The guy who suggested SCO had a case, spoke at one of their annual meetings. Which put him the company of tech luminaries such as Maureen O'Gara. Seems like he spends the bulk of his time being an "independent" shill for Microsoft. Why do news organizations keep turning to a tool like him for quotes?
How much PR money does it take to wield that much influence over tech media?
Hard to believe that such a fundamental wrongdoing only gets overturned by a 5 to 4 decision though
That's the horrendously sad part of this ruling. Reminds me of an interview I saw with Scalia saying something about whether torture in questioning a subject could actually be considered "punishment" and hence exempt from the cruel and unusual standard.
I'm sorry, I don't care how engaging he is personally, his beliefs undermine the Constitution and separation of powers. All four of them threaten the very ideals that formerly made America the envy of the world.
...according to Nokia's software chief, its plans for open source include getting developers to accept things like DRM, commercial IP rights, and SIM locks.
And just why would they do that? So you can continue to make bank off your channel partners? If you don't like what the community is turning out, write your own damn software.
You're never going to be able to dictate to the community. It's not like they're afraid of losing their job and the things that motivate them having nothing to do with your bottom line. I get really tired of for profit companies saying they're going to leverage the power of open source development. It's like saying you're going to leverage the power of a grizzly bear. They're not afraid of anyone and if you annoy them enough they'll eat you.
Linux developers to Nokia: You'll be cooler without DRM.
Contrary to what the paper suggests, the data has not been anonymized.
You're exactly right. Give me access to cell phone location data and I'll be able to identify the individuals. If they know people don't wander far from home, then they know where home is. And where work is. It'll take all of ten minutes to add a name to a pattern of behavior. The concern becomes a group that lacks collective conscience...like the Bush administration....starts using anonymous data to look for suspicious patterns of behavior. Justifying the surveillance by suggesting that they're not spying on individuals, merely looking for suspicious patterns. Sound familiar?
Then think about how that could be abused. I was watching a news story about a local anti-terror exercise that involved the feds and local law enforcement. The DHS spokesperson actually said that any criminal activity can be used to support terrorism so anti-terror exercises get muddled together with law enforcement. Every criminal is a potential terrorist. It's happening in the banking industry. The monitoring provisions were put in place to look for terrorist activity, but now banks are reporting any suspicious transactions down to $1,000. Anyone think Elliot Spitzer was a terrorist? The monitoring program that netted him was put in place to monitor for terrorists but once it became obvious Spitzer was not funneling money to Al Qaida, the investigation continued under the mantle of law enforcement. Okay, so law enforcement starts monitoring cell phone GPS data looking for suspicious patterns of behavior, at first looking for terrorists, but since any crime potentially supports terrorism, it starts getting more widespread and granular. Going to a particular street in a particular part of town...like a mosque...could flag you. Sending money to a family member overseas or just being in the vicinity when a crime takes place. Maybe law enforcement starts using cellular GPS data to locate potential witnesses. Want to explain to the boss why the cops showed up and wanted to know if you saw anything while visiting the "entertainment" district last night?
The anonymous element is an intellectual dodge. There's nothing anonymous about your pattern of behavior, it's as unique as a fingerprint. This is real 1984 kind of stuff.
I'm more afraid of widespread monitoring than terrorism. Once you start chipping away at the edges of privacy it's hard to get back. And, right now, we're paying billions of our tax dollars to create an agency that regularly pounds our right to privacy with a sledgehammer.
Upgrades are expensive, but less expensive than conversions to new software (and processes). There are also costs (and questions) regarding conversion of legacy data.
There is some of that, though I'd argue that it's ultimately more expensive long term to stay locked in at the process level. Data conversion, I assume you mean file format conversion. Access db's, linked spreadsheets, that kind of thing. Those can be tricky. Luckily the trend toward the browser as a software front end is making that less of an issue.
I've used Ubuntu almost exclusively at home with no problems exchanging data with MS users. The biggest obstacle to large scale utilization of Linux commodity desktops in the enterprise that I see is just a lack of understanding. Linux doesn't have much of an ad budget right now. There will still be some users who need Windows only software for task specific applications which can be managed with a Windows kiosk here and there and some users will prefer Mac. But staying locked in to the Windows/Office/Outlook on every desktop these days is just insane. I think a lot of companies do it simply because the devil they know is better than the devil they don't know.
