Yes, one humorous post about an old stereotype has shown otherwise, hasn't it. The world has gone to hell in a handbasket, and all anglo-saxons are racist buggers.
The sad thing is that every hyper-PC facist attempts to portray every "discretion" as proof of an overriding, all-encompassing plot. Get over it.
Exposed wires are an eyesore, not to mention a potential safety hazard (tripping, children pulling, etc). Having said that, the optimal solution if you really have fixed locations where you use your PC is to wire correctly, which means running wires within your walls and installing actual outlet jacks at approximately the position of the PC. I _attempted_ to do this last weekend to run some television cable, and what a friggin' nightmare it is to put a wire correctly in existing walls. Eventually I gave up and ran it down the air return and then around the bottom of the baseboard.:-) For networking I just gave up and got a WAP (with WEP-128 encryption and WAP logon and MAC filtration, so I'm not overly concerned, though obviously a fixed wire is even better)
I generally only get 54Mbps when I'm on the first floor, but up here (with the Simpsons playing on TV -- "Bart of War") 33 or so is the norm, with the odd bursts to 54. It may have something to do with the baby monitor and cordless phone, both of which I believe are at 2.4Ghz and hence interfering with the wireless. Alas it still works great, though channel bonding will be even better.
For example, I don't see why people put up with crappy 10-55 Mb/s Wifi when standard cabling is so cheap!
Wireless is freedom, and it doesn't require you to snake wires through your walls (which is a major bitch in most cases if you want to do it right -- i.e. not running it through an air return and then hanging the wire around your baseboards). The few times I've really had the need for 100Mbps (versus the 36Mbps I'm currently getting over 802.11g, up on the second floor with the WAP in the basement), I'll bring the laptop to the basement and plug-in, but otherwise this whole wireless thing is fabulous.
eEye does this for publicity, not as a public service to Microsoft. It is good publicity when Microsoft acknowledges an eEye find, just as it's good publicity when they ignore it and eEye can publicly bitch. What eEye can't do, though, is to jump the gun and give ammunition to every script kiddie out there -- companies that have done this in the past (I believe eEye did years back...I remember them releasing a tool that gave you a command shell against unpatched IIS machines) have gotten extremely bad press, and generally Microsoft, or whoever, comes off looking like the innocent victim.
Having said that, if eEye can find all of these exploits for a bit of PR, what could a hostile nation (or "friendly" nation that's a little inquisitive) or organized crime accomplish? How many selective, high profile machines are rooted as we speak.
I have an inexpensive miniDV Sony TRV-19, and it works extremely well in low light. Obviously the best picture is in the brightest setting when the CCD has enough information to have a higher signal to noise, but in very low light situations the image is definitely usable. I've been extremely happy with that camera.
The nightvision is a gimmick that is only useful in a couple of conceptual frat type sitations--it'll never be used (apart from on the day the camera is first unpacked) by the average home user. There is another mode, "Color Nightshot" I believe is the name, that basically holds each frame until there is a high enough signal to noise, and it does provide a very good image in lower light levels, though if there is fast motion there is a distinct blurring artifact (in very low light it is light a slide show).
Anti-virus software seems to be a false sense of security -- it's a great way to catch last month's big virus, but it's of limited use when viruses spread at the rate that they do. I know in many large firms anti-virus software has caused downtime as they force reboots/relogons to update definitions for the latest fear.
Of course, humorously Microsoft DRM will be our salvation -- with forced signing of all executables there's a pretty easy control mechanism for corporations. I'm not saying this is right, but just that it is a bright side to it.
Did you happen to notice the part where it said This new variant relies upon a backdoor left in place by the original email spread virus.
I'm not sure what to think about this: How many times can you tell people never to open attachments until you just give up and accept that a certain casualty rate is to be expected? (As a sidenote -- I party blame Netscape and other email proggies that send forwards or replies as attachments rather than as inline quoted text. This makes uses accustomed to opening attachments).
I apologize profusely for that typo, though it was fairly obvious.
You mean "ruby"
Err, no I mean exactly what I said, which is that there was dozens of interpreted or quazi-compiled languages before Java. It's a neat concept and a good implementation, but it certainly wasn't revolutionary.
Java, which was called Oak originally, was created for small and embedded systems, such as set-top boxes.... Idiot. Fanboy.
