I am willing to bet a good deal of it goes on. Allow a trader to engage in activity you claim you don't participate in, if he gets caught then you play the rogue trader card. It just massively backfired this time.

HP doesn't really have an engineering department anymore. Carly Fiorina fired them and spun off all the people who knew how to make stuff into Agilent. All downhill after her.

This! In this case, suggesting they fix can do nothing good for you and they can potentially try to have you prosecuted for unauthorized access. You know you were fired, the letter proves you know that you aren't supposed to be able to access the systems, and it also proves you accessed the system. They won't have an epiphany and hire you back if you point out security flaws, in fact it is more likely they will shoot the messenger. Best case you get a thanks from a company that thinks IT is overpaid and screwed you over. Worst case they attempt to make your life miserable. Furthermore, if you still have access, how many other holes are still sitting around their network? Who else still has access? They don't need a letter helping them plug up a single hole, they need someone like you fixing their security, which ironically they don't have anymore.

You forget, you don't actually have to build a PC to play their games. Most of the games are available on console and actually look better on console than OnLive. So you can fork out $200-300 and just buy an X360 or PS3 and be able to play 90% of their library and tons of games they don't have. I think the biggest hurdle OnLive has is the changing PC marketplace. It used to be PC was the only place you could play shooters and had tons of big exclusives. Now all the mainstream games go cross platform and many PC games are ports from console. The exclusives for PC tends to be big strategy games like Civ and Total War or inde games (which usually have very reasonable system requirements and pricing.) So that's yet another reason OnLive was a bad idea.

There are other options than Norton and McAfee, Kaspersky can be good in a smaller business.

Problem is a lot of these diseases were unheard of due to the vaccinations, thus people forget about them and see them as a non-threat. They don't think chance X vs chance Y, they think "Autism, I don't want my kid to have that" and don't think about the diseases the vaccinations prevent. You want people to start thinking that vaccinations are mandatory again, you need prominent news story about how horrible these diseases are and how sad it is to watch kids die from them.

Banks make a lot of money, they have access to security. Medical marijuana isn't necessarily very profitable. In some states, it is illegal for them to sell their product and they may only donate it. Many growers do it as hobbyists for little or no profit. It is much easier to rob a marijuana grower than a bank. Furthermore, other businesses are not legally forced to publicly disclose their location. They do so because it is good for business.

If you asked for books on those subject shortly before someone near you was murdered by one of those methods, yes, the police would be interested in that. Remember, the article has "and other incriminating evidence" mentioned. Does searching for poison when someone close to you was poisoned mean you are guilty, no. Does it make you a suspect, definitely.

You have to remember, it isn't his router. Verizon provides the router with fios installations. So you are borrowing their router and usually paying a small rental fee. I imagine the legality is set-up so they can access it.

A lot of sites can become collateral damage. Ads on the internet tend to be obnoxious and the solution tends to be implementing an ad-blocker. This usually is active on all sites by default and comes with a set of filters the block everything on most sites. A lot of people wouldn't mind reasonable ads on sites they enjoy, but they don't tend to think about the ad blocking once it is in place. If you have reasonable ads, politely asking viewers to white list your site somehow seems like a good move.

I think a lot of people are looking at this the wrong way. It seems to be optional. I know many people run ad-blocking software with their browsers due to all the obnoxious banner ads and flash ads floating about the net these days. Many of these people use filter sets that are provided by someone else. This could work quite well if Microsoft allowed the users to have custom filter sets and was easily turned off. If implemented the wrong way, yes it could be ridiculously obnoxious. At the same time if implemented properly it could be a nice feature. Worst case other web development teams can steal the idea and implemented it well if Microsoft doesn't.