According to Microsoft's 10 Immutable Laws of Security, "it's not your computer anymore" and you need to revert to a known-good state. This generally translates into a complete restore from backups or a reinstall. If you have a spare drive, it's probably easiest to just save an entire image of the bad drive (just to make sure you don't lose anything) and do a complete wipe. You can recover any needed data from the backup image (just be careful not to actually run any apps from that backup). A current AV installed on the fresh rebuild may be able to help remove some of the junk from the backup image as well, just make sure it doesn't accidentally "clean up" anything important. That should fix the PC itself, but there are other things you may want to consider as well (as suggested by others here).

Your dad may need some training/assistance regarding finances and private info. You'll want to reset any accounts that were accessed via the tainted PC (and any others you think could have been compromised by the infected PC). If he doesn't specifically need Windows, changing to Ubuntu or similar can inherently stop Windows-specific malware (including crap from well-meaning but incompetent remote techs, e.g. unnecessary software from the ISP). I set a previous girlfriend up with a laptop running Ubuntu, and was able to find Linux versions of pretty much any app she needed for what she wanted to do (web browser, office suite, iPod software, etc.). Linux may not do everything he needs, and it won't stop phone-based social engineering, but it can go a long way to help against malware.

As I said in my other comment, he specifically mentions "countries" where their games were "played but not bought" before stating the 93-95% piracy rate. Assuming he's talking about those developing countries with rampant bootlegs and counterfeits, that would fall under the 0.10m "Rest of the World" sales. Using that number, you're talking about 1.4-2.0m pirated copies. That's still a huge number compared to only 1.03m actual sales, but it's much more reasonable than 15-20m. That would result in a total of about 3m copies, which is more in line with your Bioshock number (which was released nearly 5 years ago, so there should be more consoles worldwide now).

"We want to develop the PC market quite a lot and F2P is really the way to do it," said the French CEO. "The advantage of F2P is that we can get revenue from countries where we couldn't previously - places where our products were played but not bought. Now with F2P we gain revenue, which helps brands last longer.

It sounds like he's referring to the typical countries where counterfeit and pirated products of all types are sold on every corner (as opposed to the dirty thieves in the US who are just too cheap to pay for it). I'm sure there are many US pirates that they are now getting more revenue from as well, but it sounds like this is specifically targeting the locations where bootlegs are the norm over legitimate products.

I said this in June, but it still stands (unless the draft standard has been updated, but I couldn't find anything). The latest draft of the standard states "[a]n ordinary user agent MUST NOT send a Tracking Preference signal without a user's explicit consent." Having it set by default, without any input from the user, violates that. That seems about as simple as you can get.

I agree with a lot of others. This voluntary DNT stuff doesn't really have any teeth. The only real reason for anyone to honor it is to avoid real regulation (which may or may not actually be enough to keep sites honest). However, enabling it by default will definitely ensure that advertisers do not honor it (at least for that browser). Advertisers will not voluntarily stop for all users of a certain browser based on a default browser setting (where the browser maker is the one deciding, rather than the user). I will admit that this leads to the question of whether or not they'd actually stop even if DNT is explicitly set by the user.

I still feel that a question during the IE first-run wizard is the best solution. MS can present the benefits and privacy implications of choosing whether or not to allow advertiser tracking, without any default value. The setting would be user-set regardless of whether they choose yes or no.

This could actually come back to hurt IE10 users overall. As other commenters have suggested, there's some gray area over what exactly constitutes explicit user consent regarding the setting. If IE10 sets this without any user intervention, advertisers have a not-totally-unreasonable excuse to ignore DNT from IE10, since it's a browser default rather than a user preference. An advertiser could continue to honor DNT for browsers where it is an explicit user preference, while ignoring it for only IE10 (in an effort to reduce ire toward them from DNT users without crippling themselves on all IE10 users). The IE10 users who actually want DNT may find that they can't actually use DNT, since advertisers assume it's just a browser default and ignore it. You end up with DNT working in Firefox, Chrome, etc. (when the user sets the preference) but not ever working in IE10.

DNT is a compromise between users and advertisers. Setting DNT as a browser default shoots that compromise in the face, making it almost expected for advertisers to stop honoring it.

This is similar to Microsoft's attempt to have IE8 render in standards-mode only if a special meta tag was included. This would allow IE8 to render old, broken sites with the old, broken rendering engine while new compliant sites would be rendered with the great new rendering engine (as long as the new page included the special tag to tell IE8 that it really, really, really meant that the code should be rendered as written). They're trying to achieve what end users really want, but going about it in the worst possible way. Is it really that hard to have one more screen asking the user if they want DNT or not? That would completely avoid the issue of whether or not it was an explicit preference set by the user, and pretty much dismiss all of the tech community's complaints. There's still the issue of whether or not advertisers would actually honor it, but that's an issue for all browsers in general.

Irony can be either "the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning" or "incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result". While /. might not be surprised by a musicians' rights group violating their client's music rights, it could generally be said that this is an ironic situation since the claimed protector is one committing the violation.

