Interesting interview on the reasons behind the DST was on NPR with the author of "Spring Forward: The Annual Madness of Daylight Saving Time". "The upcoming shift in the daylight-saving time change is designed to help retailers — and is a substitute for a genuine energy policy, says author Michael Downing. Congress moved the time shift up this year. Melissa Block talks with Michael Downing, author of Spring Forward: The Annual Madness of Daylight Saving Time." http://www.npr.org/templates/s... No DST is fine with me.

The appropriate response to this violation would be to create a web page impersonating police officers and sending the link to everyone in the school and the newspaper. The content should be along the lines: "I'm officer John and officer Jack, we live at such-and-such address and we are very sorry for creating a fake Seattle Times page causing a wide outrage. Our kids Jill and Jack attending such-and-such school are feeling the heat too. We are sorry." To be believable, the page needs to have appropriate pictures of the officers, their kids (we have to think of the kids!) and all the addresses need to be correct, they didn't misspell Seattle Times, right? The overall content that they are sorry can be fake, just like the page they'd created.

Interesting, but the additional security to a physical key is not the "wireless" solution that is being discussed here. I'm still quite interested if there are any OEM wireless keys that actually don't use some type of rolling keys or challenge response.

I haven't heard of a car key that you can just easily clone. The code is never static.

I have a car that uses a wireless key. After browsing the web trying to find more about the security, I found that you could buy a programmer that connects to the car's data port and programs a new key. What was surprising to me was how relatively easy it is to buy such a device and how quick the programming process was (about 30 seconds). A thief would have to get an entry into the car first (breaking a window, perhaps), but once that is done, it's relatively easy to just drive off with a newly programmed key. What I did was to disable to data port, not permanently, but more of a need to use basis. Since it works on obfuscation, this is not a type of security to be mass produced. Not knowing how exactly the port is disabled, it will take a long time to make it work, so I don't expect a thief to start taking the car apart. Wonder if you can claim for the insurance that the port is disabled. There are many other ways to steal a car, I just want to prevent the easy ones known today.

Or you can say: "There's no federal law making any downloading illegal"

What they call "piracy" or "illegal downloading" is properly called copyright infringement (I don't think they refer to happenings in Somalia when they refer to "piracy"). The copyright infringement defines the infringement as "unauthorized distribution." So, if you distribute the copyright material without the proper authorization from the copyright holder you're committing a copyright infringement. Now, downloading itself is not the distribution, so downloading cannot be illegal (can, but not currently). It's the same idea as you walking into a grocery store to buy napkins and the store didn't have the proper clearance from the napkin manufacturer to sell those napkins, so the store might be in violation, but not you -- the purchaser. Same with downloading. It becomes murky with cases where files get uploaded at the same time as they get downloaded. But I don't expect the average user to know such details. But if you're just downloading, you're not committing the copyright infringement.

A few realize that it's possible to run a wi-fi client and a hotspot on the same card in a laptop at the same time. I had a similar experience with the hotel that allowed only one mac address connection. So I connected my laptop, created a new hotspot called "free wi-fi" and had it running all the time I was at the hotel without any credentials. At least I could connect all my devices and provide a useful public service at the same time.

According to that logic, I can come with a router backpack and prevent all users from connecting to YOUR university network. Well, it's unregulated, right? You should accept the interference and you cannot ask me to leave (in fact, I can be on a public place to cause you enough of a headache, so all is a fair game).

How did Google get charged exorbitant fees for briefly recording unencrypted wi-fi traffic from their street view cars while everything they did was on an unregulated spectrum?

In my last several engagements, I purchased (on behalf of the clients) version of standalone Photoshop and CS specifically not to be tied to the CC model. Sure, the CC can tout constant updates, but what if I don’t need the updates? Who said that in 10 years the documents I create now can be opened with whatever CC updates get accumulated over the years? Those advocating newer is better, consider your Win7 machine gets automatically updated to Win8 when the company ships it and you’re in the middle of the project and a few things stop working. For critical tasks I want to preserve files, programs, not to be tied to some third party to hand me the critical tools.

The licensing contract that was not signed by the photographer will be null and void. Puff! This suggestion is equivalent of printing a t-shirt that says "anyone who looks at it owns me $100". Right, try enforcing that in court.

Detection of the camera pointed in the unknown direction on the bus will be impossible.

Nearly all SLRs are insensitive to IR light when recording. And almost no camera today (still or video) is using IR to autofocus. Illuminating the area with a powerful IR light is damaging to the eyes -- yes it is like regular light except in the dark when the pupils are be dilated any powerful light can cause a damage. I was working on a device that had 3W IR LEDs and after a few minutes the eyes begin to hurt even when I was not looking at the lights directly.

And my owners want the traffic to clear in front of the limousine as the bus rolls into a congested area, but they are ok to have the traffic pile up behind the bus. We've done some testing with really loud honking but it proved ineffective. We don’t want to destroy other cars either, so no shooting torpedoes, please!

This is very true. Recording and editing the music with the decent quality used to be very expensive. The analog consoles used to be hundreds of thousands of dollars producing similar quality what a thousand dollar computer with a decent audio card can do today. The studios nonetheless demand copyright ownership for offering studios (cheap now) and distribution service (also became cheap).

Similar state existed in photography where the equipment had astronomical cost and companies could offer equipment, hire photographers "for hire" and keep the copyright. Nowadays, is is nearly impossible to see contracts where the photographer does not retain the copyright on his/her images. Still, plenty of services are available that remove all the "negotiation" part when selling and advertising the images. The photographer is free to offer images for sale with multiple brokers and some have agreements where if an images available for sale on one service will be offered for sale on the other too. There's no reason the music industry cannot follow the same model. The musician will be in charge of the recordings.

What really is killing the development of this market is the fact that one can sell "the ownership" under the current copyright laws. Once the labels buy the "ownership" of the recording they haven't produced, they can also buy the laws that benefit them and no so much help the musicians or the music industry in general. Kill the labels and let the artists to be the deciders of where the music to be played and it will increase the competition among services too -- bringing the new and innovative distribution channels.

Restore Net Neutrality By Directing the FCC to Classify Internet Providers as "Common Carriers".

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/restore-net-neutrality-directing-fcc-classify-internet-providers-common-carriers/5CWS1M4P