I'm wondering how practical it would be to do away with internal networks all together? Be interesting to try. Where the local network is nothing but a pipeline to the internet and print sharing. All the traditional network services are provided as web services. File storage, productivity, collaboration, messaging, email. Theoretically that would allow you to connect any client OS with far less of the client management overhead. We're not really that far from that now when you think about it. I could see a lot of advantages. Users could interact with the business environment the same way from anywhere. The office, home, Starbucks...wouldn't matter. Windows, Linux, Mac...wouldn't matter. Then you could treat every client as dirty, and with Windows that's a pretty safe assumption.
Until businesses can migrate to systems that are agnostic to specific processes (and applications)
That's not that hard, either. Just takes commitment to move that direction. To make your business environment OS agnostic. The technical steps aren't that hard anymore. Just seems like we're duplicating a lot of effort right now in enterprise networks.
If Microsoft is moving into the hosted application space, that must mean the rest of the technology world is already there and will be ready to move on by the time Microsoft can field any online services...that will still require IE and Office to be installed on the client.
Honestly, most commercial software just plain sucks.
There are a few really polished pieces of software out there, but the vast majority of commercial software sucks ass. At least if I find out open source software sucks I'm not out any money. There isn't any truism that works in the software industry, whether commercial or OSS. I've seen good and bad commercial software, good and bad OSS. But if you think commercial is better simply because it costs more, you're deluded. I use GIMP, OpenOffice, Blender...work fine for me. I also use Photoshop, Audition, and Vegas.
Software isn't a religion any more than tools are a religion. Use what's appropriate for the job.
Windows Server 08 is an evolution of the kernel in Windows Vista, and then Windows 7 will be a further evolution of that kernel as well.
Wasn't Windows 7 supposed to be the departure from the Windows kernel? Instead of a new direction it's turned into Vista II, Steeper and Deeper. Instead of moving forward they're trying to get back to their last good product line.
Guess this is Microsoft's idea of leaving the past behind and forging boldly into last week.
They especially cannot use services where the data is stored in the United States because of fears over the Patriot Act.
Good. It's about time our knee-jerk fear-inspired legislation started hitting us in the pocketbook. And I hope the TSA and Customs Service attitude toward searching laptops at the border provides one more reason for people not to come here. I hope the visa and passport requirements encourage overseas travelers to travel and shop elsewhere. I hope all this silly crap comes back to bite us on the economic butt. If it hurts bad enough maybe we'll actually start thinking about whether we get to dictate fear inspired stupidity to the rest of the world without consequence.
I typically support the software titles I use regularly. OpenOffice, FireFTP, TrueCrypt...several others. Google and Canonical don't really need the charity but I'd support both organizations in my consulting business...if either of them would return a phone call.
Autodesk has not established that its license binds Vernor or his customers;
One wonders what this means for click-through EULA's. If Autodesk can't establish that their license binds Vernor, then it doesn't bind anyone. And that's true for every other click-through EULA.
Software companies have no one to blame but themselves. Making those EULA's more and more restrictive to the point of insanity. It's about time the courts vacated that nonsense.
I had a large utility administration customer back in the early 90's. Back then I was constantly shocked (pun intentional) about how vulnerable our power distribution system really was. And the weakest links were frequently the most lightly protected. I even started drafting a novel about a small group of terrorists able to take down the power grid on the entire west coast for months and the effects on society of such an extended outage.
Hopefully grid security is better now, but there's still a lot of lightly protected hardware that will remain difficult to harden.
Ever since then I've kept a 4 Kw generator and extra gas, just in case. Even though I've only needed it a few times in all those years. Our power grid is surprisingly reliable. So much so we tend to take it for granted.
Use Truecrypt to create an encrypted file container, load your data and email or FTP at your leisure. You can phone the receiving party with the password and they can work with the data in the encrypted file container and neither of you have to worry about losing it, provided they unmount the file container when they're done and don't store the copied data anywhere else. I do it all the time. You can even transfer files back and forth between Windows and Linux with Truecrypt 5. I haven't tried the trifecta with OS X but I'm not seeing any reason that wouldn't work as well.
There really isn't any reason not to use encryption these days.
If you find Truecrypt useful, maybe making a little donation to support development might be nice.
The Financial Times has the story that billions in incorrect AAA ratings given out by Moody's were the result of a coding error in its computer models.
