Wording is very important: 'Turn it off' or 'remove it'?

It should also be noted that they promise to add/remove features all the time. This doesn't necessarily mean that they will also do it.

Besides -- if there really is a need to turn on keylogging and video capture, it should be under the explicit control of the user and only for as long as the user enables it for debugging purposes.

There is. of course, the problem that if the data is there, it makes life SOOOO Much easier on a malware author who no longer needs to install a key logger.. All they need to do is transmit the pre-existing keylogger 'debug' file to their C+C site to extract a (test) user's banking and password information.

Straightforward, for the most part. A Pi would be more than enough power because it doesn't need to process a full gigabit worth of traffic... just the 100M that's going to wireless N.... and if you're not also using it as your edge router, then you don't have to load it for bear, security-wise.because any potential attackers afe going to have to find their way within a stones ghrow of your outer.

Since mitochondrial DNA is passed on by the mother, this means that it's still possible that some guy's going around getting bears, dogs and horses pregnant. The human DNA match, of course would be from a woman getting pregnant by a bear.

The mystery continues.

They essentially 'lit up' the asteroid with an artificial light source, and then took the pictures.

Although, it seems to me that -- if they had used both recieving dishes at the same time, we might have gotten some useful stereo images. Why didn't they do that?

much less 216.34.181.45 (slashdoe.org)? all of this hand-wringing about the length of IP6 addresses is silly. IP4 is only 32 bits long because people were being nice to the computers of the time. Being easy on people wasn't a high prioity because people rarely have to type raw IP addresses in.

Back when we came up with IP4, Many timeshare computers had 1Meg of ram, or less and 16 bit registers.-- and what home computers there were rarely had more than 32K of ram or 8 bit registers. The choice was: 32bit numbers that pushed the capabilities of many computers of the time, variable-length addreses which would stretch the programmers of the time(and have most of the memory-hogging disadvantages of longer fixed-length addresses), or longer fixed-length addresses that would make life hard on both computers and programmers of the time.

The decision was made to go with 32bit numbers knowing that we would have to go through this protocol-change hell, but at that (this) time, the larger addresses wouldn't be such a stretch for the newer computers.

Yes, the newm longer addresses are a pain, but you rarely need to type them in, and you'll have no real problem remembering the ones that you really really need... (put them in your phone... that's what smart phones are for). .. and with address shortening, most IP6 addresses are going to look like: bab1:b0b1::b1a:0:0:32 not that bad, really.

An additional digit prefix for continent (or country) routing has pretty much all of the problems that switching to IP6 does -- except for the fact that it's likely to run out too, in time.

Yes, IP6 addresses are (or can be) longer, but you only need to remember a couple of them,,, and when you delete the middle 0's with ::, most of them end up being about the same length as the IP4 addresses we've come to know and love. -- like ::1 instead of 127.0.0.1

That presumes that you have a public IP address that you can port forward from. The problem with IP4 is that we don't have enough addresses for everyone to have one and now even Microsoft is running out of public IP4 addresses.

The fact that you have a couple of billion Public facing IP6 addresses doesn't prevent you from NATting your home network. You can NAT such that most of your home machines go to b1a:b1a:b1a::1 except for the ones that want/need a public IP address.

You can then NAT the machines which wants a public IP address such that each machine has a unique public address that has nothing to do with it's private address. That way, the most that an attacker will be able to figure out is that you have 5 machines that want a public IP6 address -- but they'll have no idea what the actual addresses are inside of the network. ... or you can hash each machine/port pair to a different public IP address -- and REALLY confuse people.

In other words, if you use it with proper imagination, a billion public addresses can make your network MORE opaque, rather than less.

Each connection is identified by srcaddr/srcport::dstaddr/dstport -- but since the NAT box is masquerading for all of the machines behind it.. then the entire natted NETWORK can only havt 64K connections to port 80 of each IP address that it talks to. .. and then another 64K for HTTPS etc. ... and since www.google.com resolves to 5 different IP addresses, then you're now talking a total of 300K connections from your network to Google port 80 alone.

In other words, unless you're NATting an entire building behind a single public IP address, you're not likely to be running short of connections for a reasonably well designed NAT setup.

Violating Net Neutrality is applying QOS in a counter-productive manner to maximize profits.

From earlier comments, it sounds like the journalist who wrote the article confused the two (either wilfully or neglectfully).

Don't do it.

This is too close to the support model offered by pinko-commie Open Source and Free software long-haired smellies.

For more information, please see the MCSCF (Microsoft Customer Support Community Forum).

Nobody was seriously inerested in forking it... But the OpenBSD people have now gotten their claws into it, and chances are it's gonna be fixed bigtime .... or else!.

The problem was found because the code was Open Source. If it had been closed source, then the bug would still be secret. To the extent to which the bug was recognized (or commissioned) and exploited by the likes of the NSA, it would have probably remained secret for a lot longer.

According to Microsoft's EULA, for example, finding -- much less fixing -- such a bug is illegal. If the NSA had paid them to put such a bug into the Windows version of SSL, then it would probably remain unpatched for years after someone had pointed it out to them as an exploitable bug.,, and anybody openly reporting such a bug, even after 6 months of trying to get MS to fix it, would be roundly criticized for disclosing the bug 'prematurely'.
Even then, it would probably not be fixed by Microsoft until at least the next monthly bug release cycle (or even the one after that.

With the code being Open Source, the problem got fixed faster than yesterday. Period. If the OpenSSL people refused to fix it, then it would have been forked. ... and more to the point: Such a security-centric fork would have been legal.

.. and that is the power and freedom of Free, and Open Source software.

If you don't get the sarcasm of the post (especially the 'doubleplus good' reference), then try reading George Orwell's 1984 . Pay special attention to the section on NewSpeak.