I DO NOT drive impaired. Yet I choose to Not drive on "DUI enforcement holidays" because I refuse to be cowed into "showing my papers" for the privilege for driving from point A to point B. You must provide identification (at least here in California) which is another "papers please" affront and I grudgingly accept that. But as soon as you try to "exercise your rights" and refuse to tell the police where you are going, what you have doing, what your business is, you will likely be arrested. That my friends is a police state. Try it for yourself some time. If you dare. I'd suggest you have a hidden camera if you do.

This nonsense in FL is just a case of the judge(s) "sucking up OT gravy" like all the police officers.

In my town, most of these "papers please" checkpoints result in very few DUIs and mostly just impounds for license and registration violations, some warrants, etc (mostly "undocumented workers"). It is a "cash cow" for the cities, PD, etc. Saturation patrols have been far more effective in removing impaired drivers from the road.

With Office 2010 MS already has Office Starter edition. You're not supposed to really talk about it and definitely not use it as a selling point. You're also supposed to pre-install it with MS Sec. Essentials, Windows Live, other stuff too. The end user either buys a license from the OEM, a retail or just decides to use the starter edition (Word & Excel "lite editions").

Just like with all the propaganda of the US government. I don't mind. Because I have nothing to hide. US Gov probably wishes there was a 4th amendment now.

I've been writing in Bozo the Clown for years. I use it whenever I cannot bring my self to vote for the choice(s) offered. He's probably received 100's of votes over the years from me alone.

This government stopped following the Constitution a long time ago.

Here is an example of airport workers arrested for smuggling drugs, guns and even grenades on airplanes. And this was in 1999.

http://articles.sfgate.com/1999-09-10/news/17698252_1_undercover-agents-baggage-handler-smuggling

Security of any system is based upon the strength of the weakest link.

If I remember correctly, as far back as NT 4.0 NSA Security Guidelines recommended removing the 16 bit MS DOS subsystem. I believe it is also absent in 64 bit Windows 7. I wonder about 64 bit XP & 64 bit Vista.

I am not afraid of another terrorist attack.

Why?

It is 100X more likely to die from smoking
http://thescooponsmoking.org/xhtml/faq.php

It is 10X more likely to die in a car accident
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/22/AR2006082201152.html

And 9/11 was a single event. There others happen every year.

By the way, about 500 people a year are hit by lightening
http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/users/holle/public_html/phx6.html

I'm not worried about that either

Just like with Madoff. I wonder, WTF was the "exit strategy"? Since the FTC has shut them down. I assume more than 1 person sent that final payment. It's a house of cards. When you build it. Don't you think about getting out before it collapses?

I wonder if most of the traffic to Microsoft occurs around the 2nd Tuesday of every month.

> Google, Microsoft, Facebook. Arbor says there are about 30 of these 'hyper giant' companies that generate and consume about 30% of all Internet traffic.'

Surely they could have dumped the user accounts from AD (like the SAM under NT) and crack all the accounts on a remote machine. Then maybe it wouldn't have even been noticed. And if the POS software was secure, it should not matter if someone downloaded the source code.

Thanks for the info. I assume you could exact the capicom.dll as if you were going to slipstream SP2 into office 2007.

Actually I was referring to KB967723.

And interestingly enough, the patch for windows 2003 (64bit) installs on XP (64 bit) but it's download is not referenced from the KB. And apparently MS has said they won't provide a patch for XP (either 64 or 32).

Wow.

"not technically feasible" to patch at least XP 64 bit which was release after 2003 32-bit server and before 2003 server 64-bit. I thought the code base was really similar. Especially since it uses the same Service Pack (WindowsServer2003.WindowsXP-KB914961-SP2-x64-ENU.exe)

General Availability Dates from Microsoft

Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition (32-bit x86) 5/28/2003
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition 4/24/2005
Windows Server 2003, Standard x64 Edition 5/28/2005

This cannot be anything less than a ploy to kill XP (and 2000 server) and bring on the new era of Windows Play Skool Edition (Windows Visa 2009 aka Windows 7)

hhhmmm

I wonder if the backbone network admins are going to block access to that "set of web servers" or just let nature take it course.