Surely all the crazy people that go on rampages do it for the fame. It has nothing to do with their mental health.

Someone maintains that physical layer. Even if they are employees of the company, it doesn't follow that they can be trusted. Someone with access to the physical layer and an NTLM hack could "become" anyone else on the network and do whatever he wanted with little fear of getting caught.

Put another way, If everyone that was employed by the company could be trusted, they could all share the same login with unlimited access. If that makes you cringe, then so should NTLM. I think that's the point of the article.

A careful look at what I wrote will reveal that my misogyny accusation was not directed at the author. Notice that the title of my post was "How does this get +5 insightful?" and then I speak of him and his post in the third person, while I make the misogyny accusation in the second person. In other words I was saying, "...don't let science get in the way of your [Slashdot moderators'] shit headed misogyny".

OK, so even if I had been calling the author a misogynist, it would only be ad hominem if I had used his misogyny as disproof of his premise. But my disproof of his premise was that it was contrary to scientific data. Even if I had gone on to claim he were a misogynist, which I didn't, it wouldn't have technically been ad hominem.

OK, I think you are trying to say that a feeling of superiority to women is not the same as hatred. Yes, that's true, but that's not precisely the definition of misogyny I was picturing. See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misogyny (noun: hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.). I think I would have been within my liberty to have accused of mistrust given the following from the author:

And yet, to be clear again, that's not what I was doing. I was noting that the quickness that this shot up to +5 (before anything else even had +3) was (yet more) evidence of the rampant misogyny in the ranks of the Slashdot moderation crowd. I'm happy to see that cooler heads eventually brought it all the way back down.

Indeed, how will he ever conceal the fact that he can write software? He's doomed.

There's no insight here, no data. The parent just spews his own feeling that "girls are rule followers" and "boys are smarter". The scientists with actual data found that the qualities were actually "attentiveness, task persistence, eagerness to learn, learning independence, flexibility and organization", but don't let science get in the way of your shit headed misogyny.

And yet this anti-science post makes it instantly to +5, why? Because it strokes the ego of the Slashdot anti-female crowd who think that feminists are coming to take their balls away.

The answer is in the summary. Teachers give girls better grades. Standardized tests give boys better grades.

Indeed, here is the version from April 2009.

They added no such restrictions, they've always been there. The summary is wrong.

It hasn't been tightened, the summary is wrong. The following, which the summary says is new:

Is an exact quote from APRIL 2009. The new terms didn't change this.

The summary is completely wrong.

Here's what it said in April 10, 2009

Here's what it says now:

What the hell does a non-free SDK do to curb fragmentation? What does clause 3.4 have to do with clause 3.2?

Should be:

New Sony Patent on Blocking Second-hand Games

And some forget that after Mars' own formation it was damn hot (molten, even, for a while) just from the energy of its own formation, just like every other planet. Although only a trace is left today, this would have lasted for some time. So it is incorrect to assume that "less bright sun" equals "colder planet" unless all other things were equal, which they were not.

Do NOT anthropomorphize computer viruses! They HATE that.

Easy: here's mine that was removed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ReM0v3dVid

It now says it is "unavailable". Can you believe that? All because I said this Halibut was good enough for Jehovah!

Dammit, sorry, the technology I was thinking of was Xvnc's not x11vnc's. I apologize for adding to the confusion.

The big problem with VNCs like x11vnc is the latency incurred by screen polling. Xvnc doesn't need to do this, and neither does RDP. (This is why I thought that's what you were talking about.)

Even if latency were solved, there's still the issue of VNC just being a remote view of a local display and RDP is a remote display. The difference is that with the latter, the desktop takes on the shape of the remote end. Trying to view a 3840x1200 display on a 1200x768 display is just a disaster (not to mention the unnecessary performance degradation it also incurs as a result of needing to send vastly more data in my cases)

RDP's design isn't perfect, though. I prefer X's design by far if it were to fix the must-decide-at-startup and network performance issues.

Oh, and as an aside, the latency with X's protocol is in large part not solved by compression. What makes NX much faster is its elimination of a lot of the round trips inherent in X's protocol (by essentially faking responses) which are the biggest cause of X slowness, but much trickier to implement than just compression.