How do you know that the Quicktime DLLs aren't escalating privileges to run commands in supervisor mode?
Bottom line if Vista (or any OS) is bluescreening it's doing so as a result of something that has happened in kernel-mode space. Since it presumably wouldn't bluescreen without being asked to render a.MOV by the Quicktime player then there has to be an element of "blame" on Apples side.
Since Vista there is another compelling reason to force users to use IE - namely that embedded WMV doesn't work without the plugin that MS have just recently released (which isn't something listed on Windows Update as a patch, it's a manual download). I can either guarantee that the users will see the embedded video by forcing them to use IE, whereas it's pot luck whether they've installed it when they're on Firefox/non-IE browser.
(The argument about WMVs suitability for streaming media is moot imo - it's what my customers ask for, even if I remind them that it's essentially Windows/IE-only)
Another reason is ActiveX. I know the *nix cognoscenti consider ActiveX to be the spawn of Satan but we host (and have designed) a number of sites that use it extensively for various reasons. Obviously that isn't supported at all in Firefox (there is I believe a plugin of sorts available - but again plugins are no use to me when something has to "just work" on a basic Windows install)
If this was a Microsoft flaw there wouldn't be any talk of "good PR" in releasing a patch quickly, or any other positive angle. There would be reply after reply about Microsofts' code being bloated, the evils of closed-source, monopolistic tactics, that one time when Bill Gates stood on a cats tail by mistake, etc. Linux isn't the only golden boy, Firefox (vs IE), Google (vs big nasty corporations), etc get just as much ridiculously transparent partisan treatment.
Vulnerabilities, particularly serious ones, are never good news. At the very least it would cost businesses who have deployed Linux engineer time in fixing (applying patch(es)) the problem, it generates uncertainty in the market - it creates the potential for business managers who just scan the IT news pages to say "didn't Linux have that serious problem not long ago?". This much is true of any OS, particularly one that businesses need to rely on.
I'm a firm believer in open-source, and I use both Windows and Linux in equal measure both at work and at home. I don't however believe fundamentally that the fact Windows and IE are closed-source automatically make them "poorly written". As has already been remarked a lot of this comes down to usage statistics... with a 90%+ market share you can guarantee that every hacker out there is trying to find fault in every single DLL that Windows ships with. As Linux gains more traction in the desktop & server markets as time goes on you can be sure that there will be most vulnerabilities like this being found. Programmers make mistakes, and there is no such thing as bug-free software.
I really wish Slashdot could dispense with the hidden agendas, partisan attitudes and blatent fanboyism and not sweep serious vulnerabilities like this under the carpet as if they aren't a big deal. Dimissing them as trivial is - if anything - more damaging than giving them the proper attention.
What is the point of a EULA/ToS then if it is neither enforceable or binding? If it is expected and even accounted for legally that people do not read them then what's the point of them even existing?
I agree with your point about "unreasonable terms", but simply not reading a EULA and then pleading ignorance when you break one of the rules therein is no defence.
The people involved in doing things like this are more than likely part of groups who seek to make money by "selling" comprimised hosts to the various other nefarious computing industries like spammers, etc.
Not to mention of course that modifying binary code, especially BIOS firmware, etc to do the sort of thing you suggest and still actually function is very difficult indeed. Chances are the people who altered the Asus site could've easily used script-kiddy proof-of-concept exploits for both the ANI vulnerability and whatever it was that got them onto the webserver in the first place.
Again I would have to stress that a PR document written for someone like Microsoft is going to be at the absolute end of the spectrum in terms of thoroughness. For a company where any ill-thought comment can be skewed into a story you have to cover off absolutely all of the bases.
Most documents of this nature for companies without such a publicly-contentious image would simply cover off the most obvious points, they wouldn't need to go into such explicit detail about exactly what should be said and how to deal with specific questions, etc.
Why does it surprise you? It's a PR document, not a technical manual. One can assume that the person being interviewed is experienced and intelligent enough in whichever field he's being interviewed on to know how to discuss what he knows technically about the product.
The sole purpose of the document is to prep the interviewee about the likely climate of the interview. There is I'm sure another department which can and do prep people on "ground level" technicalities that execs might not be aware of.
You're looking for some kind of anti-Microsoft spin on this where it simply doesn't exist.
The irony is of course that the one thing the PR document doesn't cover is how to deal with instances where material such as this enters the public domain. The fact it's being billed as newsworthy here and we're talking about it completely justifies the PR companies efforts.
