> Nobody uses anything anymore that won't work a 486 build and thus requires 386, aside from someone with a 20-year old PC.

This is factually untrue. The chip was in production until 2007 and shows up in all sorts of odd/interesting things. There's an entire ecosystem of STD-BUS and Multibus 386 systems that are still supported and could run Linux, not to mention things like the Nokia 9000.

With impartial sources and impeccable anecdotes like that, how can we possibly argue.

I did read the article, thanks. He's claiming that there's a solution to that problem that isn't being pursued. That's false. Visibility is a red herring, which you nicely went after.

> Pretty much the entire financial cost of sending email, is attributable to the failure of the "free market" to motivate email providers to deliver non-spam emails into their user's inboxes.

To quote Pauli, this is not even wrong. The central fallacy to this entire anti-capitalist rant is that there's some nearly perfect solution to spam that the "market" participants are conspiring to deprive the consumer of. This contention is, not to put too fine a point on it, as deliberately dishonest as similar claims about running cars on water or perpetual motion machines. Spam is an arms race, not a problem with a "solution" that we've just been too lazy to find. Once you dispense with that fallacious premise, this entire screed can be summarized as "I'm butthurt because Spamhaus/Yahoo/Hotmail blocked my spammy-but-not-spam-because-I-said-so emails and they won't take my call" all wrapped up in a "won't someone think of the children...err...dissidents!" bow.

Email account providers have as many automated, heuristic-based blocking techniques as blacklist based. Have you considered that you might have tripped one? Like...a domain that was registered less than a week ago, first mailing we got from them was a carpet-bomb, content we've previously spotted and identified as spam? I mean, it's a lot less sexy than claiming there's a villainous corporate cabal in the back room twirling their mustaches as they condemn some hapless dissident to a life of Internet ignorance, but it is possible.

> Many standards, such as PCI compliance, require that you separate all of your units.

Not that I disagree with your sentiment,but there is nothing in the PCI requirements (or any other compliance regime that I have audited against) that require you separate all of your "units" into individual VMs or physical servers. You can use it as one way of satisfying a couple of the requirements (e.g. securing cardholder data), but you can just as easily satisfy them other ways.

Not only are we going to loose payphones, we are going to quickly loose universal service and probably land lines in many places. The carriers are fighting tooth and nails to be able to forget about all those decades of subsidies and only provide the most profitable services (wireless) and to shed everything else.

I recently did an analysis of the major (and many minor) AV players with respect to detection rates and more importantly to time between when a piece of malware is found and when it is identified by each AV product.

Good News: The free Microsoft AV (MSE) is basically as good as any product we looked at.
Bad News: All AV sucks to varying degrees. Noone consistently had both good detection and quick enough signature updates. We see AV as a small piece of overlapping defense.

At least as important:

- Relentless patching of everything on your box (look at Secuna PSI for home use).
- Use a non-admin account for daily computing. Consider using throw-away Windows VMs when visiting potentially dangerous territory.
- Ad/Flash/Script blockers plugins.
- Disable Java.

Things like this probably have as much bang-for-buck as AV.

Get into something involving large datacenters: building them out, hosting/colo, cloud, companies like Google/Apple/Akimai. Those guys often spend much of their time out on the floor, doing physical things, and there's flat out a lot of walking done in a million square foot DC.

Dr. Dobbs still exists?

Wait a minute: did you just call theft a felony when that isn't stated or implied for histrionic purposes?
Wait a minute: did you just imply it's okay to steal someone elses creative output in toto without credit or compensation because it's just "one file"?

I'm not your mate, asshole.

"If it's digital, I can take it, and use it any way I want, claim credit for it, and not give you anything, no matter what went into it's creation"

Got it. You and your world view sucks just as much as Candice Shwagger.

You don't know that the person didn't get it from another website which claimed the image was under a different license. Or hell, the person could even have paid somebody else that had copied that picture and included it on a batch of stock images they had no rights to.

Irrelevant. All off those are possibilities, but they are NOT get-out-of-jail-free cards. "I didn't know it was a stolen image" doesn't follow with "so I can keep using it" any more than unknowingly buying a stolen laptop on Craigslist mean you get to keep it if the police find it.

Basically, you can't assume that the person knows they are infringing copyright.

Irrelevant. There's nothing in here about intent. People were using Jeff's images unjustly. He followed the law that covers how to deal with that. Period. They how have to stop using them. Period. One sociopath has a problem with that, and that's why we're hearing about it.

Once again, not a lawyer, but it's my understanding that for any civil disagreement, if you show up in front of a judge without first having tried to negotiate and resolve the conflict amicably, the judge is going to be very angry at you, and tell you go try to negotiate first.

Irrelevant. Jeff isn't suing anyone. Jeff isn't taking anyone to court. Jeff is following the law when he issues a legitimate DMCA request. If Jeff ends up in court through some travesty, that's what the judge will care about. The only person talking about going to court is the nutjob who stole his image. And if you want to see a judge get mad, let me assure you that "you used an infringing image, the plaintiff filed a legal and appropriate injunction, and you're suing him because you don't like it, and you're a lawyer" will result in a full-blown melt-down, if not a formal sanction and request for disbarment.

If I discovered all 14 of my sites were taken down, while I'm trying to raise money for Special needs, I'd probably respond in a similar angry fashion.

I'm completely justified in stealing other peoples work, because it's For The Children! Oh...and I used the same stolen image on my business web site. But it's still For The Children, so that's completely cool.

Really?

That said, this is a clear example of the problems with the DMCA. Had the photographer contacted the website admin and requested the picture be taken down or permissions be negotiated before submitting a formal takedown, this whole situation may have been avoided (depending on just how crazy the woman is).

The DMCS is bad. Know that I'm not arguing that point. But not just "no" but "fuck no", it *not* the DMCA that's the problem. The whole situation could have been avoided if the website admin HADN'T STOLEN SOMEONE ELSE'S WORK. Seriously...how the fuck can people here not see that literally dozens of people stole this guys work, knowingly, and then want to put the burden on him to track each of them down, ask them nice to put up or take down, hope they do, "negotiate" something unspecified, lather, rinse, repeat, before he's allowed to use the law specifically intended to protect him in this situation.

What a load of histrionic bullshit. Gitmo? Are you fucking kidding me? You're really lacking an argument so much you have to pull that out? Call him a Nazi child molester and seal the deal while your at it. What, pray tell, is there to "negotiate" here? It's not like she and the others didn't know they were taking someone else's work, without permission or credit, and using it to make money for themselves. If someone steals your wallet, are you obligated to ask nicely for it back before you call the cops? Bullshit. People stole his stuff. There's a law that gives him redress. He used it. Correctly. Period. And you genuinely want to make out that he's the bad guy here? You believe this? And you paint him with the same brush as corrupt and illegal government actions. That is so deeply sad, and reflects so badly on your broken sense of ethics, I lack adequate words...