While I normally commute only about 25 miles a day, I also have to drive about that far to get someplace that even has mass transit. If there's anything I need to get outside of the little towns where I work and live, I'm getting close to the range limit of a lot of electrics. It's also not too crazy for something to come up at work where I'd have to drive 100 miles to a remote site. My regular daily activities could be covered by an electric, but the irregular things that come up are enough to keep me from being able to completely rely on an electric.

This is why I like the Volt so much. It would be electric for my regular activities and a good portion of my irregular activities. However, the ICE and gas tank mean that it has essentially unlimited range, just like a standard ICE vehicle. It's not a truck, and the body style may or may not work for what you need, but the driveline itself gives the benefits of an electric with the ease of an ICE.

The purchase price is really the only thing keeping me from getting a Volt. My 25/37mpg Cobalt for $15,000 is good enough at keeping my gas costs in check, without having to pay $40,000 for the car to begin with. The Volt is nicer than my base model compact car, and I really like some of the geeky stuff it does. However, even cutting my yearly fuel bill from $2,000 to $500 and considering the tax credit, it's still hard to justify it. Unless gas prices skyrocket, I'd have to drive the Volt a long time for the fuel savings to pay off.

But compared to a $29,000 i-MiEV which is solely electric with a range of 68 miles and looks like an uglified 4-door Smart car? I'd pay the extra for a Volt in a heartbeat.

The latest draft of the standard states "[a]n ordinary user agent MUST NOT send a Tracking Preference signal without a user's explicit consent." Having it set by default, without any input from the user, violates that. That seems about as simple as you can get. The real question should be whether or not that wording belongs in the standard.

As other commenters have said, I feel that enabling it by default would have a dramatic impact on advertisers. I feel that they'd be more willing to accept a few individuals explicitly turning it off, rather than every clueless user automatically having it turned off by default. It's simply compromising with the advertisers - if we ask nicely, they're more likely to respect our wishes. If we just say everyone everywhere doesn't want this, they're more likely to have a problem with that and simply ignore DNT settings altogether.

And just like a few people have mentioned, if the IE10 first-run wizard asked whether or not you wanted to enable it, it would no longer violate the standard and W3C should have nothing to say about it. Again, demonizing tracking in this dialog could result in a huge hit to advertisers, which again would make them less likely to honor the DNT setting altogether. As a compromise with advertisers, it would probably be best to explain that tracking may give you more relevant ads and such, while enabling DNT would give you more privacy. Simply asking, "Do you want to be tracked?" with no other details probably isn't the best way to handle it.

Until there are laws requiring companies to honor DNT, pissing off the advertisers over it will simply result in them not honoring it at all.

McAfee has previously announced products to secure embedded devices, which could include implants.

Except that they are indeed saying that. Return & Exchange Policy

A large part of the problem with EVs is that current technology limits their range. To really get the most out of an EV, you have to not drive all that much to begin with. However, if you're not driving that much, you're also not buying that much gas. Even if you completely eliminate your entire gasoline bill, the total amount of money you're saving isn't that much.

One local news station recently ran a story about a dealership rolling out the first all-electric vehicle in the area, the Mitsu i-MiEV. The car costs $29,000 and has a range of 68 miles. If you were to drive the full 68 miles every day for a year (24,820 miles) in a 30mpg car, you'd use 827 1/3 gallons of gasoline, which is $3,309.33 at $4/gal. You'd be saving $16,546.67 over 5 years. A 40mpg car would drop the savings to $12,410. If you're not willing to push the limits of your battery capacity and play it safe at 50 miles daily (18,250 miles), you're only saving $12,166.67 or $9,125 over the gas cars. There are a lot of variables that come into play, but you may not end up saving all that much compared to the extra cost of the car (the 38mpg Smart coupe starts at $12,500).

However, the dealership itself says that the car isn't meant to be your sole vehicle. It's meant for known-distance commutes and quick trips to the store. Figure in the cost of a second car, even if it's just a beater or a rental, if you ever want to go more than 68 miles without stopping to recharge it. Plus, it's an ugly little 4-door Smart-looking thing. To quote my girlfriend when I opened the page, "What is that? It's horrible!"

There's no way I could get by with just an i-MiEV. However, a Volt would work out very well for me. I commute about 20 miles a day, and the nearest city with a mall and public transit is about 20 miles away. I wouldn't feel safe with a range of only 68 miles, but most of my driving in the Volt would be electric. Even compared to my 25/37mpg Cobalt, I figure the Volt (including electricity costs and some gas for longer trips) would cost me about $500 a year, rather than the $2,000 I spent last year. The 35/40mpg Volt is obviously much more economical if you never have to get into the gasoline, but the option is there if a longer trip suddenly comes up (e.g. having to drive to a remote site for work).

