In my opinion this guy earned his way into the conference fair and square. If I were organizing a security conference and someone got past the security undetected then I'd assume they are part of my targeted audience. A booth with badges "If you got this far you get a free pass." would be a fine touch on an event like that.

If I got a response like that, from a person staring off in the distance I'd only feel reassured and head on my way and fast.

I'm in Central Europe and there has been complete 4G coverage in major cities before Apple even considered using it in the next iPhone. These days I can get 4G coverage in the outback (and I do need my tubes to be HD in there). Please don't excuse carriers in the US for not upgrading the infrastructure. They're robbing you blind.

That is spectacular! The scale is just mind-boggling! I can't begin to imagine what would it be like if we were right above it. Thank you for sharing. I think I need to lie down.

This is something I read in a comment under a previous story about LulzSec and it's worth repeating here. Your attitude bears resemblance to a servant saying "Now you done angered the Master, and we'll all get a good whippin'."

I really don't think you can mistake a Galaxy for an iPhone when it has "Samsung" written on it right on the front. Anyone who can't tell the difference between the two, isn't in the market for either of them.

Let's recap what both companies contributed:

• Novell: Compiz, XGL (unmaintaned X server with OpenGL)
• Red Hat: PulseAudio, Clutter, DeviceKit, Cheese, gnome-user-share

Notice something about the scopes of each of those projects?

Metacity ancient? What do you make of the whole X server then? Should we replace it too? Don't get me wrong. I don't dismiss Compiz as eye-candy because it's far more than that. It came way to early. It was unusable without proprietary drivers and unstable with. To this day Compiz has problems with stability on anything but maybe Intel boards. The necessary groundwork just isn't there yet.

Don't feel down. You still excel at the "Fuck you" part.

Most data is useless and once it's "out" you won't get it back anyway. I'm talking about using self-signed certificates for data that isn't really worth encrypting in the first place but can act as a tripping alarm or honey pot. Granted you're in deep, if you have to resort to this kind of tactic but it's there if you need it.

Security and privacy are two different things. You won't stave off criminals capable of carrying out a MITM with a self-signed certificate. You can, however demonstrate that you intend to keep this session private, just like you would a conversation. If worse comes to worst, you'll have a much easier way of proving ill intent on the part of a misbehaving eavesdropper like an ISP or a shoddy data retention scheme.

A self-signed certificate may be unsafe but it does imply an intent of privacy.

There should be a standard for handling names in a database. What's the equivalent of an RFC for database design?

He will be eligible to work there?

Experts in a given field can and often feel that their expertise on a narrow topic carries over to the entirety of human knowledge. People listening to those experts fall into the common trap that their confidence always stems from experience.

Let's compare an established de facto standard which is a monstrosity beaten into submission over several years, to an experimental implementations of an unfinished standard. Oh, and lets leave out the fact that the new one is perfectly cross-platform and open while the old one isn't.