Charles Fitzgerald, Microsoft program manager, (1996): "If you want security on the 'Net', unplug your computer."

Scott McNealy, CEO of Sun Microsystems, (1999): "You, us folks, peasants, you already have zero privacy. Get over it."

Eric Schmidt, Google CEO, (2009): "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

Our corporate masters have always felt that our private lives are their property to abuse as they see fit.

I have a BS in CS and I work IT. In a small or medium company there is no difference. I answer helpdesk, code the Web site, punch wires for the phones and call the power company when things go south. Perhaps I've failed at life, but at least I'm not the tool asking about A+ and Network+.

I feel my company does something useful to the community and I am happy to participate. Don't discount it unless you are in San Jose and hiring...

Contract? Lease? WTF are you talking about?

Yap, but it is called Crysis turn based game. :)

Well here's one Virgin cable customer (£30/month) that'll definitely be cancelling next week and specifying the reason for cancelling as deep packet inspection. Hopefully I won't be the only one with the sense to send that message.

The thing that annoyed me the most about Star Trek, and it was most common in the Next Generation, was the idiotic idea of solving a made-up scientific problem with made-up technology. It has no value to a plot; actually it's the opposite of plot, if there is such a thing.

You're thinking of 'deus ex machina', which is a plot device along the lines of "and suddenly a god-like being appeared and fixed everything". It's the fate of all lazy fiction and, sadly, it's not restricted to sci-fi - although the opportunity to invent suitable technobabble does make it rather easier.

practically everywhere (that matters)

What an horrific phrase. Do you even realise how offensive that comment is to people that don't come from your home country? Of course I'm only guessing what your home country is...

reminds me of this excellent Bruce Schneier Article:

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2006/03/70357

He should pay to re-train the entire government technical staff.

Then you realize, *the stupid bastard is answering the questions honestly*.

Only a salesman would think answering questions honestly is a bad thing.

"If you're in marketing, kill yourself."
  -- Bill Hicks

Good idea. The only issue is maintenance, but if they use strong pipes they could use a hinged rig with the heat exchanger on the end, so that it could be sunk deep into the water when in use and floated or lifted to the surface for maintenance. As for thin walls, there could be pressure issues, they could use an overflow tank on the surface to allow for compression of the heat exchanger but it would still have to be strong enough to stand up to the pressure at depth...or they could pressurize the "outdoor" system and use another heat exchanger to interface with a low-pressure system on land - which would be safer for the servers' cooling systems in case sea water leaks in or the "outdoor" system pump fails.

vulnerabilities exist. this is true of all systems, no matter who uncovers them

therefore, an intelligent organization: a bank, a military, a government, will have a system where private disclosure of vulnerabilities results in a reward for the discoverer

if you don't have such a policy, a discoverer might turn to finding reward in your vulnerability with your enemies or criminality instead

unfortunately, the discoverer must consider the possibility that if he divulged the discovered vulnerability quietly, the organization he penetrated might find the least costly solution to the problem to be the the disappearance of the discoverer

such that the most moral and safest approach for a discoverer is to go public with the vulnerability instead. which of course invites the wrath of the organization penetrated. its a no-win situation for the moral discoverer of a vulnerability, such that there is constant pressure on white and gray hats to go black

Not "clever." This is standard practice in the shipping industry.

And outside the shipping industry, it's quite common: any galvanized steel you're using is covered in a sacrificial anode, and that includes thousands of miles of long-haul steel electrical poles.

If the content is subsidized with advertisements I'm not going to pay for it.

Most of the comments here are annoying riffs on the theme, "I can read the word 'manipulation' in a pedantically absurd way and pretend there is no distinction". In fact, law and courts can use common sense, definitions, and human reasoning. They are not constrained to crudely written algorithms (even sophisticated algorithms could do better than most posts here allow, but that's a digression too).

As TFA says, photojournalism already has a fairly well defined standard about what "modifications" are merely technical versus which alter the meaning of the material presented. Part of this is a question of particular transformations that may or may not be applied, but much of it is a matter of judgment about meaning. Clearly, at the edges, you can try to subvert some overly narrow and hyper-technical construal. For example, Man Ray (and other photographers of the early 20th C) created some strikingly abstract and recontextualizing images using only techniques that would no per-se bump against the technical "modification" techniques... his purpose was obviously much different than fashion magazines, but if a modern photographer applies the same devices, the law and courts would reasonably call that "manipulation" within the spirit of the proposed law (whether labeling was required would presumably depend on the publication context). On the flip side, there are no doubt other photographs that could be "manipulated" in a formal sense without intending to present artificial meaning. For example, photos (digital or film) that are damaged in various ways might need to be "manipulated" to produce the "true" image. Again, courts and laws can make that distinction on a case-by-case basis.