Obviously I was being a bit facetious given the original flamebait troll. There is no doubt whatsoever that.NET "borrows" many ideas from Java, but it's absurd to paint Java as an amazing new development that invented these concepts (just as it's equally absurd to claim that Macs invented the GUI, though that's an entirely different debate).
I think you missed a couple of fairly critical points in your timeline.
-2. C++ is invented, adding a usable OOP layer onto Java.
-1. Dozens of interpreted, or semi-compiled languages (such as Visual Basic, which preceded Java) exist. Many of them are cross platform.
0. No one writes software for Sun, so they think up a plan to let people write software for Windows, while still allowing it to run on Sun. Java is the obvious result, and is basically the merging of -1 and -2, though Java fanboys will forever imagine that it was a wonderfully unique idea that appeared out of nowhere.
Also
4.5 Microsoft's implementation of Java absolutely stomps Sun's on the Microsoft platform. Microsoft implements additional platform specific extensions, as is allowed under the Java spec, to make it more usable on the Windows platform. Seeing point 0, this really pisses off Sun who yoinks their license back.
And in the Florida case of Carlie Brucia, a luckily placed surveillance camera was the critical evidence in the possible removal of a homicidal predator from the streets -- the camera might not have stopped the crime from happening, but it most certainly will stop future crimes (in 97 this guy was arrested for trying to abduct someone, an a incomprehensible perversion of "reasonable doubt" got him off the hook, and in 2004 he was randomly caught by a luckily placed surveillance camera. How many victims was there between?).
I'm entirely willing to trade some liberty for the safety, primarily of children, from predators.
Unfortunatly AMD not being 100% compatable with the standard causes problems.
Good old FUD -- when Windows crashes on an Intel box, it's because of Microsoft. When Windows crashes on a AMD box, it's because the AMD "isn't 100% compatible". Uh huh. I'll buy either AMD or Intel without a hesitation (I'm not a fanboy) where one is the clear winner, but I still see FUD when someone spouts it.
Here's a clue for you -- neither AMD or Intel are x86 processors, but rather both have a converter that converts x86 to their own internal microcode. The x86 standard that they're converting is EXTREMELY well known and standardized (I mean -- other people have to write the software that runs on it). AMD is 100% compatible with core x86.
Intel also has much more R&D into making a chip that won't fry itself if it gets too hot. AMD? Naw, they'd rather make you buy a new chip than bother to make it prevent a problem before it occurs.
Tom, is that you? Firstly, Intel and AMD chips are comparable in heat levels (actually the Prescott sets all new levels for heat generation, making Intel the clear winner in the egg cooker category), but secondly you are correct -- Intel has been more fervent in putting heat protection on their chips, though it is arguably over-engineering. It's like having guidewires "just in case" around all of your high rises. It's generally unnecessary as, apart from Tom's Hardware PR stunts, heatsinks don't fall off processors in regular use. My car doesn't have a special fuel purge if I decide to fill it full of ketchup.
You've hit the nail on the head. Additionally the market is currently artificial -- both India and China have pegged their currency artificially low against the US $ -- instead of spiking as they achieve the successes they've had (which is the natural world trade equalizer), they've stayed unnaturally low. The US has become increasingly forceful, as have other world nations, that if these nations wish to be a part of world trade they need to float their currencies, and when that time comes there will be a dramatic shift in economics.
"The US and its companies will be basically irrelevant.... Welcome to the third world."
Japan has ~100 million people, and in a few short decades was considered the greatest threat to the US economic power (and still is a tremendous influence). Nokia is a Finnish company and dominates the worldwide phone market. Nortel is a Canadian company that dominates much of the world networking infrastructure. HSBC is a British company that is one of the biggest banks in the world. What does the size of the flag nation have to do with the worldwide potential of an organization?
Joel, as I'm sure you know, was one of the technical guys behind VBA in Excel, along with some other fairly big projects. He apparently made enough money from these gigs that he went off and started his own company, initially focusing on consulting (at the most unfortunate time to be in consulting...), and then moving into shrink wrap software. Apparently they're doing okay as they recently moved into a pretty impressive new office, still in swanky (and expensive) New York City.
Joel is a big advocate of treating developers well, and is respected for generally being pragmatic and insightful, with a humorous writing style that is informative while remaining entertaining. On the flip side, a couple of his recent posts have been blatant quid-pro-quos with some friends of his, and he's selling out a bit with the Programmer's Paradise gig.
