In the US this would almost certainly be considered 'fair use' because it is commentary on OP's original work.

The US four factors test for fair use is largely met:
Purpose: The authors of this video have added significant commentary that was not present in OP's original work.
Nature: They are using OP's video not as a creative work, but as statements of facts to support their commentary.
Portion: They used a large percentage of OP's video, but not all. This might be an item in your favor, but since this video is low res, they used as little as they could to make their point.
Market: They are not likely to have reduced the commercial value of OP's video.

So this seems to me that this is 'fair use' of OP's video. The commentary they present is certainly utter rubbish, but the law allows people to use evidence from original works as evidence for their arguments, even rubbish arguments.

OP has already posted a comment that attests that this is an unauthorized use of his original video. That taints the authors and their message. I am not sure that any further action improves the situation.

I've been using Ultra VNC Single Click http://www.uvnc.com/pchelpware/sc/index.html for years. It only works with Windows, but it is small, open source, and relatively secure.

1 Your support client calls you
2 You open VNC in listen mode
3 Your support client runs a custom version of UltraVNC SC that is set to connect only to you.

Easy. Fast. Cheap. And it works.

You're right. Even Space Bat faced his death with dignity. Rode the rocket up as far as he could. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/sts119/launchbat.html

We miss you Space Bat http://www.space-bat.com/

That is why the company is named Space Sex ... err SpaceX

Do these engineers have approval from the US government to make these changes? Changes like this could break the ability to break the Internet. Can't have that.

So, the auto industry is still making Pintos with exploding gas tanks?

Companies can and do meet the desires of their customers when there is competition and independent data for comparison. I agree that companies do abusive things when they believe that they will not be caught or can not be economically forced to change (monopoly), but the auto industry makes cars that are much safer today largely because many consumers buy safety.

I value human life, but I understand that people make choices about safety every day. While a government regulated minimum safety level may be good public policy, companies can and will provide the safety their customers demand if customers have choice and data.

You can certainly believe that every company will screw you each chance that they get, but that level of pessimism about the actions of others will not guide you to a better situation. Certainly the article here is saying that the TSA has said "oops" with people's lives many times. It is only a lack of terrorist intent that has kept these government failures from contributing to loss of lives.

Companies are certainly out to make a buck, but perhaps the problem here is a willingness to accept government incompetence because of a fear of corporate incompetence. Personally I would rather let corporations handle security screening because the economic pressure has the possibility of making security a selling point. Economic and consumer pressure has little to no effect on government security.

Lets look at safety history.

In the auto industry, the government moved first to require seat belts and passive restraints. After all the public would never buy a car with safety features. But ... after many years, we did start to see cars advertized based on their safety features. When the public values safety and can look at independent data (government crash tests, insurance claim rates) they can and do make decisions where safety is a factor and sometimes safety is the deciding factor. So a free market of security features can occur where there is competition and independent data. (The government still sets a minimum security level, but car makers routinely exceed it because it helps them make money.)

In the air line industry, El Al still runs their own security independent of the TSA. Their customers have a choice and deliberately choose to use an air line with higher security.

So tell me again, why is it that free market economics cannot drive effective and increasing security?

The Library of Congress review that resulting in approval of jail-breaking is a part of the DMCA. So there is no question of precedence. The DMCA said that the Library of Congress was allowed to make this decision. The LOC did.

So what would it take to actually build an HDCP re-recording device? Does it require custom silicon from a fab, or can it be built using a FPGA and a bread board?

What a waste. Even the first page has an obvious error:

That tool kit re-entered the atmosphere in August of 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidemarie_Stefanyshyn-Piper#Lost_tool_bag_during_spacewalk Come on guys. Do some fact checking.

No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

This will go nowhere unless additional cash is added to NASA's budget.

So what you are saying is that instead of investing in space technology so that we can see spin-offs in other areas, we could be investing in bike technology that spins-off to space technology.

That's not how it's suppose to work. It's suppose to be only space that has spin-off technologies. /sarcasm

We really need to realize that any tech that pushes the envelope will have spin-off technologies.

“We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming.” - Wernher von Braun