horribly wrong, akin to buttraping small children.

      Web developing itself is a clusterfuck and I never had any part in creating it. I have to deal with it just like you. Regardless of your vitriol, you will not be able to explain how to accomplish all these things without client side processing capabilities.

      Continuing to rant and rave about how JS can be completely avoided is pure idiocy. One way, or the other, you are going to have it. So choose:

      Silverlight, Flash, Java, or Javascript. What's your choice? Or do you want to go real farking old school and choose ActiveX controls?

    107. Re:Clearly... by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Why all the hostility?

      It's shortsighted and idiotic to say that we could redesign 90% of JS driven websites to not use JS. I'm not giving JS a pass by any stretch, just pointing out that you have 4 basic choices for client side. Flash, Silverlight, JS, and Java. ActiveX is technically an option, but nobody really wants that anymore right?

      Submits and forms can be done without JS, it just requires reloading the whole page because obviously the server is creating the page and then sending it back. For very simple pages that is quite possible.

      For interactive content, updating graphs and progress bars, not so much.

      Those near-worthless lumps of human flesh you so detest are 99.99% not responsible. Go after the people that make the browsers and the technology, or basically the people that make the tools. Not the people that use them.

      Sure. And when that future arrives, it won't involve Javascript or (ugh) HTML.

      I could not agree more. However, TODAY I can't seem to get a project done without it. All I can do is be judicious with its use, keep it off the home pages wherever possible, and have security as a foundation not an afterthought.

      By default I have Flash and JS blocked. I turn it on where needed. That does not mean that everything I need could be done without it either.

    108. Re:Clearly... by EdIII · · Score: 1

      When the code runs into the thousands of lines you have to ask yourself if it is truly worth it

      When the code is barely readable or obfuscated you have to ask yourself if it is worth it.

      JS drives me and the people I work with to the cliffs of insanity on a regular basis. Thankfully, I deal with it a heck of lot less since I concentrate on the back end stuff and the APIs. Rarely do I need to venture fully out on to the battlefield.

      Thankfully, you get the point. Cross-platform applications that just work, with an easy delivery method. There are other options coming down the pipeline, but until then Javascript is just something I have to deal with.

    109. Re:Clearly... by EdIII · · Score: 1

      None of which we actually need to do

      That's a HUGE generalization.

      It's not actually useful for anything that wouldn't be better done client/server or as a compiled native application

      Javascript is client/server though. Sure, it can be used to modify the DOM without ever making a call to the server, like JS games, but most of the time that is not true. It is used to communicate back to the server, download new JS code or retrieve data, and then present it to the user.

      Anything can be done better in a compiled native application, but can it be done as fast, with such an easy delivery system, or as cross-platform capable?

      Such as? I have never met a site that wasn't improved by turning off javascript, except for those that were deliberately crippled into requiring javascript

      Take any site that has real time data being displayed and you require Javascript, unless you want the more heavy and equally security weak Silverlight/Flash. Java can be a solution, but that is difficult and costly to implement compared to JS, Silverlight and Flash.

      That doesn't make it a good idea. The internet will continue to regress, and there's nothing I can do about it. That's true, but it's still a regression.

      Nooo... It's a wonderful idea. Should have been that way from the start. A nice standardized sandboxed environment where you could download and run cross-platform apps. When I first started to try to get into web "programming" I balked at the idea simply because:

      A) WTF?! You mean people can send packets to my computer on completely different networks? That's a recipe for disaster. (turned out to be right)
      B) Wait a sec... where is the programming? There is no programming. I was expecting programming.

      The Internet never regressed man, it started out stuck-on-stupid. That's why we call people web developers and not web programmers. If I had a nickle for every web developer I meet that wants to pick my brain on PHP and Javascript simply because they lack basic programming skills and knowledge I learned decades ago, I would be a millionaire. You want to see the equivalent of a Unicorn? Find a web developer, that did not study CS, has only been in "computers" for a few years, and knows the difference between passing a variable by reference and by value.

      If anything, that's why I could pick up PHP so fast. When you come from object oriented stuff in C with polymorphic classes, etc. PHP does not exactly look as hard as Quantum Mechanics right?

      It's not regressing, but is actually going to be getting much better. I don't want to be stuck where we are now anymore than you do. What we need is cross-platform capability because neither Apple, Microsoft, or Google is going to win the war and we have been suffering too long because of it.

    110. Re:Clearly... by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Why, pray tell, does the application need to be hosted anywhere other than the user's computer?

      Simple. Easy delivery. Instead of going to a site and then downloading the app, you can go the site and be running the app. It requires a lot of standardization and attention to security, but it can be done with quite a few benefits including a single point to upgrade and cross platform capability.

      Document markup languages just are not getting the job done for what we need today. That is real time informational displays and two way interaction.

      HTML worked real well when the Internet was nothing more than a *very* basic interactive TV where you navigated content. Once it got more complicated than that you started to need client side processing in a hurry.

      Javascript is not perfect or optimal, but we need it, despite adamant claims to the contrary.

    111. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, just no.

      The spec is implemented by the implementor of JS, NOT THE WEB DESIGNER USEING IT. The system should be designed such that this is not possible, if the web designer CAN to these things it's either a bad implementation of the spec or a bad spec. The reality is, if the system where built CORRECTLY, I (as a web designer, which I'm not) would be able to feed it ABOSOLUTLY ANYTHING and it wouldn't cause you issues.

      Trusting the internet to the honor system to keep things secure is the most idiotic idea I've heard all week.

    112. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's ironic that a man who works for an organization that uses the same business model:

      Once again, you're talking shit about stuff you don't know about. John McAfee hasn't "worked for the organization" since 1994, when he sold his stake in the company. The current owner is Intel. Do you ever bother to actually think before you post?

    113. Re:Clearly... by Peristaltic · · Score: 1

      Interesting anecdote: I remember a book laying around our shop that John published in 1988 or so, when his product was shareware you could download from CompuServe. The subject of this book was how to write viruses, particularly DOS Terminate & Stay Resident type. Actually, it was a decent manual. I know that information wants to be free and all, but I always wondered about the timing. Had a chance to ask him about it about 3 years ago, and he basically said it was to help programmers identify and defeat viruses.

    114. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He worked for NASA and for Lockheed Martin, both are government funded, whole or in part.

      He presumably returned value for the wages he was paid there, and paid taxes on his income while he was there. He traded the value of his work for a cash value. What else does he (or anyone else) owe for this privilege? If I've returned value to an organization for my wage, and have paid my income, sales and property taxes during this period, are you suggesting that I still owe something or someone for a "privilege" of doing so? If that is the case, then go fuck yourself and your ideology. If I am able to create or do something of value for which others are anxious to compensate me, and I follow the societal and taxation rules of the society in which I work, if that society believes I owe it yet something more merely for its existence, I'll choose a different society.

    115. Re:Clearly... by crutchy · · Score: 1

      as the old saying goes "i'll rub your back if you rub mine"

      all antivirus vendors are no doubt involved in perpetuating the need for their products, and they are experts at it

    116. Re:Clearly... by crutchy · · Score: 1

      keep an eye on antivirus vendor quarterlies and when profits begin to slump you can be sure that a new threat will raise its ugly head before long

    117. Re:Clearly... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Throw around the insults all you want, but there are flat out a lot of things you cannot do with server side only.

      Which ones, for example, and why do you think that?

      So instead of being so angry, and such a dick, please, please tell me how you would implement some of the web based apps without a client side language at your disposal?

      Just like we did it before. Again, what changed that makes it no longer possible any more? There are lots of good books and online tutorials about how to develop web based apps.

      If you understand anything at all about web developing, you would know the limitations of server side only.

      I just let this stand on its own...

      How do you make an administrative interface for phone systems that can automatically update graphs and current call activity without constantly reloading the page (which looks like shit when you do it with meta tags for example)?

      The same way as we did before. Just set up up a DB, a couple of CGIs and PHPs to format its content in a nice page, with a nice continuously updating graph with multipart/x-mixed-replace. Why exactly would this no longer be possible?

      Work morale is hilarious. It implies that it is *possible* and I am just lazy.

      Your words.

      Ethics imply that I am doing something horribly wrong, akin to buttraping small children.

      So anything short of "buttraping small children" is ok for you?

      Web developing itself is a clusterfuck and I never had any part in creating it.

      So, please don't spoil it for those of us who did.

      Continuing to rant and rave about how JS can be completely avoided is pure idiocy. One way, or the other, you are going to have it. So choose:
      Silverlight, Flash, Java, or Javascript. What's your choice? Or do you want to go real farking old school and choose ActiveX controls?

      Among those, if I had to chose, I'd still chose Javascript, obviously. But if it can be avoided (i.e. in most cases), I'd chose "none of all". There is no reason why a simple forum, a simple phonebook, or a simple login page would need any javascript at all.

      O and while you're at it, please watch your language, even if you apparently think that a good debate cannot be held without throwing around insults.

    118. Re:Clearly... by EdIII · · Score: 1

      O and while you're at it, please watch your language, even if you apparently think that a good debate cannot be held without throwing around insults.

      Language is just fucking language. When you attack somebody's honor via work morale and ethics, that is far worse, and, "thems fighting words".

      We can have a technical disagreement, but you went way too far insulting me, and many others, with work morale and especially ethics. Really? Ethics? You act like anybody that supports the use of Javascript at all is damaging the very fabric of society. Try toning it down a little.

      I'm not spoiling anything, which is more of your antagonistic BS. multipart/x-mixed-replace is not universally supported, or so I have always heard. CGI is a nightmare too and my most intensely disliked language. When I have to come up with a solution I need to consider quite a number of things and cross-platform support, and especially support for all browsers is one of them.

      I use Javascript where appropriate, and even then, I lean it out and do my damnedest to make the best of the situation. Simple pages don't require Javascript. Public pages on a web portal to a SaaS service don't absolutely require it and I do ask to have the absolute minimum possible to decrease load time and increase compatibility. However, once inside the site the fact remains, which you acknowledge, that Javascript is still required to get quite a bit done.

      We can desire good coding practices and security, but fighting the paradigm of client side processing is just futile.

    119. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now try to take your possessions out of the country... and cash that you are required to deposit into their banks.

    120. Re:Clearly... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Really? Ethics? You act like anybody that supports the use of Javascript at all is damaging the very fabric of society. Try toning it down a little.

      Does it have to threaten the "Western Society as we know it" in order to qualify as an ethics violation? There are also ethics violations which have lesser consequences. And even if abuse of javascript does not damage the very fabric of society, it certain threatens the very fabric of the internet, if everybody were to do it. Just remember what Internet Explorer 6 did to the internet a couple of years ago. Occasionally, we still have to pick up the pieces of this disaster... Or what spam is doing now. Each individual spam message does nothing, you can just hit delete after all. But taken together, the sheer mass of spam is certainly impacting usability of email.

      multipart/x-mixed-replace is not universally supported, or so I have always heard.

