So what you're saying is that it's Microsoft's fault your business held out for post-Win7, despite the knowledge that the end date was 2014 (and heck, that's been moved out by 2 years from the original date!). And it's also Microsoft's fault for not planning your app upgrades (what, you thought Win8 would be more compatible than Win7 for your XP apps)? Sounds to me like you think your lack of planning should constitute an emergency on my part. Bzzzzzt. Wrong. You made your bed, now you get to lie in it.

That comment in no way changes what was said in the GP post (though for clarity, while you could still buy WinXP about 4-5 years ago you are still not a current customer). The other point to consider though is the customer (company) who has 20x WinXP machines, 100x Win7 machines and 50x Win8.1 machines. They still are a customer, obviously, but IT moves so much faster than most older industries - it's like complaining your 1955 Studebaker isn't getting new parts made any more because it's 2013, and the original moulds/specs have been lost. The only difference is that you can't even retro-fit a cloned part.

Actually - that their software is open is irrelevant to the problem. Are they running their own servers with openssl/openvpn/??? or using third party appliances? Did THEY create and build the hardware from the ground up or purchase it from a third party? The balance of probabilities may say their inter-DC encryption is done on a secure, up-to-date and built-and-operated-to-best-practices RH server, but it's not a guarantee.

And just like this scenario with Microsoft, how is anyone going to audit the deployment? RH will most certainly not allow twenty million users to tour their datacentres and audit each and every device. So just like Microsoft's environment, and despite RH's code potentially being open, there is absolutely no way to vet the environment. You have to trust the organisation (and each and every person involved in the decision tree). I really don't see a significant and meaningful difference - the open code has no bearing whatsoever on what's actually running (both code-wise and configuration-wise).

He probably works in OH&S (Occupational Health and Safety - or your local equivalent) or at an employer who has been burned in the past and now requires every possible risk to be itemised and managed (even if it makes a project cost 300% more).

I'd guess the potential killers have higher moral standards than the execs, and don't want to inflict the mental pain / sorrow on the not-guilty family members. Sadly this means the morally bankrupt studio execs can't be expunged from the gene pool.

That and there's a huge line of contenders to replace the execs anyway, all with moral compasses permanently set to "screw everyone except me".

Funny, I had the same reaction when I read it. He seemed like a salesman for Google or something.

Dear Prince Bernard, If you're talking about my bank account, you're barking up the wrong tree :)

Fair use cases are very fact specific. If you start monkeying with the facts, Judge Chin might not feel the same way about it.

I don't know but please hire me as your lawyer when you do.

Thatswhatappealscourtsarefor

Think of it more like a reminder and a chance to begin the education of those who were suckered in by their friends/colleagues (and who aren't/weren't privacy-conscious to start with).

I don't have a Facebook account now because of privacy concerns. But I didn't get one originally (04-05 I guess?) because frankly I'm a bit of a loner and I couldn't think of a group of people I'd rather avoid than those with whom I went to school. Yes, I've missed out on staying connected to people with whom I'd want to continue to associate (Uni friends), but I'm not sacrificing my privacy for it now. I'd rather be detached and a little boring. It's a choice - but I hope an informed one.

Agreed. Abelson should be ashamed of himself.

Can someone tell me why it's newsworthy that MIT clowns exonerate themselves & blame their victim?

Other than to demonstrate how low some people can go.