"This is true on Windows too, using whatever your preferred GUI encryption program might be."
Generally you're transferring these files between users rather than using them just for personal archives, so interoperability is the key. You can't willy nilly choose to use whatever encryption program you feel like if you expect your recipient to be able to open it without significant hassle.
"The only reason to stuff both functions into a single program seems to be the perennial problem of installing anything on Windows systems"
Yes, people like convenience, and as mentioned in the prior point you'd generally like one interoperability hurdle rather than two.
"why should users pay $20 twice for two different pieces of tacky shareware when they could pay Winzip $40 for one?"
The source code for AES, and RSA for that matter, has been available for some time, and the replacement of the native ZIP encryption (i.e. crap) I doubt was more than a one day task -- this is a tiny value-add, not some big price doubler. The only problem is that the ZIP format wasn't dynamic and there were too many chefs in the kitchen -- nothing good was happening, so this is a great step forward.
This makes me wonder if this is an actual government form letter that perhaps was received by someone targeted by the Patriot Act
I doubt it. Personally I find the letter amateur, and with a definite scam-vibe (although obviously I already knew it was a scam, but I feel I would have thought the same if I'd seen this before the publicity).
Firstly, it's highly redundant. By saying that I mean that it's redundant. It's redundant in its redundancy that is redundant. You get what I mean by saying that it's redundant?
Secondly, the final paragraph sounds absurdly fake -- in the intro you're told that your account has had suspected "currency violations", and they need to verify that these currency violations aren't in violation of the Patriot act -- so they ask you to verify your account information? How would that disprove violations of the Patriot act?
While it's much better than the classic scam, this whole letter reeks of being a scam. Of course for those on the fence with reasonable doubt, the bloody IE bug may have put them over the fence towards believing, which is sad.
Only barely, and this comes up in the next point......but with far less people
It's a common misconception of Canada that we're vastly spread out evenly across 10 million square kilometers. In reality the vast majority of us are clustered in a couple of relatively (I mean relative to Canada, although still quite huge compared to most nations) small areas. Outside of this it's sparsely distributed settlements, often related to natural resources, throughout the rest.
For instance Rogers claims "Our digital TDMA and Analog cellular phone network covers up to 93% of the Canadian population with over 85% digital coverage.". I suspect that 93% of Canadians live in (far) less than 10% of the land mass.
The Canadian government subsidizes broadband, making it less expensive
The Canadian government has initiatives to bring broadband out to rural areas (i.e. way up North). They don't subsidize broadband for the vast majority of Canadians (who are those living in fairly urban settings). Cogeco isn't getting a cheque from the government for my broadband.
Canadian citizens have to pay taxes to support their socialist government
Right...socialist. And of course where you live every road is a pay road, every service is a user-pay (fire call -- pay up. Need police services? Better have your chequebook!), and the government is minimalist -- anything else is socialist.
An alternate theory is that it's a gimmick, just like the gimmick of many of the.COMs, that he pulls out every media encounter he gets to validate what he does. It really took the cake when he compared his organization to a hospice -- that is a hospice that takes $75,000 or 7.5% of the sale value, whichever is more...
I'm sure professional counterfeiters don't sit around on their iMacs in studio lofts using PSP/Photoshop to copy money on home printers.
I don't think professional counterfeiters are the target of this -- instead I think they are thinking of the casual "tester" who then evolves into a casual "passer". In many cases these are teenagers who scan and print it out just to see if it works, and then that page of $20s gets a little too luring so they take a shot at passing them. (In my area for a while, until extensive police public notices, there was an issue with a large number of teens using home computer equipment to dupe money).
I am very curious whether Photoshop did this voluntarily, or whether they were induced in some fashion (either via threats, or payment). It just seems hard to imagine that they would go through the [considerable] effort to develop this, and impose the computational overhead of scanning and processing every image to detech currency, just to feel like good guys. I smell some much larger machinations at work here...
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, one humorous post about an old stereotype has shown otherwise, hasn't it. The world has gone to hell in a handbasket, and all anglo-saxons are racist buggers.
The sad thing is that every hyper-PC facist attempts to portray every "discretion" as proof of an overriding, all-encompassing plot. Get over it.