      ... or so I have always heard :-)

      CGI is a nightmare too and my most intensely disliked language.

      CGI is not actually a language. You can write a CGI "script" in any language, including C. It doesn't have to be a shell script or a Perl script.

      When I have to come up with a solution I need to consider quite a number of things and cross-platform support, and especially support for all browsers is one of them.

      Well, if "cross-platform support" and "support for all browsers" are indeed your goal, then certainly avoiding additional complexity, and certainly avoiding code that runs within the browser should help you with this.

      I use Javascript where appropriate, and even then, I lean it out and do my damnedest to make the best of the situation. Simple pages don't require Javascript. Public pages on a web portal to a SaaS service don't absolutely require it and I do ask to have the absolute minimum possible to decrease load time and increase compatibility. However, once inside the site the fact remains, which you acknowledge, that Javascript is still required to get quite a bit done.

      This sounds much more reasonable than implying that "90% of the web pages need javascript, and can't be rewritten to do without". Yes, the occasional javascript has its place, but indeed, it needs to be used sparingly. It seems that we (now) agree on this. Great!

      Unfortunately, many other "web developers" don't have such insight, and use it willy nilly, even where not appropriate, preferably full of various errors, which prevent it from properly running on anything except those 2 or 3 browsers on which they tested it. Or worse, "web developers" who use it for nefarious ends such as user tracking, spying, forcing ads on users, or playing offensive sounds. Javascript does indeed facilitate tracking, as it has a much more complete access to the user's environment information than would be available in just the request header (see "fingerprinting"). If you don't do (or advocate) any of this, then good for you, and obviously my "ethics" and "work morale" comments don't mean you.

      We can desire good coding practices and security, but fighting the paradigm of client side processing is just futile.

      Good coding practices also include avoiding unnecessary complexity, and excessively relying on code that runs on platforms which are beyond your control (or which should be beyond your control).

    121. Re:Clearly... by ghmh · · Score: 1

      I just wish there was a better way to deliver remote UIs than AJAX (or "metric butt-ton of RDP connections"). It's a crude and slow hack (although a practical one) to use HTML for dynamic content. Even server side scripts are bit of a bubble gum or an afterthought at least.

      There should be a dedicated protocol to deliver UI elements. Maybe there some day will be when this all just gets too messy.

      Maybe that day was in the past?

    122. Re:Clearly... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Sorry to disappoint you. I have worked for more than one of them, and while they may have a certain level of cooperation going, one thing is flatly out: Writing malware.

      AV companies are in constant competition for two things: Discovering the most malware, and discovering it first. Of course you can easily cheat your way to the top by simply writing malware yourself, but it comes at a rather big price. You become the pariah of AV. Nobody wants to deal with you anymore, and the network between AV companies is crucial when you want to be able to discover what's "in the wild". You cannot afford to build up a world wide network of honeypots and you cannot dip your fingers in every mailbox there is. You need to cooperate with other AV companies and virus detectors (yes, there are by now even companies that do nothing but finding new threats and selling them to the AV kit makers). And they will not deal with you if you write malware yourself.

      I know of two instances where AV kit companies were caught red handed. Both do not exist anymore.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    123. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frankly, I only need it when I surf porn sites and there, Microsoft Security Essentials does the trick. As far as I know, you don't even need to pirate that one.

      HAHAHAHA

      Windows user!!

      http://it.slashdot.org/story/12/05/04/0054204/symantec-religious-sites-riskier-than-porn-for-viruses

    124. Re:Clearly... by crutchy · · Score: 1

      well i guess having a "malware division" would be a little obvious... companies usually pilfer funds via various means and contract out questionable tasks (often in countries with little ability to trace like ukraine) so its really of no surprise that upcoming malware isn't announced in a company newsletter

      its not really rocket science or outlandish conspiracy; as the old saying goes "it's just business".

    125. Re:Clearly... by hand_of_lixue · · Score: 1

      > It listed what the executable looked like it would do, the calculated probability, and expected the user to actually make a judgment. As I said, a big flaw. Well, yes, actually. A human is just going to run a heuristic ("ignore anything less than 10% odds, flag as a virus if greater than 80% probability of hard drive corruption, or greater than 95% probability of system slowdown, or..."). You could pretty easily clump that in to a Basic mode (which uses your heuristics, or the choice between a set of trusting/neutral/paranoid heuristics), Advanced mode (set percentage cutoffs for each category manually), and Expert mode (actually show each assembly) UI is actually an important part of design - I don't want a program that's going to poke me every 5 minutes when the response could be automated. (Of course, if it's just a "scan this one file I don't trust" then... I really want that program, pretty please :))

    126. Re:Clearly... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      It's ironic that a man who works for an organization that uses the same business model: paying protection money so nothing bad happens to himself or his property, just had something bad happen to him for not paying a different organization protection money.

      It's a bit disingenuous to call this 'protection money' which implies that if you don't pay McAfee, then McAfee will give you a virus. It's more like hiring a private security guard to patrol a warehouse, even if no one ever tries to break in.

      If people were just more careful with their data, and didn't use web browsers or other network software that allowed the execution of arbitrary code

      If. But most people are not security experts, and they never will be. They won't know that email from their bank that tells them to log in to check their balance actually came from a phisher in China. They won't know that the cool screensaver a co-worker recommended comes with the RootUZ botnet backdoor. You say they should be more careful, but most people won't be careful enough, and the dangers are real. For those people non-intrusive anti-virus software is a minimum level of security. Not that I would ever recommend McAfee or Norton (gag) though.

      Javascript, for example: 90% of the websites out there that use it could be redesigned to work without it

      Could be, but haven't. Since they haven't been redesigned to not require Javascript, and surfing around the net without it on is a pain with all the sites that break with it off now... it's not an option for your average user. I wish there was a button on the bar that I could click that would reload the current page and only that with Javascript turned on. There has to be an addon for that.

    127. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Good thing nobody involved with web browsers is involved in implementing javascript.

  3. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    His dog didn't do anything! I wouldn't be shocked to read that members of PETA shot someone from the GSU in the next few days.

    1. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would do it. But on the other hand.... those GSU douchebags are the real animals...so maybe we should put them in cages instead.

    2. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Most swat teams will shoot dogs during raids due to the possibility of the them being trained attack dogs. It sucks for the owner but if I was swat, I wouldn't want a 120lbs german shepard trying to tear my leg apart.

    3. Re:WTF? by tobiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They do it to intimidate the owner, the same reason they break down unlocked doors. It's violence that is easily written off as property damage.

      --
      "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
    4. Re:WTF? by Hentes · · Score: 1

      It could be a guard dog.

    5. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, in countries like America who are deeply paranoid about everything and so just shoot everything "just to be sure".

      In civilised countries like most of those in Europe for example, they wait to see if the dog is actually a threat before shooting it. Dog's aren't clever little subversives that sit pretending to be all innocent until you're not paying attention to it then attack, if it's trained to attack you can be pretty fucking sure that that's the case when it's charging you with it's teeth fully shown.

      It's not exactly hard to tell if a dog is a threat or not, if you can't read a dog's stance and expressions you're too fucking dumb to be weilding a gun in the first place. If SWAT teams aren't even taught this sort of thing then it shows how utterly incompetent they are and how utterly unfit they are for the purpose they're intended, but then, shoot first ask questions later is also precisely why America lost Vietnam, ran with it's tail between it's legs from Iraq, and is now losing Afghanistan to boot - because shooting without confirming a threat is the quickest way to turn people even more staunchly against you.

    6. Re:WTF? by million_monkeys · · Score: 1

      His dog didn't do anything! I wouldn't be shocked to read that members of PETA shot someone from the GSU in the next few days.

      Well, a different article on the same site claims:
      "And in regards to the fatally wounded man’s best friend, the GSU says that three of the eleven dogs on the premises attacked and bit one of the officers on his right thigh. The same dog then attacked a B.D.F. soldier who responded by fatally wounded the dog."

    7. Re:WTF? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Well I am just putting it out there, the well being of my pet is orders of magnitude more important to me than some armed invader on my property. If you show up and hurt my pet intentionally there will be no peaceful resolution, no talk. I will be doing whatever I can to take you and your guys out even if it gets me killed.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    8. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that German Shepherds really do not often get to 120 lbs. Most of them top out around 90 lbs.

    9. Re:WTF? by arth1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      if I was swat, I wouldn't want a 120lbs german shepard trying to tear my leg apart.

      A 120 lb German Shepherd is a seriously fat dog unlikely to attack anything but its food bowl.

    10. Re:WTF? by Mabhatter · · Score: 2

      Then surround the house, and allow the person to turn themselves over in a CIVIL manner. That means they will probably call a LAWYER to check your warrant and such... Imagine that. They do this for PURE intimidation.

      Everybody who's on SWAT should have their home (if they have kids) or their parents home "secured" before they can go on missions. Get to have everybody cuffed and hauled off to the station.

      I always find it funny that a household dog "might" be trained to attack so they HAVE to shoot it (after knocking down the DOOR holding it inside). But when a K-9 dog attacks some kid in the park on its day off it was "accidentally responding to a training trigger". ...

    11. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL.
      Dogs aren't actually smart enough or capable enough of hurting a trained human. Not 1 dog anyways. The hand is quicker than the eye, especially dog eyes. When it lunges at you just aim for the side of its neck and make a wide hook pushing motion flat palmed. You can sometimes break a dog's confidence by swiping your hand right up to his mouth and pulling away faster than he can snap at you. It's funny because they try to play you and get with the timing...just don't do it the same repeatedly. If all else fails to stop the dog, you can always just stick your hand in its mouth and jam your thumb into the roof of its mouth. Yeah, the bottom teeth might poke your hand, but I've done this countless times it's nothing major. A dog won't bite down hard enough to break the skin if your thumb is jammed in the roof of its mouth because it hurts them more than it hurts you. And it doesn't actually do damage to the dog, and you can just stand up and carry the dog around like that, they usually don't let go even they aren't biting hard they're still pissed at you. Yes, I've done this to a german shepherd...
      And even if my methods don't work, it isn't that hard to outsmart a dog, just try don't be heartless and shoot the poor animal.

    12. Re:WTF? by shiftless · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why are you shocked and surprised? This happens every day in the United States in drug raids. Whole family is sitting down to dinner, just chilling one evening, then the door explodes (gotta love those no-knock warrants) while armed thugs swarm in, family dog gets a bullet (well that pomeranian could have gotten a cop and given him an infection ya know), kids are screaming while mom and dad are roughly thrown to the ground. Thugs take their time searching through the house and snickering loudly at mom's sex toys. Sometimes people even get shot for absolutely no reason.