Well, it is commensurate with the sort of profile Microsoft have. The mere fact that topics on here often stray off into rabid anti-Microsoft territory for no apparent reason justifies the PR effort really.
Most corporations aren't going into press meetings expecting the same sort of scrutiny that Microsoft does, so they don't need to have this level of documentation for simple phone conferences. With Microsoft however you can almost guarantee that at any given time anyone an executive speaks to is looking for that one slipup which will net them an exclusive story and a raise from their employer. Under those sort of circumstances you can forgive them for going to great lengths to cover off every conceivable angle.
The only story here is that this information ended up in the wrong Inbox.
As has already been remarked by others above me there is nothing sinister about anything said in the briefing document. It's candid in places, perhaps a little chatty in others, but overall this what you should expect if not hope for in this kind of document. If a reporter has a history of "digging for dirt" then that's what the document should state.
It seems a bit disingenuous to me to take Microsoft to task over something like this when it is the standard practice in any PR-conscious company, you can bet that Wired probably has similar documents flying about that offered guidance about individuals in companies who are easier to coerce, more likely to reveal sensitive information, etc.
I don't think money is going to be a problem for Blizzard for a long time thanks to World of Warcraft, even if Vivendi is picking up the lion share of the profits.
There is a little too much editorialising in that article in my opinion, phrases like "People will have been buying Alienware's over-priced, fools-gold systems as a result of corrupt reviews written by corrupt journalists" smack of petulance rather than the staple of a professional review site. I appreciate Hexus are probably wound up by Alienware's apparent policy of no longer sending them hardware, but that's not the way to show it. The whole thing reads like Hexus just basically wanting to give Alienware a bloody nose.
Rebutting each point of an email with assumptions about "what was really meant" don't look that professional either. Nowhere in Bettinson's emails did he explicitly say that "Alienware was demanding that we lie about Alienware's products in future reviews and that the company was surprised that we hadn't lied in our review of the Area-51 7500 system", yet that's what we're told is the hidden subtext.
You also have to question the professionalism of a "Director of Communications & Strategy" who says in an email "i'm of the view that it would be manifest to any right thinking person that you have behaved like a moron [...]".
It all reads like kids playing at business, which is very strange really.
(That's not to say that Alienware aren't ridiculously overpriced, they are - but that's not what this article was about)
Although it may not have applied in this case there could also have been technical reasons why a patch wasn't applied, it certainly wouldn't be the first time that a patch - even a MS one - has caused complications in other software that is installed. Automatically assuming the sysadmin is incompetent and patching their system for them and potentially breaking their business-critical application suite is not "a good thing" imo.
A better solution would've been to flash a message up on screen basically saying something along the lines of "I got in to your system because it has a vulnerability - either patch it or block the listening port to trusted hosts only or next time the real virus might get in" might've been a better solution.
I can't think of many worse (in terms of sustainable income) jobs in the World than this to be honest.
For a start you're competing against millions of people who don't require any technical qualification to compete with you. Besides gaining knowledge on a subject most people go to College & University to set themselves aside from the pack, to make themselves look more attractive to employers. With pro-gaming you haven't got any of this, the only barrier to entry is sufficiently fast reflexes, a little intelligence and a competent PC.
This person is going to be a target for the rest of his playing career. The guy below him is gonna be aiming to usurp him to get his sponsorship, not to mention thousands upon thousands of upstarts actively seeking to relegate him to obscurity.
It's also the sort of industry where unless you are in the Top 10 or so players for an extended period of time you're anonymous. It's not like being a professional footballer where even if you're in the lower divisions you're still making enough money to live on. This guy has to realise that there are thousands of people below him who are making no real money to speak of just waiting for him to slip up.
No one really knows the terms of this $250,000 contract - whether he's actually been given this amount of money or whether that's essentially his "valuation" in pro-gaming terms, but if I were him I would invest all of it and work on the principal that his career could just fizzle out in a couple of years or so.
I had a measure of sympathy for him before I delved into his blog because I figured it was the sort of thing that any number of people could do and not fully realise the legal implications of their actions.
Reading through his blog though it's clear he is neither contrite or apologetic, and has even linked to several of the sites that have been discussing him (a number of which pointed out the black-and-white violation of privacy Laws involved) like it's some kind of "hall of fame". He is genuinely completely uninformed as to the legal implications of what he's done, or he thinks people quoting Law statutes is some kind of "comedy response". Either way his site and the circlejerk of replies on his blog suggests to me that he is someone who thinks that his attempt to create the next Internet meme somehow indemnifies him against legal action.