So one of the top financial services companies in the world, staffed with MBA's and finance professionals, and none of them noticed a coding error that changed debt ratings by that big of a margin? That strains credibility to the breaking point. And on the other side of the table, none of the financial institutions buying collateralized debt instruments ever looked at those ratings and thought they were a little optimistic? Come on. The entire sub-prime mortgage mess was a computer glitch.
Guess that means cocaine use is alive and well on Wall Street. Because you have to be really, really high to field a whopper like that.
BTW, there are people working in box stores who would love to make those sort of salaries, not to mention folks in India.
If people in box stores have a college degree and experience in a high paying field you have a point, otherwise it's not a valid comparison. I want to be George Clooney but I don't want to make the investment and pay my dues to get there. If people in box stores want to invest in going to college, learning a high demand skill, then claw their way to the top of their field, then they're not likely to settle for a box store salary. Otherwise it's just wishes for fishes.
Same with people in India. Do they have degrees? Programming experience? If they do they're probably already working. Otherwise it's saying they'd love to have money, like 99% of people on the planet.
I don't mean this to sound harsh, just trying to raise an additional thought about the salary level.
My idea of the worst tech jobs are those working for technology outsource companies. You serve two masters, have to comply with two sets of workplace rules and there's the constant tug of war between what the client is paying and what you're getting paid. Many times the client is laying out more than twice what you're getting and expects you, making less than half that, to work up to your charge level. Most of those tech "bill mills" add cost with very little value to either party in the relationship.
Considering that few open source developers are strictly open source, that's hardly a surprise. I'd be willing to bet many open source developers are also part of disciplined commercial teams.
The flip side of that coin is just as intriguing. Open source development models don't produce software of notably inferior quality either. That should send a shivey through Castle Redmondore.
The more complex the software releases become, the more complex and insidious the exploits of them become also.
I'm not sure if that statement will hold up to scrutiny. If complex software is the issue, then you'd expect exploits to be consistent across platforms when comparing software of similar complexity. I haven't seen any research supporting that observation. I have seen research that says more complex software will likely contain more coding errors and potential exploits but haven't seen a correlation between software size and actual successful attacks across platforms.
The elephant in the room we ultimately end up dancing around is that we're talking about Windows exploits. The problem is not complex software, the problem is Windows complexity. And Windows API's and their relationship to the software that runs in that environment. Although not all versions of Windows are equally vulnerable, the bottom line is that security in Windows was an after thought. Bolted on rather than pervasive. It's like trying to secure a building designed for open access.
it's bad for other artists and remixers if their access to this media is going to be limited because of the "taint" associated with BitTorrent.
But you can apply that same reasoning to any service offered across the internet. What if they'd just posted it on mirrored web servers? Is Comcast going to start limiting web traffic? Or FTP? I suppose I shouldn't give them any ideas.
From a technology standpoint it just seems like a retarded policy. The rise of BitTorrent traffic only means the content available on the internet has evolved from text to digital media. If they start screwing with torrents, people will switch to something else. They'll find a way to get through.
Guess that means Comcast would have sided with the buggy whip manufacturers and tried to limit automobile traffic.
Just because we decide we have the right to do something, doesn't mean it's a good idea. This policy, and many like it, declare to the rest of the world that we don't care what they think or how they feel. And it subtly...or perhaps not so subtly...encourages people not to come here. Even those coming here to do legitimate business now have to take the extra step to cleanse and secure their laptops.
I've traveled the world and every time the part of the trip I dreaded the most was coming back through US Customs.
The other issue is just how much real crime this catches. Certainly no one with any training in actual trade craft is going to carry anything sensitive on a laptop. The bulk of really juicy espionage goes out in diplomatic pouches or over sophisticated communication gear. All this effort to what end? It trains friend and foe how to secure their data, eliminating the risk we'd be able to recover anything from the real trouble makers if they mess up after they're in the country.
So the effect on real crime is minimal, it's one more reason not to come here and it makes data recovery in every criminal investigation more difficult by widely advertising data security tools. Yeah, that sounds like a Homeland Security policy alright.
Slashdot Mirror
Rob Enderle, of the Enderle Group...
The guy who suggested SCO had a case, spoke at one of their annual meetings. Which put him the company of tech luminaries such as Maureen O'Gara. Seems like he spends the bulk of his time being an "independent" shill for Microsoft. Why do news organizations keep turning to a tool like him for quotes?
How much PR money does it take to wield that much influence over tech media?