      Welcome to the creeping tyranny of a police state. Not so fun to actually be a part of one, is it?

    13. Re:WTF? by shiftless · · Score: 1

      Of course, because that's exactly what the cop and all his buddies agreed happened while filling out the paperwork.

      Are you seriously naive enough to believe such a lie?

    14. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to the creeping tyranny of a police state. Not so fun to actually be a part of one, is it?

      Talk for yourself, I don't live in the United Fucked States of America.

    15. Re:WTF? by IceNinjaNine · · Score: 1

      Well, got news for you, no-knock warrants are horseshit. Don't want to get bit? Don't execute them. You took the job!

      Here ya go skippy! Check this out. Or, think you're "above" the law? Then read this.

      I've truly never understood what the problem is with just waiting till folks leave the house and then grabbing them. There are many fatalities on both sides due to the militarization of the police.

      Of course, having been in the military I'm fluent with weapons that make mincemeat out of body armor so I'm not too worried. What you need is an AR-15 chambered in 6.8mm SPC just to be sure.

    16. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have a winner!

      The amount of accidental damage to property which follows is usually stounding. All too often, police try very hard to break everything they possibly can, even when they are not sure they have the right people.

    17. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on the type of German Shepherd, there are many.

      King Shepherd, which is based off German Shepherd but bred for size, can easily weigh 120lbs.

      My German Shepherd is standard working line shepherd he weighs 90lbs and barely eats his food, he is not food driven and still thin. If he went up to 100lbs he would still be considered under weight.

    18. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give them a break they may have meant a Shiloh Shepherd. Those dogs look pretty similar to a German Shepherd but are a fair bit bigger.

    19. Re:WTF? by Confusador · · Score: 1

      You do realize that's exactly what they want, right?

    20. Re:WTF? by million_monkeys · · Score: 1

      You don't think it's naive to believe that a bunch of dogs are going to let a group of strangers bust up their home without doing anything? Don't answer that. Just feel free to ignore all evidence that doesn't fit the story you made up in your mind about how things happened.

    21. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you shocked and surprised? This happens every day in the United States in drug raids. Whole family is sitting down to dinner, just chilling one evening, then the door explodes (gotta love those no-knock warrants) while armed thugs swarm in, family dog gets a bullet (well that pomeranian could have gotten a cop and given him an infection ya know), kids are screaming while mom and dad are roughly thrown to the ground. Thugs take their time searching through the house and snickering loudly at mom's sex toys. Sometimes people even get shot for absolutely no reason.

      Welcome to the creeping tyranny of a police state. Not so fun to actually be a part of one, is it?

      Proof?

    22. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      More than once I've said: Thank gad for Ruby Ridge. You showed us the way. Amen.

      Fucking NYPD assholes. Sitting still in my car, asserting my 5th amendment rights, hands clasped, the only thing moving's my mouth demanding to know why I'm being detained, and what gives them the right to demand that I take my keys out of the ignition, and put them on the roof of my car, I ask: What law am I violating?

      Answer: they rip my door open! No explication of why I should follow their orders and scratch my roof's paint.

      Next: handcuffed! "not arrested," car searched! Why?! I say? "Acting furtive," typical NYPD trope, manufactured pretext for an illegal search on car and person, had my balls grabbed---"fucking Nazi!"

      Result: "All you've done is created ill will toward the NYPD. Congratulations. Like Third Reich, like NYPD, the ends justifies the means, you're a mindless automaton violation the Constitution. Come to Virginia, where your badge is meaningless, and we value our gun rights, macho man."

      kfc

    23. Re:WTF? by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      Well I am just putting it out there, the well being of my pet is orders of magnitude more important to me than some armed invader on my property. If you show up and hurt my pet intentionally there will be no peaceful resolution, no talk. I will be doing whatever I can to take you and your guys out even if it gets me killed.

      You sound like a crazy - but only because you're talking about a dog rather than a human. However if what you say is crazy, then we're both nuts.

      Most males (and many females) would respond similarly to an unprovoked and unnecessary attack on their child, their own safety a distant concern. Perhaps one needs to own or have owned pets to understand. Even the word 'owner' in this context bothers me a bit.

      I love my little girl; she's as much my child as any human kid and being of different species doesn't enter into the matter. I'd be right behind your actions, fully supporting your right to defend your family should you ever have the misfortune to be required to do so.

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    24. Re:WTF? by shiftless · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding me? Use Google.

    25. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It either wasn't a "pet" or the dude had a serious problem with "pet" dogs. He had 11 dogs. Normal people don't keep 11 dogs for their company, which leaves the possibility that they were guard dogs.

      And the attack wasn't unprovoked, since that dog had attacked and bitten several of the agents who were serving the warrant.

  4. Here's your legal advice Mr. McAfee by BigSlowTarget · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Get the hell out of there as soon as you can. If the corruption is that bad you won't be getting a fair trial.

    1. Re:Here's your legal advice Mr. McAfee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At least he's saving on income tax.

    2. Re:Here's your legal advice Mr. McAfee by ArsonSmith · · Score: 3, Funny

      Are you kidding? He'd have to go through airport security before he could get back into the US. He's better off there.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    3. Re:Here's your legal advice Mr. McAfee by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      He had no reason to do that though because his antivirus software assured him that it offered 100% protection against corrupt politically based sham trials in the summary of its heuristics capabilities.

    4. Re:Here's your legal advice Mr. McAfee by artor3 · · Score: 4, Funny

      *psst* You might wanna check a map.

    5. Re:Here's your legal advice Mr. McAfee by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Or just pay the local "tax" and get on with your retirement.

    6. Re:Here's your legal advice Mr. McAfee by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      OK checked, now what?

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  5. heh by niix · · Score: 1, Funny

    Must have been a trojan virus.

    1. Re:heh by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Is that a virus that you can pass on even when wearing a trojan?

  6. Killed his dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That isn't even funny. I hope they get cancer.

    1. Re:Killed his dog by rhizome · · Score: 2

      They're just emulating US Police.

      http://www.theagitator.com/?s=puppycide

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    2. Re:Killed his dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The only way I'd bother clicking on a link to a site called The Agitator is if it had a relevant search result for washing machines. I'm pretty fucking left of center and yet that name just screams "untrustworthy to the point of worthlessness."

    3. Re:Killed his dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly, everyone knows the quote "always judge a book by its cover"...

    4. Re:Killed his dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sorry, you're right. I looked at it. It wasn't exactly what I thought. I thought it would be multiple reporters writing biased stories filled with skewed facts, and instead it was just some dude's blog that I have no reason to read since I, too, look at Google News and none of his original content is of any value to me. Congrats to him on moving to HuffPo, where his pointless blog will be better than anything I've seen there in quite some time. Can you please give me those minutes of mine back?
       
      (By the way, I'm all for lefty papers if they have good original content. Mother Jones is one.)

  7. Obviously... by hundredrabh · · Score: 5, Funny

    He needs better protection.

    --
    --whacky
    1. Re:Obviously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get Trojans.

  8. McAffee - Jailbase? Yep... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.jailbase.com/en/arrested/fl-bso/2012-02-12/charles-john-mcafee-521200035

    "Charges: ASSAULT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE"

    Not my use of capitals...

    But, that must have been before Belize.

    1. Re:McAffee - Jailbase? Yep... by Aryeh+Goretsky · · Score: 1

      Hello, That's not even John McAfee. Regards, Aryeh Goretsky

      --
      Dexter is a good dog.
  9. Question: Why does this guy live in Belize? by lanner · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Question: Why does this guy live in Belize? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In his defence (if you're even making a snide remark at him; I'm not really clear) he's donated millions to public works in the country. I suspect if more of the commentators here had RTFAed, they would be a little kinder.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    2. Re:Question: Why does this guy live in Belize? by robotkid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's quite alot of foreshadowing in the fastcompany article:

      Then there is the $1 million patrol boat he donated to the Belizean coast guard. (In a letter to The New York Times, he described it as an act of philanthropy; later, he tells me he had to bribe members of the coast guard to prevent them from hassling his ferry business: "This is a third-world country. I had to bribe a whole bunch of folks.

      indicating that he routinely gives large, overt, public bribes to get whatever he wants in Belize

      Then there's this:

      "And so a pair of police officers came to visit him. "We are sorry that we have to tell you to stop building that wall," they said. "I am sorry that I have to tell you that I am going to build it anyway," he told them, and they left. To McAfee, this exchange was proof of the evolved level of discourse in Belize, where a person is largely left to do as he pleases. . . At the time, I thought that he was simply being argumentative. But McAfee seems to want freedom without limitation. Needless to say, few of us exercise this sort of freedom. It tends to be very expensive."

      Either he is willfully ignoring the fact that this seems to have been a small-time shakedown attempt or he is completely oblivious to it. Did he really think Belize patrolmen (note, not the environmental cops) are so genuinely concerned about shoreline regulations?? He doesn't seem to realize by being so brazen about describing large bribes to the press he's just inviting even bigger, less polite shake-downs in the future, which sounds exactly like what (unfortunately) just went down. Did he really think that request for a campaign contribution for the guy employing police hitsquads was purely optional when bribes for building permits, import permits, business titles, etc. for his dozens of shell companies were not?

      Sure, it still sucks, and I feel sorry for him, but it really does sound like he specifically chose Belize because he liked how pliable the laws were if you had money and it never occurred to him that cuts both ways...

    3. Re:Question: Why does this guy live in Belize? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, bribes are the norm in a lot of developing countries. It doesn't mean he chose Belize because he could bend the laws to his advantage - if that were the case, he could just as easily have chosen, say, India. His statements simply illustrate that people are forced to submit to "bribes" just to get anything done. In India, thugs routinely come around to businesses and demand a "bribe" in order to keep them from returning and causing damage. You can easily "bribe" a traffic cop not to give you a ticket (your bribe is probably more than the cop would get paid). I assume the same is true in Belize. He probably paid the coast guard as a bribe to keep them from hassling him needlessly later on, not because he was trying to change the law.

      I don't know about Belize specifically, so I can't say that these assumptions are true. Just pointing out that bribes are unfortunately very common in a lot of countries because corruption is very common, and legitimate interests are forced to play the game. McAfee's description might just be an illustration of that.

    4. Re:Question: Why does this guy live in Belize? by belthize · · Score: 1

      Bribes are the norm in all countries. The difference between the extremes is the extent they're formally coded into law and cost of entry.