Exposed wires are an eyesore, not to mention a potential safety hazard (tripping, children pulling, etc). Having said that, the optimal solution if you really have fixed locations where you use your PC is to wire correctly, which means running wires within your walls and installing actual outlet jacks at approximately the position of the PC. I _attempted_ to do this last weekend to run some television cable, and what a friggin' nightmare it is to put a wire correctly in existing walls. Eventually I gave up and ran it down the air return and then around the bottom of the baseboard. :-) For networking I just gave up and got a WAP (with WEP-128 encryption and WAP logon and MAC filtration, so I'm not overly concerned, though obviously a fixed wire is even better)
I generally only get 54Mbps when I'm on the first floor, but up here (with the Simpsons playing on TV -- "Bart of War") 33 or so is the norm, with the odd bursts to 54. It may have something to do with the baby monitor and cordless phone, both of which I believe are at 2.4Ghz and hence interfering with the wireless. Alas it still works great, though channel bonding will be even better.
For example, I don't see why people put up with crappy 10-55 Mb/s Wifi when standard cabling is so cheap!
Wireless is freedom, and it doesn't require you to snake wires through your walls (which is a major bitch in most cases if you want to do it right -- i.e. not running it through an air return and then hanging the wire around your baseboards). The few times I've really had the need for 100Mbps (versus the 36Mbps I'm currently getting over 802.11g, up on the second floor with the WAP in the basement), I'll bring the laptop to the basement and plug-in, but otherwise this whole wireless thing is fabulous.
Clearly someone watched Oceans 11 and decided to try using a pinch to rob a casino. Apparently the plan didn't work...or did it?
Are you being serious?
eEye does this for publicity, not as a public service to Microsoft. It is good publicity when Microsoft acknowledges an eEye find, just as it's good publicity when they ignore it and eEye can publicly bitch. What eEye can't do, though, is to jump the gun and give ammunition to every script kiddie out there -- companies that have done this in the past (I believe eEye did years back...I remember them releasing a tool that gave you a command shell against unpatched IIS machines) have gotten extremely bad press, and generally Microsoft, or whoever, comes off looking like the innocent victim.
Having said that, if eEye can find all of these exploits for a bit of PR, what could a hostile nation (or "friendly" nation that's a little inquisitive) or organized crime accomplish? How many selective, high profile machines are rooted as we speak.
I have an inexpensive miniDV Sony TRV-19, and it works extremely well in low light. Obviously the best picture is in the brightest setting when the CCD has enough information to have a higher signal to noise, but in very low light situations the image is definitely usable. I've been extremely happy with that camera.
The nightvision is a gimmick that is only useful in a couple of conceptual frat type sitations--it'll never be used (apart from on the day the camera is first unpacked) by the average home user. There is another mode, "Color Nightshot" I believe is the name, that basically holds each frame until there is a high enough signal to noise, and it does provide a very good image in lower light levels, though if there is fast motion there is a distinct blurring artifact (in very low light it is light a slide show).
Anti-virus software seems to be a false sense of security -- it's a great way to catch last month's big virus, but it's of limited use when viruses spread at the rate that they do. I know in many large firms anti-virus software has caused downtime as they force reboots/relogons to update definitions for the latest fear.
Of course, humorously Microsoft DRM will be our salvation -- with forced signing of all executables there's a pretty easy control mechanism for corporations. I'm not saying this is right, but just that it is a bright side to it.
Did you happen to notice the part where it said This new variant relies upon a backdoor left in place by the original email spread virus.
I'm not sure what to think about this: How many times can you tell people never to open attachments until you just give up and accept that a certain casualty rate is to be expected? (As a sidenote -- I party blame Netscape and other email proggies that send forwards or replies as attachments rather than as inline quoted text. This makes uses accustomed to opening attachments).
Uh, yeah.
... Idiot. Fanboy.
.NET "borrows" many ideas from Java, but it's absurd to paint Java as an amazing new development that invented these concepts (just as it's equally absurd to claim that Macs invented the GUI, though that's an entirely different debate).
I apologize profusely for that typo, though it was fairly obvious.
You mean "ruby"
Err, no I mean exactly what I said, which is that there was dozens of interpreted or quazi-compiled languages before Java. It's a neat concept and a good implementation, but it certainly wasn't revolutionary.
Java, which was called Oak originally, was created for small and embedded systems, such as set-top boxes.
Obviously I was being a bit facetious given the original flamebait troll. There is no doubt whatsoever that
Oh, mother of...