Hard to believe that such a fundamental wrongdoing only gets overturned by a 5 to 4 decision though
That's the horrendously sad part of this ruling. Reminds me of an interview I saw with Scalia saying something about whether torture in questioning a subject could actually be considered "punishment" and hence exempt from the cruel and unusual standard.
I'm sorry, I don't care how engaging he is personally, his beliefs undermine the Constitution and separation of powers. All four of them threaten the very ideals that formerly made America the envy of the world.
And just why would they do that? So you can continue to make bank off your channel partners? If you don't like what the community is turning out, write your own damn software.
You're never going to be able to dictate to the community. It's not like they're afraid of losing their job and the things that motivate them having nothing to do with your bottom line. I get really tired of for profit companies saying they're going to leverage the power of open source development. It's like saying you're going to leverage the power of a grizzly bear. They're not afraid of anyone and if you annoy them enough they'll eat you.
Linux developers to Nokia: You'll be cooler without DRM.
Contrary to what the paper suggests, the data has not been anonymized.
You're exactly right. Give me access to cell phone location data and I'll be able to identify the individuals. If they know people don't wander far from home, then they know where home is. And where work is. It'll take all of ten minutes to add a name to a pattern of behavior. The concern becomes a group that lacks collective conscience...like the Bush administration....starts using anonymous data to look for suspicious patterns of behavior. Justifying the surveillance by suggesting that they're not spying on individuals, merely looking for suspicious patterns. Sound familiar?
Then think about how that could be abused. I was watching a news story about a local anti-terror exercise that involved the feds and local law enforcement. The DHS spokesperson actually said that any criminal activity can be used to support terrorism so anti-terror exercises get muddled together with law enforcement. Every criminal is a potential terrorist. It's happening in the banking industry. The monitoring provisions were put in place to look for terrorist activity, but now banks are reporting any suspicious transactions down to $1,000. Anyone think Elliot Spitzer was a terrorist? The monitoring program that netted him was put in place to monitor for terrorists but once it became obvious Spitzer was not funneling money to Al Qaida, the investigation continued under the mantle of law enforcement. Okay, so law enforcement starts monitoring cell phone GPS data looking for suspicious patterns of behavior, at first looking for terrorists, but since any crime potentially supports terrorism, it starts getting more widespread and granular. Going to a particular street in a particular part of town...like a mosque...could flag you. Sending money to a family member overseas or just being in the vicinity when a crime takes place. Maybe law enforcement starts using cellular GPS data to locate potential witnesses. Want to explain to the boss why the cops showed up and wanted to know if you saw anything while visiting the "entertainment" district last night?
The anonymous element is an intellectual dodge. There's nothing anonymous about your pattern of behavior, it's as unique as a fingerprint. This is real 1984 kind of stuff.
I'm more afraid of widespread monitoring than terrorism. Once you start chipping away at the edges of privacy it's hard to get back. And, right now, we're paying billions of our tax dollars to create an agency that regularly pounds our right to privacy with a sledgehammer.
Upgrades are expensive, but less expensive than conversions to new software (and processes). There are also costs (and questions) regarding conversion of legacy data.
There is some of that, though I'd argue that it's ultimately more expensive long term to stay locked in at the process level. Data conversion, I assume you mean file format conversion. Access db's, linked spreadsheets, that kind of thing. Those can be tricky. Luckily the trend toward the browser as a software front end is making that less of an issue.
I've used Ubuntu almost exclusively at home with no problems exchanging data with MS users. The biggest obstacle to large scale utilization of Linux commodity desktops in the enterprise that I see is just a lack of understanding. Linux doesn't have much of an ad budget right now. There will still be some users who need Windows only software for task specific applications which can be managed with a Windows kiosk here and there and some users will prefer Mac. But staying locked in to the Windows/Office/Outlook on every desktop these days is just insane. I think a lot of companies do it simply because the devil they know is better than the devil they don't know.
I'm wondering how practical it would be to do away with internal networks all together? Be interesting to try. Where the local network is nothing but a pipeline to the internet and print sharing. All the traditional network services are provided as web services. File storage, productivity, collaboration, messaging, email. Theoretically that would allow you to connect any client OS with far less of the client management overhead. We're not really that far from that now when you think about it. I could see a lot of advantages. Users could interact with the business environment the same way from anywhere. The office, home, Starbucks...wouldn't matter. Windows, Linux, Mac...wouldn't matter. Then you could treat every client as dirty, and with Windows that's a pretty safe assumption.