    5. Re:Question: Why does this guy live in Belize? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you should read the comments on that article. The entire article is "an exposé" aimed at making McAfee look bad, while what he did was sniff out the reporter's intent and troll him, hoping that the reporter would eventually catch up to the joke.
      for example, he writes:
      [quote]
      I donated the boat to the Coast Guard on January 13th, 2009 - http://www.ambergristoday.com/html/archives.php?p=011509

      And my Ferry Business didn’t open until September 16th 2009: http://ambergriscaye.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/351615/Coastal_Xpre

      For me to bribe the coast guard to stop hassling my ferry business, time would have to be running in reverse.[/quote]

      but even then, the entire venture is worth ORDERS of magnitude less than the price of the boat. The company (which he does not own and is HQ'ed in a 12' x 18' space, servicing a country with less than 15 000 potential clients) also nets less than 25k$/year.

      As for the discrepancies between his story and Dr. Adonizio, it seems that she writes a perfectly fine argument as to why she'd participate in the prank (basically, he pays her salary)

      The writer of that article also messed up on the "hardcore partier" aspect. He went back and commented that McAfee did in fact stayed sober while he visited. McAfee claims to have been sober for 31 years.

      As for the sea wall, there's a web page (documented in internet's archive website) where you can see the sea wall in a picture pre-dating McAfee's moving in the place. The guy taking care of the house has also confirmed that fact. No bribes, no conflict with police, no problems whatsoever.

      Finally, the main "point" of the article was to paint McAfee as a fleeing man trying to avoid a lawsuit. The lawsuit is against 35 people (shotgun lawsuit) and he wasn't in charge of the company running the equipment. There's also a counter-suit filed by his nephew's family claiming that the nephew did not cause the crash.

      What that article has taught me was that FastCompany employs terrible fact checkers and even worse writers. It reminds me of FauxNews.

  10. Theme song for this thread by symbolset · · Score: 2
    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  11. Move to Israel the corruption there is much more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Move to Israel the corruption there is much more "user friendly" and you probably enjoy all the hustling and haggling. It might be a religious country, but sure ain't when it comes to economy and politicians themselves. And yea, you'd be able to make some deals and keep your weapons if you move to the territories. Being a goy you'd be surrounded by unfriendly on both sides of the green line.

  12. Sounds similar to tactics.... by wbr1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...McAfee AV used on my PC. I know it held the CPU hostage. And demanded more money and threatened me when I did not pony up. It told me I was not safe.. that I needed to 'buy' protection. I tried contacting the local police, but an IT friend of mine said that the entire county, including the popo was under a McAfee 'contract'.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:Sounds similar to tactics.... by CyberDruid · · Score: 2

      ...but did it kill your dog?

      --

      Opinions stated are mine and do not reflect those of the Illuminati

    2. Re:Sounds similar to tactics.... by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      You need the pro version for that.

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
    3. Re:Sounds similar to tactics.... by LienRag · · Score: 1

      Seriously, would someone know how to remove McAfee from a Windows 7 computer?

  13. Never could have happened here... by kurthr · · Score: 0

    That never would have happened to a rich white guy who lived in a nice neighborhood in the US... unless he was protesting the government, or beating his wife.

    1. Re:Never could have happened here... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      That never would have happened to a rich white guy

      If he was a rich white guy, he wouldn't be protesting against the government, he would be buying politicians, instead.

      And he would pay someone else to beat his wife for him.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:Never could have happened here... by IceNinjaNine · · Score: 1
  14. Well that's funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not too long ago, I think maybe on Sunday or Monday of this week, the conservative blogosphere was all atwitter over some alleged "enemies list" that Barack Obama keeps of people who donate to competing campaigns or refuse solicitations to donate to his.

    You want a real enemies list? Go look at what happened to John McAfee and be thankful you fucktards still have your house and your pets and your family with you.

    The conservative histrionics this year is just out of this world.

    1. Re:Well that's funny by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the conservative blogosphere was all atwitter

      You Sir are my grammar hero of the day. What a beautiful sentence :)

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:Well that's funny by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When the president of any country publicly calls you out by name and says you're on the "wrong side of the law", you have every reason to be afraid. Especially when the president's appointees have openly practiced and justified the unlimited detention and the killing of citizens without due process.

      Claiming that it's "conservatives" are against this is a pretty disingenuous way to defend this kind of behavior. Especially considering it's likely a conservative president will likely be elected at some time in the future. When he tries these things, will you defend it then, too?

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    3. Re:Well that's funny by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      You've misleadingly quoted the sentence.

      “A closer look atdonors reveals a group of wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records. Quite a few have been on the wrong side of the law, others have made profits at the expense of so many Americans”

      After each name, the campaign lists deeds that they find objectionable or “less-than-reputable” that mostly boil down to business transactions that included alleged outsourcing or layoffs and involvement in the oil energy industry.

      In other words, it's campaigning and an attempt at shaming people. Frankly, it's not a particularly difficult job to meet the criteria. The president personally and publicly mourned the death of just such an individual (Steve Jobs), calling him "among the greatest of American innovators". And before I get haters, he fits the criteria - wealthy, and in his youth he sold blue boxes (illegal). It's a stupid list, but it's even stupider to call this a threat that a renegade executive will make good on.

      I'm no fan of Obama's detention and "due process" nonsense, but it's disingenuous and, as the GP said, "histrionics", to claim that the President is going to disappear you or hit you with an airstrike because you won't donate to his reELECTION campaign. Emphasis intentional, since even in this dystopian post-apocalyptic hellscape, he can still lose the election and there's not a damn thing he can do. Big difference to any of the countries like Belize, where you actually can get arrested for not "donating".

      By trying to refute the GP, you have proven his point.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    4. Re:Well that's funny by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      and in his youth he sold blue boxes (illegal).

      Really? As far as I'm aware, in the time and place he was doing so, manufacture and sale of the devices was perfectly legal. Using them wasn't of course; but that's another story.

      I freely accept I could be wrong though, so if someone can prove the above statement wrong, please enlighten me.

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    5. Re:Well that's funny by shiftless · · Score: 1

      Go look at what happened to John McAfee and be thankful you fucktards still have your house and your pets and your family with you.

      The conservative histrionics this year is just out of this world.

      Hello? The War on Drugs? NDAA, CISPA, and other tyrannical Acts which make the Patriot Act look like a fucking joke? Wake up you stupid prick! We are living in a DICTATORSHIP aka POLICE STATE.

    6. Re:Well that's funny by shiftless · · Score: 1

      I'm no fan of Obama's detention and "due process" nonsense, but it's disingenuous and, as the GP said, "histrionics", to claim that the President is going to disappear you or hit you with an airstrike because you won't donate to his reELECTION campaign. Emphasis intentional, since even in this dystopian post-apocalyptic hellscape, he can still lose the election and there's not a damn thing he can do. Big difference to any of the countries like Belize, where you actually can get arrested for not "donating".

      You really, really need to wake up. THAT'S THE NEXT STEP, YOU FUCKING MORON! How else can I put it? This would-be dictator WANTS the power to disappear you or hit you with an airstrike, JUST BECAUSE! He already did it to an innocent 16 year old American citizen.....what more proof do you need, you BLIND, STUPID apologist?

      When a sudden catastrophe occurs in August or September which results in Obama declaring a state of emergency and declaring martial law.....in the process, clamping down on this list of "criminals" (aka political enemies) who have been "evading justice for far too long".......WHAT WILL YOUR EXCUSE BE THEN?

    7. Re:Well that's funny by El+Torico · · Score: 1

      “A closer look atdonors reveals a group of wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records. Quite a few have been on the wrong side of the law, others have made profits at the expense of so many Americans”

      So, it's guilt by association?

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    8. Re:Well that's funny by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      What 16 year old American citizen? I never heard of this. Please elaborate.

      In the meantime, the Republicans in my state legislature and executive office gleefully erode the rights to my own medical care and my own body, one law at a time, and people who are afraid of being "disappeared" by Democrats are cheering them on.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    9. Re:Well that's funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When a sudden catastrophe occurs in August or September which results in [the president] declaring a state of emergency and declaring martial law

      Political pundits have been saying that's going to happen for every presidential election since John fucking Adams. You can only cry wolf so many times before people start ignoring you.

    10. Re:Well that's funny by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      I lol'd. Of course, I'm not sure if you're trolling, or actually mean this Glenn Beck nonsense. Poe's Law and all that.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    11. Re:Well that's funny by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      It's an old practice of not just killing your political enemies, but their family too.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    12. Re:Well that's funny by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Your histrionics (again) are embarrassingly bad.

  15. Gang Suppression Unit by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 1

    Funny, the first thing that went through my mind before reading TFA was that they had arrested him for running a scam whereby his organization made viruses to boost his antivirus software sales numbers...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Gang Suppression Unit by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      ... whereas in reality he was just arrested for running a scam whereby his organization made bacteria to boot his antibiotics sales numbers...

  16. dotcom mcaffee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    “What are we going to do about the fat man at the toll bridge? He has all of these security guards. He’s probably involved in illegal activities. Everybody is complaining about him.”

    if it worked for riaa, should work for belize too.

  17. Maybe he should have kept paying his taxes ... by quax · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... in the good ole USA. Many pretty places to live there, too.

    1. Re:Maybe he should have kept paying his taxes ... by dadioflex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This. At least in the US if you're a rich man you don't need to lock yourself away in a gated compound surrounded by security... no, no, I'm hearing myself say it. Never mind.

    2. Re:Maybe he should have kept paying his taxes ... by rycamor · · Score: 0

      ... no, no, I'm hearing myself say it. Never mind.

      Heh... nice turn of phrase. Why have I never heard that one before?

    3. Re:Maybe he should have kept paying his taxes ... by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      The difference is that most folks in the US live in gated communities by choice, not by necessity. And the gates themselves are a joke. Half of them are open during the daytime, or all the time because they broke and the neighborhood association hasn't bothered to fix it yet. My father in law has a token gate on his driveway, but it's only to stop 18 wheelers from turning around on his front lawn.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    4. Re:Maybe he should have kept paying his taxes ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that the USA is turning into a shithole, and whenever there's a topic on /. about privacy being eroded or anything like that, there's dozens upon dozens of posts of people saying they want to leave the USA.

      So if I lived in the USA and was rich... you're damn right I'd move the hell out as fast as I could.

      Doesn't make sense. Something bad happens somewhere else, everyone shouts 'MOVE TO THE USA!'. Anything a topic about the inner workings of the USA comes up, all the americans shout 'I GOTTA GET THE HELL OUTTA HERE!'. Make up your mind. It's clear that this guy did.

      I fully think he should move away from there... but going to the USA would be about the last option I'd take for where to move to.

    5. Re:Maybe he should have kept paying his taxes ... by quax · · Score: 1

      I could see your point if he moved to Switzerland.

