Really... never understood it. I get the idea of working 'cheap' to gain experience, and I understand volunteering. I also have offered to work at some places for a short time (week or so) to get a feel for the place. But I've never understood applying to ask to be considered to be approved to then go spend months of my life working for a company which is in the business of making a profit. I guess I never travelled in those sorts of circles where unpaid internships led to high-paying positions of immense money and power, which is why so many people would be lining up to do them.

If anyone would care to engage in some unpaid internships for me, let me know.

Hmmm.... I seem to remember someone by the name of John Walsh. He changed society forever, and got laws passed through his dedication to a cause. He was Joe Blow from off the street until he dedicated himself to a cause. Now he's a household name and the things he campaigned for are now the law of the land.

I also remember a man named Martin Luther King. He dedicated himself to a cause and won against the combined forces of ethically challenged men in big business and government. His cause was just. His movement acted ethically. He won.

How about another man? Nelson Mandela against apartheid. He campaigned against impossible odds. He won too.

Lech Walesa. Ever heard of him? He took on business and a totalitarian government. He won. His cause was just. He won.

How about Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn?

How did all these men win? They won by capturing public opinion. None of them resorted to tactics that would have identified them as thieves to the majority of the world. They had a moral cause and they fought a moral battle. That's the only way to change things outside of bloodshed. You want the public on your side? You want their votes and pressure on legislators to change a law? You have to appeal to them in a way that makes sense to them, not to you.

What is troubling for me to understand is why was their DNA already in the police's database? Have they committed other crimes? Or is the answer as simple as "This took place in the UK"? I don't know about you, but I would be rather pissed if I'm on some database for no reason...

No. Pirating the game will just tell Ubisoft that you like their game but they need to make their DRM stronger so they get you to buy a game you like. At the same time you're also getting your gaming fix from the game you pirated and won't be alternatively buying games from developers and publishers that dont include such DRM. Not only are you showing to the bad companies that they need to strenghter their DRM, you're advancing their business by them keeping you from spending money on their competitors.

The only good answer is not to buy and not pirate it altogether, but ignore the whole game.

You're making a huge assumption that a song is WORTH more than 99 cents and a book is worth more than 9.99. If people valued them as higher there wouldn't be a drop off in sales. Regardless of the psychology, a market sets prices all by itself (assuming consumers are "rational" and the government stays out of the market). I can tell you a #2 pencil is $9.99 all day but you're not going to pay it. Why?

How so? What ongoing support is there?

this isn't just about support - they are banning it. Thats very different to just not supporting it.

Will PeerBlock/PeerGuardian still work? If not, what counter measures does one take? Also, does this apply to the USA only?

I don't know if you are an Aussie but it seems to me that the Government is being pushed in this direction by the owners of media companies.

I'd say this comes from the religious right in our nation. Conroy is just recently shmoozing up to the likes of Packer and Murdoch because he needs their support as no one else will.

That's how non-MS devices are able to communicate with it.

And even if it were a completely closed solution that only MS phones could connect to, so what? How is it a corporation's responsibility, internally, to work with other devices? Sure, if I ran a company I'd make it as easy as possible for people to connect because I'd want to enable them to check their work email elsewhere. But if security were more of a priority, or if maintaining a simpler system were, I see a lot of merit to locking it down to a single protocol.

Not in a big house, and not with Coax. But I've used phone cord (not Cat3, the 4-wire flat one) to pull Cat5 in a home.

First, there's no way that you can take illegally obtained "evidence" and punish the student for it. It goes against the 4th amendment, and is unethical on so many levels. I strongly doubt that this case will go too far in court.

Second, why the hell do they need to spy on students anyway? It's good that they're giving the students laptops, but what they do at home (regardless of all the stupid shit they do) is none of the school's business, nor is it in their jurisdiction. I could make a rant about how parents need to step it up and take better care of their kids, but I'll just sum it up: schools should stay out of parental territories. It's bad for the student, and it's bad for the school.

Whoever was running this, either the school IT admins or even the higher school administration should be at least suspended pending further review.

I'd guess he can afford the house because he doesn't throw money away when he doesn't have to. But I agree with pretty much everyone in this thread, including you: Just use the coax to pull new cable. I recently did this in an ancient three story house. It took a couple of hours to do all the runs but it was not really that difficult and saved a LOT of time and effort in the end.

I'm really surprised how many people are that close to where they were born.

Or maybe they didn't understand the poll.

That is because the referenced article is about security (you cannot tell this from the title alone, but it is clear from the context in which the original appears.) It does not address design or semantic errors, so the 'chip & pin is broken' issue from yesterday would not be a candidate, and the chosen errors are weighted by frequency of occurrence. All in all, it is a pretty narrow scope for such a grandiose title.