First off, you are absolutly spot on, wish I could mod you up further!

My girlfried teaches RMPS (religious moral and philasophical studies) in Scotland and occasionally takes classes of entirely autisitc children (I say children, but all the autistic kids are male). Its very difficult to teach the concept of "belief" as the children tend to take things literally, so saying "something is like something else" is confusing for them. Naturally, to help teach this class she has some assistance from other support staff, and one of them recommended:

Thinking Autisic: This is the title
by Peter Vermeulen

Which was a fasinating read to anyone looking to learn more about autisim.

Cheers!

I have more than 1 tab load up when the browser starts, google, slashdot and work webmail.

First of all, I agree with the parent, however it says a lot about a society's laws that even if you are innocent you can still be found guilty of something. It implies there is no such thing as innocence, that everybody is guilty of something and that law could, if it wanted to, just pull a random person off the street and charge him with something. Everyone does something illegal from time to time such as driving over the speed limit. Any number of silly little things that people do without giving two thoughts about it.

In the parent example you are innocent of the charge, however you still should have a lawyer to make sure you don't say something that can be used against you remember. If you need a lawyer to know if you broke the law or not then the it implies that people don't know that what they are doing is illegal. It leads to a society where anything could be illegal and you should consult a lawyer before everything you do, just in case. If you knew that what you did was allowed then anything that you say that could be used against you would surely be a mis-speaking or a mis-understanding. Unfortunetly it comes down to a "but he said.." type argument. In that scenario it is really down to who is the better debater the defence or the prosecution, not whether the person is innocent or not. Unfortunetly without irrefutable evidence we are left with a system of pushing a jury to the viewpoint of "beyond reasonable doubt" as to someones guilt based on the debating powers of an individual or group. Justice indeed.

I can't access the paper to check, but I think it is the same paper I read when it first came out in 2005 (search scholar.google.com for "Collaborative Internet worm containment"). They gave a possible fix for p2p traffic at least by examining the number of unique connections made over a long period of time (say 1 month). If 10,000 unique connections were made within the course of the one month time frame the threshold would be breached. If I remember correctly they found out that the average user who uses filesharing programs for most of the time still only makes about 4000 UNIQUE connections over a one month period. A worm on the other hand would reach that limit within seconds identifying itself even over a program that normally makes a lot of connections.

I think they also note that this only works for fast worms and not stealth ones that take their time to propagate.

Still, it is an interesting idea and one that I made a few references to in my research at the time!