This is worse, as a "rogue" trader is, at least to this speaker of english as a second language, someone who deliberately did wrong.

He was not "making mistakes" he was trying to game the system.

As I posted earlier in this thread, at the very least, he should have been sandboxed/honeypotted, with someone replaying any transactions he made that had value(so he'd NOT know he was being audited for being a crook and facing jail time).

They detected him
They let him run 2 billion in bad trades
They didn't honeypot him
They didn't stop him at a lower amount...

This is supposed to be good how?

The biggest problems with false positives in most antiviruses isn't the false positives, it's that you can't do anything about them until they issue a fix. If you could just tell them "I know what I'm doing, this particular file is ok"without "disable yourself, you're fucked and need a doctor" it would be a lot more tolerable. It would also make accusations of "you're doing this to make people switch" a lot less believable.

The point is that Microsoft is making money NOT marketing android phones, by that perspective, IBM making 23Billions in software doesn't mean they marketed that software either.

It's not surprising, the consumers don't:

1) commercially blast those who make walled gardens back into the stone age
2) punish those more closed solutions until they are much cheaper than the open ones

Since being open runs risks(if you are open, you are open to competition) that means until the cost of being closed is larger than the costs of those risks, you(the market)'re punishing people for being open.

There's no risk of the open going away, the risk is that open will quickly become much more expensive, and a niche market, whereas in liberal free-market democracies, closed markets shouldn't be the majority.

And Microsoft makes more per samsung android handset than Google does, potentially even more than samsung(I don't have hard numbers). Does that mean Microsoft is marketing android phones?

You also can't prove something that hasn't happened yet, or someone else's intent. Logic just doesn't work that way.

Well in this case, since it's about a future version, it says "start expecting that in five years we will stop issuing patches for SUA". That some people chose to use windows... I think we can call either self-inflicted, or at least, not Microsoft's fault ONLY.

The other problem is that the name SFU doesn't convey posix as much as "interoperability with unix". Way back when, unix had a bunch of standards associated with it, posix was the original, since then, they've added a several "unix" standards.

Having Posix checked isn't as useful as it was.

On the other hand, all those posix-compliant linux servers that got soldm claim greater unix compatibility, are all very interoperable in the first place, at least, more interoperable for the money, than Microsoft's offerings. Microsoft doesn't appear to have had as much traction in its strategy to bind nis to AD as they hoped, so now they don't want to support SFU(adding new features,etc...) since it's mostly customers who if they buy windows, buy it at sufferance, and would not seriously consider replacing their unix with windows servers.

On the other hand, careful SFU management tuning and sizing might help people buy less windows, and run linux/unix alternatives in a couple of scenarios I can think of, so I'm not surprised Microsoft wants to stop subsidising something that doesn't meet its main goal(more windows server licenses with lock-in) and a risk of loosening the lock for highly technical clients.

There'd be a better solution is eulas were

a) negotiable or
b) negotiated on your behalf by a consumer association of some kind

right now, eulas are written by the lawyers of the firm in question, with the very minimum to make them legal(if that much) and you have to waive a bunch of what's basic consumer rights, just to enter into business with those firms.

Why is it that whenever someone points a flaw in the system, the answer always is "go away, cuz noone will fix it"

And, just like the famous "US Courts don't care how you got in front of the court, as long you you there there..."

HOW isn't important.

The law doesn't say the FBI can't swipe your phone for an identical one and use it record you. It only says if they get CAUGHT doing it, it's NOT proof that you commited a crime.

They can still ask you to post yourself the results of your gps data, manually, and it can be irreceivable as entrapment.

A lot of the laws about evidence revolve a lot more about preventing the police going around, with "this crime has been committed, who can I indict for it" than with "who can I convict for this crime?" because, if they can really indict you for it, honest to god, you're really caught.

It's not havoc, it's just more work.
Just revoke all the "root" certs in current use, and you're back to the basic:
VERIFY (once, and then once they expire) every trusted cert you use, and sign them with your own key.
Others in this thread mention validating the keys offline, which, for your bank, might make a lot more sense than trusting a third party.

Imagine what happens if a teacher asks his students for an essay on "Naked Gun" without checking the banned list first.

Seems to me a word list is counterproductive.

Or was the goal to block a whole bunch of essay titles too?

James Blunt is also blocked? What about, as other said, biology, but for "kentucky blue glass"?

History essays without fights are also gonna be a bit... original.

If Apache doesn't return an error code it will have to keep the connection open, and you're back at the "consuming so many resources it's denying legitimate traffic" part of the denial of service.

They get more efficient... for the same amount of computing power. However, we ain't stopped needing more/faster computing power recently, quite the opposite.
I would have expected Microsoft to make a proposal about power plants with computing power, not mere "smarter" buildings though.