While a good idea, it's not that easy for Windows users. Especially since the "basic" (aka "premium") versions of Win7 come even without the ability to limit execution of files in certain directories (which would surprisingly actually defeat this pus, at least the variants that I'm aware of, my knowledge in this area is a bit dated, though).

Guess you have to pay extra with Microsoft if you want some semblance of security...

Nope. The current version of this piece of internet-pus walks down mounted network devices, too.

So far they don't go for your network environment to hunt down unmounted shares. Not yet, at least.

Peanuts compared to the revenue. We're talking millions here.

Rest assured that a hack is already in the making.

I don't get the US. I mean, by now you should have noticed that the bigger and more complicated the technology, the more you play into your opponent's hands. First of all, you're using high tech weapons in a low tech war. You can't really fire any round anymore that doesn't cost you more than what your target cost your enemy. Welcome to asymmetric warfare. I don't know why I have to say it, I thought it's obvious: You're essentially in the unfunny situation the British were in when you had your fight for independence. And on top of it you also have to pose as the good guy, you can't even simply level the land and bury what's living under the rubble.

In basically all the wars the US had gotten into lately, they had the superior technology and the inferior position. Let's look at the stats. The US is fighting an enemy who not only doesn't give half a shit about collateral damage (the US at least have to pretend they care, so they can't use the aforementioned "scorched earth" tactics), an enemy that does not identify itself as such (so pretty much anyone and everyone could be hostile), while at the same time those that are NOT hostile may not be touched (since the US want to be the "good" guy and the backlash is considerable when something surfaces). And unlike the average US soldier, the enemy doesn't even give a shit whether he survives the war.

That's not a position from which you can win a war. The US loses unless they win, their enemy wins as long as they don't lose. That cannot be won in a scenario where your enemy is in a position where it does not matter to him how many resources he loses as long as he can inflict damage on you.

Precision bombing and precision shooting is a fine thing if you have a target. That's the main problem the US is facing today. It's trivial for them to eliminate any target anywhere on the planet. The problem is FINDING it.

Rest assured that this will be outlawed and considered "tampering with metering equipment".

I'm an old fashioned guy, coming from an age when we looked at the USSR and considered them the bad guys. So, my education equated "good" with "freedom".

I know, it's a very outdated notion today where "being good" usually means being obedient, conforming and doing what you're told. Oddly, that was what we were told the poor people in the USSR are forced to do if they don't want to end up in Gitm... I mean a Gulag.

Well, that's what the US thinks...

A non-spy pact with a country as paranoid as the US is like a no-kill pact with a homicidal maniac.

You just outed our spies in your network and you expect us to sign a no-spy list? Come again when we have undermined your security enough that you're as safe as the other countries we pretty much already own.

In other words, we'll only not spy on you if you hand over what we want willingly.

What I want is a wearable computer that belongs to me. Not a device that I basically rent and that works for its maker more than me.

In other words, it's not bloody likely that I'll ever get one. Unless parts get cheap enough that building your own becomes an option.

Problem is, using it for good is more and more being outlawed.

Maybe because 99% of the crap of the 16 bit era was more inspired than 99% of the AAA titles of today?

Because today, all that props the average AAA title up is the "oohhhh, shiny!" effect. Once that's gone, you're left with an aging stripper without a boob job.

So we'll have more programmers who don't get why buffer overflows are bad.

In other words, nothing will change.

Yay for job security!

A problem shared is a problem halved?

n^2*(number of browser versions)

I don't know about your CS courses. Ours here pretty much expect you to KNOW programming if you want to have a snowball-in-hell chance to graduate.