Preview, damnit, preview!
"C++ is invented, adding a usable OOP layer onto C."
I think you missed a couple of fairly critical points in your timeline.
-2. C++ is invented, adding a usable OOP layer onto Java.
-1. Dozens of interpreted, or semi-compiled languages (such as Visual Basic, which preceded Java) exist. Many of them are cross platform.
0. No one writes software for Sun, so they think up a plan to let people write software for Windows, while still allowing it to run on Sun. Java is the obvious result, and is basically the merging of -1 and -2, though Java fanboys will forever imagine that it was a wonderfully unique idea that appeared out of nowhere.
Also
4.5 Microsoft's implementation of Java absolutely stomps Sun's on the Microsoft platform. Microsoft implements additional platform specific extensions, as is allowed under the Java spec, to make it more usable on the Windows platform. Seeing point 0, this really pisses off Sun who yoinks their license back.
And in the Florida case of Carlie Brucia, a luckily placed surveillance camera was the critical evidence in the possible removal of a homicidal predator from the streets -- the camera might not have stopped the crime from happening, but it most certainly will stop future crimes (in 97 this guy was arrested for trying to abduct someone, an a incomprehensible perversion of "reasonable doubt" got him off the hook, and in 2004 he was randomly caught by a luckily placed surveillance camera. How many victims was there between?).
I'm entirely willing to trade some liberty for the safety, primarily of children, from predators.
Unfortunatly AMD not being 100% compatable with the standard causes problems.
Good old FUD -- when Windows crashes on an Intel box, it's because of Microsoft. When Windows crashes on a AMD box, it's because the AMD "isn't 100% compatible". Uh huh. I'll buy either AMD or Intel without a hesitation (I'm not a fanboy) where one is the clear winner, but I still see FUD when someone spouts it.
Here's a clue for you -- neither AMD or Intel are x86 processors, but rather both have a converter that converts x86 to their own internal microcode. The x86 standard that they're converting is EXTREMELY well known and standardized (I mean -- other people have to write the software that runs on it). AMD is 100% compatible with core x86.
Intel also has much more R&D into making a chip that won't fry itself if it gets too hot. AMD? Naw, they'd rather make you buy a new chip than bother to make it prevent a problem before it occurs.
Tom, is that you? Firstly, Intel and AMD chips are comparable in heat levels (actually the Prescott sets all new levels for heat generation, making Intel the clear winner in the egg cooker category), but secondly you are correct -- Intel has been more fervent in putting heat protection on their chips, though it is arguably over-engineering. It's like having guidewires "just in case" around all of your high rises. It's generally unnecessary as, apart from Tom's Hardware PR stunts, heatsinks don't fall off processors in regular use. My car doesn't have a special fuel purge if I decide to fill it full of ketchup.
You've hit the nail on the head. Additionally the market is currently artificial -- both India and China have pegged their currency artificially low against the US $ -- instead of spiking as they achieve the successes they've had (which is the natural world trade equalizer), they've stayed unnaturally low. The US has become increasingly forceful, as have other world nations, that if these nations wish to be a part of world trade they need to float their currencies, and when that time comes there will be a dramatic shift in economics.
"The US and its companies will be basically irrelevant. ...
Welcome to the third world."
Japan has ~100 million people, and in a few short decades was considered the greatest threat to the US economic power (and still is a tremendous influence). Nokia is a Finnish company and dominates the worldwide phone market. Nortel is a Canadian company that dominates much of the world networking infrastructure. HSBC is a British company that is one of the biggest banks in the world. What does the size of the flag nation have to do with the worldwide potential of an organization?
Joel, as I'm sure you know, was one of the technical guys behind VBA in Excel, along with some other fairly big projects. He apparently made enough money from these gigs that he went off and started his own company, initially focusing on consulting (at the most unfortunate time to be in consulting...), and then moving into shrink wrap software. Apparently they're doing okay as they recently moved into a pretty impressive new office, still in swanky (and expensive) New York City.
Joel is a big advocate of treating developers well, and is respected for generally being pragmatic and insightful, with a humorous writing style that is informative while remaining entertaining. On the flip side, a couple of his recent posts have been blatant quid-pro-quos with some friends of his, and he's selling out a bit with the Programmer's Paradise gig.
"This is true on Windows too, using whatever your preferred GUI encryption program might be."