Until businesses can migrate to systems that are agnostic to specific processes (and applications)
That's not that hard, either. Just takes commitment to move that direction. To make your business environment OS agnostic. The technical steps aren't that hard anymore. Just seems like we're duplicating a lot of effort right now in enterprise networks.
If Microsoft is moving into the hosted application space, that must mean the rest of the technology world is already there and will be ready to move on by the time Microsoft can field any online services...that will still require IE and Office to be installed on the client.
The Zune of hosted applications.
Honestly, most commercial software just plain sucks.
There are a few really polished pieces of software out there, but the vast majority of commercial software sucks ass. At least if I find out open source software sucks I'm not out any money. There isn't any truism that works in the software industry, whether commercial or OSS. I've seen good and bad commercial software, good and bad OSS. But if you think commercial is better simply because it costs more, you're deluded. I use GIMP, OpenOffice, Blender...work fine for me. I also use Photoshop, Audition, and Vegas.
Software isn't a religion any more than tools are a religion. Use what's appropriate for the job.
Next step is to clone them and open a theme park, right?
Welcome to Jorvik Park.
Windows Server 08 is an evolution of the kernel in Windows Vista, and then Windows 7 will be a further evolution of that kernel as well.
Wasn't Windows 7 supposed to be the departure from the Windows kernel? Instead of a new direction it's turned into Vista II, Steeper and Deeper. Instead of moving forward they're trying to get back to their last good product line.
Guess this is Microsoft's idea of leaving the past behind and forging boldly into last week.
They especially cannot use services where the data is stored in the United States because of fears over the Patriot Act.
Good. It's about time our knee-jerk fear-inspired legislation started hitting us in the pocketbook. And I hope the TSA and Customs Service attitude toward searching laptops at the border provides one more reason for people not to come here. I hope the visa and passport requirements encourage overseas travelers to travel and shop elsewhere. I hope all this silly crap comes back to bite us on the economic butt. If it hurts bad enough maybe we'll actually start thinking about whether we get to dictate fear inspired stupidity to the rest of the world without consequence.
I typically support the software titles I use regularly. OpenOffice, FireFTP, TrueCrypt...several others. Google and Canonical don't really need the charity but I'd support both organizations in my consulting business...if either of them would return a phone call.
Autodesk has not established that its license binds Vernor or his customers;
One wonders what this means for click-through EULA's. If Autodesk can't establish that their license binds Vernor, then it doesn't bind anyone. And that's true for every other click-through EULA.
Software companies have no one to blame but themselves. Making those EULA's more and more restrictive to the point of insanity. It's about time the courts vacated that nonsense.
Be interesting to see if it holds up on appeal.
I had a large utility administration customer back in the early 90's. Back then I was constantly shocked (pun intentional) about how vulnerable our power distribution system really was. And the weakest links were frequently the most lightly protected. I even started drafting a novel about a small group of terrorists able to take down the power grid on the entire west coast for months and the effects on society of such an extended outage.
Hopefully grid security is better now, but there's still a lot of lightly protected hardware that will remain difficult to harden.
Ever since then I've kept a 4 Kw generator and extra gas, just in case. Even though I've only needed it a few times in all those years. Our power grid is surprisingly reliable. So much so we tend to take it for granted.
Use Truecrypt to create an encrypted file container, load your data and email or FTP at your leisure. You can phone the receiving party with the password and they can work with the data in the encrypted file container and neither of you have to worry about losing it, provided they unmount the file container when they're done and don't store the copied data anywhere else. I do it all the time. You can even transfer files back and forth between Windows and Linux with Truecrypt 5. I haven't tried the trifecta with OS X but I'm not seeing any reason that wouldn't work as well.
There really isn't any reason not to use encryption these days.
If you find Truecrypt useful, maybe making a little donation to support development might be nice.
The Financial Times has the story that billions in incorrect AAA ratings given out by Moody's were the result of a coding error in its computer models.
So one of the top financial services companies in the world, staffed with MBA's and finance professionals, and none of them noticed a coding error that changed debt ratings by that big of a margin? That strains credibility to the breaking point. And on the other side of the table, none of the financial institutions buying collateralized debt instruments ever looked at those ratings and thought they were a little optimistic? Come on. The entire sub-prime mortgage mess was a computer glitch.