  18. Comment on Belize's Facebook page? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Leaving a few comments on Belize's page could have some effect. I for sure am not traveling to Belize because of this.
    https://www.facebook.com/TravelBelize [facebook.com]

    1. Re:Comment on Belize's Facebook page? by rebelwarlock · · Score: 1

      Surely you're not saying that you think a particular travel agency represents the entirety of a country, and has any influence whatsoever on law enforcement?

    2. Re:Comment on Belize's Facebook page? by Formalin · · Score: 1

      The federal ministry of tourism may be interested though. Which 'travelbelize' happens to be part of (via Belize tourism board).

    3. Re:Comment on Belize's Facebook page? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Leaving a few comments on Belize's page could have some effect.

      What effect? Making it safer for millionaires to move to corrupt tax havens?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  19. U.D.P by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is obviously a warning to keep with TCP and maintain connections.

    --
    Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    1. Re:U.D.P by rycamor · · Score: 0

      Oh COME ON, people... where are the funny mods?

  20. Re:Licensing Firearms by Intropy · · Score: 2

    While I agree with you that requiring licenses for firearms is foolish, I don't think that was really a factor here. He had licenses for his firearms, and he was still charged for their possession. If the police are corrupt enough to trump up charges on you, given the will, they will have little trouble inventing something.

  21. Probably has to do with McAfee blocking scam sites by thisisauniqueid · · Score: 2

    Belize is a great place to host a shady site. I was scammed as a seller on eBay by a Russian reshipment fraud circle that operated a fake storefront website in Belize and recruited reshippers via monster.com, then used stolen PayPal accounts to deposit actual payment in sellers' bank accounts followed by having sellers ship to the reshippers, who then on-shipped to Russia. Anyway, the short story is that probably these guys didn't like the fact that McAfee was blocking some of their scam websites...

  22. John in trouble again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It sounds like a bad day that never should have happened. Of interest, John got himself run off the Hawaiian island of Molokai not too many years ago by local activists angered by his attempt to come in and be a savior against drugs. He was running full page ads in the local paper with pictures of neighborhoods where he alleged drug transactions were regularly going on. He even started his own newspaper to carry on the battle. Next thing you knew, they were all over his case to the point that he had to auction off his property, including a never lived-in and nearly completed beach house and some other property he had here at significant losses. Even his auctions raised a lot of negative stuff from the activists. He may be a good person but he has a penchant for pissing off the wrong guys.

    1. Re:John in trouble again? by cmholm · · Score: 2

      In any case, the Fast Company article referenced by @lanner makes it pretty clear why McAfee cleared out for Belize: he's liable to lose a wrongful death lawsuit in Maricopa County Civil Court (search on case# CV2008-009723) related to the half-assed sky trike tour company he let a 22 y.o. nephew run.

      --
      Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
  23. McAfee? No sympathy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    McAfee is the worst antivirus company I've had the misfortune to deal with. The company that produced a firewall we used was bought by them and support went straight into the shitter. I have a ticket with them that was opened in in November and it is still not solved. The last time they contacted me was in January. I hope he ends up in a PMITA prison.

  24. Someone is behind this by ibic00 · · Score: 1

    e.g. Intel.

  25. Too Often, Killed His Dog by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm hearing too often about police raids that involve killing someone's dog in the process. I'm coming to think that killing a person's dog -- whether the person is innocent or not, and the dog most likely is completely innocent -- is a tactic now of police forces around the world to intimidate and harm the suspect regardless of the validity of the raid. Are police being taught that it is just safer to kill any dog they come across? It has gotten to the point where I'm rooting for the dog to win at least once.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Too Often, Killed His Dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Armed intruders like swat police are violent thugs. They wear enough body armor that a dog would be but a minor annoyance. They just love to shoot and kill, and pets are of no legal consequence so they do it liberally.

    2. Re:Too Often, Killed His Dog by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      They just love to shoot and kill, and pets are of no legal consequence so they do it liberally.

      But do they kill cats too? Or rabbits?

    3. Re:Too Often, Killed His Dog by drerwk · · Score: 1

      Well, they are getting better a handling firearms, so it should not be too long now. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/8927325/Dog-shoots-man-in-buttocks-US-police-reveal.html

    4. Re:Too Often, Killed His Dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm hearing too often about police raids that involve killing someone's dog in the process. I'm coming to think that killing a person's dog -- whether the person is innocent or not, and the dog most likely is completely innocent -- is a tactic now of police forces around the world to intimidate and harm the suspect regardless of the validity of the raid.

      Judging from the anecdotes of which I'm aware, yes, this is the case. I keep track of these sorts of things because this even happens when they get the "wrong" address; they can smoke your dogs with no problem. In addition, we've got thugs running around screaming "POLICE" and kicking down doors in the middle of the night, so who knows what you're getting. On top of that, even if they have the wrong address if you kill one of them they'll nail you on murder charges. Castle Doctrine does not hold.

      That being said, more cops need to die in no knock raids so that they stop. There are already too many civilians dying due to this stupidity. If you need evidence, surveil the fucking perp and when he leaves the house grab him. Christ, is it that difficult? Of course then you're taking away half of the SWAT team's job, and they don't like not having people (and dogs) to beat the hell out of and shoot.

    5. Re:Too Often, Killed His Dog by El+Torico · · Score: 1

      That's why I have a pet honey badger. We'll it's not really a pet; it's more of a big surprise for intruders.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    6. Re:Too Often, Killed His Dog by El+Torico · · Score: 1

      Oops, it's "well", not "we'll". I hope the Grammar Nazis don't come after me; they're as persistent as the honey badger.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    7. Re:Too Often, Killed His Dog by DaFallus · · Score: 1

      This article would suggest that police are not trained on how to deal with dogs. They usually carry mace, tasers, etc, but it seems they almost always go straight for the gun. I'm not sure what kind of training most police receive regarding handling situations involving pets, but I'd argue that this is most likely a case of Hanlon's razor.

      --
      No one cares what your captcha was

      Houston TX, USA
    8. Re:Too Often, Killed His Dog by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      Correct, the procedure is to shoot all dogs - even small ones or elderly ones - because even a gentle dog will be provoked when his master is attacked. A toy dog's bite might not hurt much but could be distracting during a critical moment and certainly noisy. I'm not a dog person, but while I dislike this procedure on a humanitarian level, I can see the logic being it being a standard procedure.

      AFAIK, cats or other small animals are not included in this procedure because they are more likely to hide quietly when strangers invade the home and attack the master.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    9. Re:Too Often, Killed His Dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cop ever kills my dog, the first opportunity I get that cop takes a large knitting needle to his right eye socket....

    10. Re:Too Often, Killed His Dog by swb · · Score: 1

      It's all part of the new paramilitary policing strategy. There was a time when the cops showed up at least one of them knew how to deal with a dog -- just about any dog that hasn't been strictly trained by the military will go fucking nuts over two pounds of cheap hamburger. With some doggie tranquilizers or even some diphenhydramine ground into it not only will it eat, it will fall asleep after.

      Now you have these steroid-driven asshats in tac gear who can't wait to kill *something*, and killing a dog is just a fun freebie they enjoy, especially since it lets them really zing the bad guy regardless of whether they get to arrest him.

    11. Re:Too Often, Killed His Dog by ArcCoyote · · Score: 1

      You hear about it because the media knows it's going to get people like you who care about animals (not necessarily PETA types, just people who care) to tune in or give them page views.

      Around the world? Well, killing someone's pets as intimidation is nothing new. Horse head in the bed and all that.

      What about raids, arrests, etc... where no shots are fired and no one gets hurt? Happen every day, they just don't make the news.

    12. Re:Too Often, Killed His Dog by V.+P.+Winterbuttocks · · Score: 1

      He'd probably be okay with killing your dog, but taking a large knitting needle to a dead dog's right eye socket would cross the line for most cops, I think.

      --
      I'm the real Vorokrytin P. Winterbuttocks.
  26. Aptly named by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I bet you thought they were a (gang suppression) unit,

    but they're actually a gang (suppression unit).

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Aptly named by Dracophile · · Score: 1
      --
      Athy, athier, athiest.
  27. The Three Ps by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Priests, Policemen, and Politicians. I just watched a documentary about a famous, now-defunct Black comedy club in Chicago called _All Jokes Aside_. The former owner noted the big city phenomenon of the 3Ps showing up when a business gets successful looking for handouts. And, if you don't pay up, each one will do their best to make you pay for it. In his case, he took care of the police, but not the politicians who made it a point to make sure he couldn't get a liquor license when he decided to relocate.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:The Three Ps by BLAG-blast · · Score: 1

      Pirates! The 4Ps: Priests, Policemen, Politicians and Pirates.

      --
      M0571y H@rml355.
    2. Re:The Three Ps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think "pirates" is the general concept... The others are instances of pirates (they missed the bankers there).

  28. shit like that happens by steve.cri · · Score: 2

    to ordinary people all the time, all around the world. it has to happen to a a rich guy in a poor country for the sheepish majority to see what an unchecked police force can do to people.

  29. Check the citation... by denzacar · · Score: 5, Informative

    From Wikipedia:

    Beginning in February 2010, John started a new venture in the field of bacterial quorum sensing.
    His new company QuorumEx is headquartered in Belize and is working towards producing commercial all natural antibiotics based on anti-quorum sensing technology.[6]

    From the cited article:
    http://edition.channel5belize.com/archives/69891

    Analysts at the Forensic Laboratory, and personnel from the Ministry of Health were taken to inspect the facility and samples of an alleged antibiotic apparently being manufactured at the Laboratory were also taken for analysis.
    The Ministry of Health has already confirmed that no licence has been granted to McAfee or any of his agents to manufacture antibiotics in Belize.
    Doing so without a licence is an offence under the Antibiotics Act.

    Then, there are bits that seem a tad... not directly related to the alleged main issue of the police action:

    Present on the premises at the time were John McAfee, his girlfriend who is a seventeen year old Belizean minor, five security guards.
      ...
     
    Further investigation led into a query regarding the employment of the security guards. This revealed that only two of the four guards on the premises were licensed to act as security guards.

      ...
     
    At the end of the search, three of the security guards were arrested and charged for "Providing Security Services without a License".

    Also, the dog was not shot dead. It was "fatally wounded".

    ...the GSU says that three of the eleven dogs on the premises attacked and bit one of the officers on his right thigh.
    The same dog then attacked a B.D.F. soldier who responded by fatally wounded the dog.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Check the citation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What's the difference between killing the dog and fatally wounding it?

    2. Re:Check the citation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it was fatally wounded, sounds like it was shot dead to me. I guess maybe the officer used a knife but most likey a gun.

      What was your point?

    3. Re:Check the citation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This. The guy is 66 and has a 17 year old girlfriend.

      He seems to assume laws don't apply to him (even if it's legal in Belize to have a 50 year younger minor as your girlfriend, it's morally questionable). Making 'anti-biotics' without permission...

