So in your mind they took some firmware engineer off his latest project and told him to go implement the mycloud service? You don't see it as distinctly possible that they created new postiions and hired competent people to fill them (and yes, trouble like this can be encountered even by highly competent people.)

This has absolutely nothing at all to do with viruses. Cracking in to a system that has a weak password has quite literally nothing to do with the security of the OS, and everything to do with the lack of security as implemented by the consumer.

You are assuming a mutual exclusion where there is none. Some F/OSS developers get paid for their efforts and some work on projects on their own time and done. Still others do a mixture of both.

You are not supposed to believe that what happens on Person of Interest really goes on, and it is specifically about how the surveillance state was misusing their capabilities. So no .. Person of Interest is not intended to have the same effect. I abbsolutely believe that all the CSI genre shows except NCIS are part of an effort to make people think: "I better not commit the crime. I'll leave some invisible particle behind and they'll cath me!". With the exception of the McGee / Hacking stuff, which is absurd, the rest is pretty interesting drama as far as I'm concerned. The forensics is just basically an excuse to let Pauley Perrette (spelling? (No. Not Tori) do her thing.

FTA:

"As part of the settlement, Minnewaska school policies now address electronic devices for the first time.

The new rules say electronic records and passwords created off-campus can only be searched if there’s a reasonable suspicion they will uncover violations of school rules."

If anyone needed proof that they still don't quite get it, there it is. Seriously. What makes the school thinks it ever has a say in it? If it rises to the level of a criminal matter they can involve the police. Beyond that they have no real recourse, and their new policy is a prescription for further lawsuits.

Ah, yes .. the old "quote a tiny portion of a complete explanation, and then present it as if it was everything written" approach.

I especially like how you follow it with a complete non-sequitir! The way "Please show me your unexplainable software." couldn't possibly relate to the assertion: "There is absolutely no reason not to have your oven networked" is truly astounding!.

Don't worry. I'm sure nobody but me will notice that you ignored every part of my OP where I specifically address why it doesn't matter if it is perfect.

I'm assuming you don't use a word processor. Pencil and paper is so much simpler.

"This crowd's been around the block enough times to know ..."

Evidently you didn't compare SlashIDs with me :-)

There is absolutely no reason not to have your oven networked, so long as it is properly designed. Hardware can't do what it can't do. You simply do what toaster and oven manufacturer's already do, which is to make sure that it passes UL Standards, and that no matter what the software tells the hardware to do, the hardware simply is incapable of complying with dangerous requests.

The hacker might burn your dinner, but he isn't going to "start a fire and burn your house down". Period.

I'm actually pretty surprised at the lack of vision being exibited right now in this thread. Why would I want my oven to be online? Seriously? If you can't think of advantages to having appliances capable of communicating over the internet, and being controlled by same, then you aren't thinking. As far as people "hacking in", it's called a VPN. Yes, they aren't inpenetrable, but that is besides the point. Nobody is going to try to hack your VPN so that they can burn your chicken or turn your lights down too low. If they have that capability, there are far more juicy targets.

In other words: I don't have to run faster than the Tiger; I just have to runn faster than you!

So in other words, you don't doubt it at all.

They are in their car, which the courts ruled a long time ago is not in public. Why do you think cops pull people over and then have their search and seizures thrown out on fourth amendment ground?

Great point! That's MUCH easier than just using vim on the target ... NOT.

No. 100,000 times no. Stop spreading ridiculous claims (I'm guessing you're a landlord; they like to make up lies like that). Unless there is a flood or other major issue which would cause damage to the infrastructure a landlord absolutely may not enter your house without permission. Not that it matters, since M$ is not a "landlord", but to extend the somewhat broken analogy,a landlord may enter your house if there is a fire, but may not enter it to search for matches or a lighter because he suspects you might cause a fire.

I stand corrected. Thank you for pointing that out, as I was completely unaware of this, but it does indeed turn out to be true!

Who the hell is Bram Moolenaar?

I kid. I kid. For those who don't know, it is the author of the original vim, which is itself a re-implementation of vi with improvements and additions galore.

I'm vimemacsidextrous you insensitive clod!