Despite being pretty much the ideal candidate for the Volt, I'm not sure if I'd ever actually make up the difference in price (after the tax credit). Though there are Priuses that have been running on the same batteries for over 10 years now, I'm still a little wary of the new technology (on top of being a new model). The styling isn't my first choice, but it's not terrible either. It's definitely not in the same class as my cheap base model Cobalt and I like the geek factor of the Volt. If gas prices go up significantly, the Volt would save me even more compared to the Cobalt. Regardless of savings or greenness, I don't mind the idea of lowering oil dependency. I'd feel a little more comfortable with a second gen Volt, but I'm hoping that they continue to flop and they go on clearance so I can snag one cheap (a few people managed to get brand new GMC Syclones for about 1/3 off when dealerships were trying to dump them). I also wouldn't mind seeing a (bio-)diesel option instead of gasoline for the ICE.

I really like the idea of using battery power for average commuting and such, but having nearly infinite range thanks to the gasoline engine if needed. Until battery rechargers are as plentiful and quick as gas stations, I think the Volt's hybrid setup is much more practical.

Windows Operating Systems

• Windows 2000
• Windows XP
• Windows Server 2003
• Windows Vista
• Windows 7

Please note that while the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows Vista and Windows 7 can be used to run Firefox 10, only 32-bit builds of Firefox 10 are supported at this time.

Recommended Hardware

• Pentium 4 or newer processor that supports SSE2
• 512MB of RAM
• 200MB of hard drive space

It says "recommended" on the "requirements" page, so I'm not sure if the SSE2 support is actually required or just provides additional performance. If it is required, you may be able to compile it yourself with different options to support older CPUs. A few years ago, there were a number of people doing custom builds with options tailored to specific CPUs, which disabled legacy support, required higher revs of SSE, etc. Assuming that something in the code doesn't actually require SSE2 for some feature, you should be able to use it even on older systems.

Personally, it hasn't been an issue for me (with my old, highly-customized profile), but one of the new features listed in the not-so-technical release notes is "Most add-ons are now compatible with new versions of Firefox by default". This seems to be the major issue most people have with their quicker release cycle, so hopefully it'll alleviate some pain there.

Older versions of Firefox (Firebird? Phoenix?) had a separate version number just for extensions, which would've avoided these issues. However, it would create a confusing second version number completely unrelated to the browser version, and they always seemed to set it to the same number as the browser version anyway.

As for my personal upgrade anecdote, I set "extensions.checkCompatibility.10.0" to False just to be safe. When I restarted Firefox, I got the box asking which addons I wanted to enable and disable (with my current settings pre-selected). I clicked OK and Firefox 10 opened up, looking exactly the same as 9.0.1 (which I have customized to look and act almost exactly the same as 3.6).

Just like nosferatu1001 said, decreasing the value of the used copy of a game decreases the value of the new copy of the game. Let's say you walk into your local BestCircuitGameShopLand and see two versions of the latest and greatest game. The first version includes all the content on the disc and is playable by anyone who puts that disc in their system. The second version includes all that same content, but the last level has an activation code that can only be linked to one specific user account. Anyone can put the disc in and play the first nine levels, but only your account can play the tenth level. Both versions of the game sell for $60. Which one do you buy?

Regardless of how you word it, these "first owner bonuses" mean the second owner is getting less than if he had purchased the product new. If the second owner has any semblance of a clue, he should be willing to pay less for this version of the game, since he's getting less. Since you know that you can't charge as much to sell the game when you're done with it, you shouldn't be willing to pay as much for the original copy.

Now, if they want to charge $50 for the second version, that's a completely different story. There are many people who have no interest in selling the game later, and would simply prefer a lower initial price. This system acknowledges that the locked-down version has a decreased value to some people and adjusts pricing accordingly. On the other hand, if you continue to decrease the value of your product without changing the price, don't be surprised when it hurts your sales.

Ok, when you buy the car, it's trunkless, without A/C, and 21mpg. Being the first owner, you get an upgrade to a trunk, A/C, and 27mpg. But when you sell it, you can only sell the original base version of it.

What a lot of people are getting at is the idea that if it's trunkless, A/C-less, and 21mpg when you sell it, it's worth less than some other car with a trunk, A/C, and 27mpg all the time. Regardless of your experience as the owner of the car, the next guy is getting less than he would've gotten with a "standard" car instead of this "limited premium experience" one. Since it has a lower resale value, the free market dictates that the original product should have a lower price.

I'm all for game companies trying out new business models. If they can sell a slideshow for $60 and then get people to pay $100 for "DLC" to actually turn the slideshow into a game, more power to 'em! However, I also think that they shouldn't be surprised when their nearly-worthless $60 game doesn't sell so well. They can charge whatever they want for their products, they just need to realize that their actions intended to increase profits (by limiting used game sales, etc.) may end up hurting their profits in the end (by reducing the value of the original product); the most basic example of this would be thinking that they can increase their profits to ridiculous levels simply by raising their prices to ridiculous levels. Even if it's possible to create a separate account for each game and transfer the full game experience upon sale, that's still an inconvenience that may (for some or all consumers) slightly lower the value of the product. You're more than welcome to attempt to make money any legal way possible, but you're not guaranteed to actually be profitable.