Speaking as a one who has run through 20 or so names since 1970 (yeah, way back then, using a teletypewriter->IBM mainframe message system), I fully agree with you.

You're sadly mistaken, youngster.

Many people with more knowledge than you frequently use SSH tunneling through semi-private servers for certain tasks. As for browser fingerprint, those services that are specifically designed for privacy/anonymity (NB) remove those characteristics. You've also forgotten the extensive fan bases of Adblock Plus and NoScript. Advertisers know less about everyone than you think. Of course, there are always people who don't worry about anonymity or aren't familiar enough with the idea (despite their grandchildren's best efforts).

If you're leaving tracks, it's because you are not diligent enough to mask them. You can probably find a goodly number of google hits for me, but only at a few sites. And I'll bet you can't tie me to any of the several psuedonyms I've used for a period and then discarded since I registered on Slashdot many years ago. Only for this nice, low UID, do I still use TrentTheThief.

Oh? An with a pseudonym is not expected to last?

How long you've been using "Opportunist?" Your statement would have had more impact if your UID was 8 digits.

No, the article is specifically speaking about sentient beings, not parasitic worms.

Have you looked at Norman Security Suite?

Idiot fingers conspire with sleepy mind to click the wrong reply to this.

The Home Depots in my area sell it :-)

The Home Depots in my area sell it in little pots.

Look to that cellphone tower as the first steps toward getting some form of wifi to everyone. It's not going to be instant, but it's a hell of a lot faster than electricity rolled out. I remember houses in the rural area outside of my hometown that had handpumps in the yard and the kitchen, and outhouses. Some didn't have electricity and phone, or water. Now they have power, phone, water, and city sewage treatment.

It's a large country and big infra changes don't happen quickly.

The same way I pay for mine. Monthly.

Don't look at those infrastructure costs as permanent hits against the telcos. They're going to amortize the hell out of those costs, and, we're going to pay for it anyway. They won't lose any money.

Both works for me. The only reason more people don't have fiber where verizon has a presence is due to political backscratching and business BS from the existing cable company that offers internet services.

I say, me give me bandwidth, or get the hell out of the way of someone who will.

Absolutely not.

I say light up the whole damned continent. If not with fiber, then at the very least with fast wifi or ethernet.

It may not DL an entire movie, but it could grab a significant chunk of it and let you watch it without jitter or pixelation, and then DL the next chunk when you have a few minutes of video from the previous chunk.

The copyright holders are going to whine and moan no matter how it's done, so the best thing is to ignore them and do it the right way. It's just as easy to capture a streamed movie as it is one that arrive as a single piece. The thing they need to get over is that once people can rely on having a resource available to them on the net, there's less motivation for them to hoard it on a local drive. If movies only cost a couple dollars, were stored on some upstream server farm that would shoot it down to me on demand, I'd buy a hell of a lot more movies. I'd bet that many other people would, too.

Listen to the man, he knows of that which he speaks.

More bandwidth may not solve all the problems, but it'll sure as hell solve some of them.

I don't know how many of you still remember the dialup days, or even used dial-up. When the schoolkids got home, they'd start hitting AOL and you'd notice the lag.

It's not as bad now, what with me having a 25/25Mbps line. But there's still a very wide range of criminal acts that I'd perform to have my own 1 Gbps line.

Sharks that taste good or sharks with good taste?

I vote: THUNDERSTRUCK!