I'm astounded that people are, uh, astounded by this possibility. Do you seriously think posting things on YouTube is a right? The site is a service provided by a corporation and is almost certainly awash with "secret" agreements, just because of the subject matter of the site and how popular it is. I use sarcasm quotes for secret because Google has no obligation to disclose its contractual relationships with third parties because you, the user, aren't party to them.

Don't get me wrong, this is a pretty skeezy agreement, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that YouTube is different from any other business asset. Its operation is governed by a load of inter-party contracts, it is controlled with no external oversight, and it exists to make money. The only difference is that we are now both the resource and the consumer, and I don't think people have quite internalized the logical conclusion of that relationship. Google doesn't owe you anything or exist to safeguard some specious rights. Everything between you and them is business, nothing more and nothing less.

They could've just asked me. I was there when the second moon left, after all!

A bunch of crackers got a hold of boatloads of personal information that they can sell for cash money.

That is what it's done. There may be some sort of vendetta, and there definitely is the feeling that Sony is a personal information pinata, but that's really what it is at its core.

That would be an interesting move, to try to crack Nintendo's network, seeing as Nintendo ... doesn't have a network. Or store CC info. Or really any personal info in general.

1 April 2006, the most magical day on the internet. Slashdot gave us this:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/45/121120624_5b9fb34dcb.jpg

You win this thread, just for the TV Tropes link. Excelsior!

"After all, this is the programming crew who ruined Caprica by stuffing it into the Friday night death slot and splitting the season into two parts. These are the geniuses who killed off Stargate Atlantis and Stargate Universe. These are the people who wrecked Farscape, one of the most inventive and fun sci-fi shows to ever be on television. They also ended Mystery Science Theater 3000"

How DARE they cancel that show that nobody liked, and those two shows that had bad ratings. And that other show that had bad ratings. And that nine-year-old show that had a good run for years on their network.

I sometimes get the feeling that Sci-Fi fans are so desperate for more content that they religiously and desperately cling to whatever they get, and in the process make shows into far more than they actually are. It's understandable, and even sympathetic. Then again, so is the network trying to pay the bills.

I actually watched the oral argument for this case, and the appointed counsel did a really hideous job ... one of the judges (based on the testimony of the correctional officer at trial) was talking about "escapism" being a problem that was promoted by dungeons and dragons, as in it would actually lead to the players escaping from the jail. The attorney completely missed this, didn't even familiarize himself with the material that was being discussed, and generally did a half-assed job of informing the court, which also admitted they had no idea how the game worked or what its implications were. I only partially blame the judges -- after all, part of your job is to inform the court of your arguments and interpretations of facts. That's what an oral argument is for.

So yes, "escapism" is a real problem. I expect the next things to be banned in the seventh circuit to be books, closely followed by looking out the window, closely followed by thinking.

Anyway, the judges have betrayed two things:

1. They have never been in a gang, because gang heirarchy doesn't work that way.
2. They have never played Dungeons & Dragons, because they think people actually listen to the DM.

Even if there is such a thing as a "hacktivist," these kids are not it. Activism is about standing up and making your voice heard and organizing to demand change or raise awareness of something, in a peaceful fashion. "Anonymous" is not organized, isn't really demanding anything so much as lashing out as things that make them angry, and is certainly not peaceful. Imagine if all this effort were put into a website, or marches, or something constructive. The discussion would be a lot different than what can easily (and rightly) be dismissed as a bunch of privileged kids being internet vandals.

It's not a question of who is qualified. It's a question of who is entitled. It's their system and they are the PHB. There isn't a metaphysical judge of who should have what, merely practical; the admin arguing that the PHB shouldn't have access "just in case," and the PHB ignoring that and receiving it anyway.

My firm is a pretty small shop, with everything running off ClearOS. It's a really fantastic server/middleware package with a great configuration, plus domain services, etc. Honestly, it can do everything you need, and you even have options (can use local clients, etc, or the well-configured horde/kerberos install). It's running CentOS so if you want to branch into more advanced stuff, then it's all there and relative simple (as simple as anything is with SELinux). They also offer a $1000 box with certified hardware in a blade profile which seems nice, but since we have an actual server I have no actual experience with it. As for the software, however, I recommend it highly.

As for what machines for your clients, it really depends on what they need. If you're small-scale, then thin clients aren't going to save you any money. My advice is to talk to your users/their managers and figure out how they work. Do they do work from home? Are they on-site at all? Do they have a lot of working meetings? In those cases, laptops would make sense. If not, desktops would be cheaper.

Another /. article that is tangentially related to religion, another pissing match between two non-falsifiable premises.