Not just Sony.

McAfee, Norton, Oracle (that damn Ask toolbar), HP Support Assistant, Razer mice, Skype.

Heck, it seems most Windows software has a "malware" buisness model these days.

The ideal response in my mind would be: "We're sorry - so here's how to unlock the boot-loader and here are third-party open source firmware providers that we tested for you."

We don't want American spy agencies listening to our https traffic either. Just because Alice is shooting at me, it doesn't suddenly make it OK for Bob to stab me too.

This is an attack against the SSL trust model. A CA knowingly created a rogue certificate for malicious purposes. This wasn't an accident. A Diginotar type response would not be inappropriate.

And back in the 1990's we had BMRT (a free renderman clone); until they came and paid/threatened the guy to stop making the free clone available.

I'm sticking to really free stuff now.

The problem is that browsers are trying to become an OS - with all the complexities associated with one.

If we want back to a world where HTML was mostly about content -- that could be displayed in everything down to things like the Lynx browser -- they coudl be made secure.

People wanted more, though -- so they decided to allow extensions like Java Applets, Flash Plugins, and ActiveX controls. Obviously more complex, those were not surprisingly insecure.

So now people decide to take all the complexity and insecurity and build it directly into the browser itself?!? WTF.

Makes me miss gopher clients. Maybe we should go back.

TL/DR: Javascript+HTML5 is the new Java applet + Flash Player + ActiveX control.

He, like most rich and powerful people are, is afraid of that which he cannot or could not control. Bostrom, the philosopher drumming-up all the fear, is afraid of that which he cannot or could not understand.

Look how the powerful record and media companies reacted (and continue to react) to file sharing. Look how a chess champion reacts to being beaten by a computer.

I think that the powerful don't want something more powerful than them and the smart don't want something smarter than them.

But I believe the wise will always seek that which is wiser than them.

What was this thread about again? Cars?

If you don't sign before the child reaches 18, the child is not considered an American citizen.

So I read this as meaning you have 18 years for such a decision to be made? In that case, don't do it now, but let them make their own minds up when they're (hopefully) intelligent teenagers who can understand the implications and how they might want to live their adult lives (such as if this might include moving to the US). Unless you plan on returning to the US or splitting up with the mother and want custody, there are zero benefits for them to be US citizens now so either let them decide or make the decision at a time when it makes sense.

What seems even more stupid is that some OS's seem to think the last 4 characters of a filename convey some magical meanings -- like if it should be executable; or what application is should magically launch when clicked.

I'm afraid of the ***lack*** of fragmentation in Android.

I believe that Linux's success is directly tied to it's fragmentation.

When a early Linux distro is hard to use (mailing lists), a much easer one comes out (Slackware). When a different Linux vendor goes insane (SCO Linux), other vendors can remane sane. When a different linux goes expensive (RHEL), affordable forks spring up (CentOS).

Fragmentation is what keeps Linux safe both-from-and-for things like systemd. If systemd turns out great - fragmentation is what allowed early adopters to use it so it gained traction. If systemd turns out to be horrible, fragmentation is why other linux distros will survive that experiment.

TL/DR: We need more fragmentation. The mobile world would better if I could choose to run Ubuntu-Android, Fedora-Android, Samsung-Android or Google-Android on my phone.

Ah - so instead of deporting them, it'd be cheaper to just hire them :-).

Well - it kinda is!

Often people rant about wanting a "gold standard" for currency -- though that's a bit foolish because gold is rare enough that it's pretty easy for the richest banks to manipulate prices.

What the penny could give us instead (if they allow people to melt them) is a *zinc standard* for our currency! Where the value of a dollar is tied to an amount of real-work (the amount of work to mine and refine zinc) -- a mineral common enough that it'd be harder to manipulate than gold.

Do those that fund denial actually believe they aren't doing harm to society and the world?

Or do they just not care?

Or is it that they actually wish to cause harm?

I can't accept that they could actually be ignorant of the effects they cause.

True, but I figure anyone who's going to be savvy enough to be aware of H.A.R.E.M. is going to be familiar with the word's etymology, and make the connection. ...And if a few neckbeards get a chuckle out of it, what's the harm?