Generally you're transferring these files between users rather than using them just for personal archives, so interoperability is the key. You can't willy nilly choose to use whatever encryption program you feel like if you expect your recipient to be able to open it without significant hassle.
"The only reason to stuff both functions into a single program seems to be the perennial problem of installing anything on Windows systems"
Yes, people like convenience, and as mentioned in the prior point you'd generally like one interoperability hurdle rather than two.
"why should users pay $20 twice for two different pieces of tacky shareware when they could pay Winzip $40 for one?"
The source code for AES, and RSA for that matter, has been available for some time, and the replacement of the native ZIP encryption (i.e. crap) I doubt was more than a one day task -- this is a tiny value-add, not some big price doubler. The only problem is that the ZIP format wasn't dynamic and there were too many chefs in the kitchen -- nothing good was happening, so this is a great step forward.
This makes me wonder if this is an actual government form letter that perhaps was received by someone targeted by the Patriot Act
I doubt it. Personally I find the letter amateur, and with a definite scam-vibe (although obviously I already knew it was a scam, but I feel I would have thought the same if I'd seen this before the publicity).
Firstly, it's highly redundant. By saying that I mean that it's redundant. It's redundant in its redundancy that is redundant. You get what I mean by saying that it's redundant?
Secondly, the final paragraph sounds absurdly fake -- in the intro you're told that your account has had suspected "currency violations", and they need to verify that these currency violations aren't in violation of the Patriot act -- so they ask you to verify your account information? How would that disprove violations of the Patriot act?
While it's much better than the classic scam, this whole letter reeks of being a scam. Of course for those on the fence with reasonable doubt, the bloody IE bug may have put them over the fence towards believing, which is sad.
That's, err, pretty funny. Let me simplify this virtual conversation for you:
Person 1 - "Canada is much bigger than the States!"
Person 2 - "Oh yeah? How much?"
Person 3 - "Only barely"
Do you really have trouble understanding this?
Canada is much bigger than the states...
...but with far less people
Only barely, and this comes up in the next point...
It's a common misconception of Canada that we're vastly spread out evenly across 10 million square kilometers. In reality the vast majority of us are clustered in a couple of relatively (I mean relative to Canada, although still quite huge compared to most nations) small areas. Outside of this it's sparsely distributed settlements, often related to natural resources, throughout the rest.
For instance Rogers claims "Our digital TDMA and Analog cellular phone network covers up to 93% of the Canadian population with over 85% digital coverage.". I suspect that 93% of Canadians live in (far) less than 10% of the land mass.
More customers = lower prices. Fewer customers = higher prices.
Errr...he's comparing the same models of phones. Rogers didn't do R&D to make a Nokia 6800 -- Nokia did, and that cost is shared worldwide.
In other words for general, worldwide accessible products that reasoning is a deadend.
The Canadian government subsidizes broadband, making it less expensive
The Canadian government has initiatives to bring broadband out to rural areas (i.e. way up North). They don't subsidize broadband for the vast majority of Canadians (who are those living in fairly urban settings). Cogeco isn't getting a cheque from the government for my broadband.
Canadian citizens have to pay taxes to support their socialist government
Right...socialist. And of course where you live every road is a pay road, every service is a user-pay (fire call -- pay up. Need police services? Better have your chequebook!), and the government is minimalist -- anything else is socialist.
An alternate theory is that it's a gimmick, just like the gimmick of many of the .COMs, that he pulls out every media encounter he gets to validate what he does. It really took the cake when he compared his organization to a hospice -- that is a hospice that takes $75,000 or 7.5% of the sale value, whichever is more...
I'm sure professional counterfeiters don't sit around on their iMacs in studio lofts using PSP/Photoshop to copy money on home printers.
I don't think professional counterfeiters are the target of this -- instead I think they are thinking of the casual "tester" who then evolves into a casual "passer". In many cases these are teenagers who scan and print it out just to see if it works, and then that page of $20s gets a little too luring so they take a shot at passing them. (In my area for a while, until extensive police public notices, there was an issue with a large number of teens using home computer equipment to dupe money).
I am very curious whether Photoshop did this voluntarily, or whether they were induced in some fashion (either via threats, or payment). It just seems hard to imagine that they would go through the [considerable] effort to develop this, and impose the computational overhead of scanning and processing every image to detech currency, just to feel like good guys. I smell some much larger machinations at work here...