It doesn't, and he's gonna find that out pretty soon.
Irrespective of the tenuous justifications for posting individuals responses, photographs and other personally identifiable information the bottom line as the Wired blog touches on is that Jason has clearly broken privacy Laws, and there isn't really much grey area in what he's done either.
IANAL but if there had been a public interest in sharing this information then he *might* have got away with it the same way that tabloid newspapers do, but even then he would require a legal *team* analysing his every word stated and what every sentence may or may not be construed as implying. Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "omg the Internet = free information and freedom of speech!" won't hold up in Court.
Part of me is sympathetic because its the sort of prank that any number might think up and execute without forethought of the possible legal ramifications. People wrongfully assume that because the Internet makes anyone a journalist for little/no money that somehow this absolves them from any kind of libel or slander Laws. This sometimes leads people to doing or saying things that they would never consider (or at least have an infrastructure in place that would stop it from happening - e.g. editor, etc) if they were publishing the information in one of the regular media forms - newspaper, radio or television.
Whilst IANAL I do know categorically that Jason's actions in publishing all of these peoples' personal information, irrespective of whatever justification he or others believe to be behind it (e.g. some are married, etc), will lead to legal action that he is sure to lose.
Who's to say that they would definitely get numbers that high? That's pretty big speculation on your part really, even by typical anti-Microsoft standards.
I use Firefox both at home and work and I think these results just go to show that no software is by definition bug-free, regardless of whether it is open or closed source. People who automatically believe that because Firefox is the community favourite and open-source that it is naturally superior (in code terms) are deluding themselves.
We've only just started getting 10MB cable connections in the UK, and 16-20MB is still in its infancy and only available to about 0.001% of the population. Even then you need to physically reside on top of the phone exchange to get anything like the full speed.
I pay £35 (approx. $65) a month for 10Mbit, with a paltry 384kbps upload. So, you haven't got it that bad to be honest.
Since when has eBay saying something is prohibited made any real difference to what happens on there though?
I didn't even know they prohibited Western Union until I saw that link, and yet there are plenty of auctions out there that specify WU as the only method of payment (usually scammy ones).
Likewise eBay came down hard on people passing on their Paypal/eBay fees to the buyer, so now people who want to get around it simply inflate the postage price safe in the knowledge that it's not something eBay can readily invigilate.
The ratio of auctions to eBay staff monitoring them is such that anything eBay says in terms of rules and regulations is basically only an advisory. Whilst they can use it to suspend or limit your account, this would typically only happen after the damage has been done (i.e. after you've been scammed, or whatever), or if an auction gets enough internet publicity for it to get noticed (e.g. people selling virginity, etc).
Unless I'm missing the obvious, how would you go about changing the channels whilst streaming Live TV?
The article seems to mention streaming movies you have already pre-recorded, which is all well and good but if you are just going to watch pre-recorded films whats stopping you from just sticking them on your phone the next time its in the base station?
I would've thought with MythTV in the equation that streaming live TV and being able to change channels (on your phone) would be the killer app.
They probably have got email accounts set up for them, they just don't know how to use them. It's no wonder when they keep typing in things like "Job@3:14" to contact people.
Seconding Puzzle Bobble/Bust-a-Move - this is a great suggestion.
My sister LOVES this game, and she is just as capable at it as myself and my friends - who would wipe the floor with her in a FPS or whatever.
It's fun for everyone!(TM)
Re:I'm sure someone else has mentioned this:
on
AMD Subpoenas Skype
·
· Score: 1
It's only sockets at the end of the day, and in any event conference calling people even on a modest spec PC doesn't exactly stretch it. There's no real need for a 10-user limit that I can see, much less an arbitrary 5-user limit on an otherwise equivalent x86 CPU which just happens to be manufactured by someone who hasn't thrown money Skype's way.
It amazes me that Skype think that something like this would've gone unnoticed, or slipped through the net legally.
So much of this sort of stuff gets traded on Ebay it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if you could sell openly illegal stuff (e.g. guns without licences, drugs, etc) with impunity.
Sure, the initial few auctions would get shutdown pretty quickly due to the press picking up on them as "exceptions to the norm". But I strongly doubt Ebay has someone monitoring every single auction that is created.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm all for hating eBay for the genuinely annoying things they do, as well as their , their questionable exclusion of Google Chuckout and other non-Paypal payment gateways, but blaming them for some random nutjob buying something which isn't even against the TOS to list - or illegal to purchase - is really clutching at straws.
