Well, to go back to Formula 1, there hasn't been a death in F1 since Ayrton Senna in 1994. After his death, the sport made significant improvements in the safety and crash-worthiness of the cars. There have been some spectacular crashes, but no deaths. Still, F1 is growing in popularity all the time. I don't think you need deaths to make it more interesting.

Except, of course for NASCAR. I'm not sure you could do anything to make watching people drive in circles interesting. Open wheel road or street course racing is where the good stuff is.

I think that's a horrible idea. The thrill in watching F1 is not just watching cars go fast. It's about watching real humans test their skills, stamina, and guts in very demanding situations. It's interesting because something is at stake: the lives and well-being of the drivers. Just watching robot cars go fast around a track would quickly bore me.

What you're talking about has nothing to do with the reality of the situation. The FBI arrested the suspects, downed the DNS servers that were serving bad data, and replaced them with DNS servers that act like any other normal DNS server. Not sure how this equates with letting the bad guys getting away with anything.

Really? REALLY? We have a disagreement about this subject, and this is what you come up with? This complete lack of any basic civility while sitting behind the relatively anonymous curtain of the internet is what makes me really sad about humanity. At least have the decency to argue the points instead of resorting to childish insults.

Who said anything about a private corporation. Do you know what ISC IS?

They are a non-profit organization whose sole purpose is to support the infrastructure of the Internet. They build open-source software (like BIND and implementations of DHCP). Sorry, but you really should research before you spout off.

We can debate whether just dropping the servers should have happened or not. Personally I think that was correct, as just dropping internet connectivity for a large group of infected people (most of whom wouldn't have a clue about what's going on and how to fix it) would have been far more disruptive than the campaign that attempted to notify people they had a problem and how to fix it (with clickable links that worked while they were on the computer.)

That said, my original comment about them "handling it right" had more to do with the way they handled replacing the DNS servers once that decision had been made. They used a private organization with a good reputation that wasn't beholden to any governmental organization. This pretty much nullifies the paranoid delusions of people like GP

Totally agree. This is a completely useless article that brings nothing new. Best quote is the last line from the article.

...which I read as: There's a big problem. I have no solutions, but dammit, this is a problem.

Care to show a source, even a single one, for that? The FBI handled this right, asking ISC to install and run the DNS servers. I really doubt the ISC would play ball with any extra-legal requests for data.

Amazing how much pure paranoia is modded up around here

If someone came out with a browser out of the box that could only display HTML text with no pictures, sound, etc, do you really think it would get enough use to become traction? Images, sound and video are part of the modern day web browsing experience for the vast majority of users. It's time to get over the origins of the web as a text-only system

Also, most browsers do have the capability for plug-ins, which meets some of your needs. Ultimately, though, plug-ins present their own privacy and security concerns (think Flash). I'd rather have my basic services provided by a trusted vendor with the resources to properly test their software and with a reputation I can trust.

Can you cite a source for this?

Right, and these alternate app stores are a huge mess of security holes (as is the Google App Store). I understand all of the issues of a closed ecosystem, but after seeing the kind of security nightmares the Android market is seeing, plus the issue of getting updates to devices (which is a complete mess in the Android world), there is a legitimate argument for the Apple way of doing things.

This is particularly true for consumers who don't understand security and don't have the wherewithal (the first time I've ever written that word!) to do their own research and vetting. If my mom is getting a device (she isn't, thank god), I'd definitely recommend an IOS device over Android. If my geeky cousin is, that's a completely different discussion.

We're a community of geeks here, so we tend to have somewhat homogenized opinions about tech and openness. For most people, they don't really care. They want stuff that works, that's reasonably secure, and is easy to use.

That is simultaneously, the most logical and coherent and the most utterly useless advice I've ever seen. Unfortunately relationships are never logical nor coherent, thus it's just useless.

True. Also, very rarely does the cashier even touch my card, much less look at the back. Usually it's just swipe and choose credit or debit. Doubtful the picture is very useful except against very large purchases.

I know we love to hate Microsoft here, but this is not just Microsoft behavior. This is the behavior of almost all large companies with IP portfolios.

The problem is the direction IP law has gone and continues to go. Don't hate the player, hate the game

That may be true, but a Vice President isn't generally an officer of the company, particularly in a large org with hundreds of VPs.

How understanding is your partner if you pause mid-thrust to check your watch?