      All this does is show that even if you pay enough bribes, someday, somebody will try to put the law on you, even in Belize!

    4. Re:Check the citation... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Shooting dead means that the dog was dead after getting shot. Fatally wounding means it could have lived if someone gave a fuck whether it died.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Check the citation... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      ...the GSU says that three of the eleven dogs on the premises attacked and bit one of the officers on his right thigh.

      He must have a rather big right thigh. Or did they take turns?

    6. Re:Check the citation... by arth1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This. The guy is 66 and has a 17 year old girlfriend.

      He seems to assume laws don't apply to him (even if it's legal in Belize to have a 50 year younger minor as your girlfriend, it's morally questionable).

      The thing about moral values is that they apply to those who have them; applying them to others is bigotry.
      You don't know anything about the moral values of John McAfee and his girlfriend, and judging them by yours is bigotry, unless you are also ready to be judged by, say, Sharia moral values.

      I'm not saying it doesn't raise a worry, but I'm also not judging. I don't know enough to do so.

    7. Re:Check the citation... by shiftless · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, "fatally wounded" means not instantly killed, but it will die from its wounds no matter what. "Mortally wounded" is what you're thinking of.

    8. Re:Check the citation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing about moral values is that they apply to those who have them; applying them to others is bigotry.

      Needed to be repeated. Often.

    9. Re:Check the citation... by denzacar · · Score: 1

      If it was fatally wounded, sounds like it was shot dead to me.

      That (exactly) was my point.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    10. Re:Check the citation... by spidr_mnky · · Score: 1

      I think "fatal" means the wound is the cause of death, regardless of whether death was a certain outcome of the wound. I'm less sure about "mortally wounded", but I take it to mean exactly the same thing, with the slightly different connotation that the speaker is asserting that the wound is certain to be fatal, although he may not know for sure. I definitely wouldn't take, "He's mortally wounded," to mean, "I think he might pull through if we can get him to a doctor."

      "Fatally wounding" does not necessarily mean "it could have lived", but it does leave room for that interpretation. Of course, I think he was just illustrating the distinction, not attempting to make the first stab in an etymological knife fight.

  30. Lesson learned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    There is a simple lesson here. Don't live in third-world shit holes like Belize. First world shit-holes like America are bad enough.

    1. Re:Lesson learned by ClioCJS · · Score: 2

      If you think the description of the article isn't EXACTLY how things go down in America, you haven't been reading enough.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  31. that's the risk of 3rd world countries by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    You think you're saving money, but you do give up some guarantees.

    Oddly, it works out worst for the richest people. The "suggested donations" required to ensure fair treatment tend to get larger the richer you are. Or just the richer they think you are.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:that's the risk of 3rd world countries by TheMathemagician · · Score: 1

      Agreed but the guy is a billionaire. Why isn't he commuting between homes in Switzerland and the Caribbean? Living in Belize seems a poor choice of location to avoid taxes.

    2. Re:that's the risk of 3rd world countries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      17 year old ho's.

  32. Yup, he wanted to save on taxes, hope he dies by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This guy is nothing but a fat rich cat looking to skip on paying taxes. So. now he sees what happens when everyone does that. You might think the IRS is a though one to deal with but they got to respect the law. In fantasy lands like Belize, not so much.

    This guy deserves no sympathy, only ridicule.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Yup, he wanted to save on taxes, hope he dies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow this is the most racist comment I've seen in Slashdot in like... ever!

    2. Re:Yup, he wanted to save on taxes, hope he dies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of secure countries he could of lived in and pay near 0 on his taxes.

  33. Here's some legal advice John... by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

    Don't live in a third world shithole. That's the best advice anyone can give you.

  34. Seems noble 'till you back away and look at... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the big picture. He's supposedly in Belize looking for cures, by grabbing random plants and seeing if they might somehow protect people from bacterial infections... (or seeing if he can find Clitalis or Vaginagra... yeah, he's looking for more than one thing, apparently,) but where is the science? Where is there any evidence that these "rare" plants have compounds in them that can prevent bacteria from becoming pathogenic? This strikes me as looking for the site of the wreck of the titanic by going down to a local pond, and picking up rocks on the bottom and looking under them. "Here?" No... "Here?" No... damn! "Where is it?!?"

    Also, does it matter if they become pathogenic? I mean, even if you stop this alleged quorum sensing they do, they are still eating at healthy tissues and multiplying, aren't they? So it'd be like terrorists sneaking into your country and setting up terrorist cells... if you can prevent them ever getting the signal to launch attacks, killing many people, great, but if meanwhile they are colonizing your country, killing a few citizens at a time, instead of hundreds or thousands, and having kids and training them to act the same way, eventually you get overrun, even if they never fire a shot, or blow up anything.

    So if you aren't KILLING the bacteria invading you, you're going to die eventually anyway, it's just instead of dying in days to weeks, you die in weeks to months. But as the bacteria are eating you, you'll be dying slowly, unless and until they eat something you REALLY need, like a section of your aorta, or your brain stem, then you die rather abruptly, all while the bacteria don't realize they have a strong enough number of themselves to wipe you out.

    But I digress, I'm sure he was busy looking for cures while hanging out on a beach and flying around his little ultralight deathplanes. Shame the busted him.

    pobre hombre!

  35. U.D.P. Orange Walk politician by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe he could claim he sent money, but the politician never received it...

  36. Re:Move to Israel the corruption there is much mor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Citation, please?

  37. Should I know the answers to these question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the Gang Suppression Unit? Is it a military unit, a police department, a paramilitary group, a terrorist organisation? The only clue is that he was arrested, which probably rules out the last two.

    What does U.D.P. stand for? I presume it's not the Ulster Democratic Party, but beyond that I have no idea.

    Is Orange Walk a street, a city, a town?

  38. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by Morty · · Score: 3, Informative

    Then there is the $1 million patrol boat he donated to the Belizean coast guard. (In a letter to The New York Times, he described it as an act of philanthropy; later, he tells me he had to bribe members of the coast guard to prevent them from hassling his ferry business: "This is a third-world country. I had to bribe a whole bunch of folks.

    indicating that he routinely gives large, overt, public bribes to get whatever he wants in Belize

    Bribing foreign officials is a violation of the US law Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. So it's surprising that he would admit this to a journalist.

    1. Re:Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by truedfx · · Score: 1

      No one's paid to do anything illegal. Is paying people to do the jobs they're supposed to do really covered by FCPA? It doesn't appear to be.

    2. Re:Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by robotkid · · Score: 1

      Bribing foreign officials is a violation of the US law Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. So it's surprising that he would admit this to a journalist.

      Right, but according to the fastcompany article he's revoked his US citizenship to be a Belize permanent resident and seems to have gone to great pains to make his assets completely untouchable to the US what with the 5 civil suits pending against him.

    3. Re:Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then there is the $1 million patrol boat he donated to the Belizean coast guard. (In a letter to The New York Times, he described it as an act of philanthropy; later, he tells me he had to bribe members of the coast guard to prevent them from hassling his ferry business: "This is a third-world country. I had to bribe a whole bunch of folks.

      indicating that he routinely gives large, overt, public bribes to get whatever he wants in Belize

      Bribing foreign officials is a violation of the US law Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. So it's surprising that he would admit this to a journalist.

      Why? It's not like anybody is going to bother trying to extradite him, and even if they did he could just grease a few palms.

    4. Re:Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Bribing foreign officials is a violation of the US law Foreign Corrupt Practices Act [wikipedia.org]. So it's surprising that he would admit this to a journalist.

      Did you read the article you linked? It's about businesses and trade.

      The anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA make it unlawful for a U.S. person, and certain foreign issuers of securities, to make a payment to a foreign official for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing business to, any person.

      So, if you're a retired, wealthy person living in a foreign country, it would seem not to apply if the bribery isn't related to your business.

      As I read it, unless he was doing it to gain a competitive advantage or get approval for something faster, the 'normal' level of bribery we've all been told to expect in some countries is fine for him in this case. That's just to keep the locals from hassling you as you go about your daily stuff. But if he's doing it as a wealthy private citizen to avoid being harassed, and not to secure contracts or permits, then this is the status quo of shake down in places where the cops are all corrupt.

      For instance, I used to work with a guy from Vietnam. He said when he went back, there was an expectation that when you came through customs that you would have dutifully inserted cash into your passport before handing it to them. Failure to do that could lead to big hassles at the airport. Apparently similar things can happen with cops -- pay a small 'fine' on the spot (or however you want to term it) and they'll refrain from shaking you down for a while.

      To me this sounds more like the kind of bribes you pay in places so the police don't come knocking on your door with trumped charges -- pretty much what happened to him. Sounds like someone felt left out.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  39. Belize is a dictatorship? by matunos · · Score: 1

    It's time someone did something about this dictator ruling Belize with an iron fist. What's his name? Oh yeah, it's Queen Elizabeth II.

    1. Re:Belize is a dictatorship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Alas, no longer. The US has forced Britain to relinquish her empire, particularly in South America, and British Honduras was given full independence in 1981.

      If Britain was still running British Honduras/Belize, this kind of thing would not be happening, of course. Or the far worse problems in many of the old African colonies...

      Thank you, US...

  40. Porn sites are more ethical, anyway by Kupfernigk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is this flamebait? Anyway, yes, as a (not very good perhaps) Quaker, with our testimony to ethical business, I have to observe that people who want pictures of naked people having sex go to porn sites where they presumably get exactly that. Most of the religious websites I have (usually accidentally) visited make extremely dubious and unprovable claims which, for any other subject, would in this country be regulated by the Advertising Standards Authority. So it doesn't surprise me that the operators of those religious websites are more likely to find themselves hosting malicious material; in some cases the entire website is clearly malicious in intent, since it attempts to persuade people of things for which a great deal of evidence exists that they are untrue.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Porn sites are more ethical, anyway by CSMoran · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Finally, I'd say many religious websites are probably made by amateurs and hence are easily exploitable by third parties to serve malware.

      --
      Every end has half a stick.
    2. Re:Porn sites are more ethical, anyway by CFD339 · · Score: 2

      Fantastic post. I agree with most of what you say - although I think the vulnerability of many of the least mainstream religions has a lot to do with the fact that they're running websites put up on the cheap, built and managed by amateurs. These sites are just more vulnerable than sites built and run by professional web site designers and administrators.

      --
      The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
    3. Re:Porn sites are more ethical, anyway by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

      No, it's not flamebait.

      "make extremely dubious and unprovable claims" = "more likely to find themselves hosting [malware]" ?

      That does not follow. Is your non sequitur comment flamebait?

    4. Re:Porn sites are more ethical, anyway by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

      (self-replying to add...)

      FWIW, I think the other people are probably correct when they say that the religious sites are probably more susceptible because they're lower-budget, hosted on cheap web hosting services, and maintained by people who don't always know a lot about securing a website.

