If your wireless network encryption key can be cracked by a laptop, you're not doing it right.

Choose a longer key, and for god's sake, don't use WEP.

This administration has been known for their easy relations and quick co-operation with the Department of Justice. I'm sure this request will be just as promptly answered, and always with courtesy!

All I have to say is good luck with that...

After reading the article, it seems like Windows 7 has changed some things which really did not need changing, not fixed some of the more irritating problems from Vista, like UAC, and has little to offer in the way of performance benefits. According to the article, it's about a 10% increase in performance, which is really negligible at this point.

What Microsoft needs to do is reconsider every part of their operating system to see its actual value in the operating system. Keep the things that don't need changing, and don't just change them to have shiny new stuff to demo. The task bar was fine as it is. Get back to the basics and focus on the core of the operating system. Reduce its weight, reduce the fluff. I like the approach Apple is taking with Snow Leopard. Too often do operating system vendors think what users really want are shiny new dongles and gadgets. I, for one, want a usable, stable, and fast Operating System.

This is not just a Microsoft flame, either. I also think this Compiz Fusion business on Linux is quite silly. Adding cheap flashy effects, which offer very little in usability, but add expensive speed requirements should not be the aim of any operating system creator. /rant>

That warning might make sense, if if it were true that video games actually caused aggressive behaviour. As it stands, there has been no conclusive proof that video games actually do cause aggressive behaviour, and thus this label is actually just a deceptive, nanny state tactic.

I'll finally be one step closer to creating my race of manbearpigs.

I think that whenever a group releases a new version of their language, they should strive to make it (mostly) backwards compatible. Not only does Python 3.0 change the way things work in relation to specific function, but it also removes specific language conventions and creates new ones in their places. This means that very large projects have a lot of work to do to bring their project over to the new specification.

The question is: is this work worth the upgrade to python 3.0? I'd say on the whole, the changes do not contribute enough to the usability of the language to make it ultimately a worthwhile transition to make. I haven't seen really any compelling features in Python 3.0 that would provide enough incentive for me to spend hours of grunt work making all my code workable in Python 3.0.

</my two cents>

How can you expect a list based on reader predictions to be accurate? Moreover, how can you expect the list to be taken seriously when the "Insiders" contradict the majority of the reader predictions?

While people can be quite intelligent, allowing the mob to make investment picks based on rumours they read on Blogspot is simply ridiculous. If many analysts couldn't see the collapse of Bear Sterns coming before the last week, I doubt that these readers have the technical skills to predict the collapse of these companies a year in advance.

The link is down! Now no one can complain, I haven't RTFA and have no idea what the hell I'm talking about.

Thank you server!

It's a good thing that this class doesn't perpetuate any stereotypes about those involved in computer science.

Seriously, not every person involved in the field of computers is a huge nerd in need of social skills classes, and I would say that the majority aren't actually how they are depicted here.

Yeah, he's right. To see a magnitude 6 object, you would need either binoculars, or to be in an area where there is no artificial light.

So, us city folk are out of life.

Have no income and never buy anything, ever. Seems like a hard way to live. Remember taxes aren't just confined to income. Most places have a sales tax, property tax, etc.

You truly can never escape the two inevitabilities of life: death, and taxes.

When patents were first granted, it was on the justification that they engendered innovation and research by providing a fair incentive for companies to develop new technology. At this point, any argument relying on this justification has become completely broken.

Patents have begun to do the exact opposite of what they were meant to do. Rather than encourage development of new technologies, patents have become a way to choke the application of novel technologies in industry. So-called "patent holding companies" have become little more than extortion gangs, demanding their share of the money to which they have no right at all. Governments across the globe have extended copyright and patents, not for the protection of the people and industry, but at the behest of lobbyists.

Patents, as they exist in their current form, are not fair to anyone, except the patent owner. Governments must adopt a fairer stance in order to reverse this alarming trend. Lower the duration of patents, and adopt a system of mandatory royalties, which forces patent owners to license their patents for a fair royalty, determined by a third party.

This is such important news. Man, the people at the New York Time s are going to be kicking themselves if their morning paper has already been sent out to the printer.