Guess that means cocaine use is alive and well on Wall Street. Because you have to be really, really high to field a whopper like that.
BTW, there are people working in box stores who would love to make those sort of salaries, not to mention folks in India.
If people in box stores have a college degree and experience in a high paying field you have a point, otherwise it's not a valid comparison. I want to be George Clooney but I don't want to make the investment and pay my dues to get there. If people in box stores want to invest in going to college, learning a high demand skill, then claw their way to the top of their field, then they're not likely to settle for a box store salary. Otherwise it's just wishes for fishes.
Same with people in India. Do they have degrees? Programming experience? If they do they're probably already working. Otherwise it's saying they'd love to have money, like 99% of people on the planet.
I don't mean this to sound harsh, just trying to raise an additional thought about the salary level.
My idea of the worst tech jobs are those working for technology outsource companies. You serve two masters, have to comply with two sets of workplace rules and there's the constant tug of war between what the client is paying and what you're getting paid. Many times the client is laying out more than twice what you're getting and expects you, making less than half that, to work up to your charge level. Most of those tech "bill mills" add cost with very little value to either party in the relationship.
Why on earth would anyone want to run Linux on a Windows box? That's like building your house on a dung hill.
Though I suppose it comes in handy for accessing those Linux only web sites. ;)
As long as there is analog out, I'll be able to record my favorite shows. Just retarded you have to go through all that.
Is it really any surprise MSFT puts business interests ahead of user interests? It's been that way a long time.
Because they're so busy on their photography projects.
Interesting, but not shocking
Considering that few open source developers are strictly open source, that's hardly a surprise. I'd be willing to bet many open source developers are also part of disciplined commercial teams.
The flip side of that coin is just as intriguing. Open source development models don't produce software of notably inferior quality either. That should send a shivey through Castle Redmondore.
The more complex the software releases become, the more complex and insidious the exploits of them become also.
I'm not sure if that statement will hold up to scrutiny. If complex software is the issue, then you'd expect exploits to be consistent across platforms when comparing software of similar complexity. I haven't seen any research supporting that observation. I have seen research that says more complex software will likely contain more coding errors and potential exploits but haven't seen a correlation between software size and actual successful attacks across platforms.
The elephant in the room we ultimately end up dancing around is that we're talking about Windows exploits. The problem is not complex software, the problem is Windows complexity. And Windows API's and their relationship to the software that runs in that environment. Although not all versions of Windows are equally vulnerable, the bottom line is that security in Windows was an after thought. Bolted on rather than pervasive. It's like trying to secure a building designed for open access.
'We've stayed very pure,' Mr. Negroponte said.
That's like saying you got caught in bed with a hooker but were only talking.
it's bad for other artists and remixers if their access to this media is going to be limited because of the "taint" associated with BitTorrent.
But you can apply that same reasoning to any service offered across the internet. What if they'd just posted it on mirrored web servers? Is Comcast going to start limiting web traffic? Or FTP? I suppose I shouldn't give them any ideas.
From a technology standpoint it just seems like a retarded policy. The rise of BitTorrent traffic only means the content available on the internet has evolved from text to digital media. If they start screwing with torrents, people will switch to something else. They'll find a way to get through.
Guess that means Comcast would have sided with the buggy whip manufacturers and tried to limit automobile traffic.
Just because we decide we have the right to do something, doesn't mean it's a good idea. This policy, and many like it, declare to the rest of the world that we don't care what they think or how they feel. And it subtly...or perhaps not so subtly...encourages people not to come here. Even those coming here to do legitimate business now have to take the extra step to cleanse and secure their laptops.
I've traveled the world and every time the part of the trip I dreaded the most was coming back through US Customs.
The other issue is just how much real crime this catches. Certainly no one with any training in actual trade craft is going to carry anything sensitive on a laptop. The bulk of really juicy espionage goes out in diplomatic pouches or over sophisticated communication gear. All this effort to what end? It trains friend and foe how to secure their data, eliminating the risk we'd be able to recover anything from the real trouble makers if they mess up after they're in the country.
So the effect on real crime is minimal, it's one more reason not to come here and it makes data recovery in every criminal investigation more difficult by widely advertising data security tools. Yeah, that sounds like a Homeland Security policy alright.
Visual Basic will be returning to Mac Office.
What did Mac users do to deserve that punishment?