How is the VT event in any way remotely relevant to this Lifetime Achievement award, or - for that matter - how is the Webby award even newsworthy?
How do you know that the Quicktime DLLs aren't escalating privileges to run commands in supervisor mode?
.MOV by the Quicktime player then there has to be an element of "blame" on Apples side.
Bottom line if Vista (or any OS) is bluescreening it's doing so as a result of something that has happened in kernel-mode space. Since it presumably wouldn't bluescreen without being asked to render a
Since Vista there is another compelling reason to force users to use IE - namely that embedded WMV doesn't work without the plugin that MS have just recently released (which isn't something listed on Windows Update as a patch, it's a manual download). I can either guarantee that the users will see the embedded video by forcing them to use IE, whereas it's pot luck whether they've installed it when they're on Firefox/non-IE browser.
(The argument about WMVs suitability for streaming media is moot imo - it's what my customers ask for, even if I remind them that it's essentially Windows/IE-only)
Another reason is ActiveX. I know the *nix cognoscenti consider ActiveX to be the spawn of Satan but we host (and have designed) a number of sites that use it extensively for various reasons. Obviously that isn't supported at all in Firefox (there is I believe a plugin of sorts available - but again plugins are no use to me when something has to "just work" on a basic Windows install)
If this was a Microsoft flaw there wouldn't be any talk of "good PR" in releasing a patch quickly, or any other positive angle. There would be reply after reply about Microsofts' code being bloated, the evils of closed-source, monopolistic tactics, that one time when Bill Gates stood on a cats tail by mistake, etc. Linux isn't the only golden boy, Firefox (vs IE), Google (vs big nasty corporations), etc get just as much ridiculously transparent partisan treatment.
Vulnerabilities, particularly serious ones, are never good news. At the very least it would cost businesses who have deployed Linux engineer time in fixing (applying patch(es)) the problem, it generates uncertainty in the market - it creates the potential for business managers who just scan the IT news pages to say "didn't Linux have that serious problem not long ago?". This much is true of any OS, particularly one that businesses need to rely on.
I'm a firm believer in open-source, and I use both Windows and Linux in equal measure both at work and at home. I don't however believe fundamentally that the fact Windows and IE are closed-source automatically make them "poorly written". As has already been remarked a lot of this comes down to usage statistics... with a 90%+ market share you can guarantee that every hacker out there is trying to find fault in every single DLL that Windows ships with. As Linux gains more traction in the desktop & server markets as time goes on you can be sure that there will be most vulnerabilities like this being found. Programmers make mistakes, and there is no such thing as bug-free software.
I really wish Slashdot could dispense with the hidden agendas, partisan attitudes and blatent fanboyism and not sweep serious vulnerabilities like this under the carpet as if they aren't a big deal. Dimissing them as trivial is - if anything - more damaging than giving them the proper attention.
What is the point of a EULA/ToS then if it is neither enforceable or binding? If it is expected and even accounted for legally that people do not read them then what's the point of them even existing?
I agree with your point about "unreasonable terms", but simply not reading a EULA and then pleading ignorance when you break one of the rules therein is no defence.
No money in it, for starters.
The people involved in doing things like this are more than likely part of groups who seek to make money by "selling" comprimised hosts to the various other nefarious computing industries like spammers, etc.
Not to mention of course that modifying binary code, especially BIOS firmware, etc to do the sort of thing you suggest and still actually function is very difficult indeed. Chances are the people who altered the Asus site could've easily used script-kiddy proof-of-concept exploits for both the ANI vulnerability and whatever it was that got them onto the webserver in the first place.
Again I would have to stress that a PR document written for someone like Microsoft is going to be at the absolute end of the spectrum in terms of thoroughness. For a company where any ill-thought comment can be skewed into a story you have to cover off absolutely all of the bases.
Most documents of this nature for companies without such a publicly-contentious image would simply cover off the most obvious points, they wouldn't need to go into such explicit detail about exactly what should be said and how to deal with specific questions, etc.
Why does it surprise you? It's a PR document, not a technical manual. One can assume that the person being interviewed is experienced and intelligent enough in whichever field he's being interviewed on to know how to discuss what he knows technically about the product.
The sole purpose of the document is to prep the interviewee about the likely climate of the interview. There is I'm sure another department which can and do prep people on "ground level" technicalities that execs might not be aware of.
You're looking for some kind of anti-Microsoft spin on this where it simply doesn't exist.
