Seriously ? have you not heard of Samantha Brick ? it seems they are.

He then documented everything, and went to the bank the next day and told them about it, showing them the CCTV footage he had made a copy of before deleting and gave them the photocopies he had taken as proof. He explained to the bank that the reason he's done this was because the week previous he'd tried to tell them about this problem and they had simply laughed at him and wanted him to open an account, costing him $10,000 of his own money he'd never get back before they would entertain the thought of listening to him.

Upon hearing this the bank arrested him.

http://www.ruxcon.org.au/2011-talks/hacking-hollywood/

This was very similar, except for the arrest part. Out of about 5-6 companies, only one took him seriously, all the rest issued threats, denied there was a problem or told him to become a customer so he could log a trouble ticket with them.

You could actually read the summary and then follow the various twisty passages to the actual article source..

To be honest, that would be a lot more persuasive, than him just saying 'the article refers to a yahoo news story, which refers to an arstechnica story which talks about an entirely different thing that was reported on slashdot a few days ago already' because chances are, you'll STILL require him to somehow prove it while doing no research yourself.

Don't be evil story - Jan 24th.
http://search.slashdot.org/story/12/01/23/2045235/facebook-twitter-and-myspace-to-google-dont-be-evil?sdsrc=rel

Even the first few comments after the announcement article on google+ integrating search were not what you'd call positive.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/01/10/1627213/google-merges-google-into-search?sdsrc=rel

Google+ Antitrust lawsuit discussed as well..
http://search.slashdot.org/story/12/01/14/1726244/ftc-expands-its-google-antitrust-investigations

Original Google anti-trust lawsuit.
http://search.slashdot.org/story/11/06/23/2137243/ftc-to-open-antitrust-investigation-against-google?sdsrc=rel

While the iOS/Android market share stuff is harder to find, a quick search finds
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/01/24/230257/apple-announces-most-profitable-quarter-in-history with the first few comments quite favourable in apples direction, but also noting its hard to compare from this data android/apple numbers - and then it descends into some M$/Apple argument.

I do however recall reading on slashdot about the entire iOS/Android market share swinging in Apples favour by a few fractions of a percentage, I'm just lost trying to find the actual article I read this in.

I'm not too sure where you're getting your information from, but maybe you don't read the same slashdot I read. If anything, you are more likely to be modded down because you ARE a troll and simply trying to spread disinformation.

I think (s)he means that YOU won't care if (s)he comes to your house and takes your stuff. Other people may care, but claiming that the original owner of the stuff cares is probably a shaky position to hold.

Unless you are Anwar al-Awlaki

http://www.salon.com/2011/09/30/awlaki_6/

In both Australia and New Zealand, the onus would be on the manufacturer to prove that flashing new firmware caused the flames to spout from the USB port (or the dead pixels etc). US law may be different, but a lot of countries have some pretty decent consumer protection laws. In the case of ASUS, they would still need to honour the warranty on the rest of the device, and if flashing caused loss of DRM keys and such forth that were not able to be recovered with a factory restore, they would quite probably have to make this abundantly clear to the consumer that this was the case or it could get messy.

My goodness, three days ? let me draw you a little table.

M - S
T - M *
W - T *
T - W *
F - T *
S - F
S - S

The days with a * next to them are 'working days which coincide', you'll notice there are four of them. I'm quite amazed that you got modded to 4.

Which would have cost him around $52/day for unlimited internet. (assuming a 12 month contract, not a 24 month one)

I do what the OP does when I goto the US as well, I'm starting to get quite a collection of t-mobile sims though. It's a pity you cant just reactivate them.

You do realise that this site (youhavedownloaded.com) doesn't record your private IP address if you are hidden behind a NAT device right ? and that DHCP leases will expire (and renew) and that your modem doesn't have to 'reboot' or 'crash' in order to get a new public IP address, and that, depending on the access technology and the time it happens, you may not even notice a new public IP address change ?

Also, if you fire back with 'but I have a static public IP address' then none of your arguments make sense anyway ?

Oh, and you may want to do some research into how worms work, I'll give you a starter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_worm

Won't work. Apple will sue as they own the colour white as well.

They've already tried that two or three times and failed miserably at it.

Least we forget..

http://www.textfiles.com/100/anonymit

Sadly, thats incorrect, there are cases where people have been tortured and kidnapped for messing with these criminals

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/08/hacker-reported/ is one such case, another i dont have the link for right now involved a reporters daughter being kidnapped, put on drugs and sent to work in a brothel for 5 years. The hacker con ruxcon in Australia had a talk on it last year, no country is safe when dealing with real criminals. They will find and kill you for disrupting their business.

I had a long drawn out reply to this that got eaten. You'll have to live with the short form, sorry.

Your 1300 quoted is only half the text, you should read and consider the rest in the context it was said. People are trying to claim that the cables reveal names of possible informants who's lives subsequently become in danger. Can you please point to where the Kenya cables listed these 1300 people ? or was it possibly that the data highlighted corruption in the government that subsequently lead to an uprising in which 1300 people were killed ? Hopefully I really don't need to point out the difference to you in finer detail.

Added to this, I am puzzled by the focus on Assange as a figure to hate. In all the releases up until recently (and there is a reason that changed - Thanks Guardian, not Assange) the media were handling the releases, not Assange, if there were names not redacted, then the Media outlets that posted the cables are responsible for any harmful outcome, not Assange. If you want to hold Assange responsible then you could also equally hold the original leaker responsible, as well as the people that improperly secured the data, and while you are at it, the embassy for not obsficating things a little better, or maybe the original government that perpetrated these crimes (or individuals in many cases).

Why the hate on Assange ? it almost seems irrational.