      But your statement was still a non sequitur.

  41. Old joke by Kupfernigk · · Score: 2
    Told me by an Israeli...

    An Englishman, an American and an Israeli are discussing the cost of living in their countries. The Englishman says "I earn $50000 a year and it costs me $50000 to live, so I'm doing OK". The American says "I earn $100000 a year and the cost of living is $50000." The Englishman says "What do you do with the other $50000?" The American says "It's a free country, I can do what I like."

    The Israeli says "Well, my income is $10000 a year and the cost of living is $50000 a year". The American says "How does that work?" The Israeli says "It's a free country, I can do what I like."

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Old joke by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      That... is... awesome...

      Mod parent up please.

    2. Re:Old joke by Nimey · · Score: 1

      I'm a little thick this morning, so I don't get the punch line. Explain?

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    3. Re:Old joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes freedom is only the freedom to starve to death slowly.

    4. Re:Old joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either that, or you use less formal ways than the exchange of currency to procure less formally what you need. Epsilon exchanges of sorts. And at times not all of the parties involved might be aware that a 'trade' or 'exchange' is going on.

    5. Re:Old joke by Cederic · · Score: 1

      It's an ironic socio-political commentary on the Israeli exploitation of Palestine. In joke form.

  42. I can't Belize it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will they do something about Symantec, next?

  43. Wait! Wait! Wait! by Tiger+Smile · · Score: 1

        He didn't pay protection money? Now he's in trouble? Oh, irony.

        He should have lived on the Linux mainland, and not that Windows Vista.

    --
    -- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
  44. No, it isn't by Kupfernigk · · Score: 5, Informative

    It has been independent since 1981. Which coincidentally was the year it started to degenerate.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:No, it isn't by dtmancom · · Score: 1

      I love that argument.

      If these former colonies always degenerate when given independence from colonial control because of the, "They never knew how to take care of themselves" argument, then what is going to happen to the citizens of the United States in the very near future? I don't see a lot of areas where the United States government is taking a hands-off approach in the lives of its subjects.

    2. Re:No, it isn't by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      He didn't make that argument though. He just argued that the alleged "dictator" couldn't be blamed for the current situation.

    3. Re:No, it isn't by fnj · · Score: 1

      Help me out here, because I genuinely want to understand. How can a country be independent but still have Queen Elizabeth II as the head of state?

    4. Re:No, it isn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask Canada.

    5. Re:No, it isn't by matunos · · Score: 1

      The head of state of Belize is still the Queen, just like those oppressed sods to our north...

    6. Re:No, it isn't by Belizean · · Score: 1

      Belize like any tropical paradise can be a mixed bag. But there are risks living in paradise. The country's main attraction for expats is that it is the only English-speaking country in Central America. It offers excellent benefits for retirees see: Belize How To Live Or Retire In Belize: http://www.belize.com/articles/residency-and-retirement-in-belize.html But Belize has been gripped by escalating crime over the past five years and the government has ramped up anti-crime measures. Unfortunately this has brought along draconian laws, heavy handed and brutal law enforcement - and some believe even extra judicial killings. The Belize GSU is feared by expats and locals alike. This unit is financed and trained by the FBI. See Belize Steps Up Security Against Gangs: http://belizean.com/belize-steps-up-security-against-gangs-1135/ Many well known persons and celebrities have second homes and investments in Belize or visit frequently, from Bill Gates to Elton John, to Leonardo Di Carpio and Francis Ford Coppola who owns two beautiful resorts in Belize. But this latest incident may give pause to tourists and investors alike.

    7. Re:No, it isn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Australia

    8. Re:No, it isn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One can't believe everything they say about "excellent" retirement benefits; some turn out to be myths. And as Mr. McAfee has experienced, one is squeezed for every cent they can get out of you.

  45. Re:amazing summary by michelcolman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The article itself is pretty amazing too.

    On Monday at six o’clock, I was awakened by the sound of a bullhorn
    (...)
    and for fourteen hours outside in the sun, I sat handcuffed without food or water. We got water around noon.
    (...)
    They (...) took me to Belize City. Fortunately we had copies. We showed up later at the police station with the copies. Even then it was difficult to get out.

    Fourteen hours between six in the morning and noon? Being locked up in the police station first, and then showing up at the station afterwards?

    I am confused...

  46. This is right on track by CFD339 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I was thinking exactly the same thing as I read Kupfernigk response. The sites which are least professionally built and maintained are most vulnerable to outsiders planting malware. Many of the less mainstream religious sites fall into this category of low technical management and are thus vulnerable.

    Porn, being a huge industry, seems to get the attention of more skilled developers and administrators (if not actors and camera people). While surely some are not, and those will be vulnerable, I think most of the porn sites that are malware laden fall into the category of 'honeypots' with either fake or real porn placed with the deliberate goal of being a malware vector.

    --
    The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
  47. Re:amazing summary by Theophany · · Score: 2

    Probably because you didn't RTFA properly?

    Awoken at 16, handcuffed outside the building for 14 hours, the first 6 of which he went without water. They were all taken to the police station after the search. It's crappy writing, but the guy's a programmer, not a Pulitzer prize winner.

    What I find more incredible is the fact that he believed that this kind of shit wouldn't happen in somewhere like Belize...

  48. Google ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Javascript is a client-side scripting language that allows us to modify the DOM (the visible webpage) and make API calls to get data. Without it, there is a hell of lot we just simply cannot do anymore.

    Websites that are heavy on JS/AJAX and want visibility in Google need to reimplement at least basic navigation and content on the server side. more info.

    1. Re:Google ... by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Uhhh... I could give two shits about Google. Don't give them any information at all, block them on everything, and they are not relevant to my neck of the woods at all.

      Having JS/AJAX heavy public pages for portals does not make a lot of sense. Those should be as simple as humanly possible. I agree with you on that. The worst is *all* flash home pages.

      Once you are inside a site, Google no longer applies. There is such a large number of sites that are like that. Slashdot and blogging sites probably depend on Google indexing their content, but none of the examples of JS's necessity deal with Google in such a fashion.

      JS needs to be used for what cannot be done without it. That is client side modifications of the DOM and AJAX calls where you need it.

  49. When in Belize... by flyneye · · Score: 1

    When in Belize, do as the Belizians do.
    Grease teh political hand wanking you off. After all the only people in Belize that aren't tourists are criminals on the lam,tax exiles and locals taking advantage of it.
    Really any confuxion he may be suffering is probably clearing up as a symptom of his cranial rectumitus in remission.
    My confusion is, how did he end up in a shite hole like Belize without a clue??

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  50. Sounds familiar by HangingChad · · Score: 1

    He says the GSU came busting into his research facility in Orange Walk, killed his dog, took his passport, handcuffed him and arrested him on a bogus weapons charge.

    Sounds like Belize is catching up to America.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  51. duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, here's an idea: don't live in Belize. If you are going to move to a place you know is corrupt, you can hardly complain when that corruption comes knocking on your door.

    1. Re:duh by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Damn right. The most important rules of living in a corrupt third-world country:

      1. Stay off law enforcement's radar
      2. Grease palms where necessary
      3. Keep a low profile

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  52. Re:amazing summary by michelcolman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I did read it properly, he just didn't write it properly. Everything I quoted, was copied and pasted directly from the article. He did say they were without food and water for fourteen hours and they got water around noon. And the bit about being taken to Belize City (in handcuffs? Incarcerated?) only to show up later with copies of his licenses (free to go back to get those after all?) is pretty unclear as well. Crappy writing indeed, but anyway, I guess the big picture is clear enough.

  53. Re:amazing summary by Theophany · · Score: 2

    Well, "for fourteen hours outside in the sun, I sat handcuffed without food or water" isn't the same as "they were without food and water for fourteen hours."

    All this pedantry is making me thirsty...

  54. What a piece of work by shiftless · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    He flees from the US to some tax haven so he won't have to repay society for all the money he extracted.

    I'm sorry that you're jealous of McAfee and mad about how worthless your life is and how it will never amount to anything, but you're only making yourself look stupid by talking about him "extracting" money. What the fuck are you even talking about? He created a product, offered it for sale, and people bought it. At no point did he deceive or lie to anyone about what the product does. What's so wrong with that......you loud mouthed prick?

    McAfee doesn't owe you or anyone else a fucking thing, so stop acting like a petty bitch. Pull up your big girl panties and go make your own millions selling your own software.

    1. Re:What a piece of work by Internal+Modem · · Score: 1

      He went there to avoid lawsuits, shiftless. He did not move there for any other reason than he is no good as a person.

    2. Re:What a piece of work by Peristaltic · · Score: 1

      Shiftless was replying more to sosume's implication that McAfee somehow extracted tax money from society that he should repay.

      My understanding as to the main reason John moved to Belize was that he was being sued over a fatal ultralight accident, quite a while after he cashed out his interest in his company in 1994.

      While I think McAfee is a douchebag, I'm afraid that I agree very much with shiftless's statement, flamebait or not.

    3. Re:What a piece of work by shiftless · · Score: 1

      Really ? A person is defined as "no good" if they move to a foreign country to avoid corruption in this one?

    4. Re:What a piece of work by Internal+Modem · · Score: 1

      Their own corruption....

  55. FTFY by shiftless · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, bribes are the norm in all countries.

  56. Darn... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
    Hmm....

    Well, so much for my planning a vacation to Belize....doesn't sound that safe for foreigners there.....

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    1. Re:Darn... by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 3, Informative

      They don't mess with tourists - that is a good chunk of their income. Belize is perfectly safe if you are visiting, and don't become embroilled in local politics. I know plenty of people who have vacationed there and have said it was awesome.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    2. Re:Darn... by mdalal97 · · Score: 1

      Actually, Belize is amazing and safe. I went there for a three week honeymoon. My wife & I toured almost the entire country. The rain forest and scuba diving were amazing -- I'm hoping all the recent tourism money has been used to helped preserve those areas. All the people were extremely nice and helpful. We also visited Orange Walk for a couple of hours. That was the one place which felt a little sketchy.

      Excluding my dengue fever experience, that vacation stands out as the best of my life. We were there during the election cycle, so we heard a lot about the two parties: UDP and PUP.

    3. Re:Darn... by joebagodonuts · · Score: 1
      We did the same - as tourist, Belize is amazing. I'm going again.

      As an ex-pat, I guess it depends...

      --
      "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
    4. Re:Darn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah my brother went there like 5 years ago and said it was super awesome. They have a lot of ancient ruins and stuff too.

    5. Re:Darn... by murphtall · · Score: 1

      i second this. i got married and honeymooned in belize, we went all over, had a blast, even had our fill at the local pharmacies, its very safe; they love tourism dollars.