The irony is of course that the one thing the PR document doesn't cover is how to deal with instances where material such as this enters the public domain. The fact it's being billed as newsworthy here and we're talking about it completely justifies the PR companies efforts.
Well, it is commensurate with the sort of profile Microsoft have. The mere fact that topics on here often stray off into rabid anti-Microsoft territory for no apparent reason justifies the PR effort really.
Most corporations aren't going into press meetings expecting the same sort of scrutiny that Microsoft does, so they don't need to have this level of documentation for simple phone conferences. With Microsoft however you can almost guarantee that at any given time anyone an executive speaks to is looking for that one slipup which will net them an exclusive story and a raise from their employer. Under those sort of circumstances you can forgive them for going to great lengths to cover off every conceivable angle.
The only story here is that this information ended up in the wrong Inbox.
As has already been remarked by others above me there is nothing sinister about anything said in the briefing document. It's candid in places, perhaps a little chatty in others, but overall this what you should expect if not hope for in this kind of document. If a reporter has a history of "digging for dirt" then that's what the document should state.
It seems a bit disingenuous to me to take Microsoft to task over something like this when it is the standard practice in any PR-conscious company, you can bet that Wired probably has similar documents flying about that offered guidance about individuals in companies who are easier to coerce, more likely to reveal sensitive information, etc.
I don't think money is going to be a problem for Blizzard for a long time thanks to World of Warcraft, even if Vivendi is picking up the lion share of the profits.
There is a little too much editorialising in that article in my opinion, phrases like "People will have been buying Alienware's over-priced, fools-gold systems as a result of corrupt reviews written by corrupt journalists" smack of petulance rather than the staple of a professional review site. I appreciate Hexus are probably wound up by Alienware's apparent policy of no longer sending them hardware, but that's not the way to show it. The whole thing reads like Hexus just basically wanting to give Alienware a bloody nose.
Rebutting each point of an email with assumptions about "what was really meant" don't look that professional either. Nowhere in Bettinson's emails did he explicitly say that "Alienware was demanding that we lie about Alienware's products in future reviews and that the company was surprised that we hadn't lied in our review of the Area-51 7500 system", yet that's what we're told is the hidden subtext.
You also have to question the professionalism of a "Director of Communications & Strategy" who says in an email "i'm of the view that it would be manifest to any right thinking person that you have behaved like a moron [...]".
It all reads like kids playing at business, which is very strange really.
(That's not to say that Alienware aren't ridiculously overpriced, they are - but that's not what this article was about)
Although it may not have applied in this case there could also have been technical reasons why a patch wasn't applied, it certainly wouldn't be the first time that a patch - even a MS one - has caused complications in other software that is installed. Automatically assuming the sysadmin is incompetent and patching their system for them and potentially breaking their business-critical application suite is not "a good thing" imo.
A better solution would've been to flash a message up on screen basically saying something along the lines of "I got in to your system because it has a vulnerability - either patch it or block the listening port to trusted hosts only or next time the real virus might get in" might've been a better solution.
I can't think of many worse (in terms of sustainable income) jobs in the World than this to be honest.
For a start you're competing against millions of people who don't require any technical qualification to compete with you. Besides gaining knowledge on a subject most people go to College & University to set themselves aside from the pack, to make themselves look more attractive to employers. With pro-gaming you haven't got any of this, the only barrier to entry is sufficiently fast reflexes, a little intelligence and a competent PC.
This person is going to be a target for the rest of his playing career. The guy below him is gonna be aiming to usurp him to get his sponsorship, not to mention thousands upon thousands of upstarts actively seeking to relegate him to obscurity.
It's also the sort of industry where unless you are in the Top 10 or so players for an extended period of time you're anonymous. It's not like being a professional footballer where even if you're in the lower divisions you're still making enough money to live on. This guy has to realise that there are thousands of people below him who are making no real money to speak of just waiting for him to slip up.
No one really knows the terms of this $250,000 contract - whether he's actually been given this amount of money or whether that's essentially his "valuation" in pro-gaming terms, but if I were him I would invest all of it and work on the principal that his career could just fizzle out in a couple of years or so.
I agree with this.
I had a measure of sympathy for him before I delved into his blog because I figured it was the sort of thing that any number of people could do and not fully realise the legal implications of their actions.
