I'm more partial to a polar justice system. It gives you a perfectly clear direction and says exactly just how far you may go. But don't you think that kinda goes off on a tangent now?

And why would it have been any problem to get a warrant against these businesses? You know, that old fashioned "due process" kind of way?

If your answer is corruption, be prepared to be laughed at and asked why the heck this elimination of privacy would make corruption harder instead of easier. It's one less branch of the system you need to bribe.

Trading freedom for safety does not work. For a proof, just look at the ultimate exchange of freedom for security: A jail. Now, do you want to tell me that inmates are SAFE in there?

Allegedly Erich Mielke (former head of the East German Stasi) said concerning the various forms of surveillance we're getting used against us "If we had these things, we'd still have communism today!"

Well, since we have them, we still have capitalism...

Maybe they're gamers.

Well, you're not going to get that big an improvement, but you can often chip for efficiency and gain a few MPG at the expense of a few HP. Often it's actually a very good trade. Until recently when the mileage targets surged few automakers have truly pursued maximum mileage. Typically, they're too afraid of customer response to truly go all in.

What? What is it good for, then? It's a shiny lure.

You can tell that story along with the one of the internet where you were allowed to just connect anything you want and not need a federal license (which surprisingly every insecure fucking toaster can get but it takes a written test and handing over any and all information about you if you want to use anything that allows some kind of interaction).

In the way that it will make the content secure by nobody even WANTING to touch, let alone copy, it?

Open APIs? What's next, interoperability? Compatibility?

We're talking about Sony here. The company that brought you not only their own memory cards (memory sticks) for their appliances which are incompatible with anything but even their own audio codec in ATRAC, again for their own appliances, incompatible with anything else in the world.

What are you dreaming of at night?

And that's the reason I don't engage in such activities. It usually backfires. People's reaction is not to blame the companies for shot security, they start crying for stricter laws (as if that accomplished dick). People are stupid, and I will not fix that. I had to accept that a long time ago.

Plus, companies being insecure is good for my business, so I really have no reason at all anymore to get worked up over it.

Let's give them the benefit of doubt and say they chose networks that are of no strategic significance. What do you think would have gone down if they targeted, say, VISA or MC during the holidays?

At least that's what I'd do. I sure as hell don't want every three letter agency on my ass just for proving a point. And it's doubtful that they will send the marines after you for kicking off some gaming platforms. Might be different if you shut down a key payment system during the most busy time of the year.

All a DoS does is prove one thing: That you can field more bandwidth than your target. Unless of course it's one where you exploit the weakness of a target system (e.g. by shutting down a service deliberately using an exploit). Else, a DoS proves little.

If a DoS exposes any kind of security issue, then a global one: That there are techniques that allow you to use little bandwidth on your end to cause the other end to drown in traffic. There are a few documented ways how you could pull this off, the most trivial one would be to spoof the IP address of your target system with some server that sends back a ton of info for a tiny request. E.g, DNS. Such an attack doesn't prove that the target system is vulnerable, it proves that the DNS protocol itself is beyond repair (and yes, it is, and there are secure replacements but ... you know, it's the internet... it works, changing stuff costs money, so...).

So what does the attack prove? Well, I wish I could say it proves without a doubt that MS and Sony have a security that matches the opaqueness of an erotic dancer's dress and should up their security (well, they do, and they should, but this attack doesn't prove that). It proves that we use technology that makes such an attack not only possible but actually trivial. And that EVERY company on the net is susceptible to something like that because unlimited bandwidth does not exist.

But a pretty good reason.

Wait, really? Are you trolling, or just completely batshit bingo ball crazy?

are they using -march or -mtune?

I do understand that many won't run out of the box with less than a 586-class processor now, but I don't think P4 is common yet