I have long said we need import tariffs/taxes on imported labor. We already do this for goods.

Starting with Microsoft Office 2007, the Office Open XML file formats have become the default[3] target file format of Microsoft Office.[4][5] Microsoft Office 2010 provides read support for ECMA-376, read/write support for ISO/IEC 29500 Transitional, and read support for ISO/IEC 29500 Strict.[6] Microsoft Office 2013 additionally supports both reading and writing of ISO/IEC 29500 Strict

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ooxml

Not to be confused with Open Office XML or Microsoft Office XML formats.

I didn't say Microsoft supported ALL standards, just that they support *some* standards.

What are you talking about?<br><br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ooxml<br>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dmahugh/archive/2010/04/06/office-s-support-for-iso-iec-29500-strict.aspx<br>http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?csnumber=61798<br><br>Microsoft supports an open document standard, standardized by the ISO, with Office and has for some time, though admittedly not "Strict" support until Office 2013.

Which, amusingly, could be ported over to Linux as well rather easily--given it's running within the user's context.

We use McAfee at work. With proper coaxing, it works pretty well and is unobtrusive--but it actually requires becoming familiar with the product and its features. It took a lot of trial and error.

One quick way you can help reduce A/V hit on a system is to remove zip file scanning during on-access scans and on-demand scans. Also, setting a file scan time limit can limit the amount of time the AV spends on one particular type of file.

Other antivirus solutions handle this a bit better, but McAfee is workable with the proper implementation.

AAAAAAND furthermore, in a purely technical sense IPv6 should be faster than IPv4 connectivity when it comes to routing.

Current IPv4 implementations actually do two state table tracking. Both the NAT table and the firewall's state table. In a dual stack, native configuration; only the firewall state table is required for IPv6 traffic alone; with no NAT table required. Or, in some cases, minimal NAT tables for specific devices when you wish to deploy IPv6 only and are supporting legacy devices that do not support it.

So, in theory, routing performance should be edged up a bit in IPv6 land. Also including the fact that hosts are now doing traffic fragmentation and the router's only involvement in fragmentation is sending an ICMP response (PACKET-TOO-BIG) rather than queuing and fragmenting traffic itself. Router performance should ultimately go up by quite a bit.

Ah, looks like100% of their broadband network is dual stack. Nice achievement for those folks.

"Dual stack takes more resources and complexity."

Yes, it does take labor and sometimes duplication of effort, but it doesn't REALLY negatively impact actual routing performance for most people with the exception of situations where routing for v4 is done in ASICs and v6 is done in the CPU, where v6's performance will ultimately be slower than the equivalent in v4 traffic.

However, this is so rare of a hardware configuration these days in most cases. Modern firewalls/routers/edge devices are doing everything in software with powerful enough CPUs to do both, where the performance would be no different than the equivalent increase in IPv4 traffic. Juniper SRX devices run in this configuration (with BSD running as the base OS), and my Ubiquiti device runs a dual core CPU as well.

If you have any questions, why not talk to Comcast? They've deployed IPv6 in a dual stack configuration across nearly their entire residential network (as the OP noted here). Clearly if there were performance problems that negatively impacted the cost of scalability, they wouldn't have made that move.

You are hurting my head, honestly. You're so flat out wrong it's not even funny.

Nobody's saying go "v6 only". We're saying run the two in parallel. When running 'dual stack', v4 and v6 are independent short of DNS resolution where you'll often receive both A and AAAA responses and your application needs to decide which one it prefers. For sockets that aren't v6 compatible, it will just use the A response and ignore the AAAA response completely.

Just because Skype isn't currently v6 compatible should have no bearing on whether or not you actually deploy IPv6.

Go study for your CCNA.

As another poster stated, this is only on certain international flights originating from certain countries--and in addition to that, I'm sure you can power your phone off once you've powered it on for them.

While this could be for another form of 'tracking' with cell phone tracking technologies (which exist), I feel it would be impossible to know just from cell phone identification what a person intends to do.

So I suspect it's nothing more than "Ensure that the phone is not a bomb in disguise".

That depends. What is the definition of "reasonable". In this day and age we are massively Internet connected with a great many software developers . Software dev is one of the highest paid professions today. "Big data", "cloud", "Hadoop", all are used for correlating this data.

It's reasonable to assume a LOT of people not only know they're being spied upon but are actively participating in this process.

So to me, a "reasonable" person should be able to infer they're being tracked by every thing they do online. Google and Facebook have made no attempt to hide it.

I think you're underestimating just how easily it is to collect data on you or how much data is actually collected.

You're assuming there are many hands in the pot, so to speak. That is, the information your wife and your doctor find can be different.

What if I told you that the wife and the doctor are storing the stuff they find in the same database, and are acting as both your wife AND your doctor?

Let me ask you this question: Can you list every single company that runs the rewards programs at various retail outlets? Grocery stores? Pharmacies? Who owns who? Who was purchased by who? etc.

You can't, you ignore it, it's too complex to figure out--but I guarantee you they have already shared every bit of data on you that is humanly possible to collect. And you do it all in the name of saving $0.10 on a box of cereal.

For what it's worth, the government has yet to use any of the information to actually destroy lives, at least lives of people that it wasn't coming to. At least nobody I know has ever been negatively affected by these systems. In fact, most people around where I live, where the DOD and US Government are primary IT employers, benefit from the existence of these programs and the careers they provide in "Cyber Security" and "Information Systems".

I think you're unduly putting a lot of weight to the 'government' argument when in reality the most pressing issue for a good 80% of the populace is what can private organizations do with this data?

Do you really think there are expenses?

A single entity can gain the contract for wireless in all of a particular operator's malls. Say, the Mills malls. That's say, 4 malls in the Maryland region for which one operator could potentially connect. The wireless operator scores a contract to install wifi. They can work out a deal where the wireless operator can work with the mall to provide coupons for various stores inside of the mall and work as a central mall hub. They can make it appear like it's helping the shopper out! "Sign up for a Mills Account to earn great deals during your shopping experience today!"

Next thing you know, this vendor is keeping tabs on your authentication to MAC address storage. Even when you visit other malls where you might not have an account in that mall, they can still track your whereabouts because hey--they have your MAC on file. Got a different phone? No big deal. As soon as you sign back in to your "Mills Account" from the new phone, the tracking starts anew with a new device.

Then start using some of those coupons...

Before you know it, they've collected a massive database of your shopping habits. AT the very least, location tracking. At worst, intimate knowledge of which stores you like to purchase from.

Let's not forget what can then be done by analysts with access to that data. Like to shop at Spencer's and Victoria's Secret? I bet you're a freaky girl in touch with her sexuality, not conservative.

Think the UNICRU test that Best Buy employed for personality-based hiring to the extreme. A complete profile that you've built for yourself through all of the websites you have visited with "SHARE THIS!" links (Even if you don't actually share it, they're tracking.)

What the hell do you think "big data" is?

This is absolutely, technically true.

However, since most people think of computing as the magic box with voodoo magic that makes my cell phone use wireless, they wrongfully assume that there's some sort of inherent "protection" of this data. What we are seeing on Internet forums everywhere are people kind of peeling back the onion layers of how the technology works and they're getting frightened by what they see.