Reading through his blog though it's clear he is neither contrite or apologetic, and has even linked to several of the sites that have been discussing him (a number of which pointed out the black-and-white violation of privacy Laws involved) like it's some kind of "hall of fame". He is genuinely completely uninformed as to the legal implications of what he's done, or he thinks people quoting Law statutes is some kind of "comedy response". Either way his site and the circlejerk of replies on his blog suggests to me that he is someone who thinks that his attempt to create the next Internet meme somehow indemnifies him against legal action.
It doesn't, and he's gonna find that out pretty soon.
Irrespective of the tenuous justifications for posting individuals responses, photographs and other personally identifiable information the bottom line as the Wired blog touches on is that Jason has clearly broken privacy Laws, and there isn't really much grey area in what he's done either.
IANAL but if there had been a public interest in sharing this information then he *might* have got away with it the same way that tabloid newspapers do, but even then he would require a legal *team* analysing his every word stated and what every sentence may or may not be construed as implying. Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "omg the Internet = free information and freedom of speech!" won't hold up in Court.
Part of me is sympathetic because its the sort of prank that any number might think up and execute without forethought of the possible legal ramifications. People wrongfully assume that because the Internet makes anyone a journalist for little/no money that somehow this absolves them from any kind of libel or slander Laws. This sometimes leads people to doing or saying things that they would never consider (or at least have an infrastructure in place that would stop it from happening - e.g. editor, etc) if they were publishing the information in one of the regular media forms - newspaper, radio or television.
Whilst IANAL I do know categorically that Jason's actions in publishing all of these peoples' personal information, irrespective of whatever justification he or others believe to be behind it (e.g. some are married, etc), will lead to legal action that he is sure to lose.
Who's to say that they would definitely get numbers that high? That's pretty big speculation on your part really, even by typical anti-Microsoft standards.
I use Firefox both at home and work and I think these results just go to show that no software is by definition bug-free, regardless of whether it is open or closed source. People who automatically believe that because Firefox is the community favourite and open-source that it is naturally superior (in code terms) are deluding themselves.
We've only just started getting 10MB cable connections in the UK, and 16-20MB is still in its infancy and only available to about 0.001% of the population. Even then you need to physically reside on top of the phone exchange to get anything like the full speed.
I pay £35 (approx. $65) a month for 10Mbit, with a paltry 384kbps upload. So, you haven't got it that bad to be honest.
Since when has eBay saying something is prohibited made any real difference to what happens on there though?
I didn't even know they prohibited Western Union until I saw that link, and yet there are plenty of auctions out there that specify WU as the only method of payment (usually scammy ones).
Likewise eBay came down hard on people passing on their Paypal/eBay fees to the buyer, so now people who want to get around it simply inflate the postage price safe in the knowledge that it's not something eBay can readily invigilate.
The ratio of auctions to eBay staff monitoring them is such that anything eBay says in terms of rules and regulations is basically only an advisory. Whilst they can use it to suspend or limit your account, this would typically only happen after the damage has been done (i.e. after you've been scammed, or whatever), or if an auction gets enough internet publicity for it to get noticed (e.g. people selling virginity, etc).
Unless I'm missing the obvious, how would you go about changing the channels whilst streaming Live TV?
The article seems to mention streaming movies you have already pre-recorded, which is all well and good but if you are just going to watch pre-recorded films whats stopping you from just sticking them on your phone the next time its in the base station?
I would've thought with MythTV in the equation that streaming live TV and being able to change channels (on your phone) would be the killer app.
Modding the OP Troll is a bit harsh, Proust is a nice variation on a theme. :)
They probably have got email accounts set up for them, they just don't know how to use them. It's no wonder when they keep typing in things like "Job@3:14" to contact people.
Seconding Puzzle Bobble/Bust-a-Move - this is a great suggestion.
My sister LOVES this game, and she is just as capable at it as myself and my friends - who would wipe the floor with her in a FPS or whatever.
It's fun for everyone!(TM)
It's only sockets at the end of the day, and in any event conference calling people even on a modest spec PC doesn't exactly stretch it. There's no real need for a 10-user limit that I can see, much less an arbitrary 5-user limit on an otherwise equivalent x86 CPU which just happens to be manufactured by someone who hasn't thrown money Skype's way.
It amazes me that Skype think that something like this would've gone unnoticed, or slipped through the net legally.
So much of this sort of stuff gets traded on Ebay it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if you could sell openly illegal stuff (e.g. guns without licences, drugs, etc) with impunity.
Sure, the initial few auctions would get shutdown pretty quickly due to the press picking up on them as "exceptions to the norm". But I strongly doubt Ebay has someone monitoring every single auction that is created.