So, they had to do a research study and report to discover something that anyone that has even just traveled on vacation to a "developing" country (such an euphemism) knows by just looking at the houses, streets, and more.

It is just a common sense-derived knowledge that no one can expect a person that earns less than US$500/month for a family of 5 or 6 is going to pay for software when the only thing they have to do is ask a friend to install it or copy it.

"Developing" countries are called like that precisely because more than 80% of its inhabitants earn US$2 or less a day. "First" world (or "developed") countries have a culture of abundance and shield their population from that kind of knowledge, unless you go about findig out. That's the real reason why you hace so many "cheap" goods, or why else do they assemble things such as phones, music players, clothes and about 99% of consumer goods in "thirld" world countries and not in the US or Europe?

Easy! New stuff is useful to show "upper" management levels that you are "innovating", "aligning IT" and all those pretty buzzwords "CIOs" (or applicable title) like to throw around to justify spending. There isnt much chance to "be seen as a profit center instead of a cost center" in maintenance, upgrades or other such upkeep activities. This is just seen when you have big trouble that can't be patched up and need to upgrade to current hardware or software.

I believe it was an honest mistake: The F-117 is called "NightHawk". BlackHawk is a helicopter as you said.

I agree with you, and "how much is the return/savings" can be a (extremely) condensed form of what you postulate, but right now there isn't any compelling commercial necessity that makes clear to them how important starting early (being already somewhat late) can be. There isn't any current restriction on connectivity and odds are that any transition, even a forced one, will be more of a gradual process than a col turkey cutoff.

As I see, I'm partially with you: not that the legacy apps themselves are the ones holding back, it is the functionality provided by such apps and the cost of reproducing that funtionality in newer and (hopefully) better apps that can hold back both legacy hardware, software and protocols

Please remember that management (the finance and accounting departments that really have control of the money and by way of that control the companies) needs a reason to change over expressed in terms of returns, being that savings in operating costs or direct benefits produced by such a project.

My boss would ask (more or less what we would understand after all the manage-speak): How much will that "IPV6 Migration" project save or return?

That is the real cause of not having already moved to IPV6, there is no clear way to convice management to spend the resources (call it money, time, personnel or whatever) in doing it.

It wasnt a USB stick, he burned to CD-RW, wich were allowed as USB and other means weren't. I believe now they will be removing CD access too.

I believe they have software in place for that. We do and we are in the "third world".

Maybe. How to program for severely limited resources too (a.k.a. smartphones and such).

I'm sorry about this, but I seem to have read (here on /. ) that UAE's an SA's concerns (along with India) isn't about WHERE or by which means the data goes. Their concerns are about *not being able to decrypt* the data stream (man-in-the-middle-style) to intercept BB-PIN and email communications.

If you manage to replicate the thinking algorithm of only one lawyer, you've just created truly unbreakable one-way obfuscation. Not even the original lawyer understands after his own process.

The product name was: IBM Personal System/2 hence, IBM PS/2.

V-isitors?

True, I think, in the end, firewalls will have to evolve to check a lot of traffic across using just a handful of ports tunneling many other protocols and applications. More like current application firewalls or IPS/IDS systemas, maybe much more evolved. If not, then firewalls are destined to vanish.

Maybe because all the "safety requirements" for an activity that is inherently unsafe (strapped to what is essentially a bomb is NOT safe!) delay the process and increase costs beyond what is "economically feasible".