Granted, I didn't rtfa. But I would imagine that the car's alternator would be able to keep the suspension going even if the battery did fail. Plus, if your battery is that knackered, you probably won't be able to start the car at all.

Why the hell shouldn't someone from Iran be able to buy a SSL certificate? Seriously. Racist summary much.

Or, except when I don't get money for it or unaffiliated companies use my image and reputation to make a quick buck without asking permission or setting up some sort of royalty agreement.

Modules is why I think this is a bad idea. During the 3 years that Drupal 6 was the latest-and-greatest, a lot of great modules were developed for it. If 7 has a shorter amount of time as the latest-and-greatest, it follows that there will be less amazing modules for it.

If they're going to speed up the release cycle, they should maintain compatibility with older modules. Otherwise, we're just going to end up with lots of versions of vanilla drupal (which in itself, is quite bland) and not many modules that make it as powerful as Drupal 6.

A trick I learnt with experts exchange is that the posts are actually accessible. You just have to scroll past the "GIMMER ALL YER MONEY" messages and you get to the original text. Experts Exchange's paywall is a simple example, but if Google's indexer can read past the paywall, there's no reason why you can't. Sometimes, if a site serves different content to people than to spiders, you can just click on the "cached" link in Google's results page to see the version that Google indexed.

Is HTC's spare change a lot to OnLive? If OnLive were previously only sitting on $10m of funds, a boost of $40m gives them a huge incentive to make sure their service works well on HTC smart phones.

Who better to judge the state of affairs? Sure, this is probably just an attempt to drum up more sales - but that doesn't discount the fact that "Half of .gov Sites Fail DNSSEC Test".

Unlike the Pope, Bill Gates spends a lot of his riches on charity research. Wikipedia states that he's donated $28 billion of his own money to charitable causes (mainly the Bill & Melinda foundation). He has also agreed to give at least 50% of his fortune (currently valued at $54 billion) to charity.

I'm not particularly down with the Vatican kids, so I ask you; What has the current Pope actually done? I doubt very much that he has the means to even equal Bill Gates' contributions.

Probably not. It was settled outside of courts, so AFAIK, you can't use that in other court cases.

But that doesn't excuse the fact they messed up in the first place. What mozilla have done is plain careless. I know, 'accidents happen' - but I'd rather they didn't and I don't trust companies not to keep making mistakes with user data.

Surely using obscure or old systems for the sake of security is the flawed principle of security through obscurity.

All you can achieve using that method is reduce your chances of being subject to a random attack. An attack that is crafted specifically for you is likely to work. You said it yourself, the machines were easily hacked a few years ago. If someone specifically wanted to target x company for whatever reason - they would be committed enough to dig up a 10 year old text book. Your average botnet has more generic fish to fry, so aim at the pond with more fish. Your single fish in a small barrel isn't more secure than those other fish.

So, according to these USCG clowns, providing a working defence to the opposition is illegal?

That hard evidence is not actually that hard. It doesn't have any weight behind the idea of who committed the act using the IP address. Consider this scenario;

A teenager, Bob, downloads a few albums off the web. Bob's dad, John, is the account holder with the ISP. When lawyers go poaching and tell John's ISP that xyz IP address was used to download copyright content, the ISP gives them John's details. After getting a letter from the lawyers, John, denies downloading the content. Because he didn't. Or maybe the letter asks John who was downloaded the material x months ago at 20:32. John says "How tf am I supposed to know?" - maybe he has a few kids. Maybe he has a wireless network that isn't properly secured. Maybe the time in question is so long ago that it's unreasonable for John to know who was using what.

Saying an IP address downloaded something illegally is one thing. Pinning the crime onto an actual person is a very big leap and leaves lots of room for reasonable doubt imo. I'd love to hear of one of these cases going to court and someone tries the "I'm sorry, but I don't know who was using the computer then" defence.

Servers;
You say the media server will have a shed load of files in an archive. Does this mean it won't be regularly accessed? In which case, just get a bare-bones box and shove a million hard drives in it. You don't need extreme CPUs to just store stuff.
In house webserver. Development or production? How much traffic? Do you have client's work hosted on the webserver? IMO, internal's fine for development or even staging environments - but production is best handled by a company who know what they're doing - so use one of the million reputable hosting providers out there.
Do you actually need a server for user management? One company I worked for had a brilliant, simple solution. Everyone had their own seat in the office, so their PC was 'theirs' and they had an account for that PC. They also had a folder on the in-house webserver (development only) that they could call their own and were advised to save all their work there because only the server was regularly backed up, the individual PCs weren't.

Clients;
Ask the work force. Ask the managers. Don't think that "Oh yay! Laptops mean people can do work outside the office" - if those machines are contain sensitive material, the management probably don't want people to do work outside the office. Some people also just don't like working on laptops. I for one would hate to use a laptop for a long period of time (ie, 9-5). If there's not [i]need[/i] for laptops/thin-clients, save the company a buck & get what they actually need.

The UK's pretty similar. One example that always gets me is that we buy petrol by the litre, but measure fuel efficiency in miles per gallon.

We also buy our booze in pints unless we're buying bottles. Milk tends to also be in pints, but they've also started putting the litre equivalent on some bottle labels now. Meat is often bought by the kilo, but burgers are usually "1/4 pounders" and steaks are usually measured in oz. People, like Canada, are usually measured in feet and stone...unless you're at the doctors,in which case it's usually metric.