Great. You can take the night shift then.

I know Byron, in a professional capacity. He is a very well respected member if the IT security community in Toronto. I can't say I know him well enough to rule out anything hostile on his part, but well enough to think it a very faint, nearly non-existent possibility.

This is basically the police here trying to create a story and justify the 1.3 billion dollar security effort. They seem to have put their foot in their mouth right now, as half the IT community is up an arms, asking WHAT THE HELL WERE THE COPS THINKING?

1. They're not being given any choice. Submit your prints or lose library access.
2. They're SIX YEARS OLD!

I can change my name.

For an article that's supposed to "explain" why ink is so expensive, it's rather short on details, leaving the reader with the impression of reading a whole bunch of numbers - which were all meant to impress you with drops per second, nozzle sizes, pixel sizes, etc...

I can accept that they must turn a profit, and that their prices must reflect that. What I don't see is any kind of ROI analysis. Tell me what it costs to produce and market your ink and break it down per cartridge or by mL. Then, and only then, will I believe you. Until then, this is just another excuse - entirely subjective and lacking any real objective analysis.

I've only been using SSD solutions for about a year now, so there's not much of a dataset yet. But I'd fathom a guess of about 3 times faster than mechanical hard drives currently - worth it, I think, for 100x the read speed. Last year when I looked at the research, the numbers all said 10 times faster. It's definitely improving.

Not at all, I have no idea if one is any more or less secure than the other. It was merely an example of the ignorance of risk.

I would think (and hope) that customers aren't asking for it because they're not aware of the risks, not because they don't care. Like when people stop using debit cards everywhere only after their card gets duplicated.

While this theory holds for a single workstation, it doesn't work so much when you throw VMs into the mix. I have physical servers hosting dozens of virtual machines. This means I can overcommit RAM for two reasons:

1. Some machines are used infrequently, and are better off sitting in swap, leaving RAM space available for more frequently used machines.
2. Several of them quite often run identical operating systems, and memory pages can be shared between them with an appropriately configured hypervisor.

Whereas before, it was inactive applications that got swapped out to disk, I'm finding more and more these days that it's inactive servers that get swapped out. Storing the swap on SSD's has significantly reduced the time to live on these machines. And while a few gigs of RAM is cheap for a workstation, 64 Gb of fault-tolerant server-class RAM... not so much.

Using SSD's to house swap memory, I've found I can maintain the same level of performance while requiring less RAM.

Excellent. You sir, may now either educate the entire modern world on how to secure their home routers (as their ISPs all conveniently "forgot"), or convince Tiger Direct to ship default-secure routers (as they also "forgot").

And back to square one, this is about "Evil" Google and not so much "Evil" RoadRunner, so I guess we digress...

The major difference, in this case case, is that banks are more or less in the business of keeping your information private (call me crazy, but I do trust the banks to do that), and Google is in the business of making your private information public.

The same laws apply to both, however the intent behind what you did, and what Google did, is drastically different, and therefore the interpretation of the law must be different.

They never violated her privacy. Yet. A single, isolated incident would not be a problem. But the wholesale collection from millions, is.

The people next door would represent a single, isolated incident, which is not the case with Google. They should be aware of the possible implications of this collection. WAPs should be secured at the point of distribution as I do not believe it should be the responsibility of end users to secure them - they should come preconfigured in that state. Google, being fully aware of the insecure default settings on millions upon millions of home routers, should not be collecting this data. Rather, they should assume that anyone broadcasting in the clear is not aware of what they are doing (as we all know this is usually the case) and therefore not take it as an invitation to collect, anymore than they should be publishing photos of me passed out and naked on my front lawn, as I may well have tripped over my shoelaces and knocked myself out on the driveway for all they know. I'm saying an open network is not an invitation to snoop it.

They should be exercising responsibility and restraint, and I do not believe they were where this issue is concerned.

Ridiculous to you, maybe... To my 80 year old grandmother, maybe not. This is not a technical debate. Google is a multibillion dollar corporation and as such, is expected to exercise a modicum of responsibility when it exercises the powers those multi billions of dollars grants them. Average Joe user may have absolutely no clue his WAP is broadcasting in the clear, nor should he be required to have that technical talent, anymore than we should all be expected to be car mechanics . The alternative is putting governmental pressure on everyone to purchase Best Buy "security services" when they purchase a router. Many of these WAPs are also provided by ISP's with an insecure configuration, and consumers are never told. This should be controlled at the point of distribution, not the point of consumption.

Seems to me this applies to any phone conversation, not just cell phones. Hearing half of a loud conversation at the desk next to you is really no less annoying than if they're using a cell phone. Just with cell phones, I can't leave that problem at the office anymore.

...until the government requires you to activate to pass airport security gates and border crossings...