Wow, great post. The above results actually shock me that people are unwilling to help financially, so I have to commend you for your attitude, eventhough I disagree with your life views.

I feel that I've been blessed by God with aptitude and a desire to excel in whatever I do. I as well skipped some meals while working 2 jobs to get through college and nevertheless tithed 10+% since my first paycheck. This past year is the first that my wife and I both worked full-time the entire year. As our income increases our percentage tithe also has. I think we're around 24% (gross) that we've given to charities and (directly opposed by the ACLU) christian outreaches.

So, eventhough we obviously stand on opposing sides concerning politics/religion, I commend you for your generosity and your attitude.

It also states the vulnerability is not tied to IE, but IE provides a easy avenue of attack. Could firefox be tricked to exploiting the same OS vulnerability? yeah, with a little more work. Your argument is weak, even though I understand your frustration with the article.

Actually... no, the Java client has vulnerabilities that allow a server-side program (infected server) do more than they're supposed to with a client (such as infecting). The way to protect against malicious sites is not to fix the program (because the server is doing exactly what it's programmed to do), but to update the Java client. And yes C++ IS the most vulnerable language - thank goodness no browser I know of allows C++ code to run from the server.

I like that. Tackle the problem. Frankly... all the whiners who just went to college for the parties and barely passed can rot in their dept-hole as far as I care. If you're worth what your mouth claims it is, then you'll pay off any college debt in a few years and in 4-5 have made enough $$$ to come out ahead compared to working minimum wage.

So finding ways to make this PRIVILEGE affordable is really a better approach than whining. For those who like the government paying for everything remember that in 10-15 years you come out behind again because of higher tax rates... the more work the government does FOR its citizens the more is wasted on bureaucracy.

Other possibilities to reduce costs include treating all students equally - granting scholarships based on performance, not ethnicity, gender, income. For example, my wife got a sweet scholarship for being a woman in engineering. Good for the both of us, but sucks for everyone else who has to pay her bill. How about a friend of mine who got grants for low income - because he didn't WANT to work. Those who spend 20-40 hours a week at a job making money to pay the tuition themselves get docked for trying - that's backwards.

And just to let people know, there is a MUCH cheaper alternative out there now. Granted, it's not a well-known university and I personally feel it's too easy on it's students, but it IS fully accredited and VERY affordable:
Reply if you want to hear more about this university.

Star Wars and Star Trek warp drive does NOT pass through matter in my understanding. In Star Trek, space is streched and "actual" movement is minimal, so "ramming" an object with a warp drive would effectively be a "slow" ram. In SG, the ships actually do exit "normal" space-time and travel through objects (shields, planets, whatever). At least... this is MY understanding.

There is mention that Ancient shielding technology wraps around the hull, acting like armor skin, rather than a bubble around the vessel.

Dag nabbit, stop feeding the patent trolls! they'll just breed...

Hey, let's recycle you... seems you're running a little ineffecient right now anyway. I feel there's an ethical problem with "recycling" human bodies. If stranded in the arctic, I'm not sure I could eat the first person to croak even if it were the only way to stay alive myself.

How on earth is this funny? First off, AIDS is a serious disease. It is not my desire for anyone to have AIDS, but I do believe you've gotta be pretty dumb (see Western countries) or pretty desperate (see African countries) to contract this disease.

But to the point, schmiddy's comment is right on track. If you can't trust your spouse, then AIDS is not the biggest concern in your life. Try a marriage counselor. And not a freakin' shrink. I assume you got married in a church, see how they can help. For those who didn't, trusting your spouse is not actually recommended.

Interresting. I had never heard that. But after reading the wikipedia entry I think things are a bit more clear now. Using "Open" authentication, you are correct... the AP should acknowledge success or failure. However, in shared mode (more secure, obviously), an AP will never actually authenticate. It simply establishes a connection and assumes that the Wi-Fi device will encrypt it's packets using the same key. If the key is incorrect, then Windows/Mac/Linux cannot tell the difference between an incorrect WEP key or a missing DHCP server. In a sense, we're both right ;).. depending on whether you use shared or open keys.

Oh, and not responding to authentication is one of the oldest tricks in the book to mitigate brute force attacks, although this method is not always employable. I totally agree that WEP keys are insecure however.

Windows is NOT broken, in THIS case :).

Whatever "difference" you see between mac and windows is because of a timeout... this means that macs give up sooner during the DHCP phase than windows. Again, I'd probably prefer the mac method here, but nevertheless, windows DOES have a valid reason for the way it functions. And if there is a disturbance in the connection, the windows method should theoretically fare better, but I don't know about that.

Anyway, the AP (if it's not crappy) will NEVER admit that your WEP key is wrong as that would increase the speed at which brute force attacks could happen, so there is really no way your OS can know if the WEP key is wrong. Now, it would definitely be nice if Windows' error message was more like "Couldn't get DHCP address, check WEP key or DHCP server" instead of the outdated "limited connectivity" message, but whatever.

Not sure what you mean by "attacks of opportunity". An access point (AP) should NOT give the attacker a negative response until the DHCP sequence failed and therefore it would take a tremendous amount of time (minutes) to test each password.

The double WEP Key entry field does not make the process any more or less secure, it simply saves time in case of a typo so you do not have to wait for the DCHP sequence to fail before trying again.

If you mis-type the password to a wireless network, the AP won't even tell you it's wrong. That is because the AP will hopefully act as if it was correct in order to significantly slow down brute force password attempts. Windows will try to get a DHCP address and eventually come up with "limited or no connectivity". Therefore, using a double-check might save a few minutes if you can correct your typo immediately. I'm not saying that I prefer this. I'd personally rather have just one box and type it carefully, but that is a valid and good reason for this behavior.