    6. Re:Darn... by madhi19 · · Score: 1

      You turned me off just with the words "dengue fever"! loll

    7. Re:Darn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't mess with tourists - that is a good chunk of their income. Belize is perfectly safe if you are visiting, and don't become embroilled in local politics. I know plenty of people who have vacationed there and have said it was awesome.

      Well then, maybe he shouldn't have located his facility there, trying to circumvent paying taxes and such can have there consequences.

  57. Re:Clearly... Don't use Microsoft. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, really, that is what your position boils down to. Microsoft's OS is what does all that.

  58. OK, so now you're dead. Well done. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no text.

  59. Porn sites more ethical, users more careful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally, I'd say many religious websites are probably made by amateurs and hence are easily exploitable by third parties to serve malware.

    True, religious content creators are likely more susceptibly-naive than are porn-content creators, but likely so are their viewers, making them more susceptible to embedded malware - thus a much preferred target.

    Don't take this observation as an attack on religion, only on its common perversions. On my last jury-duty questionnaire, I listed my religion as "Zen-Christian", which is pretty accurate if you actually RFTM source texts instead of listening to conventional organized-religion self-serving BS. (E.g., the subjection of women was explicitly rejected by that Illegitimate Jewish Heretic only to have this later denied by some of his patriarchal-society-embedded groupies.)

    And yes, that jury questionnaire answer did result in my non-selection; dunno if it was the defense or prosecution (or both) who didn't want to chance someone who might not have the expected knee-jerk responses.

  60. Udopeian Paradise by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, Belize is amazing and safe.

    True police states are indeed safe and lovely to visit, for those who do not have to live in them or fear being able to leave ever.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Udopeian Paradise by nickscalise · · Score: 1

      Even reporters can fall for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_the_Holodomor

    2. Re:Udopeian Paradise by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I've been to Belize. I didn't see any evidence of it being a police state, just a poor, third-world country (and a very small one at that). Police states require lots of resources to do all that policing; that's why you only see them in industrialized nations. Third-world countries are dangerous mainly because there's not much rule of law, and what they have is very corrupt. That's obviously the problem here. The guy has a lot of money, and didn't pay off the right people. That's why moving to poor, third-world countries when you're rich is generally a bad idea; one of the things you're paying for with all those taxes in a developed country is safety: you don't have to worry much about armed thugs coming and taking your stuff or taking you away on bogus charges, and you don't have to hire private security.

      Of course, the USA is starting to resemble a third-world country more and more, so it's understandable rich people would want to move away from here since they're paying a lot in taxes and not getting much in return, but they'd be smarter to move to European countries where they wouldn't have to worry about what this guy just went through.

    3. Re:Udopeian Paradise by ISurfTooMuch · · Score: 1

      No, Belize is in no way a police state. There is plenty of petty political bickering there, but it's actually one of the most stable democracies in Latin America. If he really thinks he was set up, he ought to go tell his story to Amandala, which is one of the leading newspapers there. And it's strongly anti-UDP. They'll take that story and run it over and over and over.

    4. Re:Udopeian Paradise by kbx911 · · Score: 1

      yeah Cuba and Israel examples

  61. next on KROK, all the oldies all the time... by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Obviously a Iron Maiden fan.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:next on KROK, all the oldies all the time... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Not sure if you're kidding, but I've actually had local stations playing late 70s/early 80s as "oldies." I'm really considering multiple homicide now.

    2. Re:next on KROK, all the oldies all the time... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      "Oldies" are basically "20-30+ years ago," not a specific decade. Very soon the 90s will be considered 'oldies,' unless we get so retro-obsessed that retro runs into the present and we end up running out of past.

  62. vote Thud457 for warlord 2012! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    This.

    We should be working on enabling dogs to fire guns before attempting to solve the more difficult problem of putting lasers on sharks.
    I'd even find it acceptable that this technology was primarily abused for drug dealers' pit-bulls as long as occasionally some DEA goon took one in the knee.

    Another worthy related project would be to dress coked-up monkeys in pink princess dresses and take them through TSA checkpoints.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  63. Unfair... by Twinbee · · Score: 1

    I only skimmed the summary, but I think it's a bit unfair to imprison someone just because they have created bloated software that slows down thousands, or even millions of PCs. Yes, they have caused untold misery for many, but it wasn't forced upon them. Those people CHOSE to buy this crapware - they're at least partly to blame.

    He should at least be cautioned and asked for his company to stop trading first.

    --
    Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
  64. Something more to this.... by davydagger · · Score: 1

    Is belieze so bad he needs a a bunch of weapons for security. then he mentions the massive donations he's made to the police in the past..... Indicates past corruption. Why did he move to belize in the first place. From what everyone keeps telling me, large english speaking ex-pat community and few places left with no extradition laws. The new "mexico".

  65. Re:amazing summary by Muros · · Score: 1

    Did he write it? It looks like a transcript from an interview that he gave.

  66. Re:amazing summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "for fourteen hours outside in the sun, I sat handcuffed without food or water"

    is the same as

    "I sat handcuffed without food or water for fourteen hours outside in the sun"

    or

    "I sat handcuffed outside in the sun for fourteen hours without food or water"

  67. Re:amazing summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you know something I don't about Belize or are you just assuming that stuff like this would happen because the people who live there are brown?

  68. They killed his dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If someone killed my dog, it would be the end of them, and the end of me. I would kill them or die trying to kill them. It would be a reflex, not a conscious act. It would be their last act, and probably mine as well.

  69. They didn't "kill his dog" by V.+P.+Winterbuttocks · · Score: 3, Informative

    They killed one of his eleven dogs (three of which attacked them). They also arrested three of his four security guards for not having the proper license to work as private security in Belize.

    But hey, the more I read about the guy, the more I dislike him.

    He created the McAfee antivirus, which alone is enough to take pleasure in his misfortune.

    He has a 17-year-old girlfriend. Don't get me wrong. I think it's perfectly okay for a 66-year-old guy to have a 17-year-old girlfriend, as long as 66-year-old guy is me, when I'm 66.

    He fled the U.S., tried to renounce his citizenship, etc. etc. etc. to escape from 5 civil suits that have been brought against him.

    He moved to some third-world tax haven country where he thought the U.S. wouldn't be able to reach him (or his money).

    He greased a few palms like he was supposed to do, then he got uppity and decided he wasn't going to give this one gentleman any money because, you know, he'd already given a million dollars to the police department.

    He has ELEVEN dogs. In most cities in the U.S., that itself would be illegal. He hired four security guards, 3 of whom were unlicensed.

    And then when the shit hit the fan, he started crying to the American Embassy to get rescued. Excuse me? Is he an American citizen or isn't he?

    --
    I'm the real Vorokrytin P. Winterbuttocks.
  70. US Government Bailout by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this mean he's moving back to the US or will he expect the USA to bail him out again.
    Sure take advantage of living in a foreign country then expect your nation of citizenship to bail you out.

  71. Clearly, You Didn't Know The Founding Fathers by cmholm · · Score: 1

    >> He doesn't owe anyone a fucking thing, least of all you and your corrupt "society." Our Founding Fathers would shake their head in disgust at your idea.

    I guess Ben Franklin was just on a drunk when writing "We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
  72. The Molokai Asshole by cmholm · · Score: 1

    John McAfee’s problems on Molokai had nothing to do with exposing drug use in the Molokai Times (which he financed), and everything to do with making little effort to fit into the small island community. On the one hand, he donated money to community groups. But, his name became mud when he threw food at a market clerk to get his attention.

    There are two "supermarkets" on all of Molokai, they're next door to each other, and the whole island shops at 'em. Get impatient and pop one clerk in the head with a snack food, and by noon the next day everyone in your little world knows you're an asshole. Subsequently, while cashing out of Molokai, McAfee tried to pump up the price for an undeveloped property with a full page ad in the Wall Street Journal, and became local public enemy #1. In essence, John was “run off the island” one stink-eye at a time.

    However, the Maui County PD never busted down his door for not making the “right” community contributions. Different places, different ways.

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
  73. Does this mean... by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

    Does this mean that he now knows what a false positive feels like?

  74. Come on, killed his dog? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MONSTERS!

  75. Who gives a fuck by NetNinja · · Score: 1

    U.S. citizens who live in other countries take the risk of being the first killed whenever mahem occurs in that country.

    Of course the same risk applies in the U.S.

    The one thing U.S. citizens don't understand is that they are the first to be dragged onto the street and executed.

    Everyone knows where the ugly American lives.

  76. Did he give up his US citizenship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > At least he's saving on income tax.

    Not unless he gave up US citizenship, he's not. I think there at tax credits to offset things if you don't make very much money, but the US still taxes citizens living abroad.

  77. Clearly you didn't either by shiftless · · Score: 1

    Are you saying Ben Franklin would agree that it is immoral and wrong for a person to decide that the country he's living in is too corrupt, and that his life would be better elsewhere? Are you really making that argument?

    1. Re:Clearly you didn't either by cmholm · · Score: 1

      Nope. A poor straw man in any case. "Too corrupt?" Please. McAfee bolted to get away from a run-of-the-mill wrongful death lawsuit.

      --
      Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
  78. Well, he wanted to live in Belize by Somebody+is+Grar · · Score: 1

    It may cost less to live there and the weather is nice, but it IS a third-world country.

    --
    Grar II
  79. Not entirely a non sequitur by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    The post was intended as a kind of joke, and clearly some people didn't get that. But it isn't entirely a non sequitur. People who are unable to realise the difference between science and fiction are also less likely to know about the way the Internet works and, in my experience, likely to be taken in by cheap website design companies. If they really practised ethical business they would make a proper study of everything they did and get good advice. But their careless approach to the truth about the world spills over into other things.

    When you have seen (as I have) an Evangelical wrap a van round a lamppost because he believed God would show him how to drive it properly, you may appreciate my point.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  80. Praetorian Guards reach into Belize by stock · · Score: 1
    McAfee founder booked on drug, weapons charges, report says
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57428439-71/mcafee-founder-booked-on-drug-weapons-charges-report-says/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title
    by Chris Matyszczyk
    , May 4, 2012 5:04 PM PDT

    John McAfee lives in Belize and says that this is all just politics. However, the local Gang Suppression Unit issues a press release accusing him a unlicensed drug manufacturing and unlicensed weapon possession.

    How about revoking the McAfee licenses of the GSU department, and notify the keyboard driven community about IT Security problems at GSU, Independence Plaza, Belmopan, Cayo District, Belize, C.A.

    Robert
    --
    Robert M. Stockmann - RHCE
    Network Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist
    crashrecovery.org stock@stokkie.net

  81. Not arrested... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but just quarantined

  82. I dont know u - get away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's what a traitor like you gets, you chose to live there just to keep tax money from people that need it.